Youtube comments of rockethead7 (@rockethead7).

  1. Jim Smyth (the "bad cop" investigator) appears to be able to play either roles. He was the very kind and mild mannered "good cop" in the world famous interrogation of Colonel Russell Williams, getting Williams to confess to the murders, and even had Williams so pacified/comfortable that Williams said that the only person he wanted to deal with was Smyth. And, here, Smyth is the "bad cop" that Rafferty wants nothing to do with.
    922
  2. Oops. It seems Inside Edition left out a few facts: - Timeline: July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released (FOIA request). Nobody saw the arrest video until long after she was dead. - Multiple people called about this incident. One of them recorded it and gave a copy of the video to the police. It doesn't match this sob story about nobody being around. - She served a felony prison term in Florida about 6 years ago. She had a long list of other arrests before and after. Drugs and alcohol. Stealing cars. Failures to appear. Other thefts. You name it. - She abandoned her career and family over a decade ago, including a husband and a 6 month old son (and another son) in favor of living a life of crime and drugs. - Her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club. Her neighbors said she also did "private extras" for cash with a parade of men in her apartment. If she was someone who was easily "shamed," she sure picked a strange career path. - She never showed up at court for this arrest, which seems to have been her usual way of handling her other arrests, given her warrants for failures to appear. She attempted to change her name a few times to evade the police, but, the courts wouldn't let her, due to her criminal history. I guess "innocent soccer mom gets arrested by evil police and can't stand the shame" goes viral. And, they crafted this story a few months ago, long after she died, but didn't mention she was already dead. That way, they got a 2nd viral round by posting the "update" that she had killed herself, and let the public believe that the arrest was the cause. "Convicted felon who can't stop getting arrested, gets arrested again, and kills herself a year later for unrelated reasons" doesn't go viral, after all. I'll eat my hat if she wasn't making "public beach" content, but got reported, and was trying to whine her way out of her millionth arrest.
    740
  3. She tells a story with a million holes, of course. But, for whatever the reason, the hole that really makes me shake my head is the part about how she's very afraid of Travis because he's so abusive, yet, she chose to move hundreds of miles to live a couple of blocks away from him.
    559
  4. Yes, she believed her life was ruined, and ended it. But, if you think it's from this video, you're ridiculously mistaken. She left her career and family behind about a decade ago, because she wanted to leave behind all normalcy, and wanted to live a life of crime and drugs. She served a felony prison term for stealing cars. And, once she got out, she continued her drug and crime spree until the day she died. This particular incident was merely her millionth arrest. And, sorry to inform you, but Inside Edition isn't going to share the timeline of this incident (ruins their false narrative). July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video made public. That's when the big media outlets covered this story... literally 1.5 years after she was already dead. Not only wasn't she shamed by this news story (because she wasn't alive when any major media covered it), but, let's get real here, her landlord said that she was a stripper at the local club. So, I really don't think she was all that embarrassed by being exposed publicly.
    321
  5. Open investigations vs. closed.
    129
  6. Apollo 11 = 8 days. Soviet missions that caused atrophy to the muscles = 6 months to a year (and sometimes even longer).
    79
  7. "I love how we had all this technology in 1969, but we can NEVER replicate it today." Huh? They already replicated a lot of it. SLS/Orion went to the moon a few months ago. The next Artemis mission will take people there. Once a lander is ready, the next mission after that will land.
    65
  8.  @OmarVazquezEleven11  Thanks for proving you didn't read what I wrote. Bravo.
    59
  9. Yeah, that's a bit confusing, though. I mean, yeah, I agree, it's sad that she had no family or friends that were even looking for her, and her body was left to decay until the landlord went looking for the rent. But, the medical examiner's report says that the last date she was known to be alive was March 19, 2022. Her body was found on March 31, 2022. So, that's not 30 days, that's 12 days. I'm wondering, in retrospect, if the medical examiner's report is simply wrong, and they wrote down the 19th because that was the date of the attempted wellness check, and maybe the medical examiner thought that it came back positive (it didn't).
    55
  10. All of those years, and you couldn't lift a finger to find out how the camera worked?
    43
  11. Edward Smith YOU SAID: "you just did the math?" -- His math is basically correct for just using a lump of Thorium (large lump) to power a car. But, obviously, the problem is that the proposal is to use Thorium as a nuclear fuel, which mean attaining criticality, and starting the chain reaction to actually make a nuclear reactor. In that case, his math doesn't apply. YOU SAID: "Oh good because I'm sure those qualified scientists working on this project totally forgot to" -- What "qualified scientists" are you talking about? No qualified scientist would ever endorse this obvious investment scam. You can't put a Thorium reactor in a car (not without killing its occupants with the high velocity neutron and gamma radiation, or requiring the car to be the size/weight of a locomotive). And, what the hell are the lasers for in this design? (They're useless, and the lasers they're proposing don't even exist.) Charles Stevens (CEO of "Laser Power Systems") is just a scam artist. He and his friends were already busted by the SEC (go read the lawsuit on sec.gov yourself) for their last investment scam, which promised to "cure all diseases and regrow lost limbs" (his own words). They stole $6.5 million (that anyone knows about, so it's probably more) from gullible investors. They issued a fake prospectus naming scientists that didn't even exist (so much for your idea about "qualified scientists" since Charles Stevens isn't one). The car in this video was designed by a skateboard designer, and they stuck a Cadillac logo on it in order to pretend like it's been endorsed by a major car company (Cadillac denies any involvement). They then said they showed the car in the 2009 Chicago auto show (no such car was at that show, and it doesn't even exist, it's just a computer rendering). And, Charles Stevens' last published business address was in the Sea of Tranquility on the moon (yes, literally). If you want to believe the utter claptrap that these "Young Turk" morons are supporting, hey, be my guest. But, whatever you do, please don't think that "The Young Turks" are actually a "news" organization. Cenk formed "The Young Turks" after he got fired from his newscasting job, and decided to start this silly editorial podcast organization instead (NOT NEWS). They don't lift a single finger to investigate any of their "news" stories, and instead just produce commentary (which comes straight out of their ignorant asses). 10 minutes of Google searching would tell anyone that Charles Stevens is a scam artist, and that the car doesn't exist. But, these Young Turk morons don't ever investigate any of the claims they talk about. They just sit there and blabber utter nonsense, perhaps (not sure) even being paid by the investment scam artists themselves to produce articles like this.
    42
  12. Oh, well, you're clearly a legal expert, far beyond my level. So, can you explain when they started giving warnings for aggravated misdemeanors?
    42
  13. Temperature doesn't work that way in space. Space doesn't have a temperature. They were far more worried about things heating up than being worried about them being too cold.
    38
  14. How could it even be profiling by the cop anyway? The store employee Anna was the one who identified the woman. The cop didn't select her to investigate, Anna did.
    36
  15. Really? THIS is a "buyer's guide"? He doesn't even get his facts right, and gives the wrong number of engines available on C4s. He specified only two Corvette-specific things to look for. And, the rest was "make sure everything works" (the same as you would for ANY car)??  Pathetic. Truly pathetic.
    35
  16. The fact that you have the literacy level of a 6 year old says everything.
    35
  17. The number of people commenting in this video, falling for this ridiculous setup of a "news" story... it's downright sad. This incident was on July 1, 2021. She committed suicide in March of 2022. The arrest video wasn't released until November 24, 2023 (Freedom of Information Act request), and had absolutely no "shaming" effect on her, because nobody saw it while she was alive. There were a couple of obscure blogs that posted her mugshot, but, that's not exactly new for her, because she had an arrest record a mile long, and did a felony term in a Florida prison about 6 years ago. Multiple people at the beach called the cops for this incident, and one of them recorded it, and gave a copy of the video to the police. It has never been released due to graphic content, but, the arrest report says it was a loud and public display in view of multiple people including children. Inside Edition first aired this story long after her death, but, didn't mention that she was already dead. They apparently wanted a double-whammy of viral videos out of this one, so, in the first version, they didn't tell the audience that she had already been dead for 1.5 years, and then made this "follow up" story to say she's now dead, leaving the audience to believe that it was the first round of press that caused the suicide, and this is the 2nd round of press to talk about that. In reality, there was nearly zero press until long after she was dead. It's ironic (not really) that they say she was a real estate agent, since she hadn't sold a house in over a decade. Her landlord said that she was a stripper at the local club, and neighbors said she did "private extras" in her apartment with a parade of men. Personally, I think she was making "public beach" content for her fans, but got reported, and was trying to cry her way out of her millionth arrest. She's been busted for drug and alcohol crimes, stealing cars, failures to appear, other thefts, had judgements against her civilly and criminally, and had open warrants. More than a decade ago, she abandoned her family, husband, 6 month old son, and another son, in order to live a life of crime and drugs that her own family said was "off the rails." But, Inside Edition gets more viral views from "innocent soccer mom busted by evil police" than "career criminal who can't stop getting herself arrested, gets arrested again, and kills herself a year later for unrelated reasons." And, the gullible audience gobbles it up like Christmas dinner.
    34
  18.  @zenmeister451  If Bob Lazar had any ground to stand on, he wouldn't be sitting there decades later pretending to be working on nuclear reactors powering his old Corvette, or still claiming to have attended MIT (yet still, decades later, can't name a single professor there, nor any classmates). If they tried to "erase" him, he'd have gathered up as many records as he could. He'd have gone to his banks and asked for copies of canceled checks written to MIT (or any surrounding business, or his landlord, etc.). He'd have gone to his credit card companies and gotten copies of old statements to prove that he made purchases at MIT, meals, books, pencils, whatever. He'd have gone to professors and classmates and asked them to talk to the press with him, to say, "yes, Bob Lazar was in my Physics 205 classroom." He'd have gone to his apartment landlord and asked for copies of the lease, and/or asked the landlord to say, "yes, Bob Lazar rented an apartment from me just outside of the MIT campus." He'd have presented his diploma from MIT, and demand that they authenticate it. He'd go to United Airlines and say, "yeah, those miles I flew back and forth from my hometown to MIT, I need records of those flights." THAT is what you'd do if someone was trying to "erase" you from MIT. Meanwhile, what DOES Bob Lazar produce? Stories. That's it. Just words. No evidence. No diploma. Nothing. And, the only records anybody can find are from his junior college, and his felony convictions. I mean, even if, in some insane nonsensical way, you could claim that Bob Lazar's stories were true, there'd STILL be no reason whatsoever to believe those stories. They're just stories. No evidence of any kind. Nothing. How can anybody tell the difference between Bob Lazar's claims, vs. the claims of someone lying about all of this? (Hint: there is no difference.) For a guy who went to MIT, the top scientific university on the entire planet, he sure is stupid. How'd he get into that school, if he's not smart enough to start gathering up records when people are trying to "erase" him? How'd he manage to forget all of his professors and classmates? Not very bright, it would seem. Can't produce the name of his favorite professor. Can't produce the names of girlfriends (or boyfriends, if he's gay, whatever). Can't say, "yeah, I took Physics 205 in the Sampson Hall, 1st floor classroom, last door on the right." Nothing. I mean, sure, I've forgotten a lot of my university class details. Everybody does. But, to remember NOTHING?? To not even be able to produce a single name of someone who might remember him??? Good grief.
    33
  19.  @Thetealeaf1984  Pffttt. Another person who knows absolutely nothing, but thumbs-up his own comments. Sure. You're really reliable. The reasonable suspicion came when the employee said she thought the woman didn't pay. The probable cause came when the woman acted like a lunatic, refusing to ID (which is required by law), obfuscating and obstructing a police investigation (illegal), and later, she added to the mess by resisting arrest. How can anybody "reasonably figure out the situation" with this woman? Did you watch the entire video, or just this version that starts in the middle, is edited down, and also ends early? Even in this version, it's pretty clear that nobody can figure out anything with her, because she's obstructing and obfuscating the entire time. Of course he cannot arrest her for not showing a receipt. She's not legally required to provide it. There's no harm in asking for it. It does make things easier, but, there's no such thing as arresting someone for not providing a receipt. She was arrested for everything else. The cop even tried to explain that the original theft investigation didn't even matter any longer, because she had already committed other crimes during the detainment. But, she wasn't listening, and apparently, neither are you. Search? What search? First of all, there's no such thing as a warrant to search for a receipt. And, sorry, but merely asking for her to show a receipt isn't a search. What a drama queen. "Can I see your receipt" is a search and seizure, in your mind? Good gods. But, hey, you don't have to trust me one bit. Trust her own three attorneys in this case. None of them found anything wrong with what the cop did. They didn't even sue the police at all, and never even mentioned his actions in their lawsuit against the store. Why would that be? Why would they just sue the store for a mere $50,000, if they had a rights violation case against the cops that would easily go for 10x that amount if you were correct about any of your babble? I mean, there's also a bit of a clue in that even the case against the store was thrown out the window (where it belongs), and she won't be getting a dime there. And, you really should get a clue by the fact that her own attorneys never said the cop did any of the stuff you're asserting, and never even filed a case for it. But, nope, you won't understand. For you, the facts and laws don't matter one bit. You just want to believe what you want to believe, and cannot be told otherwise, not even by her own attorneys.
    32
  20. Huh? What "aggression" do you mean, exactly?
    32
  21. "Was it [the lunar lander] large enough and powerful enough to escape the moon's gravity" No, not with everything onboard anyway. "and orbit precise enough to rendezvous with the orbiter?" Yes. A combination of Earth-based radar tracking and onboard radar tracking, with basic orbital mechanics calculations, makes it very precise.
    31
  22.  @jeremyhodges7956  Well, I wouldn't go as far as saying she staged it from the start. But, I think it's fairly obvious that she was bothered by the fact that she was asked for a receipt, and then tried to escalate that into a lawsuit. There are clues all over the place. She slipped up and said she didn't have the receipt, when she actually did have it, and she stopped mid-sentence, as if she realized it was a bad idea to outright lie, and wanted to take her words back. She also repeatedly asked to be Tased... who would do that? And, despite how many times she was warned that she needs to provide identification (mainly in the longer version of this video, not this one that clips out the first half), she refused to provide ID. It's definitely as if she wanted to get herself Taser'd and arrested.
    31
  23. Ding ding ding ding - bingo.
    30
  24. Yes, sadly, many teachers don't actually know what they're talking about. Yours was one of them.
    29
  25. OK, but, it wasn't released until 1.5 years after she died. And, then it was the result of a legal FOIA request. How should they prevent it at that point?
    29
  26. Are you under the impression that the early ones had problems walking when they came back down after only a few days? What's wrong with you?
    29
  27. What you saw was a media setup. See, the fact is that the woman died nearly 2 years ago. But, yes, a couple of months ago, the arrest video was released to the public. So, the media showed the arrest video without mentioning that she was already dead. Then, they made these new videos a few weeks later for the follow-up story that she killed herself, making people believe that the release of the arrest video is what made her commit suicide. The reality is, however, that she ditched her career and family about a decade ago, in favor of living a life of crime and drugs. She did a felony prison term for stealing cars. And, she had an arrest and judgement record a mile long for various other stuff. And, this arrest probably had very little to do with her suicide. After all, according to her landlord, she was a stripper at the local club, so, I really don't think she felt much "shame" over being exposed to the public.
    29
  28. But, she DID make a decision. She decided to go steal again. I hope you feel all heartbroken and sympathetic when a multi-conviction criminal steals stuff from YOU.
    28
  29. "I still find it difficult to imagine a 15KN engine wouldn't at least kick up a cloud of dust." Well, in order to form a cloud, you need an atmosphere. So, no dust clouds, sorry. But, yes, plenty of dust was kicked up. It just didn't form clouds. "The rovers kick up dust." So what? So did the landers. Did you never watch any of the landing videos or look at any of the photography showing directly underneath the landers? Dust was quite obviously blown. "I bring them up for obvious reasons." And, you've ignored the evidence for obvious reasons also. You never looked at the evidence in the first place. A conspiracy video told you what to believe, and you just do exactly what they tell you. "If you look the the footage, you will see significant clouds of dust being kicked up pretty high." Those aren't clouds. You might call them high velocity streams of dust. But, your definition of "cloud" is different from anybody else's. "I though the moon had some sort of really thin atmosphere." The moon's atmosphere is literally about a trillionth of Earth's atmosphere. Yes, literally, about a trillionth. Sure, from that perspective, yes, it has an atmosphere in a very technical sense. But, let's face reality here, there is no atmosphere for any practical purpose. And, nobody would begrudge anybody for saying that 1 trillionth is basically the same as zero. "OK, but wouldn't that imply there should be at least a few specks on the landing gear?" 100% proof positive that you have never looked at the photo archive yourself, but, instead, you just watch conspiracy videos that tell you there were never any specks on the landing gear. Those videos you've been watching lie to you, tell you to believe there was never any dust on the landing pads, and you just abide by that command, and that's what you believe. The ironic part is that you think the rest of the world (the sane ones) are blindly believing anything WE are told. But, there you are, blindly believing every word you hear in silly conspiracy videos. Hint: they're always wrong, dewdrop. Most of the time, it's because they're outright lying to you. But, sometimes, it's because the makers of those videos know less than you do about the topic, and they just spew garbage that they don't understand. Normally, I'd go through a whole bunch of photos showing dust in landing pads, spell them all out, etc. But, YouTube has been blocking the postings lately if I do that. So, I'll just post one. Apollo 16, magazine 107, photo 17442. Is there enough dust in that landing pad for you? I mean, not that we should really expect much in the first place. Without an atmosphere, dust will just follow the same trajectory of a thrown rock. There are no dust clouds to linger and then fall back into the landing pads. But, yes, there were some landing pads with dust in them. Happy now? Or, are you going to continue believing more and more claptrap fed to you by liars? "I really find it difficult to imagine." But, you don't know anything. No wonder you can't "imagine" anything correctly, when your entire knowledge base is founded on gibberish and lies, fed to you by charlatans.
    26
  30. You believe him? Why? Because he hasn't changed his story? THAT is your criteria?? Bob Lazar said he went to MIT. Yet, he can't produce any plane tickets to/from there, no leases for an apartment there, no friends from there who remember him, no professors who remember him, no credit card record of ever buying a meal on campus, no student records whatsoever, etc. Meanwhile, people DO remember him from his non-accredited junior college electronics classes. And, of course, he has a felony record on top of it. Oh, but you believe him, huh?
    26
  31. 1) Take into account where the recording is taking place (in Houston). There's no reason to expect a delay when an astronaut speaks and Houston answers. The delay is in the other direction, when Houston speaks and an astronaut answers. 2) Many documentaries and other shows edit out the delays because the audience doesn't want the long pauses and wasted time. The delays are always correct on the original recordings.
    25
  32. But, it was never televised anywhere while she was alive. So, what "shame" did she suffer from it after her death?
    25
  33. Imagine if the system actually worked the way you're claiming. Just imagine it. In your fantasy world, Publix needed to first check the security tapes, product inventory, and transaction records, BEFORE sending the police officer after the woman?? Is that how you think it should work? And, you don't think the woman would be long gone by the time they attain this 100% certainty you're talking about? See, in this place we call the real world, we know that there's a time limit, because people walking to their car are probably going to drive away. Therefore, we entitle stores to request proof of purchase. And, a store can ask a cop to stop someone who is under investigation for potentially committing a crime. See, in the real world, the courtroom is where things are proven one way or the other. And, no reasonable person expects 100% certainty in the few seconds to suspect that someone might have stolen something, and asking a cop to investigate.
    23
  34. If you saw this video when it came out, then you saw it when she was already dead for 1.5 years. The arrest video wasn't released to the public until 2.5 years after the arrest, which was 1.5 years after she committed suicide.
    22
  35. YOU SAID: "That's messed up he murdered the wife but she didn't" == Wait, what? You actually BELIEVE her? Why? You watched a 5 minute YouTube video, and suddenly you know more than all of the experts and lawyers and jury members who spent months on the case? That's how your mind works? A 5 minute video, and BAM, everyone else got the case wrong, and you're going to blindly trust the word of a convicted murderer? Good fucking gods, how gullible are you? Can I sell you a bridge? But, in the meantime, please explain her two confessions, if you believe that she didn't commit the murder? I mean, you obviously must know a lot about the case, since you have been able to determine that all of the judges/juries/attorneys/police all got everything wrong... so certainly you must have enough expertise in this matter to explain her two confessions. So, yeah, please explain those to me. Why did she confess twice, if she didn't commit the murder? YOU SAID: "and she gets death road for not having money for a lawyer" == You are about as gullible as people get. Blindly just believing everything you see/hear, huh? No filter whatsoever, huh? Um, no, dummy. Money had nothing to do with it. The male murderer in that case got a life sentence because he took the deal that the prosecution offered (life sentence in exchange for no trial, and taking the death penalty off the table). The female murderer rejected the deal, and decided to declare herself innocent (after confessing twice). So, yeah, she had a trial, and was found guilty. She's an idiot. And, by the way, dummy, it's "death row," not "death road." Good grief. YOU SAID: "I think like a few years in prison for her at the most" == Yup, everyone should clearly listen you YOU. You obviously know more than all of the experts who worked on this case for months. Tell me, how proud of being stupid are you? And, why? Why are you so proud of being stupid?
    22
  36.  @land1613  She abandoned her career and family over a decade ago in favor a living a life of crime and drugs. She did a felony prison term in a Florida prison about 6 years ago. She's had a million other arrests. And, according to her landlord, she was a stripper at the local club. Neighbors said she did "extras" for cash in her apartment.
    21
  37. Peterson is trying to explain the reasons for the pay gap. But, at 6:50, she's dismissing the reasons, saying "it's unfair, regardless of the reasons" (and then won't let him get into the reasons). Then, at 11:55, she asks for the reasons (as if she already proved her point). Good grief, what a fool. The reasons MATTER. She ignores the reasons when it's convenient for her. She demands the reasons when it's convenient for her. Good grief.
    20
  38. "I'd like to buy an airplane for my airline." "Sure, we have this model with cupholders, USB chargers, and a fancy instrument cluster." "Fine, but, my main concern is how many passengers it carries." "It's got nuclear explosion proof glass." "OK, but how many passengers can I carry?" "It would be financially insane to purchase anything besides this airplane."
    20
  39. No. Skepticism is a method of analysis. Somehow, that word has gotten butchered into meaning (to some people) "blind rejection." No, blind rejection isn't skepticism. Being skeptical means to use a specific set of rational rules to analyze the data and come to a conclusion, rather than basing belief on emotions or predetermined conclusions. You're not skeptical. As for the term "conspiracy theorist," well, what would you call someone who holds a theory that the moon landings were a conspiracy?
    20
  40. The rocket DID blow dust like crazy. Have you never watched any of the landings? Good grief.
    20
  41. In case it was blocked, I'll spell it out. Apollo 12, camera roll 46, photo 6747. A photo of Bean coming down the ladder. You see the camera mounted to the MESA, facing the ladder. Conrad has already removed the thermal blanket, so, you can see the camera better than you could see it on Apollo 11. Neil left the blanket over the camera for those shots, and all you see is the little lens popping out. But, for Apollo 12, with the blanket removed, you can see the camera a lot better. Go look at the high res versions of that photo, not the normal res, and you'll get a much better view. There are other photos showing that camera also, but, that's a nice one.
    19
  42. Another proud graduate of YouTube University School of Law, eh?
    18
  43. Well, I agree. Shaming her now, after she's dead, is quite unnecessary. At least she didn't suffer from any shame of this video while she was alive.
    18
  44. Nobody has ever claimed that you can't bounce lasers off of the moon. But, with the reflectors, it's orders of magnitude more accurate. Yes, laser ranging facilities had been hitting the moon for years before Apollo. The world didn't build a bunch of laser ranging facilities just in anticipation that someday Apollo would put reflectors there. They built them because, yes, they worked as-is. But, you cannot confuse the bounce-back of a reflector vs. the bounce-back of random dust and rocks.
    17
  45.  @stevensmith8923  Welcome to Inside Edition, where facts don't matter.
    16
  46.  @johnsergei  So, in your incredible English equivalent to a 3rd grader's, you've chosen to say that the entire planet's aerospace engineers can't do the math? Oh, but, YOU'VE done it?
    16
  47. Really? What do YOU know about this case that the jury didn't know?
    16
  48. And, there are only 4 left alive who have walked on the moon, only 1 of which was a commander who flew the lunar module and drove the rover. Nobody lives forever, and, if they don't keep Artemis on pace to put more people on the moon, we could be in a position where we'd have to say that there's nobody alive who walked on the moon.
    16
  49. Huh? What makes you think it has anything to do with technology?
    16
  50. We will probably never know... but I'd bet that there were a lot of bribes involved.
    15
  51. Pure delusion on so many levels. YOU SAID: "I remember thinking after we get to the moon the next step would be to put a station on the moon and start exploration." == But, what you fail to realize is that Apollo was nowhere near that type of capability. It's not like, "oh, ok, now we landed and stayed a few hours at a time, so we're ready to build permanent bases." That's ridiculous. The Apollo hardware had already been stretched to the limit. They barely managed to bring a 400 pound rover (Earth weight) to the lunar surface, let alone materials for building a station. A small station would weigh at least 300,000 pounds (Earth weight). And, in rocketry, it's all about weight. You're talking about hundreds of Saturn V launches just to get started on a base station on the moon. And, remember, they only ever managed to launch 13 of them. Apollo managed to put people on the moon for a maximum of about 74 hours on the lunar surface, then they had to come home due to lack of oxygen and food supplies, battery life, etc. Now, you're talking about permanent bases? Apollo costed (adjusted for inflation) about $250 billion, if you include all of the hard costs, soft costs, international support, and cross-support from military branches. And, for that, we got 12 people to walk on the moon for a few hours each. During the peak of Apollo spending, it costed approximately 4.5% of the entire federal budget in hard costs, plus another couple of percentage points in soft costs and international support, for the equivalent total of around 6.5% of the entire federal budget at that time. If you're now talking about staffed moon bases and extremely long stays, you're easily talking about $5 or $10 trillion (in today's dollars), roughly between 25% and 50% of the entire GNP of the USA. Basically, you're asking for something that would result in 50% taxes for everyone for many years, and the government wouldn't be able to do much of anything else besides building a moon base. YOU SAID: "Now, with the realization it was all a big lie" == Your "realization" about a big lie is just as delusional as your thoughts of building moon stations. YOU SAID: "I can't help wondering what else has been kept from us." == Well, in your case, an education has been kept from you. I don't know that I'd blame anybody in the government for that. I suppose I'd need to know more about how your education failed you so badly.
    15
  52. There is a 3 or 6 year statute of limitations for the IRS to file tax fraud (depending on the specific details). If they find something fraudulent within the 3-6 year window, then they can go back up to 10 years.
    15
  53. There must be something I'm missing. 0:30 - How does the PhD get her $140K forgiven, or, how much could really be left on it if she's been paying for 2 decades? Then, 1:10 - they get their loan forgiven if they borrowed $12K or less, and have been paying for 10 or more years? Again, how much could possibly be left on these loans if they borrowed less than $12,000, and they've been paying for 10+ years? Why did they talk about $140K, then switch to less than $12K?
    15
  54. Yeah, blame the police, not the criminal.
    15
  55. But, that's not what happened here. I'm sorry if you swallow what Inside Edition feeds you. But, when the "news story" consists of asking a bunch of questions that they never answer, and uses deceptive editing and little jump cuts and out-of-context one-sentence clips, yeah, you know you're being manipulated. Arrest = July of 2021. Suicide = March of 2022. Arrest video made public in November of 2023. So, no. It wasn't because of her arrest video being made public. She was dead for more than 1.5 years by the time her arrest video was public. Inside Edition knows this. But, that doesn't go viral. What goes viral is to ask suggestive questions, don't answer those questions, and let gullible people believe nonsense.
    14
  56. How dare they arrest a criminal who committed another crime?!?!?!
    14
  57. Well, radio doesn't require much energy. For example, backyard amateurs all around the world have been doing what's called a "moon bounce" (or "EME" for Earth moon Earth). They take little dishes and transmitters and send radio to bounce off of the moon and be picked up by people half way around the world. There are thousands of articles and videos on how to do it. And, they've been doing it since long before Apollo ever went anywhere. Most use about 1500 watt transmitters (higher power can fill in some of the gaps for bad aim or poor equipment). But, the people with nice quality two-foot dishes use only about 20 watt transmitters. Check it out. I'm sure you can find a mountain of information on performing moon bounces with your own backyard radios and very low wattage (less than a lightbulb). That should put an end to your question about enough power. Radio just doesn't need as much power as you think. At least not for directional dishes. Omni is a different story, but, they didn't use omni antennae for Apollo. As for "real time," yes, except for the 1.3 second delay (2.6 seconds round trip). My guess is that you simply don't know where the recorder was located (in Houston), and you expected delays when none is actually expected. You only hear the delay in one direction. Or, you're listening to documentaries that have edited out the delays, rather than listening to the original recordings.
    14
  58. I cannot believe the number of people who think this used car salesman is the "good guy" for committing shill bidding, and eBay is the "bad guy" for enforcing their policies (as well as LAWS in most areas). Shill bidding is illegal in most places I know about. It creates a fraudulent market value. It results in ripping off buyers. It's against eBay's terms of service. eBay MUST enforce it, otherwise it would kill their own site. I mean, just imagine what would happen if it wasn't against the rules to shill bid. Just picture it. Every seller out there would shill bid the living daylights out of every auction they run. Nobody would be a buyer there, if they knew that the rules include sellers artificially jacking up the bids. Who would want to be a winning bidder for something, when knowing IN ADVANCE that they are going to overpay for it? It's preposterous. Yet, so many of the commenters in here SUPPORT this guy for it??? I mean, hey, if I'm the high bidder on an eBay item, it's because I was willing to place a bid higher than the 2nd place bidder. But, I don't want the 2nd place bidder to be THE SELLER HIMSELF. I truly cannot fathom why so many commenters cannot see this. Obviously, those people need to get ripped off by a guy like the one in this video a few times, then maybe they'll realize that shill bidding is wrong, and this guy deserves not only to be banned from eBay, but should go back and pay the delta in price to everyone he screwed over with his shill bids.
    14
  59.  @joachimgauckler8555  YOU SAID: "Dont get me wrong" == But, everything you say is wrong. YOU SAID: "from the standpoint of society he made a perfect decision:" == Wrong. YOU SAID: "Bad aim" == Both of his shots hit their targets. YOU SAID: "tried to kill a cop" == He shot TWO cops in this incident. YOU SAID: "made sure he did it while 2 others where standing right next to him to blast him away" == There were FOUR cops there, not 3. YOU SAID: "Luckely no cop was injured" == He shot TWO cops in this incident. Both were injured. YOU SAID: "and Darwin got what he asked for." == I ask you to learn to read.
    13
  60. Pffttt. It makes no difference which state you live in. If you plan two murders, and follow through on those two murders, you're going to be charged. Smith went about a million miles past the line between self defense and murder.
    13
  61. Spiritwalker, What in the world are you talking about? Do you even understand what happened here? I think you don't. But, if you think the officer did something wrong, ok, why aren't you contacting her high profile attorney and instructing him about the law, and telling him that he screwed up by NOT suing the police? Why would you bother with YouTube comments? You can use your extreme legal expertise, and inform her main attorney, or one of the two attorneys who assisted in the case, that they botched everything. Why aren't you doing that?
    13
  62. "how did they get the massive weight of batteries to the Moon?" By using rockets. But, note: the batteries weren't like any batteries you use in your car or home. They were ridiculously expensive silver-zinc batteries that costed something like $50,000 each (and each lander had an array of them). That's about $400,000 (per battery) in today's dollars. They used 6 of them per lander in the earlier missions, and 7 of them per lander in the later missions (because, as you pointed out, the later missions lasted longer). They were very chemically stable and packed a lot of energy into a smaller weight than conventional batteries. But, the kicker is that they were not rechargeable. "and how did they get three days out of those batteries?" By having a bunch of them. "solar power would not be enough for what they did." They contemplated solar panels early in the design phase. But, that was abandoned because solar panels back in those days were too fragile, and likely wouldn't survive the very harsh shaking and vibrating of a Saturn V liftoff. And, it was too risky to stake their entire mission on something that fragile. The only use of solar panels for any of the Apollo lunar missions was for Apollo 11's surface experiment package. And, it quit working after 3 weeks. So, from then on, they used nuclear powered isotopic generators for that type of equipment. It runs on the Peltier effect. "It's taken until 2023 for a Tesla to get about 300 miles on a single charge, the batteries also weigh 1200pounds." Well, Tesla is welcome to use a bank of silver-zinc batteries, like Apollo's, if they want. It'll give them a much longer range because those batteries hold a heck of a lot more charge than lithium ion batteries. But, somehow, I doubt the Tesla buyers will want to spend a few million dollars every time the battery runs out, because, as I explained, those Apollo batteries couldn't be recharged. They were one-time-use only. For cars, I think people want cheaper batteries, and ones that can be charged daily.
    13
  63. What EXACTLY do you "engineer"? An outdoor sprinkler or something? In aviation, for example, it took from 1995 to 2021 to engineer the new F35 and get it into production. This is despite the fact that airplanes had existed for almost a century. Spare the world your "go figure" comment, when Apollo was shut down 50 years ago, and none of its systems are relevant today. How did you think this was going to work? Do you think they kept those 1960s IBM mainframes in service for 50-60 years now, just waiting to guide another Saturn V to the moon? Radar and old analog communications systems... 1960s era... you think we could even communicate with a Saturn V today?
    12
  64. YOU SAID: "Can anyone tell me how they got so much 'travel time' into such a small air bottle ?" == It's compressed. It's pure oxygen. The suit is at very low pressure (around 3.5 PSI). And, the entire suit is a big rebreather. If you're comparing it to scuba, this is nothing like that. You are under whatever pressure you're at for that depth (like about 60 PSI for 90 feet, as an example). It doesn't rebreathe, all of the air is just let free as bubbles when you exhale. It's only 21% oxygen (or a hair higher if you're using nitrox). You will get far more time from Apollo's setup than you could ever get with a similar sized scuba tank. YOU SAID: "How can we hear sound in a vacuum?. Please tell me." == You can't. But, there's oxygen in the suit. Sound travels through the oxygen in the suit to the microphone.
    12
  65.  @drayyythanLooksmax  Except that's not what happened. She probably had more stolen items than just the gloves and hat. How would I know? Because she continued to steal from Walgreens after this video, including stealing drugs from them. If she spent what little money she had on hats and gloves, that's one thing. But, she also was a meth-head, undoubtedly spending all of her available money on that. And, now she's dead. I mean, not that I blame the officer. He clearly wanted to do the right thing. But, sometimes in life, there are ironies. And, the irony here is that this woman learned nothing from this kindness, continued to rob Walgreens stores after this, and eventually died because of her drug problems. So, you'll spare me if I don't cling to the hat and gloves story like you do.
    12
  66. And, they could go to the grocery store, the movie theater, the sports arena, whatever, without being mobbed (like Aldrin and Armstrong always were).
    12
  67.  @shellifox4440  You clearly don't understand anything about how the law works. 2nd degree murder? This would mean that Baldwin consciously knew that he was killing the person. It's one step shy from murder 1, which would mean that he planned it in advance. Murder 2 is when you know you're killing someone, and choose to do it, but that you didn't plan it in advance. That's what you think Baldwin did? It would be nearly impossible to get a manslaughter conviction, let alone murder 2. Tell me, if you pick up your car from the mechanic, and he switched the gas pedal and brake pedal, and you thought you were hitting the brake, but, in reality, you were gunning the engine, and you end up killing someone as a result, do you think you're guilty of 2nd degree murder?
    12
  68. Is this a paid commercial?
    12
  69. I disagree. I think people ask questions just fine. But, I think the main problem is that there are too many people who are merely pretending to ask those questions, because they have absolutely no interest in the answers.
    12
  70. Is it just me, or does anyone else find this video painful to watch (or listen to) with the terrible background music blaring over the narration??  When did Motorweek start doing this?
    11
  71. They put their suits on before depressurizing the cabin, and took their suits off only after the cabin was repressurized. Can you tell me which video you watched that told you to ask this?
    11
  72.  @laurenpadovank7192  What do you suggest? She made it very clear that she wasn't going to be arrested without a fight, and even told the cop repeatedly that he would need to Tase her before she'd ever go down. So, how would you do it?
    11
  73.  @TheZooman22  What is with you people? Where do you even get this utter nonsense? "Even with reflectors, it is sketchy. The Earth's atmosphere would diffuse and scatter 95. 0 % of the light , not to mention the return." So, let me get this straight... you think the atmosphere scatters 95% of light? Who said? Do you think our view of the moon and stars and planets and sun is 95% scattered? Sheeeessshhhh!!! During a thunderstorm maybe. During a clear day/night, it's less than 8%.
    11
  74. Yes, it's sad and tragic. However, I think your impression of her is skewed. Clearly, it seems there was more stuff inside that bulky coat, and I'm guessing she revealed the hat and gloves because it would gain sympathy, and she hoped (successfully) that they wouldn't make her reveal everything else she was stealing. And, after this incident, she immediately began stealing from Walgreens again, and they eventually arrested her for it. She also abandoned her two kids in favor of her meth habit, which she died from. Don't get me wrong here. I don't lack sympathy for her. But, sorry, she was a meth-head liar and thief who thought her drug habit was more important than her own two kids.
    11
  75.  @ssswagerwolf2733  YOU SAID: "Death is never the answer, you can learn in prison." == Learn WHAT? What the hell are you talking about? YOU SAID: "Just because they hurt someone doesn’t mean they deserve to die." == Um, dummy, you do know that they MURDERED people, not merely "hurt" them, right? YOU SAID: "It’s so sad people think that killing is the answer to killing it’s not. Proper education and learning is the answer." == Oh, the irony. The complete and utter irony. Um, dummy, if you had an education yourself about these matters, you would know that upon release, convicted murderers are more likely to murder again than to not murder again. YOU SAID: "Yes, they deserve to go to prison. Not to suffer but to learn and come out as different people" == Wait, WHAT? What the HELL are you talking about?? Are you fucking brain dead?? You want these murderers to COME OUT?? Hey, idiot, suppose a murderer gets out of prison, and decides to go murder someone in your family after getting out, tell me, are you going to say the same things you're saying now? You WANT murderers out of prison? Delusional fucking crackpot. YOU SAID: "so you’re saying that because they made a mistake they don’t have a right to basic human rights" == YES!!! YES, you stupid fool. YES!!! This is BY DEFINITION. If you commit a murder, you sacrifice your own basic human rights in the process. Good gods, how can you be this dumb, yet still operate a keyboard? You commit a murder, you might sacrifice your own right to life. You commit a murder, you lose your liberty, and must be LOCKED UP.
    11
  76. It's even worse than that. In one interview, the father said the son asked who was in the car. In another interview (like you said), the father said, he "knows his son didn't think anybody was in the car, that much he knows for sure." Gee, do you suppose the attorney talked to him between the two interviews, and told him that it's a bad idea to admit the son knew someone was in the car, and the guy changed the story?
    11
  77. Yeah, I met him a bunch of times also. He was the perfect speaker about Apollo. He was always able to fine-tune his answers for whatever person/people he was speaking with. And, he had a remarkable ability to read people, and intuitively knew exactly what level of detail to go into. For the people with less engineering knowledge, he would make the answers more simple. But, if you were a major techie, he could speak at a very deep engineering level about how everything worked. It's funny, a day or two ago, I was just looking at a photo of me, my wife, and Gene Cernan together. I was just laughing a bit because he had his arm around my wife in that photo, which was his personality also (he gravitated to the ladies as much as the ladies gravitated to him... but, yeah, in a friendly way, not creepy). Once upon a time, I very nearly bought his personal Corvette that he was selling. It was blue, and I believe it was a 1974 model, if I recall correctly. But, I already had a few Corvettes, one of which was a 1972, and didn't need another one so close in year/model. So, I passed up on the chance.
    11
  78. There are several photos of the camera facing the ladder. I'll try (again) to post them, but, YouTube censors often won't let me. Give me 5 minutes, and then let me know if you can see the posting or not (to anybody who wants to answer).
    11
  79. Was it the guy living in the trailer with 30 cats? Or, the crack-meets-pot who thinks a leaf blower debunks how rockets work?
    11
  80.  @DeputyNordburg  Six now (as of a few months ago on Chandrayaan-3). Or, even more if you include the ones that crashed and shattered into a million pieces.
    11
  81. Dewdrop, the lunar lander was 18 feet tall (almost 2 stories), and 30 feet wide (with the legs extended anyway). The command/service module was 13 feet wide.... oh, why am I bothering? You don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about, as usual.
    10
  82. Was there a point you were trying to make?
    10
  83. I couldn't hear you, could you repeat that?
    10
  84. Which of those three categories do the virtual entirety of the world's experts in aerospace engineering fall under, employed either directly or indirectly by the world's 72 space agencies? And, why has there never in history been a single demonstration of your beliefs that has passed through the scientific rigors of the peer reviewed process? Not one. Not in any recognized peer review journal anywhere on Earth. Not a single time. Not ever. Why would that be?
    10
  85.  @land1613  Wrong. The arrest video wasn't released until November 24, 2023 (FOIA request). There were only a couple of blogs that even mentioned this incident before her death, and they didn't have video, they only had mugshots.
    10
  86. Well, you'll be relieved to learn that she never knew anything about the arrest video going viral, because nobody ever saw it until she was already dead for 1.5 years.
    10
  87.  @Cougar139tweak  "Radar tracking? whatever." No, dewdrop. Not "whatever." The radar tracking network that tracked Apollo to the moon and back was choreographed by MIT and JPL, and consisted of the very same dishes (some of them) that first tracked the surface features on Venus and Mercury, a decade before Apollo even existed. These dishes were designed by worldwide engineers, and all of the radar tracking was piped back to two massive mainframe complexes at Houston. So, spare the world this "whatever" nonsense. The primary guidance for Apollo isn't "whatever." "BTW I'm a USN radar tech" Time for a new career. You're no good at that one. "returns take 2.51 seconds round trip to the moon so you send out a signal and you know where it was 1.25 seconds ago" Yes. Are you under the impression that the engineers and PhDs at MIT and IBM who created the algorithms to track the missions don't understand propagation delay? Really? And, dewdrop, distance = rate x time. If you know the delay, you can simply include that in the calculation, and come up with the distance traveled. Good grief, this is high school physics that you'd learn on the first day. And, you think it's relevant? As if the world's experts who could use radar to track a planet's surface features from 70 million miles away... couldn't manage to adjust for a propagation delay to the moon? Is that really your position here? "going 2,170–2,416 mph" WHEN?? Why would you pick that particular point in time? Why is 2,170 to 2,416 relevant to you? The Saturn V propelled the craft up to nearly 25,000 mph. Lunar orbital speed is about 3,600 mph. I'm not sure if the craft dropped as low as 2,170 mph at 85% of the way to the moon or not, and I'm not looking it up for your sake. But, who cares? It sounds like you're just picking a single short timeframe in the landing sequence... or... you have no idea what you're talking about. (Hint: it's the latter.) "you'd be off by 0.75 Miles" So, let me get this straight. You were able to calculate how far off it would be. But, you think the people at MIT and IBM who built and programmed the mainframes couldn't do that very same simple calculation? Seriously? "Also at 1/16th the gravity" Good grief. The moon has 1/6th of the gravity, not 1/16th. This is truly a joke at this point. You don't know anything. "I would think at least 1/40th the fuel would be needed." WHAT fuel? 1/40th OF WHAT? If I said to you that your car needs 1/40th of the fuel, would you even know what that meant? No. "117,500 pounds" Wait, is this 1/40th of the fuel and oxidizer used for the Saturn V? Huh? Sheeeessssshhhh. Do you REALLY want to try to make a direct comparison between lifting 6 million pounds off of the Earth, and accelerating to nearly 25,000 mph, to boosting about 30,000 pounds out of the moon's orbit? Huh? Good gods. Dewdrop, the Saturn V had to propel the stack up to a velocity high enough that it could coast to the moon, with Earth's gravity tugging back on them, slowing them down. On the way back, they were already in lunar orbit, already going 3,600 mph. And, they had shed most of the mass. All they needed to do is bump up the speed to break out of lunar orbit, then fall all the way back to Earth, using the Earth's gravity. It's like launching a cannonball to the top of a skyscraper. You need a sizeable cannon to do it. Then, when the cannonball gets to the top of the skyscraper, let's say you break off most of it (because the Apollo craft shed most of its mass by this point), how much effort does it take you to lift the cannonball over the edge and let it drop back down to the ground? Would you need the same cannon? No. A big cannon fires the cannonball to the top of the skyscraper. Then, you just need a little shove over the edge to let it drop back down. That's similar in concept to how Apollo worked. Almost all of the energy required for the trip to the moon and back was supplied by the Saturn V. All the small craft had to do was make course corrections, drop into lunar orbit, and bump itself out of lunar orbit. Yet, here you are, thinking it's about lunar gravity, or who knows what else?? How can anybody possibly teach you anything, when you ridiculously believe you already know things you don't? Or, were you trying to say you were comparing lifting a 6 million pound rocket off of the ground on Earth, to lifting a 2 thousand pound craft off of the moon? If that's your comparison, it's even worse. "in high school did a experiment" Oh, bravo, in high school, you have debunked Kodak and Hasselblad. None of those people at Kodak or Hasselblad who designed and built the cameras and film... nope... they don't know what they're doing... because, while you were in high school, you proved them wrong. Sure. No, I'm not going to read anything from any radiation report, dewdrop, because YOU have to read some very basic concepts about simple physics first. You clearly have absolutely no understanding of radar, no understanding of physics, no understanding of rockets... why on Earth would I suspect that you know anything about radiation? Seriously, you need to switch careers. I mean, if all you do is look at a radar screen, or repair some radar parts, I suppose you could get by without actually understanding radar. But, you're no engineer, that's for sure. And, with the way you think (you don't think), there's no hope that you'll ever understand.
    10
  88. How would you have done it instead?
    10
  89. "and the camera automatically panned" Who told you that, and why would you believe it? Ed Fendell controlled the TV cameras on Apollo 15 through 17. It's how 95%+ of the videos were obtained on those missions. The only exception (for video) was when the astronauts used the 16mm film DAC. But, being a film camera, they had to wait to get home to get the film developed. All of the live feed video was remote controlled via the rover-cam. After 3 missions and many hours of this, Fendell had practiced until the point that he was pretty confident that he could capture the liftoff by watching the stopwatch and listening to the countdown, and pressing the buttons about 2.5 seconds ahead of the liftoff (to accommodate the delay). After the failure to capture the liftoff on Apollos 15 and 16 (at least very well), he asked Cernan to park very far away to allow a very wide margin of error, and the 3rd time was a charm, and he got the best of the three liftoffs. "as the realistic saucer ascended from the moon's surface." Pffttt. Yet, amazingly, none of the 7,000 people who designed and built it ever called it a saucer, nor had a problem with its realism. "But the best part is definitely the explosion in the moment of the lift-off. It looks great." How would you have done it better? You have a field sequential scanning RCA TV camera at your disposal, and that's it. This means that there's only one vidicon. Anything that moves fast in frame is going to strobe around and give a red/green/blue rainbow effect, because it's moving faster than the color wheel can spin, and the vidicon can scan. So, tell the world, how would you have prevented it from looking the way it looked? Don't be shy now, you're an engineer, right? So, go right ahead and tell the world how you'd have done it instead. What EXACTLY would make it look "better" to you? "I am an engineer" Sure you are. What kind? Building engineer? Do you fix the toilets when they break? No ACTUAL engineer would say any of the things you've said thus far. "certainly open to the idea that we went there." Yet, you don't lift a finger to find out how the cameras worked? What kind of engineer would immediately label something as fake, without finding out how the equipment actually worked? That's basically, "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." That's not how an engineer operates. "there was a huge political reason to lie about it" Sort of, yes. But, there'd be an even bigger political reason to actually go there. See, if you get caught lying about it, your political clout is ZERO. And, given the amount of countries that tracked Apollo with radar and radio telescopes (including enemy countries), the amount of people who listened in on the Apollo audio radio coming from the moon, etc., it would be awfully easy for other countries to discover if it wasn't actually happening. I mean, Apollo 11 astronauts placed that laser reflector on the moon, right? While the astronauts were still on the lunar surface, at least 3 different countries hit that reflector with lasers, including the Soviets. How do you propose they fake that? And, if it was a hoax, why put those reflectors up there at all? It would be too easy for any country to just say, "hey, we're not getting a bounce-back from the reflector, are you sure those astronauts are really up there?" The list goes on and on, for how easy it would be to bust them. But, as an engineer, I'm sure you already know all of these things, and have valid answers. Let's hear them....? "And then we just stopped going there for 50 years. Sure, it is expensive, but not more expensive than the meaningless wars USA have been having." You won't find many people arguing with you about that. But, how does this somehow mean Apollo didn't happen? Congress only approved (funded) manned lunar missions twice in history. The first time was in 1961 when they approved Apollo. The second time was in 2019 when they approved Artemis. What do wars have to do with this fact? "The footage is ... Impossible to believe." Yet, somehow, every single one of the 72 space agencies on the planet believes it. The Soviets congratulated the USA. China confirmed Apollo with their recent Chang'e missions. Japan confirmed Apollo with JAXA/Selene in 2008. Arizona State University confirmed Apollo in 2012 when they dropped the LRO camera down to about 20 miles above the lunar surface to take photos of the landing sites. Dozens of countries use the laser reflectors every single day. Dozens of countries tracked Apollo with radar and radio telescopes. Australia and Spain received most of the live videos from the moon (any time those countries were pointed toward the moon). The list goes on and on. And, not a single one of the 450,000 people who worked on Apollo has ever complained that the footage wasn't believable. Those are the people who designed and built everything that went to the moon, and what they saw on their screen matched perfectly with what they built. So, what do you think you know that refutes any of that?
    10
  90.  @jayleighc4793  What family? The one she abandoned more than a decade ago to live a life of crime and drugs? What community? Her fellow "dancers" at the gentlemen's club?
    10
  91. I honestly must ask if you're joking or not. She had just put on a public show in front of multiple people including children. Yet, you're trying to say that she should cover up after getting arrested?
    10
  92.  @blueforest4589  I told you before, I'm not reading any more from you. You have changed your story at least 3x. You delete your own replies. You first said the lawsuit wasn't dismissed (wrong). You then said it was dismissed at the request of her own attorneys (wrong). Then you said they were appealing the case (wrong). And, every time, you just keep changing your story. It's very clear you don't know anything. So, I'm not playing your game. I'm not reading your replies at this point.
    10
  93. And, the arrest video wasn't released until 2.5 years after the event.
    10
  94. I don't care about Arnold vs. Donald nonsense. That season of the Apprentice was doomed from the start. It was only 7 episodes long. The budget was cut to shreds. Arnold was almost completely non-involved beyond the intro and the board room. There was no grand finale. The weekly competitions were pretty lame. I don't care if you're an Arnold fan or a Donald fan, that season was headed down the tubes no matter what.
    9
  95. Sarah, what you're saying is completely irrelevant, yet you don't understand why. Get this through your skull: 1) Even if (hypothetically) the arrest was completely unjustified, the correct procedure is to comply, and get arrested, and if it's unjustified, deal with it in court, press charges, sue, whatever. You do NOT resist arrest. That's part of your contract with the state for getting a driver's license. If you can't comply with those rules, then don't drive. 2) But, this arrest wasn't unjustified. She was going 50 over the limit. She was both physically and verbally resisting the cop at every possible turn. She refused to comply with lawful orders. She wouldn't get in the car when told. She wouldn't get out of the car when told. And, she was quite obviously physically resisting the entire time. Resisting arrest is ALSO a crime (on top of the crime she already committed). 3) On top of the legal things she did wrong, she was quite obviously playing it up (pretending) because she suspected there may be an audio recording of this altercation. I'm guessing she wasn't counting on the video, though. I mean, did you pay attention to her pretending to be innocent bullshit? "I'm not resisting, I'm just trying to put my hands behind my back" (as she is quite obviously doing the exact opposite). Bullshit. Utter bullshit. 4) When being arrested, first they get you into custody, THEN you may find out why you're being arrested. Sometimes cops might tell people beforehand, fine. But, they don't have to. So, when you keep insisting that all she wanted to do was find out why she was being arrested, well, too bad. Comply first, find out why later. As for your question about whether it's illegal for her to want to know why she was arrested, well, don't be ridiculous. It's not illegal to want to know why. But, it IS illegal (for multiple reasons) to resist arrest in the process. 5) I don't know about all states, so I won't pretend to know, and frankly you're not worth my time to look it up either... but in my state, I'm pretty sure that if you're going 50 over the limit (anything more than 30 over the limit), the cop may arrest you for that reason alone. So, assuming that's the case, right off the bat, the officer may arrest her.
    9
  96.  @prostyler2  Then write it up in the science journals on radiobiology, and explain why every radiobiologist, cosmologist, and particle physicist on Earth disagrees with you. I'm sure you'll win a Nobel Prize if you're proven to be correct. Good luck with that.
    9
  97. There are some pretty good writeups about the orange soil. It ends up that the color was "just" glass mixed in with the lunar dust. It wasn't the miracle they were hoping for. But, all information is good information, so, yeah, they have some pretty good scientific papers on it that you can read.
    9
  98.  @obeyiv2466  YOU SAID: "the Shit was on purpose" == Not even the family is making that accusation. Why do YOU know this case better than the family? YOU SAID: "I know mexico too well" == You know "Mexico"? So, that means you know the employees of this resort? What? YOU SAID: "if your rich" == If you're literate. YOU SAID: "it’s not a surprise someone will try to kill your child/kidnapp and make u pay shitload of money" == Um, dumbass, nobody was kidnapped. Um, dumbass, the resort didn't demand any money. What the HELL are you talking about?
    9
  99. Because it's impossible to convict a cult leader of that magnitude. You cannot find a jury of 12 that will convict, because there's always a cultist in the group.
    9
  100. "NASA admitted that they "lost the technology" to get to the Moon. How do you explain they lost technology" So, that's it then? You hinge your beliefs on 3 words that you are intentionally taking out of context? Yes, it's "lost" in the exact same sense that SR71 technology is lost, or Concorde technology is lost, or X15 technology is lost. We have absolutely no hope of flying a Concorde ever again. That technology is "lost" at this point, because the entirety of what it took to build those planes has been dismantled, and the only things we have left are gutted out remains that are sitting in museums. We couldn't get one of them off the ground today if we wanted to. The same is true of Apollo. That old technology is obsolete, and everything it took to manufacture it all has been torn down, destroyed, and replaced with more modern equipment. We don't have the launch facilities for a Saturn V. We don't have the worldwide communications network for it any longer (long since been replaced by digital communications arrays, and the old analog S-band has been retired). We no longer use the type of radar Apollo used. We no longer run pure oxygen in any spacecraft (as Apollo did). The list is a mile long. Yes, the technology is "lost" in that sense. It's easier to take the lessons from Apollo and build from scratch, than it would be to try to create a carbon copy of Apollo.
    9
  101. And, you think they wouldn't have reported that from the blood tests?
    9
  102. No, you should feel guilty for blaming the victims instead of the criminal.
    9
  103. You cannot believe WHO did WHAT to her?
    9
  104.  @spacexsays3227  Apollo has been confirmed by numerous countries. You don't get to just wash that all away by calling it a "belief" just because you feel like spitting in the faces of all who worked on Apollo.
    9
  105. And, it's amazing that the people who reject Apollo know as little about the topic as you do about evolution (which you clearly also reject). Dewdrop, evolutionary biologists do not claim any of our ancestors were monkeys. You reject evolution without understanding it, as I'm sure you reject Apollo without understanding it.
    9
  106. Correct, the money doesn't add up. Back in the 1960s, during the peak of Apollo spending, NASA received about 4.5% of the entire federal budget. Add to that the "soft costs" (tax breaks to contractors, free land given out, etc.), and it's more like 5% or 5.5% of the entire federal budget. Add to that the international support for Apollo, and you're talking about even more money than that. And, a vast majority of NASA's money went straight into going to the moon. After Apollo, congress pulled the plug on that level of spending. Nowadays, NASA operates on about 0.5% of the federal budget, and has many more programs to operate. They are not allowed to sink all of their money into a single program. No, instead, they have hundreds of programs to manage, both in space, and aeronautics, as well as weather experiments and other things like that (which you would never know were part of NASA). And, they do this with very little international support. Yes, the main thing that "doesn't add up" is the pile of cash they'd need to go to Mars. Nobody is adding up any funds for anything like that. You didn't think NASA gets to pick and choose what it wants to spend its money on, did you? You do know that congress controls how every dime of NASA's money is spent, right?
    9
  107.  @ronaldgreene5733  So, you're just going to keep on spewing nonsense?
    9
  108. Yes, but this has happened repeatedly throughout history. After Magellan sailed around the globe, it wasn't repeated for 50 years. After the Egyptians built the great pyramids, nobody even attempted to make buildings that size/weight/height again for thousands of years. Hell, it's been almost 20 years since someone could buy a supersonic airliner ticket across the Atlantic. Yes, history is riddled with many such examples of extraordinary feats for a short while that don't get repeated for a long time.
    9
  109. Yup, and it wasn't even footage from Apollo 17. They borrowed the CDR shot from Apollo 15 at 47:52. And, I'd have to go through the videos to be certain, but, I think the rest of the shots are from Apollo 16. That's why these documentary videos are difficult to watch if you want 100% accuracy. The editors often borrow footage, just in the interest of relaying the spirit of what's going on, not necessarily meant to be taken as exactly correct. As far as I'm aware (and I'm willing to be wrong), there is no Apollo 17 footage of riding the rover.
    9
  110. James Van Allen disagreed with you. What do you know that he didn't? And, sorry, but the Van Allen belts aren't radioactive. You clearly don't know the difference between radioactivity and radiation. People like you think all radiation is nuclear. Ridiculous. Sound is radiation. Light is radiation. Xrays are radiation. Ionic particles are radiation. The list goes on. Yes, radioactive stuff (like high velocity neutrons and gamma rays) are also radiation, but, those things have nothing to do with the Van Allen belts. You hear the word "radiation" and think it all means nuclear. You're wrong.
    9
  111.  @juliandoespolitics4275  YOU SAID: "she was off her medication" == Tell me, which situation is more likely to you? 1) A convicted criminal and drug addict is telling the truth, the prison denied her meds, the "news" channel listened to this, but didn't bother to ask the prison about why they denied her meds. or 2) The convicted criminal and drug addict is also a chronic liar, the prison gave her the meds, but she denied getting them because she wanted more, and the "news" channel DID ask the prison why she didn't get her meds, and they said, "pffttt, she says that all the time, she's a criminal junkie thief, we gave her the meds, and her own family is so sick of her lies that they won't even take her in for more than a day or two at a time." But, the "news" channel didn't show that part, because it doesn't look good in the eyes of the gullible saps who believe every damned thing they see on TV. By the way, I have a bridge for sale. Interested?
    9
  112. And, when he passes, are you going to stop spewing nonsense? Or, will you ignore that, just like you ignore everything else that proves you wrong?
    9
  113.  @zenmeister451  You sure have thrown all critical thinking skills out the window, haven't you. We have a guy who claims to have a degree from MIT, but can't produce a single record of doing so, nor can name anybody who even knew him at MIT. He does have a felony record, though, as well as a record at a junior college (can you name anybody else in history who simultaneously attends a junior college at the same time as the highest ranked scientific university on the planet?).... And, he claims to have witnessed alien technology in a secret base. And, YOU find this believable. I shouldn't need to spell this out to you. You're a bigger crackpot than he is, if you find anything he says to be credible. He offers not a single shred of evidence, just his stories. But, you believe it. Do yourself a favor: forget about stupid alien conspiracies and crackpot claims about an insane guy who plead guilty to running a prostitution outfit while being an MIT graduate and who runs his old 1980s Corvette via a nuclear reactor in back. You've got much bigger problems, if you find such a person to be credible. You are apparently so gullible that you simply are going to lose every dime to your name, sooner or later. It's going to happen. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. Anybody with your level of gullibility is doomed to give everything away to some scam artist that will sell you some sort of magic beans. So, the favor you need to do yourself is to give every dime to your name, now and in the future, to someone who is very trusted in your family circle, who isn't as gullible as you are. Have that person run your finances for you. That's the only way it will be safe.
    9
  114.  @proto-t7k  Who is "they," and what evidence is there that any such record scrubbing ever even happened? His own words? And, I can only imagine that you haven't actually been reading what I've written. I mean, how would they get rid of personal experiences? How would they prevent Bob Lazar from simply saying things like: "My favorite MIT professor was James Shepard, for my Physics 314 class." "I dated a gal named Samantha Rose, and she can verify that I was in classes with her." "My best friend on campus was Charles Swithman, we played basketball after classes in the H-wing of the Garmel Athletic Center." "I rented an apartment near campus at 315 Oak St. from a landlord named Shirley Schwarz. Her husband David had recently died and left her three buildings that he rented to MIT students." "I have the diploma from MIT right here." "There's a program from my graduation ceremony, and they printed thousands of copies for the audience, which includes the names of everyone getting their degrees that day. I didn't keep my copy, but, after the big bad wolf tried to erase my records, I phoned up a couple of my classmates and their proud parents kept that program as a keepsake, so you can find my name there." "I contacted my bank while the super secret powers tried to erase my existence, and I got a bunch of copies of canceled rent checks that I wrote to Shirley Schwarz." I mean, HOW would you erase someone's existence anyway? This was theoretically in the 1970s and 1980s, you know. Computers started to have a role back then, but everything was still on hardcopy paper. And, forget that... just look at banking. Banks need to balance to the penny. How could you even erase someone's bank account without anybody noticing? Wouldn't the bank's balances suddenly be out of whack if you just deleted someone's existence? And, why wouldn't Bob Lazar, MIT graduate in physics, just do NOTHING?? Why wouldn't he be fighting tooth and nail every single day to preserve the record of his prestigious degree from the planet's greatest science institution? No?? He's just going go on TV and simply claim that big bad people are erasing him, and that's it? He's not launching lawsuits at the university for not preserving his records? He spends a fortune for an education there, then does absolutely nothing to go back and get his degree reinstated? No? Just, "they're erasing my existence, oh well, I guess I wasted those years of my life and all of that money, I'm not going to do anything about it." No? I mean, he certainly doesn't ACTUALLY fear for his life. If the super secret bad guys were going to kill him, they've had almost 40 years to do it. Obviously, the super secret bad guys aren't trying to do that. So, why not sue? Why not fight for his degrees back? Why not go there, walk right into his physics classrooms and demand that the professors produce his records? Why not name a whole bunch of classmates as witnesses in court cases? No? Nothing. Just "they erased everything." And, that's it? Nothing else? No evidence? No PURSUIT of evidence? Nothing at all? Nope, instead, he simply moved on to his next claim, that he put a nuclear reactor in the back of his 1985 Corvette, and claims he doesn't need to buy gasoline for it? Any proof of that? No, of course not. He shows you a couple of strange looking metal canisters in the back of the Corvette, and we just need to take his word for it. After all, they erased his records, right?
    9
  115.  @ronaldgreene5733  Is there some particular reason you repeat garbage you see in conspiracy videos? You've been posting for weeks/months in various videos/threads. And, it's always the same claptrap. Why would you fall for that stuff?
    9
  116. I'm as appalled as you are. However, get real here. This man was a professional liar his entire career. And, this concept of "being happier in prison" is just another lie. There's NO WAY that this man is happier in prison than he is outside leading a billionaire's lifestyle. He's just saying that as another "jab" at everyone.
    8
  117. Drew Vahey Pffftt. It's not their fault?? These Young Turk idiots NEVER check stories before they run them. They even go as far as blaming "big business" for the scam not coming to reality? They could have know this was a scam before they ran the story via two easy ways. 1) Ask any physicist if the claims made by the scammers hold up. (There isn't a physicist alive who would endorse this crap.) 2) Just Google the CEO of "Laser Power Solutions" - and find out that he and his friends are being sued by the SEC for their last scam, which bilked over $6.5 million out of gullible investors. They said they could "CURE EVERY DISEASE" and "REGROW LOST LIMBS"!! And, now they've gone from being "medical" experts (hahaha) to nuclear powered car experts?? Pffffttt. And, another simple Google search would show that the car model was NOT made by Cadillac, and was just made by a skateboard designer. It takes a whopping 10-15 minutes to Google these things. The Young Turk morons don't investigate their stories. They just blindly run their stories, talk about "big business" ruining the country, and watch their moronic following keep flocking back to them for more bullshit.
    8
  118. Can you see stars in the daytime?
    8
  119.  @rationald6799  No. They believe what they believe regardless of any understanding whatsoever. It has nothing to do with technical aspects (though, they may pretend it does). They believe what they believe because they're trying to compensate for their failed lives. And, Apollo makes a perfect target. If they can convince themselves that the most accomplished people in human history didn't accomplish anything at all (just like they haven't), then this makes them feel better. And, it gives them a shortcut for the fact that they don't have the education or experience to understand much of anything. Watching a couple of hours of conspiracy videos replaces decades of education and experience (so they think).
    8
  120. Oh, you poor thing. You actually believe their silly nonsense? Why?
    8
  121.  @softboy5573  YOU SAID: "if you are going to kill people for killing others shouldn't the executors be killed as well?" == Seriously? That's how far gone your brain is? You can't make a distinction between cold blooded murder, vs. the state performing capital punishment on a murderer who had his/her trial, and was found guilty? In your mind, those two are the same thing? Good grief. I will never understand why so many people on the internet think it's a good idea to advertise how dumb they are to the entire planet.
    8
  122. "how could it transmit the first steps?" It was hooked up to the S-band radio. "Was it already there when they got there?" It was mounted to the side of the lander in the equipment bay, on a structure called the MESA. It folded out from the side of the lander. "lol." Thanks for demonstrating that you don't want answers to your own questions. "Anyone who believes they really went to the moon is nuts." So, every single one of the world's 77 space agencies, staffed with the virtual entirety of the experts on the topic (either as direct employees or as contractors), are nuts? And, YOU know better? And, you know this because "how did the camera work"? So, you have no understanding of the camera, but, for some reason, you believe you know more than the entire planet's experts. Right. Sure. "have used NASA and the military to launder tax payers money" Dewdrop, how would that even work? Why would they choose an extremely public program for any such "laundering"? And, who's the benefactor of this "laundering"? Can you name someone in particular? Or, just "they"? The government has any number of black projects going on at any time, with no public access to documentation to know where the money is going. Why not use one of those programs for any such illegal activity? No? They chose the most publicly visible multi-billion dollar endeavor in history? THAT's the program to use? "they allegedly ‘lost’ the technology" It's lost in the exact same spirit that Concorde supersonic airliner technology is lost, or SR71 technology is lost, or X15 technology is lost. "Lost" has more than one meaning, dewdrop. Stop getting your "knowledge" from conspiracy videos that lie to you.
    8
  123. Well, there are no functional cameras at the landing sites to show what the equipment looks like after 50+ years. So, what choice does he have but to generate it with CGI?
    8
  124. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    8
  125. You should go straight to Dave McKeegan's takedown of that interview instead of this video.
    8
  126. What are you waiting for? Only 4 remain alive.
    8
  127. Google the concept of "optical resolution." Putting aside atmospheric distortion (another problem, but we'll skip that for now), see, fundamentally, telescopes have limits. There's only so much light that you can squeeze through a lens before the photons interfere with each other. There's a well understood formula to be able to calculate the "resolution" you can get from a lens at this distance. If you use that formula, you will find that, from Earth, it takes a lens about 75 feet in diameter to see an Apollo lander on the moon as a single dot. You wouldn't know what it was, it would just be a dot. If you want to be able to make out enough of the details to know it's a lunar lander, then you need an optical grade lens a quarter mile in diameter. Now, you want to see a FLAG from this distance? Well, I invite you to do that math yourself, but, yeah, you can rest assured that you're now asking for a lens that's multiple miles in diameter. Given that the largest optical grade lens in history was just produced last year at a cost of $168 million, and is 5 feet in diameter, yeah, I think we've got a long way to go before you can expect to see Apollo artifacts on the moon from this distance with a telescope.
    8
  128. Yes, it was. It was mounted to the MESA on the side of the lander, pointed at the ladder. Then, Armstrong moved it out to its final spot on the tripod.
    8
  129. First of all, those are from two separate movies (both made by Bart Sibrel, though). Secondly, yes, not all of the astronauts remembered all of their training decades later, especially something as insignificant as the Van Allen belts. No aerospace engineers, nor any radiobiologists, thought the Van Allen belts would be an issue for Apollo. James Van Allen didn't think there'd be an issue, and he's the one the belts are named after. So, why is it significant to you if an astronaut doesn't recall that part of his training? They were quite busy learning the craft, the mission parameters, lunar geology, the emergency procedures, the flight characteristics, etc. Why do you care if someone doesn't remember "oh, and by the way, you're going to go through the Van Allen belts, but, it won't matter"? It only became important to you deniers because conspiracy videos told you so, not because any actual expert thought so. Third, sorry, but if you actually fell for that silly "round window trick" lie, there's not much hope for you. Bart Sibrel said it was his very best piece of evidence, yet, it falls apart instantly with just a tiny bit of knowledge. There are a million ways to know for yourself that his window trick claim is complete nonsense. But, if you need your hand held for you, "Addendum A Funny Thing Happened... (By GreaterSapien - MIRROR)" is quite a nice demonstration that Sibrel was the real liar, and not the astronauts. It's only a few minutes long, but, it makes it quite clear. And, if that's not good enough, there are dozens more ways to know that you're wrong. I mean, you couldn't even get Sibrel's version correct. It wasn't a "picture over the window." It was a CUTOUT of the window (his claim anyway). You cannot even get Sibrel's lies correct.
    8
  130. Huh? Scared? Not talk? They did a million interviews, lectures, etc. You don't even know how to spell their names. What could you possibly understand here?
    8
  131. First of all, this is an edited documentary, not the original audio tapes. Often times, they cut out the delays because people don't want to listen to them. All delays on the original recordings are accurate. But, in this case, it wouldn't matter anyway, because there was no point at which Houston spoke, and was waiting for an astronaut to answer. Most of the audio you hear in that sequence comes from one astronaut talking to another (no delay expected). During the 1 or 2 times that they spoke with Houston, yes, Houston immediately answered with no delay. But, that's because no delay is expected, because the recording is taking place in Houston. The person in Houston isn't required to wait 2.6 seconds to answer an astronaut. The only delay we expect to hear is when Houston asks an astronaut something, and then it takes 2.6 seconds for him to answer. But, during the sequence you're questioning, there was never a point that Houston asked anything of an astronaut that required an answer, so, this isn't even a good example. But, hey, you're welcome to go through all of the original recordings and search for any time an astronaut responded too quickly. Good luck with that. It's not like that's already been done a million times.... errrrr, wait.....
    8
  132. "If you show me a rock and tell me it came from the moon, you can only convince me that it's a rock." OK, well, I'd argue that there are probably a million topics in your life that you know absolutely nothing about (as we all have that same issue). But, I'd also bet that you don't arbitrarily reject the entire expert community about on most of those things. If every neurosurgeon on the planet says that the best brain surgery technique is [whatever], I seriously doubt you'd just blindly reject it, you'd probably respect their decades of education and experience, and that tens of thousands of them all agree. But, for geology, you just outright assume you're correct, and that the entire planet's experts are wrong. And, why? Because you are predisposed with your ridiculous opinions, and you've decided, in advance, to reject all things that go against the brick wall you've built in your brain since the age of 7. "There is way more evidence that proves that the "proof" is nothing more than a staged creation." I seriously doubt you understand a lick of the evidence you're pretending to understand. Sorry, but, you just lost all credibility when you opened by claiming that there was no possible way to convince you about geology (a topic you clearly do not understand). Why do you think you're at all credible about other topics you don't understand either?
    8
  133. You clearly have no interest in the answer to your own question.
    8
  134. Yeah, teen criminals vs. older criminal. Criminals vs. criminals. It happens all the time. It's not like I know the statistics, but, I dare say that I think most shootings are probably criminals vs. criminals. It's not always an innocent person vs. criminals. And, since you want to make an itemized list, ok, here's mine in reply to yours: 1) They weren't strangers. He knew them, and they had stolen from him before. 2) He placed his car away from the house so they wouldn't know he was home. 3) He unscrewed some of the lights so they wouldn't turn on, even if they flipped the switch. 4) He ran a recording device while he waited in the basement, clearly he knew they were coming. 5) Before either one of the teens arrived at his house, he rehearsed on that recording device what he was going to say to the police after he killed them, including "in the left eye" (he later shot the girl in the left eye). I repeat: hours before the teens even got there, he rehearsed, on tape, what he was going to tell the police about shooting them. 6) He had a tarp ready for the bodies. 7) He gathered up the bodies, and put them in the other room so they wouldn't ruin his carpet. 8) He didn't call the police until the next day. 9) After killing the first thief, he then sat quietly waiting for a long time for the other thief to arrive, then shot her too. 10) Her shirt was found opened, make of that what you will. 11) After shooting the girl in the torso, she was still alive and incapacitated, yet he didn't want her to live (his own words), and wanted to make sure she was dead (his own words), so put a bullet next to her eye, and another one under the chin up into her brain (his own words). 12) While waiting for the criminals to arrive, he was armed with two different guns, one of which was a little bit faulty. 13) After he shot one with the faulty weapon, it wouldn't fire again. So, he literally apologized to the criminal (who was still alive) for not successfully killing right away, and switched guns for the fatal shots while the criminal was on the ground.
    8
  135. Every single one of the world's 77 space agencies on Earth disagree with you.
    8
  136. Cernan was the best moonwalker to speak with (and I've spoken with most of them). That man, I'll tell ya, he could read people better than anybody I've met, and he instantly could tell whether to ramp the conversation up to super-techy engineering talk, or tone it down to casual basics. Somehow, he instantly knew how technical to be (or not to be). I've only met him 3 or 4 times, but, each time was really great. He'd tell my wife exactly the types of things she'd want to hear (more simple stuff), then shift gears and tell me about how the guidance computers worked, then shift gears again and talk about how he felt emotionally while on the moon. The only thing I didn't like was that he kept bringing up his religion (and his religious experiences while on the moon) every time I'd talk with him. That's about the only thing he ever misread about, because I could have lived without those little segments of conversation. But, the rest... pure perfection. Another thing I learned was never to make heroes of anybody. I mean, not that I really ever did. But, like I tell my kids, just judge people on the stuff you know. If you are a Michael Jordan fan (or any other sports person), fine, but don't admire him for who he is as a person, just admire his abilities on the basketball court. And, if you admire an astronaut, just admire him for his accomplishments in space, not because of who he is as a person. Not that Cernan is really bad or anything, but, there are some aspects of his personality that are very "human" (that I won't get into), and it's best to stick with admiring as the astronaut he is (er, was), and not necessarily judge anything (good or bad) outside of that topic.
    8
  137. And, what make you think she suffered a speck of humiliation from this? Inside Edition told you what to think, so you went with it? Almost nobody in the media covered it until she was dead 1.5 years.
    8
  138. Still cutting and pasting the same gibberish, eh dewdrop?
    8
  139. "Such a beautiful lady" Well, in July of 2021, ok. But, in March of 2022, when she committed suicide, well, read the medical examiner's report. It says that her body weighed 86 pounds, and that her implants were jutting out of her emaciated body in such an unnatural way that really emphasized how unhealthy she was. It seems she really went downhill between 2021 and 2022. "this whole situation must have completely broken her mentally" Let's face reality here... this wasn't exactly her first arrest. And, if she didn't want to get "embarrassed," then what was she doing putting on a beach show, which was recorded by a family, and viewed by the police, who described it as a long and drawn out public display... hardly the "few seconds" that the woman claims. And, how did she really suffer from it? The arrest video wasn't released to the public until 1.5 years after she died. "I really feel for her family & friends on her loss" But, according to the reports, she had basically abandoned her family and friends. She was last known to be alive on 3/19/2022, and wasn't found until 3/31. How close could those ties have been, if that much time passed and nobody knew she was gone?
    8
  140.  @philipthomas3938  No. You're thinking of the Soviet ones. The ones from the USA were taken there on Apollo.
    8
  141. Yeah, I think he meant "powerful enough" = enough fuel. And, to that, I wrote (correctly) that it didn't have the fuel required to escape the moon's gravity. But, yeah, if he meant "powerful" = amount of thrust, you're correct, obviously. My bad for not clarifying better.
    8
  142. I wonder how many people in these comments would express this level of sympathy if Inside Edition actually told the whole story, rather than this concept of "was she shamed to death?" They never actually answer the question, mind you. But, they paint a picture of a sweet soccer mom being carted away by evil police, being shamed in public, who commits suicide because of the publicity. They never say that the arrest video wasn't released until 2.5 years later, and that she was long gone by then. They let you believe that the release of the arrest video was the cause of the suicide, but, in reality, nobody saw the arrest video until long after she was dead. They never say that the cops would have had no choice but to arrest her anyway, because she was a career criminal with open warrants who served felony time in a Florida prison about 6 years ago. They don't tell you that she walked out on her family over a decade ago, including a husband, a 6 month old son, and another son, in order to live a life of crime and drugs. Stealing cars. Drugs and alcohol. Other thefts and civil judgements. They don't tell you that her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club, and her neighbors said she did "private extras" with parades of paying men in her apartment. They don't tell you that she was so estranged from any family and friends that absolutely nobody came looking for her after her death, and that nobody even knows how long she was dead (probably a month due to the decay of the body) before the landlord went into the apartment looking for the overdue rent. They don't tell you that her own family said that they don't think this incident had anything to do with her suicide a year later. Nope. They also don't tell you that there were multiple callers on the beach that day who complained to the police, one of whom actually recorded the incident and gave a copy of the video to the cops. (That video has never been released due to graphic content.) If she wasn't making "public beach" content, I'll eat my hat. But, they show her trying to cry her way out of her millionth arrest, tell you that she's a real estate agent (who hadn't sold a house in more than a decade), and everyone pours their heart out with sympathy. Well, I don't lack sympathy either. I don't like seeing people suffering, nor for their private lives to be made public. But, the Freedom of Information Act is law in this country. So, the cops had no choice but to release the arrest video after she was long gone. And, I don't like when media people spin a story to make it go viral, while intentionally avoiding all of the facts. I'm sorry that "career criminal gets herself arrested for the millionth time" doesn't go viral, while "innocent soccer mom tossed in prison by evil police" does. But, I lament even more about the viewers who blindly swallow anything they see in a 1 minute video.
    8
  143. It's ironic that your posted message can apply to the deniers who blindly believe what's presented in conspiracy videos. Guess which one is correct.
    8
  144. That's not how it works. You hit a much bigger area of the moon, which includes the reflector. These laser ranging facilities get more and more accurate over time. But, still, they're basically hitting something the size of a football field, and then counting the photons that bounce back off of the reflectors.
    8
  145. Um, not quite. You are correct in that you are not legally obligated to show a receipt. However, you must be prepared for the consequences if you do not. If the store says someone didn't pay, this is enough reasonable suspicion for a cop to stop a person and perform that investigation. And, a person in such an investigation must properly identify herself, and cooperate on a basic level. No, she's not required to help the investigation. She can remain completely silent if she wishes (other than identifying herself, which is required by law, but she refused to do). But, she cannot obstruct and obfuscate (which is what she was doing). And, if she chooses not to provider her receipt, yes, being arrested may be a consequence, and she should not resist (but, she resisted). You do not have the right to just keep walking away from a police investigation when you are detained.
    8
  146. Peace and love, while you accuse thousands of people of being criminals. Right.
    8
  147.  @justinfranklin7639  YOU SAID: "19 minutes, where is the luner rover?" == Luner? Sigh. The lunar rover was stored in quadrant 1 of the descent stage. From the perspective of this video, that's the bottom half of the craft, on your right as you're looking straight at the front of the craft. It didn't fit all the way into the equipment bay, so it hangs out a bit. You can see it best at 19:14. It looks like two rectangular shapes sticking out from the descent stage. And, a bit of the two goldish fenders can be seen folded between the rectangles and the equipment bay. YOU SAID: "No footage of them unloading it?" == Not on Apollo 17. The camera they'd be using to take the video would be the same camera they'd be mounting to the rover once they unpacked it. So, it was deemed unnecessary to set up the camera on the ground, only to need to re-set up the camera again once they got the rover together. They had already taken video of the unpacking of the rover on Apollo 15. So, on Apollo 16 and 17, they saved some time by just unpacking the rover, then setting up the camera only once (instead of needing to set up the camera twice). If you're interested in seeing the rover being unpacked, yeah, Apollo 17 videos aren't going to help you. You need to search for lunar rover deployment videos on Apollo 15 instead. There are a bunch of copies available on YouTube. YOU SAID: "that's not a valid point they have plenty of footage with both astronauts." == Yes, and all TV video of Apollo 17 that included both astronauts were taken from the rover's camera. So, again, by asking for video of unpacking the rover, you're asking them to set up the rover's camera on a tripod first, getting it cabled up to the S-Band antenna on the LEM, and planting the camera to take that video... only to turn around and disassemble all of that once they got the rover built, and then mount the camera to the rover, and then hook it up to the rover's S-Band antenna. It wasn't worth all of that extra effort. So, again, on Apollo 17, they didn't do it. They had already done it on Apollo 15 to capture that video event, and it would be a criminal waste of valuable time on the moon to waste a bunch of time to capture it again. They were more interested in spending their time visiting more valuable sites for lunar geology, than to spend extra time setting up a camera just to tear it apart, and then set it up again. YOU SAID: "So is your man on the moon filming them?" == What EXACTLY do you think happened here? Do you think none of the thousands upon thousands of people who worked on Apollo's communications systems ever noticed these "problems" you're spotting? Is that how this goes? You haven't outright stated that you think Apollo was faked, but you're asking dumb questions in the spirit of it.
    8
  148. Equivalent to an X-ray (a) is wrong, and (b) doesn't mean it IS an X-ray. The dose of radiation they received when passing through the belts was more akin to a medical CT-scan than an X-ray. And, all they're doing is giving you a comparison. It doesn't mean it IS a CT-scan or an X-ray. Yes, film is vulnerable to X-rays. But, the radiation in the belts aren't X-rays. They are ionic particles. The film was encased in aluminum canisters lined with silver, providing quite nice protection from ions. Ultimately, there's really not all that much you can do about protonic ions, though. But, for electrons, aluminum and silver work quite well. And, for the protons, well, just go through fast enough, and your film won't be any different than anything else exposed to protons. They don't have the same effect as X-rays. X-rays are electromagnetic (film doesn't like that). Protons are ionic (nothing likes that, but, in small doses, it doesn't matter).
    8
  149. "I think if you compartmentalize everything like they do, or did with the Manhattan project," Oh, that project that had 1,000 leaks, and our enemies knew about before the first bomb was exploded? That Manhattan project? Can you remind me, which conspiracy video told you to make that comparison? I've forgotten. "no one really knew about that until years later" Um, no. Stalin knew before Truman. "the only people they really had to tell where the astronauts all the people at their stations, reading their computers that were in front of them" And, the dozens of countries (including enemies) that tracked Apollo with their radio telescopes and radar, and the dozens of countries (including enemies) that use laser ranging to the Apollo reflectors, and Spain and Australia who received the Apollo video, and backyard amateurs who tuned in to the Apollo audio when they pointed their dishes at the moon... the list goes on. "those folks would never of known" Of they? Of known of not why of? Of you learn of English of? "I don’t know what to believe" Oh, don't pretend now. It's pretty darned clear what you believe... quoting from ridiculous conspiracy videos. "in one turn they were said that astronaut wait could put a footprint on the moon" Turn wait footprints moon they said astronaut could of of. "even though there was no moisture" Straight out of conspiracy videos. "but yet there was no dust or anything from the lunar module" Says who? The conspiracy videos you watched? "that landed with 10,000 pounds of thrust" Dewdrop, if they had 10,000 pounds of thrust when landing, there wouldn't be a landing. They'd have shot straight up at a rapid pace. Did the conspiracy video not tell you that? "didn’t move one grain of sand or regalith" Funny, the photos show otherwise. Did the conspiracy videos not show you those photos? Did they cherry pick one or two photos from shallow angles and low resolution, and say, "look, no dust was disturbed"? Have you actually looked at the photos yourself? Are you even reading this reply? Can you write "green" at the top of your answer to prove you're even reading this? I'm betting you won't. I think you enjoy that your only input is conspiracy videos. "material that make’s up the moon’s surface." Make of up surface moon make's. "The Lam" Oh, you're totally an expert. "riddle me that Batman?" Here's the answer to your "riddle" - you don't know what you're talking about.
    8
  150. Huh? They showed the sun countless times, especially on Apollo 17. There are hundreds of photos of the sun. For video, well, in the earlier missions, pointing at the sun burned out the vidicon tube in the camera. So, they tended to try to avoid it. But, as you get to the Apollo 15/16/17 missions, they had more hardened video cameras, and pointed them at the sun many many times. Clearly you've never actually watched the videos before claiming that they don't exist.
    8
  151. Strike one. Want to try again?
    8
  152. Yeah. When you see a guy cranking at the playground, just leave him alone, he's just living his life.
    8
  153. Is there any particular reason that you're displaying your butchery of thermodynamics for the entire world to see? Do you REALLY believe that you understand thermodynamics in space better than the world's aerospace engineers? Or, you get your jollies by pretending you know things that you really don't?
    8
  154. Why aren't there Dollar General stores at the bottom of the ocean? If people really went there 60+ years ago, shouldn't there be a million stores down there by now?
    8
  155. So, you watched the mockumentary "Shooting Stanley Kubrick" made by Hollywood director T. Patrick Murray in 2015, with actor Tom Mayk playing Kubrick, and you believed it was real?? Good gods, man. That thing was made to mock people like you, and here you are, gobbling it up.
    8
  156.  @SlipStream401  Um, yeah. 99.9% of the time, I'd agree with you. But, do you not understand the kind of evidence that they had that this man planned these murders? 1) He parked his car far away so that they wouldn't know he was there. 2) He recorded the entire incident, since hours before the thieves got there. 3) On that recording, he rehearsed what he was going to say to the police and attorneys about shooting them, BEFORE THE THEIVES EVEN ARRIVED AT HIS HOUSE. I repeat, he practiced what he was going to say about shooting them... BEFORE shooting them. 4) In those rehearsed conversations, he even said he was going to shoot them "in the left eye" (and then later shot the girl twice in the left eye). 5) He disabled the lights so they couldn't see him, even if they flipped on the switch. 6) He got tarps ready for their bodies, so it wouldn't ruin his carpet (again, BEFORE THEY EVEN ARRIVED). 7) After killing the male thief, he gathered up the body within 30 seconds or so (again, he had the tarp ready), then sat and waited about 20 minutes for the girl to arrive to check on what was taking so long for her cousin to rob the place. He knew they were coming that day, he knew their pattern. 8) After shooting the girl, his gun jammed, and he apologized to her for not killing her more quickly. 9) He then got his other gun, with her incapacitated on the ground saying "oh my god," and he put the two bullets into her left eye, just as he said he was going to do. 10) Later, he still saw she was moving slightly, and put the gun up under her chin, and shot into her brain from below. 11) He then waited 24 hours with the dead bodies in his house, before calling police. 12) The girl was found with her shirt open. Make of that what you will. 13) He said in his confession that he didn't want them to live, and wanted to make sure they were dead. So, no, you're wrong here. "People who start conflict carry all the blame" is just plain wrong. This man planned these murders ahead of time. He carries the blame also, and is paying the price for it right now. You don't get to prevent a robbery by planning a premeditated murder. This was quite preventable if the guy had merely called the cops and said, "Hey, these kids have been robbing me repeatedly on holidays like this one, the boy used to work for me, the girl is the daughter of a family I'm feuding with, and they just keep coming to my house and robbing me on holidays and stuff like this. Can you come here and we'll catch them in the act?" Nope, he didn't do that. Instead, he got ready to murder them, and proceeded to do exactly that. Make no mistake here, I do not weep for the stupid criminals. I will lose no sleep over their deaths. They were clearly quite useless human beings that took their lives into their own hands by breaking into dozens of houses all the time. Eventually, if someone shot them, that's what is going to happen. But, the law only goes so far. You can defend yourself from intruders, and if those intruders get shot, they get shot. But, you've crossed the line and make yourself a criminal ALSO, when you plan a murder in advance.
    8
  157. "Where’s all the trash from the other 5 landings" He made a video covering one landing site, and you're complaining that he didn't make 5 more videos? "including 2 jeeps" 3 rovers. Yeah, you really know a lot about this topic alright. "This is" So, you don't know anything about Apollo, but, you think you understand it better than the entire planet's experts somehow? "NASA budget worth $74 mill /day to taxpayers" It's not quite that high, but, close enough not to complain. Dewdrop, are you even aware of the hundreds of different programs they run? It's not all about going to the moon. It's not even all about space. They finance jet research, weather studies, microchip development, glacier studies, etc. Congratulations on telling the world that you don't know anything. Now, if you really want to do the world a favor, put this post on every job application you ever fill out.
    8
  158.  @daryllect6659  Oh, this is comedy gold. "My contention is the moon landings were faked, thus making it a negative, and, negatives cannot be proven." Um, no. "The moon landings were faked" is a POSITIVE claim, not a negative claim. It always amazes me when people with absolutely no education pretend they're smart.
    8
  159. This news clip is scandalously ridiculous, and dramatically slanted. In Iowa, a person can be fired for any reason, no matter how stupid that reason is, as long as the reason isn't in conflict with any of the legally "protected classes" (race, religion, nationality, etc.). "Being irresistible" or "being sexy" isn't a legally protected class. Therefore, the court ruled as it did. The dentist sounds like an idiot to me, and I wouldn't dream of doing what he did. But, like it or not, he he doesn't "owe" his employee a job. And, for this news outlet to completely slant this story, making it seem like the court's ruling is wrong, is reprehensible. Until "being irresistible" becomes a legally protected class, the court ruled correctly, no matter how unpleasant that is to some people.
    7
  160. TRANSLATION: "I don't know anything about the topic. I don't know anything about the cameras. I don't know anything about the spacecraft. I don't know what anything is called. I don't know anything about the materials used. But, I know more than the entire world's experts, and I know it's all fake."
    7
  161. They didn't. The camera was mounted to the side of the lander. 20 minutes after the first steps, they mounted the camera to a tripod and moved it to its final spot.
    7
  162. Who told you such a silly thing?
    7
  163. Wow, it's been a whole 3 hours since someone asked that question.
    7
  164. Huh? You think everyone would believe it merely because there wasn't internet? What? How about believing it because the Soviets and dozens of other countries tracked Apollo to the moon and back with radar and radio telescopes? How about believing it because any backyard amateur could aim their antennae at the moon and receive Apollo 11's audio broadcasts? How about believing it because multiple countries have photographs from lunar orbit that show the Apollo landers on the surface? No? It's only because of TV? What?
    7
  165. 1) Why would a non-Christian swear on a bible in the first place? 2) Yes, by the time Sibrel got to Armstrong, it was already very clear that Sibrel was slandering the astronauts. Why would Armstrong cooperate with such a man? 3) Some of the astronauts did swear on Sibrel's bible before they realized that he was a conman. Does this matter to you? Did those astronauts go to the moon, and the ones who didn't swear on Sibrel's bible didn't go? No? You reject all missions whether they swore on the bible or not, right? So, what difference does it make to you if Armstrong swore on the bible? Either way, you're going to reject it.
    7
  166. Depends. The flag moves for many different reasons in different missions and circumstances. Can you be more specific? Can you name the timestamp in this video that you're asking about?
    7
  167. So, let me get this straight. Your first comment said that people cannot survive the Van Allen belt (you wrote singular, because you're unaware that there are two, sometimes even three). Now, I gave you James Van Allen's exact words (which you thought were mine, despite that I quoted him directly and even said so). And, you've taken a new position now that it's the radiation beyond the belts that's the real problem, which contradicts your first comment. Is that about right?
    7
  168.  @mbvgvskvrs868  What kind of ridiculous story is this? No, Armstrong and Aldrin never gave that rock to the art museum you're talking about. How do you think this works? You think that in 2009, a couple of years before his death, Armstrong went to the Netherlands to give a rock to an art museum? Good grief. The museum itself doesn't even say it came from NASA, nor the astronauts. Sorry, but when your story is so blatantly ridiculous that you'd say such a thing, it's pretty clear that you'll believe any claptrap you're told.
    7
  169. Translation: I'm completely delusional, and everyone laughs at me when I expose my ridiculous beliefs.
    7
  170. Yeah, you watched a few videos made by some taxi cab drivers and yoga instructors that gave you false information, so, now you believe things "just don't fit," while the rest of the world knows better.
    7
  171. Huh? Yeah, it's 2024, almost 52 years since the last manned moon mission, and yet, in all of that time, not a single person has ever come up with any evidence against Apollo that doesn't instantly fall apart under simple scrutiny. Never. Not once. Not one peer reviewed scientific paper. Not a single space agency on the planet agrees with you. And, the only claims are just like the ones in this video, which instantly collapse with the most rudimentary knowledge about the topic. Yet, you somehow think you have the high ground?
    7
  172. "50 years ago, they went 10,000 times farther from earth than we are capable of today" The moon is 238,000 miles away. Divide that by 10,000. 23.8 miles. That's what you think our capabilities are? "with literally one millionth of the computing power of a cellphone" Well, you can't really qualify computing power exactly that way. It is not merely clock speed and amount of memory. It also involves how the circuitry actually works. But, whatever, I'm happy enough with saying it was a millionth (or less) for the onboard computers. But, they had all of those massive mainframes on the ground doing the big number crunching. Anyway, I fail to understand why this matters to you? So what? A modern cell phone has a million times more power than phones from the 1960s also. Yet, they could make phone calls. Was there a point to why you think today's processing power is relevant? "and one thousandth of our current astronomical knowledge." Uh, all they needed to know about was THE MOON. In order to go to the moon, they didn't need to spot black holes at the center of galaxies, they didn't need to detect gravity waves, they didn't need to watch distant stars oscillate due to large planets orbiting them. All they needed to know about was THE MOON. "Isn't that amazing?" No, what would be amazing would be if a single one of you hoax nuts actually knew anything about the topics you're pretending to know. It would be amazing if a single one of you people could actually do math. It would be amazing if a single one of you would offer a shred of actual EVIDENCE for your beliefs, rather than just "isn't that amazing" incredulity.
    7
  173. You're very educated, yet, you don't know that there are more ways of propulsion beyond pushing off of water or air? You don't understand Newton's 3rd law, yet, you're very educated? Oh, I see. You are a YouTube University PhD. Gotcha. Sure.
    7
  174. "It is an animation on video." Nope. It's not animation. It's the video of the SIVB separating from the 2nd stage of the Saturn V. "It is clearly not real at all." Yet, not a single one of the world's 77 countries with space agencies have been able to spot what you think you can spot? "People like you believe everything if repeated many times." Wrong. I believe what is evident. It doesn't matter to me how many times something is repeated. I follow the evidence.
    7
  175. "when it supposed to be the most heavily documented project in the history of humanity." It is. How much have you read about it? "We can reach Orbit, but not further." You have no understanding of the topic.
    7
  176. "never went to the moon" There were 9 manned moon missions, 6 of which landed.
    7
  177. Sorry for the multiple replies. YouTube blocked most of what I wrote, and I needed to split it out into multiple messages to get it to post.
    7
  178. It's been 55 years, and thus far, nobody has ever offered any credible evidence that Apollo 11 was a "lie." Every single argument ever presented by your ilk has fallen apart instantly with the slightest amount of scrutiny. 55 years and counting. How much more time do you need?
    7
  179. Yeah, it couldn't possibly be that a 300 pound 5'7" 70 year old guy died from heart related problems caused by obesity. It had to be because the lizard people waited 30 years, then killed him. Sure. Right.
    7
  180. Wow. It's been a while since I've seen a posting in which every single word is incorrect.
    7
  181. Dewdrop, it's the same camera. Armstrong detached the camera from the MESA on the side of the lander, attached it to a tripod, and moved it about 40 feet to its final resting spot. You can see him do it in "APOLLO 11 16MM ONBOARD FILM 1969" at 54:45. The angle wasn't able to capture him detaching the camera from the MESA, but, you can clearly see that's where Armstrong was at the time, and then you see him moving the camera.
    7
  182. YOU SAID: "I wanna know how they figured out the "math" to get into space..... like how did they figure out how far away the moon was before ever going there?" == Several ways. I'll give you the main three. (1) Radar. (2) Laser reflections. (3) Orbital time/speed. To explain the orbital time/speed, here's the thing: if you know how long it takes for the moon to orbit Earth, then you know the distance. Any object, whether a large moon, or a small rock, will orbit at the exact same pace if it's at the same altitude. For example, if you want a circular orbit at 200 miles above Earth, the only speed you can go is about 17,100 mph. At 238,000 miles up, the circular orbital speed is about 2,300 mph. These are fixed numbers that you can calculate with orbital mechanics. If you make the object go any slower, the orbital height will begin decreasing. If you make the object go any faster, the orbital height will begin increasing. And, of course, as you increase height, it'll slow down again. Or, if you decrease height, it'll speed up. But, the point is, to have a circular orbit, it's always a fixed speed, the exact same for all objects at that same height. Note: when you get into elliptical orbits, the math gets a little more complex. But, circular orbits are enough to grasp for now. The bottom line is that if the moon takes 27.322 days to orbit the Earth, the mathematics dictates that it must be 238,000 miles up. There is no other height that would take 27.322 days to orbit. YOU SAID: "how did they figure out space was a vacuum without having gone before?" == They sent a lot of unmanned rockets up first. But, like everything else, there are additional ways to tell. First off, you don't see an atmosphere around the moon. Yet, you see it around Venus and Mars. Secondly, atmospheres produce a lot of light scatter. If the atmosphere was millions of miles high, for example, there's no way we could see distant stars as the pinpoints of light that we see. They'd be blurry blobs at best, or maybe even invisible altogether. We know that if we see stars that are lightyears away, it's because there's almost no matter between us and those stars. Thirdly, math. We know the pressure at sea level. We know the pressure at 10,000 feet. We know the pressure at 30,000 feet. We know the pressure at 80,000 feet. We know what the atmosphere is made of. So, we can use our understanding of atmospheric pressure to determine the height of the atmosphere, and extrapolate the pressure at 50 miles up, 100 miles up, etc. And, with unmanned rockets, we can confirm that before ever sending people. YOU SAID: "how did they know what kind of spacesuit to wear?" == I don't understand this question. They needed one that was air tight. Beyond that, you'd need to elaborate more about what you're attempting to ask, because this is far too vast of a topic to answer such a generic question.
    7
  183. Except I've told you before that you're wrong. But, you keep repeating the same garbage.
    7
  184. People bring up the surface temperatures every single day. But, none of you people understand it. You are quoting the lunar high noon temperature. There was no Apollo mission that was on the moon at high noon. Why do you people believe NASA when they give you the high noon temperature, then disbelieve NASA when they say that they landed at the lunar dawn (long before it was that hot)? You accept what NASA says when it's convenient, and you reject what NASA says when it goes against your predetermined conclusion. Why?
    7
  185. Wow!! How amazingly convincing. A discussion was discussed about the discussion and the conclusion from the discussion about somebody in Europe is that it never happened!!! Yup, that solves it.
    7
  186. Yes, someone is standing in the middle. Yes, they are somewhat see-through. Those old vidicons got the "burn-in" effect pretty quickly.
    7
  187. Really? You think Aldrin said he never went to the moon? You're not just intentionally taking quotes out of context? Really? So, Aldrin admits that he was involved with the biggest fraud in human history, and nope, nobody cares, no investigations, no trials, no senate inquiries, no press coverage, nothing. Now, can that be because SANE people know that Aldrin never said any such thing? Or, is that because that YOU somehow uniquely noticed these "confessions" that nobody else notices?
    7
  188. Yes, and in the very sentence before that, he clarified that he was talking about the sensitive electronics on Orion. Funny you left that out, huh? You do know that modern electronics are literally trillions of times (not exaggerating) more sensitive to ionic radiation than Apollo computers were, right? And, in 2014, they ran the test Smith was talking about in that video. Also, dewdrop, you have always made it very clear that you don't understand a lick about Apollo, and you're making it clear again now. They sent people through that region 18 times (9x to the moon and back). Not 6 times, like you claim. All you're doing is making it painfully obvious (for the millionth time) that you know nothing about the topic you're blindly rejecting, and the best you can muster is to intentionally take words out of context from a decade old video made for children. Bravo!
    7
  189. Well, personally, I think she was making "public beach" content, but got reported, and was trying to cry her way out of her millionth arrest before they would look her up and find all of her open warrants. "Public beach" content doesn't work very well from her car.
    7
  190. "Uh huh, uh huh, uh huh, you see, I believe (somewhat)": Sorry, but the "uh huh uh huh" doesn't exactly come across as intellectually honest. It sounds more like you reject the moon landings, but, you're making a half-hearted attempt to pretend to be open minded. A bit of a critique here: if you actually want to sound like you're asking honest questions, drop the "uh huh uh huh" stuff, and just ask what you need to ask. "Lunar surveillance satellites haven't even produced clear focused pictures" (and the other stuff you wrote): There are many reasons, but, I'll give you the top 4: 1) You seem to confuse distance with resolution. Yes, you can see distant galaxies, but can't see the Apollo stuff on the moon. Distance isn't the issue, resolution is the issue. You can see a plane flying a mile above you, and you can even zoom in a lot with a telescope. But, can you see a paramecium (single celled organism) stuck to its wing? No. There is no telescope in existence good enough to see that level of resolution from that distance. Same goes for the moon and the Apollo stuff. There's no telescope in existence that has that level of resolution from this distance. 2) If you want the lunar satellites (such as LRO, or the Indian or Chinese satellites that have photographed the Apollo landing sites) to be able to take higher resolution photos, ok, how would you do it? The only way is to have bigger cameras and/or lenses. Note: some of the cameras don't even have lenses, at least not in a conventional way you'd think of a lens, but, that's a story for another day, and the end result is the same thing, you'd need bigger ones. So, let's talk about LRO as an example. The payload capability for the moon rockets available at that time was about 4,000 pounds (give or take a little). And, believe me, they used every single pound they had available to them when constructing LRO. So, if you want a bigger camera in order to produce better images, what are you giving up? Some of the other instruments? The laser altimeter? The gravimeter? The neutron detector? Other instruments? Or, what are you going to cut back on? Put in a smaller communications array that isn't capable of 400GB per day? Less fuel, so the craft can't adjust its orbit as much, or make course corrections for as long? You have to give up something. You can't just say, "I want higher resolution" and leave it at that. You have to outline what you would have been willing to give up in order to install a bigger camera. And, I can assure you, the answer is that the engineers already debated all of this stuff, before putting the thing up there. Putting up a satellite is ALWAYS a balancing act of what you want, vs. what you can fit into the payload/weight. I'm sure every engineer on Earth would love to have put up a camera with a massively heavy glass lens that's 5 feet wide, but, sorry, it just doesn't fit into the weight budget. So, they compromise. The put up a camera that was good enough to do the job, and packed in a dozen different experiments/instruments, and a fuel load that would last them over a decade. 3) About Earth orbit cameras, well, first of all, the same rocket that lifts 4,000 pounds to the moon can lift a heck of a lot more weight just to Earth orbit. So, immediately, you need to understand that (all other things being equal) you're going to be able to lift a bigger satellite to Earth orbit than you can lift to the moon (which means a bigger camera). And, if all you want from it is to take photos, you can dedicate the entire satellite to just that function, and install an even bigger camera. So, it's not fair to compare an Earth orbit satellite to LRO around the moon. LRO does what it's designed to do, and the Earth orbit satellites do what they're designed to do. 4) You are sadly mistaken about the capability of Earth orbit satellites. I keep hearing this lately in growing amounts. I'm sure there's a new conspiracy video out there that I haven't found yet. But, no, there are no Earth orbit satellites that can read newspapers, or even license plates (claims made by others who say similar things you are saying). A lot of this is confused because Google says "satellite" on their map views. But, the images don't actually come from satellites. It comes from low flying airplanes. They should say "aerial" or something, but, they don't. In their FAQs, they explain where the images come from (low flying planes, balloons, etc.), but, on the actual map pages, it just says "satellite," which misleads many people. They only use real satellite images for their very far away views, not for the stuff that looks like you can see details of cars (or whatever). So, there's a great misunderstanding about what satellites can/can't see. And, historically (pre-Google), I think the defense department was perfectly happy with the world thinking they had spy satellites that could read license plates. They certainly had no motivation to tell the world that they didn't have anything close to that.
    7
  191. Michael, you do not understand how light works. Resolution is the issue. And, this is because you cannot pack photons that tightly through a lens, otherwise they interfere with each other, and the image just turns into a white blob if you try to zoom in further. And, on a more fundamental level, the photons you are wishing to capture simply don't exist at that level of resolution. It's not a matter of technology, it's just a fundamental property of light. There is no technological way around it. The only thing you can do about it is make a bigger lens, therefore capable of grabbing more photons, bringing the resolution to the level you want. "Optical resolution." Read the wiki page on it. There's a formula to calculate the lens size required to see the resolution you want. Do the math. Calculate it yourself. I'll give you the shortcut math, if you don't know how to do it yourself. To see a lunar lander on the moon from the distance of Earth would require a lens about 75 feet in diameter. You wouldn't know it was a lunar lander, because all you'd see is a dot. But, that's the size lens you'd need to see that dot. If you want to see it in about the same resolution as the LRO camera can see it (enough to make out what it is, but, still not spectacularly resolved), it would take a lens about 1/4 of a mile in diameter. The largest optical grade lens ever constructed is 5 feet in diameter, and costed $168 million to build. So, sorry, but we're a long way away from quarter mile wide lenses. And, even once you do build a lens that big, now you have atmospheric distortion to worry about. I mean, just to put this into perspective, you do know how GPS correction works, right? Winds, storms, etc., distort and move the GPS signals by 25 feet rather often, sometimes worse than that. Today, your GPS will put you in your front yard, tomorrow, while you're standing in the exact same spot, but the winds/weather changed, the GPS it puts you in your back yard. How do they deal with that? There's a local tower that sends out a "correction" signal to your GPS unit (if so equipped), that basically says "whatever you're calculating your position on, based on the satellites, that's wrong, you're actually 30 feet north of where the GPS puts you." All major cities have this "correction" broadcasted for all equipped GPSs. What's my point? The atmosphere is messing with the EM from the GPS. Do you think the atmosphere doesn't also mess with EM light? But, with light, it's worse than radio/GPS signals. There's a heck of a lot more scattering and just overall distortion. So, even once you build a quarter mile wide lens, now you've got a brand new problem of how well you're actually going to be able to resolve that stuff through an atmosphere. It's the reason why telescopes are put into space, to get around the problem of atmospheric distortion (once you require that level of resolution). I'm glad you're asking the questions about why we can't do it. But, if you think the entire world's physicists simply don't understand light as well as you do... well... there's nothing more I can really say. You didn't accuse Apollo of being fake. But, you're accusing the entirety of the physics of light of being fake.
    7
  192. Short story: it would take a lens or mirror a quarter mile in diameter to do what you're asking. And, that's without solving the problem of atmospheric distortion. We have no such lenses or mirrors.
    7
  193. Of course you can protect yourself. But, it must be self defense. You don't get to plan two murders in advance, then commit those murders, even in your own home.
    7
  194.  @spacexsays3227  So, I answered everything you asked, and provided you with some of the evidence that you didn't even know existed. You ignored every word. Now, you're spewing the same garbage?
    7
  195. Oh, it's just so nice when you open your comment with "lol" - making it abundantly clear that you have no intention whatsoever of listening to the answers to your own questions.
    7
  196. Yup, that's your "greatest proof" alright. They only joked and laughed for part of the time during a boring press conference a month after the mission, and were somber the other half. Yeah, bravo. And, this doesn't embarrass you in the slightest, that THIS is the best you people could do after 55 years? No whistleblowers. No credible evidence. No aerospace engineers who could find anything wrong. Instead, every country on Earth with a space program (including enemies) acknowledges Apollo. Tell me, dewdrop, if you were in the middle of a massive whirlwind after a moon mission, would you want be stuck in a boring scripted press conference?
    7
  197. Well, he sued this judge for setting bail against him. I can't find anywhere that says how much he sued for. He sued a prior judge for $150 billion, so, I'm assuming this one was around the same, perhaps.
    7
  198. Watch any of the hundreds of debunk videos that demonstrate quite clearly that Bart Sibrel lied throughout that entire video.
    7
  199.  @akaGort-pb6xu  Yes, there are dozens of facilities around the planet that do this every single day. Japan is the most significant of them, because it's the most geologically active spot on Earth. Their island is moving. And, they use the bounce-backs off of the Apollo laser reflectors (among other things) to measure the amount that their island is moving. The moon's orbit is more stable and understood than the plate tectonics under their feet. So, they use the moon's distance, cross compare from the readings from other reflectors on a daily basis, and use the information to deduce how much their own island is drifting. The accuracy nowadays is less than a millimeter, believe it or not.
    7
  200. Armstrong took it from the MESA (where it recorded the first steps) and mounted it to a tripod, and carried it to its final spot where it took video of the rest of the moonwalk.
    7
  201. Huh? So, what about the orbital photos from recent probes? What about all of the original mission photography? All "fake" in your mind?
    7
  202. @Christian Ball YOU SAID: "That guy is a hero." == No, he's a convicted double murderer. YOU SAID: "He’s innocent yet he’s in prison." == No, he was found guilty, and rightfully so. YOU SAID: "There was a similar home invasion situation in Oklahoma where a guy with an AR 15 defended his home from three armed intruders and they all passed. I don’t know where the home invasion where we are talking about right now happens. I don’t know which state it was in." == So, you don't know much about the facts of the case (obviously). YOU SAID: "I know Oklahoma is a stand your ground state so you have no duty to retreat if you get assaulted." == Nobody says that this man is guilty because of merely shooting them. He's guilty because he planned it in advance. YOU SAID: "By the way, who cares where he put his car? He’s allowed to put his car on his own property or public property." == It's one fact among a long series of facts that outline his premeditation. YOU SAID: "Stop blaming the innocent mugging victim." == Nope, I'm blaming a murderer for committing murder. YOU SAID: "And there is nothing suspicious about recording in your own house." == WOW!!! You are seriously stupid. He didn't just record randomly. He recorded himself rehearsing what he was going to say to the police about shooting them... BEFORE HE SHOT THEM!!! Did you not read a single word I wrote?? Are you seriously going to say there's "nothing suspicious" about recording yourself, in advance, talking about shooting someone in the left eye, then later shooting the person in her left eye?? YOU SAID: "There are hundreds of people who have security cameras in their houses. Are they suspicious?" == Yeah, if you record yourself planning a murder, then later you commit the murder. YOU SAID: "So I don’t see a problem with him recording audio." == Then you're a moron, and there's no hope for you. YOU SAID: "Also, who cares if he was waiting for the criminals to arrive with two guns? If both of the guns were legal, there is nothing illegal about that." == Wow, that's deep. If the guns were legal, they're not illegal. Your Nobel Prize is in the mail!!! YOU SAID: "This is America. We have the Second Amendment. You can own as many guns as you want as long as they are legal be purchased. There’s no limit on how many guns you can buy. If you have the money, they’re yours." == Dummy, oh dummy, are you in there?? Is there anything left of your drug addled brain?? I never said it was illegal to own multiple guns. It is, however, illegal to plan to murder people, then murder them. And, the fact that he was sitting in his house in a dark basement with two guns ready to execute two teens, is all the more evidence that he planned it. YOU SAID: "It probably would’ve been better for his case if he didn’t record. It would have probably also been better if he called the police immediately." == Ya think!!??!?! YOU SAID: "The only thing I disagree with what he did was when he didn’t call the police immediately." == Oh, but you're perfectly ok with the fact that the man recorded himself rehearsing what he was going to say to the police about shooting the teens... hours before he shot the teens?? That part is fine with you?? YOU SAID: "That’s the only thing I disagree with. Everything else was justified." == Well, thankfully for the sane people in the world, you weren't on that jury. YOU SAID: "I think he should be charged with not alerting the police immediately so maybe like a neglect charge or something. But he was definitely justified for defending his home and himself from those two criminals." == Yeah, if it happened as a surprise, of course. If anybody comes into my house as a surprise, and might be armed, and is there to rob/rape/kill/whatever, I'm emptying my clip. But, that doesn't mean that I get to sit there and set a trap, rehearse what I'm going to do ahead of time, even naming the exact place I intend on shooting the intruder ("in the left eye" - like this psychopath did), then shoot the intruder in the left eye, and then pretend I was just defending my house. YOU SAID: "I honestly have no idea why you are interested in defending criminals instead of the innocent mugging victim but at least those two criminals won’t be bugging anybody anymore. 😂" == I won't weep for the criminal teens. But, to me, this is a lot like gang violence. It's criminal vs. criminal. This man is a murderer, and he murdered a couple of useless teens who had it coming to them. But, this doesn't change the fact that he intended the murders, he planned the murders, he had a tarp ready for the bodies, he didn't call the cops until the next day, and he even waited a long time for the 2nd teen to get there after killing the first teen, so he could make sure he killed them both. He even said that he had no intention of letting them live. The girl had a chance to live after he shot her, and he specifically said in his confession that he didn't want her to live, and said that he wanted her to die, so he put one bullet into her left eye (just as he said he was going to do), and another bullet under her chin up into her brain. I'm sorry you're too stupid to understand that this is premeditated murder.
    7
  203. Huh? Who ever said we can't figure it out? We know exactly how it was done.
    7
  204. Usually, it takes the nuts a few messages before they change to multiple topics and run for the hills. You're preempting that, and doing it right away, huh?
    7
  205. Which exact technology are you talking about? Don't just say "technology" as if it's supposed to mean something. Name the specific technology you think they lacked. Then, explain why none of the thousands of engineers working on that particular technology ever realized they failed so badly to make the technology actually work. Can you?
    7
  206.  @jasandraadaniels6181  Yes, it's easy to overlook the fact that the cop didn't pull the gun out until the guy had already started driving the car with the cop hanging on the side of the running boards. I didn't catch it either upon the first time watching. I thought the cop just suddenly decided to yank his gun out when there was no danger. But, yes, after watching again, I see that the guy put the truck into gear and had actually started rolling down the road before the cop pulled the gun. Yes, he stopped (for a bit) to argue with the cop. But, then, he put his foot back on the gas and leaned out the window to try to grab the gun. It completely changes your perspective when you realize that the felon put the cop's life in danger before the cop pulled the gun out.
    7
  207. So, they're liars, but, their oaths are good.
    7
  208. Um, what? Is the dirt supposed to float and never come down? What are you talking about?
    7
  209. Huh? The incident happened 4 months ago.
    7
  210. Yes, all of the network broadcasters played video animations for the first landing (played with the live audio). This is because there was no live television available onboard the craft during the landing. The craft wasn't set up for streaming live S-band video while the craft was pitching and turning. Live TV was only available if the craft was in a stable position in flight, or completely stationary on the lunar surface. It doesn't work very well with a landing craft that's flipping over, changing its angles, etc. So what? Your husband can deny the moon landings until the cows come home. It doesn't mean he's correct. Evidence dictates what's correct or not.
    7
  211. And, you think that makes sense? Sorry, but nobody forgot how it was done. Who told you such a thing? I'd love to answer the rest of your comment, but, when your first assertion is wrong right out of the gate, it's difficult to take the rest seriously.
    7
  212. Dewdrop, there have been TWO Orion missions through the belts. What in the world are you talking about?
    7
  213. What ARE you talking about? Empty space doesn't have a temperature. What EXACTLY do you think you understand about this that no aerospace engineers or physicists anywhere on Earth knows about? There are thousands of satellites up there. They work. And, I mean, even though you're wrong, um, what do you mean by "freezing" anyway? Matter is either solid (frozen), liquid (melted), or gas. So, yes, spaceships are "frozen" (so to speak). They aren't melted. And, guess what, on Earth, they're "frozen" also. They're not liquid, are they? You don't get to sit there and talk about "elementary physics and chemistry" and then butcher the living daylights out of physics and chemistry. You don't know what you're talking about.
    7
  214. So, you read all comments except for the responses to your own gibberish. Bravo!
    7
  215. Shocking. Another denier who reads and writes at a 2nd grade level. Amazing how that happens, eh?
    7
  216. Since every word I've ever written you over the years has gone in one ear and out the other, and you refuse to face reality, I'll post this message for any other dewdrop who doesn't understand Bart Sibrel's editing tricks. The clip Ronald here is complaining about is from the 23 year old "documentary" (sigh) "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" by convicted criminal taxi cab driver, Bart Sibrel. He claims he got secret video from NASA, showing Apollo 11 in low Earth orbit, while pretending to be half way to the moon. And, the rest is nothing but nonsense. Sibrel said he had the video professionally carbon dated. (You cannot carbon date film, let alone to show the date someone exposed it to light, let alone the fact that it wasn't on film in the first place, it was a TV radio broadcast, not film... yet that's what Sibrel claimed, an obvious lie.) He presented an edited clip which he claims that was taken with a round cutout over the window, making it appear like the Earth from a distance, while saying that they were only in orbit 100 miles above the Earth. This is nonsense, because, if that was the case, then the clouds should be going by the window at 17,500 mph. But, they do not. The clouds are stationary, hence, they cannot be going 17,500 mph. And, if they were only 100 miles up, stationary instead of going 17,500 mph, guess what, the only thing that'll happen is that it'll drop like a rock and re-enter the atmosphere in a massive hurry, pulling in excess of 10 Gs due to that massive deceleration from atmospheric friction. Yet, nope, the astronauts are moving around the cabin at zero-g. And, all anybody needs to do is watch the original copy of the video (not Sibrel's edited version) to know that the astronauts showed the Earth from a distance from two different windows, and it's clearly not a round cutout placed over the window (Sibrel's claim). There are a million other ways to know that Sibrel is lying. But, Ronald here is incapable of listening, as I've told him numerous times over the years. But, it doesn't matter to him. Nope, he ignores every word (as usual), and keeps on spewing the same garbage. There are videos that anybody can watch (starting with the original mission video, not the edited copy made by a criminal) which shows Ronald is wrong. But, the shortest one is "Addendum A Funny Thing Happened... (By GreaterSapien - MIRROR)." It's 4 minutes long, and very clearly shows Sibrel's dishonest editing. And, beyond any video, like I said, Sibrel CANNOT be correct, because, if the craft was in low Earth orbit, that means it's going 17,500 mph. And, if it's going 17,500 mph, then the clouds should be going by the window. They are not. Hence, they aren't in low orbit. Ronald won't accept reality, and will probably delete this message (that's what he often does when proven wrong). He deletes the message, then runs for the hills. Then, he comes back somewhere else to spew the same nonsense. At some level, he knows he's wrong, but, cannot stomach it, and won't let go of his fantasies.
    7
  217. Dewdrop, evidence is what matters, not your warped perception about what technologies do or don't do.
    7
  218. I don't understand why they're called conspiracy theorists. They're just people who hold a theory that the moon landings were a conspiracy.
    7
  219. Let me guess: a conspiracy video showed you a few seconds of the official Apollo 11 press conference, and told you the astronauts were depressed, and that it was their first press encounter after the mission, right? You never lifted a finger to look up the date of that press conference (about a month later), right? You never lifted a finger to find out everything else the astronauts were doing for all of that time, right? You never lifted a finger to watch the entire press conference, to see the astronauts joking and laughing, right? You never saw them answering every single question they were asked, right? A conspiracy video told you everything you actually know, because you're not actually studying Apollo, you're just watching anti-Apollo videos, right?
    7
  220. You even wrote it, yet still don't understand it. Dewdrop, the key phrase there is "during the period of time that we were photographing solar corona."
    7
  221. "The comms equipment required to talk from the moon back to Earth would fill a big truck never mind the videos." Yet, every single day since long before the Apollo program even began, backyard amateurs have been using their ham radio setups to do what's called a "moon bounce" or "EME" (Earth moon Earth). They aim their dishes (or Yagi) at the moon, using the moon as a radio reflector, and talk to someone half way around the Earth. If they have good equipment, they use only around 20 watts to do it. And, no, it's not the size of a truck. They sometimes use 1500 watts to make up for some of the gap if their equipment isn't quite as good. But, nonetheless, none of their equipment fills a big truck. You can read thousands of articles yourself on how to do it, what equipment you need, etc. Or, you can watch hundreds of videos on YouTube showing this to you, and you can replicate it yourself. So, if backyard amateurs can make a 20 watt radio signal bounce off of the moon and talk to someone half way around Earth (double the distance, because the signal must go to the moon and back), why do you think it would take a truck's worth of equipment to do the same if you had an unlimited budget and the best communications engineers on Earth? Did a conspiracy video tell you that it would take a truck's worth of equipment, and you just blindly believed it? How do you explain how thousands of backyard amateurs can do EME moon bounces every day, if you think it requires a truckload of equipment? "The Van Halen radiation belt?" Is this a joke? This is your edited version? Eddie died, man. Don't insult him now by dragging his name into your strange fantasies. "The excuses are feeble and shaky to say the least." Excuse 1) You're wrong because any backyard amateur can bounce radio signals off of the moon, and it doesn't take a truckload of equipment to do it. How is this "feeble or shaky"? Excuse 2) You know so little about the topic that you don't know the difference between a hard rock music band, vs. an astrophysicist. That's how little you know about the topic, and you shouldn't pretend. How is this "feeble" or "shaky"? "Moon rock given to the Netherlands are petrified wood from Earth." Yes. So what? The Dutch art museum didn't bother to authenticate it before accepting it as a donation. How does this mean Apollo was fake, in your mind? If someone donates a fake Rolex watch to an art museum, does this mean that real Rolex watches don't exist? NASA never had anything to do with that rock, dewdrop. The art museum even asked NASA about it before accepting it, and NASA said they had no record of such rock, but, they'd be happy to examine it if the art museum would send it to NASA to take a look. The art museum never did that, and instead, just blindly accepted the donation anyway. So, why should Apollo be impugned by you, on the basis of a rock that NASA had nothing to do with? The art museum's curators do not believe the rock ever came from NASA, and have kept that valueless rock as a reminder to authenticate things before accepting them. So, why should you think you know more than the very people who have that rock today?
    7
  222. And, if they had put a specialized camera on Artemis I, and if they had dropped Artemis' orbit down really close to the moon, and took pictures of the landing sites (like they did with the LRO camera), would it matter to you? You obviously reject the hundreds of LRO photos of the Apollo stuff on the moon. Why would you accept Artemis photos? Wouldn't you just label them as fake also?
    7
  223. "No real cover, just sitting in the cab of the truck"? Um, yeah. That's cover. 9mm hollow point pistol rounds do not penetrate trucks very well. They can barely even break glass. Did you see at 2:10 in this video? The driver is repeatedly shooting directly at the windshield of the police vehicle from point-blank range, and it doesn't even break the glass. Same is true in reverse. The police rounds can't penetrate any better than the bad guy's rounds.
    7
  224. Pfftt. You've had 50 years to make your case. What are you waiting for? How many more years will go by before your "secret" is revealed?
    7
  225. Now in 2022, we can't even carry 100 passengers at mach 2 for 3000 miles, because we haven't developed the necessary technology yet, therefore it's impossible that 50 years ago they made a Concorde jet (now we can only carry a couple of people at mach 1.5 for a couple hundred miles, which is 500 times less capability). Nobody will EVER be able to disprove that, so, Concorde guys: Don't reply because it's a waste of time to discuss it and because I don't engage with fraudsters.
    7
  226. Hold on here. First, you came to your conclusion. Then, you listed a bunch of silly questions. Dewdrop, if you don't understand the answers to your questions, why did you already come to your conclusion? Good gods. I know you don't actually want the answers, but, here you are: "dune buggy with full size car tires" Dewdrop, it didn't have tires at all. The only one that had tires was the Earth training version. The ones on the moon didn't, and had spun wire mesh wheels. "packed into that little capsule with the astronauts?" Dewdrop, nobody ever packed the rover into the capsule with astronauts. The rovers were attached to the outside of the landers. "Give me a break." But, dewdrop, nothing you've said thus far has been correct. "Did it kick up dust?" Yes, dewdrop. "How far did they go in it?" Depends on the mission. Are you even aware that there were three of them taken to the moon on three missions? You're using singular terms, so, I don't think you even know how many there were. But, the answer is that they drove between about 16 miles and 22 miles, depending on which mission you're asking about. "What was the need for it?" Is this a joke? They wanted to visit sites that were miles away from the landers. Do you expect them to walk with all of that gear, samples, tools, core drills, seismic charges, shovels, etc.? I would think the purpose is obvious. "The fuel to weight ratio calculations must have been a fantasy" Sure, to you. You couldn't calculate the weight of a Pop Tart if your life depended on it. Aerospace engineers, however, do those calculations all the time. "The audacity to throw that in is ridiculous." Well, they had upgraded the Saturn V to accommodate the extra weight by giving the F1 engines an extra 25,000 pounds of thrust (total of 125,000 more pounds of thrust across 5 engines). They extended the engine bell of the landers by 10 inches to increase the efficiency, and also changed the descent profile. Do you know what any of those things are? Do you have the slightest clue about aerospace engineering? Are you even reading this? Can you prove you want answers to your questions, and you're reading the answers, by responding with "green" at the top of your reply (if you even make one, which, likely you will not, because, again, I don't think you want the answers to your own questions)? "That's not even counting all of the other things you could point out." What? More things you don't understand? Yes, I'm quite sure that the list of things you don't know anything about is quite long. So what? Are you honestly saying that Apollo was fake BECAUSE you don't understand it? How dare you accuse thousands of people of being criminals who would spend their lives in prison... because you don't understand the lunar rovers? You named NOTHING of substance. All you did was ask questions. But, you had already come to your conclusions before you got the answers. Oh, you're a real hero alright.
    7
  227. Dewdrop, all you're doing now is proving that you haven't got the slightest understanding of the topic you're blindly rejecting. The lander didn't come back to Earth. What didn't you understand about the fact that I told you that it only had to go 62 miles up?
    7
  228. Aww, aren't you sweet. You know, while you're here, I wanted to tell you about a bridge I have. You might be interested in purchasing? I mean, anybody who believes Inside Edition must certainly be interested in bridges also, right? The arrest had absolutely nothing to do with the suicide. Arrest = July 2021. Suicide = March 2022. Arrest video made public = November 2023. Sorry if Inside Edition didn't tell you that. Got some viral videos to push out, after all. Accuracy doesn't matter.
    7
  229. I know absolutely nothing about how light and optics work. So, when I sit here and expect optics to do something impossible, I can't possibly just admit I'm wrong. Instead, I will preemptively declare that anybody who tries to teach me about optics and light is a minion of Satan. That way, I can continue to pretend to know things I don't, and I can ignore all input.
    7
  230. "label anybody who questions the reality of the moon landings as conspiracy theorist!" No. Questions are fine. The problem is that 99.9% of the people asking these questions have absolutely no interest in the answers. People like you have already come to your conclusion long before you ever asked a question. And, what would you call someone who holds the theory that the moon landings were a conspiracy? What's inaccurate about the term "conspiracy theorist"?
    7
  231. Michael H. YOU SAID: ""Well mapped"? With all the major advancements in technology, a shitty map, with big arrows pointing to the supposed objects, and captions explaining what we are supposed to be looking at is not good enough!" == Fine. The hundreds upon hundreds of photos are fully available without the arrows captions, you know. They put the captions on there for those who aren't sure what everything is. But, what are you talking about? How does the presence of arrows and captions change what's in those photos? You can still clearly see the landers, the rovers, the rover tracks, etc. I do not understand your complaint. YOU SAID: "Q satellite should have been put in orbit around the moon a long time ago" == 2009 wasn't long enough ago for you? What's your exact complaint here? Your complaint is that they put the LRO up there during the wrong year? What? Tell me, jackass, which year would be acceptable to you? It's only acceptable to put that satellite up there during a year YOU approve of, otherwise it's fake? What? YOU SAID: "with the ability to zoom in on those footprints" == Bull. Fucking. Shit. This is called shifting the goalposts. When they put the first laser reflector on the moon, you conspiratards said, "not good enough, we want actual photography to confirm it." When Spain photographed the SIVB dumping its fuel around the moon, you conspiratards said, "not good enough, we want something that actually confirms Apollo on the lunar surface." When Japan put up JAXA's Selene that confirmed the Apollo surface photography in 3D, you conspiratards said, "not good enough, we want something with enough resolution to actually see the landers." When LRO sent back hundreds of photos of the actual landers, rovers, foot tracks, rover tracks, experiment packages, etc., you conspiratards say, "not good enough, we want to see the footsteps in more detail." Bull. Fucking. Shit. If they had resolution enough to see every grain of lunar dust in every footprint ever made, you idiotic conspiratards would just say, "not good enough." You're assholes. Every one of you. YOU SAID: "and send high resolution pictures back to earth! But no, they won't dare do that!" == They ARE sending extremely high resolution photos back to Earth, many gigs worth per day. But, not only is there a resolution problem, but a bandwidth problem. Those images they are sending back are taking up about 400 Gigs per day. You cannot even get that from a 4G wireless connection. But, they've managed to use some really huge radio receivers to get that kind of bandwidth from the moon, and they're using it to collect as much imagery as they possibly can. You don't get to sit there in your ignorance and say, "not good enough" until YOU invent a better camera, and better radio transmitters/receivers to transfer that kind of data 238,000 miles. Good luck with that, asshole. YOU SAID: "There are no footprints on the moon." == Why? Because you didn't see them in enough detail? How much detail is required before you believe it? We all know the answer is you will NEVER believe it, no matter how much evidence is presented. You're an asshole. You spit in the faces of the 400,000 people who worked on mankind's greatest technological achievement in history, based on your own pure ignorance. Nobody likes assholes like you. Nobody.
    7
  232. Video CGI in 1972? Oh, you're a real genius.
    7
  233. Here's the thing: it's pretty clear that you've only got about 1/2 of a grasp on the geometry here. The moon is tidally locked with Earth. But, Earth is not tidally locked with the moon. The Earth still spins "under" the moon. All lunar landings happened on the side of the moon that faces Earth. But, the angle depends on how far from the "center" of the moon that the landing took place. If you stand on the lunar surface, looking up at Earth (assuming you're on the side that faces Earth), the Earth will never move very much in the sky. The moon has a 5 or 10 degree "wobble," so, yeah, the Earth will actually move a little bit in the sky, but, not by much. But, yeah, if you're on the moon, you will see the Earth rotate once every 24 hours (close enough, not exact), but, with the exception of rotating, the Earth is not going to move very much in the moon's sky. As for when it's night or day, you've confused Earth angles with sun angles. A picture is worth 1000 words, so, please just go watch a video on the topic.
    7
  234. Pfffttt. In your other thread, you said you've been studying the law for years. Yet, here you are, misunderstanding it, yet again. A cop's obligation is to determine if there's enough evidence to make an arrest. Then, it's up to the courts. Yes, if the store employee says someone left without paying, and then that person refuses to cooperate or present a receipt, yes, that's enough evidence to make the arrest. Then it's up to the courts. And, that's where they can prove or disprove anything they want. The cop isn't the judge and jury, and doesn't need to prove anything. The cop just decides if there's REASONABLE SUSPICION that a crime took place. It's up to the court system to determine guilt or innocence.
    7
  235.  @australiaplus9629  So what? The arrest video was a publicly owned video, and is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. And, it wasn't posted anywhere until 1.5 years after she was dead.
    7
  236.  @marcuserectus2442  What massive ignorance. You should be ashamed, not proud. YOU SAID: Amazing photos." == Yes. YOU SAID: "Magic film." == No. YOU SAID: "Incredible camera." == Why? YOU SAID: "Funny how all pictures are all focused with the correct aperture setting." == Bullshit. Absolute bullshit. There were thousands of bad photos. That's why they tended to take multiple shots of the same thing, just in case one of the photos didn't turn out, they'd have another attempt that might come out better. You clearly have not looked at the 5700 photos from the libraries taken from the lunar surface, and thousands more taken from orbit. Tons and tons of them were horrible. Out of focus. Out of frame. Double exposures. Over-exposed. Under-exposed. You name it. There was even a series of photos from Apollo 16, hundreds upon hundreds of photos taken in a row, that were trashed because some lunar dust/dirt had gotten inside the camera when they switched film rolls, and literally every single subsequent photo, hundreds of them, had huge black smears of crap all over the photos because of the dust in the camera. Hundreds of ruined photos just from that one issue alone. Thousands of bad photos in total across all of the missions. You later in this thread said, "The evidence is the "Official NASA Photos"" in response to someone asking what your evidence was. And, you clearly haven't viewed those photos yourself, otherwise you wouldn't be making this outlandish claim about all pictures being perfect. This is what I hate about you people. You sit there and listen to others who are just as clueless as you are, making stupid claims like "all of the photos were perfect, therefore Apollo was fake." Meanwhile, none of you idiots ever fact-check each other. You pretend to be skeptical. You accuse the sane people of being non-skeptical. But, you don't know what skepticism means. Sorry, dummy, but skepticism doesn't mean blindly rejecting anything that goes against your predetermined conclusions, and blindly accepting any claim that supports your delusions. You very clearly have never actually looked at the library of photos that you claim is your "evidence" that all of the photos were perfect. YOU SAID: "Magic film that can withstand 2 trips thru the Van Allen radiation belt without any damage." ==Magic, no. But, sure, why wouldn't it withstand the Van Allen belts? YOU SAID: "But the radiation is strong enough to burn up a Geiger Counter." == Bullshit. Absolute bullshit. You have no understanding of this topic. A Geiger counter HAS been sent into the belts (back before they switched to better equipment to measure radiation), and no, it didn't burn up. YOU SAID: "Even the X Ray machine at the airport will ruin Kodak film." == Well, dummy, it's a good thing that the Van Allen radiation belt doesn't consist of X-Rays then, right? It's a good thing that the Van Allen belts consist of ionized particles, not X-Rays, right? You do know that the word "radiation" is a blanket term to encompass many varieties of energy emission, right? Radio waves are radiation, you know. Sound is radiation. Ions are radiation. It's not all about high energy neutrons and gammas, you know. It's also low energy stuff like alphas. YOU SAID: "Too many anomalies for me." == Yeah, the anomaly is that the only people saying this crap you're saying are the ones with absolutely no education on the topic. There's a reason that there aren't any radiobiologists making your claims. There's a reason that there are no particle physicists making your claims. There's a reason nobody at Kodak made your claims. And, I mean, good grief, why wouldn't any of Kodak's competitors make those claims either? It would have been a chance for them to trash Kodak's name in the industry, by pointing out that they participated in "the fraud" of Apollo, just by pointing out that the film couldn't have survived the journey, therefore Kodak is in on "the lie" also. But, nope, not a single one of them said a single thing. Nobody. Not a single film manufacturer anywhere in the world agrees with you. YOU SAID: ""The Effects of Space Radiation on Flight Film" NASA Contractor Report 188427 - 19960007133.pdf 5.35MB" == So, your "evidence" is a completely irrelevant and unrelated report about film from completely different missions with completely different craft, which didn't even go through the belts, and was exposed to a completely different type of radiation?? Once again, you are making it clear that you are not reading your own "evidence" that you are presenting. You tried saying that the Apollo photo library supported your other "argument" (pile of nonsense). You hadn't actually looked a the photo library, you just expect everyone else to look for you. And, now you're citing a radiation report that had absolutely nothing to do with Apollo, as support for your anti-Apollo viewpoint, and you clearly didn't read that report either. What a complete and total jackass you are. Nobody likes people like you. Nobody. Absolutely nobody.
    7
  237. Who was the MILLIONTH person in these comments to ask the same question? (YOU!!!)
    7
  238. So, what's your excuse for "their"?
    7
  239. For me, it was the moment he said that he wanted to generate an atmosphere on Mars by exploding nuclear bombs over the poles. That was my first clue that this was a guy who had no understanding of the topics he talked about. I first heard him talk about this 10 years ago, and I couldn't believe it was still getting traction about 6 years ago. It was clear that the public was drinking the Kool-Aid.
    7
  240. The scammers don't need to buy phone numbers. It's remarkably easy to spoof any number. Tell me any phone number you want, and I can call you from that number within about 10 minutes.
    7
  241.  @cabininthewoods7326  That's a joke, right? Do you REALLY think scammers give money to congress? That's one of the most ridiculous things I've seen in a long time.
    7
  242. "You cannot take such perfect photos" Huh? Have you looked at the photo archive yourself? Or, did you just blindly trust a conspiracy video when they said the photos were perfect? How about that series of hundreds of photos on Apollo 16, where every single one of them was ruined by a huge smudge of junk across the picture? No? The conspiracy video didn't show you those hundreds of photos? How about the approximately a thousand photos that were out of frame, bad focus, blurry, underexposed, overexposed, lens flared, etc.? There are some so bad that you really have no idea what you're even looking at, full of nothing but blurry blobs. No, your favorite conspiracy video didn't show you those? They just said that the photos were all too perfect, and you just blindly trusted them? "with the crude camera they allegedly took." So, the Hasselblad electric cameras lined with silver were "crude"? You mean those cameras with the 70mm film, which still today has better resolution than any digital camera ever built? Those cameras? That film?
    7
  243. Dewdrop, how many different countries need to find the Apollo landers on the lunar surface before you believe it?
    7
  244. Violation of rights? What does that have to do with anything? Her rights were never violated. The store is entitled to ask for proof of payment. The cop is entitled to ask for it also. She doesn't have to give it to the cop if she doesn't want, but, that's her own choice, and she must be prepared for the consequences if she doesn't. She certainly has a right to remain silent, but, that doesn't include failing to identify herself. And, she doesn't have a right to resist arrest. So, why do you even bring up rights violations? What rights were violated here?
    7
  245. Well, that's one way to announce to the world that you have never looked at the photos. There were about 7,000 photos taken on the lunar surface. A couple of thousand of them were pretty bad. Hundreds of them were so bad that you couldn't even tell what was in frame. Who told you they were all perfect? Was it a conspiracy video?
    7
  246. Ashish Kulkarni Sarah doesn't answer any question that challenges his own bullshit beliefs.  He never admits when he's wrong.  He will tapdance and avoid dealing with the fact that this woman resisted arrest.  And, he's apparently not aware that a court can dismiss charges, and/or reduce charges, even when someone is guilty.  In his mind, it's all the cop's fault.  That's how far gone his brain is.
    6
  247. What "research" have you done? Watching conspiracy videos doesn't count, you know.
    6
  248. And, you'd believe that, why? What possible reason would you have to think that any technology was "accidentally lost"?
    6
  249. You think that Neil Armstrong (spelled correctly) admitted that they didn't go to the moon... and what? Nothing happens? Just some cranks on YouTube post about it? No senate inquires. No press. No nothing. Just some YouTube comment? How far gone are you? What did this to you? How can any sane person believe such a thing? (I answered my own question.)
    6
  250. Photoshop from the 1960s-1970s? Oh, you're a real genius.
    6
  251. Are you under the impression that anybody can take you seriously? A serious person would say, "I don't understand how the camera worked, can someone explain it?" A crackpot says, "who did they leave behind on the moon?" Dewdrop, don't pretend to ask questions while simultaneously making it 100% clear that you don't care about the answers.
    6
  252.  @jbrown7063  But, what didn't you understand about what I wrote? The arrest video wasn't made public until 1.5 years after she died. So, why would you make a comment like "she would still be alive" (if not for the release of the arrest video)? Good grief, it's like none of you people can read, and you all just keep buying into silly nonsense.
    6
  253. It's amazing to behold. The conspiracy videos make a claim. You just swallow it and regurgitate it. Nobody who has ever actually looked at the Apollo photos for themselves would ever make that claim, because there are dozens and dozens of photos pointed directly into the sun. There's video pointed directly at the sun also (on the later missions after they hardened the camera to be able to do it). But, a conspiracy video told you this never happened, and you just obediently repeat that silly claim here.
    6
  254. So, just out of curiosity, do you think the Apollo 8 mission to the moon was real, because it happened under Johnson, but Apollo 10 and afterward were fake, because they happened under Nixon?
    6
  255. Dewdrop, Apollo sent 9 manned missions to the moon, 6 of which landed. Not once or twice. You clearly have absolutely no understanding of the topic. Stop pretending you do.
    6
  256. Please put that on every job application you ever fill out. It makes the hiring process so much easier.
    6
  257. WRITE IT UP FOR PEER REVIEW, DEWDROP!!!! How many times must I ask you why you aren't writing up any of this massive "knowledge" of yours in the scientific journals? Why do you NEVER answer this?
    6
  258. "The easiest way to debunk the moon landing is to look at where the earth is." Huh? The Earth was always in the correct position in every photograph ever taken from the moon. "The moon is in a gravitational lock with earth." I think you mean tidally locked, but, um, ok, "gravitational lock" is close enough. "We can never see the dark side of the moon." Hilarious!!! So, a "new moon" isn't the dark side, in your mind? Really? Dewdrop, we don't live on the sun, we live on the Earth. The moon still rotates relative to the sun, and the moon doesn't have a "dark side." "So looking from the moon surface, earth will ALWAYS be directly overhead." Well, if you are talking about the "center" of the moon from our perspective on Earth, yes. But, the further away from the "center" that they landed, the lower in the sky the Earth would be. If they had landed at one of the poles (they didn't, but, just hypothetically), then the Earth would be on the horizon. The moon is a sphere, not a pancake. ""earth-rise" is impossible" Dewdrop, the Earthrise photos are from the command modules that were circling the moon. "because the moon does not rotate" Dewdrop, the moon rotates once every 655 hours. Due to the movement around the sun, however, this results in a "day" (sunrise to sunrise) of about 708 hours. You don't know what you are talking about.
    6
  259.  @charliebackman7968  That's where evidence matters. One side has mountains of evidence, backed by numerous countries and their various space agencies. The other side has a bunch of nonsense spewed by barely literate taxi cab drivers and warehouse workers, trying to produce arguments that fall apart with the slightest amount of scrutiny.
    6
  260. Frank, it's a side effect of this amazingly ironic dynamic that exists in these deniers. They profess their "skepticism" (sigh), and they criticize all of the sane people in the world, accusing us of just blindly believing anything we're told. Meanwhile, in reality, THEY are the ones blindly believing what THEY are told. Case in point: Apollo Detectives. Literally every claim they make is easily proven wrong. Every single one. But, the dewdrops gobble it up anyway, blindly believing every word, while pretending that the rest of the world blindly swallows anything WE see.
    6
  261. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake. "why is it so difficult for NASA to show us clear, HD images of the moon's surface" They do. The LRO images of the lunar surface are massively huge files, with far beyond "HD" resolution. But, they zoom them in such that each pixel represents about 1.5 feet. If you go look at the original files, you'll see that they are tremendously high definition, but, it would take you probably around 20-30 minutes to comb through them to zoom in on the lunar lander and rover tracks and stuff. "when they can get better quality images of Saturn" Really? You think they could see a lunar lander from this distance? You clearly do not understand how big Saturn is, and how small a lunar lander is. "Interesting to note that (as of Nov 2023) Google's AI just revealed that NASA's images of the moonlanding were likely faked while the images of the unmanned Chinese lunar lander were real." Sure. Right. Just how far out to sea has your mind set sail?
    6
  262. Sound conducts through any physical medium, including into the suits and to the microphone that way. This is well understood.
    6
  263. You cannot see dim stars in the background if the cameras are set up for brightly lit objects in the foreground. It's hard enough with film, but with TV/video, it's even more difficult. I think you don't understand that, just because the sky is black, doesn't mean that it's nighttime. It's daytime, and it's very bright out.
    6
  264. Good grief. What is it about YouTube comments that makes so many people want to pretend to know things they do not know? 1) The store is entitled to ask for proof of payment. No, they do not have to check security tapes and inventory/transaction logs first. That would be impractical, because by the time they do that, the person is long gone. 2) The cop's duty is to respond and investigate when the store employee says someone might have committed a crime, and to stop the woman and question her. 3) The woman doesn't have to show a receipt to the cop if she doesn't want. However, she is required by law to identify herself (which she refused to do). If she wants to fight a crusade by not showing her receipt, that's fine, but, she must cooperate with a police investigation, and is not allowed to resist arrest. 4) There is no legal requirement that a cop be correct 100% of the time. The cop's job is to determine if there's enough evidence to make an arrest. It's not the cop's job to check security tapes, or go through register logs, or check store inventory records. All of that stuff comes later. An arrest isn't a conviction. That's what the court system is for. That's when all of the evidence can be gathered and presented, and the prosecutor can decide whether to pursue a conviction or not. I fail to understand why sooooooo many people think that the process is to provide 100% proof at the side of the road, as if the cop is the judge and jury, and the side of the road is the courtroom. We don't want cops to be judge and jury. We don't want the side of the road to be a courtroom. This woman hired a high profile attorney, and still lost her case. They sued the store for $50,000, and the court threw the case out, with prejudice. Her attorney never even filed a case against the police, because there's no case. If this woman had complied with the investigation, identified herself, didn't resist arrest, etc., everything here would be a different story. But, she didn't.
    6
  265. Huh? What about James Van Allen himself? "The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight. The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months' duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure. A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week. However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable. -- James A. Van Allen"
    6
  266. Sorry, all you saw was Sibrel's edited version. You can go watch the original video that will instantly prove him wrong. Or, you can simply realize that the clouds aren't moving in that video. If they were in low orbit, like Sibrel pretends, then the clouds should be zooming by the window at 17,500 mph. But, they don't. You can go watch "Addendum A Funny Thing Happened... (By GreaterSapien - MIRROR)" or a million other videos that demonstrate that Sibrel was lying to you. Or, you can just figure it out yourself (if you actually tried).
    6
  267. Really? So, the 450,000 people designed, built, and supported craft and rockets that were capable of going to the moon, but, a secret 100 people decided not to use it? Instead, they decided to fake it? Really? And, none of those 100 people ever came clean? Tell me, what did the 100 people know that the 449,900 people didn't know? And, how did those 100 people manage to bluff the radar and radio telescope tracking done by dozens of countries (including enemies)? How'd they also manage to get India and China to "fake" photographs of the Apollo landers on the moon in the last couple of years? And, how'd they get Arizona State University professors, engineers, and students, to "fake" hundreds of LRO photos of the landing sites for the past 15 years?
    6
  268. Doubtful she felt any humiliation. I mean, with her mile long arrest record, prison term for stealing cars, failures to appear in court, drug and alcohol charges galore, open warrants for her arrest, yeah, she should have been pretty used to those cuffs by then. And, let's face reality here: her landlord said that her profession was, well, one of those words that isn't allowed on YouTube comments, it involves lots of cash transactions with typically male clients. Yeah, I seriously doubt there's any shame there... especially given that nobody saw the arrest video until long after she was dead.
    6
  269. Huh? You are aware of Artemis, right?
    6
  270. "then randomly gathered rocks and no calculation needed for the return?" No, they had very specific containers to put the rocks in, and had a very good idea about the weight that those rocks would be once they filled the containers. It wasn't random. And, although it wouldn't be 100% accurate, it was close enough within the margin of error. Think of it this way: each astronaut himself weighed a little bit different from the next. There was a maximum weight (I think it was 170 pounds, but, I could be off, maybe it was 180), but not all astronauts weighed the same. Yes, they controlled every pound, but, there were areas that just had a bit wider margin of error, such as the astronaut's weight, and the variable rock weight. "I also feel that with the size of the visible moon from earth, and the photos of earth from the moon should be much larger by comparison." Your feelings don't matter. All that matters is the math. Go right ahead. Calculate the angular size, and cross compare against the lenses used, film size, relative distance to objects in frame, etc. But, I'll warn you ahead of time, each and every time one of the nuts makes the same claim you're making, and they're challenged to do the math, they either simply don't know how to do math, or, they do the math then never say another word (because the math doesn't come back in their favor). Sorry, but, "too big" or "too small" or "I feel like" or whatever else you want to say... just doesn't cut it. If you want to accuse the 450,000 people who worked on Apollo of all participating in a massive global fraud, you'll have to do better than your feelings. "The radiation from the Van Allen belt seems to bring questions to my mind as well." Well, James Van Allen himself answered this a million times over. As have countless other cosmologists, radiobiologists, astrophysicists, etc. "You go to the dentist and they drape a lead vest around you and leave the room to take the image. If the astronauts could stand one hour of exposure to that intense radiation, that would be an achievement in itself." Huh? Are you under the impression that there are Xrays in the Van Allen belts? What? Do you say this same stuff about every form of radiation? Sound is radiation. Do you drape yourself in lead to shield against sound radiation, or, do you use one of those rooms lined with foam rubber? Light is radiation. Do you cover yourself with lead? Or, do you use plastic sunglasses and sunscreen lotion? You aren't under the impression that all radiation is the same, are you? You don't really think you shield all of the various types of radiation the same way, do you? Have you ever stepped foot into a university physics classroom? You wouldn't be getting your entire "education" by watching conspiracy videos, would you? "I don’t know enough to say whether or not they went to the moon, but I know enough to say that if they did go it was a miracle that they lived through it." No, sorry, you do NOT know enough to say much of anything on the topic. You are as qualified to speak about this topic as a 4 year old is qualified to teach calculus.
    6
  271. Look up Hollywood director T. Patrick Murray. He made the mocumentary called "Shooting Stanley Kubrick" with actor Tom Mayk playing Kubrick, which you thought was real.
    6
  272. He brought to you the entire branches of science and independent nations that confirmed Apollo with radar and radio telescopes tracking them. You bring a couple of YouTube conspiracy characters. Oh, bravo. That's fantastic. Tell me, if 200 doctors tell you that you have some sort of disease, and you need an aggressive treatment program... are you going to fly off to the Philippians to pay some local scam artist to perform "psychic surgery" on you, and tell you you're cured in 5 minutes? That's a pretty equal comparison here.
    6
  273. You're not the brightest bulb, eh?
    6
  274. Dewdrop, there were 9 manned missions to the moon, 6 of which landed. If that's not going back to the moon, what is?
    6
  275. My a good sheep? Shocker, the denier reads and writes like a 2nd grader. Who would have ever guessed?
    6
  276. Nope. It's not animation. It's the video of the SIVB separating from the 2nd stage of the Saturn V.
    6
  277. If history doesn't play out exactly like YOU demand it should, Apollo didn't happen. Oh, you make a lot of sense.
    6
  278. Because it was daytime.
    6
  279. Well, since she didn't steal, they dropped all of the charges, even though she was guilty of everything else besides stealing. It's very difficult to get a jury to convict people of obstruction, failing to ID, obfuscation, resisting, etc., if the original theft charge gets dropped. Technically, she should have still been found guilty of those things. But, juries tend to override stuff like that, so, they just dropped all of the charges.
    6
  280. Well, that would directly contradict their own acknowledgement of Apollo by photographing the landing sites with their Chang'e orbiter. They publicly acknowledged Apollo years ago. It wouldn't make much sense to backtrack.
    6
  281. Which batteries, and why? And, ironically, the main battery manufacturer, Eagle-Picher, is one of the few contractors during the Apollo program that still exists today. They'll gladly build you similar batteries, and you can order them, and use them to disprove Apollo. They're only about $600,000 each. And, what are you doing on YouTube? If you have a smoking gun like this, something that deniers have been seeking for decades, why are you not writing it up for the science and engineering journals? You think a YouTube comment is the place to reveal this massive discovery?
    6
  282.  @Runescapian0wner  What ARE you talking about? The store employee told the cop that she thought the woman went through without paying. Yes, that is enough reasonable suspicion of a crime for the cop to perform an investigation and stop her. The "solid evidence" doesn't come until the prosecutor decides whether to put this in front of a court or not. The court system is where guilt or innocence is proven, not at the side of the road. All that happens at the side of the road is that the cop needs to determine if there's enough evidence for reasonable suspicion and probable cause. There's nothing that says the cop needs to be correct 100% of the time. If a reasonable person can say, "yes, I suspect a crime may have happened," then yes, the arrest is justified. And, between the store employee telling the cop that she thought the woman didn't pay, then the woman's non-cooperative behavior, and her refusal to identify herself (which, by law, she is required to do), yes, that's more than enough justification for the arrest. This "solid evidence" comes later. Once again, I have no idea why videos like this bring out parades of people with absolutely no understanding of this process, yet, pretend to understand it anyway. As for "opening a door for a lawsuit," people can sue for just about anything. It doesn't mean they'll win. And, in this case, the woman lost her lawsuit badly, despite having a high profile attorney representing her. They sued the store, and the court threw the case out with prejudice. And, even the woman's own high profile attorney knew better than to try to sue the police, because they did absolutely nothing wrong. What do you think you know about this case, that her own attorney didn't know?
    6
  283. "This fake video proves how fake moon landing was." Huh? So, the movie "Titanic" showing a fake Titanic proves that the real Titanic never existed. Right? That's basically your logic here? If someone makes a CGI version of [whatever], this means that the real event never happened. Sure. Your Nobel Prize is in the mail. "man cannot go to the moon....how come ?" Because the Apollo program was retired decades ago. All of the necessary equipment and skilled manpower is long gone. But, guess what, dewdrop, there's this program called "Artemis" that was approved by congress in 2019, and they are building back that capability. I mean, do you expect to be able to do the same things you can do before a program is retired? Can you buy a supersonic airliner ticket to fly 100 people for 3000 miles at mach 2 after the Concorde program was shut down? Can you hop into a mach 7 airplane after the 1950s X15 was retired? No? Why are there no mach 7 airplanes today? Why are there no supersonic airliners that can go mach 2 for 3000 miles today? Why is it that the best we can muster today is a little 1-2 person plane that can go mach 1.5 for a couple hundred miles before it needs to slow down? Was the Concorde fake?
    6
  284. What else do you think is supposed to happen when they handle a flag? It's supposed to be stiff as a board because there's no air?
    6
  285. The camera was mounted on the MESA (side of the lander). Armstrong later took the camera off of the MESA, put it on the tripod, and moved it to its final resting spot. It's all on video from the other camera inside the lander looking out on the lunar surface. Go watch it.
    6
  286. Huh? A couple of the main Apollo Detectives are in this movie, right? They don't know what they're talking about. Why would you believe a single word they say?
    6
  287. Grumman didn't even build the rovers, dewdrop. GM and Boeing did. As usual, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
    6
  288. Is it equally interesting to you that we could fly 100 passengers at mach 2 for 3000 miles across the Atlantic, but can't do it today?
    6
  289. Yes, he should have done the exact same thing!!! He should have called the police to come there that day to catch them in the act. I don't know what you think happened here, but, what you're saying makes no sense.
    6
  290. "Roni" in Hebrew means "meth addict."
    6
  291. Yes, the 70mm Hasselblad photos are still far better than any digital camera yet created, roughly by a factor of 10x better than the absolute best digital camera created to date. Eventually (maybe 10 more years?), digital cameras will finally overtake the 70mm film. But, not quite yet.
    6
  292. Huh? They took 110,000 photos of the moon during Apollo, half of which are on the other side. The Soviets actually took the first photos of the other side. Japan mapped out the entire moon, including the other side, in 2008. LRO has been up there for 13 years mapping the moon with a resolution down to 1.5 feet per pixel, including the other side. How much more do you want?
    6
  293. Yes, that was rather outstanding. But, life isn't without its ironies. Ironically, maybe she'd still be alive today, if that cop had simply arrested her, and she ended up in the relative "safety" of prison. I'm not saying the cop did the wrong thing, or that I blame him, but, yeah, one of those terrible ironies.... Where was your god when she died? Watching over the cop instead?
    6
  294. Sound doesn't merely work in air. It works in metal. It works in gloves. Sound just needs a physical medium in some form. A vacuum doesn't carry sound. But, the hammer into the glove into the suit does. And, inside the suit, there was air (oxygen) to carry the sound to the microphones. The microphones were audio triggered. Sometimes, when they hit a rock lightly, it wasn't enough to open the microphone. But, the harder and more repetitive hammer hits will open the microphone and keep it open. This was first noticed on Apollo 12. The astronauts were surprised by how much they could hear. Apollo 11 didn't do any major hammering, so we didn't hear those sounds. But, from Apollo 12 forward, yes, they heard hammering through their suits.
    6
  295. An electronic photographer, decades before the first digital camera ever hit the market? Top secret project that you know nothing about? Got hit by a car? Wow, with evidence that strong, Apollo must be fake.
    6
  296. Same exact person as the entire rest of the mission, and the two missions before. Ed Fendell.
    6
  297. Another dewdrop with "truth" in his nickname, while not knowing anything about what is true. Yes, silly person, there are hundreds of photos of Earth from Apollo, and thousands from satellites.
    6
  298. Wow, I don't think I've ever seen such a convincing argument before. Random YouTuber had a neighbor who said it's fake. Yup, I guess that settles it. By the way, I have a bridge for sale. Interested?
    6
  299. As others pointed out, he was represented by attorneys for almost a year before declaring that he wanted to represent himself, which was just a few days before the trial was starting. The court had an enormous amount of time invested in lining up a jury and getting the schedules to align for a major trial like this, and wasn't going to change his trial dates just because he asked for this last-minute change. And, you can bet that, if they had granted an extension, he'd simply do it again (switch back to wanting attorneys again). His only tactics throughout the trial were to delay, provoke, argue, and hope that the prosecution or judge would get rattled and accidentally do/say something to cause a mistrial. But, beyond that, you said he had SOME valid points. What else, besides your initial impression that he didn't have enough time to prepare? Frankly, I don't think a single point he raised in this rant was valid, but, I'm all ears.
    6
  300. Because congress discontinued the program, retired all of the technology for it, and didn't start it back up again until 2019.
    6
  301. Redecule iz peopl read rigth Engish not beleev it happen
    6
  302. There are only 4 moonwalkers left alive. I've met all 4 (and many of the ones who died). Some, just for a few brief minutes. Others, for longer periods, many times, had meals with them, talked for hours, etc. If you have not yet had a chance to meet them, I suggest you try to meet the remaining 4. They won't be around forever.
    6
  303. Hilarious. And, before he punched him, you people kept saying, "The fact that none of the astronauts defend themselves when accused of being criminals is enough evidence that they know the truth. If anybody accused me of the largest financial crime in human history, which also resulted in the deaths of hundreds of people, I'd have punched him." You can't have it both ways. You can't say say that the punch means one thing, while simultaneously saying the lack of a punch means the exact same thing.
    6
  304. There should be ABSOLUTELY NOTHING preventing you from buying a supersonic airliner ticket to London tomorrow... unless CONCORDE NEVER EXISTED...
    6
  305. Thanks for demonstrating that your entire understanding of Apollo is based on little 1-2 sentence quotes that are intentionally taken out of context by the makers of the videos you've been watching.
    6
  306. Your prior 1-word posting just said "fake." Then, you came back to pretend to ask a question? And, your question demonstrates that you have no concept of how a rocket works, nor where it gets its fuel? You feel that you need to ask this? So, you don't know where the fuel comes from, yet, you know enough about the topic to declare that the entire world's aerospace engineers don't know either. Sure. Right.
    6
  307. So, let me try to understand this. If someone makes a CGI video of one of the Apollo landing sites in 2022, this means that the moon landing was fake in 1969? Huh? So, if someone makes a CGI battle video from the Civil War, this means the Civil war was a hoax? If someone makes a CGI video of the Egyptian pyramids being built, this means that nobody built the pyramids?
    6
  308. The police footage WASN'T released until 1.5 years after she died. Good grief. And, how do you stop it from being released once the case is closed that long, if it's the result of a legal FOIA request? Do you want the police to commit a felony and block a FOIA request?
    6
  309. Oh look! Another denier who reads and writes like an 8 year old. Shocker.
    6
  310. "50 yrs later almost zero interest to test out better technology." NASA had been begging congress for decades to start a new manned moon program, or manned Mars missions. Congress never approved any program to do so. That is... until Artemis was funded by congress in 2019. Do you know nothing about that program?
    6
  311. What does computing power have to do with anything? You either have enough to do the job, or you don't. Having extra computing power doesn't make a rocket fly any better.
    6
  312. So, you object to lies, then refer people to watch a video full of obvious lies. Oh, you're brilliant alright.
    6
  313. No. Telescopes don't have that level of resolution. But, not because of the telescope. It's actually a property of light, and photons that close together interfere with each other. The only way around this issue is to build a bigger lens, to capture photons that are further apart, allowing the resolution. To see the Apollo stuff on the moon with barely enough resolution to make out a lander would take a lens a quarter mile in diameter. If you want to see more details, it would take a lens multiple miles in diameter.
    6
  314. So, you keep deleting your threads in which I keep giving you the catalog numbers of photos of the sun from the Apollo missions. And, in those threads, you kept telling me you were unwilling to simply search for the catalog numbers I gave you. I also told you about NASA's official Apollo photo archive on their Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (a subset of NASA's site), where you can find the exact photos that you deny exist. You said you refuse to look at it. And, I asked you how I'm supposed to point you to the photos that YOU asked for, if you refuse to view them. You deleted your thread.
    6
  315. Do you really not understand the difference between radio and photographic film?
    6
  316. You've had 55 years. How long must we wait for "the truth" (in your mind) to come? Meanwhile, more and more countries have verified Apollo in more and more ways. The evidence isn't sliding toward your position, it's sliding the other way.
    6
  317. And, there are "experts" that said OJ didn't do it, Michael Jackson was telling the truth, Casey Anthony, etc. So what? You can find "experts" on any subject on Earth to say anything you want. Why would you believe them? Why not look at the EVIDENCE?
    6
  318. Oh, look! Another moon landing denier with a 2nd grader's ability to read and write. What a shocker.
    6
  319. The number of people in our society who peak in high school is truly saddening. They get out into the real world, and that's it, they're in regression from that point forward. But, this guy peaked at 4, and was already in regression by 5. I really don't know how to even comment on that.
    6
  320.  @eyesopen2694  YOU SAID: "Oh yeah if she was a good government slave and given up her first amendment to freedom of expression upon demand she would of been left alone...." == What ARE you talking about? If you don't follow the rules established by the facility, then you don't get to stay on the grounds of the facility. If you don't follow the rules of my household, you must leave my household. If you don't follow the rules of a movie theater, you must leave the movie theater. You don't get to stand in a movie theater, making a bunch of noise, not allowing other people to enjoy the movie, so, if a movie theater's rules are that you must be quiet, and you aren't quiet, you must leave... yes, a football field can set the rules, and you aren't entitled to stay if you break their rules. The rules were that you must wear a mask, or leave. She refused to do either. YOU SAID: "Is it hard for you to lick boots with your mask on?" == Good gods, it's not about "boot licking," you arrogant prick. It's about respect for others. If YOU wish to deny what the entire planet's experts say, that's fine, you can do that for yourself. But, when you affect others with your ignorance, that's when the line gets drawn. "Personal freedom" ends when you are negatively affecting others, or putting others at risk. Your personal freedom to swing your arm ends at the point when that arm hits someone's face. Your personal freedom to pull your pants down ends when you're standing in public in front of children. Your personal freedom to attend a football game ends when you decide to violate the rules of the facility that hosts that game. YOU SAID: "Here in america bud no one has the right to demand anything of anyone until its a law Its meaningless." == Trespassing has been a law for centuries, dummy. If the establishment sets the rules for you to be on that property, and you disobey those rules and refuse to leave, YOU ARE TRESPASSING. Refusal to comply with the property's rules, and refusal to leave, IS TRESPASSING. You don't get to say this is "meaningless." YOU SAID: "And if its just as simple as putting a mask on why did the officer need to draw a tazer?" == She refused to comply with the facility's rules, and refused to leave. The officer has the duty to forcibly remove her. She resisted. It was pretty clear that she wasn't going without a fight. So, spare the world your silly notion that a Taser wasn't necessary. It was either that, or a much more physical confrontation, and then you'd be complaining about why the officer had to use his physical strength against her. Either way, you were going to complain. So, don't just sit there and talk about his use of a Taser. YOU SAID: "Why did bystanders feel the need to intervene." == Because it's THEIR HEALTH that people are putting at risk when they refuse to comply with the mask rules. YOU SAID: "Because its all about control and fear. You gain control through fear and you keep control through fear." == You are deluded and stupid. YOU SAID: "That's why i question everything from multiple angles and this does not add up unless it ends with controlling people" == Or, hmmm, maybe it's simply because every public health agency on the planet agrees that wearing a mask cuts the odds of spreading disease by at least 50% (or usually more than that, if done properly), and that this has been well documented at this point. Maybe it's because facilities like football stadiums want their patrons to be able to enjoy a game without dealing with some insane crackpot who doesn't want to follow the rules. Maybe it's as simple as that, and it doesn't need to be a worldwide conspiracy to control people. Look how insane you've become. Look at it. Look at what this delusion of yours has done to your brain. People can't even just go enjoy a football game without some idiotic crackpot like you, sticking your head in the sand and pretending you know better than the entire planet's experts, deciding to infringe on everyone else's "freedom" by expressing your own version of "freedom." Again, dummy, this is analogous to dropping your pants in public in front of children. The public has a right to demand that you wear clothes, and not whip out your privates and spank yourself in front of children. You don't get to cry "personal freedom!!!!" and drop your pants. No, you're required by the public to wear certain articles of clothing, and behave in a manner that is respectful to others. Masks are a similar concept. In order to protect others from a disease you might have (even unknowingly), during a worldwide pandemic, you are required to wear a mask and stay a certain distance away. This helps prevent your exhaled breath, coughs, sneezes, whatever, from propelling viruses very far away from your body, and reduces the risk by a significant percentage. Nothing is 100% effective. But, if you can reduce the odds by 50% or more by covering your face with a $1 mask, yes, that's what the public is demanding. The facility has a right to enforce those guidelines. And, when someone chooses not to comply, they're free to leave. If they don't leave, they're trespassing. If they're trespassing and still refuse to leave, they get arrested. That's how it goes.
    6
  321. So, the 1,100 people from multiple nations who designed and built the communications network... they didn't know what they're doing. But, YOU know better? And, you've heroically come to a YouTube comment to share with the world that Apollo's communications equipment wouldn't work? Do you even know who designed and built it all?
    6
  322. What a ridiculous reaction by so many people in the comments. This is merely clever editing and wording by Inside Edition (where facts don't matter). If they told the entire story, of course, people would react differently. But, they present her like a soccer mom who has never done anything wrong, and was the victim in the story. In reality, this woman had abandoned her family about a decade ago in order to live a life of drugs and crime. She did a felony prison term for stealing cars. She had an arrest record a mile long for other stuff. Drug and alcohol charges. Judgements against her for various thefts. Numerous failures to appear in court with open arrest warrants. Her landlord said that she was a stripper at the local club. And, multiple people called the police for this incident. One caught it on video and showed it to the police. Needless to say, the police described it in their report quite differently than, "(sob sob) nobody was around." Apparently, it was a very loud and public act in view of multiple people including children. It would seem she thought she was at work, rather than at a public beach. But, you can't even tell this to a lot of the commenters in this thread. Nope. Inside Edition paints the picture of a soccer mom who is a victim, and the viewers blame the cops or the people who called them when they saw a crime happening.
    6
  323. Egyptian pyramids? It was over 4000 years before mankind built anything that big again. Sailing around the world? 50 years between Magellan and the next guy to do it. Diving the deepest ocean depth (Mariana Trench)? 60+ years between the first time and the 2nd time. Concorde? SR71? Decades and counting since any plane has been capable of sustaining mach 2+ for 3000 miles, let alone with 100+ passengers. Need I go on?
    6
  324. "It makes sense that they couldn't mimic stars in their photos." Mariners from centuries ago used star charts to pinpoint their positions on the globe with very good accuracy. Yet, you believe that NASA couldn't use that very same math to mimic stars? Why? What possible reason would you have to believe such things? "Show me a photo with stars." They took 125 photos of stars on Apollo 16 using the Carruthers UV camera (specially designed camera on a tripod for the exact purpose of photographing stars in ultraviolet light). They also took several star photos from lunar orbit, but, they didn't turn out very well due to the long exposure time and lack of a tripod. The best example is "Apollo 15 photograph of the solar corona 1 minute before sunrise." There are lots of other star images taken from the capsule also, but, they're pretty blurry because of the low light and very long exposures. "Why are all the stars gone?" Have you looked for them? Or, did a conspiracy video tell you they never photographed the stars, and you just blindly believed them? "Also, why wouldn't someone take a picture of earth from the moon. They absolutely would." Yes, dewdrop. They took hundreds of photos of the Earth. Obviously, you are just blindly regurgitating silly lies that you've decided to believe for no reason. But, you know what the amazing part is? You can go look at tons of the photos that you think do not exist, just by going through the archives yourself. But, instead of being angry at the liars who made the videos you've been watching, that told you there were no photos of Earth, you will just look for some other excuse to believe them anyway. You're not trying to learn about Apollo, and stumbled across some "gotchas." Nope. You watched conspiracy videos because you want to feel like you know more than the entire planet, "secret knowledge" that you can watch in an hour or two, thinking it replaces decades of education and training, and feeling better about yourself as a result. When someone points out that those videos you're watching are always wrong, will you be angry at them for their lies? Nope. Of course not. You'll just sweep it under the rug, and run for the hills, and spew some different garbage somewhere else.
    6
  325. Congratulations on demonstrating that you have absolutely no understanding of the topic, nor do you understand photography.
    6
  326. Darn, I knew I forgot one of the rules: Rule 4: When cornered, change topics immediately.
    6
  327. Good grief. No, dewdrop. NASA never claimed to lose the knowledge. You are watching conspiracy videos that lie to you, and claim that's what NASA says. Meanwhile, you can go to the archives and spend 10 years of your life reading the Apollo documentation, schematics, mission logs, operations manuals, etc., and you'd barely scratch the surface.
    6
  328. Hilarious!! Sorry, you lost it at the silly comment about video tapes not being available. They were invented in the 1950s. By Apollo, they were used quite heavily. And, sorry, if you think the technology wasn't available, you don't get to just pretend to know some magical secret that the thousands of engineers didn't know. You need to name the EXACT technology that was lacking, then explain why none of the engineers who designed and built it ever realized that they failed to build something that works.
    6
  329. Another dewdrop who doesn't know that a lunar day is 708 hours (about a month), not 24 hours. They were never there during the cold night. They were never there for the hot afternoons. They landed in the lunar morning, and lifted off in the very same lunar morning.
    6
  330. Bart Sibrel's round window cutout trick has been debunked a million times over. The easiest way to instantly know he's wrong is that the clouds are not moving by the window at 17,500 mph. If they were in low orbit, like Sibrel pretends, the clouds should be zooming by. But, that doesn't happen. There are also a million ways to know that, not only was Sibrel mistaken, but, he outright lied. I'd list some of them, but, this isn't my first rodeo. Never once has any person in your shoes ever admitted that your hero was actually a liar. No, dewdrop, none of the stuff listed in this video is a "strawman" argument. They are all arguments that many nuts have proposed many times over.
    6
  331. Huh? Virtually zero media even covered this when she was alive.
    6
  332. "Then you need to understand the time period" Yes, a cold war. It was during the brink of turning into a real war. That's why Apollo got virtually unlimited funding. It was the tip of the sword in technological and industrial demonstrations of capabilities. Do you REALLY believe that they'd risk trying to "fake" something that would be so easily found out? Dozens of countries tracked the Apollo missions with radar and radio telescopes. It would be pretty embarrassing if enemy countries said, "hey, we still see the command module in low Earth orbit, you haven't gone anywhere."
    6
  333. "If the US did had the materials, the technology, the communication, the computer intelligence, the mathematics and any other technical aspect to really land on the moon is doubtful" Yet, none of the 450,000 people who worked on Apollo thought any of those things were lacking. And, there's never been a single article published in any recognized engineering journal on the planet that calls into doubt any of the technologies implemented during Apollo. To the contrary, most of the aspects of the Apollo designs became the cornerstones for future spaceflight and satellites. And, all we have now are dewdrops on the internet who read and write at the level of 2nd graders that just blindly say, "technology was a problem" while being completely unable to name a single specific thing.
    6
  334. "NASA itself by contradicting statements, by losing most if not all original video, audio and documented archives of all Apollo missions (source: NASA)" No, dewdrop. NASA said they lost two BACKUP video tapes from one mission. And, they've been intentionally misquoted by makers of conspiracy videos ever since.
    6
  335. Ask a question expressing that you don't know much about the program (otherwise you wouldn't need to ask), then declare it fake before anybody could answer. Yeah, you're totally honest.
    6
  336. If you pour 200 degree water onto a piece of ice, what happens to the ice? It melts, right? Yet, if I put a tiny drop of hot water onto a glacier of ice, the glacier doesn't melt, and the tiny drop does nothing whatsoever. Right? Well, guess what? A spacecraft is the glacier. The hot particles are the drops of water. There are so few of them, they don't matter one bit.
    6
  337. Everyone has their own pet favorites. This video addresses some of the more popular ones. Your pet favorite, the lunar liftoff, isn't as popular as the ones addressed in this video. See, even most of the more extreme nuts acknowledge that the 7,000 engineers who built the lunar landers would have recognized that the craft in the liftoff videos didn't match what they actually built, and if it was pulled up by a string instead of propelled by a rocket engine. Most of the nuts try better arguments than yours. But, hey, everyone knows that it's a favorite tactic to avoid topics, change topics, duck and dodge, and keep reciting new things until the cows come home, rather than actually address the topic at hand. And, that's exactly what you're doing now. You don't want to address the topics the video DOES talk about, so, you change topics to something else. And, you pretend you know better than the 7,000 engineers who designed and built the lunar module about what it should (or shouldn't) look like when it lifts off.
    6
  338. Well, Robert, perhaps if you'd read some of the replies to your repeatedly posted messages across numerous videos over numerous months, you might understand it better. But, you don't. You post questions, then run for the hills never to read the answers.
    6
  339. Your cell phone has a 1 inch long thin wire for an antenna, weighing a tiny fraction of a pound, and the 0.6 watt signal must penetrate walls and buildings and surface features. Apollo used dishes that were massive. Parkes Radio Telescope being one of them. Look it up, then tell me if you want to compare the 2 million pound radio telescope that is nearly an acre in size (literally) to your tiny fraction of a pound little 1 inch wire.
    6
  340. I have no idea what you're talking about, and neither do you. Where do you think the rover was going after the astronauts left? I mean, yes, it would have been nice if the rover was equipped with remote control (for the vehicle, not just the camera). But, it didn't have that. The rover is in the exact same spot that they left it.
    6
  341. If one anomaly actually held up to scrutiny, maybe even two, I could understand your position, but, when there's like 50 different anomalies that instantly fall apart when anybody who actually understands the topic looks at them, there's probably something fishy going on, like the makers of the conspiracy videos who produce those "anomalies" are all lying.
    6
  342. Short answer: The Saturn V had to lift 100,000 pounds of payload to an altitude of 240,000 miles. The lunar module had to lift a payload of a couple of guys and some rocks to an altitude of 62 miles. Want to know more? There are entire degrees you can get in this stuff. What are you implying? Are you saying the entire world's aerospace engineers forgot to make the craft big enough?
    6
  343. Huh? Apollo 15 landed right next to an old lava flow ("river"). They visited the edge of it, and took lots of nice photos.
    6
  344. In 2021, they showed their photos from their Chang'e orbiter of the Apollo 11 landing site, which DID show the lander on the moon. You're a little late with your comment.
    6
  345. It's not a problem that you don't know anything about Apollo. Most people don't. But, is it really too much to ask that you look at a few of the other recent postings before asking the same question asked by 2 million others?
    6
  346. I've never seen a moon denier who actually wants answers to his questions. They pretend to ask questions. When they get the answers, they run for the hills or change topics.
    6
  347. Hubble's best resolution results in a single pixel rendering a square of the moon's surface that is 160 feet by 160 feet. Again, that's per pixel, one pixel. You cannot resolve a 14 foot by 14 foot lander with Hubble, because it wouldn't occupy a single pixel.
    6
  348. Wow. How conceited can you be? You're quoting from a video made to mock you. The irony is too thick for words. Dewdrop, "Shooting Stanley Kubrick" - 2015, by Hollywood director T. Patrick Murray, starring Tom Mayk as Stanley Kubrick. You are now coming to YouTube comments to tell people to watch a video that was made basically for the purpose of exposing how gullible people are to ever believe Tom Mayk is Stanley Kubrick, with silly dark lighting and a ridiculous "confession" that makes no sense whatsoever. But, as a social experiment to see how far down the rabbit hole people have gone, and what they're willing to believe to support these delusional notions, T. Patrick Murray produced that video. And, here you are, doing exactly what he was demonstrating to the world (that people like you will believe anything, if it boosts your own ego). Good grief. Go watch a few of the different versions on his channel. He even has some of the versions with the "behind the scenes" of him coaching actor Tom Mayk on what to say. I mean, personally, my first reaction when I saw the video was to think, "who would ever even believe that guy looks like Stanley Kubrick?" But, I guess I shouldn't question the power of delusion. And, no, dewdrop, the CIA didn't create the term "conspiracy theorist." Once again, you have believed nonsense for no reason, other than to boost your ego. Gotta love the irony of the "wakey wakey" at the end. Now, I'm sure you'll delete your message and run for the hills, so, I'll make a copy for posterity.
    6
  349. So, you're just going to ignore the fact that you're asking people to go watch a mockumentary with actor Tom Mayk playing Stanley Kubrick? In one ear, out the other? And, you believe OTHERS aren't thinking? Good gods, how far gone are you?
    6
  350. For most of them, it's because they feel badly about their failed lives. So, it's easier to just conclude that the most accomplished people in human history have failed just as badly. Rather than taking the time to get an education and better themselves, it's easier to try to drag the rest of the world down to their level.
    6
  351. Has it ever occurred to you that trust in government is irrelevant? It's the EVIDENCE that matters.
    6
  352. Armstrong pulled a lanyard. Aldrin turned the TV circuit on.
    6
  353. Spain did exactly that. They had the largest telescope (at that time), and they were able to photograph the SIVB fuel dumps around the moon, and the Apollo 13 debris field. The fuel dumps and oxygen/debris field spanned miles, and were able to be picked up by Spain's telescope.
    6
  354. Spare the world your backtracking. We both know you had no idea there were two Orion missions through the belts. Stop pretending.
    6
  355. Yeah, when you see a guy dropping and cranking at a playground with kids around, just look the other way, don't report him.
    6
  356. 1) Documentaries sometimes edit the delays because the people watching don't want to listen to long pauses. 2) You must remember where the recording is taking place (Houston). There won't be a delay between when an astronaut speaks and Houston answers. You will only hear a delay when Houston asks something, and has to wait for an astronaut to answer. Pay attention to the direction of the delay.
    6
  357. Yes, so beautiful and sensitive. I guess that's why, years prior, she walked out on her family, including a 6 month old baby, in order to go lead a "wild" and "off the rails" life (words from her own family, not my words). And, then she went on a drug and crime spree for years, resulting in her felony prison term for stealing cars, and her many arrests for alcohol and drug charges, and multiple judgements against her for various thefts, and repeated failures to appear in court (including later for this incident in this video). I guess it's tough to get a straight job after all of that, because her landlord said that her "profession" was, well, one of those words that can't be posted on YouTube comments, ya know, it involves cash transactions with lots of men. And, yeah, then she went to the beach incident from this video, to put on a show in front of multiple people including children. I mean, you didn't actually believe her when she was trying to get out of her millionth arrest, did you? And, you do know Inside Edition is trash news, right?
    6
  358. Doesn't it bother you at all that the best you people can muster is "would you get into the craft?" EVIDENCE dictates truth from fiction. EVIDENCE is what matters. But, none of you people care one bit about evidence. It's always, "look at their faces during a press conference," or "if they did it back then, they should do it now," or "I don't know how something worked, so, it must be fake." None of you people offer evidence. Or, if you people do, it's evidence that falls apart the instant it's scrutinized.
    6
  359. Regarding the times that flags moved without being touched, it's really quite simple. And, contrary to what you said, it wasn't just one time. There were a few. The most dramatic was on Apollo 14 when the flag moved quite a lot (relatively) while the astronauts were not even outside the craft, including one instance of the flag rotating almost a half turn. The answer is that the suits/backpacks and the landers themselves were not closed systems. They were "living and breathing" machines, with various types of off-gassing, purge valves, overpressure valves, venting from the porous plate sublimators, etc. Most of the time, the nuts complain about the flags moving when being handled (which, as you point out, is silly because that's exactly what flags should do when being handled). But, yes, a few of them also complain about flags moving without being handled. But, yeah, if an astronaut's backpack was off-gassing when near a flag, sure, the flag is going to move slightly. If they flipped the purge valve open on the lander, yeah, oxygen is going to rush out of the craft and blow the flag a little bit (which is what caused the Apollo 14 flag to rotate, when the astronauts were about to head out for their 2nd EVA). And, yeah, the craft's environmental controls were just larger versions of the PLSS backpack's systems, which vented from time to time. The sublimated ice flashes into vapor when exposed to a vacuum. The overpressure valves opened automatically on the suits from time to time, to vent off. Etc. I hope this takes care of your "one instance that is a bit hairy."
    6
  360. But, dewdrop, you're the one (in a different thread) who claimed that the USA bribed the Soviets after the cold war ended (1991) to endorse the lunar missions (1969-1972). You were off by TWO DECADES. You also didn't understand laser reflectors or how they worked, but pretended you did. I would hardly consider you capable of judging the authenticity of anything at all.
    6
  361. Dewdrop, Hubble's best resolution of the surface of the moon is 160 feet x 160 feet per pixel. ONE pixel. That's not enough to even see a 14 foot x 14 foot lander, let alone a flag. Maybe you should learn something about the topic before you write "ha ha ha" (pretending to understand topics you do not).
    6
  362. She experienced zero shame or comments because of the arrest video, because it wasn't released until 1.5 years after she was dead. And, you clearly don't know the difference between a crime and an infraction.
    6
  363. Let us know when you really want answers to your fake questions, James. For now, you've made it quite clear that you have absolutely no interest in the answers.
    6
  364. Nice job making it completely obvious that you don't want answers to your own questions.
    6
  365. Armstrong. Why is this even a question?
    6
  366. Well, maybe YOU would think that. But, reality dictates otherwise.
    6
  367. No matter what I do, it keeps blocking my response. So, I'll make it even shorter. For most of them, it's so they can pretend that watching a couple hours of videos can replace decades of education and experience. And, it gives them a mechanism to pretend that the most accomplished people in history have actually accomplished nothing (just like themselves).
    6
  368. You can see them on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (the official archive).
    6
  369. And, why do you believe floppy disks were required to go to the moon?
    6
  370. "Who took the picture?" There were approximately 7000 photos taken on the moon. Care you elaborate on which one you're referring to? "The picture was in the news paper the day they took it!" The only photos that were in newspapers during the missions were ones that were basically photos of the TV screens. None of the film photos were published until they got back from the moon. "they can't get through the two nuclear zones!" I assume you mean the two Van Allen belts(?). Sorry, dewdrop, those aren't nuclear. You're one of those people who hear the word "radiation" and think it always means the stuff you get from nuclear reactors or nuclear bombs. Sound is radiation. Is that nuclear? Light is radiation. Is light nuclear?
    6
  371. As usual, you come to these videos to display your stupidity.
    6
  372. "there is a raft of suspicious information that throws the moon landings in doubt" So, basically, "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." "The deciding factor for me is the fact that neither Musk or NASA or Russia or China or India have even tried to send a human beyond LOW EARTH ORBIT since NASA last claimed it 52 years ago." OK, let's say you are those countries or people... what rocket booster would you use to send a large manned craft that high? After congress retired the Saturn V booster, which booster manufactured by any of them has been capable of that amount of lifting, that has been man-rated? "The reason no one has tried it is the Van Allen radiation belt" Um, no. "something NASA today is still spending £billions on trying to traverse a human safely." They're spending billons on developing rockets big enough to lift manned craft that high again. And, they spent billions on new craft to do it in. But, there's no real mystery about how to traverse the belts, dewdrop. You didn't watch a clip from a conspiracy that took a few lines out of a NASA video made for children, and then assumed you understood all there is to know about the Van Allen belts, did you? "Something they claim to have done close to two dozen times over 50 years ago." Two dozen = 24. Actual number of times they sent people to the moon = 9. Yeah, you really know your stuff. "Look at the advances in all sciences and technologies man has made in the last half century." Um, dewdrop, who cares? Unless you specify an "advance" that has resulted in more thrust to lift a manned craft, your statement is useless. Can you name one? What EXACT advancement are you referring to, which provides more thrust to lift a manned craft? Sorry, advancements in dentistry don't lift spacecraft. Advancements in video games do not lift spacecraft. So, name the advancements you're actually talking about, else, you're talking about nothing. "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake" isn't an argument. "in all fields except space travel which seems to be reversing." Yes, dewdrop. It has reversed. That's what happens when they go from spending 4.5% of the entire federal budget, plus another 2% in soft costs and international support, on a single project... down to 0.4% of the federal budget that is spread out over hundreds of projects. Technologies do not advance themselves, dewdrop. They only advance with FUNDING. And, yeah, when congress pulls the funding, and retires all of the associated programs, there is no advancement. "Or were they lying?" You've offered NOTHING!!!! Not a single time in your "reasoning" did you even offer any evidence. All you've said here was a pile of "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." Why in the world would you even think you know the slightest bit about Apollo? You don't even know how many missions there were. The basis for your disbelief is that you watched some cherry picked quotes that were spoon fed to you from conspiracy videos. You don't know a lick about Apollo. You don't know a lick about aerospace engineering. Why would you think you magically understand this topic better than the entire planet's 77 space agencies, which universally disagree with every word you wrote? Why aren't you basing your opinions on EVIDENCE, rather than on the fact that you don't understand things?
    6
  373. Dewdrop, you don't get to intentionally omit words from your quote of the question, then pretend you have the high ground here. Moore asked if they saw stars IN THE SOLAR CORONA despite the glare. They could only see the solar corona for a matter of a couple of minutes. So, yes, that definitely was a specific period of time. Yet, you now pretend he wasn't asking about that? Dewdrop, yes, the question he asked was confusing because he said "when you looked up at the sky" (seems like he's saying lunar surface), and then said "in the solar corona" (seems like he's talking about the couple of minutes of viewing the solar corona from the command module). So, Armstrong, confused by the strange question, tried to answer both conditions. Collins could only answer about the couple minutes of viewing the solar corona. Yet, you've decided, in advance, that the answer meant something it didn't. Your mind has set sail to some distant land, and you're extremely proud of it.
    6
  374. The camera was installed on the MESA outside the craft before ever leaving Earth.
    6
  375.  @samuelkebede4231  Nope. Flags wave EASIER when being handled without air than with air. You have no idea what you're talking about.
    6
  376. Thank you for demonstrating the EXACT reason that you people deserve every amount of ridicule you get. You're not interested in facts. You're just interested in slander. And, if you people had your way, the most successful people on the planet would be in prison. The man worked his entire life. He got a doctorate degree from MIT. He flew 66 combat missions for our country, including air to air dogfighting, resulting in two shot down Mig-15s (an extremely capable plane). He risked his life on numerous occasions in the line of duty. He risked his life again in the space program. And, what does he get in return? Jags like you wanting him in prison, on the basis of some silly nonsense you swallowed from dishonest makers of conspiracy videos.
    6
  377. Yes. So what?
    6
  378. "There's ZERO evidence of any manned landing" Because the conspiracy videos you're watching don't bother to show you the evidence. Here in reality, we sane people know there are mountains of evidence.
    6
  379. Um, ok, did you look for the answers? That movie is a pile of garbage that is easily debunked.
    6
  380. Because you don't have to rely on the US government AT ALL to know Apollo was real. The amount of 3rd party evidence is staggering.
    6
  381. The debates would end even easier if people would quit spewing useless nonsense and just look at the EVIDENCE. For example, you said you're from Europe. Well, in Europe, Spain verified Apollo with radio telescopes, radar dishes, and with their telescope (the largest on Earth at that time). Wales confirmed Apollo with its dishes also. England's Jordell Bank confirmed it with their radio telescope. The Canary Islands (technically part of Spain) confirmed Apollo with its radar tracking. Multiple European countries bounced lasers off of the Apollo reflectors on the moon. And, Russia (part of Eastern Europe) did many different things to confirm Apollo, including tracking with radar and radio telescopes, and even sending their Luna 15 probe to the moon at the same time as Apollo 11. None of this has anything to do with "the official word." And, none of it is really up for "debate" (besides the deniers just saying that all of those different countries were "in on it," including enemy countries). And, this is just Europe alone, which I addressed because you said you're from Europe. If you want to talk about Australia, North & South America, various Island nations, Africa, Asia, etc., we could go on for hours talking about their evidence.
    6
  382. But, dewdrop, skeptical people listen to the answers to their own questions. Skeptical people look at the evidence. Skeptical people don't pretend they've consulted experts when all they've really done is watch conspiracy videos. Skeptical people don't run for the hills when their position is shattered, and then re-post the same nonsense over and over again.
    6
  383. So, every space agency on the planet, in friendly or enemy countries, they're the ones who can't figure out the "obvious," but, YOU can. And, your basis is a warped story about a piece of petrified wood? Does that even make sense to you, dewdrop? The museum that has that piece of petrified wood this very moment doesn't believe what you do. What do you think you know about it, that the rest of the world doesn't? And, how far gone would you have to be in order to even, for a single second, believe such a ridiculous story... as if they went around giving away petrified wood, calling it moon rocks? Really? And, none of the world's geologists would ever notice?
    6
  384. For the exact same reasons that they don't fly Concordes any longer. They were massively inefficient machines, with little or no return on investment (other than political). The technology from the 1960s is outdated now, and it's far too difficult to retrofit worldwide communications and radar tracking systems to those old standards. And, the circumstances HAVE changed. They lost the political support to keeping them flying, and every single flight lost money. Also, for moon missions, sorry, but nobody wants another Apollo. It was far too limited. They want longer missions, more payload, more choices about where to land (Apollo had a very narrow band of possible landing sites), more ability to explore further distances, more experiments, more people, better environmental controls, etc. And, they want to do it on 1/10th of the money that Apollo costed.
    6
  385. Well, find a nice girl instead of paying people you find on cheap corners on Hollywood Blvd, and maybe you wouldn't have that problem.
    6
  386.  @jegjrtp87  Huh? Let me get this straight, you want to use lead or gold for ionic particle radiation? Huh? You're not worried about the resulting Bremsstrahlung radiation (secondary radiation) that's produced by using heavy metals on ionic particle radiation? No? The entire world's particle physicists would tell you that lead or gold would be a terrible choice, because the secondary Bremsstrahlung radiation is just as bad, or sometimes worse, than the primary radiation. They'd advise to use lighter weight materials, such as aluminum and polymers. What exactly do you know that they don't? And, what mechanism would you recommend that they use to deal with Bremsstrahlung, given that you just used a heavy metal? As for water, huh? How well do you think water shields from ions? Um, you're not under the impression that all radiation is alike, are you? Like, sound is radiation, but, a piece of foam rubber is a far better insulator for sound radiation than a piece of metal. Meanwhile, a piece of foam rubber can't withstand a single bit of high velocity neutrons or gammas, and you're better off with concrete or a heavy metal for that. Light is radiation, and a simple piece of paper will shield you from that. But, a piece of glass is great for shielding alphas, but doesn't do a darned thing for shielding from light. I'm beginning to think you don't have the foggiest clue. But, hey, prove me wrong. Go to the particle physics journals, and publish an article about using lead or gold to shield against ionic radiation. If you make it past the first round of scrutiny without being laughed out the door, and they actually publish your article, I promise, I'll be your first rebuttal. Are you game? Will you do that? Sorry, YouTube comments isn't a science journal. So, let's go to the big leagues and demonstrate what you're saying.
    6
  387. No, but when Magellan sailed around the world, it was 50 years before that was repeated.
    6
  388. So, you pretended to ask questions, told people to "wake up" before getting answers, then ignored the answers when you got them. Bravo.
    6
  389. Dewdrop, has it ever occurred to you that not all people/channels are interested in providing "proof" to silly people who have no intention of listening to the proof anyway? Some people just like talking about the missions, and feel no obligation to "prove" anything.
    6
  390. "Just look at their expressions." They looked like people who were in the middle of a whirlwind, stuck in quarantine for weeks, had doctors probing every inch, inside and out, then flying around the country for various speaking engagements, constant parades, speaking to congress, speaking to dignitaries from numerous countries, operating on little or no sleep, etc., and somewhere in the middle of all of that, they were asked to go do a boring scripted press conference. "Listen to their answers how their answers don’t even correlate with one another." Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. A conspiracy video told you that the answers don't correlate. But, the reality is that you and your masters (the makers of the conspiracy videos) are intentionally taking words out of context.
    6
  391. "If they really went to the moon" Dewdrop, let's face reality here. It doesn't matter to you AT ALL how they behaved in that press conference a month after they walked on the moon. Had they been bouncing around like a bunch of giddy kindergartners, you'd say that they were "acting." Had they been stoic, you'd say they should have been bouncing around. Had they joked half the time, and were serious the other half, you'd say it's scripted. No matter what they did, you were going to conclude "it's fake." None of you people ever criticize their very first press event after the mission (on the Hornet), nor the second (at one of the vehicle assembly buildings). You people criticize ONE press event, which, if memory serves, was actually their third after the mission. And, not a single one of you people even know that. You people act like they walked off of the carrier and into that press room. And, you magically believe you're all experts on body language and facial expressions. These were trained professionals who had been working on Apollo for almost a decade. These were people who were experienced combat pilots and test pilots. Armstrong flew 78 combat missions, including getting downed behind enemy lines and had to make a crash landing. Aldrin flew 66 combat missions, and shot down 2 enemy fighters. And, you have the audacity to sit there and accuse them of being afraid of some reporters? Good grief.
    6
  392.  @franknorthcuttmusic  Yeah, somehow they hired movie producers and directors who never said, "no way, I'm not getting involved with that!!" They hired tens of thousands of the brightest engineers around, somehow managing to include the exact ones who would go along, while simultaneously keeping the honest ones in the dark, with a 100% track record of picking the right people to include or exclude from "the truth." But, with the astronauts, they kept hiring all the wrong ones. None of them could act very well. Aldrin keeps telling everyone it never happened. None of them could even sit for an hour long press conference without being "found out." They had to kill Grissom for hanging a lemon on the simulator. But, I guess when Aldrin went around telling everyone Apollo didn't happen, naw, nobody cared. Yup, that's an amazing track record of NASA's hiring practices.
    6
  393. So, you asked a question, then before anybody could answer you, you came to your conclusion. Bravo. This is what happened: you fall into the category of people who lack the horsepower to win a checkers match against a chipmunk. And, people like that simply don't even absorb the words they don't understand. The question was about whether they could see stars IN THE SOLAR CORONA IN SPITE OF THE GLARE. But, since you don't know what the solar corona is, nor the glare that he was asking about, nor when they could or couldn't see the corona, your mind just deleted those words. Smart people would look up what they mean. People who lose checkers matches against chipmunks don't, and simply don't even hear them, thus don't even understand the question.
    6
  394. Let me guess, you watched some conspiracy videos, believed every word they said (just like a sheep), and you've come here to declare that everyone is the problem, not you... right?
    6
  395.  @zenmeister451  Hence why, in the absence of actual evidence, and you have only someone's word to go on, you're left only with the option of analyzing someone's credibility. And, when the claims are outlandish, and the credibility is zero, you have NO REASON to believe what you believe. And, yes, Lazar's claims are outlandish, and his credibility is zero. The guy spends a fortune and years of his life getting a Master's Degree from MIT, then does NOTHING about it when they mysteriously take it away?? Get real. You can hide behind your "investigation" until the cows come home, but your refusal to actually face the weakness of Lazar's credibility is quite telling. You only believe what you WANT to believe. That's your main criteria. It has nothing to do with evidence (there is none). It has nothing to do with credibility (he has none). Your criteria for what you believe vs. what you disbelieve is merely to figure out whatever aligns with your predetermined conclusions, and that's what you choose.
    6
  396. @Miles Maillet Good gods. What does one have to do with the other?!?!?!!? Good grief!!!! What does Fraver have to do with Lazar?? One insane claim "verifies" a completely different insane claim, in your mind??? The two claims were decades apart!!!! Sheeeeeessssssshhhhhh. None of you UFO conspiracy nutjobs could think straight if your lives depended on it.
    6
  397.  @AM-rd9pu  No no no. He wants VIDEO. See, it's the ever-moving goalpost. Show him photos, he wants closer ones. Show him those, he wants video. Show him video, he'll want 3D. Show him that, he'll want smell-o-vision.
    6
  398. This has got to be one of the funniest comments I've seen in years. Realists? Since when is it "realistic" to believe that a bunch of people with no education on aerospace engineering are able to spot "problems" that no aerospace engineers on the face of the Earth can spot?
    6
  399.  @Freedo1234  Dewdrop, when you don't know the difference between Armstrong and Aldrin, your credibility is zero. Furthermore, no, he didn't. Apparently your attention span is about 3 words.
    6
  400.  @DeputyNordburg  NASA didn't invent Velcro. The MIB got it from alien technology, remember?
    6
  401. So, all of the companies now trying to produce supersonic airliners (unsuccessfully, thus far), this means that the 1969 Concorde was fake, right? That's how your "logic" works, right? If people now are attempting to build something new, this means that it was never done before. Oh, let's forget about the fact that Apollo was limited to landings within 20 degrees of the equator, and the Artemis missions want to land at the poles. Let's forget about the fact that Apollo was limited to no more than 74 hours on the lunar surface, while the new Artemis missions want to stay for a month or more. Let's forget about the fact that the best Apollo could do is carry a 400 pound rover (Earth weight) and carry back a couple hundred pounds of rocks (Earth weight), but now they want tons more payload for Artemis. Naw, none of those things are relevant. What's important is to make the claim that if it was done before, everything should remain the same now, therefore Apollo was fake. That's the important part. After all, if you can't sum up the entirety of the Artemis missions in 2 lines of a YouTube comment or less, this means Apollo was fake.
    6
  402. Do you really not understand the difference between distance and resolution? You can take a photo of a plane flying 5 miles up (distance isn't a problem). You cannot take a photo of a microscopic bacterium on the wing of that plane (resolution is the problem). Get it now?
    6
  403. I'll make this super short, and easy to understand. If you need more, I can give more. But, just to make this super brief, do you understand why a single drop of boiling hot water will not melt a glacier? Hot water melts ice, right?
    6
  404. People who do way worse in front of kids need to be arrested also. And, why would you believe her when she claimed she was alone? You do know that one of the audience recorded it and gave a copy of the video to the police, right? You do know it doesn't match this "I didn't think anybody was around" version, right? You do know that she was a convicted felon with a massive criminal history, and her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club, right? If she wasn't making "public beach" content, I'd eat my hat.
    6
  405. There's no camera in existence with the kind of resolution you're talking about. You have confused distance with resolution. Yes, you can see galaxies millions of lightyears away with telescopes, however, those galaxies are hundreds of thousands of lightyears in diameter. You can't see a bacterium on the wing of an airplane with a telescope either, and those just fly a few miles up. Why? Because resolution is the problem, not distance. And, seeing a flag on the moon is mostly about resolution. In order to get better resolution than we have, you need bigger lenses. In order to see the lunar landers on the moon (16 feet across) from Earth, you need a lens about 75 feet in diameter. But, it would just be a dot. You wouldn't know what it was, it would just be a dot. In order to see it in enough resolution to know what it is, you'd need a lens about a quarter mile in diameter. As for flags, sorry, I haven't bothered with the math on that, but, obviously, you're talking about an even bigger lens. You can do the math yourself by looking up the formula for "optical resolution" and use it to calculate the lens size required. The closest thing we have to a picture of the Apollo 11 flag comes from Arizona State University's LRO camera (in orbit around the moon). The flag is too small to occupy more than about a pixel or two. But, if you look at sun angle 12:36 (shortly after high noon), there is a bright spot right where the flag was planted (and knocked over by the rocket blast). The LRO images of the other 5 landing sites won't show the flag itself, because, from above, they'd just be a really thin bar (they weren't knocked over). But, by scrolling through the sun angles, you can actually see the shadows of the 5 remaining flags traverse across the lunar surface as the sun rises and sets. So, yes, we know those other 5 are still standing. There is no such thing as "the dark side of the moon" (outside of a Pink Floyd song) in the context you're saying. All sides of the moon get equal light, just like Earth. A lunar day is 708 hours instead of 24 hours. But, yes, it still rotates relative to the sun, so, it has daytimes and nighttimes. The "dark side" is whichever side is facing away from the sun at any particular moment.
    6
  406. Do you believe that the 1,200 engineers who designed and built the DSN radio dish network that made Apollo's communications possible were all just wrong about its capabilities? All of them forgot that radio is supposed to just stop in space for some reason?
    6
  407. Imagine if it was a man on a park bench at a playground. "But, I just wanted to relieve stress while at this playground with kids watching." Yeah, spare me.
    6
  408.  @stephenpage-murray7226  Side note: pelocitdarney is the actual dropkick here. He believes the moon landings were fake, but, he has made it his mission to be the troll flavor of the month, commenting in every single thread, alternating between harassing moon landing deniers and moon landing defenders. He also alternates between committing irrational criticism, then scolds people for irrational criticism. He is 100% spam, down to the very definition of the word. So, while it's true that Stu didn't understand your point, his intentions are honest. But, pelocitdarney has the most dishonest intentions of any other troll this month... we'll see who next month brings forth, though.
    6
  409. I love how you ended with "use your mind" (but I spelled it correctly). It's always ironic that people with no brains tell others to use their brains.
    6
  410. What's the answer to 2+2? But, don't give me this crap like saying 4. That's BS!! Dummy, you can deny that money is the reason until the cows come home, but all you're doing is exposing utter ignorance. NASA doesn't decide these things. Congress does. Congress controls the money. Congress decides which NASA programs get funding, and which ones don't. And, after Apollo ended, congress didn't give any money to NASA for a manned moon mission program until Artemis was funded in 2019. NASA cannot take money given to them by congress for the purpose of weather satellites (or whatever), and decide for themselves to put the money toward a moon program instead. Congress has an appropriations committee that decides how NASA's money gets divided up between the hundreds of programs that NASA runs. And, if congress doesn't appropriate money to go to the moon, then NASA cannot go to the moon. Yes, the correct answer is that NASA didn't have the money to go to the moon until Artemis was funded in 2019.
    6
  411. Yet, you won't say how?
    6
  412. Huh? What door did the rover even need to fit through? What are you talking about? And, if you believe that the technology wasn't there, why won't you name the exact technology you believe they lacked, and explain why none of the thousands of engineers ever realized they lacked it? What do you think you know that they didn't? Good grief. You think the rover needed to fit through a door, that's how little you understand about the technology... while simultaneously declaring that you know more than the engineers who built the thing?
    6
  413. So, you refuse to address the questions/responses. But, you went back and changed your original comment instead? Now, you've added "shadows not right." (Sorry, yes, all shadows are correct.) And, you now say there's no proof? How would you know what proof there is or isn't? You're the one who doesn't even know how the craft was put together. What proof have you looked for? What proof would you expect and accept? And, sorry, but I've seen you people say too many contradictory things about astronaut behavior. Back before Aldrin punched the guy, you people kept claiming that astronauts never argued/fought/defended, thus Apollo was fake. Then, when Aldrin punched a convicted criminal who was accusing him of lies, harassing him non-stop, and blocked him from walking, now, you people say that it means Apollo was fake. So, if an astronaut doesn't defend himself, it means Apollo was fake. If an astronaut defends himself, it means Apollo was fake. Either way, you were going to conclude it's fake, so, what difference does the punch really make to you?
    6
  414. Dewdrop, how about getting your information from actual legitimate sources, instead of lawnmower repairmen who make YouTube videos? Absolutely nothing you just claimed is accurate.
    6
  415. How desperate are you at this point? You're talking about Bart Sibrel? Good grief. And, on your own channel, you've got a video that accuses Apollo of being fake because you found a photo of a very fake looking sun in the background of one of the images... because, yes, it IS a fake sun in that photo, because all you did find a composite photo that someone manufactured by splicing a bunch of Apollo photos together, and decided to put the sun in the background, so he Photoshopped it in (and even says that's what he did). You couldn't even be bothered to use an actual Apollo photo to accuse it of being fake. You found a fake photo, which NASA had nothing to do with, and then blamed NASA for the 3rd party individual's artwork. This is just plain ridiculous.
    6
  416. Dewdrop, the mere fact that you think the lander came back to Earth shows that you know absolutely nothing about the topic. Stop pretending you do.
    6
  417. "nasa lost their moon landing tapes" You were given the explanation about the two lost tapes. They were BACKUP copies, which had never been viewed a single time. The primary copies worked, and I repeat, nobody in history had ever even viewed the backup copies. So, why is this important to you now? Not a single one of you dewdrops asked to see the backup copies before they were announced to be lost. But, now that it was announced that they're lost, you people act as if this means something special. Why? Don't change the topics (which you already did). Explain what's so important to you about the backup copies, while the primary copies are intact?
    6
  418. Lunar satellites (LRO, India, China) have captured the bigger items like the landers and some of the other stuff, but do not have the resolution required to see the smaller stuff depicted in this video. And, they can't do it in color (the color cameras have about 7x worse resolution). As for telescopes on Earth, um, no. There's no such telescope with that level of resolution from this distance. Do you have any concept of the size of the lens that would be necessary to see Apollo artifacts from the distance of Earth?
    6
  419. Don't worry. Next you'll believe chemtrails, then secret cancer cures, and not long behind it, you'll believe the Earth is flat. Bravo, dewdrop, you're definitely on a path to success.
    6
  420.  @liquidmark5081  "Who actually does that?" - The woman in this video. "falsely arrested" - Then explain why her own three attorneys disagree with you. Can you? They didn't think it was a false arrest, and never even attempted to file a claim/suit against the police for any false arrest. They only sued the store (and lost, but, at least they tried to sue the store). So, what do you understand that her own three attorneys didn't understand? Have you called them up to let them know they botched their jobs so badly? "no probable cause" - Good gods, what ARE you talking about? First of all, go watch the entire video, not this edited version that starts in the middle. It's pretty clear that you're oblivious to the fact that this particular version isn't the entire encounter, despite that any 6 year old would be able to tell that this copy of the video starts at the half-way point. The cop asked her a hundred times to identify herself, she refused. Florida is an "identify" state, so, refusing to provide ID while being detained by the cops for suspicion of a crime is an arrestable offense all on its own, with or without the theft charges. So, yes, there was more than enough probable cause just because she refused to ID. But, she did more illegal things than just that. Her attorneys know this, which is why they never thought there was any case against the police. But, hey, you go right ahead and pretend to understand things that you don't.
    6
  421. Well, it stuck for a while. But, yeah, then they needed to replace the tape with clamps.
    6
  422. Good gods. If this was your edited version, I'd hate to see how bad the first version was. Seriously, when you read and write like a 2nd grader, you have much bigger fish to fry than to worry about conspiracies you don't even come close to understanding. You clearly know nothing about the space race with the USSR. And, I'm not going to explain it to you. You're wrong, period. But, let me try to understand this Gus Grissom slander you're throwing around... you believe that NASA feared that Grissom might reveal that the Apollo capsule had a lot of problems, and they couldn't allow that to happen. So, they murdered Grissom (and two other guys for no reason), and then blamed it on having a lot of problems with the capsule? So, in order to PREVENT the public from finding out there were safety problems with the capsule, they STAGED some problems with the capsule, killed 3 people with the capsule, then told the world there were a lot of safety problems with the capsule? Really? Really? No, they didn't just stage a car wreck, or food poisoning, or a robbery gone bad. Nope. In order to prevent the world from finding out there were problems with the capsule, they killed 3 people and blamed the capsule. Good gods. Do the world a favor, ok? Copy and paste your above post, and put it into every job application you ever fill out. Seriously. I've performed more job interviews than I can remember, and the sad thing is that people can perform just fine in an interview, and I don't find out until months after hiring them about how many problems the person has. It would make life a lot easier to get that out of the way before the hiring process even occurs. Post this in your job applications. Please. I beg you.
    6
  423. Photons interfere with each other in transit, causing a limited level of resolution that's even possible. You cannot get the kind of resolution you're asking for (from the distance of Earth anyway) with any telescope ever manufactured. To barely see the landers in enough detail to know what they were, you'd be talking about a telescope with a lens a quarter mile in diameter. To see the small stuff depicted in this video, you'd need a lens several miles across. This isn't a matter of technology. It's just how light works.
    6
  424. Evan Bell Correct, just from Thorium decay alone, it would take a ridiculous number of tons of Thorium to produce that amount of energy.  Billions probably, sure.  But, actually, Charles Stevens is telling people that he's going to miniaturize an actual Thorium fission reactor and put it in this car. I know, I know, I know... that's impossible. It's just an investment scam. Charles Stevens is nothing but a con man, and this car is just a hoax to get gullible investors to give him money. But, yes, he's "proposing" (hahaha) to actually put Thorium fission reactors in cars, and drive them around. For anyone who understands nuclear physics, obviously they'd know this is pure bullshit. But, to gullible nitwit investors, well, that's who Charles Stevens is targeting, and that's what his claim is.
    5
  425. Pathetic. Cenk is screaming at the wind without knowing all of the facts. And, this idiot ONLY shows white-on-black cop shootings, and then falsely paints the picture that this ONLY happens to black people. White people get shot by cops too, Cenk. Oh, but you don't show that. You yell and scream if it's a black person, and you don't even make a video if it's a white person. Race-baiting asshole. Look, unlike you, I'll reserve final judgment until the full investigation is done. But, right off the bat, why are you ignoring the fact that the guy who got shot appeared to be reaching into his pocket or car? He wasn't standing there with his hands up and they shot him (like you're pretending). He was REACHING FOR SOMETHING. That's not a race issue, that's a REACHING issue.
    5
  426. "If we could put men on the moon 50 years ago we'd certainly have manned bases there by now." Apollo consumed, at its peak, about 4.5% of the federal budget in hard costs, and roughly another 2% in soft costs and international support. And, for all of that money, they managed to get 13 Saturn V launches, resulting in 6 moon landings. The longest surface stay was 74 hours, and then they ran out of supplies and had to leave. The largest payload they managed to bring to the lunar surface was a 400 pound rover, and another couple hundred pounds of miscellaneous. And, now you want manned bases there? Bases, plural? Well, let's see, one manned base would weigh how much? Around a million pounds just for the facilities of a small base with no sustainability, right? One that would require resupply missions every day or two, right? If you want a fully self sustaining base, with crops in a massive greenhouse with soil to grow food, energy production, construction, machinery to recycle the air, medical, communications, transportation, housing, water, how much do you suppose that would weigh? 10 million pounds? 20 million? And, you want multiple of these bases, right? So, if 13 Saturn V launches drained the US economy of the equivalent of 6.5% of the entire federal budget, resulting in 6 landings with a few hundred pounds of payload each, how many thousands of those launches would it require to put millions of pounds on the moon, and construct it all? And, given that we've never even had a fully successful "biodome" on Earth, why do you think we're capable of building one on the moon? Let alone the multiple base(S) you're asking for. What percentage of the federal government's budget do you think that would consume? Or, hmm, maybe you don't know what you're talking about, and congress simply ended the program and didn't fund a new one until 2019's funding of Artemis, eh?
    5
  427. "How did we get there, and in what did we land, then come back?" Translation: I don't know anything about Apollo, its craft, or how any of it worked. But, I know enough about the topic to declare that the entire planet's experts in both friendly and enemy countries for the past 50+ years are all wrong, and I'm right.
    5
  428. Let me guess... you're one of those people who object to fish eye lenses because you think the Earth is flat, right? Like, the sane people on Earth shouldn't EVER want a wider angle, right? ALL photos MUST be taken with a "normal" lens, in order to prove the shape of the Earth, despite that you're going to just call it fake anyway, right? All photos showing curvature are either a fish eyed, lens, or fake, right?
    5
  429.  @michael.forkert  I can't tell if you're joking, or you're actually a crank.
    5
  430. A) What rocket technology do you think we have today that we didn't have in 1969-1972? B) Because congress pulled the funding.
    5
  431. No, what makes no sense is that this matters to you. Why should the veracity of Apollo depend on what future (from their perspective) generations do or don't do? And, if you don't know the answer to your own question, then how would you know if it makes sense or not?
    5
  432. "privacy is violated" Is this a joke? It's a public beach. There's no assumption of privacy. And, frankly, if she wasn't making "public beach content" for her fans, I'll eat my hat.
    5
  433. Incidentally, two of my favorite photos of the South Massif mountain: AS17-140-21493 = rover, South Massif, Taurus-Littrow valley, and, if you look closely enough, the lunar module a few miles away. AS17-137-20959 = nice Earth shot, and, no, that's not the Earth low on the horizon, it's the Earth as seen from the base of the South Massif mountain, looking up that wide/flat angled mountain slope you're complaining about. Yes, dewdrop, they were very interested in learning more about that mountain and the surrounding valley, and that's exactly why they landed there in the first place.
    5
  434. China took photos of the landing sites and have publicly acknowledged Apollo. The Soviets tracked the Apollo missions to the moon and back, and also publicly acknowledged Apollo. You should (a) learn to read and write, and (b) get up to date... you're stuck in 1949.
    5
  435. "Neil Armstrongs one and only speech" Good gods. How far gone are you? Why in the world would you believe such nonsense? You can see a bunch of them on YouTube alone.
    5
  436. "not a single photo of him there" From the 70mm camera? No, not a single one. There are TWO. This is because he operated the camera most of the time. And, Aldrin, during the little bit of time that he did, wasn't thoughtful enough to take photos of Armstrong, and just took a few scientific photos instead. But, guess what, there was a camera facing out the window of the lander that was automatically taking 1 photo a second, and there are bunches and bunches of 16mm photos of Armstrong.
    5
  437. Clearly your "education" (sigh) comes straight out of conspiracy videos. If you think the radiation would kill the astronauts, PUBLISH IN RADIOBIOLOGY JOURNALS, dewdrop!!! What are you waiting for? You know more about radiation than the entire world's radiobiologists!!! And, how do you know? You listened to a couple of sentences from a video made for children, parroted by a conspiracy video!!! That's some iron clad evidence there. Forget the hundreds of probes that have given us the readings for the past 65 years. Forget the actual cosmologists and radiobiologists. Forget what James Van Allen himself said about it. You found a conspiracy video that told you that "they lost the technology," therefore the last 60 years of science is useless. So, publish. Show those numbers. Rewrite everything known about radiation. I'll bet you'll say it takes 6 feet of lead, right?
    5
  438. And, that's relevant, why? Are you implying that the computers weren't powerful enough? Why do you suppose IBM, MIT/Draper Labs, and Raytheon (the companies/university that designed and built the computers) didn't realize that they wouldn't do the job they designed them to do? There's at least one remaining onboard landing computer that still works. Why do you suppose it is still today capable of landing the craft with inputs that exactly simulate the inputs it would have had on a real mission?
    5
  439. Yeah, I'm sure that's why there were 12 different X15 pilots. I'm sure that's why there were 85 SR71 pilots. Because they never want more than one. Wait, huh?
    5
  440. Why would you believe a single thing you just wrote? Why? Because a silly YouTube video made by a charlatan told you so?
    5
  441. Well, it's probably not what you meant, but, there are a couple hundred pictures of the landing site as taken during the original mission photography. It's even more than that if you include the photos taken while looking out the windows from inside the craft. But, as for "real photos" since then, all we have are the lunar orbital photos from China, India, and Arizona State University's LRO camera. I'm not sure what you're trying to say about those orbital photos not being consistant (your spelling) with pictures we have from Earth. There are no pictures from Earth of the Apollo landing sites.
    5
  442. The Mars drone has helicopter blades. That requires "air" or "atmosphere." Mars' atmosphere is quite thin, but, is enough for the helicopter blades to work. The moon's "atmosphere" is essentially so close to zero that it doesn't matter. It's literally 1 trillionth of that of Earth. There is no mechanism for a Mars drone to work on the moon.
    5
  443.  @critthought2866  Yup, my apologies about the direction the dish is pointing. I looked at a quick low-res copy of the photo and thought the dish was pointed away from the camera. Then, I realized that it doesn't make sense for the direction the sun was coming, so, I accessed the disk storage in my basement for my high res copies, and yeah, the dish wasn't facing away from the camera, it's facing toward it. My bad. I got myself twisted around (in my own head). That dot on the visor might be Earth. Not easy to tell, but, at least it WAS in the correct direction, unlike my initial wrong impression about the direction of the dish. Sorry again.
    5
  444. This video is about Apollo 11. The first lunar rover wasn't until Apollo 15.
    5
  445. Space doesn't have a temperature. Temperature is (essentially) a measurement of the movement and energy level of matter (mass, liquid, gas, solid, atoms, molecules, etc.). No matter = no temperature. Of course, there's no perfect vacuum, so, there are always a few atoms or molecules here and there. But, whether they are hot or cold, there aren't enough of them to make a difference.
    5
  446. Dewdrop, there's a well understood concept in physics called "optical resolution" which you clearly do not understand. And, there's a well understood formula for the size lens you need in order to resolve [whatever] at [whatever] distance. And, if you use that formula, you will find out that it would take a lens approximately 75 feet in diameter to see the lunar lander as just a single dot. You wouldn't know what the dot was, you'd just see it as a dot. In order to barely make out enough details to know what it was, it would take a lens about a quarter mile in diameter. Thus far, the largest lens ever constructed is 5 feet in diameter, and costed $168 million to produce. I think we're a long way away from constructing quarter mile wide telescopes. But, in the meantime, we have orbiters sent to the moon by the USA, India, and China, which have all sent back images of the landing sites from low orbit around the moon. You can see the landers, rover tracks, foot paths, shadows of the flags (5 of which are still standing), etc.
    5
  447. Hilarious!! So, they didn't want the public to find out that there were safety issues with the spacecraft. So, they murdered 3 astronauts by rigging up the capsule to have safety issues, and then blamed the unsafe capsule for their deaths. And, this was to prevent the public from finding out that there were safety problems? They manufactured safety problems, then blamed those safety problems, so the public wouldn't find out there were safety problems. Oh, you're a real Sherlock alright.
    5
  448. Yeah, it sounds nice and all, but, it won't help. We've sent LRO up there, which photographed the landing sites, including rover tracks, landers' descent stages, foot paths, etc., exactly matching the original mission photography. Doesn't matter, the deniers just say it's fake. Both China and India have individually sent rockets up there with orbiters that have taken similar photographs of the landers on the lunar surface, exactly matching LRO and the original mission photography. Doesn't matter, the deniers just add more countries to the ones who are "in on it," joining "the deception" 50 years later. Sending yet another probe isn't going to change their minds.
    5
  449.  @marybailey7881  "it would leave a crater." Sorry, no. Not by a long shot. Not even close.
    5
  450. Of course they really went to the moon. Of course they used the reflectors. The first use was while the astronauts were still on the lunar surface (back inside the lander). All three of the Apollo reflectors are used by multiple countries around the world every single day since 1969.
    5
  451. I've watched thousands of moon landing deniers claim "not enough fuel." It ranks right up there with "too far for radio to reach," and "not enough oxygen," and "too much negative pressure in space," and all kinds of similar claims. Not a single one has ever provided the math. Not one. Not ever. Just "too much," "not enough," "too far," "too big," "too small," etc. Absolutely ZERO of you people understand how to do the math, or even how to compose a formula. Tell me, dewdrop, if I used the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation and its various derivations to demonstrate to you that there was enough fuel, would you really care? I've posted math in these comments before, using thermodynamic formulas, rocket equations, etc. Not a single one of you people have understood them. So, why are you asking? Are you honestly under the impression that the entire world's aerospace engineer population hasn't been able to calculate the fuel required? Is that what you believe?
    5
  452. Well, maybe she should have thought of that before putting on a show at the beach, huh?
    5
  453. Dewdrop, there was no such remote controlled camera on this mission. You are referring to the rover missions, which didn't happen until a couple of years after Apollo 11. Stop pretending you understand things you do not.
    5
  454. WOW!!! A new record. It was a whole 14 hours since someone asked that in these comments. Usually that question is asked every 2-5 hours.
    5
  455. It's the same camera. It was mounted to the MESA on the side of the lander for the first steps. Then, about 20 minutes into the moonwalk, Armstrong detached it from the lander, mounted it to a tripod, and moved it about 40 feet to the north, at the final resting spot seen in this video.
    5
  456. They had television video via radio also. If the "film failed," then guess what, somehow they managed to "fake" 7,000 70mm photos and hours of 16mm video film that exactly matched what the TV video showed.
    5
  457. Good gods. Why do people like you think you're smart?
    5
  458. And plus, your human man expertise specialty is are in what topic subject?
    5
  459. Technology isn't the issue. Funding is the issue. Congress decides what programs/missions to fund, and what not to fund. NASA doesn't decide. The Army cannot decide to go to war on its own, congress must declare it (and fund it). The president cannot decide to build a wall. Congress must approve it and fund it. Centralized healthcare doesn't just happen on its own. Congress must approve it, and fund it. "Showing off" has nothing to do with it. It's a matter of understanding what congress is willing to fund, and what it's not willing to fund.
    5
  460. "I would lie down and look straight up" The taxpayers weren't spending today's equivalent of $300 billion in hard costs, and $150 billion in soft costs and international support, so astronauts could lay down and sightsee. And, let's get this straight, you think you can lay down on your back while wearing the PLSS life support backpack?
    5
  461. "no astronaut ever took an image straight up" Huh? AS11-40-5924 is pretty straight up. Also, they took 125 star photos on Apollo 16, many of them straight up. I could go on for hours here. Who told you that there were no photos straight up, and why would you believe it? You clearly never looked at the photos for yourself.
    5
  462. Yeah, and they bribed the Soviets and dozens of other countries to confirm Apollo with radar and radio telescopes. And, they bribed China and India to make fake photos of the Apollo landing sites last year, and put them on their space program websites. And, they bribed dozens of countries around the world to shoot lasers at the Apollo reflectors on the moon, and pretend that they can get a bounce-back from them. And, they bribed Spain and Australia to pretend they're receiving Apollo's TV broadcasts from the lunar surface. And, not a single one of those people/countries refused the bribes, and not a single one ever came clean, and the bribing still exists today. Yup, sounds good.
    5
  463. What possible reason would you have to believe a single word out of that guy? He has been repeatedly demonstrated to be a complete liar, fabricating falsities by deceptive editing, and his own claims debunk themselves. He is a convicted criminal taxi cab driver, with absolutely no credentials whatsoever. Yet, you think that guy is a source of "truth"? Why?
    5
  464. Sibrel's "round window trick" claim is ridiculously false. And, that was his claim that he himself said was his strongest evidence. This was in his "Funny Thing" movie. His claim was that the astronauts were in low Earth orbit, and put some sort of cutout over the trapezoidal window to make it look round, then filmed it from across the cabin, to try to make it appear like the Earth was 130,000 miles away, while the astronauts were actually only around 100-200 miles away, in low orbit. And, his version claims that the cloud formations you see are not continental formations seen from a distance, but are actually localized clouds seen from right above. Well, right out of the gate, you'll see that his video footage is all chopped up (edited). But, it spans about 3 minutes of his movie. Sorry, but at 17,000 mph, if those were localized clouds, you should see them cross the field of view quite rapidly, just as you see in ISS videos. Yet, in Sibrel's 3 minutes, the astronauts should have gone almost 1,000 miles, yet, the clouds don't budge. So, immediately, you know that he's wrong. But, it gets much worse than just that. He also claimed that NASA leaked him this video, and that he had the film carbon professionally carbon dated to July 18, 1969. This is outlandish on so many levels, starting from the fact that the footage wasn't taken on film in the first place, it was a television signal, not a film camera. So, what "film" did he have professionally carbon dated? And, why didn't the carbon daters tell him that the carbon dating process doesn't actually work on film? Carbon dating only works on things that used to be alive. Sibrel lied. Furthermore, it's as simple as watching the original copy of the video he chopped up, which shows the window, shows them crossing from window to window, etc., which Sibrel has edited out of the copy he put into his movie. Every other claim he makes falls apart just as easily as his "round window trick" claim also. But, you asked for one, I gave you one (which he said is his very best one).
    5
  465.  @franknorthcuttmusic  It goes further than that. Congress not only controls NASA's overall budget, but, they choose how much money goes into each individual program that NASA runs. NASA cannot shift a single dime allocated for one program into another.
    5
  466. Wow, another denier who doesn't know anything about radiation, but pretends.
    5
  467. Yes, choosing black and white from the lunar surface on Apollo 11 was a tough decision. But, you asked why, so, I'll tell you why. They only planned a very short surface stay (about 2 hours). They brought a large high gain S-band dish with them, which had a stronger transmitter, which could be assembled and placed on the lunar surface, but, they didn't want to use it if they didn't need it. It takes too much time to set up, which would eat away at too much of their moonwalk time. There was a much smaller S-band dish on the lander itself, with a weaker transmitter, and they wanted to use that dish if possible. That way, they could align the dish and get everything working while still inside the lunar module, and then not consume any of the precious moonwalk time in setting up the bigger dish/transmitter. But, they were worried that the smaller setup wouldn't be good enough for color, which takes 3x the "bandwidth" as black & white (not really bandwidth, because it was analog, not digital, but, good enough for conversation). Some of the engineers said that the signal should still be good enough for color. But, management decided to err on the side of caution, and only used black & white to really make sure that they could get the signal without needing to deploy the bigger setup. Subsequent missions had much longer surface stays than Apollo 11 did, and therefore they were far more willing to use time to set up the bigger dishes (surface dishes, and rover dishes on the later missions).
    5
  468. The moon is receding at the rate of a few centimeters a year. The mechanism is well understood. The short version is conservation of energy. As the moon's gravitational pull slows the rotation of the Earth, the altitude of the moon rises. The rotational kinetic energy loss of the Earth is conserved in the rising potential energy of the moon going to a higher altitude. I'm not sure why you think it's getting closer. You're backward.
    5
  469. Congress ended the Apollo program, and didn't begin a new manned moon program until Artemis. And, as for a base, huh? At its peak in spending, Apollo drained the nation of about 4.5% of the entire federal budget in hard costs, and roughly another 2% in soft costs and international support. And, for that, they managed to launch 13 Saturn V rockets over a period of about 15 years from 1961 (the beginning of Apollo) to 1975 (the end of the Apollo applications program). The longest they could stay was 74 hours. And, the largest thing they carried to the moon was a 400 pound rover (Earth weight). Now, you want bases up there? How many millions of pounds would that weigh, and how do you accommodate permanent supplies? How many thousands of Saturn V launches would that take? They spent 6.5% of the entire federal budget on 13 launches, and now you want thousands of launches? Raw materials? Like what? It's a dead rock, man. There are faint traces of some things that are slightly valuable, but, nothing really of note. Can you name the raw materials that you think they could get, and how much it would cost to get them? People don't dig for diamonds 1,000 miles down into the Earth, you know. Not because there are none down there (there are). But, because it would cost more to dig them up than you could ever sell them for. But, you go right ahead, name the materials you're thinking of. Will you? Or, will you continue to spew absolute nonsense across different videos?
    5
  470. "The Apollo photos has never showed any stars" Did a conspiracy video tell you that? How about the Carruthers UV telescopic camera, which took 125 star photos? How about all of the command modules' stellar photography? I don't even know how many photos they took. How about the hand-held Hasselblad star photos from lunar orbit? No? Those don't count? If a conspiracy video didn't tell you about them, those photos don't exist?
    5
  471. Wow, a new record. I think that's only been asked in these comments about 30 times today.
    5
  472. "yeah the Artemis Flight test 1" Oh no you don't. Nope. No way. You don't get to pretend you knew about this already. How about this for a response instead? "Oh, there's another manned moon program now? Oh, oops, I guess I didn't realize that when I kept asking 'what about now'? Sorry." No? Instead, you're going to brush it under the rug that you had no idea that there was another manned moon program, and pretend you knew? "there was no huge announcement about this, no TV broadcasting images around the world." But, NASA doesn't control the world. They DID broadcast it. But, is it their fault if nobody tunes in? "It's really hard to believe humans actually landed on the moon." Well, then you should be asking for the evidence, not "why no other countries have went to the moon?" Why should the veracity of Apollo depend on what other countries do or don't do? And, you got your answer anyway. It was remarkably expensive. No other country could afford it (except the Soviets, who tried, but kept blowing up their rockets). No other country has been willing to sacrifice that much of their budget on sending people to make the 7th landing on the moon. But, anyway, sorry, you cannot "logic" yourself into disbelief. Just because nobody else has done it, doesn't mean it wasn't done. You should be asking about the evidence itself, and not "why didn't someone else do it?"
    5
  473. Conclusion first, ask questions second, refute all possible answers third. Bravo, dewdrop.
    5
  474. Conclusion first, questions second. How, honest of you. Dewdrop, if you don't even know the answer to such a simple question, why would you think you know enough about the topic to accuse thousands of people of being criminals?
    5
  475. First of all, you cannot even write a coherent sentence. Secondly, get back to me when you actually want answers to your questions, rather than making it quite clear that you don't.
    5
  476. 1) I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    5
  477. Have you looked at the Chandrayaan-2 (India's probe) lunar orbital photos of this landing site? As for the notion that we "have the tech or we don't," well, that applies to a million different things, especially in aviation and aerospace engineering. Do we have the technology to fly 100+ people at mach 2 for 3000 miles? Nope. Did we have it decades ago with the Concorde? Yes. Do we have the technology to fly a plane at mach 7 to the edge of space? nope. Did we have it decades ago with the X15? Yes. Technologies do get RETIRED, dewdrop.
    5
  478.  @noname-by3qz  The petrified wood rock wasn't given by NASA. NASA even volunteered to examine it for the art museum, but, they didn't bother. The museum itself doesn't even agree with you.
    5
  479.  @mbvgvskvrs868  There was no petrified wood mixed in with moon rocks. You clearly got your story from a conspiracy video or article (they're ALWAYS wrong), rather than from the museum itself. Nobody at that museum thinks petrified wood got mixed in with moon rocks. Why do you?
    5
  480. So, you just can't stop spewing your ignorance, eh? Why do you ask questions then run for the hills when you get answers?
    5
  481. So, let me guess, the sun is inside our atmosphere, because that big gigantic fireball can't exist without air, right?
    5
  482. Were you under the impression that your remarkably vague and incoherent question could be answered? What about them? And, I just love how you conspiratards ask questions, but don't wait for answers before coming to your conclusions. You know, most people, the sane ones, would say, "What about the moonbuggies?" (and they would explain what they're asking, and would also spell it correctly). Then, they'd wait for an answer before coming to conclusions. Not you conspiratards though. You pretend to ask a question, then immediately declare that the answer doesn't matter, and you've already come to your conclusions. What's that like, to live that way? Are you actually HAPPY that your mind operates so poorly?
    5
  483. Blame them for what?
    5
  484. The ether? The sky? The dead woman? Who?
    5
  485. Yes, every single one of the world's 77 space agencies, staffed with the virtual entirety of the world's experts, believe it. Meanwhile, the most vocal ones who deny it consist mainly of taxi cab drivers, warehouse workers, yoga instructors, musicians, and high school dropouts. Sure, and, the emojis are their best argument.
    5
  486. The camera wasn't on the tripod for the first steps. It was mounted to the side of the lunar module in an equipment bay called the "MESA." Later, they put the tripod in its spot, and moved the camera to the tripod.
    5
  487. "perfect imagery" When they take 7,000 photos from the lunar surface, and 110,000 photos from lunar orbit, it's a lot easier to find "perfect imagery" sheerly by the pure volume. The most common objection made by deniers is that the photos are "too perfect." It's clear that they don't know about the thousands of photos that don't look all that great, and the hundreds that are so bad that you cannot even make out what's in frame. They see a few spectacular photos as presented by conspiracy videos that say they're "too good to be true," and never look at the archives for themselves to see the countless lousy photos.
    5
  488. No, dewdrop. NASA has never said anything about lost data. Conspiracy videos lie to you and say NASA says the data is lost. Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. Go take a look. You'll find terabytes of this "lost data" you have fallen for hook line and sinker. Schematics. Operations manuals. Mission logs. Photos. Videos. Wiring diagrams. It will take you 10 years to go through it all. Let me know when you're done, and I'll point you to the next bunch of terabytes of data for you to spend the next 10 years on digesting. Then, you can come back and let everyone know if you still think the data is lost.
    5
  489. "when the module took of or landed , nothing," You need to watch the videos again. Every landing video shows dust being blown. The liftoff videos, well, there's less dust, because the descent stage acts as a launchpad for the ascent stage, and most of the blast doesn't actually hit the ground/dust. But, yes, some dust gets blown, it's just a little more difficult to notice. "the vehicle they had there is static , they didnt film it moving" Are you talking about the lunar rover? Of course they filmed it moving. Who told you they didn't? "they dis that with technology from WW2 V2 rockets," Well, they used rockets, but, no, not from V2s. If you think any V2 rockets were used, please name which of the Saturn V or lunar module or service module engines you think is based upon a V2 rocket? Can you? I mean, vaned rockets? Sorry, the Saturn V and almost all of the other rockets used during Apollo were gimbaled. The V2 was vaned, right? I suppose I should just look this up, but, given that you people never look things up, I figured I'd test myself and just go off of memory instead. And, the V2 was alcohol based, right? Not kerosene or hydrazine based, nor even liquid hydrogen, right? So, I really don't understand why you'd think that V2 rockets had anything to do with Apollo's rockets. But, then again, I think it's very unlikely you know a lick about rockets, and you're just saying everything you're saying because a conspiracy video told you so, right?
    5
  490. Dewdrop, guess what... not every video about Apollo needs to be about providing proof. There are mountains of proof. But, in your mind, if someone makes an Apollo video, it needs to be about providing proof? Congratulations on being yet another denier with "truth" in his nickname, while having absolutely no understanding of the word.
    5
  491. Nylon would not survive the heat? Huh? Nylon melts at 515 degrees Fahrenheit. The reflective layers on the lander were to give thermal protection to the equipment underneath. So what? What does this have to do with the flags? Arizona State University's LRO camera and India's Chandrayaan-2 orbiters have taken photos from lunar orbit that show the shadows of the flags (the 5 that are still standing anyway). They haven't melted away. What do you know that they don't?
    5
  492. Is this the Conan interview where he said that people couldn't watch the landing live because there was no TV camera during the landing? (The landing was on 16mm film, and nobody saw it until they got home to get it developed.) And, you people think this meant there was no TV during the moonwalk?
    5
  493. From a space station? Like, Mir, ISS, Skylab, etc.? Maybe because the lens would need to be hundreds of times bigger than the station itself?
    5
  494. When people cannot actually do anything significant with their lives, they often choose to pretend that they are. For these folks, it's pretending that they have "inside knowledge" and that somehow they know more than the thousands of scientists, technicians, and mathematicians. Those people have no hope of ever being any of those things. So, for them, pretending that they have somehow "outsmarted" everyone on Earth is what gives their lives meaning.
    5
  495. If you average it all out, and adjust for inflation, each person who walked on the moon for a few hours costed $16 billion in hard costs, and another approximate $7 billion in soft costs and international support. Again, that's the PER PERSON cost when averaged out over the Apollo program. The entire world stopped to watch Apollo 11 happen, but, within a mission or two later, the public lost interest, and almost nobody even knew the names of the astronauts, let alone why they were still going to the moon. It became very unpopular to spend that kind of money PER PERSON to walk around on the moon for a few hours, and congress shut the program down. Remember, congress controls every dime of the money, not NASA. And, congress didn't give a green light to another manned moon program until 2019 when they funded Artemis.
    5
  496. Let me guess: a denier video told you that all of the records and schematics are gone, and you just blindly believed it, right? Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. Start there. You'll find terabytes of schematics and photos and videos, etc. If you want the wiring diagram for the lunar lander, it's on there. If you want the exact communication equipment schematics for the rover, it's on there. It will take you about 10 years of your life to go through it all. And, that's just about 1% of the total amount of stuff you can read. Come back when you're done, and I'll give you more archives where you can spend another 10 years on it. Then come tell me you think it's all destroyed.
    5
  497. Dewdrop, you said you thought they "forgot how to do it," and that everything was "lost." I just gave you a site that has terabytes of the information that you think is "lost," which also contains countless operations manuals that told them exactly how they did it. This isn't an appeal to authority. This is a direct refutation to your ridiculous notion that nobody knows how it was done. Sorry, dewdrop, but those conspiracy videos that give you little one-sentence quotes (out of context) are LYING TO YOU.
    5
  498. "Hilarious." No, what's hilarious is when people who understand absolutely nothing... pretend to know more than the entire planet's experts. "A 10,000lb static thrust motor" Are you intentionally trying to cram the most wrong things into the fewest amount of words? First of all, if they tried to land at 10,000 pounds of thrust, guess what, they'd never have landed at all. They'd go straight up. At the time of landing, the craft weighed approximately 2,500 pounds in lunar gravity. It began at about 33,500 pounds (Earth weight). It burned about 18,000 pounds of fuel and oxidizer getting down to the surface. Divide by 6 to adjust to lunar gravity. It's about 2,500 pounds. If you ran an engine at 10,000 pounds of downward thrust into a craft that weighs 2,500 pounds, you aren't landing the thing. You're shooting straight up. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Secondly, you claimed "static thrust," but, that's wrong too. The descent engine was dynamically throttleable. It wasn't static at all. In computer mode P66, with the sub "rate of descent mode," as a matter of fact, the throttle was constantly adjusting itself to compensate for the mass of fuel/oxidizer it was burning off. It was about as far from being static as you could even imagine. Yet, here you are, in all of your glory, declaring the exact opposite. Thirdly, sorry, dewdrop, but in rocketry convention, you call it a "motor" if it uses solid rocket fuel, and you call it an "engine" if it uses liquid rocket fuel. The descent rocket burned liquid fuel, therefore was an engine, not a motor. I mean, good grief, it's absolutely stunning to watch people like you, with absolutely zero understanding of a topic, declare these things, in defiance of the entire planet's aerospace engineers and rocket scientists, pretending that you know better. "that didn't produce any dust" A rocket wouldn't "produce dust," it would blow dust. And, yes, of course it did. Have you never watched the videos of the landing? Have you never looked at the photos of the ground underneath the lander? It's quite clear that dust was blown by the rocket. "let alone a crater." A CRATER?!?!?! In compacted regolith and rock? Good grief, even at the 10,000 pounds of thrust you incorrectly asserted it was using, it wouldn't create a crater. Have you tried doing the math, dewdrop? The engine bell cross section was 2,733 square inches. That's about 3.66 pounds per square inch. Do you really think you're cutting a crater with only 3.66 pounds of pressure per square inch? Sheeesssshh. And, it's even worse than that, because the actual thrust was about 2,500 pounds at landing. That's less than 1 pound per square inch. Sorry, you're not cutting craters with that. "Great cartoon just like the original 1969 cartoon" Do you see what I mean? You know nothing about the topic. Every single word you spewed was laughably wrong. Yet, you're sooooooo confident in yourself anyway, that you know better than the entire planet's aerospace engineers.... Why? What makes you so confident? You clearly don't know a lick about rocketry. So, what would make you believe you're correct, and that the entirety of the planet's experts are incorrect?
    5
  499. Doesn't it at least slightly bother you that the best any of you people can do after 55 years is say, "they look sad while in a boring press conference"? Really? THAT's the best you can muster? 55 YEARS!!! It's been 55 YEARS!!! And, not a single shred of credible evidence has ever surfaced anywhere on Earth that contradicts Apollo going to the moon. Not one. No peer reviewed papers anywhere on Earth about any scientific matter that Apollo would have violated. No deathbed confessions by any of the hundreds of thousands of people involved. No whistleblowers. Not a single one of the world's 77 space agencies staffed with the virtual entirety of the world's experts in friendly and enemy countries has ever casted any doubt on Apollo, not ever. But, "they looked glum when they had to do a boring press conference a month after their mission." Oh, yeah, right, that's the smoking gun alright.
    5
  500. Dewdrop, YOU are the one that made the claim. YOU claimed it never happened. Yet, you offer ZERO evidence. Yes, there are mountains of evidence for Apollo, such that I could write entire encyclopedias on it, and would barely scratch the surface. But, start with the obvious few: China's Chang'e-2 orbiter, India's Chandrayaan-2 orbiter, and Arizona State University's LRO camera have all taken photos of the Apollo landing sites. They can see the landers. And, in the case of LRO and Chandrayaan, they can even see rover tracks, shadows of flags (still standing), flame deflectors, etc. Furthermore, dozens of countries (including the Soviets) tracked the Apollo missions with radar and radio telescopes. This resulted in accuracy within 1 mile. Again, I could go on for hours. But, that's a pretty decent starter.
    5
  501. Thanks for confirming that you don't read the answers.
    5
  502. "Not one astronaut had the time or desire/curiosity to simply take a picture of the stars??" Yes, they took many star photos. This video is merely addressing the false expectation that you'd see stars in the same frame as a well-lit lunar surface and well-lit astronauts and well-lit Apollo equipment.
    5
  503.  @jesuschrist8069  Huh? What don't you understand here? The side of the road isn't a courtroom. The burden of proof happens in a court, not at the side of the road.
    5
  504. "6 times in 3 years?" 9 times in 5 calendar years. 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972. Six of those nine missions landed, though. "Only during the Nixon Administration." Huh? So, Apollo 8 doesn't count? That was before Nixon, dewdrop. So, you believe they could get to the moon, but, your criteria is that they must land, or it doesn't count? So, you have no beef with the Saturn V's capability, the command module's capability, the launch capability, the tracking and guidance capabilities, etc., but, your beef is with the landing itself? "They Called Nixon Tricky" for a Reason." How does this go, in your mind? Under Kennedy and Johnson, everything is ok? From 1961 to 1969, they're building everything to go to the moon, and you don't complain about that. Nope. But, Nixon takes office in 1969 (after Apollo 8 already sent men to the moon), and now suddenly the entire program that had been going on for almost a decade is somehow negated? "We went to the moon in the 60"s using Tech from the 50's" Well, given that the Apollo program didn't begin until 1961, I reject this notion about using tech from the 1950s. Do you consider your smartphone to be tech from the 1950s also, since that's when integrated circuits were invented? "Fishy" Gee, I wonder why. Could it be because you actually don't know anything whatsoever about the Apollo program that a conspiracy video didn't tell you? You apparently didn't even know that manned missions to the moon began before Nixon took office. See, this is the entire problem with people like you: you're not studying Apollo, then finding "fishy" things. You're watching conspiracy videos, and gobbling them up like Christmas dinner. Nobody who actually lifted a finger to learn ANYTHING about the Apollo program would somehow forget about Apollo 8 (the first men to go to the moon), or think that the tech was 1950s. You are regurgitating nonsense you watched in conspiracy videos that lie to you, and you've never read a single book about the Apollo program, or even have taken any time to learn about how it worked. Bravo. You're an amazing hero.
    5
  505. It's called "dynamic range." Human eyes have a similar problem seeing stars in daytime that cameras have, just for a slightly different reason. The astronauts DID talk about seeing stars while in orbit on the dark side of the moon. But, it was simply too bright while on the lunar surface. And, sorry, but context is important. You don't get to just take out of context quotes about seeing stars on other types of missions/craft, without actually knowing a lot more details than the one-sentence clips fed to you from conspiracy videos.
    5
  506. They get it from conspiracy videos that tell them rockets don't work in space. That's the source of all of their "knowledge" (sigh). They are proud to have gotten their PhDs from YouTube University.
    5
  507. What other choice did they have? Do you think they were supposed to just keep the Apollo program running somehow after all of the funding was pulled?
    5
  508. 24 hour cycle? Nope. Dewdrop, a lunar day, sunrise to the next sunrise, is 708 hours, not 24. That's approximately a month. Congratulations on knowing absolutely nothing. The astronauts were never there for those massive temperature swings. All missions landed early in the lunar morning, and were gone within the same lunar morning. Earth equivalent = the longest mission landed at 6:30am, and departed at 9:00am (same morning). They were never there for the extreme overnight lows. They were never there for the extreme high noon either. How does this go? Do you think the thousands of engineers also forgot about the length of a lunar day (like you did here), and couldn't figure out when to land?
    5
  509. What in the world are you talking about? No craters? Have you looked at a single mission photo? How about North Ray crater on Apollo 16? It's about 3000 feet wide and 750 feet deep. Shorty crater on Apollo 17? There were thousands of craters, big and small. Why do you ask questions like this?
    5
  510. Hilarious. You don't even know who built the components, yet it doesn't even faze you, and you still think you're correct about stuff you know nothing about.
    5
  511. Profile = "NEXT LEVEL WISDOM. Promoting peace, unity and love in the world." You win the irony of the week award. How "wise" is it to pretend to know things you don't? How much peace and love are you promoting while you accuse thousands of people of being criminals, based upon your lack of understanding of a topic?
    5
  512. "as I understand it" - Yup, as far as you understand it alright. (Sigh)
    5
  513. Go show this comment section to your doctor, and let him/her decide which type of specialist is needed to treat your illness.
    5
  514. More goalpost shifting by deniers. Good grief. Three different satellites orbiting the moon have cameras from India, China, and Arizona State University that have sent photographs of the landing sites. But, now, you want "live feed" to see the landing sites? Do you even know what you're asking for? These satellites are going about 3600 mph and taking these images in a fraction of a second, then those images need to be processed, compressed, and sent back to Earth. Any "live feed" couldn't possibly show the landing sites, and if they did (hypothetically), you'd only see the landers for one frame and then the orbiter will have gone right past the site. "I want to see a live feed from a race car camera to see a speck of dust on the tarmac, otherwise the speck of dust isn't there." You people shift the goalposts to the point that you're asking for things that can't happen. There is no way to demonstrate the landings to you, because you've already decided, in advance, that no amount of evidence would ever convince you. So, you set up a situation that can't actually even work, then declare that until that situation happens, you will disbelieve.
    5
  515. Distance is not the same thing as resolution.
    5
  516. Are you even capable of answering a question? You make 800 different postings in these videos, but you refuse to ever address any challenges or questions.
    5
  517. Well, then maybe she shouldn't have been putting on a show in public.
    5
  518. Wow, you sure are a deep thinker alright. Dewdrop, there are mountains of evidence for Apollo. You call it a "fantasy" because you like to pretend you know things you don't. To compare Apollo to a cell phone is about as dishonest as anybody could be.
    5
  519. Who told you such silly nonsense? Why would you believe it?
    5
  520. To the 450,000 people who worked on Apollo for a decade of their lives.
    5
  521. Dewdrop, any NDA would instantly be invalidated if involved with a crime. Do you REALLY believe that the law requires people to commit crimes the moment they sign an NDA? Get real. Yes, defrauding billions of dollars out of taxpayers and other countries is a crime, and no NDA can ever be enforced in any such action.
    5
  522. RIP
    5
  523. Are you confusing liftoff with landing? Apollo 17 left Earth's surface at night. But, it landed in the lunar morning.
    5
  524. Typical nut behavior. Ask a question. Don't wait for an answer. Demonstrate that you don't understand anything about the topic, while pretending you know more than the entire world's experts. Declare victory. Run for the hills.
    5
  525. The United States has supposedly existed since 1776. If that was true, then why have we only ever heard of George Washington as president, then it skips straight to Ronald Reagan? We don't have any other evidence of anybody else being president for hundreds of years. Why?
    5
  526. Well, that's one way to tell the world that you get all of your "information" from conspiracy videos that lie to you, and you gobble it up like Christmas dinner.
    5
  527. Dewdrop, they burned 18,000 pounds of fuel and oxidizer getting down to the lunar surface from orbit. Calculate for 1/6 gravity, and the craft weighed about 2,500-3,000 pounds (depending on mission) upon landing. Do me a favor: head over to "Marine helicopter lands on North County beach" and tell them that the 50,000 pound helicopter was supposed to leave a crater when it landed in sand. The landing must be fake.
    5
  528. Yes, it did. It was mounted to the MESA on the side of the lander. Then, they moved it to its final spot.
    5
  529. China photographed the Apollo landings sites with Chang'e already, and publicly acknowledged that they saw the landers exactly where they're supposed to be. The deniers don't care. Why would another confirmation from China matter to them?
    5
  530. I was thinking of arguing. Ya know, because every single space agency in every single country that has one, acknowledges Apollo, and the best the deniers have to offer is just these little objections on YouTube. But, yeah, once I saw the "period" at the end of your sentence, I was convinced.
    5
  531. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    5
  532.  @stusue9733  Yes, the dewdrop thinks that it takes a minimum thrust to weight ratio of 2 to 1 to get something off the ground. I made the mistake of going to his channel, and looking at the complete nonsense he spews. He truly doesn't understand that the Saturn V's initial thrust to weight ratio of 1.25 to 1 (7.5 million pounds of thrust to lift 6 million pounds) would even get the craft off of the ground. He insists that the thrust needed to be 12 million pounds to lift the 6 million pound rocket. And, he fails to even acknowledge that the thrust to weight ratio is constantly increasing as the Saturn V burns tens of thousands of pounds of propellant per second. That thought never even crosses his mind, and he thinks that the ratio stayed at 1.25 throughout the flight, as if no propellant is even burning. Then, he concludes that the Saturn V rocket was a helium balloon, not a rocket. No, I'm not kidding. He's too far gone to rescue.
    5
  533. The exact coordinates are well known for all six landing sites. China's Chang'e-2 orbiter has already confirmed Apollo with photos of all six landers exactly where they're supposed to be. Same for India, South Korea, and LRO. Deniers do not care. They simply conclude more and more countries are deciding to participate in "the deception."
    5
  534.  @WalkingFree-eo8mc  This makes no sense whatsoever. Why would the Soviets, China, India, etc., decide to accept a million dollars to keep quiet? What's a million dollars to those nations? Like, India and China each took photos of the lunar landers on the surface of the moon in 2021. Are you going to sit there and say that the USA "bribed" India and China with a million dollars?
    5
  535. "Apollo 11 photos taken from the cabin in the landed lunar module with 2009 lunar reconnaissance photos. The double crater and small craters around it are not the same." Thanks, just checked, they look the same to me. Sun angles matter, of course. But, they all appear in the same place. There are two double craters, one pair directly to the left of the CDR window, and the other forward and slightly to the right of the LMP window. Looks identical to me.
    5
  536. "Apollo 11 photos show the Sun at 20 to 21 degrees of elevation and it must be 14 to 15 degrees." Well, I'd argue that it's difficult to see a 5-6 degree angle difference, and to be able to accurately calculate it. But, my first reaction is not even about that, it would be whether you've accounted for the slope of the topography they were on. It was a gradual "uphill" terrain, which is why the horizon appears so close when looking west, but so far when looking east. If you're looking at the photos taken toward the west, the topography's slope would easily accommodate the 5-6 degree variance.
    5
  537. "The whole area 51 thing kind of makes sense if you assume the site was used to fake the moon landing" So, step 1 = assume it's fake. Then everything else makes sense?
    5
  538. And, tell me this isn't your "logic": "If they take a few moments to enjoy themselves, it's fake, because it should be all business." "If they don't take a few moments to enjoy themselves, it's staged, because humans need a little bit of time to revel in what they're doing after training for a decade of their lives."
    5
  539. Um, ok, go look at the archive photos then. This video IS "just talk" because all it's trying to do is speculate about how this stuff looks after +50 years.
    5
  540. Gee, a craft designed to carry 50+ people and cargo requires more fuel than a craft that carries 2 people? Say it ain't so!!!
    5
  541. Well, that's really easy to explain, so, since that's your reason to cast doubt, allow me to fix it for you. You're referring to a very short video made for children, not actual technical manuals, radiation studies, or letters to congress about the need for each mission. In that brief video you watched, right before saying that they want to test Orion in the belts before putting people inside, he had just talked about the sensitive electronics. Yes, modern electronics are a gazillion times more sensitive to ionic radiation than Apollo's electronics. The miniaturization of computer circuits is the reason that they are so "powerful" today. That's the core reason why they're so fast today, because they're small, and require very little energy to pass 1s and 0s very quickly through the circuits. There's a down side to that, however. And, that is that, with circuit pathways that are only a few atoms across (unlike Apollo's circuitry, which was literally wires that are a gazillion atoms across), ionic radiation can really mess up a modern computer. So, it needs extra shielding and redundancy that was never necessary during Apollo. So, yes, they wanted to test the craft "trial by fire" inside the Van Allen belts before putting people inside. And they ran that test in 2014, and it passed. Imagine if they were in some mission profile where they're orbiting the Earth inside the Van Allen belts, and the computers all quit working. They'd be in deep trouble if they were stuck in those belts for too long. Apollo tested the craft on Apollo 6 (unmanned) in the Van Allen belts in the same way as Orion was tested (unmanned) in 2014. New craft = new test. This really isn't all that shocking. And, that's especially true because Orion is designed for a much more universal mission profile, much longer missions, more people, more exposure to more radiation, more protection from solar flares, etc., than Apollo ever had. Nobody "forgot how it was done," contrary to what the makers of conspiracy videos will tell you. It's like when Lockheed Martin builds a new style plane. They want to stress test the wings. Imagine that conspiracy video makers say, "Hey, why does Lockheed Martin want to stress test the wings on the new craft, didn't they test the wings on the old craft already? Did they forget how to make wings?" Would you take those people seriously? Who would begrudge anybody for wanting to stress test new wings on a new craft? But, for whatever the reason, the conspiracy video makers have decided that it's a bad idea to test the new shielding and new computers in a new spacecraft. The true irony of all of that is, hypothetically, they got their way, and NASA didn't want to test the shielding before putting people inside, the conspiracy folks would complain anyway. "Hey, why are they running this test, didn't they already know how to do it? Therefore it's fake." --- would become "Hey, are you telling me that they have a brand new craft with brand new shielding and they don't want to test it before putting people inside? Therefore it's fake." Either way, they were going to claim it's fake. And, there's simply no talking to people like that. They're beyond reason.
    5
  542. Doesn't matter. He never had a case to begin with.
    5
  543. Yes, that's the biggest red flag. Bravo. You've found a red flag that means absolutely nothing. And, this [nothing] is your best evidence. Dewdrop, how exactly would you propose they keep going to the moon after the Apollo program was retired by congress? After they canceled the Saturn V, the command modules, the landers, the rovers, the suits, the training facilities, the launch facilities, etc., tore everything down in order to retool for the space shuttle, ok, how would you have gone to the moon? Name the mechanism. Name the booster you'd plan on using. Name the landers you'd use. Remember, congress ended all of those programs, and the people who made everything moved on to other things. And, nowadays, they are all dead or retired. So, name the mechanism that you'd use to go to the moon, and how you'd pay for it without congress appropriating any money to do it. Only after that will you have a "red flag." Right now, all you've got is incredulity. And, the "red flag" you think you have is worth ZERO. But, you're correct, your worthless red flag is indeed the best evidence against Apollo. It's sad that you think such weak evidence is strong, though. It's like saying that the best player you have to go up against Lebron James is the 6 year old at the Chuck-E-Cheese basketball hoop. Yeah, ok, that's the best you've got, alright, so be it, that's the best you have. It's a completely useless competition. The 6 year old doesn't stand a chance in a billion attempts. But, yup, if that's the best you can do, ok, that's the best you can do. You still lose. And, that's the same for your "red flag" about Apollo. I'm sorry you think your Chuck-E-Cheese 6 year old is actually a good player, but, he's not. And, against the mountain of evidence in favor of Apollo, "why haven't they gone back?" is pretty weak.
    5
  544. You'd want to spend a billion-plus dollars on a rover to go where we've already gone? Why not go somewhere new?
    5
  545. Thoughts about what? Are you implying that the computers designed and built by IBM, MIT / Draper Labs, and Raytheon were unable to do what they designed and built them to do?
    5
  546. I normally won't [knowingly] respond to flat Earthers. But, this time, ok. I doubt you'll pay attention to the answers to any of your concerns. None of you people ever really want answers anyway. But, this is so ridiculously pathetic, alright, here you go: 1) Learn English. I promise you, learning English will serve you far better in life than burying yourself in these silly notions you get from YouTube videos. YouTube isn't an education. Don't pretend it is. 2) "ITS JUST A BIG LIE" Nope. 3) "BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OUT OF CONGRESS." They have absolutely no problem burning billions when they feel like it. There is no need for any ruse to get that to happen. And, sorry, but whoever the "they" is (in your mind) doesn't get that money anyway. 4) "PRIVATE ROCKETS HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE TOP OF THE DOME IN SPACE , THEY HIT THE DOME AND FALL BACK DOWN TO EARTH." Sorry, you've been duped by YouTube videos. If any rocket ever hit a dome at the speeds you see in those videos, the onboard camera wouldn't be able to capture anything after that, because it would be annihilated into a trillion pieces. Yet, those videos you're watching just show a small pop, and then the rocket floats back down, 100% intact. Sorry, those rockets never hit anything. 5) "STANLEY KRUBECK" You can't even spell his name. What could you possibly know about him? 6) "BEFORE HIS DEATH MADE A PERSONAL INTERVIEW" That's a movie made by Hollywood director T. Patrick Murray. It's called "Shooting Stanley Kubrick" (2015). It stars Tom Mayk as Kubrick. And, sorry, but just like you cannot spell his name, you also apparently don't know what Kubrick looked like, because that's not him. You have been completely duped by watching some clips from a spoof movie. Some of the versions of that mockumentary movie even show the director calling the actor "Tom" (not "Stanley") and give him directions on what to say. The complete irony of that movie is the social experiment value, made to demonstrate the utter gullibility of anybody who would fall for such an obvious spoof. He made that video to mock YOU. And, you walked right into it. 7) "WE HAVE LOST THE TECHNOLOGY" It's "lost" in the exact same spirit that Concorde technology is lost. You cannot buy a supersonic airliner ticket today for any price, and it would take at least a decade to get a new supersonic airliner up into the air. It's lost in that sense. 8) Have you considered that maybe your problem isn't these wild notions you see on crazy YouTube videos, but, maybe your actual problem is your obvious addiction to controlled substances?
    5
  547. Exactly correct. Half a brain indeed.
    5
  548. "Notice how the Chinese moon rover, the Indian moon rover" Huh? Those rovers are nowhere near any Apollo site. Are you under the impression that the moon is the size of college campus or something? "and the James Webb telescope (when close to the moon) never views the Apollo landing site." Dewdrop, when the moon is closest to the telescope, the landing sites are on the wrong side of the moon for that. Are you really that oblivious to basic geometry? I mean, there are several other reasons also why this is a ridiculous request. But, c'mon, let's start with the fact that the moon and the landing sites are facing the wrong way, and go from there. "The recent rovers and new telescopes capture nothing of The Apollo Landings for one excuse or another." Nowhere near the Apollo sites. The moon is facing in the wrong direction for what you're requesting. The telescopes are nowhere near large enough to capture the images you're asking for. The Webb telescope isn't designed to face the sun, and seeing what you're asking wouldn't be possible even if it was. How are these "excuses"? I mean, it's like you have an electric car, trying to stick gasoline inside, and saying it's just a pile of "excuses" that the gasoline won't make the car work. Or, it's just a bunch of "excuses" about why submarines can't fly. Or, "why can't I fit 10 gallons of milk into a pint sized container, it's just a bunch of excuses." Sorry, dewdrop, but there's a difference between "reasons" and "excuses." "No red flags then?" What difference would these things make anyway? The Arizona State University LRO camera has taken hundreds of photos of the Apollo landing sites from low orbit around the moon, showing rover tracks, landers, foot paths, etc., which are a 100% match for the original mission photography. None of the deniers care. Last year, both China and India released photos from their individual orbiters showing the landers. The one of Apollo 12 from India is one of the most impressive photos of the landing sites you'll ever find, showing the shadow of the flag (still standing), flame deflectors on the lander, etc. It doesn't matter to the deniers. They just conclude that China and India joined "the deception" 50+ years later. Tell me, what would these rover photos or telescope photos do to prove the moon landings to the people who refuse to accept any input? How do you get through their brick wall? There are only two rules to their game: (1) All evidence in favor of Apollo is deception, no matter how numerous or where it comes from. (2) All evidence against Apollo is valid, no matter what level of quackery produced it. How can you get someone to get past those two rules? What possible reason would you have to believe that the deniers would suddenly accept yet more evidence, if they're already rejecting the mountains of evidence we have already?
    5
  549. YOU SAID: "I want the same phone they used to talk to them" == Well, then you need to attach this dish to your phone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkes_Observatory#/media/File:Parkes_Radio_Telescope_09.jpg That's one of the ones used to communicate with Apollo. YOU SAID: "to em when they landed on moon, coz my mate comes round and his cellphone don't work in my kitchen because of the kingspan insulation with thin aluminium foil which blocks the signal, what was the space craft made from?" == Dummy, your cell phone's antenna is on the INSIDE of the phone. Apollo's antennae were on the OUTSIDE of the craft. Really? You really believe that the entirety of communications experts forgot to put the antennae on the outside of the craft? Good gods. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Apollo_CSM_lunar_orbit.jpg See those 4 S-band dishes? See that little arced scimitar omni? (There are also more from other angles you can't see.) Those are the communications antennae. There were similar antennae on the lander. Are you PROUD to know nothing? What's wrong with you? Why would you think it's a good idea to proclaim to the world, "Hey everybody, look at me!!! I don't know anything, and I'm very proud of it!!!" ??
    5
  550. Are you PROUD to express this level of massive ignorance? They sent a bunch of unmanned probes to the moon, then sent 9 manned missions to the moon, and 6 of those manned missions landed upon it. But, you think they only sent one mission and never did it again? And, you're sitting there making laughy faces, as if everyone ELSE is the problem? Not you? You're not the problem here?
    5
  551. This is my reply to this new thread: YOU SAID: "Anyway Sir, no need to be so aggressive and insulting me as you have (evidently i struck straight at heart) and/or take it on a such personal level, i understand your current emotional bustled state and i am sorry if i hurt anyone's feelings, i was not my intent." == HILARIOUS!!! Um, no. I'm not emotionally affected by you. No, I have no hurt feelings. But, here's what you're basically saying: YOUR POSITION (PARAPHRASED): "All I want to do is politely and calmly claim that thousands of hard working people who dedicated a decade of their lives to Apollo were actually criminals who deserve a lifetime in prison. 450,000 people worked on Apollo. Some of those thousands were active participants in criminal fraud against the USA and many allied countries. The other thousands were universally too stupid to recognize that they were participating in a criminal fraud, and have universally remained too stupid for the past 50 years, because they cannot recognize these 'blatant' things I can. I don't understand why people get so bothered by this. Don't insult me while I insult 450,000 people." That's essentially what you're saying. It's pure insanity. YOU SAID: "I am only pointing out several incongruences blatantly (to my eye) there in all of these videos," == Exactly. To YOUR eye. Isn't it at all funny to you that you cannot find aerospace engineers, physicists, rocket scientists, etc., who can find these problems YOU can spot? And, let's get real here. You and I both know that you're just going to regurgitate spoon-fed "inconsistencies" narrated by conspiracy videos. You didn't spot these "problems." You got them from videos/websites made by conspiracy nutjobs that know nothing about the topic also. I'm not going to sit here and play these ridiculous games with you, while you pretend to be an "objective observer" spotting problems. Been there, done that, it gets very old. Just cite the conspiracy video you're referring to. Don't pretend. Good grief. It would save a lot of time if you'd stop playing games. YOU SAID: "not by pretending" == Right. Not pretending? I call your bluff. YOU SAID: "to hold "my own science or math... ", but by abiding to such impeccable laws." == Yeah, yeah, yeah, Apollo defies the laws of physics, right? That's what you're saying? THEN WHAT ARE YOU DOING ON YOUTUBE?!!??!!?!?!? Why are you here?!!??!!? Go submit your physics calculations to a recognized scientific peer reviewed journal (not, not aulis or any other conspiracy journal, which accepts any/all articles that support their predetermined conclusions, but a science journal RECOGNIZED BY ALL UNIVERSITIES that is used by physicists worldwide to publish actual scientific discoveries and articles). Sorry to burst your bubble, but YouTube comments aren't a science journal. YouTube comments is where crackpots go when their scientific notions don't pass scientific muster. Or, let me give you an analogy to illustrate how ridiculous you sound. Recognized science journals are like the NBA. YouTube comments are like the Chuck-E-Cheese basketball hoop for 6 year olds. People who ACTUALLY think they have something scientific to offer will go play in the NBA (science journals). Laughable crackpots stand there at the Chuck-E-Cheese basketball hoop for 6 year old kids saying, "I'm the greatest basketball player, all of those NBA players are nothing compared to me." That's basically how you sound. If you think Apollo defies the laws of physics, you write it up, and you submit it to a science journal. You don't come to YouTube comments and claim that the entire aerospace and physics community is wrong about aerospace and physics. Good grief. YOU SAID: "The fact that thousands of staff members participated to the program could also be vised as a double bladed-sward to corroborate the eventual coverup." == Pfftttt. Yes, and the thousands of people across the world who participated in the hoax also, yeah, that all adds up to conspiracy!!! Yeah. The Soviets, who tracked Apollo with radar the entire way, and who sent Luna 15 up there to meet Apollo 11 and race it back to Earth (tracking both craft the entire time), yeah, they're in on the "double bladed-sward" (your spelling) too. In Spain, where they took long range photography through the biggest telescope on the planet at that time, capturing the SIVB fuel dumps around the moon, they're part of the "double bladed-sward" also. Australia, tracking with radar and radio telescopes, they were in on it too. All of those countries around the world, including backyard amateurs who had big equipment, listening into the audio broadcasts with their radio telescopes AIMED AT THE MOON, all of those countries and people were in on the "sward" also. The laser ranging reflectors left on the moon, which have been used every single day for 50 years by dozens of laser ranging facilities around the world, in friendly and enemy countries, they're all in on it too. Japan, who confirmed the Apollo photography with their JAXA/Selene orbiter in 2008, yeah, they're in on "the hoax" also. Arizona State University's LRO, which has been taking photos of all of the landing sites (as well as the rest of the moon) for the past 10 years, yeah, they're all in on it also. China says they have photographed the landing sites also. The list goes on and on and on. Oh, but you're not a crackpot, and I shouldn't call you one. YOU have spotted the "blatant" problems that nobody else has spotted. YOU have calculated that Apollo would defy the laws of physics. And, you've come to YouTube comments to reveal it all. But, wait a minute, nobody had better call you a crackpot. Nope. You're accusing thousands of people of being criminals, but, you're not a crackpot. Because, yeah, YouTube comments are where you've chosen to reveal the biggest fraud in the planet's history!!! Scientific journals??? No, who needs them? The real place to reveal to the world that the entire scientific community is wrong is at the Chuck-E-Cheese basketball hoop. YOU SAID: "Mind over matter, if you can control/convince the mind... I don't know what went behind the curtains or whatever schemes might of been there... all i know is the incongruences present in this footage." == Oh, the irony. YOU SAID: "As soon as i have some time free time, i'll sit down and make a detailed list of each points/discrepancies i spotted out." == Yes, and take those discrepancies to one of two places: (1) The NBA (science journals), or (2) Chuck-E-Cheese (YouTube comments). YOU SAID: "Please sir rockethead7, try to be more calm and let's have a friendly/constructive dialog. Sincerely... Vincent" == "Let's be friendly while I accuse thousands of people of being criminals who deserve a lifetime in prison for fraud. And, some of them may even be guilty of treason, which could get them the death penalty. I'm here on YouTube to reveal that Apollo defies the laws of physics!!! So, let's be friendly, and you shouldn't call me a crackpot." Good gods.
    5
  552. Is that like, "we nvr finushd D 2nd grade"?
    5
  553. 17,500 mph helium balloons? Good grief. Dewdrop, there are numerous apps that track satellites, and you and your flat Earth dewdrop friends can coordinate being in their path, and watch at sunrise or sunset as they pass over your heads. The dewdrop hundreds miles downrange can then watch the satellite pass over his head, and you can use basic distance = rate x time to calculate how fast it's going. Why have none of you people done this? Or, you're perfectly fine with believing that a balloon is capable of going 22x faster than the speed of sound?
    5
  554. Are those the same "experts" you talked to in your other thread that told you that retro-propulsion doesn't work, and they thought retro-propulsion applied to liftoffs (which makes no sense)? Are you ever going to stop pretending that your "experts" aren't the makers of conspiracy videos?
    5
  555. Sibrel didn't expose ANYTHING. His video is full of lies alright, but, it wasn't Aldrin who was telling them. It was Sibrel himself. Every single thing Sibrel has ever stated in his silly "documentaries" can be disproven with even the most elementary knowledge about Apollo. He relies on the fact that ZERO members of his gullible audience will ever fact-check a single thing he says.
    5
  556. Step 1: come to your conclusion. Step 2: ask a question knowing you'll ignore the answer. Step 3: demonstrate you know absolutely nothing about the topic.
    5
  557. If you don't understand it, it must be fake. Only things you understand are real, right?
    5
  558.  @riekebusch2293  Dewdrop, the "innocent soccer mom is a victim" story does nobody any good. And, I didn't initiate this misleading story, bunches of the media did. Which serves the public better? The "innocent soccer mom" false narrative? Or, "convicted felon made lousy life choices" accurate narrative? I don't want to kick anybody when they're down. But, the spotlight has been on her with or without me. I prefer accuracy.
    5
  559. "in other words, the world was given what they wanted us to digest...aka narrative control." But, dewdrop, you don't know what you're talking about. "Many modern day reports regarding the dangerous radiation from Van Allan Belt which is over 15000 miles long... technology that's 50 yrs old some how survived all that twice." Yes, dewdrop. There are thousands of reports in the scientific journals and direct publications by NASA and dozens of other countries. Do the math yourself. I have. There's not enough radiation to affect astronauts who go right through them quickly. They are only lethal if an astronaut stays in the belts for an extended period, such as a week or two. This is why they didn't send missions such as the shuttle, Mir, ISS, Skylab, etc., into those belts. But, Apollo went through quickly enough that there wasn't enough exposure to be harmful. If you're going to refer to the many reports from modern day, ok, fine, show the math you've done from those reports. Why do you believe that the entirety of radiobiologists in the world (the ones who have also done that math anyway) disagree with you? Frankly, I don't believe you've read a single one of the reports you're talking about. I don't think you read at all. I don't think you're reading this message. Can you prove you are by writing "green" at the top of your reply (if you make one)? I think you watch conspiracy videos, and swallow every lie they tell you, and that you have never once read a single scientific report about the Van Allen belts that you purport you have.
    5
  560. "Almost zero dust spread from landing" Huh? Have you watched any of the landing videos? "The demonstration with leaf blower is a great one." So, you'll watch a video made by a crackpot, but won't watch the Apollo videos themselves?
    5
  561. "The pictures we have prove either the softest landing ever of all time" What ARE you talking about? Have you looked at those photos yourself? Go take a look at Apollo 15's photos, as an example. It landed so hard on the edge of an inclined crater lip that the engine bell cracked/bent, and was butted right up against the lunar surface. It could almost be called a crash landing, that's how hard it hit. You can clearly see crumpled up metal and a bent engine bell from the landing, and you have the audacity to say this was a "softest landing ever of all time"? How about Apollo 14, which landed on a slope, and the lander slid sideways and nearly immersed the north landing leg in dust? Was that a nice soft landing? I mean, sure, some of the landings were quite free of issues. But, you clearly haven't looked at the photos you're pretending you have, if you're going to say that these were all soft landings. "or prove the thing was placed there with a crane probably" Gee, did a conspiracy video tell you that?
    5
  562. So, in order to prevent it getting out that there were problems with the spacecraft, they rigged up problems with the spacecraft to "murder" the three astronauts, and then blamed it on the problems with the spacecraft, with the goal of preventing the public from knowing there were problems with the spacecraft. Oh, true genius at work.
    5
  563. First of all, this video wasn't even made by an American. Secondly, nobody is pretending this CGI video is real.
    5
  564. First of all, no, they didn't circle Earth for a day during the moon missions. Even Apollo 12, which was hit by lightning and they had to stay parked in Earth orbit to fix everything, only stayed there for just under 3 hours before lighting up the engine to go to the moon. Secondly, when in low orbit, they were only around 100 miles up, still below the belts. Third, regardless, the belts are only fatal if you stay in them a long time (i.e. a week or two).
    5
  565. There were no mountains anywhere near the Apollo 11 site. That's basically the point. They didn't want their first landing to be anywhere near mountains. Beyond that, your claim of 300 meters is just absurd. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of photos that show much greater distances. AS17-140-21494, for example, shows South Massif (mountain) about 5 miles away. And, if you look at a high resolution copy, you can see a little goldish colored shape in the distance. It's between two crosshairs, directly above the large rock in the foreground. That's the lunar module, about 1.5 miles away. I mean, I'm sure you'll just reject the countless photos that demonstrate that you're wrong. But, the point is, you didn't come here to say that they took those kinds of photos, and the photos are fake. You claimed that they never even show you such photos. So, no backtracking allowed. You didn't know about the photos, because you never looked for yourself. You blindly trusted a conspiracy video that told you the photos don't even exist, never once looking to see if they lied or not.
    5
  566. We all get our comments deleted, dewdrop. Mine disappear all the time. YouTube's censorship algorithm has gone bananas. But, it doesn't show anything about you being right about anything. It shows your own paranoia.
    5
  567. Oh? You mean like why you can put a camera between two train tracks, and it looks like one rail goes into the distance toward the right, and the other goes into the distance toward the left?
    5
  568. It's always a tell-tale sign when you set up scenarios in your mind that are impossible to address. 1) If nobody responds to silly claims, then this means that the silly claims are correct. 2) If people respond to the silly claims, then this means it's coming from "the control machine" to stomp out the claims, therefore the silly claims are correct. No matter which way things go, you're going to say the silly claims are correct. It's one of the hallmark indicators that your mind has set sail, never to return to reality.
    5
  569. It doesn't concern you that your own "facts" are wrong? What in the world makes you think that the IBM mainframes used on Apollo were "the first IBM machine"? Their first electronic computer was in the 1940s, and their first commercially available one was in 1952. No, Apollo didn't use that computer, nor any in that series. And, dewdrop, going to the moon, or not going to the moon, has nothing to do with advancements in computers. Who told you that we can't figure it out anyway? Was it a conspiracy video?
    5
  570. You are correct NOT to be convinced by any video, including this one. What is convincing, or should be convincing, is the evidence. But, I'm betting that you don't know what any of that is. And, ironically, I'll bet you ARE convinced by conspiracy videos that lie to you. No, dewdrop, nobody has "concocted" any answers. Go learn something about how all of the equipment and technology worked, read up on the evidence itself, and you'll find out why, yes, the answers presented here are compelling.
    5
  571. YOU SAID: "Never Happened," == Wrong. YOU SAID: "they still can't get a man to the moon." == Well, not after the Apollo program was killed by congress, of course not. You cannot go to the moon when all of the stuff required to do it has been retired. But, they're starting up Artemis. YOU SAID: "They lost all the scientific data on how they did it ????????" == They did??? WOW!!!! Maybe they should look on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal website. Lots of that data is there. Who ever told you it was lost anyway?
    5
  572. Usually it takes 2 or 3 messages before deniers change topics. You've preempted that and changed topics before you even talked about Apollo. Bravo, dewdrop. By your "logic," you can deny anything you want. Did the Civil War happen? Nope, it was a government scam. Was George Washington the first president? Nope, that was just a cover story. 3rd party evidence? Naw, who needs it? It's all just a covert CIA operation. Your statements are a living definition of being in a perpetual state of paranoid delusion. But, you don't care, that's just because nerdy types are trying to show you evidence. You know better, right? You watched a conspiracy video, so, that makes it true.
    5
  573. Wiyh flag moves, blast creator pssble not, yes dirt pad cup, stop witcching spiracy videeohs daat lye tooo u.
    5
  574. Yes, and your modern phone has more computing power than all phones in the USA combined in 1969. Therefore, nobody made phone calls in 1969.
    5
  575. They got back in the module, and pressurized. They took off their boots, backpacks, etc., and prepared to throw those things (and a bunch more unnecessary stuff) out the door. Later, they hooked up the suits to the internal oxygen supply, depressurized the cabin again, opened the door, threw the stuff out, and then closed the door and re-pressurized.
    5
  576. Yeah, let's pretend we're in a cold war. And, we're going to have a race to the moon. You guys will lose dramatically, blowing up every moon rocket you launch. We'll pretend to land 6 times. And, you'll run off with your tail between your legs in utter defeat. Deal? Oh, yeah, that sounds great, let's do it.
    5
  577. The USA shared its lunar samples with over 150 countries' scientists (including the Chinese), and continues to do so today. Yet, you laugh now? Why?
    5
  578. You mean the red chevron that represents an aeronautical wing? Where does NASA ever declare that it's their "favorite" part of the logo?
    5
  579. Another dewdrop who reads and writes at a 2nd grade level, denying the moon landings. Bravo.
    5
  580. "Buzz Alden" And, this was your edited version? Dewdrop, if you can't get his name right, what could you possibly even know about him? "was on the Conan O'Brien show some years ago and said that the moon landing was theatrics." No, dewdrop. Conan said that his family watched the Apollo 11 landing live on TV. Aldrin said that he was incorrect, and they couldn't have watched the landing live, and that his family must have watched the animations broadcasted by the networks. This is because there was no live broadcast of the landings, because the live TV camera wasn't set up until after the landing, and they were on the moon. For the landing, they only had a 16mm film camera, which means they had to wait until they got home to get developed. Aldrin was correct. There was no live broadcast of the landing (well, live audio, but no live video). The networks did use animations. "Russian Space Agency. He said there was no landing as well. From he research, he found too many discrepancies." And, you believe he was a Russian scientist, why? Because he said so? Sorry, dewdrop, but the Soviets confirmed the moon landings many different ways. Spare the world your silly story about this unnamed Russian scientist. "For example, when the Russian researcher said when the Russian astronauts came from the moon they were really sick." You cannot possibly be serious at this point. Obviously, this wasn't any kind of Russian scientist, because NO RUSSIAN EVER WENT TO THE MOON!!!! How can any cosmonaut ever come back from someplace they've never been? Good gods.
    5
  581. If you believe it is easier to fake it, ok, please explain how the USA "faked" the radar and radio telescope tracking of all of the Apollo missions by dozens of different countries, including by enemy countries like the Soviets. Explain how the USA "faked" the SIVB fuel dumps around the moon, and the Apollo 13 debris field, all photographed via Spain's telescope (the largest in the world at that time). Explain how the USA "faked" signals such that backyard amateurs around the world could aim their dishes and Yagi at the moon and receive Apollo audio. Explain how Spain and Australia (and the USA, but, you reject that anyway) were able to aim their dishes at the moon and receive Apollo's video transmissions. If you believe it would be easier to "fake" it, ok, go right ahead and spell out how they faked those things. And, that's just scratching the surface.
    5
  582. "And today, very good fakes can be made in HD as well." Yes, but that wouldn't be very easy to fake in 1969. "Why didn't those astronauts leave in those missions a big mirror made of pieces like a puzzle?" Huh? What is it about you silly deniers that makes you comment on videos without watching them? He shows the mirror array at 4:16 in the video. Yes, that "puzzle" of small mirrors reflects light back to the originator on Earth. "We would have had proof that there really were some people there" There are mountains of proof... tons and tons of evidence... starting with the mirror reflector arrays that you just [incorrectly] claimed that they didn't have. "if we had sometimes seen a greater glow from the moon from the reflection of the sun in the mirror." No, dewdrop. The corner cube mirrors point the light back in the same direction that it came. So, the light goes back toward the sun, not toward Earth. So, you don't know what you're talking about. They use powerful lasers on Earth and measure those reflections, not sunlight. There are literally dozens of laser ranging facilities around Earth, in many countries, that use those reflectors every single day. "Was it hard?" Is it too hard to watch the video before you comment on it? "Now I think that robots can be sent, although they should be extremely sophisticated, and put those pieces of the mirror to create a bigger one." Why? They have no problem hitting the mirrors right now. What purpose would there be in making bigger ones? "Otherwise, I don't believe anything from what I see on the screens, all kinds of documentaries." So, let me get this straight... you won't believe the moon landings happened, until they put mirrors on the moon (which they already did, but you don't know about it, because you didn't watch the video before commenting), and until they assemble a bunch of mirror fragments to make bigger mirrors (which aren't required)? Really? That's your criteria for belief or non-belief? I mean, most people base their beliefs on evidence. Not you, though. Nope. You will only believe things when they do something YOU want them to do (while remaining completely oblivious to the fact that they already did). "Maybe someone was there after all, but I'm very reluctant." You're reluctant to look things up before spewing nonsense everywhere. You're reluctant to watch videos before you comment on them. Yeah, dewdrop, if you want to decide whether to believe something or not, maybe you should actually learn about it first, eh? "Sorry." No, you're not. You enjoy the delusional notion that you know more than the entire planet's experts.
    5
  583. Sound conducts through any physical medium, including hammers and spacesuits.
    5
  584. Huh? In 2019, they were granted the money to go back, hence we have the Artemis program. They've already sent one unmanned mission back to the moon as a test of the SLS rocket and the Orion spacecraft. Starship (which will eventually be used as a moon lander) is being tested right now. They're approaching a test launch in the coming months. Why in the world would you say they're not going back, when things are proceeding forward?
    5
  585. As I said, just let the world know when you really want answers. But, with your second posting, you've made it even more clear that you have no desire for any answers for any of your questions.
    5
  586. There was always the correct amount of delay. You'd have to give me a timestamp in order for me to respond in detail. But, in short, most of the time when people complain about a lack of delay, it's because either: (A) They/you are unaware of where the recording is taking place (Houston), thus they/you do not realize that no delay is expected when an astronaut speaks and Houston answers. The only delay you'll hear is when Houston speaks and an astronaut answers. or (B) Lots of these kinds of documentaries just edit out the delays. Most people don't want to hear long gaps and pauses. So, to make the video flow smoothly, they simply cut the delays out. Listen to the original audio, rather than edited documentaries.
    5
  587.  @ericg3810  Huh? What evidence against Apollo has ever stood up to even the slightest amount of scrutiny?
    5
  588. Yes, how convincing of you. Your couple of sentences of incredulity already made a very compelling argument to disregard the work of 450,000 people for a decade of their lives. But, the emojis really put the nail in the coffin. Who can ever argue with emojis?
    5
  589. YOU SAID: "Hahaha if the moon is no air why the flag is flying continous" == Because there's a metal rod to hold the flag up. YOU SAID: "it,s prove that the human being never stip on moon this is only drama that human steps on moon" == Or, it proves they put a metal rod in there to hold the flag up. YOU SAID: "and why NASA don,t try again to send scientist from 1974" == Because congress ended the Apollo program, and didn't fund another program until 2019. YOU SAID: "today we have modern technology in 2021" == So what? Technology isn't the issue. They cannot go to the moon if nobody pays for it to happen. YOU SAID: "need to think about this" == You are the last person on Earth who should talk about "thinking" (you don't understand how to do that yourself). YOU SAID: "I know they put metal rod" == Pftttt. You couldn't just admit you didn't know there was a rod. No. After someone told you, then you pretend like you knew it all along. Yet, you had said that this was your proof that the moon landings didn't happen. You're such a massive liar. YOU SAID: "suppose you take that flag your room turn off fan and close all the windows and door then the flag will be moving or not I am only thing about this why the flag moving in the moon surface." == The flag moves only in very specific circumstances. (1) When being handled. (2) When something blows on it, such as the PLSS backpack off-gassing, or the lunar module's purge valve opens. (3) When blasted by the rocket when the lunar module ascends. YOU SAID: "If there is no air see very close and need very focus to the flag, The flag moving very little like lage, but why" == Can you name the timestamp you're talking about in the video?
    5
  590. Sara, radio is essentially the same thing as light, just operating at a different frequency. Light gets through the Van Allen belts with no issues whatsoever. Why would radio have a difficult time doing the same?
    5
  591. The camera was mounted to the side of the lander for the first steps, then was moved to a tripod about 20 minutes later.
    5
  592. Because you have confused distance with resolution.
    5
  593. Yeah, then you should probably stay away from most Apollo documentaries. Generally speaking, they're made with the lowest common denominator in mind. There are a few somewhat good documentaries made shortly after the missions themselves, NASA contracted a 3rd party to assemble. They're not as fluffy as this one, and you might like them better. But, there's a YouTube channel called "Homemade Documentaries" that you probably would enjoy better. He's got a lot of the tech stuff, and not a lot of fluffy stuff. They're quite a bit longer than these style, though. Beyond that, if you really just want to dive into the data itself, the "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal" website has a bunch of stuff. It's only scratching the surface of everything out there, but, it'll take you a few years to get through it all. No documentary format, though.
    5
  594. Please place that on every job application you ever submit. It really makes the hiring process much easier, trust me here.
    5
  595.  @DeputyNordburg  He wouldn't know. His head (including eyes) are buried deep inside it.
    5
  596.  @critthought2866  They were never there for a late morning. The highest sun angle was just a hair past 45 degrees. Basically like 9am on Earth.
    5
  597. "film would have melted prove me wrong" Is this a joke? You keep saying this, and you get bunches of responses from me and others, and you ignore every word. How can anybody prove ANYTHING to you when you refuse to read the responses?
    5
  598. Well, if you don't understand it, it must be fake, right?
    5
  599. You are correct. Cars, trains, ships, etc., are profitable, hence companies invest into advancing them. Spacecraft to the moon are not profitable, with no profits in the foreseeable future. Hence, nobody invests in advancing them. It's the same concept as the Concorde. It was not advancing since 1969. The Soviets ended their Concorde equivalent almost immediately after building it. They knew it was going to fail. And, just like the Soviet version, the UK/France Concorde failed badly (but was kept alive via government subsidies). Nobody invests into technologies that will fail to make money.
    5
  600. This is very typical behavior for people with very advanced paranoid delusional syndrome. Your question was answered repeatedly about Sibrel's round window cutout lie. But, your wall of delusion is so strong, you simply refuse to read/accept any input that shatters that delusion. Your mind has set sail for some distant land, to the extreme that you literally do not even know that your question has been answered. It's quite a well understood phenomenon of people suffering from delusions. If someone in your mindset believes that a coin was tossed, and it came up tails, there is no mechanism to show the person that it was heads. You can present video of the coin coming up heads. You can show the coin on the ground with head facing up. You can present photos of the coin with heads up. And, 2 minutes later, the delusional person would not even remember being shown the evidence, and continue to insist that the coin came up tails. Yes, literally, the person would not even realize he/she was ever shown heads, because someone under that level of delusion will actually block out any memory of the contrary. I replied to you above about the round window cutout nonsense. I know it's visible in this thread, because it has a number of thumbs-ups, which confirms that the message has not been shadow-banned by YouTube. Yet, you can't remember it. Instead, you just pretend it never happened, and continue to demand that people address it.
    5
  601. "stop calling people who have critical questions or are sceptic or plane and simple do not believe in the moon landings, conspiracy theorists!" Huh? What would you propose calling people who hold a theory that the moon landings were a conspiracy?
    5
  602. "There are equal amounts of old NASA employees, scientist, experts as both believers and disbelievers of the moon landings" This is absurd. There are virtually ZERO experts in aerospace engineering that disbelieve the moon landings. Not a single one of the world's 77 space agencies, staffed with the virtual entirety of experts on the subject matter, either directly or as contractors, have ever doubted Apollo. Not one. Not anywhere. Not in enemy or friendly countries. Nope. The only demographic that you find an equal amount of believers as disbelievers comes in those who have never graduated high school. That's the only demographic on the planet that you'll find 50/50.
    5
  603. "giving an international conference with the astronauts and a world press that left more questions then answers" Sorry, dewdrop, but all you're doing is listening to conspiracy video makers, rather than listening to the actual questions and answers. Let me guess, your mind has been boggled over "could you see stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?" And, since you don't know what the solar corona is, when they could/couldn't see it, and what glare they're talking about, you have simply reduced the question to "could you see stars" (because that's what your masters who make conspiracy videos tell you to think), right?
    5
  604. "How were they able to construct the space craft with mid 60'ties materials, how did they solve .... [insert a parade of "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake]" Yeah, engineers, they're pretty good at their jobs, dewdrop. How about trying to read some of the schematics and learn some of the answers to your own questions?
    5
  605. "How did they successfully go (twice) through the v. Allen belts?" By going fast. Why do you think the belts would be a problem for Apollo? Flights that would spend a long time in the belts, sure, they're an issue. Short duration, nope.
    5
  606. "Just to name a few questions where NSAS till date answered very vaguely and where experts on both sides are sceptic till date" Good gods. There are HUNDREDS of reports about the radiation in the Van Allen belts, dewdrop. HUNDREDS of them!!! Why don't you read a few before declaring that the answers are too vague for you. Clearly, a conspiracy video told you that they don't know how to do it, and you gobbled it up like Christmas dinner.
    5
  607. "All the images now available online are images of a third party (NASA lost all so these images are from other stations all over the world who broadcasted at that time)" No, dewdrop. You have hacked up the actual story. When they discovered in 2006 that the two backup video tapes from Apollo 11 were missing, they went to 3rd parties to see if they had better copies taken directly from the NTSC conversion than NASA's primary copies. You are twisting the story to suit your predetermined conclusions.
    5
  608. "show many contradictions" Nope. The fact that you can't name these contradictions says quite a bit.
    5
  609. "I for one respect sceptical" No, you don't respect being skeptical. You are the OPPOSITE as skeptical. Frankly, if you expressed as much REAL skepticism for the conspiracy videos you've been watching, as you PRETEND you express about Apollo, you'd see who the real liars are (the makers of those videos feeding you this nonsense).
    5
  610. "Why have they not landed on the moon since 1973" Dewdrop, nobody landed on the moon in 1973. You don't even know the dates that you're rejecting. Why do you think you know anything about the topic? And, how is this question anything other than, "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake"?
    5
  611. "why does NASA claim to have lost the technology of the 60'ties" No, they said it was destroyed. And, that's a bit dramatic, but, essentially true. All of the launch facilities for a Saturn V were ripped down and replaced to launch shuttles instead. All of the buildings and tooling to make moon rockets were grazed to the ground, or retooled to build other things. The old analog S-band global communications network was torn apart and replaced with modern digital communications. The Apollo guidance computers were IBM 1960s mainframes occupying multiple floors in Houston. Those were ripped apart and destroyed. Nobody on Earth uses those kinds of radar systems any longer, and those were all ripped apart and replaced. Are you even reading this? Can you prove it by writing "green" at the top of your reply (if you make one)? Else, I think you don't care about the answers to your own questions. Anyway, I could go on for hours. Yes, the simulators were all ripped apart and destroyed. I mean, how do you think this works? Like, the Concorde, when it was retired, do you think they kept all of those facilities and trained personnel ready to go, in case they decided to fly them again? Or, was it all destroyed, just like Apollo's stuff?
    5
  612. "why do experts claim that it is impossible to cross the v. Allen belts at this moment" Manned? Because there hasn't been a man-rated booster capable of lifting a large manned craft that high, since the Saturn V was retired. But, SLS is man rated now. So, the next flight will do so. If you disagree, can you name a man-rated rocket booster capable of lifting a large enough manned craft (50,000 pounds or more) that high? Which one would do that job after the Saturn V was retired?
    5
  613. "how was NASA able to broadcast and communicate almost directly the whole journey and moon landing in the late 60'ties and early 70'ties?" I don't understand it, therefore it's fake. Dewdrop, the DSN was quite a bit more capable than your backyard radio you mentioned. Start with the Parkes Radio Telescope and study its capabilities, then let me know if you don't think it was capable of picking up signals from the moon.
    5
  614. "hardly till no delay" Dewdrop, you undoubtedly don't know the difference between a recorder located on the craft, vs. a recorder located in mission control. There is no delay expected when an astronaut speaks and Houston answers, because the recording is done in Houston. And, there's not a single time throughout any of the missions that there was the incorrect amount of delay when Houston speaks and an astronaut answers.
    5
  615. "Even now in 2024 with 5G calling from Germany to India for example is often disturbed or delayed or disconnected!" Dewdrop, Apollo didn't use cell phones. They used the DSN radio network. Go attach the 2 million pound Parkes Radio Telescope dish to your cell phone instead of that tiny little metal strip inside your cell phone that weighs a fraction of a gram, and let me know if you have any problems.
    5
  616. "The NASA employees probably were under the impression that they indeed working on the moon landings, just a very small and dedicated few knew the truth" Really? If all of the engineers and technicians thought their stuff was capable of going to the moon, doesn't that basically trample your earlier argument about it being doubtful that the technology existed? The 450,000 people who designed and built all of it thought it would work. What did these "small dedicated few" know that the armies of engineers didn't? And, if everyone thought the stuff was capable of going to the moon, why not just go? You make no sense.
    5
  617. You entire posted message was a regurgitation of silly nonsense fed to you by conspiracy videos, easily debunked. And, sorry, but, "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake" isn't an argument.
    5
  618. And, you'd believe such a silly thing, why?
    5
  619. Do you need an ambulance? Can you get to a phone to call for help?
    5
  620. Huh? How about actually analyzing the evidence, and not just weird assertions? But, if you don't like stuff that happened under Nixon, yet you want to deny Apollo, ok, how do you explain Apollo 8 (the first manned moon mission)? It happened in 1968, and Nixon didn't take office until 1969.
    5
  621. Big numbers are scary, huh? 48 tons fall on Earth daily, huh? Well, the Earth is about 6 billion trillion tons. That's 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons. Sorry, but 48 out of 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 means that, even hypothetically without an atmosphere, you could go thousands of years before being hit by anything. It's even less on the moon, because the moon has less gravity, and is only 1/50th of the size of Earth, thus attracts fewer meteorites, and it's easier for them to miss the moon. And, when they do hit the moon, their velocity isn't as high as it is when hitting the Earth. You're wrong about the suits also. They were designed with 24 layers, the outer ones being micrometeoroid shielding. While it's true that the velocity would be high, the mass of almost all material floating around in space is so low that it can't penetrate the suit. There's a Forbes article from December 29, 2016, which addresses this concern, titled "How Often Do Meteoroids Hit The Moon?" It does some of the math you don't know how to do. I'll provide a quote: "That means that if the Apollo 11 crew had stayed on the Moon 503,718 days (1,380 years), odds are that one, yes one, musket ball would come down somewhere in the area they were hanging out." Not all meteors are the size of musket balls. So, that one calculation doesn't have a lot of meaning. But, the point remains, you don't understand large numbers. This is a lot like the old story of the grain of rice on the chess board. You, like many others, really can't grasp math. So, what do you do? You quote stuff you don't understand.
    5
  622. Well, first off, by wearing spacesuits. Secondly, by not being on the moon when the surface temperatures were that high. All landings took place early in the lunar morning, long before those lunar afternoon temperatures you're talking about.
    5
  623. First of all, that's not a basis for rejecting Apollo. It doesn't matter if we've been back or not, the evidence is what matters. Secondly, congress ended the program and didn't start another manned program until 2019 when they funded Artemis. Do you actually want to know why they did that? Or, are you just looking for ridiculous reasons to reject Apollo?
    5
  624. Huh? Who's the "troll" here? You asked a question with absolutely no interest in the answer. You were asked a return question, which you ignored. And, then you asked another question with the clear intention of ignoring the answer again. But, you're saying OTHERS are trolls? Good gods, what IS wrong with you?
    5
  625. "there were experiments that showed you don't need any mirror for the laser to bounce back" Of course. Nobody ever claimed otherwise. There were several laser ranging facilities that already existed that were bouncing lasers off of the moon. So what? Are you under the impression that it's the identical reflection? Sorry, but with the reflectors, it's many orders of magnitude more accurate, with far less scatter and variability. You seem to think that there's no way to tell that it's a reflector? Ridiculous. That's like saying that you can't tell the difference between an aircraft carrier and a 4 seater sport boat. But, tell me, why do you think the Soviets, USA, and India (the 3 countries that put reflectors on the moon) bothered to do so, if you think there's no difference between a random spot on the moon vs. a reflector? "the reflectors are small you really think someone can point a laser so precisely in them?" Yes. Again, what EXACTLY do you think you know about this topic that the thousands of engineers who have worked on the dozens of laser ranging facilities around the world don't know? Japan built TWO of those facilities. Are you under the impression that the Japanese engineers just don't realize what they're building? How about the other dozens of facilities around the world for the past 50-60 years or so, run by universities and governments? No? None of them are aware that they are building things that don't work? And, YOU know better? "The supposed "Moon rocks" proves nothing unlike the guy states, it can be any meteorite rock that has fallen on Earth." Not even close. But, you're doing it again. You seem to think that the thousands of geologists around the world who have analyzed the moon rocks cannot tell the difference between a meteorite and moon rock. But, let's pretend you're correct (which you're not, but, we'll pretend for a minute): the moon rocks brought back on Apollo had never been exposed to oxygen or moisture. They know this not only visually, but, also from the chemical analysis. So, please explain that. If they magically found 850 pounds of lunar meteorites (which would be many times more than the entire world's known supply of lunar meteorites), why were they not exposed to the Earth's oxygen or water? "URSS was broke after the Cold War, who can say 100% they were never received any money to not say anything about the u.s lie?" Dewdrop, the cold war ended in 1991. Apollo's lunar missions happened from 1969 to 1972. And, your argument is that the USA bribed the Soviets to endorse the moon missions because they were broke after the cold war? What? Good gods, man. What's wrong with you?
    5
  626. You have no understanding of the topic.
    5
  627. Good grief. The point they were making to you was that you are doing the Gish Gallop, instead of sticking to your own original topic. Original topic = "lost the technology." Well, it IS lost, if you understand the context of what he meant by that. And, another guy outlined that context with the very appropriate analogy to Concorde. We have lost the Concorde supersonic airliner technology in the exact same spirit that we've lost Apollo's technology. Both of those technologies have been retired. We couldn't get a Concorde up into the air if we wanted to. What's left of them have been gutted out and stuck into museums. It would be far easier/faster/better to design and build a completely new program than it would be to try to piece together a flying Concorde. Everything that it took to make Concordes has long been disassembled and everyone has moved on to other things. Same for Apollo. We have no hope of flying a Saturn V rocket again, and it would take far more money/time to try to make one of those fly again than it would take to simply build something new. That is the spirit in which it's "lost." And, you shouldn't hinge your beliefs on stuff like that anyway. This is nothing more than, "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." See? You are quoting a single sentence spoken by a single thing, and you're using this to discard the work of 450,000 people for a decade of their lives, simply because you don't understand the context of that single sentence. Do you understand it yet? Then, you switched to other topics? And, others were guessing about which topic you'd pick next. You then said you were NOT just deflecting... while, in the very next sentence, you deflected AGAIN, and brought up a completely new topic of JFK. I mean, nobody could write this into a movie script, or the audience would never believe anybody could be THAT ridiculous. "I'm not deflecting, but, let's talk about something else." Good grief. Not once did you even acknowledge your own original topic. Not once.
    5
  628. "In the event the space missions were all real" Dewdrop, don't pretend that you'd accept these affidavits or agreements in the first place. You're asking for something that you clearly intend to reject the moment you get what you ask for.
    5
  629. Well, isn't that just convenient? Yeah, forget about the actual evidence. Forget about the dozens of countries that have confirmed Apollo in dozens of different ways over decades. None of that matters. It's a "lie" because you say so.
    5
  630. Complete and total nonsense. Numerous countries tracked Apollo missions to the moon and back with radar and radio telescopes, including enemies. Even backyard amateurs could get radio audio signals during the moonwalks when they pointed their equipment at the moon. And, multiple countries received the video signals (required bigger equipment than audio). There's a mountain of evidence that is completely outside of your "compartmentalization" excuse. So, spare the world this silly idea that only a few people could know, especially when the Soviets even launched their Luna 15 probe for the purpose of racing Apollo 11 with lunar return samples. Their probe crashed, but, all craft were tracked, nonetheless. The mere fact that you'd mention the resignation of Webb before the Apollo landings is downright ridiculous, and shows how little you understand. How would you expect him to stay for the landings? Should he kill Nixon or something? See, dewdrop, the thing you obviously don't know is that the president appoints that position. New president = new administrator. This is especially true if changing parties. So, when Webb (a very vocal democrat against Nixon) saw that it was pretty clear that Nixon was going to win by a landslide, he resigned before he could be fired, also giving others a chance to make a smoother transition and ramp up. There was absolutely no chance that Nixon was going to keep him as administrator, so, Webb had no chance of seeing it through to the landings anyway. Your "objection" is like saying that you think the president's cabinet members should stick around for the next presidency... as if they have a choice. Webb got a pass after Kennedy was shot, and Johnson kept him as administrator in an effort to honor Kennedy's wishes. But, beyond that, sorry, the administrators are always out anyway when a new president is coming in. And, many have resigned for those transitions. You know absolutely nothing about the topic. Nothing whatsoever. Quit pretending.
    5
  631. If it was a man at a playground, would you say to just tell the guy to stop, nothing more?
    5
  632. Absolutely hilarious. You know so little about the topic that you thought they had a lunar rover on Apollo 11 (no, that wasn't until later missions)... simultaneously to pretending you know so much about the topic that you feel confident about calling it a "fantasy."
    5
  633. Pffttt. If you can't be more specific than the word "technology," sorry, dewdrop, you don't know what you're talking about.
    5
  634. I think you misunderstand the laser thing. They're not able to focus the beam on just the little reflector. They hit a rather large area, like the size of a football field, and the reflector bounces back a few of the photons. As for not "looking at the site," well, there is no such telescope large enough to do that.
    5
  635. There are no colonies at the bottom of the ocean either, dewdrop. Does this mean mankind never went to the bottom of the ocean? As someone else explained, at the peak of Apollo's spending, Apollo drained the USA of about 4.5% of the entire federal budget in hard costs, plus another roughly 2% in soft costs and international support (valuable land given away for free, massive tax breaks for contractors resulting in lost income to the fed, military assistance coming out of other budgets, international partners contributing to Apollo out of their own budgets, etc.). Some wars are fought for less money and resources than Apollo. And, what was the result? They managed a whopping 13 launches of the Saturn V rocket, and 12 guys walked on the moon for a few hours each. Now, you think somehow this means they're ready for permanent colonies? The largest payload they were able to take to the moon was a 400 pound rover, and a couple hundred pounds of miscellaneous. How much do you think an entire base for a colony and tourists would weigh? A few million pounds minimum, right? Housing, power production, medical, oxygen supplies, transportation, communications arrays, food storage and/or massive greenhouses to grow crops, etc. How many thousands of launches would that take? Apollo managed 13 Saturn V launches for 4.5% of the entire federal budget, plus 2% in soft costs. Now you want thousands of launches? And, given that we've never had a successful "bio dome" on Earth, you think they've been ready to build one on the moon? Do you even wonder why congress never approved/funded such a thing? But, I'll give you this much: you said this is the "best evidence." The lack of permanent colonies and tourists on the moon. Yes, you're absolutely correct, that IS the best evidence you people have. And, when your "best evidence" fails so badly, yeah, what's your second best evidence? You don't like the look on their faces?
    5
  636. Wow. Which video told you such ridiculous things? And, why would you believe it? They did 360 pans quite frequently once they had the motorized rover cam (Apollo 15/16/17). The Apollo 11 and 14 cameras were mounted on a tripod with no motorized swivel, so, ok. But, after that, I couldn't even count the times that the camera panned around. And, limited footage? What are you talking about? The first thing they did at each rover stop was set up the camera. There are hours upon hours of footage. Good grief. Go watch the ACTUAL videos, not the videos made by people who know the same amount you do (zero).
    5
  637. That's Earth, albeit a bit out of focus. Cernan was focusing on Schmitt and the flag, not the distant Earth. Those are still some of the most iconic photos ever taken in human history. I dislike that this video cut away before showing the entire photo.
    5
  638. I assume you mean 130 (C), not 130 (F), correct? First of all, temperature doesn't work the same in a vacuum as it does in a physical medium like air or water. Without physical contact, heat transfer is limited to only radiant, which is very slow. Secondly, who ever told you that the astronauts were even there for 130 (C) degrees? Why would you be concerned about the maximum surface temperature of the moon rocks/dust? The moon doesn't reach those high temperatures until the lunar afternoon. The astronauts were long gone before the surface ever got that hot. They landed early in the lunar morning, when the surface temperatures were still below 0 degrees. The longest stay on the moon for any of the missions was only 74 hours. A lunar day is 708 hours. They landed early in the lunar morning, and left in the same lunar morning. Barely 10% of a lunar day passed, and it was nowhere near the 130 degrees (C) that you're talking about. Thirdly, it's been 50+ years, don't you think any of the actual engineers who worked on Apollo would have said something? No? "Hey, we forgot to account for the lunar temperature!!! How did Apollo even work??" No? The entire world's engineers all forgot the temperature for 50+ years until now, when you have these concerns?
    5
  639. Blind trust in government is a bad idea. Blind rejection is also a bad idea. EVIDENCE is what matters for belief or disbelief.
    5
  640. I'll bet you deny those also.
    5
  641. If you expected dim stars to show up in the background of a brightly lit foreground, that's the problem right there. You don't understand photography.
    5
  642.  @iatetoomanyfugginbreadstic10  Self defense?? What are you talking about? He PLANNED the murders. He knew they were coming, and planned ahead of time to kill them. He rehearsed on tape what he was going to say to the police and attorneys about the killings... BEFORE THE TEENS EVEN GOT THERE. Yes, I'll say that again, he practiced what he was going to say and do, BEFORE the teens even arrived to rob the place. He said on tape that he was going to shoot them in the left eye, BEFORE THEY GOT THERE. And, he shot the girl twice in the left eye, just as he said he was going to do. He had tarps ready to gather up their bodies (he got them ready BEFORE THEY GOT THERE). He prepared the house for their arrival, unscrewing light bulbs so they couldn't see him when they came down the stairs. He had two guns ready to shoot them. After killing the boy teen thief (who used to work for him), he knew the girl was coming, so quickly gathered up the boy's body and put it in the other room so the girl wouldn't see it. He then waited around for the girl to arrive. Shot her. His gun jammed. So, while she was saying "oh my god" while in pain on the ground, he apologized to her for not killing her more quickly. Then, he shot her in the left eye twice (just as he said he was going to do). But, then he went back again and shot her under the chin into the brain. He said in his confession tape that he knew she was incapacitated, and was no longer a threat, but, intended on killing her, and followed through on that. He said he hated the girl and her family, and had been feuding with them for quite some time. He then waited 24 hours before calling the police, leaving the dead bodies in his house. And, the girl was found with her shirt open (go figure that out for yourself). So, um, yeah, give the jurors and judges and prosecutors a bit more credit here. There was no "self defense" involved here whatsoever.
    5
  643. So, in the period of one hour, you went from "crucial documents and records were lost" to "high quality footage was lost for grainy ones." Dewdrop, nothing of significance was lost. As has been explained to you, two backup video tapes were lost. The primary ones are still intact. They suspect that the quality may have been slightly better on the backup tapes than the primary tapes. But, they don't know that for sure, because nobody in history had ever even viewed them a single time. They never even built a machine capable of viewing them. None of you deniers cared one bit about those two missing tapes from 1969 to 2006. Then, in 2006, when NASA announced that they couldn't find the backup tapes, all of the sudden, now they matter to you. They don't know what happened to them, maybe taped over, maybe just missing outright, whatever. How does this somehow mean that Apollo didn't happen, in your mind? Two tapes that nobody in history had ever even viewed went missing, thus Apollo was fake? That's your "logic"? And, by the way, a couple of years ago, I read an article that said those two tapes were found. But, frankly, I never cared enough to follow up on it. Why not? Because those two tapes don't matter. You people act as if these are major "gotchas." "Oh look, two tapes are gone, therefore Apollo is fake." You ignore the mountains of tapes that aren't gone, you ignore the aircraft carrier sized hangars of physical documentation. You ignore the multitudes of 3rd party evidence. You ignore the modern missions such as from China and India photographing the mission sites, showing the Apollo landers on the surface, exactly where they're supposed to be. Nope. Oh, but, look, two tapes are missing, therefore, Apollo is fake.
    5
  644. You just can't help yourself, can you? You just REFUSE to listen. No matter how many times your nonsense is corrected, you just keep coming back to spew more garbage anyway. "When we see the earth from the moon. It looks the same size as the moon?" No. But, you can do the math. Look at the size of the Earth in any photograph you want. Find out the lenses used on those photos. Look at the original 70mm copies (not photos that have been cropped or made into composites). And, do the math. What ARE you waiting for? I'm sure nobody in the past 50 years has done the math, right? The entire planet just never bothered to do the calculations, right? You've got a perfect mathematical method to prove Apollo was faked, and, yet, all you have are a bunch of words, no math? "Why did the astronauts keep all video on the astronauts instead of doing a full 360 turn around" Dewdrop, go watch the videos in their entirety. They panned around 360 degrees numerous times. Good grief. "common sense would tell you" Common sense would tell you to WATCH THE VIDEOS YOURSELF!!! Don't just blindly trust a conspiracy video that claims they never panned the camera around. Good grief. Are you PROUD to fail so badly at everything? Does it make you happy to spew nonsense non-stop?
    5
  645. They don't watch videos that show them why they're wrong. They just troll the videos and post comments pretending to know things they don't actually know.
    5
  646. Original topic: Why are there no photos of the landing sites? Response: Yes, there are, and here's where to find them. Next topic: But those photos have arrows on them. Next topic: President Nixon. Next topic: Watergate. Next topic: "I want photos of the moonwalkers going 5km." Next topic: NASA sponsors wars/battles. Next topic: "How much did Afghanistan cost?" Next topic: More emojis. Sreeniwasan quote: "IAM NOT CHANGING TOPICS>"
    5
  647. They already did. Their orbiters have taken photos of the Apollo equipment on the moon.
    5
  648. "You can see a light being generated." It's called the sun. "Casting a shadow in front of the astronaut" Well, sort of diagonally in front of Aldrin, not directly in front of him. That's because the sun is behind him, to his left (or to the right from the perspective of the photo). "but it is only casting a shadow in about a 30 yd." Huh? I don't understand what you're trying to say, and neither do you. There isn't even 30 yards of shadow within the frame of the photo. "Premiere why is the rest of the moon black and dark?" I don't know what you mean by "Premiere." But, the answer to the main part of your question is because this is clearly a photo of a photo, suffering from some exposure issues where the center of the photo of a photo gets more light than the surrounding parts of the photo. And, even at that, it's not a very good photo of a photo. Go look at the original AS11-40-5903HR, and see how much brighter it is. "Makes you wonder right" Well, if you understand nothing about the topic.... "where they in a studio" Did you even graduate high school? I mean, I truly hope English is your 3rd language or something, because you repeatedly butcher it so badly. But, good gods, if English is your first language, you have a heck of a lot of problems much more urgent than worrying about how photography works. "because apparently they weren't on the Sunnyside of the moon" That photo was taken while the sun was at an angle of 14 degrees. In other words, it was very early in the lunar morning. All Apollo missions landed at the equivalent of about 6:30am (Earth time). Sure, it got a lot more sunny on the later missions that stayed 70+ hours. But, those early missions, especially Apollo 11 with only one EVA, it was very early in the lunar morning, with a low sun angle, and still relatively dark by comparison to the later missions that stayed until the Earth equivalent of about 9:00am. "and the damp shoot" ENGLISH!!! What in the world is a "damp shoot"? What ARE you talking about? "and go to the dark side of the moon." All sides of the moon get equal light and equal darkness, dewdrop. The "dark side of the moon" is a phrase from a Pink Floyd song. The moon rotates just like the Earth does, except a lunar day is 708 hours, while an Earth day is 24 hours. "Why would they need studio lights propped?" Huh? "And who shoot all the camera footage?" They passed the Hasselblad between the two astronauts on Apollo 11 (the subject of the photo you're questioning). On later missions, each astronaut had his own Hasselblad. But, by "footage," I'm guessing you mean video. So, which video are you referring to? We're talking about 6 different missions, with a range of several different types of cameras. Black and white Westinghouse TV camera. Color Westinghouse TV camera. Color RCA TV camera. 16mm DAC film camera. Just asking who shot the footage isn't specific enough to give an answer. Which exact mission/footage are you talking about?
    5
  649. Airplanes still crash today, therefore the Wright brothers never flew anything.
    5
  650. The "mind boggling" thing is that you'd actually believe the nonsense in American Moon. Every single point they raise in that movie is debunked instantly with even just a superficial understanding of the topic (which the makers of that video do not have). It's "mind boggling" that you people would think that the entirety of the world's aerospace engineers somehow haven't figured out how to watch conspiracy videos like that one. Maybe you're convinced by the claptrap they push in that conspiracy video, but, nobody who understands the topic will ever fall for it.
    5
  651. Kind of helps also when Hitchens and Fry are actually correct, and the fish in a barrel were asked to defend something that can't be defended in the first place.
    5
  652. "temperatures ranging from 240 above to 240 below 0 as found on the surface of the moon" First of all, that's the temperature range from the overnight lows through the afternoon highs. Why would you quote a temperature range like that? All Apollo missions landed early in the lunar morning, right smack in the middle of that range. Secondly, are you under the impression that they placed the cameras on the ground? Temperatures don't work that way in a vacuum.
    5
  653. "Beyond that I have nothing to offer" And, given that you have no understanding of the cameras and temperature, you didn't even offer that. So, basically, you offered zero.
    5
  654. Dewdrop, nobody gets "triggered" over differing opinions. I dare say that nobody gets "triggered" at all by you people. But, granting the word "triggered" for a moment, I'd say it's because people like you pretend to ask questions, but have no interest in the answers. All you want to do is commit slander. You should be RELIEVED and HAPPY that you're wrong. But, you're not. Instead, you stick your head in the sand, and ignore all input. It's the living definition of being delusional.
    5
  655. Hey now, that's the "father" of the moon conspiracy, Bill Kaysing. He's the one who started it all, and he is heralded as the #1 authority by the denier cult. He was an Apollo engineer working for Rocketdyne (the makers of the famous F1 engines that lifted the Saturn V off the ground), so, he should really know better than everyone else. And, he said the F1 wasn't capable of doing the job it was designed to do, thus, Apollo was fake, because they couldn't have lifted that amount of payload to the moon. Of course, the reality is that he's not an engineer, he was a writer, and low level menial task guy, and wrote some technical documents. And he left Rocketdyne before Rocketdyne even produced a single F1 engine used on Apollo. So, his complaints about the F1 engine were based on early versions that were never used on Apollo, and before a lot of the problems were solved. And, yeah, he basically had an entirely failed career, and became that guy living in a trailer with 30 cats. But, yes, you're looking at the cream of the crop in moon landing deniers.
    5
  656. "everything just worked wonderfully no problem no glitch no anything" Apollo 10's lunar lander flipped completely upside down and was powering head-down toward the lunar surface, and had to be put in manual mode to stop it. Apollo 11 nearly had to abort due to numerous problem, and overshot the intended landing spot by 4 miles. Apollo 12's camera fried out, and they had only about 2-3 seconds of TV video from the entire surface stay. Apollo 13 exploded half way to the moon, and was a complete mission failure, barely getting the astronauts home alive. Apollo 14 had a massive amount of near-abort problems, including not being able to dock with the lander due to ice buildup, landing radar read infinity as they approached the surface (that's a bad thing), the computer's abort mode switch was flaking out, and they nearly couldn't land. They also failed to ever reach their primary mission target (Cone Crater). Apollo 15 slammed the surface so hard that it could almost be called a crash landing, smacking the engine bell to the point that it was all bent and crumpled up, and was literally less than 1 degree of inclination from the point that they couldn't do a stable takeoff. And, they failed to make it to some of its surface rover stops. Apollo 16 nearly had to abort because the SPS wasn't working properly. This delayed the mission about 8 hours, and they were extremely close to aborting altogether. Apollo 17 was probably the most "problem free" mission, but, yes, they had minor issues. This is just scratching the surface. I could type an entire encyclopedia about the problems they had. But, I doubt you'd read it. "Crashed the landing simulator" So? They built 5 of them, you know. They had hundreds upon hundreds of successful flights also. So what? Why does this matter to you? What does that have to do with the veracity of the program itself? "250,000 miles away in a Tin can for 3 days" As opposed to what? NOT going? I mean, you're acting as if this is supposed to be some sort of evidence against Apollo. But, all you're saying is that the craft did what it was supposed to do. And, by the way, they spent a lot more time than that in the command module. Why aren't you bringing that up? " incredibly easy to send Live TV signals around the world!" No. They had over 1,000 engineers, and I couldn't even guess at the number of technicians, working for almost a decade on building the DSN to make that communications possible. Again, as opposed to what? NOT building the communications network? How do you conclude that the DSN is somehow a factor against Apollo? I mean, if they never built the thing, sure, maybe you'd have a valid complaint. Like, "why didn't they build a communications network for Apollo to be able to send/receive signals to/from the moon 24/7?" But, your complaint is that they DID build that network? "I was 12 yrs old and the aluminum foil on my tv antenna was hard to get a good signal" So, you clearly took that foil and wrapped it around your head. "but they had NO Problem at all 250,000 miles away" Yes, they did. Apollo 16's lander, for example, wasn't even able to use its S-band dish to communicate with that network at home. It was stuck. They couldn't point it at Earth. Thus, they had ZERO direct communication, and had to bounce the signals through the omni antennae to the command module. Of course, you don't know anything about it. So, stop pretending you do. Did you even read this far? Did any denier read this far? Or, is it just "complain, then run for the hills, refusing to read replies"? Can you or any other denier acknowledge reading this by posting the word "green" at the top of any reply? Otherwise, all you're proving is that you have zero interest in the answers to your own questions/statements.
    5
  657. Three of them swore on Sibrel's bible. After that, the rest of them knew better than to give the time of day to that charlatan.
    5
  658. Aldrin has a doctorate from MIT, 66 combat missions including air-to-air dogfight victories, and held a Brigadier General rank. Armstrong flew the X15 to the edge of space before even becoming an astronaut, had a master's degree in aerospace engineering, and flew 78 combat missions. And, you think these two men couldn't figure out how to deploy a flag without extensive training? And, this is your leading "evidence" against Apollo?
    5
  659. Oh, you're a real genius. Grissom said that the Block1 command module was a lemon. So, NASA freaked out to the point of murdering 3 people over it. In order to preserve the public image that the Block1 command module was a perfect machine, NASA staged it so that the Block1 command module would fail and kill astronauts?? Even to a dolt like you, you would have to recognize that it doesn't make any sense. Good grief. NASA: "Grissom is going to reveal that the Block1 command module has problems. We can't allow that. We need to make the public think that the Block1 command module is a wonderful and reliable machine, so, let's set up the Block1 command module to fail and kill astronauts." Sheeessssshhh. You have flushed your brain down the toilet.
    5
  660. Oh, who was "catching on"? Were the Soviets "catching on" when they tracked the Apollo missions to the moon and back with radar and radio telescopes? What about the other dozens of countries that did that also? When Japan sent Selene to the moon, and found signs of the Apollo missions on the moon, were they "catching on"? How about Arizona State University's LRO camera, which has been sending back images of the Apollo landing sites for over a decade? Why haven't those people "caught on"? How about China, which saw the Apollo landing sites with their orbital cameras also? No? They didn't "catch on"? Just a few months ago, India released their photos of the Apollo landing sites that they captured with their lunar orbiter, which showed the exact same thing that all of the others show... landers, rover tracks, foot paths, etc. Why haven't they "caught on" to whatever you think you've caught on to?
    5
  661.  @ohlalaale  The audio is from Apollo 17. But, the video footage at the 48 minute mark was borrowed from other missions, just as I said.
    5
  662. YOU SAID: "Watching the vidio of the accent modual taking off the LEM is all I need to see." == No, it seems that you also need to see a few books on English literacy. YOU SAID: "A pyrotechnic discharge ant the cable lift" == What cable? YOU SAID: "with no burn whatsoever underneath." == The fuel and oxidizer used by the ascent module burns clear (once it is mixed properly and the reaction gets going). You can see the burn for the first 1/2 second or so, and that's about all you'd see. But, if you pay attention, you can see the pattern of the debris falling from the ascent module clearly shows there's rocket thrust underneath.
    5
  663. Don't be ridiculous. Every single one of the world's 72 space agencies believes Apollo happened. Many countries confirmed Apollo in many different ways, including enemy countries. Here we are, 50 years later, and STILL there has not been a single anti-Apollo scientific paper anywhere on the planet in any science journal that has made it through entry-level scrutiny. That's why people like you are relegated to YouTube comment fields (no scrutiny), because not a single one of your anti-Apollo claims holds water.
    5
  664. Yup, the golden age of aviation and space travel was definitely the 1960s and early 1970s. The X15 plane flew mach 7. The SR71 mach 3 spyplane was created. The Concorde was created, flying 100+ passengers at mach 2 for 3000 miles. Apollo went to the moon 9 times. Budgets were basically unlimited, and the industrial complex was in full swing. Over time, all of those technologies were retired, and today we can't do any of those things. Unlimited budgets gave way to the concept that things needed to actually be economically feasible to sustain, which none of those things were.
    5
  665. "Then explain how there was even enough room for all the gear for two astronauts and all the supposed moon rock on board?" Hold on just a second here. The lunar module was designed by 7,000 engineers at Grumman. Are you saying that you think they forgot to engineer enough room for the astronauts and their equipment? Is that seriously your argument here? Have you read the schematics? Have you ever even seen one of them with your own two eyes? The thing was about 24 feet tall, and 14 feet wide (or 33 feet wide if you include the landing gear). Yeah, the cabin was cramped, but, c'mon, let's get serious here, you've never looked. Don't pretend you have. And, don't pretend you really want answers to your own questions. Are you even reading this reply? Can you demonstrate it by writing "green" at the top of your reply to prove you are even reading the answers to your own questions?
    5
  666. Another classic case of always claiming the opposite should happen. For decades, I listened to countless people say, "If anybody accused me of being a criminal and publicly slandered me, I'd clock the guy, and since none of the Apollo astronauts do that, they all know they're guilty." Then, after Aldrin clocks the guy, the claim becomes, "Aldrin knows he's guilty, which is why he clocked the guy." Dewdrop, just face reality here, you were going to say the same thing no matter what happened.
    5
  667. Thermodynamics disagrees with you. See, the problem is, you're comparing rocketry to airliners. Airliners can keep gaining economies of scale by making planes more efficient, carrying more and more people, etc. This is because airline travel is a net-zero energy equation. You take off on the ground, and land on the ground. The energy you burn is on heat and friction with the air, and there's no net energy differential between one airport and another (well, except perhaps if they're at different altitudes, but, this is just a quibble). But, that's not true of rocketry to the moon. Here we are, 50+ years later, and it still takes millions of pounds of oxidizer and fuel to lift a couple of people to the moon. And, it's not going to get more efficient. That's because going to the moon isn't a net-zero equation. There's no way around the fact that you need to lift people and spacecraft to an altitude of 238,000 miles, and have the fuel required to come back. This is never going to be a commercial endeavor.
    5
  668. "If US went to moon in 1969 why now needs decades to prepare to visit moon again?" Decades? Artemis was funded by congress in 2019. And, it was funded at a tiny fraction of the cost of Apollo (adjusted for inflation). I think they're doing pretty well with the timeline, given the budget. "Does this mean NASA destroyed all drawings" No. You can still get all of the schematics. Who cares? We wouldn't want a direct copy of Apollo anyway. Apollo was too limited. They couldn't land more than around 30 degrees off of the equator. They couldn't stay more than about 70-75 hours, then they'd run out of supplies. They couldn't do more than 3 moonwalks per mission. They couldn't venture more than a few miles from the lander. They couldn't carry more than a couple of hundred pounds of rocks back to Earth. They couldn't carry very much stuff to the lunar surface. The list goes on and on. Everyone knows how Apollo worked, but, nobody wants a repeat of Apollo. They want a lot more now. They want to land at the poles, stay a lot longer, carry more cargo, etc. "and technology?" Depends on your definition of "destroy." From a practical standpoint, yes, it's all destroyed. The guidance computers were huge IBM mainframes in Houston. Those are long gone. The radar tracking systems were old, and have been replaced. The training facilities were all torn down. The launch facilities were ripped out and replaced. All of the tools and buildings used to manufacture stuff for Apollo were torn down and replaced with facilities to build other things. The list goes on. Yes, from that standpoint, it's "destroyed." But, we still have all of the knowledge. "It is like i say to somebody: I drove with my car from DC to New York in 1969 but in order to do the same trip now i need 10 or more years to build a new car and check roads obstacles. DOES THIS MAKE SENSE?" Dewdrop, sorry, but a Saturn V rocket isn't a 1969 Mustang. "I think this by itself proves US never meant to moon." I think this proves you have no understanding of the topic. "As Donal R. told they filmed whole trip in Arizona." The 450,000 people who worked on Apollo disagree. But, someone said it was filmed in Arizona, so, you'll stick with that. "Also If James Web telescope can see beyond 14 light years why can not not take a high resolution film or pictures from Apollos landing locations" Do you really not understand the difference between distance and resolution? Really? I mean, physically, it's not facing the right direction to even see the landing sites, so, that's another issue. But, it wouldn't matter anyway. Distance and resolution are two different concepts.
    5
  669. "NASA was saying that they are now checking the effects of radiation on human traveling beyond the Van Allen belt." Yup, every chance they get. Virtually all satellites and probes and craft sent into or past the belts have meters on them to measure. So what? What would you propose? You think they shouldn't take readings? "I am in shock since I heard that." I don't understand it, therefore it's fake. "NASA must check Buzz Aldrin body for that. He and several US astronauts were supposedly traveled beyond Van Allen belt when they went to the moon in 1969 & 1970s. So why waste even time to check something that was not issue." Why NOT check readings? Seriously, do you think they should just take the readings from 1958, and never take readings again? What exactly are you proposing? "If in reality the Buzz Aldrin other Apollo astronauts went to moon and nearly all of them are still alive," 24 astronauts went to the moon, dewdrop. Only 8 are still alive. Do you see what I mean when I say that you don't know anything about the topic? "NASA has proof that radiation after Van Allen belt do not harm human." Dewdrop, space radiation isn't like a bullet. You don't just get hit and instantly die. Intensity, type, time of exposure, etc., are all relevant. Why are you pretending to understand a topic you clearly do not? "For me this proves that no human went Van Allen belt so far." I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    5
  670. Also 27:52. It looks like quite a little bowl was formed beneath the lander as the dust was blown away. It's shaped like a small crater, and is a heck of a lot smoother in texture than the surrounding dust. Did you not watch the video before you made this comment? As someone else said, you see the dust being blown at 24:20. And, you see the results at 27:52. What more do you want?
    5
  671. That is just ridiculous. The lunar module wasn't designed to land on Earth. It couldn't even take off on Earth. The maximum thrust was 10,500 pounds, and it weighed 33,500 pounds. At full throttle, it won't even come remotely close to even being able to get off the ground, let alone land the thing. Nobody ever claimed they could land it on Earth. Spare the world your "end of story" nonsense.
    5
  672. Well, we don't know for certain. But, the idea is that there are always tiny micrometeorites hitting the surface. And, this kicks up tiny dust amounts. Also, it's well understood that the static charge of the moon suspends microscopic particles of dust above the lunar surface. You'd never notice it in person, but, from a large distance, they can see the aggregate effect. And, they were able to measure the field while there, and from modern lunar orbiters. This microscopic layer of dust can settle back down onto the items sitting on the lunar surface also. But, the proof is in the pudding. Until someone actually goes to one of these sites and takes a look at the dust layer (or no dust layer), all we have are mathematical models based on incomplete information.
    5
  673. There was no take-off video on Apollo 11. They didn't start the camera until about 1,000 feet above the surface.
    5
  674. Was it meth? Is that what did this to you?
    5
  675. Secure the scene first. Render aid second. If they gave aid immediately, before a bunch of officers were onsite, there's a good chance that the officer would be the one in need of aid. You already saw that a screaming banshee arrived on the scene in about 10 seconds. It was only a minute or two after that when the screaming brother arrived. Who knows how many others were in the woodwork, waiting for an opportunity to pick up where Mark left off?
    5
  676.  @EVRose60  If memory serves, I think the pressure inside the suits was about 3-4 pounds. The pressure in the command module and lunar module was 4-5 pounds.
    5
  677. Wow, not the brightest bulb, eh? I'd say it's even worse than that, and the bulb didn't work right out of the box. Good gods. "Has anyone seen the theatrical set of the "moon" surface when the overhead light falls and almost hits the astronaut." Yes, dewdrop. It's a spoof. The people who originally posted it said it's a spoof. Good grief. "Astrobrandt2 5 Actual Apollo Hoaxes that Hoax Nuts Fell For." The spoof you're talking about is #4. How far gone are you when you use a video that was made to make fun of you, somehow thinking it supports you? "Has anyone really looked at the photo" There are hundreds of such photos, not just one. "of the "lander" and wondered why there isn't moon dust all over the landing pads" Maybe you should look at the hundreds of photos, not just the one fed to you by a conspiracy video, eh? "or why the dust isn't disturbed" Yes, dewdrop. The dust was greatly disturbed. Once again, you should look at the actual photo archives, not the cherry picked low-res photos from bad angles. "by the powerful jet engine directly above it?" Jet engine, eh? Oh, you're a true genius alright. Jets?
    5
  678. Shifting the goalposts again? For decades, deniers wanted a probe to confirm Apollo, despite the massive amounts of evidence already available. OK, so, in 2008, Japan's JAXA/Selene was able to take 3D images that confirmed the Apollo photography at a level of detail not available prior. This meant that Apollo's photography was accurate to a level of detail that simply wasn't available in 1969-1972, except by actually being on the moon. They also detected disturbance/discoloration to the surface at each landing site, thus confirming that something had happened at each of the exact Apollo sites. But, yes, they lacked a camera with enough resolution to actually see the equipment itself. Then, along comes LRO with the Arizona State University camera, from 2009 to 2012, which was able to take the photos seen in this video (and more). Now there was a camera with the resolution required to start to make out some of the stuff on the moon, a few pixels of the landers, starting to make out the outlines of the rover tracks, etc. Yeah, it wasn't super great, but, it confirmed stuff in better detail than JAXA/Selene. Then, in 2012, they dropped LRO into an even lower orbit (only 12 miles above the lunar surface), thus producing even better images (why the makers of this video doesn't use them, and uses the pre-2012 copies... I'll never understand). For the images from 2012 and forward, they got even more detail than prior, more distinct outlines of the landers, shadows of the flags (the 5 that are still standing anyway), more distinct rover tracks and foot paths, etc. And, what happened? You deniers simply said those were CGI, dismissing it. And, over the last couple of years, we now have both China and India producing images with their own orbiters, showing some of the Apollo landing sites. India's, in particular, are the best, because they have the highest resolution camera circling the moon today. Take a look at their shot of the Apollo 12 landing site, as taken by their Chandrayaan2 orbiter. You can see the lander, the footpads on the lander, the shadows of the flame deflectors and the shadow of flag planted just north of the lander (exactly where it's supposed to be). Every single detail matches exactly with the original Apollo 12 photography, down to the placement of every single crater. What do you people do? You shift the goalposts again. You either say, "still not good enough." Or, you just conclude that China and India decided to join "the deception" 50 years later. So, forgive me if I can't exactly take you seriously when you keep asking for closer and closer photography. If you got what you wanted, and the next camera they send up there has double the resolution, all you're going to do is ask for 4x the resolution. And, after that, you'll ask for 8x the resolution. No resolution will ever be good enough for you. The truth is that the resolution in 2012 from LRO was more than good enough to demonstrate the Apollo stuff on the moon. The rover tracks alone were an exact match to the mission photography. If you people rejected those images, I don't care if they had a camera capable of reading the serial numbers off of the equipment on the moon, you are going to reject it as "fake" anyway. So, why do you ask for closer photos? Why shift the goalposts?
    5
  679. 1) Ed Fendell. 2) Yeah, the 7,000 people at Grumman who designed the lunar lander, the hundreds more at Boeing and GM who designed the rover, all simultaneously forgot to make it fit, and for 50 years, they never realized that they overlooked such an obvious thing. 3) Huh? Weightless? Are you under the impression that there's no gravity? 4) It was being handled. Air, or no air, is not relevant. 5 and 6 and 7 and 8) Again with gravity, huh? How would the moon even stay together if there was no gravity? 9) Ed Fendell.
    5
  680. A) Many deniers expect a crater to have been created. Of course, they're wrong. No crater is expected, because anybody can do the math and realize how little pressure was being put onto the lunar surface. Blowing dust, yes. Crater, no. And it seems that you agree that people are wrong to expect a crater. B) With no atmosphere, there's no reason for dust to swirl around and come back to land on landing pads. Dust will follow the exact same trajectory as a thrown rock, out and away. And, if any dust does manage to find its way into a landing pad, the rocket engine would just blow it back out. So, the only dust you might find in the landing pads would be some random pieces that happened to bounce their way into the landing pads instead of being blown outward and away, just as the engine was cut off (so it doesn't get blown right back out). Needless to say, that's not going to happen very often. But, yes, it did happen. And, yes, there's dust in some of the landing pads. You didn't just blindly trust a conspiracy video when it told you that no dust was in any landing pads, did you? You checked the photo archive for yourself to see if that's correct, right? Or, wait, no, you didn't, otherwise you wouldn't be spewing garbage. How about AS16-107-17442? Enough dust in the landing pads for you? I also can't help but point out AS14-66-9255. "Dust didn't show up on the feet at all"? Nobody who has ever looked at the photo archive could ever utter those words you've uttered. There are more photos of dust in the landing pads also. But, if I post too many catalog numbers, the message gets banned. Find them yourself. Stop just blindly trusting lies told to you by the makers of conspiracy videos. Those people have absolutely nothing to go on, so, they make stuff up, feed it to the masses, and they/you gobble it up like Christmas dinner, never fact-checking a single thing they say.
    5
  681. "different answers to the same questions" Let me guess: you saw a conspiracy video that jumbles together astronauts talking about seeing stars or not, and you think these are different answers to the same question, right? And, it never occurred to you that conditions matter? Like, were they inside the craft or in a spacesuit outside the craft? Did they use optics? What were the lighting conditions? What method did they use to block the direct sunlight? Right? That's the video you're talking about, right? You just assume that they should see stars or not, and the conditions don't matter one bit, right?
    5
  682.  @ThxChan  Pffttt. Really? Why would you say that? And, if you really believe I'm wrong, why did everyone agree with me? The police investigators, the prosecuting attorneys, the judges, the jury? Then, the appellate court, the state supreme court, and the Supreme Court of the USA, which universally examined the case and determined that it was not worthy of appeal, based on its merits. Basically, castle doesn't apply to premeditated murder.
    5
  683. This is a well understood aspect of psychology. When someone who, well, isn't the brightest bulb, hears words and phrases he doesn't understand, he literally omits those words as if he never heard them. "Did you see stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?" becomes (to you) "did you see stars?" Since you don't know what the solar corona is, nor when they could/couldn't see it, nor do you know what glare they're talking about, you simply omitted those words from your mind. Don't worry, smart people do better. When smart people hear words they don't understand, they go find out what they mean.
    5
  684.  @therealzilch  "grain shipments from the US" Yeah, I loved that one. The Soviets confirmed the Apollo moon landings starting in 1969, because somehow they magically knew they'd have a crop problem in 1972 and would need USA's grain in 1973.
    5
  685.  @Fortaz107  Who cares? There are no NDAs or contracts that can be enforced in a crime. It's a myth to believe that if you sign an NDA, you are not allowed to expose a crime. Such contracts are null and void the moment you find out that a crime is taking place, and you're ALWAYS free to report crimes.
    5
  686.  @peterdarr383  Quote: "You use the same AMOUNT of electricity to get a loaded Semi 0-60 whether you accelerate fast or slow." == Not true. I mean, sure, in physics 101, where you calculate the really basic thermodynamic equations, sure, yeah, it would seem you're right, because the net energy delivered is the same, right? But, in practice, that's not how it goes, because there are more factors than entry-level physics 101 would tell you. There are more factors in the actual real-life equation. There's more energy lost when trying to deliver the power quickly, than if delivering the power slowly. It's not as much loss as an internal combustion engine loses energy at full throttle vs. feathering... but... still... it's similar in concept... the harder you hit that pedal, the more energy that will be lost to heat.
    5
  687. coisasnatv: YOU SAID: "How come NASA deleted all the tapes of this greatest technological achievement, no backup plan, nothing." == They DIDN'T. That's a stupid internet legend, which conspiratards have blown completely out of control. Around a decade ago, somebody was taking a look at the Apollo 11 videos, and wanted to take a look at the the BACKUP tapes from Parkes, Australia, to find out if the imagery was a bit cleaner. But, they found out that the backup tapes were missing, and that nobody had even tried to look at them in decades (because they were the BACKUP tapes). The primary tapes were archived in Houston, no problem. But, a few years go by, and internet conspiratards claim that the backup tapes were the primary tapes, and claim that the primary tapes were missing. A few more years go by, and internet conspiratards claim that all tapes from Apollo 11 were missing. A few more years go by, and the internet conspiratards start claiming that all of the data was missing too. And, nowadays, internet conspiratards claim that all data and all tapes from all missions are missing. It's ridiculous, and it's based on absolutely nothing.
    5
  688. paulanderson79: YOU SAID: "How come NASA has never filed a single lawsuit against any individual or organisation for questioning the authenticity of the Apollo landings?" == You keep posting this stupidity in these threads. What ARE you talking about? What EXACT laws do you think are violated? There's no law against being stupid. There's no law against questioning things. What EXACT premise do you think such a lawsuit would be based on?
    5
  689. Were you intentionally trying to get every sentence wrong?
    5
  690. Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. You'll find tons of them. Videos also.
    5
  691. "Just one of 500 things technically impossible with the fake space program." But, dewdrop, you haven't named one valid thing yet. Your one objection was wrong. Guess what: your other 499 objections will be just as wrong as your first one. "Oh, and you might want to do the math" Oh, no you don't. Nope. You don't get to sit there and pretend you've done the math, and then tell others to do the math. You clearly haven't done the math. Stop pretending. "on how eight car batteries in 1969 powered the lunar module in -208 degrees for days." By not using car batteries. Who told you they were car batteries? And, again, temperature in space doesn't work the way you think. Dewdrop, the batteries used in the lunar module were a special silver-zinc compound that packed in a heck of a lot more energy (per pound) than any commercial battery you'd buy today. They costed about today's equivalent of $600,000 each. And, they couldn't be recharged. So, unless you believe that people are willing to buy $600,000 car batteries that can't be recharged, then they need to spend another $600,000 on a new battery, then sorry, you don't get to call them "car batteries." And, yes, I've done the math. There was enough energy in those Eagle-Picher batteries to do the job. "Go turn on your radio overnight and see how long the battery lasts." Go buy an Eagle-Picher silver-zinc battery for $600,000, and see how long your radio lasts. "It's too bad they destroyed all the designs for these incredible inventions." Dewdrop, you can order the batteries today from Eagle-Picher. They're still around. Who told you that the designs were destroyed? Was it a conspiracy video that told you such a ridiculous thing?
    5
  692. So, I responded to all of your points. I corrected the parade of nonsense you spewed, and told you exactly why you're wrong. I asked dozens of questions. But, you're going to ignore it all? In one ear, out the other? And, because I corrected your spelling mistake also, you're going to pretend that I didn't ALSO respond about the stuff you were asserting? How can you possibly respond with: "So a spelling mistake at 3am is your stirring argument to dismiss any data you can't explain." Dewdrop, I DID explain it. You argued that the extreme high temperatures and the extreme low temperatures were too much for Apollo to handle, remember? That was your position. I replied with: "So, no, the astronauts were never there for these high temperatures you're complaining about. And, no landing occurred during the lunar nighttime, so, no, they never experienced the super-cold either." And, now, you're replying back with, ""You are absolutely correct "The astronauts were never there""? Really? You dropped the entire rest of the sentence off of your quote, which clearly explains to you why those extreme temperatures were not relevant, and you pretend I was just saying the astronauts weren't there? And, after you ignored everything else I wrote to respond to every single objection you had, refusing to address a single rebuttal I made, or a single question I asked, you now attempt to change topics and want me to explain other things to you? Um, no, dewdrop. You've made it 100% clear that nobody's input matters to you. You do not want answers to your questions. You do not want anybody to correct the incorrect things you're asserting. You do not want to understand anything about Apollo. Your purpose here is to slander. That's all you're doing this for. You desire to feel better about yourself by dragging others down to your level. Most people, the sane ones, would be able to respond to questions/challenges. But, nope. That would steer you off of your main objective: slander. So, you've stayed focused on slandering, and you couldn't care less about the facts that demonstrate that your slander is misplaced. No, dewdrop, I'm not answering new topics until you admit you're wrong about all of the prior topics.
    5
  693. Not that anything you said made any sense on any level, but, this comment was particularly laughable: "they had to convert the data from hexadecimal to binary" Dewdrop, the data was always binary. Hexadecimal is merely a way to write it down. And, it's completely irrelevant, because nobody was ever actively converting anything to hex. The radar data was pumped directly into the IBM mainframes, which crunched the numbers on the fly. Why are you pretending to understand things you do not?
    5
  694. Yet, you have no trouble believing silly taxi cab drivers and yoga instructors who pretend to know all about aerospace engineering, and make ridiculous videos full of nonsense.
    5
  695. Lying doesn't help anything, dewdrop. There is no such Earth based telescope. In order to accomplish that, you'd need a telescope lens/mirror a quarter mile in diameter (not kidding, that's the actual math), and you'd need to solve the problem of atmospheric distortion.
    5
  696. And, of course, as usual, it blocked my posting of the catalog number of the photo of the camera facing the ladder. You'll have to find it from my description of the mission/magazine/photo numbers.
    5
  697. Thanks for demonstrating the universal fact that anybody with "truth" in his/her nickname has no idea what that word means. Dewdrop, they were dumping every bit of weight they could. They only brought back the essentials, plus lunar samples. Yes, once they brought boots back. And, once they brought a camera back. There was a little bit of margin for that sometimes. But, as a general rule, they dumped everything they didn't need.
    5
  698. The most clear evidence that your entire opinions are based solely on conspiracy videos is that you'd regurgitate such nonsense. No, dewdrop, they didn't "lose" any evidence. You're just repeating lies told to you in your favorite videos. And, nobody wants a recreation of Apollo, dewdrop. It was far too limited, massively inefficient, and the communications, tracking, training, radar, etc., technologies are obsolete.
    5
  699. So, after I corrected this exact pile of gibberish you posted in a different video, you came back here and copied/pasted the same pile of gibberish?
    5
  700. Well, NASA sure thought that would be the case. Congress didn't agree.
    5
  701. "28:23 How did they get that huge car on the spacecraft?" There are a million videos on this. "Lunar rover deployment" is a good place to start. "Are there any pictures or videos of them taking the car off the spacecraft?" Have you tried looking for yourself? "38:44 Where is the sound of the hammer hitting the rock coming from on the Moon.?" Travels through the hand/glove into the suit, and is picked up by the microphone. "You never heard the sound of the car on the Moon when they were driving it." Um, yeah, you do, sometimes at least. I mean, there's a big difference between a repetitive striking motion heard directly through a glove, vs. a much more sedate sound of wheels turning, and then transmitting those small vibrations through the astronauts' padded behinds, up into the suit that way. It was rare to hear anything naturally. But, yes, sometimes. Have you actually listened to audio, or, did you just assume it could never be heard, and you came here to assert it? I mean, if you know so little about Apollo that you don't even know how the rover folded up, and you've never seen video of it being folded up, I have a very difficult time believing that you actually watched the videos yourself. I think you watched conspiracy videos, and none of the actual original Apollo videos. Tell me I'm wrong. Can you?
    5
  702. Going to the moon was mainly a political move against the Soviet Union. It was a technological demonstration of the power of the capitalist industrial complex. And, precision landing on the moon meant precision nuclear bomb placement from space was just as viable. The cold war had been heating up, people were building bomb shelters in their backyards, and we were very close to ending up in WWIII. The main purpose of Apollo was to demonstrate to the Soviets that the USA cannot be beaten. And, although we cannot turn back time to see what would have happened without Apollo, the people working on Apollo considered it a success in scaring the Soviets into not pushing the cold war into a real war, thus saving tens of millions of lives.
    5
  703. It's 50x larger in volume, but only 4x larger in angular size. If you disagree, why are you on YouTube? Why aren't you submitting your calculations to science journals?
    5
  704. Oh look, another denier who reads and writes at a 2nd grade level. Bravo, dewdrop. Bravo. You're a real hero.
    5
  705. Nobody did anything "to" her. Stop pretending the criminal is the victim.
    5
  706. The Apollo missions couldn't land in the polar regions. All landings had to be basically equatorial. Yes, a bit north or south of the equator was fine. But, there was no way they could have done a mission that far north or south.
    5
  707. Fact: You have no understanding of the topic. FACT: The EVIDENCE is more powerful than your "logic" (sigh).
    5
  708. "One reason I don't believe we went to the moom is why does" This is your edited version? And, the reason you don't believe is that you have a question? So, basically, if you don't understand it yet, that means it's fake? Dewdrop, that's not a reason, that's a question. "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake" isn't a reason. "the earth appear so clear in the picture taken from the moon" Depends. Some were clear, some were not. Why do you use singular form here? They took hundreds of photos of Earth from the surface of the moon, from the transit between Earth and moon, and from lunar orbit. How clear they were or weren't depends on focus, motion blur, etc. "but when we take pictures of the moon from earth it's not as clear?" Huh? Get a better camera. "And what about the Van Allen Belts, their instrumentations would of been fried" Of they? Of their instruments of fried of? Of what would of caused of them of fried? Who of told you of such of frying? "and the astronauts would of had cancer" Of cancer of? Why would of they of had of cancer? Of you a radiobiologist of? Of you know of what of you're talking of? "And if went to the moon with the technology of the 60's why haven't we went back especially with the technology we have today" Congress didn't fund any further missions until they funded Artemis in 2019. So, basically, you reject the moon landings because you don't understand things. Bravo. You're a real hero. Do you reject brain surgery because you don't understand it?
    5
  709. "Von Braun said it would take a fueling station in low Earth orbit and three rockets reach the size of the Empire State Building to get there and back." No, he said the Saturn V would do the job. You are basing this statement on earlier iterations of what Apollo would be. In the early plans, they talked about landing dozens of people in each mission who would live on the moon for months at a time. That got pruned back, and back, and back over time, until they finally opted on a separate lightweight lander that would carry 2 people to the lunar surface for a matter of hours. Sorry, but, you don't get to quote the requirements for a completely different mission profile, as if it's some sort of "gotcha."
    5
  710. So, if history doesn't pan out exactly as you expect (in your own ignorance), then it's fake?
    5
  711. YOU SAID: "The only problem with the apoolo" == You've made a bunch of posts. You keep spelling "Apollo" different ways. Sorry, but if you cannot even spell "Apollo" correctly, you're not exactly an expert here. Would you go to a heart surgeon who couldn't spell "heart" or "surgeon"? If I said, "I'm a hart surjon," would you trust me with your heart surgery? No? Then why would anybody put any credence into a single thing you say about Apollo, when you repeatedly cannot even spell it? YOU SAID: "missions is not coming forward and tell the truth what these astronauts saw." == Oh, but YOU know what they saw?? YOU do? OK, what did they see? And, how do you know it? YOU SAID: "Voice communications at times were cut off." == I don't recall any of that. But, yeah, perhaps. In total, the astronauts spent days upon days on the lunar surface. It's certainly possible that they had communications trouble sometimes. I don't remember any, but, if you'd name an example....??
    5
  712. "The rocket/capsui and the people had zero protection from radiation." Really? I mean, I'd say it would depend on the type of radiation you're talking about. There are many different kinds, and you use different types of protection for different types of radiation. No knowledgeable person would ever say the sentence you just said. "They would not have survived the van allen radiation belt." Says who? Certainly not James Van Allen. Certainly not any aerospace engineers. I mean, not for Apollo anyway. So, who told you such a thing? Was it a conspiracy video? Yes, either James Van Allen (before he died) would have told you not to send craft up into the inner belt for a very long time, or aerospace engineers will tell you not to send craft there for a long time. Shuttle missions, ISS missions, etc., lasted days/weeks/months, even sometimes over a year. They even planned on some Orion mission profiles that would be in those belts for extended periods (i.e. satellite repair/retrieval missions). But, Apollo went through the inner belt in about 15 minutes. What do you know that the experts don't? And, while you're at it, can you explain how the Soviets were able to send two dogs into the worst area of the inner belt, and those dogs lived for 3 weeks? I'll grant you, they probably got a fatal exposure in a week or two, and it just took longer before they finally died. But, c'mon, we're only talking about 15 minutes for Apollo. If you think the Apollo astronauts couldn't survive a 15 minute exposure, please explain how two Soviet dogs lived for 3 weeks? "Also how was there a camera already on the moon to film the landing" There wasn't. All landing videos were taken from a camera inside the craft, looking out the LMP window. Why were you under the impression that there was already a camera on the lunar surface? Can you name a single video clip from this imaginary camera you're talking about? Who told you such a camera was there? Did a conspiracy video say that?
    5
  713. Do you really not understand these concepts? Really? Or, you're looking for a "gotcha" that none of the thousands of engineers who worked on the program would ever realize... like, ILC Dover and Hamilton Standard forgot to put enough oxygen in the suits/backpacks?
    5
  714. YOU SAID: "Crystal clear footage. All I remember was some poor video coming through the old television sets. Bravo!" == It depended on which camera they used. They had two video cameras. The main one was the RCA field sequential scanning TV camera. The picture wasn't very good. But, it was super lightweight (for that era), and it enabled live transmissions from the lunar surface. The other camera was the 16mm film DAC. It produced much more clear video, of course, because it was on film instead of just a low resolution TV transmission. But, the disadvantage was that they couldn't watch live from Earth, because they had to wait until they got home before getting the film developed. Also, they didn't have enough film to run the camera the entire time, and they weren't going to stop what they were doing to constantly reload new film reels. But, yes, they did use the camera sometimes, and it did produce quite good video images. Of course, they also had their still cameras, which were 70mm Hasselblads (about the clearest you could ask for). But, I assumed you were talking about the TV video, not the still frames. YOU SAID: "Also must have had some serious audio editing." == Yes, documentaries will do that. Most people don't like to wait multiple seconds between asking a question and getting an answer. You also have to take into account where the recordings are being made, of course (Houston). That is relevant to when you will (or won't) hear a delay on the recording. But, in all original recordings, there is the expected amount of delay in the expected direction. YOU SAID: "There was absolutely no delay in the conversations between the astronauts on the moon and the people in the control rooms on earth." == As I said, you also need to take into account where the recording is being made (Houston). You would not expect to hear a delay between an astronaut saying something and Houston answering, because the recording is being made in Houston. But, you expect a delay between Houston speaking and an astronaut answering, and yes, that delay is present in all original recordings (but some documentaries do indeed edit those down sometimes).
    5
  715. Um, ok, have you watched the film footage?
    5
  716. "You always know what purpose they launch this time, and the next." Um, ok, and you think the US Apollo program didn't tell people what each launch's objectives were? Huh?
    5
  717. I don't think you even know what the evidence is. And, let's face reality here: the deniers refuse to accept any evidence offered by NASA in the first place. Your implication is that there should be more evidence. What difference would it make? The deniers have decided, in advance, to reject all evidence anyway.
    5
  718. And, they didn't tell you a few days ago when you watched that video that she was already dead 1.5 years?
    5
  719. Hilarious!!! Numerous members of the press knew about the atomic bomb. Stalin knew about the atomic bomb before Truman did. Perhaps you forgot all of the trials for all of the people who leaked the information? Or, hmmm, did a conspiracy video give you that weak analogy? And, what actual EVIDENCE do you bring to the table? Look at their faces? Yes, you're 100% correct, that's your BEST evidence. It's just so sad that you are prideful of such weak evidence. Meanwhile, dozens of countries verified the Apollo missions in dozens of different ways. The most recent of those dozens of examples came only in the last couple of years, when both China and India sent orbiters to the moon, which sent back photos of some of the Apollo landing sites. Those photos show the landers exactly where the original mission photography showed them, and where LRO photography showed them a dozen years ago. Oh, but look at their faces!!!
    5
  720. YOU SAID: "The satellites deorbit from orbital decay in ~7 months after decommissioning" == So, if they naturally fall out of the sky in 7 months, how can they stay up there for the proposed service life of 5 years?
    5
  721. Yeah, let's revive the old 1960s onboard radar that kept locking up. Let's dig out some 1960s IBM mainframes and hope there are still people around who know how to operate them. Let's start using that old S-band analog radio while we're at it. And, everyone loves the pure oxygen environments. Have you ever heard of the Soviet TU-4? (Hint: it was a disaster.) History has taught us a million times over that it's best to take the lessons from the past, and design new. It's cheaper, faster, and better. Trying to build carbon copies of old stuff is never a good idea.
    5
  722.  @ICANanimations  YOU SAID: "Starship will be active within 10 years." == Well, maybe. Who knows? Certainly in one form or another. But, it had better be faster than 10 years in the lunar lander form of Starship, because the rest of the Artemis program will be ready before then, and I'd hate to see them just waiting for a lander. Of course, that can happen (waiting for one craft). YOU SAID: "if not them it will be Blue Origin doing it." == Bezos lost the lawsuit. But, yes, in the back of my mind, I hope it still swings over to Blue. I never liked Starship. YOU SAID: "SLS just rolled out" == Yes, there is a certain irony when the conspiratards keep saying we can't do it today, when a moon rocket is sitting on the launchpad this very minute. YOU SAID: "bringing humans back to the moon in 2024." == Lunar orbit maybe. Almost certainly no landing by then. Even NASA isn't spewing that date for landings any longer (a date which congress never approved the funding for anyway). Congress funded it at a rate that would make the landings in 2028-2030, according to the White House OMB. But, yeah, that sort of thing changes a lot. So, we'll see. Might be faster, might be slower, might get canceled altogether. Time will tell. YOU SAID: "there is still hope for you" == Love your optimism.
    5
  723. Queen of the Netherlands? Good gods. Your story is all wrong from top to bottom. But, if you actually want answers to your fake questions, answer these first: if you think the Netherlands were "duped" and got a fake moon rock, can you please explain why they still proudly display their authentic Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 rocks in their science museum? Also, can you please explain why no other country has ever found any petrified wood in their hundreds of donated moon rock samples?
    5
  724. Everyone has their little pet notions about what consists of a strong argument. But, it's been 50+ years, and not a single argument against Apollo has ever withstood even the slightest amount of scientific scrutiny. All arguments supporting your viewpoint have failed miserably. So, you can pretend that the makers of this video picked a weak set of arguments. But, it doesn't really matter. None of your arguments hold up.
    5
  725. Yes problem huuble 2 smal and u writ lyke 2nd grade
    5
  726. The mere fact that you think there is only one belt (singular) means that you don't even come close to understanding the topic. So, don't sit there and pretend you found some "gotcha" that the entire planet's aerospace engineers have somehow overlooked for 60 years, merely because silly YouTube videos lied and told you that the Van Allen belts were an insurmountable problem.
    5
  727. "All you need to do if you have any questions about whether or not they went to the moon is listen to the interview done on television of the three astronauts." Which one of the hundreds of interviews? Let me guess, a conspiracy video told you to pay attention to one specific press conference, right? And, why does it matter? I mean, most sane people would say that EVIDENCE is the most predominant method of determining what happened. Not you, though. Your opening position is "listen to an interview"?
    5
  728. "Each one of them has a look on their face like as if they would be three brothers being questioned who stole the cookies from the cookie jar" Just remember, this is your strongest piece of evidence. You offer nothing of substance. This is your LEADING argument against Apollo. "I don't like their expressions" is the absolute best you have, after 55 years. Meanwhile, other countries have sent lunar orbiters with cameras on them to photograph the Apollo 11 landing site, and have found the remnants, the lander's 1st stage, the foot paths, etc. Arizona State University's LRO camera has also been doing that since 2009, and has hundreds of photos of the 6 landing sites. But, what do you bring to the table? "I don't like their expressions while they were in a boring press conference."
    5
  729. "It is so so obvious that they were lying in that interview." Yet, nothing they said in the interview was incorrect. Go figure. "They weren’t prepared to answer those questions and they did a horrible job." But, you don't even understand it. How can you judge?
    5
  730. Because you really know a lot about aerospace engineering.
    5
  731. Yes, far too many sheep. They regurgitate nonsense they see in silly videos that lie to them, rather than actually looking at the evidence itself. And, they reject things simply because they don't understand them. "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake" is the main mantra of the sheep. But, do you have any suggestions on what to do about them? How do you get the sheep to actually listen to evidence, and to stop watching silly conspiracy videos (which are always wrong)?
    5
  732.  @zenmeister451  Tell me, then.... You have person A, claims to have a degree from Harvard, can't produce any records of it, nor can name anybody who ever saw him there, nor can produce any records of ever spending a dime at Harvard. That person then claims that super secret powers are trying to "erase him" from existence, but he did absolutely nothing about it to gather up records to prevent that from happening. He then claims that he has witnessed lizard people running the government all the way up to the presidency, because he had a super secret job to gather up live rats to feed to the lizard people politicians, and the only time they take their human masks off and reveal their lizard faces is when they eat (which he says he saw happening). You have person B, claims to have a degree from Princeton, can't produce any records of it, nor can name anybody who ever saw him there, nor can produce any records of ever spending a dime at Princeton. That person then claims that super secret powers are trying to "erase him" from existence, but he did absolutely nothing about it to gather up records to prevent that from happening. He then claims that he has witnessed a secret government project that built a successful time machine, which was used to go back in time to capture Adolf Hitler in his bunker before he committed suicide, and replace his body with a burned up corpse of someone else, and that Adolf Hitler is currently alive and well in Area 51. Now, neither of these people offer any evidence whatsoever. Not one speck. Both just offer their words, that's it. But, one of these two is telling the truth, and the other is lying. What mechanism will you use to determine which is lying, and which is telling the truth? Can you even tell the difference?
    5
  733.  @hannahgabrielle3191  YOU SAID: "you know why he can’t? The government MADE SURE to cover every bit of his track record to make him seem incredible" == Again, HOW would they do such a thing? If he went to MIT, like he claims, how could they prevent Lazar from naming his professors and classmates that might remember him? How could they get rid of bank records, like canceled checks, without completely trashing that bank's balance sheets? You can't just delete a record of a $1000 check (or whatever) without completely ruining the bank's balance sheets. If Bob Lazar paid MIT tuition, rent, food, books, etc., there'd be a record of it. And, if the super secret government forces knew how to "delete" such records in the 1970s and early 1980s, then that would immediately throw every bank out of balance, right? And, how could they prevent Bob Lazar from producing a diploma? And, like I asked already, does this even make sense to you? If they attempted to "erase" Bob Lazar from his history, why would Bob Lazar "MIT Master's degree holder in physics," just go down without a fight? Why wouldn't he gather up evidence? Any photos of him at MIT? Any friends he could list? Any classrooms that he could say he attended? Any rent at an apartment there? Any landlord he paid rent? Any food he ever bought? Any books? ANYTHING? Why is it that you nutbags are unable to answer any of these challenges I put forth? You clowns just summarize "they erased everything" without answering a single one of these challenges in any kind of detail. He got a degree from MIT, remember? That's what you believe? You believe that someone in the bottom third of his high school class was able to go to junior college, and then go to MIT (something that is quite amazing to begin with, because MIT is the top institution on the planet in scientific fields, and only accepts top-notch top-1% applicants)... but, Bob Lazar somehow got past all of that... got admitted to a Master's program at MIT somehow... yet can't produce an airline record, diploma, the names of any of his professors, nor classmates who remember him, rent, bank records, or ANYTHING, yet you find this believable??? And, then the guy doesn't sue MIT?? Wouldn't YOU sue? Would you spend a fortune and years of your life for the world's most prestigious physics education, at the most prestigious science university on the planet, and just, "oh well, they erased it, I guess I'll just go on with my life and ignore it."?? That's how you'd behave?? You find this behavior believable? I would be launching numerous lawsuits. I would be deposing witnesses. I'd be getting tons of friends at the university to vouch for me. I'd be getting professors lined up. But, nope, you don't think about those things, eh? For you, it's perfectly acceptable to just claim that the super secret boogie men erased him somehow. Close the door. Stop all conversation after that. They erased him, that's good enough for you. No further input needed, right? Well, ok, let's go with that nonsense for a minute. Let's pretend you're right. It's ridiculous, but, let's pretend that's true, and that Bob Lazar let them erase his education without fighting it at all. OK, how can you tell the difference between Bob Lazar, vs. someone who made the whole thing up?? This is a serious question. If Bob Lazar has the resume he claims, yet it was "erased" somehow, ok, now, tell me, what mechanism would you use in order to distinguish Bob Lazar ("valid" MIT Master's holder in physics), vs. John Smith, a crackpot liar claiming to have an MIT education that was erased?? How could you know which was honest, and which was the liar? Hint: you cannot. It's called an "unfalsifiable claim." Sorry, but unfalsifiable claims are the weakest sort of claims on Earth. YOU SAID: "For his evidence" == WHAT evidence?!??!!?! WHAT evidence?!?!?!?! He never even pretended to have any evidence!!! It's all stories. He has only ever offered his words. There is no evidence!!! Good gods. YOU SAID: "They took away actual EVIDENCE" == Then why did you just ask me to look at his evidence?? If the evidence is gone, then I cannot look at it!!! He never offered any evidence. YOU SAID: "of him attending college for his sciences AND working for the government Air Force base." == So, if this evidence is magically gone somehow... why do you believe it? Again, this is called an "unfalsifiable claim" and it's ridiculous. Even if your crackpot version was true, there'd be no reason for you to believe it. I mean, put aside the fact that you cannot just delete someone's experiences. He should be able to find paper copies of the roster for his graduation ceremony, a physical degree, naming some classmates, naming some professors, naming his landlord, naming where he lived when attending there, SOMETHING. But, put that all aside, and let's pretend that somehow there's a valid reason he can't produce anything, and that the rest was all "erased," ok, fine, let's say that's true (which is difficult to even write, because it's so insane, but let's pretend that's true). OK, now, again, how do you tell the difference between Bob Lazar and a random jackass who makes the identical claims, but never actually went to MIT? If a random "John Smith" claimed the exact same things as Bob Lazar claimed, and offered no evidence whatsoever, but merely claimed his records were "erased" somehow, how could you tell the difference between Bob Lazar "legitimate" MIT graduate, vs. John Smith lying about being an MIT graduate? What mechanism would you use to distinguish the liar from the truth teller? YOU SAID: "He has family friends and EX COWORKERS that vouch for him and knowing he attended yet the government wipes the slate clean so he looks as if he’s a liar." == Oh, well, then I guess if family and friend vouch for him, it must be true, huh? Rae Carruth's mother vouched for him, so I have no idea why he was sent to prison. She said he could have never murdered that girl. So, he must be innocent, right? Rae Carruth's friends said he didn't murder the girl either. So, I can't imagine why he went to prison!?!?!!? Friends and family vouched for him!!! Good gods, you're an idiot. Hey, dummy, if he could produce actual people who saw him at MIT, took classes with him, professors who instructed him, etc., he'd have done that. He'd have sued MIT for his degree back, and millions of dollars for damages. Spare me your "family and friends vouched for him" idiocy. Almost EVERY criminal has family and friends who vouch for them. Good gods. You UFO conspiracy nutjobs are all alike. You believe Bob Lazar because his claims align with what you WANT to believe, not because Bob Lazar is actually believable. His behavior is the exact OPPOSITE from what anybody would do if someone tried to "erase" him. If someone tries to "erase" you from MIT, you gather up evidence, witnesses who saw you at MIT, professors who taught you at MIT, landlords you rented from at MIT, paper copies of publications with your name on them at MIT, etc. Then, you sue MIT. But, no, Bob Lazar is apparently the dumbest MIT graduate on the planet. He did none of that. And, instead, he just went on TV and said they erased him from MIT, and he did absolutely nothing to stop it. Tell me, do you actually believe Bob Lazar put a nuclear reactor in his 1985 Corvette also, and that he doesn't need gasoline? That's another one of his claims, you know. He never bothered to actually prove it or anything... ya know, like submit it to any science organizations for analysis and review, driving it around without using the gasoline engine, etc. Nope, he just tells you that it's nuclear powered. Again, like his Area 51 claims, it's all based on his word, nothing else whatsoever. But, apparently, that's good enough for you, right? So, do you believe Bob Lazar's 1985 Corvette is nuclear powered? Yes, or no?
    5
  734. Typical conspiratard. You ask a question, but, before anybody even has a chance to answer you, you declare it fake. Why do you even bother? If the answers to your questions don't even matter to you, why do you ask them? You just like wasting everyone's time, including your own?
    5
  735. Well, at least you've proven that it wasn't a typo or something, when in the other thread you claimed there was no gravity on the moon. You've stated that in two separate threads now. Dewdrop, if you're so crippled in your understanding of basic physics that you don't understand that the moon has gravity, if that's the level of physics education that you have (don't have), why in the world are you so confident about your conclusions? Watching you complain about these little "gotchas" you believe you've spotted is like watching some guy go to brain surgery videos and saying the doctor is doing it all wrong. "I flunked out of high school biology, I never went to college, I don't have any medical training whatsoever, I've never worked in an operating room, but, that doctor is performing that brain surgery all wrong, and what in the world is a 'scalpel'"? That's exactly what you sound like.
    5
  736. And, I don't think you've ever looked at the suits or craft to know anything about them. Sorry, dewdrop, but when your best argument is a few emojis, you have nothing. If you actually had an issue with the design of the suits or craft, you'd name the EXACT things you'd have done differently. But, you didn't. All you did was stick you head in the sand and say, "nu uh, I don't believe it."
    5
  737. There's so much wrong here, I could write a response for a month, and I'd just be getting started. Short version: The Soviets sent two dogs into the worst areas of the Van Allen belts for 3 weeks in an oblong orbit that dipped them in and out. They lived a regular lifespan afterward. How do you explain this?
    5
  738. Typical nut behavior: 1) Spew out an incorrect statement. (No, dewdrop, there are no satellites that can see things that small.) 2) Immediately change topics to deflect responses. 3) Ignore all input. 4) Run for the hills while declaring victory.
    5
  739. Dewdrop, there are concepts in the physics of light called "Dawes' limit" and the "Rayleigh's criterion." These dictate how much resolution you can have at [whatever] distance, and the diameter of the lens required. Don't sit there and tell me I'm embarrassing myself, while you're completely oblivious, and asking for a telescope that defies physics. If you disagree, the answer is simple, go publish in any recognized journal on physics anywhere on the planet, outlining that the known properties of light are incorrect, and you'll surely win a Nobel Prize. Yet, you're not doing that, are you? Instead, you're sitting on YouTube declaring that the entirety of science is wrong, because you stubbornly insist "show me a telescope that can see Apollo," thinking you're smart. Hint: you're not.
    5
  740. Please put this on every job application you ever fill out in your life. But, add more emojis.
    5
  741. Because all of the stuff that made Apollo happen was retired when congress ended the program. Going to the moon isn't like pulling out a 1969 Mustang, putting gas in, change the spark plugs, and away you go for a ride. Going to the moon took countless pieces of equipment and trained personnel. When the program was retired, all of that stuff, and the people, were retired, and moved on to other things. And, yes, now they have started a new moon program, and have rebuilt half of the stuff required, with the other half in development. If you ask me, it was a massive mistake to contract SpaceX to build the lander, and I think it'll take a lot longer to get it to fly, and/or to abandon it and switch to one of the runner-ups. But, yes, it is all in progress.
    5
  742. Oh goodie. Yet another person with "truth" in his nickname with absolutely no clue.
    5
  743. Because one photo was taken from the command module orbiting the moon. And, the other photo was taken from the lunar surface.
    5
  744. "Look at the size of the "lunar lander"" I don't think you've done what you're telling others to do.
    5
  745. Here's the problem: there's no way anybody can take you seriously, because it's remarkably easy to find the answer. 99.999% of the people asking that question (in this video's comment threads) have absolutely no interest in the answer. They only ask it because they laughably believe they have a "gotcha" that somehow nobody in 55 years has figured out. If you actually wanted the answer, you'd have found it easily by now.
    5
  746.  @lynzyrisingsun  Well, it helps if you actually investigate what happened here, rather than just going on a rant to pretend you know things you do not. The store employee told the officer she left without paying. The cop investigated. The woman refused to identify herself, and, the woman refused to provide the receipt. You are absolutely correct when you say that the woman is not legally obligated to provide the receipt. But, then she has to be prepared for the consequences of that choice. And, no matter what happened, whether she stole, or didn't steal, yes, sorry, but, she is required to identify herself. This means she must either present an ID, or give the officer her name and birthday and address, so he can look her up. She refused to do so. Between the store employee's report that she walked out without paying, and the fact that the woman refused to identify, and refused to offer proof of payment, that IS enough evidence to make an arrest. Then, she resisted arrest, only making matters worse. Of course, we know that she did purchase the stuff, and had the receipt. And, yes, she did sue the store (and lost miserably, because the case was thrown out with prejudice). Why? Because the store has the right to ask for proof of payment. And, even her own attorney never bothered to sue the police, because there's absolutely no case there. The cop only needs to establish reasonable suspicion and probable cause to arrest. That's all. It's not the cop's job to prove the case or not. It's not the cop's job to watch video tapes, or take inventory, or to check transaction records. That's up to the store to provide to the prosecutor. The cop needs only to decide if there's enough suspicion that a crime took place, and then make that arrest. He doesn't need to be correct, nor should he. The courts are there for a reason. And, the cop is just the cop, not the judge and jury and prosecutor. The charges were dismissed, because, yes, she paid for the items, and had a receipt. But, she lost her lawsuit against the store miserably, and never even attempted a lawsuit against the police. How could she have done this differently? If stopped by a cop investigating a possible crime, cooperate. Give your ID when asked, and/or provide name and info to be identified. When asked for the receipt, provide it. Or, if you want the crusade version, ok, she can say, "I'm not legally required to provide you with this receipt, but, I know the store asked you to investigate, so here's all of my identification information, and now I'd like to confront the store themselves with my receipt, can we go inside and do that?" That's how to handle it, and it wouldn't result in an arrest.
    5
  747. 1) There's this concept called GRAVITY. Dust won't float around for a week because GRAVITY pulls the dust back to the lunar surface. 2) If there's no air for dust to swirl around in, and fall back upon the LEM, why should the dust do that? I mean, you're wrong anyway, because yes, some dust did fall on some of the LEMs, not as much as YOU expect, but, yes, a little bit. Sorry if the videos you've been watching lied to you. But, hey, why'd you believe them in the first place?
    5
  748. Oh, look at the child pretend to think logically. Dewdrop, how do you fake radar and radio telescope signals to/from the moon? And, what about future generations (from their perspective) finding the Apollo stuff on the moon? Like, in 2021, when India's lunar satellite photographed the Apollo landing sites and saw the remnants of Apollo equipment and foot paths, etc.? How does that fit into your little Q&A?
    5
  749. So, like I said, you based your entire opinion on 3 words spoken that you didn't understand. And, from that, you were willing to discard 4.5 million years of human labor, and decide that it was all in a "lost notebook." That's exactly what I asked you to clarify, and yes, that's what you've now clarified.
    5
  750. Live TV? During the launch? During low orbit? During orbit around the moon? During the landing? Really? You think they could keep dishes aligned from start to finish?
    5
  751. "the authoritarian gov shut me down and had me cancelled" No, it couldn't be that you actually weren't capable. Nope. It's someone else's fault. Someone else is keeping you down.
    5
  752. So, after every single thing you wrote was proven ridiculous, your response is that somehow I proved you right? Dewdrop, did you even read anything I wrote? Why didn't you answer the piles of questions? You came to YouTube comments to "enlighten" the rest of the world, right? But, when asked questions, you run for the hills?
    5
  753. You just got done accusing countless people (including Australia) of being criminals who would be put in prison for their entire lives if you were correct. You don't call that "abusive"?
    5
  754. "the key is to be respectful" I've come here to accuse countless people of being criminals who committed the biggest fraud in human history. But, BE RESPECTFUL. Seriously? How far gone are you? Seriously. How far gone?
    5
  755. Why do you think it's a good idea to announce your stupidity for the world to see?
    5
  756. Every freedom has limits. Your freedom to swing your arm ends at someone's face. Your freedom of speech doesn't allow you to yell "fire" in a movie theater (unless there's a fire). And, while it's true that many of the anti-Apollo nuts would lose a chess match against a squirrel, thus they might actually lack the intellect to know what they're saying is wrong, thus it's not illegal for them to believe what they believe... some of the makers of the nutty anti-Apollo videos know darned well that they're spewing lies. Thus, they are guilty of slander/libel (thus not protected by the first amendment, and it's actually illegal).
    5
  757.  @kilcitykitty  ONE mistake? ONE? She was a convicted felon who served a term in prison and had a mile long arrest record and multiple judgements against her.
    5
  758. And, what does India's landing have to do with Apollo 50+ years prior?
    5
  759. Gee, it's almost as if people get arrested for committing crimes!! Say it ain't so!!!
    5
  760. Huh? Like India's ISRO Chandrayaan2’s photos of Apollo 11 & 12 landing sites from 2021-04-02? I mean, you can't see the small stuff, but, you can see the landers and foot paths and shadows of the flame deflectors, etc.
    5
  761. What difference would it make to you? Why send another mission to the same site? You've posted a thousand messages denying the massive amount of evidence for the moon landings. Would you suddenly believe it, if they sent a rover to one of the landing sites? Or, would you just say that's fake too?
    5
  762. "many discrepancies say the moon landing was a lie." Huh? But, you're not pointing out discrepancies. You're pointing out things you know nothing about. Hey, dewdrop, just because YOU don't understand it, doesn't mean it's fake. "just the suits themselves we're so unlikely" It's the same basic suit that was used for the earlier Apollo missions in Earth orbit, as well as the Skylab missions. Are you claiming that those suits didn't work either? "when challenged in later years as to how the suits got rid of the tremendous heat from direct sunlight with no filtering atmosphere... apologist came up with the idea that the suits had capillary sprinkled throughout." Really? And, you think that ridiculous nonsense would actually fly? So, for years upon years, the hundreds of people who designed and engineered the suits and backpacks... they all forgot to include a way to cool things. And, years later, long after Apollo was over, people came up with a way to cool them. But, none of the people who actually designed and built the suits ever noticed that, somehow, people were retroactively changing the designs? Really? So, the ILC Dover company never realized that, years later, people were claiming that there was water cooling in their suits, but, it didn't have such cooling, because everyone forgot to cool the suits, and nobody said a word about it later when "apologists" retroactively changed the design? Is that really your story? Or, hmmm, maybe the suits were designed with the water cooling system from the start, eh? "there is no evidence of a heat exchanger in the backpacks" Porous plate sublimators. They're at the top of each of the backpacks. No, not the OPS unit on the top. I'm talking about the main backpack. Go look at any of the schematics and you'll see "sublimator" on the labels. And, if you look at any photo with a cutaway to show the innards, there it is. Funny, though, if the engineers forgot to put the liquid cooling through the suits, why'd they include the sublimators? Strange how that works, huh? "the backpacks were supposedly designed to supply oxygen" Do you REALLY expect to be taken seriously? "Supposedly designed"? So, in your mind, they weren't actually designed to supply oxygen? The hundreds of engineers all forgot that they needed an oxygen supply? "the backpacks had to provide energy to pump" Hence why they had batteries. "they backpacks had to provide energy for communications" Hence why they had batteries. "exhaust ports for the exhaled breath." No, dewdrop. These were rebreathers. They took the exhaled breath and pumped it through lithium hydroxide canisters. "there is no evidence for any exhaust port on either the helmets or the backpacks" Why? Because they put outside coverings over everything? Let me guess, if they left everything exposed with no coverings, you'd be saying it's fake because they didn't protect the innards. But, because they protected the innards, it's fake because you can't see the mechanical stuff. Right? It's one of those situations that you'd reject it if you saw all of the inside stuff. And, you reject it if you can't see the inside stuff. Either way, you reject it. Right? Oh, but what's that big red valve on the front of the suit, with no hose attached.... hhhmmmmm.... Naw, that was just for show. "the suits had to be pressurized so as not to blow up" Yes, only 3.5 PSI. Enough to equate pretty close to the partial pressure of oxygen at one atmosphere, but, not too much to be able to move around and do things. "and helmets would have to have been capable of removing moisture" Yes, have you looked at the helmet/suit's interior venting system? Or, is it just another example of you wanting to see big vents in the photos, so you can complain that they shouldn't have designed it that way? "there is no evidence that this was taking place either at the suit or at the backpack" Those IRC Dover engineers must be the worst in history, huh? Funny that the photos of the inside of the helmet area (while no astronauts are inside to block the view) show the very venting you deny. But, hey, I guess they added that years later also, huh? "car batteries ? i dont see evidence of this" Again, do you really expect to be taken seriously? Yes, there were batteries. No, they weren't car batteries. They had silver-zinc battery packs that they removed and discarded between each EVA, and slid new ones in for the next EVA. If you look closely at the photos of the interior of the lunar module, you can even see where those batteries were kept. And, now you're accusing Hamilton Standard of building PLSS backpacks without batteries? Just how many companies are you accusing of failing so badly? "radio antenae in one picture .. not in another." Yeah, it depends on which photos, and when. Irwin's antenna broke, so, Scott taped it down to the top of the backpack. You won't see his antenna after that. It's secured to the top of the OPS with some tape, so, well, I guess you will see it in some photos from the correct angles. Normally, I'd hunt some down for whoever asks about stuff. But, in your case, sorry, you're just not worth the effort. You don't know anything, and you're clearly not interested in learning anything. If you decide to actually look for yourself, though, his name was Jim Irwin, and yes, his OPS antenna broke, and needed to be taped down, rather than upright. "180# man weighs 30# on the moon.. fit guys only jump as high as basketball players on earth ? shouldda been at least a yard." Oh no you don't. Nope. You're not getting away with that. You don't get to compare someone 180 pounds on Earth, jumping like a basketball player, to someone in an 88 pound pressure suit, wearing an 80 pound backpack, with a 20 pound reserve oxygen unit and radio on top, plus about 20 pounds of various tools and hoses and stuff, with double layered moon boots, and expect equivalent results. Even adjusting for 1/6th gravity, the fact is that force = MASS times acceleration, not weight times acceleration. The mass is the more important part. And, the act of jumping isn't exactly a linear thing with gravity. But, let's pretend you're correct, and play that game. You go strap an extra 200 pounds to your back, and see how high you can jump. Then come back here and tell me that the astronauts didn't jump 6x higher than you did. Again, it doesn't work like that anyway. The formulas are more complicated than 1/6th gravity = 6x jumping height. But, I'm not going to give you a physics and math lesson here. You have already betrayed your lack of honesty with this total pile of gibberish you're spewing in the first place. "the guy who directed 2001 a space odessy Stanley kubrick , made a more credible space movie." Not even close. "lot of bad shots including the landing vid..and the moon from capsule window distorted." I have no idea what you're talking about, and neither do you. "picture of the earth looks like a composite" Which one? They took hundreds of photos of Earth. Do you have a catalog number? Maybe it WAS a composite. They're pretty good at labeling which shots were composites and which ones weren't. "neal buzz & 3rd guy collins , looked desperate in interview.. no confidence." You can't even spell correctly, but, you think you know about this? What? "buzz to kinderclass we didnt go." Oh, an out of context quote mine. Your Nobel Prize is in the mail. Congratulations. In the meantime, dewdrop, can you explain why Aldrin said he DID go in that very same interview, both before and after this out of context "we didn't go" quote you're spewing? Why would he say he went, then change his mind, then change his mind back again? And, why didn't the world stop after this "confession"? No? Nobody cared? No senate hearings? No press? No worldwide coverage? No lawsuits? No prosecutions? Nope? Really? Aldrin "confessed" (according to you), but, nobody on the planet did a darned thing? Does that even make sense to YOU?
    5
  763. This is downright laughable. Stalin knew about the bomb before Truman did. There were many press who knew, but were persuaded to keep quiet in the interest of national security. The secrecy was not very successful, but, whatever level of secrecy it attained was only due to the thousands of people being in alignment with the need to keep it secret. Shift gears to Apollo, the most public program, and one in which you're now proposing that these thousands of people become criminals committing a fraud upon the USA and other participating nations. Do you really not understand the difference there? "We need to keep this bomb a secret until we can get it into the war, and if/when you're successful, you'll put an end to the war and the millions of deaths." And, you think this is the same as, "haha, now you've come along and innocently signed up for Apollo, which is a fraud against the entire world, and you are now participating in a crime that will put you behind bars for the rest of your life if anybody finds out"? Really? Those two are the same, in your mind? And, somehow, they pass this crime from generation to generation, and get other countries to "track" the missions with radar and radio telescopes, including enemy countries? Can you remind me, which conspiracy video draws this ridiculous analogy to Manhattan?
    5
  764. It's not about AI, or who's the smartest, or any of the things you're talking about. It's about the EVIDENCE. And, there are mountains of evidence for Apollo, and zero evidence against Apollo that can withstand even the slightest scientific scrutiny.
    5
  765. OK, for what? What would a "clear pic" do? And, how much do you want to spend getting this "clear pic"?
    5
  766.  @SlipStream401  YOU SAID: "they started it." == Correct. YOU SAID: "all the fault is on them." == Wrong. This man also holds a lot of fault for planning in advance to kill them. YOU SAID: "why can't you understand that? stop defending thieves." == Why can't you understand that? Stop defending murderers.
    5
  767. Spare the world your silly "logic." It's been proven by the mountains of evidence a million times over. Apollo's veracity has nothing to do with what future generations do/don't choose to do.
    5
  768. Maybe if you knew how to spell "Apollo" correctly, you might be able to search for the photos you don't think exist, huh?
    5
  769. Wrong, dewdrop. The sun IS behind them at a very low angle. All lunar landings were early in the lunar morning. Once again, you have absolutely no understanding of the topic, yet you keep spewing nonsense anyway.
    5
  770. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    5
  771. Dewdrop, why are you on YouTube? There have literally been thousands of articles written in the peer review geology journals about the moon rocks, as studied by thousands of PhD geologists and geology PhD candidates/students. Not a single one has ever thought what you do. And, if they found the rocks in Antarctica, how do you explain how they dated billions of years old and have never been exposed to oxygen or moisture? Why aren't you publishing in the geology journals yourself? You're clearly claiming to know more than the last 50+ years of the world's leading geologists. Yet, you think the place to "expose" this massive oversight is in a YouTube posting?
    5
  772. That's not bad advice. But, yes, the police had it on video from witnesses.
    5
  773. "They say the moon is bigger than Earth" You have GOT to be kidding me. How far out to sea has your mind sailed away? The Earth is literally 50x larger in volume than the moon. Yet, you think the moon is larger than Earth? Has it ever even remotely occurred to you that if the moon was larger than Earth, then Earth would be the actual moon, and the moon would be the planet? No? This doesn't occur to you? I'm not even going to ask where you heard this garbage, because I cannot believe anybody (besides you) would ever spew such nonsense. This is beyond ridiculous.
    5
  774. Are you painting the camera black and leaving it in direct sunlight? Or, are you coating the camera with silver that reflects most of the sun's energy, and also lining the film canisters the same way? (Can you guess which one the Hasselblad engineers did?)
    5
  775. They used 4 mechanisms for understanding horizontal speed. 1) Inertial guidance. Basically gyroscopes and pressure sensors. Think of a G-meter hooked up to a gyro. If you know your initial speed, the inertial guidance knows what speed you're going while the rocket is burning. Essentially it's like an accelerometer. 2) Radar. Learn something about the 3-beam (plus altimeter beam) Doppler system. By knowing the vertical speed from the altimeter radar, they can calculate the horizontal speeds from the other 3 beams. It wouldn't work if the moon was a super highly polished sphere with absolutely no bumps on it. But, the moon isn't like that. Lots of rocks and hills and stuff to create a Doppler feedback. 3) Ground based tracking. They had dozens of countries on Earth shooting radar at the craft. They triangulated and the IBM mainframes did the math. 4) Eyeballs (toward the end). Read NASA technical note D-6849 for a brief overview (only about 20 pages). If that's not enough, they have references that tell you where else to find the info.
    5
  776. Huh? You just demonstrated that you know absolutely nothing about the topic. How am *I* the gullible one?
    5
  777. YOU SAID: "And he deserved no jail. Change my mind." OK, you asked, so here you go, changing your mind: 1) They weren't strangers. He knew them, and they had stolen from him before. 2) He placed his car away from the house so they wouldn't know he was home. 3) He unscrewed some of the lights so they wouldn't turn on, even if they flipped the switch. 4) He ran a recording device while he waited in the basement, clearly he knew they were coming. 5) Before either one of the teens arrived at his house, he rehearsed on that recording device what he was going to say to the police after he killed them, including "in the left eye" (he later shot the girl in the left eye). I repeat: hours before the teens even got there, he rehearsed, on tape, what he was going to tell the police about shooting them. 6) He had a tarp ready for the bodies. 7) He gathered up the bodies, and put them in the other room so they wouldn't ruin his carpet. 8) He didn't call the police until the next day. 9) After killing the first thief, he then sat quietly waiting for a long time for the other thief to arrive, then shot her too. 10) Her shirt was found opened, make of that what you will. 11) After shooting the girl in the torso, she was still alive and incapacitated, yet he didn't want her to live (his own words), and wanted to make sure she was dead (his own words), so put a bullet next to her eye, and another one under the chin up into her brain (his own words). 12) While waiting for the criminals to arrive, he was armed with two different guns, one of which was a little bit faulty. 13) After he shot one with the faulty weapon, it wouldn't fire again. So, he literally apologized to the criminal (who was still alive) for not successfully killing right away, and switched guns for the fatal shots while the criminal was on the ground.
    5
  778. The bigger questions are: (1) Exactly what do you think is lost, and why? And, (2) What context of the word "lost" do you mean? "Lost" meaning we don't have it any longer? Or, "lost" meaning we don't know how it was done?
    5
  779. So, first you came to your conclusion. Then, you asked questions? Sane people do that in the other order, you know. Sane people would first ask questions, then come to conclusions once they know the answers. And, by the way, if you don't know such simplistic things as illustrated in your questions, sorry, but you know nothing about the topic.
    5
  780. So, dewdrop, you came back and added stuff to your initial comment (which is now edited), but, you couldn't muster up the courage to actually address any responses? Oh, you're really an honest person.
    5
  781.  @canadianbird1185  YOU SAID: " That man dont deserved to be charged for murder." Really? Why not? 1) They weren't strangers. He knew them, and they had stolen from him before. 2) He placed his car away from the house so they wouldn't know he was home. 3) He unscrewed some of the lights so they wouldn't turn on, even if they flipped the switch. 4) He ran a recording device while he waited in the basement, clearly he knew they were coming. 5) Before either one of them arrived at his house, he rehearsed on that recording what he was going to say to the police, including "in the left eye" (he later shot the girl in the left eye). 6) He had a tarp ready for the bodies. 7) He gathered up the bodies, and put them in the other room so they wouldn't ruin his carpet. 8) He didn't call the police until the next day. 9) After killing the first thief, he then sat quietly waiting for a long time for the other thief to arrive, then shot her too. 10) Her shirt was found opened, make of that what you will. 11) After shooting the girl in the torso, she was still alive and incapacitated, yet he didn't want her to live (his own words), and wanted to make sure she was dead (his own words), so put a bullet next to her eye, and another one under the chin up into her brain (his own words). 12) While waiting for the criminals to arrive, he was armed with two different guns, one of which was a little bit faulty. 13) After he shot one with the faulty weapon, it wouldn't fire again. So, he literally apologized to the criminal (who was still alive) for not successfully killing right away, and switched guns for the fatal shots while the criminal was on the ground.
    5
  782. Is this a joke? You really believe we can clearly see objects only a few feet across on the surface of Mars from a Mars orbiter? Really?
    5
  783. India's Chandrayaan-2 orbiter photographed the Apollo 12 flag shadow (still standing). Good enough?
    5
  784. Name one scientifically peer reviewed journal article that supports what you just said. Name one.
    5
  785.  @AMC2283  But, you lost all credibility on these analogies when you refused (repeatedly) to explain how dozens of countries tracked the missions to the moon and back (including enemy countries). You don't get to compare to a different topic, until you explain why India and China have published their photos of the landing sites, showing the landers exactly where the original mission photography showed them. Sorry, but, just saying "they lied once, so they can lie again" doesn't matter when it comes to EVIDENCE. It's 100% clear that you reject the moon landings. And, you've proven over the past months that you don't care about the evidence at all. So, no, sorry, you can't just sit there and say "oh, but look at this other topic, therefore Apollo is fake." It's ridiculous.
    5
  786. So, don't arrest anybody who is depressed?
    5
  787. Well, that's not bad advice. But, it wouldn't have mattered in this case. One of the witnesses recorded the incident and gave a copy of the video to the police. It doesn't match her sob story about nobody being around. And, with her extensive criminal history, I figure she probably knew not to talk, but, probably did because she was hoping she could cry her way out of her millionth arrest before they looked up her open warrants.
    5
  788. Or, just read the arrest report, and see the multiple callers that way. It's also pretty difficult to "lie" when one of the audience recorded the incident and gave a copy of the video to the police. Seems the ACTUAL liar is the convicted felon in this video, with an arrest record a mile long, and a term spent in a Florida prison.
    5
  789. There's no telescope with the resolution required. Not by a long shot. You're talking about a 75 foot diameter telescope to see the Apollo 11 lander as a single dot. And, if you want to be able to start to make out what it is, you'd need a telescope with a quarter mile wide diameter. There are no such telescopes. Probes? Sure. Arizona State University's LRO camera has taken dozens of photos of the Apollo 11 landing site. And, both China and India have released their individual probes' photos of the Apollo 11 site. But, the resolution isn't good enough to see the small stuff he's outlining in this video. You can see the lander, and the basic dust disturbance where the astronauts were walking. But, you can't see the little items.
    5
  790. "They never let any independent researchers around the world examine the moon rocks, therefore Apollo is fake." "They let too many independent researchers around the world examine the moon rocks, therefore Apollo is fake."
    5
  791. "Artemis apparently orbited the moon, it did not take any pictures or our previous supposed moon landings" Huh? Do you have any concept of how high the Artemis orbit was? No, it couldn't take photos of the landing sites. And, don't pretend it would matter to you if they did. You already said you won't accept evidence provided by NASA. You're already denying the LRO photos. So, more photos will not matter to you. Don't pretend otherwise. "Outside corroborating evidence" Have you looked for it? Spain took photos of the SIVB fuel dumps around the moon (they had the biggest telescope at that time, which was able to capture the fuel dumps because they spanned out for miles). They also used that telescope to take photos of the Apollo 13 debris field (which, once again, spanned for miles). Japan's JAXA/Selene orbiter took 2D and 3D photos, and they have an entire section of their website dedicated to how they used it to prove Apollo. China's orbiters have seen the Apollo landing sites. You can bounce lasers off of the Apollo reflectors left on the moon, which has been done every single day, from laser ranging facilities all around the world, including enemy countries, since the Apollo 11 astronauts were still on the lunar surface. Dozens of countries tracked the Apollo missions to the moon and back using radio telescopes and radar. Spain and Australia received most of the video and audio transmissions from the moon, while pointing their dishes AT THE MOON. Hundreds of backyard amateurs all around the world could tune into the Apollo audio simply by pointing their dishes at the moon. They gathered 850 pounds of lunar material, which has been examined by geologists from all over the world, and those samples have never been exposed to oxygen or moisture (good luck finding that on Earth). The list goes on and on and on. How about asking questions FIRST, then coming to conclusions LATER?
    5
  792. There was a 1.3 second delay for the signal to reach the moon, or 2.6 seconds round trip. Who told you otherwise?
    5
  793. Greg, if you don't understand Fred's reply (you seem to have ignored it), I'll make this much simpler for you. One is zoomed in more than the other. I'm sorry your understanding of photography is so crippled that you cannot understand these simple concepts. But, between this posting and the other asinine 2904857034987 postings you've made, displaying your utter ignorance, um, silly fool, how about actually trying to LEARN SOMETHING before you commit libel/slander against the thousands of people who worked on Apollo, huh?
    5
  794. "As soon as America say they landed on the moon the ussr changed focus" Well, the Soviets sent Luna 15 (unmanned probe) to be in orbit around the moon while Apollo 11 was there, tracking both missions with their radar and radio telescopes. They also aimed their dishes at the moon and received Apollo's audio. And, they used laser ranging to see the Apollo reflectors on the moon. So, no, they didn't just listen to what the USA said. And, they continued to build/launch N1 moon rockets and lunar landers until 1972 (3 years after Apollo 11) in preparation for manned moon missions. So, no, it wasn't "as soon as" USA landed. You don't know what you're talking about.
    5
  795. Anthony, did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason you don't know anything is because you don't know how to read and write?
    5
  796. Huh? The funding for Artemis began in 2019. Prior to then, the struggle was in getting congress to approve/fund the program.
    5
  797. Nobody claims the craft you're talking about came back to Earth after being on the moon, dewdrop. The mere fact that you don't understand the role of each of the craft, something anybody with even a slight understanding of Apollo would know, means that you don't know enough about the topic to have an opinion. The rest of what you wrote is ridiculous also, but, is it really that much to ask in life that somebody should know SOMETHING about the topic before accusing thousands of people of being criminals?
    5
  798. So, until just now, you thought there was only one mission. That's how little you know about the topic. But, already, within moments of learning that there were more missions, you've already determined that you know enough to declare them fake?
    5
  799. Actually, their suits were quite damaged. It's tough to know for sure, but, the people who have examined those suits say that they probably couldn't get more than 2 or 3 more EVAs out of them before the wear and tear (dust damage mainly) would start to compromise the outer layers. It wouldn't have been fatal by any means. There are many layers. But, yeah, the fabric in the outer layers was quite torn up.
    5
  800. So, you said 11,000 gallons in one video, 22,000 in another video, and 12,000 in this video. All three of those numbers are dramatically wrong, of course.
    5
  801. Really? That's how this goes? The thousands of engineers at Grumman, General Motors, and Boeing, all simultaneously forgot to make a mechanism to get the rover to the moon? And, you're just incapable of searching for "lunar rover deployment" to find out for yourself?
    5
  802. You have been presented with evidence for two years now, that has nothing whatsoever to do with what the government says, yet, you keep on posting the same nonsense over and over. It's time, man. Go make that appointment for an evaluation. You know you've been waiting too long. It's time to get diagnosed and treated.
    5
  803. Most of the time, you people complain about the flag movement when it's merely being handled. But, yes, the flags sometimes also moved without being handled. The "wind" was the off-gassing of the PLSS backpacks, the suits, or the craft. These were not closed systems. They all had mechanisms to vent the spent gasses, overpressure valves, purge valves, porous plate sublimators, etc.
    5
  804. Well, I was going to argue, but, the "period" did it for me. Yeah, you definitely know your stuff.
    5
  805. January 1, 1863, unofficially. December 6, 1865, officially.
    4
  806. These Young Turk idiots don't even recognize when they contradict themselves. Should someone be fired for buying someone lunch? No. But, should the blame go to this "big corporate machine" if a person gets fired? No!! McDonald's corporation wasn't even involved in the firing, and the Young Turk morons acknowledged it in their own reporting, because they made mention that there's a LOCAL OWNER. See, McDonald's stores are franchises. The McDonald's corporation doesn't hire/fire individual cashiers. This firing was the act of a single person, not the "evil soulless corporation machine" that these idiots blame it on.
    4
  807. Evan Bell YOU SAID: "But I can say with confidence it's on the order of a few dozen billion tonnes in order to power a car." -- Yes, if you're just gathering energy from Thorium just sitting there doing nothing. -- No, not if you use Thorium as a nuclear fuel in a stable criticality reactor (like Uranium/Plutonium in existing reactors). Then it would only require a tiny amount. But, this car is just an investment scam, and there a dozens of other reasons why their claims are impossible.
    4
  808. Edward Smith YOU SAID: "chill bro, it's just a youtube vid" -- Sure. Yes. But, if you tell that to the people who had millions upon millions of dollars stolen by these investorbait conmen, they might have a different opinion. Yeah, I know... it's tough to have sympathy for people dumb enough to give millions of dollars to people making impossible ridiculous promises, but, it's still a crime nonetheless.
    4
  809. Tell me about it. She's one of the worst media personalities of all time, and why she's been successful all of her career is a complete mystery to me.
    4
  810. Punkster Daddy Sarah lost all credibility on all levels when he claimed that, because the court reduced one charge, and dismissed another, that this means the cop was lying (rather than concluding that the court had negotiated the charges down, or were just being lenient).  I made it clear, and even wrote about 2 paragraphs illustrating that this is 100% normal for courts to do that, regardless of the actual circumstances, and the actual guilt of a person.  This kind of negotiation happens more often than not!!  But, does Sarah even acknowledge this?  Nope.  Since the court found XYZ, Sarah concludes that the cop must have lied.  Pathetic.  All along, Sarah avoids the elephant in the room, of just watching the video, and seeing that she was clearly resisting arrest. Yes, mental gymnastics indeed.  Sarah even went so far as to saying that the cop shouldn't have charged her for resisting arrest, because of some warped logic that he thinks that somehow what went down was that he was instantly arresting her for resisting arrest... and ignoring the point that she was non-compliant repeatedly, and escalated the situation until it got to resisting arrest.  He also twists the reprimand of the cop for telling this woman that there's "a tendency for violence" into a reprimand for the incident itself. Yes, Sarah is a race-baiter galore. As for your comments about liking TYT in the past, well, I'm sorry to hear that.  I've always considered them a complete train wreck.  And, it was clear to me from day-1 when Cenk lied and said he was fired from CNN for "not endorsing the corporate sponsors" (complete bullshit).  He was undoubtedly fired because he was a loose cannon who had extreme views and refused to even read the stories he was supposed to report, and constantly put some stupid spin on stuff.  Anyway, I'm glad you saw the light.  But, even if you look back on the videos from years ago, you can piece together that they've always been dishonest "journalists" (which is ironic that they call themselves that, because they never even intended to be a "news" organization, they were always an editorial organization, big difference).  Their level of "investigation" is nil, and they've always been dramatically biased to the point of outright lies.
    4
  811. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    4
  812. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    4
  813. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    4
  814. If only you'd have asked that question an hour earlier, you could have won the prize for 1,000th person to ask today. Apparently scrolling down isn't in your repertoire, eh?
    4
  815. Congratulations. That's the best evidence anybody has ever presented for moon landing denial. You looked at the moon. Bravo!
    4
  816. Rhunter, is this just going to be a Gish Gallop? Or, are you going to acknowledge being wrong before you move on to new topics? All you're really proving here is that the answers to your questions don't actually matter to you. And, what are you doing on a high horse in the first place? You clearly have no understanding of the difference between distance and resolution. If/when it's explained to you, will you accept the answer? Or, will you just huff and puff, pretending to know things that you don't?
    4
  817. Oh, and by the way, I already answered your question in another thread (1 day ago). Yet, 5 hours ago, you're asking the same question that was already answered. So, don't sit there and pretend you haven't gotten the answers.
    4
  818.  @sfletch3042  YOU SAID: "American Made did you not listen to the story?" == I listened. Did you? They said that they have never found any tainted alcohol at this particular resort. And, they had to stoop to a bait-n-switch to talking about tainted alcohol at OTHER resorts. But, you didn't listen, did you? You missed that part, didn't you? YOU SAID: "This isn't an isolated incident." == Bullshit. This incident IS isolated (for this resort). YOU SAID: "It's happened to other people" == AT **OTHER** BARS/RESORTS. YOU SAID: "and it had to do with the lack of quality of the alcohol, not the amount they drank." == First of all, prove it. Prove that THIS resort served bad alcohol. And, if they did, then explain why there aren't a thousand other guests with the same problem? And, do you believe that "bad quality" alcohol is going to produce a 0.25 blood alcohol content? Or, hmmm, did she drink too much? YOU SAID: "The alcohol was tainted." == Evidence?? Even the family can't produce any evidence of that. Can you find any reports of any Methanol in the blood tests they ran? Can you find any reports of any other drugs/poisons in the blood tests they ran? Oh, but you can find reports of 0.25 blood alcohol tests. THAT, you can find. 0.25 is completely shredded drunk. YOU SAID: "This is not their fault. The resort served sub standard alcohol and someone dies and others have become very sick." == Others WHERE??? At the bar a mile down the road?? YOU SAID: "There is way more going on here than just a couple of kids getting too drunk." == Why? Why do you know this?
    4
  819. "Just because NASA may have faked the moon landing" Just one of the six? So, five of them are real, and only one is false? Or, you didn't realize that there was more than one? "Pretty hard to prove man walked on the moon" Depends. What type of proof would you expect and accept? There are mountains of evidence, enough to write entire encyclopedias. But, this isn't my first rodeo. And, I've found that it never fails, the moon landing deniers just shift the goalposts. Give them what they ask for, and they just deny it anyway, and ask for something else. For example, a common demand is that people want evidence that comes from outside NASA. OK, India took photos of the Apollo 11 and 12 landing sites with their lunar orbiter a couple of years ago. You can see the landers, shadows of the flame deflectors, shadow of the flag still standing at Apollo 12's site (Apollo 11's was blown over and isn't still standing), evidence of foot paths, etc. Show them to a moon landing denier, and they just shift the goalposts and claim that India has decided to join "the deception" 50+ years later. You give them what they ask for, and, they still deny it. So, I'll ask, what evidence would you expect them to have, and would actually accept? "I'm highly suspicious it never happened with Apollo technology." I don't think that sentence means what you think it does. But, whatever, can you name the exact technology they lacked? Then, can you explain why none of the thousands of people working on that particular technology ever realized that it wouldn't have done the job they designed it to do? How did the elite few criminal administrators know the technology wouldn't work, but the thousands of engineers didn't know it wouldn't work?
    4
  820. Society has decided that putting on a public show in front of children is a misdemeanor. And, sorry, but she barely got any public exposure before she committed suicide. 99.999% of the media coverage never happened until long after she was already dead.
    4
  821. Hilarious. The old, "If you challenge me, it's because you're wrong. If you don't challenge me, it's because I'm right." It's an offshoot of "heads I win, tails you lose." Dewdrop, the evidence is what it is, regardless of your notions of who should or shouldn't try to "prove it" to you.
    4
  822.  @Viixcii_dc  So, you refuse to answer my questions, but, you want me to answer yours?
    4
  823. Wrong. The public lost interest very quickly. And, this notion that they never went to the moon is more of a recent fad (like the last 20 years or so), than it was even a thought at the time.
    4
  824. There are no "wrong shadows." I'm sorry if you fell for a conspiracy video that said so, and/or if you don't understand photographic perspective. But, why should your ignorance result in slander/libel? "Other details"? Oh, sounds amazing. If the one "detail" you bothered to mention was "shadows," then I'd hate to hear how weak your "other details" are.
    4
  825. Well, it's impossible to ask a dead person "why?" But, my guess is that she was making "public beach" content, but got reported.
    4
  826. Good grief. You people will cling to ANYTHING you think supports your delusions. Does that even make sense to you? Lori Laughlin was caught bribing some university staff into letting her daughters into a college they didn't deserve, and the entire world stopped. There were prosecutions, prison terms, etc. There were bunches of documentaries made, senate inquiries, and the press was packed around the doors of every single person involved. Aldrin "admits" to the greatest fraud in human history, and nothing? Nobody cares? Now, dewdrop, can that be because you're grasping at straws that no sane person would grasp at? Sheeeesssh. The "animations" comment would be quite simple to understand simply by watching the animations. The landing was recorded on 16mm film facing out the window. Nobody saw it until they came back home and got the film developed. Live TV wasn't available until a few hours after the landing. So, yes, broadcasters played animations instead, until they got the live TV feed. Go watch a few of them.
    4
  827. Do you want to try to write this again when you're sober? I doubt anybody can understand what exactly you're trying to say, it's such a mess. And, this is your EDITED version. So, yeah, try again when you're sober. And, you should start by explaining what you mean by "gravity is everywhere." Are you trying to say that you think there's no gravity on the moon? (I can't really understand you.)
    4
  828. This is very simple: most of the videos shown of the rovers were taken at either 6 frames per second, or 12 frames per second, while the standard rate is 24 FPS. They did this to conserve on film (they'd run out of film in about 3 minutes at 24 frames per second, so, they almost always shot at a lower frame rate). When people play back the film, they usually just use the standard rate of 24 frames per second because it's easier, and smoother on human eyes. This makes the video appear "sped up." But, there are lots of videos available that show it "speed corrected." Go watch them.
    4
  829. Do you know who doesn't have any doubts about the images? Japan. In 2008, they sent their Selene orbiter to the moon with 2D/3D camera imaging systems. They used that to retrieve photography details at a level that wasn't available at the time (except by being on the moon). They cross compared the imagery from their orbiter with the Apollo mission photography, and found a perfect match, not a single photo that didn't line up. Again, we didn't have orbital imagery with that level of detail until 2008. The only places that Apollo could have gotten that level of photographic detail correct was by being on the moon. So, you can sit there and have all the doubts you want, but, all you're demonstrating is that you don't know what you're talking about.
    4
  830. Huh? She committed a crime. How do you sue for committing a crime?
    4
  831. "how there is sound recorded when the astronaut was hammering?" Sound passes through any physical medium. This includes hammer handles, and gloves. Once the sound is inside the suit, it can propagate to the microphone. As a side note: not all hammering resulted in sound being picked up by the microphone. The microphone was automatic. It opened when sound was detected, and closed when sound stopped. This was mainly geared toward human voice sounds. But, rapid/frequent hammering could also open the mic. However, if the hammering was slower or softer, it didn't open the mic. This happened throughout the missions, on and off, depending on the cadence and volume of the hammering. "The camera was mounted on the Lunar Roving Vehicle, a few feet away. The only sound propagation would have been through the lunar surface and the rover." Huh? Are you under the impression that they put a microphone on the rover? "there are rover tracks ahead of them which they are following, but this was supposed to be their first trip there." Yeah, documentary makers tend to just grab whatever footage they can. This is a video about Apollo 17, but, that's actually not even Apollo 17 in that clip. It's from Apollo 16. They didn't have the 16mm DAC on the Apollo 17 rover to even take that video. So, the documentary makers just take some creative license and splice together clips from wherever they can get them. If you ask me, it's a bit annoying, because I'm a stickler for accuracy. But, for a casual viewer, I guess they just figure the visual is more important than accuracy.
    4
  832. "Being exposed to radiation for an hour would not affect the astronauts...Really?" Huh? You're being exposed to radiation every minute of your life. I mean, right out of the gate, I must ask, are you even aware that the word "radiation" applies to many different types of things? Or, are you under the impression that "radiation" only means stuff you get from nuclear bombs or nuclear reactors? Are you aware that sound is radiation? Are you aware that light is radiation? Are you aware that microwaves are radiation? Do you think that there's a nuclear reactor in your microwave oven? I mean, being in light radiation for an hour is no big deal. Lots of pretty girls do it intentionally to make their skin more tan. Sound is radiation, so, have you gone to a music concert for an hour? Did you die from it? I mean, c'mon man, I appreciate that you ask questions when you don't understand a topic, but, here's the issue I have with your questions: your questions come loaded with the assumption that the entirety of the world's aerospace engineers, including the ones who worked on Apollo, are too inept to understand radiation and how to deal with it. I'm not going to sit here and give you a physics course on understanding all of the different types of radiation and how to deal with each one. All I'm going to tell you is that the conspiracy videos you've been watching have used this scary "radiation" word to make people (like you) believe that there's this "gotcha" that the astronauts would have died from. They don't offer evidence or calculations, they're not publishing their concerns in journals on radiobiology or cosmology. Nope. Instead, they skip the scientific method altogether, and publish their videos straight to people who don't understand the topic, and offer you out-of-context quote-mines, and a bunch of falsehoods. Frankly, I don't even think I've ever met a moon landing denier who could even tell me which types of radiation the astronauts experienced at each phase of the missions. I'd ask them what type of radiation they were worried about in the Van Allen belts (for example), and they'd say radioactivity, and assert that it takes 4 feet of lead to protect against it. Well, the Van Allen belts aren't radioactive. That's a completely different type. And, using lead on ionic radiation is an absolutely horrible idea, because a heavy metal like lead will result in secondary radiation that is sometimes worse than the original radiation. There's not a particle physicist or radiobiologist on the face of the Earth that would EVER recommend lead as good Van Allen belt shielding. Yet, conspiracy videos say lead is required. It's absurd. Anyway, bottom line: you clearly have no understanding of radiation. Zero. Zilch. Nada. And, before you should be asking about Apollo's radiation, you should take a couple of years of university physics classes first.
    4
  833. "We are adults." Well, that's irrelevant. Some people pretend to know things they don't, whether adult or not. You have quite clearly reached your conclusions before getting answers to your questions. If not, you wouldn't make such a statement. You'd ask questions, wait for answers, and make determinations. But, you know, frankly, I'm not sure why you'd expect accurate answers in YouTube comments anyway. That's like going to a brothel in search of wholesome family values. Finding accurate answers in YouTube comments... well... it depends on who replies. But, you're in no position to know whom to trust or not. You don't have even an introductory knowledge about the topics themselves. I could write you a response to any question you ask, that sounds really nice, but is completely inaccurate, and you'd have no way of determining if I'm right or wrong. You're not equipped with enough knowledge to even determine the difference between fact and fiction (in this subject matter). So, you're going to accept or reject what you read with no reason to accept or reject it. I'm telling you very accurate replies. But, would you even know it? Does being "an adult" give you knowledge magically? I mean, you're adult enough, whatever, but, clearly you are watching conspiracy videos that lie to you, and you don't know it. I mean, "lost the files"? That's what you believe, right? Lost files? Adult? I'll tell you what, dewdrop: go spend some time on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. They've got terabytes of the files you think are lost. It would take you about 10 years to read through them all. And, I'd estimate that that site only has about 1% of the total files actually available. After you're done reading all of the material on that site, I'll give you another one that will take you another 10 years to read through, with more files that you think are lost. In 20 years, you will know 2% of everything there is to know about Apollo. And, then you can come talk to me about being an adult, and wondering where the lost files are. OK? Is it a deal?
    4
  834. "Not the same. Some people said same effect at a football stadium , you do not see the stars. Think about the angle." Well, I have news for you, dewdrop. The above gibberish you wrote doesn't actually mean anything. If you said any of those words to a physicist, he/she would just stare at you, wondering what in the world happened to mangle your interpretation of how light works. It's not even possible to give you a response. It would be like, "Why is the blue mountainous on the football?" Those are valid words, but, together, those words don't actually mean anything at all. There is no answer for them. Angle of what? And, sorry if you're having a difficult time grasping the physics of light, but, seriously, when you know that little about a topic, you're in no position to formulate any opinions. If I asked you about your opinion on which brain surgery technique to use to treat a patient with a specific neural symptom, would you actually voice an opinion? Or, would you say, "Huh? I have absolutely no training or knowledge about any brain surgery techniques, and you should be asking a qualified neurosurgeon instead of me."? But, that's always been one of the most amazing Dunning-Kruger aspects about people like you: you understand absolutely nothing about the subject matter, yet, you pretend you do. You're not in a position to say "not the same." You wouldn't know what is or isn't the same. People put in effort to try to use analogies like football stadiums or car headlights to try to make you understand that your assumptions are wrong. You assume you know things you don't, then, if you actually tried to get the results you expect while taking a photo of a car headlight, or at a football stadium, you'll find that the results go directly against what you assumed you knew. THAT is the point. "Then you should not see earth as well." Apparent magnitude. "I heard that from the why files" I've been watching conspiracy videos, therefore they're true.
    4
  835. Dewdrop, they sent 9 manned missions to the moon. 6 of them landed. If that's not "doing it again," what is?
    4
  836. It's a method of ignoring the facts. It's like all of those people calling others "chatbots" for responding to the moon landing deniers. I mean, it's just silly to assume people are chatbots in the first place. But, even pretending that's the case, if the chatbots are correct about the facts, then the deniers aren't actually accomplishing anything by ignoring it. It's just an excuse. "I'm going to ignore what you're saying because I think you're a chatbot." It's a method of protecting delusions. Same goes for "you called me a conspiracy theorist too many times, therefore I'm not going to listen to you." It's just another way of ducking and dodging when facts are presented that disrupt the brick walls they've created in their brains. When presented with arguments that the deniers can't refute, they look for some excuse to just dismiss the arguments, like, "you said those words too many times, therefore it doesn't help your narrative."
    4
  837. There have been HUNDREDS of probes that measure the radiation in the Van Allen belts. There are over 400 satellites in geosync orbit right now, and many of those measured the radiation going through the inner belt, and are parked within the outer belt (and have been for years, even decades). Why would you pick one probe from 2012? Didn't any of the "experts" you've consulted tell you where to read the thousands of articles that have been written about the radiation readings from the hundreds of probes over the last 60+ years? Why would you believe that a probe in 2012 is any more significant than all of the others?
    4
  838.  @therealzilch  No, it's because real science isn't done via the scientific method, it's done by using little one-sentence quote mines out of context. And, let's not forget, science = lying and saying they've consulted experts, when all they've really done is watch conspiracy videos.
    4
  839. Have you contemplated ever looking up what the word "debate" actually means? Sorry, nutbag, but a debate isn't a "performance interpretation of literature, soliloquy's [your spelling] and poetry." Maybe if you spent your time learning English instead of grunting on stage and calling it a "debate," ... oh, whatever, I'm wasting my time.
    4
  840. So, when NASA tells you there are invisible belts of radiation, you believe it. When NASA tells you that the level of radiation isn't enough to affect Apollo astronauts with their short exposure time, you reject it. So, you believe the things that support your delusion, and reject things that don't, even if it comes from the exact same source, eh?
    4
  841. Huh? Why would an atmosphere be required in order to have color?
    4
  842. She said she climaxed. The video of the incident (taken by one of the "audience") was very loud, including a climax. But, you're going to claim it wasn't sexual?
    4
  843. She was a convicted felon with an extensive criminal record. Her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the local club, and neighbors said she performed "extras" in her apartment. My guess is that she was making "public beach" content, but got reported, and was trying to cry her way out of her millionth arrest.
    4
  844. Not the brightest bulb, eh Eddie? Eddie are you OK, are you OK Eddie?
    4
  845. The moon never gets to 215 degrees (C), and nylon doesn't melt until 220 degrees anyway.
    4
  846. When your "key points" are so massively uninformed and wrong, I'd say it's time for you to stop pretending to know things you don't, and stick with just asking questions.
    4
  847. YOU SAID: "It look like the Moon is somewhere up there always above the Earth, so we need a big Rocket to get there. But on the way back only a tiny capsule is god enough to get back? Interesting!" == Yup. Thermodynamics. It's much harder to lift 100,000 pounds to an altitude of 238,000 miles against Earth's gravity... than it is to break orbit from lunar gravity (1/6th of Earth's) and then just "fall" all the way back home. And, of course, you have to realize, they left most of the weight behind anyway. Think of it this way: How much energy does it take you to lift a 100 pound rock to the top of a skyscraper? Carry it up. Throw it up (with some sort of machine, a human can't do it). Whatever. How much energy is that going to take you to get a 100 pound rock to the top of that skyscraper? Now, you got it up there, right? OK, break half of the rock off and leave it there. Now, all you need to do is lift the rock over the guard rail on the top of the skyscraper, and toss it over, and Earth's gravity does the rest of the job to get it back down. How much energy did it take you to drop the smaller rock off of the skyscraper? Was it anywhere near the energy it took to get the rock up there? Was it even close? Rocket fuel is the energy. Yes, it takes a hell of a lot of rocket fuel to lift a big thing to the moon. It takes a tiny amount to nudge it back out of lunar orbit and fall back down.
    4
  848. How about this for an idea, dewdrop? How about viewing the 7,000 photos for yourself, rather than blindly trusting people who lie and say they were all perfect.
    4
  849. There were 9 manned trips to the moon, with 6 landings. If that's not repeating it, what is?
    4
  850. Version 1: "What? You mean to tell me that they went to the moon, but never even practiced driving the rover on Earth with full gear on? Apollo is fake!!!" Version 2: "What? They practiced driving the rover on Earth with full gear on, and someone took a photo? Apollo is fake!!!" See, either way, they come to the same conclusion. It's ap16-KSC-72PC-135.
    4
  851. And, did you bother to watch the animations he was talking about? Aldrin correctly said that nobody watched his moon landing live on television, and that the broadcasters used animations instead. This is because there was no live TV camera for the landing sequence. The live TV camera wasn't available until a few hours after landing. So, for the landing, the networks played the live audio, with animated video. They're readily available to watch on YouTube today. Go watch one or two of them. Nobody could see the actual film of the landing sequence until they got home to get the film developed. But, no. You heard the word "animation" and immediately concluded that this was a "confession," right? You never lifted a finger to simply watch the animations he was talking about. "CBS News Coverage of Apollo 11 - Moon Landing" is a fine example of those animations. Why is this difficult for you to grasp?
    4
  852. Melting temperature of nylon is 220 (C).
    4
  853. Arizona State University's site (they made the LRO camera) has hundreds of the photos you're asking for. Go take a look.
    4
  854. What on Earth are you babbling? And, this mess was your edited version? The carjacker was wearing a balaclava ski mask in the middle of a Kentucky summer, and pointed a gun at the driver of the car. How EXACTLY do you propose the cop should react differently than he did? How would you propose that he should "catch him instead of shoot him"?
    4
  855. You never went to the museum to see the spacesuit, you watched a conspiracy video that showed it to you. And, you were just as unaware about the overshoes that were worn over the boot while on the surface of the moon, as the makers of your favorite conspiracy videos were unaware. Museum curators, however, were well aware of that. And, if you actually had been in the museum to see Armstrong's suit, you'd also see Cernan's overshoes right around the corner, which would have easily explained why the outer boot prints were different than the inner boot. Sorry, but when you feel compelled to lie to support your fantasies, you've lost right out of the gate.
    4
  856. "why can't they use that same technology now to repeat now?" Because it's obsolete, and because nobody wants a repeat of Apollo. There are no 1960s IBM mainframes for guidance. There are no rope computers to manage a lander. There are no more craft that use pure oxygen environments. There are no analog S-band worldwide communications networks. There are no tracking networks that use those old style radios and radar. There are no training facilities that use gigantic models. The list is endless. I'm just scratching the surface. And, nobody wants a repeat of Apollo. It was far more limited than what they want of moon missions now.
    4
  857. "What is even more interesting, no other nation has been able to accomplish landing on the moon with astronauts now with new advancements in technology." Huh? Can you name a modern nation that has even tried yet? I fail to even understand what this means. No other nation has built mach-7 hyperplanes either. That doesn't mean that the USA never flew the X15.
    4
  858. Now that I've answered every question, let me ask you one: why are you asking these oddball "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake" questions? Why not ask for EVIDENCE?
    4
  859. A conspiracy video told you all data was gone, therefore you believe it. Bravo. The irony is amazing. You dewdrops complain that we SANE people blindly believe what WE are told. Meanwhile, all the makers of the conspiracy videos need to do is modify a few words here and there in some interviews, intentionally take a few other words out of context, and voila, now "all of the data is gone." Meanwhile, you can go to the online archives yourself and find terabytes of this "missing data" that you never bothered to look for. It would take you 10 years of your life to go through it all, and that's just scratching the surface, because that's just the stuff that's been transferred to the websites. Oh, but, wait, yes, a conspiracy video said it's all missing, therefore it's missing. True genius.
    4
  860. Oh look, another moon landing denier who reads and writes at the level of a 2nd grader. I'm beginning to see a pattern.
    4
  861. Clearly, "do your research" means to watch as many conspiracy videos as possible.
    4
  862. "My dads uncle Jay and another fellow hold the patent for the lunar lander sterring mechanism." I reject your claim on face value alone, because congress specified that nothing produced for Apollo could be patented, trademarked, or copyrighted. If they were going to spend billions of public dollars on an unpopular public program, they wanted to make sure that the public owned the technology it produced. Contractor companies could make money on their labor and craft they produced, but, they could not own the intellectual property rights to any of it. That was to be owned by the public. Your claim flies directly in the face of one of the key mandates of the Apollo program. "I have always said it seems very odd they could have this spindly spider legged thing land like a harrier jump jet when no one on earth could ever fly it right" Nobody on Earth flew it at all. It was designed for lunar gravity (1/6th of Earth's gravity). On Earth, it weighed about 33,500 pounds fully loaded. The main engine produced about 10,500 pounds of thrust. See a problem? It would never even get off the ground on Earth. Even stripped down to bare minimum with only a little bit of fuel, it would still weigh more than the 10,500 pounds that the engine produced. Thus, there was no possible way to fly it on Earth. It worked just fine in lunar gravity, though. "then first try here we go - perfect!" They built training facilities and 5 flying LLRVs/LLTVs that simulated the physics of lunar gravity. That helped quite a bit. And, they mainly hired test pilots whose jobs were to fly craft that had never been flown before. The Wright brothers flew on their first attempt, and actually hundreds or even thousands more, before their first crash. Does this mean you reject their flights? In your mind, it's simply not even possible to have a successful first flight? It MUST crash, or it's fake? "the filmed takeoff to the command module looks very odd to me. it does look lke poor special effects" I don't understand it, therefore it's fake, right? Gee, why do you suppose that none of the 7,000 engineers at Grumman noticed this problem? Your dad's uncle never noticed it either, and he was one of the ones who designed it, right? He didn't seem to notice any problems with the video. Oh, but YOU did, right? YOU? The one who thinks it should have flown on Earth? The one who doesn't understand patents? YOU know better, but, the 7,000 people who built the thing didn't notice? "the shots of them running and falling is weird, because one puncture, one mess up of the suit in the vacuum of space they are gone." That's completely incorrect. They were trained to deal with it. The suit had 21 layers in the outer garment, and 3 layers in the inner garment. The first 13 layers of the outer garment were ripstop fabrics. And, the layers beneath included a self-sealing layer that worked a bit like a fighter plane's fuel tanks that would seal themselves if hit by bullets. A small puncture wouldn't have any effect at all. And, even if it could create a leak (which would be extremely difficult), they'd probably never even notice it, other than their oxygen would deplete more quickly. The suits DID leak, as a matter of fact (not due to punctures, but, some seals that weren't perfect). And, they also routinely opened valves to vent off gasses. It's not like you think from TV, where opening a suit would instantly cause death, like you see in the Mission to Mars movie or something, where they crack open the helmet and the guy instantaneously freezes and dies. It doesn't work that way in real life. And, even with quite a large leak, they would have 2 minutes of consciousness to get it sealed, and were trained in how to do that. You clearly know nothing whatsoever about the topic. So, basically, your entire posting is a pile of "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." Bravo!! Are you even reading the responses to your own comments, by the way? Will you prove you read this by writing "green" at the top of your reply, if you decide to make one? I know you probably won't, and will just run for the hills instead, right?
    4
  863. The Van Allen belts are dangerous if you stay in them for a week or two. Not a problem for an hour or two. Micrometeorites? Their suits were designed to be able to absorb them. Go read up on the A7L. And, c'mon, you're complaining about a thousand of them a day when the surface area of the moon is literally 410,000,000,000 square feet? Do the math on those odds.
    4
  864. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's one of those scenarios that you'll flip flop your statements on the basis of whatever suits you. For decades, I'd been listening to dozens of people just like you saying, "If I went to the moon and people got in my face and accused me of lying, I'd knock them out. The fact that the astronauts never do anything about all of those people accusing them means that they know they're lying, so they never react when accused, therefore the moon landings were fake." Then, after Aldrin punched Sibrel, you people flip your story to match what happened. "People only punch others when they know they're lying. Therefore the moon landings were fake." There's no way to win with you people. Whatever happens, you're going to insist the opposite should happen.
    4
  865. Well, let's see, backyard amateurs around the world could point their radio equipment at the moon and receive Apollo audio. Spain and Australia and the USA DSN dishes could receive video when pointed at the moon. Dozens of countries including enemies tracked the Apollo missions with radar and radio telescopes. Spain had the largest telescope at the time, and used it to see the SIVB fuel dumps around the moon, as well as the Apollo 13 debris field. Multiple countries have hit the Apollo laser reflectors on the lunar surface every single day since they were placed there. Japan used its JAXA/Selene orbiter to confirm the Apollo photography in a level of detail not available in 1969-1972 (except by actually being on the surface). LRO has photographed the landing sites, and can see the lunar modules, rover tracks, foot paths, etc. Both India and China have photographed some of the landing sites also with their own lunar orbiters, which show the Apollo stuff on the lunar surface in the exact same place that the original mission photography shows them, as well as LRO. Doesn't sound like only a few people would need to be "in on it." Sounds like thousands upon thousands, across generations. Sorry that you know absolutely nothing, but, why should that allow you to commit slander/libel like you do?
    4
  866. Yeah, Jack Schmitt probably had his gold visor up more often than any of the other moonwalkers. I think they all raised them from time to time. But, I think Schmitt was the only one that Houston actually told him to put it back down (probably because they thought he had it up too often).
    4
  867. Yes, it's called a "horizon." Amazing, huh?
    4
  868. Oh. Hey, I have a bridge for sale. Interested? I mean, if you're just going to gobble up any claptrap you see on Inside Edition, you seem like the prime candidate for this bridge. This incident happened in July of 2021. Suicide was in March of 2022. Arrest video wasn't made public until November of 2023, probably due to a FOIA request. What exact ridicule do you think she suffered from? The police never made this public until 1.5 years after she was dead. Hint in life: when a "news" story asks questions but doesn't provide the answers, and uses a bunch of tapdancing words and jump cuts and little one-sentence clips of statements taken out of context, yeah, they're constructing a viral video that is nowhere near connected with the truth. Now, how about that bridge?
    4
  869. Because there is no reason for that to happen. Don't pretend you understand anything about radiation.
    4
  870. "Even TV channels had to film the B&W footage from a TV! They didn't even allow them a direct feed!" Dewdrop, because it wasn't in NTSC format. Did you expect broadcasters to relay the "direct feed" to millions of televisions that were not capable of the format? What method would you recommend instead for converting that slow-scan low-res analog TV signal to NTSC format for people to be able to watch? Please elaborate. Don't just complain. Please outline the EXACT mechanism you'd have used instead. Can you?
    4
  871. Yeah, the blue moon with white clouds. Your nickname "knowledge" is sure appropriate.
    4
  872. Huh? There is no wind on the moon. Are you talking about the flag moving when being handled? If so, what did you expect it to do?
    4
  873. What would be the point of such a camera? And, sorry, but there's a reason that aerospace engineers don't endorse such a plan. If you want to land a camera on the moon, you have to build a landing craft for it, then use a ton of fuel to soft-land the thing. For what? If you have a 4000 pound payload, why not just make a nice and big 4000 pound camera/telescope? Why waste 3500 pounds on a landing craft and all of the fuel it will burn? You'd be left with a 500 pound much smaller camera with less capability. Or, you can just park a much larger camera in space, no need for a lander or the fuel to land it.
    4
  874. Yet another one-sentence quote intentionally taken out of context. Bravo. You're a true hero.
    4
  875. So, before anybody could even answer your questions, you already came to your conclusions. You cannot capture stars on film when the camera is set for daylight exposure. But, they did take 125 photographs of the stars using the Carruthers UV telescopic camera designed for exactly that purpose. As for a robot sending photos, yes, LRO has been up there since 2009, sending back 400 GB per day of photos, gravimetric data, laser altimeter readings, etc. Why don't you actually try to find these things BEFORE you come to conclusions?
    4
  876. There are a million videos showing you exactly how that worked. In brief, though, the camera was attached to the side of the lander, pointed at the ladder. Armstrong pulled a lanyard that lowered the camera from its stowage spot (mounted to the MESA).
    4
  877. "We never landed on or step foot on the moon." Not a single one of the world's 77 space agencies, staffing the virtual entirety of the world's experts on the topic, in friendly and enemy countries, agrees with you. Not one. "All of these items were staged in a hanger somewhere." Oh, look. A moon landing denier who writes like a 6 year old. Shocker. I mean, dewdrop, don't you find it at least a little bit surprising that not a single one of you people can read or write? Just a little bit of a head scratcher for you? No? You think the people who can't read or write are the smart ones, and the world's literate people are the clueless ones? Dewdrop, the word is "hangar," not "hanger" - unless you think the videos were shot on hangers in a coat closet. "The Lunar Hoax was to scare the Russians into believing that our technology and abilities were far greater than their own." That is basically correct, except for the claim that it was a hoax. I mean, one thing the Soviets were capable of doing (and did) was track the Apollo missions themselves. On the topic of this video (Apollo 11), the Soviets even sent Luna 15 (unmanned) to the moon a couple of days ahead of the Apollo 11 craft, with the intent of landing and racing Apollo 11 back home with the first lunar samples. Unfortunately for them, it was a rushed mission, and they made several human errors that resulted in Luna 15 crashing instead of soft landing. So, they never raced Apollo 11 back home. But, there were dozens of countries (including the Soviets and their allies) that were tracking Apollo 11 and Luna 15 with radar and radio telescopes. And, of course, there were many other ways to know that Apollo 11 was really up there, but, I'm just stating the most obvious in response to your claim about being a scare. Yes, it was basically a demonstration of technological dominance. That was the main purpose of Apollo. But, if you think for one second that the Soviets were just going to take our word for it, you clearly know nothing about it. Dozens of countries had the radar/radio dishes capable of tracking Apollo, and did exactly that. "Even with todays technological advances we can't come up with a design to safely transit human beings from Earth to the Moon." Wrong. "It amazes me that there are still people who believe we actually accomplished such an impossible feat!" Dewdrop, then outline what you think makes it "impossible," and write it up. Submit it to journals on physics or engineering. You don't just come to a YouTube comment and declare it to be impossible. You have to outline what EXACTLY makes the missions "impossible," then explain why none of the 450,000 people who worked on Apollo ever realized that the stuff they designed and built to go to the moon... couldn't do what they designed and built it to do. Can you? What do you know about the capabilities of the rockets and craft that the people who designed and built them didn't know? Why didn't any of them know it was "impossible" to do it? Why aren't you publishing in the science journals to outline what's so "impossible" about it? And, for that matter, why are you not interested in the evidence? You didn't even mention the evidence.
    4
  878. Speed of funding by congress.
    4
  879. Yes, dewdrop. Dust was blown. Go watch any landing video.
    4
  880. With that monstrosity, it'll take far more than that. Yeah, when you're trying to land a massive 160 foot craft that was originally designed to carry 100 people, yeah, that's going to require more fuel than a tiny craft designed for 2 people. As for why Elon hasn't gone to the moon, it's because he's a conman who mainly pretends to do the things he's claiming, and his rocket company is a laughing joke. I mean, don't get me wrong, there's still a slim chance that they'll pull it off. It wouldn't violate any laws of physics or anything. But, let's face reality here, the writing was on the wall that Elon's HLS is on its way out when they contracted Blue to build a different lander instead. My bet is that when the $3 billion runs out, NASA will give them another $3 billion, then when that runs out, they'll call it quits on the HLS and just use Blue's lander instead.
    4
  881. 2) If the astronauts were in low orbit, I have news for you, dewdrop, they would be SEEN. Yes, the Apollo craft could be seen with the naked eye when in low orbit, and would have been the brightest object at that time.
    4
  882. 3) Sorry, dewdrop, but, if they were in low Earth orbit, then this does not explain how the audio signals could have worked. Not only did dozens of countries (including enemies) tune in on the Apollo audio transmissions (they were just raw analog audio, no encoding whatsoever), but backyard amateurs could (and did) do the same. The clincher is that they had to point their dishes and Yagi AT THE MOON to receive that audio. If something is in low orbit, sorry, but you're only going to hear the audio for a few minutes while the craft passes overhead. But, literally thousands of people in dozens of countries tuned in for HOURS at a time, as long as they had a clean line of sight to the moon. Had the astronauts been in low orbit, the craft would have orbited the Earth multiple times, while simultaneously people were pointing their equipment AT THE MOON, receiving audio signals for hours.
    4
  883. 4) You clearly have no idea what the people in mission control were doing. Have you ever even bothered to watch any of the moonwalk videos? They had a room full of geologists: "Hey, can you pick up that rock over there and bring it to the camera?" - then, the astronaut would do that, and bring the rock to the camera. Some of those mission control people were in charge of the surface experiments: "Hey, we're getting a bad reading on that second surface temperature probe, can you re-dig the hole and place it deeper?" - then, the astronaut would go over and re-dig the hole. The list is endless. The people in mission control weren't just robotically looking at numbers on their screens. They also interacted with the astronauts via the CAPCOM. In this fantasy world where you think all of this false data was fed to their screens, it only explains half of the issue. Those people in mission control REACTED to the stuff they saw on their screens, and then interacted with the astronauts. This wouldn't work very well if it was nothing but prerecorded videos played back at mission control. You'd have hundreds of flight/mission controllers wondering what in the world was happening... "I didn't ask them to pick up that rock, so who did?" "I didn't notice that the probe was reading wrong until later, so why'd the astronaut dig the hole before I told him?" Sorry, you cannot possibly coordinate all of the live back and forth throughout the missions against prerecorded videos (at 1/2.5th speed, no less, to adjust for gravity).
    4
  884. 5) Yes, dewdrop, the moon is smaller than Earth. The horizon is closer, and often created a terminator line that was closer than the mountains behind it. Also, the surface meanders, and creates false horizons if the camera was lower than the peaks of the terrain. And, sorry, but, while your explanation works for some of the shots, your explanation falls apart the moment you look at some of the photos and videos from the highlands on the moon, looking down on massive valleys and mountain ranges with absolutely no terminator line at all (because the camera was at a higher elevation than any of the meandering surface features besides the mountains themselves).
    4
  885. 6) "1/100 scale model of the moon NASA made" Thanks for confirming your inability to do math. You believe NASA built a 1/100th scale model of the moon? The moon is 2,159 miles across, dewdrop. So, you think they created a moon model that's 21.59 miles in diameter? Do you even know what a scale model is? Where is this magical 22 mile wide moon now?
    4
  886. 7) "Russians were asked why they did not try to go to the moon & they said that they could not find a way, to protect their cosmonauts from the high radiation of the Van Allan radiation belt!" This is complete and total nonsense, dewdrop. Had that been true, then they would have challenged Apollo's veracity. They did not, and, instead, tracked Apollo missions to the moon and back and confirmed Apollo. They also had already sent live animals to orbit the moon in 1968, which came back alive with no problems. And, they sent two dogs up into the very worst areas of the Van Allen belts for 3 weeks (in an oblong orbit that meant they only spent about half of the time in the area of the worst radiation). Those two dogs lived for years afterward, no issues. So, spare the world this silly concept about the Soviets thinking they couldn't survive the Van Allen belts. You didn't even type the word "belts" (plural), and labeled them as "belt" (singular). You clearly have no understanding of the topic, so quit pretending.
    4
  887. 8) In your fantasyland where only a few people knew, then this means that the other 450,000 people thought they were designing and building the equipment and craft capable of going to the moon. So, why not just go? What do you think these "few people" knew that the 450,000 others didn't? You mentioned the Van Allen belts (you said "belt" - singular), but, that's just nonsense because James Van Allen (and every radiobiologist on Earth) says that you're wrong. So, again, why not just go? They had the rockets. They had the craft. They had the suits. They had the communication and tracking systems. So, just go!! Can you explain why they wouldn't have gone to the moon, in this world of yours where virtually everyone thought they built stuff to go to the moon, but some mysterious people (unnamed) somehow said "no"? What's your explanation?
    4
  888. Really? Yet, you can't manage to name the exact technology they lacked? Sorry, saying "technology" as a blanket term just doesn't mean anything. What EXACT technology was lacking? And, why didn't any of the thousands of engineers working on it ever realize that they failed to build things that could do what they were designed to do?
    4
  889. Huh? Dewdrop, China confirmed Apollo with its Chang'e orbiter, which took photos of the landing sites, and they publicly said the exact opposite as you're saying. The Soviets tracked Apollo missions with their radar and radio telescopes, and even sent Luna 15 to be in lunar orbit at the same time as Apollo 11. Their intent was to land, and then race Apollo 11 back with lunar samples. It crashed, but, it doesn't change the fact that they tracked Apollo, and congratulated the USA. Sorry, you don't get to just make up nonsense.
    4
  890. Do the math, dewdrop. Go look at any photo of Earth taken from the moon that you want. Calculate the correct size on the 70mm film, given the lens they used. And, demonstrate it. Don't just sit here on YouTube and say, "think about it." I'm sure you're the first one in the last 54 years who has ever thought to examine the size of Earth in the moon photos, and nobody else has ever done the math. Here's your chance. What are you waiting for?
    4
  891. So, if it was a guy at a playground putting on a show in front of the kids, then what? People shouldn't report it?
    4
  892. Good morning. You don't know what you're talking about, as usual.
    4
  893. Good gods, were you INTENTIONALLY trying to prove me correct? Or, was that just accidental?
    4
  894. Oh, and thanks for finally revealing who your "experts" are that you keep claiming you've consulted for everything. The "experts" who write stuff on the internet. Right. Sure.
    4
  895. But, Randy, what don't you understand here? The idea is to just cherry pick one sentence that fits the conspiracy narrative, and ignore everything else.
    4
  896. "if it was high energy particle radiation, such as what’s prevalent in space, you’d currently be experiencing the symptoms of acute radiation poisoning." "people have received fatal doses of radiation in only a few seconds of exposure." Yet, not a single radiobiologist or astrophysicist anywhere in the world would use those words when describing a human's exposure to cosmic rays. Not one. Not anywhere. Not at this distance from the sun. That wouldn't even be true if you were orbiting the planet Mercury. You cherry pick a few words here or there, pretending you've been "consulting experts," and butchering the ever-living daylights out of the topic. To the contrary, whenever the experts talk about the concern about radiation exposure in space, they are universally referring to much longer duration exposure... usually referring to a year-long mission to Mars, or many weeks/months in areas of much higher exposure. But, you clearly think the opposite. So, here's the ultimate question, dewdrop: WHY ARE YOU ON YOUTUBE? WHY ARE YOU NOT PUBLISHING YOUR CALCULATIONS IN RADIOBIOLOGY JOURNALS AND ASTROPHYSICS JOURNALS!!!?!?! Instead, no? You stalk YouTube conspiracy videos for months, pretending to know things you don't? PUBLISH!!! Good gods. Instead, you're the crank standing at the Chuck-E-Cheese basketball hoop for 6 year old kids, declaring himself to be the foremost basketball player on the planet. Silly dewdrop, Chuck-E-Cheese isn't where you'd go to declare yourself the best basketball player on Earth. You'd need to go to the NBA for that. And, YouTube comments isn't the place to declare that the entire world's experts in radiobiology and astrophysics are all wrong. That would be done by publishing in the journals. The good thing is that anybody can publish in a journal, whereas you'd need to be drafted into the NBA. So, WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?!?!!?
    4
  897.  @DeputyNordburg  "10 seconds of research" I think it's clear that he's not "researching" anything. All these people do is regurgitate nonsense told to them by conspiracy videos. If they actually researched anything, they'd quickly learn who the real liars are (the makers of the videos they've been watching). But, sadly, these people don't WANT to research. They WANT to believe that they've outsmarted the entire planet's aerospace engineers, and have "inside knowledge" that the rest of the world doesn't have.
    4
  898. Gee, or you can go to any online translator and find out that you've been lied to. Nasa in Hebrew means "to lift." Nasha in Hebrew means "to deceive." Of course, the conspiracy videos you're watching will never tell you that they intentionally misspelled it in order to get that translation.
    4
  899.  @gregurbanek186  Let me get this straight, you're unaware that half of the Earth is always in nighttime while the other half is in daytime?? You're unaware that the Earth spins? You're unaware that the moon orbits the Earth, thus producing phases (as viewed from the moon)? When someone is so pathetically crippled in basic understanding of simple geometry, what business do you have for committing the libel/slander you have been committing against the thousands of people who worked on Apollo? Here and in all of your other threads, your entire position has been, "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." What's wrong with you?
    4
  900. For the bulk of the mission, yes, the massive IBM mainframes back at mission control were the primary guidance, and the onboard computers were secondary. Nothing needed "immediate" input where seconds mattered. For the landing, the guidance computer at mission control assumed a secondary role. The onboard guidance computer acted as primary, with direct inputs from the onboard radar, and used general inertial guidance and gyros. The lander wasn't going to crash without the information, because the final 100 feet (or more in the case of Apollo 11) were a hybrid of manual control and computer control. Eyesight became the primary guidance mechanism for the final sequence, with radar data assisting. With your criteria of finding it hard to believe that the first landing was successful, well, sorry, but by your standard, it sounds like you believe that a first landing is simply impossible. The Wright brothers flew on their first attempt, and hundreds or thousands more flights, before the first crash. And, they didn't have training, simulators, computers, or anything beyond eyesight. NASA's approach was to focus heavily on training, and a gradual buildup of capabilities. They flew the lunar landers in space on unmanned missions first, then on a manned mission on Apollo 9, then on a trial run to the lunar surface (just shy of it) on Apollo 10, building upon each experience, working out the issues, until making their first attempt. They also build 5 lunar landing test/simulation craft called LLRVs and LLTVs, and Armstrong practiced in those from March of 1967 to July of 1969 (right up until his Apollo 11 mission). And, of course, they had the stationary simulators. I don't know your definition of "success," but, the first landing was NOT without problems. They missed their intended landing spot by about 4 miles. The computer was taking them to an area where they couldn't safely land. They had computer problems. And, they nearly needed to abort the mission shortly after touching down.
    4
  901. Did you bother to even read the quotes you just posted? They go against your position, dewdrop. They don't support the nonsense you're spewing.
    4
  902. Yes, dewdrop. The USA has lent numerous samples to China for the past 50+ years. The first was straight out of Apollo 11 as part of their "good will" giveaways to 135 countries (China was one of them). And, of course, there have been many others.
    4
  903. Dewdrop, nothing you're saying matters. EVIDENCE is what matters. You don't need to trust anybody. You can analyze the evidence and decide on your own.
    4
  904. Distance is not the same issue as resolution. You can see a plane a few miles up. You cannot see a bacterium on its wing. That's literally about the same ratios that you're talking about when you expect to see Apollo's remnants on the moon from the distance of Earth.
    4
  905.  @gives_bad_advice  You're milking a turnip. I mean, in a way, we all are throughout all of these threads. But, this one? "a entene"? And, he knows what it is, names it, then rejects it? There's nothing there. The well is dry.
    4
  906. So, you don't understand the difference between distance and resolution? OK, let's do this... you can see an airplane at 35,000 feet, right? You're capable of seeing that far. Is there any telescope capable of seeing a bacterium stuck to the wing of that airplane? (Hint: no, not even close.) Distance and resolution are two different concepts.
    4
  907. All kinds of people pretend that they need their questions answered. But, when they get the answers, they ignore them. You preempted this by not even asking the questions you pretend you have.
    4
  908. But, she wasn't humiliated. The police video wasn't released until 2.5 years later, which was long after she was dead. Virtually no media covered the story while she was alive. One obscure blog post while she was alive, and that was all.
    4
  909. The LRO satellite has been up there since 2009, and has taken hundreds of the exact photos that you're pretending don't exist. That camera was built and managed by Arizona State University, and you're welcome to go there and download the photos for yourself.
    4
  910.  @noname-by3qz  Wait, you're saying that thousands of people are criminals, based upon silly claptrap like a ridiculous story about a fake moon rock given to an art museum, and you're calling OTHER people "rude"?? Do I have this correct? Wow.
    4
  911.  @noname-by3qz  And, ever other "drop in the bucket" you can ever offer, will fail just as badly as this silly "petrified wood" story.
    4
  912.  @mbvgvskvrs868  Good gods. You cannot even take a joke.
    4
  913. You have Apollo confused with your high school graduation.
    4
  914. And, rather than simply concluding that they encased the film in silver and aluminum canisters to block most cosmic rays, you have chosen to believe that they faked 7,000 surface photos and 110,000 orbital photos. Sure. Right.
    4
  915. Obviously, you just watched a conspiracy video that told you that claptrap, and maybe showed you some photos from very bad viewing angles or something, and you never lifted a finger to check for yourself. Nobody who has actually viewed the photo archive would ever say what you're saying. All of the landing sites show very distinct evidence of dust being blown by the rocket engines. All of the landing videos show a lot of dust being blown. You have been lied to by those conspiracy videos, and you just blindly swallowed whatever they say. Yet, the irony is that you think the SANE people are the ones believing everything we're told.
    4
  916. Yes, and your first thought should have been to find out where Google ACTUALLY got its photos of cars (hint: it's not from satellites). Their own FAQ tells you that they get those photos from low flying planes, drones, and balloons, not from satellites.
    4
  917. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    4
  918. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    4
  919. By sending probes that took readings. What does your cell phone have to do with Apollo? Are you saying there wasn't enough computing power for guidance? Why? Because your cell phone has more computing power? So what? 50 years from now, someone just like you is going to say, "how did they make phone calls in 2023? My cell phone in 2073 has more power than theirs did."
    4
  920. Um, ok, was anybody trying to pass off any of this as anything less than CGI?
    4
  921. First of all, you can't have looked at very many Apollo photos, if that's what you're saying. Let me guess, a conspiracy video showed you some photos that were looking up a slight slope, and said, "look, the horizon is 30 feet away." And, you never thought to take a look at the photos taken in other directions, or basically any photos at all from the missions with the mountainous backgrounds. Am I correct? How about AS17-140-21493 as an example? Be sure and look at the highest resolution copies, because there are bunches of low res copies out there. The South Massif (the big mountain in the frame) is about 5 miles away. And, zoom in on the open valley you can see just above the big rock in the foreground, and what's that little gold colored thing between two of the crosshairs? It's the lunar lander, about 1.5 miles away. Anyway, there are numerous photos showing lots of land. But, it's pretty clear to me that you've never looked for yourself, otherwise you'd never make such a comment. Only people that just blindly regurgitate claims from conspiracy videos say the things you're saying. Yes, the horizon is closer on the moon than it is on Earth. That's because the moon is 1/50th of the size of Earth. But, don't just sit there and regurgitate empty claims. Check for yourself next time to see who the liars are. (Hint: the liars are the makers of your favorite conspiracy videos.)
    4
  922. A) Did you look at AS17-140-21493? And, you now admit you're wrong? Or, is the furthest you're willing to go is to say "good point" and leave it at that? B) What makes you believe that any of your other points will stand? The only point you made was debunked very quickly. What makes you think anything else you have to offer would stand up to scrutiny?
    4
  923. Nobody admitted any such thing. You are listening to conspiracy videos that intentionally take little sentences and phrases out of context.
    4
  924. No, dewdrop, you've been handed a ton of evidence (in prior threads), and all you do is close your eyes, cover your ears, and say "lalalala." Sorry, but you don't WANT the evidence that you keep pretending to ask for.
    4
  925. YOU SAID: "Idiots worldwide still believe man went to the moon" == Which idiots would those be? Literally every one of the 72 space agencies on the planet? Virtually every single physicist, aerospace engineer, and rocket scientist on Earth? Enemy countries such as the Soviet Union, who verified Apollo? All of the various countries that tracked Apollo missions with radar and radio telescopes? China, who says they have verified Apollo with their lunar orbiter? Japan, who says they verified Apollo with theirs also? Which EXACT "idiots" are you talking about? YOU SAID: "almost 60 years ago now," == The first landing was 51.5 years ago. The last landing was 48 years ago. How do you get "almost 60" from that? YOU SAID: "then when computers were super sized," == Many of them were, yes. And, you owe it to Apollo that computers have been miniaturized to the extent that they have been in this timeframe. Apollo single-handedly advanced computer technology by about 20 years ahead of where it would have been without Apollo. If not for Apollo, you wouldn't have a smartphone today, you'd just be getting the new Motorola flip-phone from 20 years ago. The Apollo onboard guidance computer weighed 70 pounds, which was a radical departure from the room-sized predecessors. YOU SAID: "ideological ego was high," == As opposed to any other time in history? YOU SAID: "videography fact checking was impossible" == What does that even mean? Apollo produced plenty of video footage. What do you mean that it was impossible to check it? YOU SAID: "and technology was overall very crude." == Ohhhh kaaaaayyy. So, it's a technology problem? Alright. Name the EXACT technology that you think Apollo lacked, and then explain EXACTLY why the thousands of people who worked on that particular technology were unaware that they had failed so badly to produce a technology that could do the job that they designed and built it to do? YOU SAID: "But knowing that it is impossible even today to land a human on the moon!!" == Depends on what you mean. Is it possible to go today? No, of course not, we don't have any of the working hardware any longer. It's all been retired. There are no functional landers, no functional command modules, no functional Saturn V rockets, no launch facilities, no tooling or buildings set up to even make anything for Apollo. It's all gone. The buildings have mostly been destroyed. The companies have all been sold off. The people are long dead or retired. Yeah, it's not possible RIGHT NOW to go to the moon, because we don't have anything to do it. But, we did in 1969-1972. I mean, by your "logic" (sigh), you would deny the 1969 Concorde. It is currently not possible to traverse the Atlantic at mach 2. Even fighter jets can't go that fast, especially not for long distances. But, 155 passengers at mach 2 across the Atlantic, yes, that is impossible today also. Does this mean that the Concorde was fake? It was retired decades ago also. And, now we have no capability to carry 155 passengers at mach 2 across the Atlantic. And, everything that it takes to make more Concorde airplanes is long gone, destroyed, or retooled to do other things... just like Apollo. They retired the Saturn V, command modules, and landers. But, something tells me that you don't deny Concorde existed because it's currently impossible to fly 155 people at mach 2 across the Atlantic. Yet, you deny Apollo existed because it's currently impossible to fly 3 people to the moon, right? In your mind, once the Apollo program started, it's NEVER allowed to end, right? Else it's fake? That's how this goes, in your mind? YOU SAID: "Goodness common sense, people!!" == Yeah. Look in the mirror, dummy.
    4
  926. I saw a documentary video about WWII which showed some footage of an Iowa class battleship in the ocean during the Pearl Harbor attack. The issue is that Iowa class battleships weren't even launched until 1942, but the attack was in 1941. Therefore, Pearl Harbor didn't happen. Documentary filmmakers never borrow/swap footage around.
    4
  927. The answer is quite simple: you're wrong. The amount of radioactivity is in such trace amounts that it didn't matter. I mean, if you pick up some soil on Earth, yes, there are also trace amounts of radioactivity, but, people don't have issues. Yes, on the moon, it's slightly higher trace amounts, such that they think people would have problems if they built caves to live in the lunar ground for more than 5 or 6 months. But, to walk on the surface for a few hours... sorry, not a problem.
    4
  928. "Who filmed the lander leaving the moon" On Apollo 11? There was no video of the liftoff. The internal 16mm camera was turned on at about 1,000 feet altitude, though.
    4
  929. And, you've come to a YouTube comment field to reveal your "knowledge" to the world... while the entire rest of the world cannot seem to muster a single piece of evidence that doesn't fall apart instantly with a minor amount of scrutiny. You are a true hero, and I'd like to recommend you for a Congressional Medal of Honor.
    4
  930. Oh? If you like laughable fiction, why not just watch Long Island Medium?
    4
  931. I'm just wondering why people like you don't simply Google it. That question gets asked dozens of times per day, and you need only Google it, or scroll down, and you'll find your answers.
    4
  932. Is that what you're doing, questioning it? Here's the thing: 99.99% of the people "questioning" it are not actually doing that at all. They're PRETENDING to question it. Meanwhile, they reject the answers before anybody could give them. In the meantime, though, you are aware that you're quoting the high noon surface temperature, right? You're aware that you're quoting the overnight temperature (that's what you said). Are you really under the impression that they were there at night? Do you think they went at high noon?
    4
  933. @Trabsol Huh? The police didn't post it. It's called the Freedom of Information Act. The police blocked the release of the video for 2.5 years. She was long dead before anybody saw it.
    4
  934. But, dewdrop, while on the lunar surface, the astronauts were always on the side of the moon facing the sun. The only time they were on the side of the moon facing away from the sun was when in lunar orbit (half of that time anyway), and they saw stars just fine.
    4
  935.  @michaelstillman1171  It's called ridicule. Before the days of the internet, people experienced immediate ridicule for putting underwear on their heads and running around saying, "look at me, look at me." Nowadays, the internet has united the underwear-on-head wearing dewdrops, so that they can run around with underwear on their heads, while others just like them make them feel normal, and impervious to ridicule. These are people who actually love the attention, regardless of whether they're right or wrong.
    4
  936. 1) Resolution and distance are two different things. We can see lightyears away, yet, we can't see a bacterium on the wing of an airplane flying at 35,000 feet. Did it not occur to you that distance isn't the issue, but, resolution is? 2) There have been multiple lunar satellites from different countries that have taken photos of the landing sites. They can't resolve tiny little objects, but, they can see the landers, foot paths, rover tracks, etc. Deniers reject those as "fake," even the ones produced by other countries. Why would a denier suddenly accept the photos if they were done with larger optics to get better resolution? Seeing landers and rover tracks aren't convincing to you, but, seeing a waste bag or something would be convincing? Or, is that just a way to shift the goalposts? 3) What are you giving up with these larger optics? You have a craft like LRO, which could weigh up to 4,000 pounds (the payload capability of the rocket they used). OK, you want bigger optics to see more detail. Alright, which experiment packages would you sacrifice? Or, would you give up fuel (which would result in shortening the lifespan of the craft)? 4) Google has no such capability. The closer photos on Google maps come from low flying planes, not satellites (despite the label). Read their FAQ if you don't believe it.
    4
  937.  @ChrisPBacon777  He's claiming that the volcanoes in Hawaii look exactly like the mountains seen in the videos taken on the moon. It's ridiculous. Here is a man who believes everything he is told by conspiracy videos, no matter how outlandish.
    4
  938. Which version? Hollywood director T. Patrick Murray (the one who made the "interview" you're talking about, with Tom Mayk playing the role of Stanley Kubrick) has multiple different versions on his channel. It's called "Shooting Stanley Kubrick" (2015). And, why should anybody watch it? Just to laugh at people like you who thought it was "real"? It's even got an IMDB credit.
    4
  939. Another denier who can't read or write past a 2nd grader level... what a shocker.
    4
  940. YOU SAID (in the prior message): "Biggest lie ever told" == Um, no. That would be when your parents told you that you're smart. YOU SAID: "3 days and 2 people equals 66,000 liters of air, hmmmmm where was it kept I wonder lol" == First of all, they didn't breathe "air" during the missions. They breathed pure oxygen. Secondly, they used CO2 scrubbers to get the most out of the oxygen, similar in concept to a "rebreather" used in elite military scuba gear. This greatly reduces the amount of "air" (oxygen) consumed. Third, your statistic clearly indicates the total amount of air breathed in and out by your lungs, not the total amount of oxygen consumed by your body (which is the more relevant number in spacecraft of any kind), and doesn't account for rebreathing AT ALL. Do you falsely believe that every breath they took was expelled out of the craft, like casual scuba gear, where every exhale goes away as bubbles? Sheeessssshhh. Fourth, the schematics of the oxygen tanks and environmental controls are readily available, have you looked? Fifth, like all conspiratards, you came to your conclusions first, then did your "wondering" second. Sane people do the reverse. Sane people do their wondering/investigation/questioning" first, THEN come to their conclusions. You didn't have the foggiest understanding of the oxygen systems at all, yet, you first declared that it was fake, THEN started to do your "wondering." Ridiculous delusion. You're not "wondering" anything. You're just writing this ignorant gibberish, pretending to question things, but you're not really questioning anything. If you were, you'd have looked this stuff up before you came to your conclusions.
    4
  941. The moon is 1/50th of the size of Earth. Gravity is 1/6th.
    4
  942.  @1USAUSA  Just like there are 100s and 1000s of scientists at the deepest ocean depths, right? Celebrities have gone down there. They make millions and billions. People will go on vacation. Errr, wait, mankind has only done it 22 times. Dewdrop, you clearly have no concept of the costs. Don't pretend you do.
    4
  943. They can't do that. Nobody owns the moon. But, the next best thing is to pass a law stating that there would be no public funding (tax dollars) toward any mission that intends to disturb the sites. That law was passed a few years ago.
    4
  944. The living definition of "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." Could you get any dumber?
    4
  945. And, surprise surprise, another commenter who says "you're doing it wrong" without offering any suggestions.
    4
  946. So, when NASA tells you that there are radiation belts, you believe them. When they tell you how much radiation there is, you don't believe them.
    4
  947.  @User84030  YOU SAID: "It's appalling, actually. If she had passed out due to a stroke or something and no one saw/rescued her there would be a million dollar lawsuit." == But, there IS a lawsuit. And, while I wouldn't know how much they're asking for, I think it's safe to assume it's at least a million dollars. YOU SAID: "But because she was drunk it's somehow okay the hotel were completely oblivious to a guest passed out in the pool? Sick." == But, if that's the way it happened, and if this "news" story is accurate, they were face-down in the pool. They cannot have been face-down for very long and lived through it (the boy). The girl died eventually, but she was alive when they pulled her out, which, again, means she couldn't have been in there very long.
    4
  948. Wow!! Nobody has ever even thought of aiming a telescope at the moon before!!
    4
  949. You don't need "something" to tell you. You need only look up her prior arrest record and prison time for stealing cars, public intoxication, drugs, alcohol, changing her name to avoid arrest and being served, multiple judgements against her for theft, etc. And, you can read the articles about her family that explain that she walked out years prior, permanently leaving a 6 month baby boy, and her other son, in favor of living a wild party life.
    4
  950. "Why astronauts hide and don't want to talk about it and be in public?" What in the world are you talking about? They've given hundreds of lectures and interviews, maybe thousands. Who told you that they won't talk about it? "Why technology doesn't allow to go again?" Technology isn't the issue. Congress pulled the funding, thus, the missions stopped. Congress funded Artemis in 2019, and now the missions are starting again. "Why we can't see flag using telescope?" It would require a telescope with a lens a quarter mile in diameter to see the landers (33 feet across) in enough detail to know that they are landers. If you want to see a flag, well, now you're talking about a lens a couple of miles in diameter, but, even then, you're not going to see stars and stripes, you'll just see a vague shape that might be a flag. There are no lenses (or mirrors) anywhere near that big. There's a well understood formula for "optical resolution" which you can use to calculate the size of the lens you'd need. Go use the formula yourself, if you don't believe me. "Why all proof videos are fake and not real" Why do you ask questions when you don't want the answers? "wires pulling," Nope. "flag shaking from the wind" Name a specific example. Can you? It depends on which time the flag moves. But, most of the time, you people complain about the flag moving when it's being handled. Yes, there were some times when it moved without being handled. But, before I can answer, you need to specify which flag movement you're complaining about. "4 shadows from projectors." No Apollo photos ever showed 4 shadows of anything. "And Why we don't celebrate every year?- because gov don't want people to think and watch about moon landing and talk about it every year." Why do you ask a question, then before anybody can answer you, you answer yourself? Again, you ask questions, but clearly do not want answers.
    4
  951. Well, you can look at the mission photography that certainly shows all of the bigger stuff. There are no photos of the really little things. And, there are no photos that show the details of what the site might look like after a few decades of possible dust and exposure to hundreds of cycles of day/night. We do know that the signal return of the laser reflector has degraded over the decades, because we know the bounce-back today isn't as good as the bounce-back from the 1970s. But, we don't know if that's because of a dust buildup, or if the mirrors have gotten warped a bit, or what.
    4
  952. Oh, and that's not what skepticism means, by the way.
    4
  953. Linda, if you really want your mind blown, listen to this: Apollo was prepared to go to the moon without computers if they had to. As a matter of fact, the onboard computers and inertial guidance systems were merely the backup method of navigation to the moon (except for the landings themselves, and the onboard computer was the primary method). And, yes, they could land without the computers too. Ground-based radar tracking of the Apollo craft was actually the primary navigation method. And, if the onboard computers were not ready in time, they'd have gone to the moon without the onboard computers altogether. Sure, they couldn't have done pinpoint landings. And, without the onboard computer, they probably wouldn't want to take chances of landing in the middle of a field of mountains and valleys (like on Apollo 17 and Apollo 15). But, make no mistake about it, they were going to the moon, with or without onboard guidance computers. As for not doing it again, well, you do know they sent 9 manned missions to the moon, right? 6 of those missions landed. So, yes, they DID do it again, and again, and again.... Or, do you mean not again since 1972?? Well, take that up with your local congressman/woman. NASA doesn't decide what to do with its money. Congress does.
    4
  954. Nobody is going back to this site in our lifetime. The next landings will be somewhere else entirely.
    4
  955. Good grief. What don't you understand here? It's not about "having the money" (so to speak). It's because congress never allocated any money for any manned moon missions between 1972 and 2019. That's what people mean by "they don't have the money." If congress doesn't grant the money to NASA for a manned moon program, then NASA doesn't have the money to do it. How do you think this works? NASA can just decide on its own?
    4
  956. Landing a rover costs around a billion dollars, and the rover can last for years. Apollo costed about $300 billion (adjusted for inflation), plus another $150 billion in soft costs and international support, and the longest surface stay was 74 hours. Does that answer your question?
    4
  957. There are no satellites that can read newspapers. Don't be ridiculous.
    4
  958. You are a drug addict. Please, stop.
    4
  959. NASA is a publicly funded arm of the government. The budget numbers are readily available, you know. You can go find where each dollar is allocated for the hundreds of programs NASA runs.
    4
  960. Another moon landing denier who can't even read and write at a 2nd grade level. What a shocker.
    4
  961. Did you just complain that a craft that was originally designed to carry 50-100 people needs more fuel than a craft designed to carry 2 people? Is that REALLY your position here? And, you have the audacity to claim that OTHERS should "think about it"?
    4
  962. Distance and resolution are two different concepts. There is no telescope in existence large enough to see the flags on the moon from this distance.
    4
  963. Really, dewdrop? Really? You're unaware that sound conducts through things like hammers, gloves, and oxygen inside of suits? This is your "smoking gun"? If you were under the impression that only air could carry sound, how do you hear things while underwater? How do you hear things through a window? Do you think the air vibrations somehow cut through glass to the air inside? Or, do you think the glass itself carried the sound?
    4
  964. In addition, according to their lawsuit, the incident appears to have happened after dark. Since you've been to the resort, can you remember if the pool/bar was even still open after dark? The website doesn't say. It's weird that nobody would notice (other than the one guest who saw them). It's a busy resort, right? So, how would two guests just be in that pool, face down, with nobody noticing? My first assumption would be that the pool/bar was closed, and that the two drunks were still hanging around, or went back after everyone left. But, I can't back up that assumption, and the website isn't helpful. Do you have any insight?
    4
  965. "It’s utterly incredulous that you would go to the moon and not intentionally attempt to take at least several photos of the stars" Yes, Apollo 8 and 10 attempted to take star photos from lunar orbit. They turned out horribly. You need a 20-30 second exposure time, and without a tripod, it doesn't work very well. "from the moon’s surface." Huh? They took 125 photos of the stars using the Carruthers UV telescopic camera. Why do you think they didn't? Did a conspiracy video tell you they didn't? "Even if you failed you would expect that they would have stories of failed attempts instead of total denial." Denial of what? When did they ever deny taking photos of the stars? "Their obvious awkwardness when answering that question is curious at best." Let me guess, a conspiracy video told you to watch a small segment of questioning the astronauts about seeing stars while looking at the solar corona, and, like all of your ilk, you've intentionally misunderstood the meaning, completely leaving entire portions of sentences off of what you think was said. Like, when the questioner asked if they saw stars IN THE SOLAR CORONA, and when Armstrong answered about WHEN PHOTOGRAPHING THE SOLAR CORONA. So, instead of understanding that they were only talking about the couple of minutes that the solar corona was visible, you're concluding (because you've been told to conclude this from conspiracy videos) that the astronauts were magically talking about NEVER seeing stars. Am I right? You know, the ironic part is that you people think that we sane ones are blindly listening to anything we're told. But, you people just listen to whatever a conspiracy video says, no matter how little sense it makes, and then pretend you understand things you don't, doing EXACTLY what you accuse the sane people of doing.
    4
  966. Apollo took about 4.5% of the entire federal budget in hard costs, plus roughly the equivalent another 2% in soft costs and international support. The program lasted from 1961 through 1972 for moon missions, and through 1975 for the Apollo applications such as Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz. And, for all of that money, for those 15 years, they were able to launch a total of 13 Saturn V rockets, and 12 men walked on the moon for a few hours each. Toward the end of the program, yes, they were launching 2 rockets a year, and less money went to R&D at that point. But, still, roughly estimating out how much that all would cost, to go "every day," would therefore mean that it would consume 12x the entire federal budget. In other words, we would need to spend approximately 3x more than the entire gross national product of the country. Somehow, we would have needed to triple the productivity of the entire country, and stop doing everything else. No police. No schools. No fire. No highways. No food production. No car production. No military. Nothing. Just the entire country tripling productivity (essentially working 120 hours per week), focusing it entirely on Apollo alone, just so Johnny can believe. Yeah, you're a real genius alright.
    4
  967. You people are absolutely amazing. When nobody points out why silly claims are silly, you people say that the silly claims are correct. When people point out why silly claims are silly, you people say that this means the silly claims are correct.
    4
  968. Every single sentence you wrote is incorrect. But, this particular one just makes me laugh. "The flag does not appear in any of the videos." Dewdrop, you can see the flag in numerous videos, both TV video, as well as 16mm film video. Also, even though this video is about Apollo 17, you seem to think that Apollo 11 was the only landing. And on that Apollo 11 video, the flag was prominently in front of the entire moonwalk (once they put it up anyway). It was actually a distraction because it was so prominent. Anyway, it's 100% clear that you don't know anything about the topic, so, why are you pretending?
    4
  969.  @eventcone  Document "Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) Missing Fender Extension Saga"
    4
  970. Conclusion first, ask questions second. How honest of you. Why do you ask questions when you clearly don't want the answers?
    4
  971. So, with the dozens of countries tracking the Apollo missions with radar and radio telescopes, who was lying to whom? The allies were feeding "fake" radar readings?
    4
  972. LRO costed more than a half a billion dollars back in 2006 money (when it was funded). That's over a billion today. And, it didn't have a lander/rover probe. If you want a lander, and hopefully it works better than Odysseus (for the cheap price of $120 million more, and it failed), add a couple hundred million more for a working one. So, probably about $1.2 billion for what you want. Do you know many people willing to spend that money just to see how the Apollo stuff has aged? Or, do you suppose they'd want that money spent on going somewhere new instead?
    4
  973. No gravity on the moon? Good grief, man. Who told you such a ridiculous thing, and why would you believe it?
    4
  974. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    4
  975. I love when dewdrops pretend to know things they don't, and say "wake up" (as if they're the smart ones). It's utterly hilarious!
    4
  976. Who said anything like that? Where'd you get that ridiculous impression?
    4
  977. Really? And, you think new computers somehow change the ability to land on the moon vs. old computers?
    4
  978. "If the Americans went to the moon, why are they still using the Russian rockets instead of their own?" No, that agreement is over now. "Moreover, how did Nixon place a call from a landline phone?" The same way he could call to/from Air Force 1, or to/from ocean ships. They patch it through to a radio. "Only the gullible would believe such nonsense." You mean the entirety of the experts in the world are the gullible ones, and you, who doesn't even know how any of the equipment worked, are the smart one? "First cellphone technology 1973" Well, that's just semantics. The first car phones were in the 1940s. And, they had been using radios since decades before that. Just because people attached the word "cell" to similar technologies doesn't mean Apollo used "cells." "and satellite phone 1998" Pfttt. People had been bouncing radio signals off of the moon to have conversations with people half way around the world since the 1950s. And, the first man-made satellite communications were in the 1960s. Just because you've put a label "satellite phone" on something, doesn't mean radio didn't work before then. "Which technology did Nixon use?" Radio. "The distance between the Earth and the Moon is 384,400 kilometers" Distance doesn't matter as much as you think. "While you believe in the US moon landing 50 years ago, ask yourself this: Why was the US buying Russian space rockets until the war in Ukraine, and not their own?" You just said above that you thought they were still using them today. Now, you're backtracking? The answer is non-proliferation. But, why does that matter? Those agreements came long after Apollo. So, why does this matter to you? In exchange for not selling nuclear weapons to 3rd world countries, the USA agreed to buy rockets from the Russians. Is it really that difficult for you to find these answers yourself?
    4
  979. The funniest part is that you're PROUD to know nothing.
    4
  980. "But seriously, its confounding that they (accidentally) erased the data" Well, to un-confound you, the answer is that your notion is complete hogwash. It's a myth pushed by conspiracy video makers. They rely on the fact that none of their followers ever fact-check anything they say. It's a twist on words. In 2006, NASA said that they might have accidentally erased the backup video tapes from the Apollo 11 moonwalk. They actually don't know what happened with certainty. That's just their best guess about those two lost backup video tapes. (The primary copies are still intact.) From there, however, the machine of the internet crackpot cult have modified what was "lost" or "erased," by twisting the words, and it has gone completely out of control. And, now, in the cult circles, they keep saying all of the data is gone. A simple check of the archives demonstrates how ridiculous that is, but, none of the cult will ever do that. They're much happier believing nonsense than they would be to find out that the crackpot videos are the ones that are lying.
    4
  981. "and can't repeat a moon walk today." Yes, that's what happens when you retire the technology. We can't fly mach-7 airplanes any longer either. The 1950s era X15 was retired. We can't buy supersonic airliner tickets. The Concorde was retired. We don't have any mach-3 airplanes with a range of thousands of miles. The SR71 was retired. And, we can't land on the moon, because the Apollo hardware was all retired.
    4
  982. "The rocks were stolen or misplaced." Yes, approximately 500 out of the 11,000 "rocks" (some as small as dust particles, some large, whatever) were stolen or misplaced (mostly stolen). That's what happens when something is so valuable that a tiny amount of dust on a piece of tape sells for $30,000. Imagine how much rocks go for. I fail to understand why stolen rocks mean anything to your silly viewpoint. If nobody stole them, wouldn't you be saying the opposite? Like, "hey, moon rocks are infinitely valuable, how can you tell me that nobody ever stole any of them?" No? If people steal moon rocks, it's because it was fake. If people don't steal moon rocks, it's because it was fake. Is that what you're saying?
    4
  983. "They didn't account for Van Allen belt." Well, given that you are apparently unaware that there are TWO belts, not one (singular) that you wrote, and, sometimes there are even THREE belts (not known of since 2013, but, whatever, the 3rd belt comes and goes), I hardly think you know anything about the topic. But, what exactly do you mean by "account for" it? What's to "account" about them? They wore dosimeters. They went through fast. That's all the accounting they needed.
    4
  984. That's why they named it "Apollo," to trump all other gods.
    4
  985. How about NOT getting all of your "information" from conspiracy videos that lie to you? Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. It's got terabytes of data, schematics, operations manuals, photos, videos, you name it. It would take you around 10 years to go through it all. Come back after that, and tell me that you think they forgot how to do it. And, if that's the case, I'll give you another site with terabytes of mission logs and other data, which will take you another 10 years to go through. Or, you can just stop believing every little out-of-context quote mine fed to you by silly videos, huh?
    4
  986. So, when presented with the data that you think is missing, you won't look at it, and, instead, run for the hills declaring victory? Oh, you're a true hero alright.
    4
  987. You: "I don't believe 1972 Corvettes ever existed. I saw someone say in one sentence that it's lost, and a Corvette conspiracy video said that we forgot how it was done." Me: "Here's a site that has all of the original schematics for the 1972 Corvette, the owners manuals, and shop manuals, photos, videos, etc., that tells you where every nut and bolt goes, and how it all worked." You: "That's an appeal to authority." Me: "Huh? You claimed that we don't know how the 1972 Corvette works or how it was put together. I just provided you all of the manuals that tell you how the Corvette works, and the schematics and shop manuals that tell you how it was put together, how to keep it tuned up and running, etc." You: "That's not proof that we ever built any." Me: "I wasn't trying to prove we built any, I was proving that you don't know what you're talking about when you claim that we don't know how the 1972 Corvette works. We have all of the details about how it worked. The Corvette conspiracy videos are LYING TO YOU about not knowing how it works."
    4
  988. When you prove you actually want answers to your questions, then maybe I'll give you answers. But, thus far, with the hundreds of postings you've made, you've proven hundreds of times over that you don't actually want answers, and rarely (if ever) read the answers.
    4
  989. Why do you suppose there aren't any radiobiologists who agree with you?
    4
  990. Yet, you couldn't manage to name any of it. Bravo. Pure genius.
    4
  991. And, you think you can tell the difference between 0.5 degrees (angular size) vs. 2 degrees (angular size), just by looking at some photos? Yes, if you know the focal lengths, the lenses used, the distance to relative objects in frame, etc., you should be able to mathematically calculate it. But, at a glance, why do you think you'd be able to tell? Either one is still really small in the sky.
    4
  992. CGI in 1969? Oh, you're a real genius alright.
    4
  993. They were on the lunar surface for 74 hours, 22 of which were outside the LEM walking around. Many of the photos were taken from inside the LEM, looking out the windows, or just taking pictures of inside the LEM itself. Many were taken with the 16mm film camera (basically a motion picture camera), set at a low frame rate and then just used as if it's a regular camera (no point and shoot, just click the button and it runs on its own). So, I wanted to help you out, and sort through the actual ones taken with the Hasselblad 70mm cameras, out on the lunar surface. Without being 100% exact, I tallied it up at 787 photos taken on the lunar surface using the Hasselblads. (I went through my personal copies of all of the photos, scanned through the thumbnails, eliminated the 16mm film camera copies because those don't count toward the point you're trying to make, and did a quick tally.) Two men for 22 hours each = 44 man hours. 787 (approximate) photos. That's about 35 photos per hour (each person average). If you look through the photo library library, and watch the videos, you'll find that they tended to rip through bunches of photos at a time. They'd sometimes go 30 minutes (or whatever) without taking any photos. But, then they'll whip out the camera, and rip through tons of photos all at once. Point, click, turn, point, click, turn, point, click, turn... taking 20 photos (or whatever) in less than a minute. Remember, these are automatic advancing electric cameras with massive film rolls. These weren't 12 or 24 exposure rolls, then they needed to change film. These were huge rolls. If memory serves, I believe they had about 157 exposures per roll. So, there's not a lot of time spent changing rolls. And, they didn't need manual winding. Anyway, yes, it's not very difficult to take 35 photos per hour that way. Anyway, you can spare the world your veiled opinions about the veracity of the photos. Nobody falls for that act. And, you can pretend to know what you're talking about all day long. But, it's painfully clear that you aren't actually looking at the photo library and counting this stuff up yourself. You didn't know how many hours they were there. You didn't know how many of the photos were taken from each type of camera. You just wanted to pretend to do math to make it seem like it's not feasible to take those photos.
    4
  994. Is it really too much to ask that you take a look through a few of the other comments to see that it's been answered a couple million times already?
    4
  995. Yeah, that blue and white moon. Right. You're a true genius.
    4
  996. Wow, it's been at least 8 hours since someone asked that. A new record.
    4
  997. The answer is to scroll down.
    4
  998. The Eagle was Apollo 11, which didn't have a rover. But, "lunar rover deployment" will answer a lot of your questions about how it was done on the 3 missions that had rovers. There are lots of schematics and videos of the packing and unpacking of the rover. AS15-88-11901 is a decent shot of the final resting place of Apollo 15's rover. Surrounding images show all of the angles. AS16-116-18716 shows Apollo 16's rover in its final spot. It's not as good of a photo as Apollo 15's, however. AS17-143-21932 is Apollo 17's rover in its final spot. I wish it was in color. But, they must have been taking a bunch of black and white photos at the time, and didn't change film rolls just to take that one shot.
    4
  999. So, is that 3 hours since the last time someone in these comments asked?
    4
  1000. "Would have been good if passing through Van Allens best had been explaned." What's to explain? Go fast. The belts are only deadly if you stay in the worst areas for a week or two. Apollo went through the worst areas in about 15 minutes. "And the photo examples barely scratched the surface." OK, but, the point is that people who complain about the photos do not understand photography. And, Marcus Allen (from this video) is a prime example. He was an actual photographer who knew nothing whatsoever about photography. Maybe he did a good job in his career of pointing a camera and clicking the button, but, he knew nothing whatsoever about photographic perspective, or even basic geometry. He was also oblivious to the fact that the cameras could easily be removed from the astronauts' chest mounts, completely unaware that the astronauts sometimes passed the camera back and forth between each other. The makers of this video were not exactly going to go through the 7,000 photos taken on the lunar surface and explain them all. So, they picked a sample, and moved on to the next topic. "identical rocks on the ground in photos supposedly taken miles appart" There is no such example, except via bad editing in documentaries or something. Look at the actual photo archive, not the claptrap you see in silly videos. "a cross hair being partly behind the object of the photo (astronaut)" Photography on film is essentially chemistry. A slight over-exposure of the image causes the chemical reaction on the film emulsion to bleed through. Bright objects will sometimes drown out the crosshairs if slightly overexposed. "and the moon films showing what seems to be astronauts suspended from wires out in the open" Whenever people complain about this, the only examples they give are glimpses of the VHF antennae on the tops of the backpacks. They confuse that for a "wire." Is that what you've done? "and even a case of an astronaut being pulled up when h looses his balance" I haven't said anything thus far about your abysmal English. But, good grief, I just can't stomach it any longer. You cannot "loose" your balance. Good gods. But, to address the claim, you're probably spewing the exact same thing you people always spew, from the Apollo 17 videos taken in the Lee Lincoln scarp area, and the foot of the South Massif. Yes, that ground is very slanted, and the rover was therefore equally slanted, and it plays tricks on your eyes because you don't realize that the astronauts are on a steep hill. "so many more unanswerred questions." Well, you're not going to find the answers by watching conspiracy videos. Have you ever even looked for the answers? Or, do you just watch more videos made by crackpots?
    4
  1001. Reasonable people don't pretend to know things they don't. Reasonable people don't believe "research" = watching conspiracy videos. Reasonable people don't say "do your own research" when asked for evidence.
    4
  1002. You keep pretending to know things you do not. Meanwhile, you still don't offer a single shred of evidence.
    4
  1003. Blindly trusting the stuff the government says is a bad idea. Blindly rejecting is equally as bad. Evidence is what dictates truth, not blind trust, nor blind mistrust. There are mountains of evidence for Apollo that have absolutely nothing to do with anything the US government says. Dozens of countries, companies, universities, etc., have confirmed Apollo in dozens of different ways, none of which rely on "the government said so."
    4
  1004. I love these postings that prove you people never look at the photos for yourselves. You can see plenty of dust disturbance under each lander. And, yes, some of the footpads had dust inside them. A silly video lied to you, and all you're doing is regurgitating the claim. You never looked at the photo archive to determine if the video lied or not. You just swallowed every word, hook line and sinker.
    4
  1005. Apollo Lunar Surface Journal is the official archive, showing all 7000 photos taken from the lunar surface. Perhaps you should look through some of them before you spew your pile of nonsense. I mean, this is just downright ridiculous. You first stated your disbelief. THEN you asked where to find the rest of the photos? Huh? Just how intellectually dishonest are you? You came to your conclusion first, then you asked questions second. It's ridiculous. How about this instead, "Yeah, those Apollo photos look pretty nice, but, there must be some bad ones, right? Can someone tell me where to find them?" Yes, dewdrop, there are tons of bad photos. I mean, heck, on Apollo 16, as an example, they got a smudge of junk on the inside of the camera lens, causing hundreds of photos to be ruined. You can go look at the archive yourself, and see every single one of them, big brown smudge, right down the center of hundreds of photos. There are also countless photos that are blurry, overexposed, underexposed, poorly framed, pointed at who-knows-what, can barely even tell what it is (or sometimes can't tell what it is), lens flare, you name it. But, yeah, with 7000 photos to choose from, of course some of them came out very nicely. Yet, here you are, claiming you know things you clearly don't. Why do people like you post anything at all? Why? It's 100% clear that you don't want answers to your questions. It's clear that you came to your conclusion first, and then pretended to ask questions second. Why bother? If you weren't going to look at the archive for yourself first, before spewing absolute nonsense, why did you even bother posting anything? And, sorry, hundreds of photos before you get one good one? And, you think professional photographers think that's the proper ratio? Good grief. Sorry, dewdrop, but when you have to lie to make your point, you don't have a point.
    4
  1006. You don't need to trust James Van Allen to know that you're wrong about "under an hour in the 'thin' part of the Van Allen Belt. Even then, they'd be dead." The Soviets sent two dogs into the "thick" area of the inner Van Allen belt (the worst of the two) 330 times over a period of 3 weeks, spending about an hour in the belt each time. It was an oblong orbit, dropping below the belt, then up into it again. Over the period of those 3 weeks, the dogs spent about 15 hours per day, every day, in the inner belt. I had always remembered that they eventually died from it. But, apparently, I was wrong, and they actually lived through it. Either way, the point is, you're wrong. And, if you disagree, there are any number of science journals on radiobiology and cosmology that are perfectly valid forums for you to publish your calculations. See, dewdrop, it's not good enough to just say that James Van Allen decided to join "the deception" by lying about the belts with his own name on them. We no longer depend on James Van Allen to understand those belts, just as we no longer depend on Charles Darwin to understand evolution, or we depend on the Wright brothers to understand airplanes. I mean, sure, Van Allen was more of an authority on the topic than the taxi cab drivers and yoga instructors who make YouTube videos claiming that the Van Allen belts couldn't be survived. And, it's noteworthy to quote from James Van Allen about the belts that have his name on them. But, like all things in science, being first is just being first. The entire rest of the scientific community takes it from there. So, spare the world your blind rejection, and publish in the journals, if you think the entire world's experts know less about the topic than you do.
    4
  1007. "Math and physics would quickly disprove that the pictures were taken on the moon." Well, now that you know they DID take lots of star photos, what are you waiting for? Go use some math an physics to prove them fake. You've had 55 years!!! I will never understand why you (and countless others like you) ask these questions, but, never follow through once getting the answers. Why? Can you explain it? Why haven't you used math and physics to prove the star photos are fake?
    4
  1008. Don't forget chemtrails. And, lizard people. And, fluoride. Sorry, I don't have time for more, I need to head to the store to buy more tin foil.
    4
  1009. I guess the 7,000 engineers at Grumman, and the hundreds more at GM and Boeing, all simultaneously forgot to make the rover fit.
    4
  1010. Which conspiracy video told you the buggies had single seats?
    4
  1011. First of all, I read a couple of years ago that the "original recordings" (not an accurate description, but, whatever) WERE found. The reason you don't know about it is that your only source of input is conspiracy videos, therefore, those videos certainly aren't going to tell you something like that. Personally, I haven't cared enough to actually try to verify any of that, because there is no such concept as "original recordings" about those tapes. They were BACKUP copies, recorded at the same time as the primary copies were recorded. The primary copies were in NTSC format, and the backup copies were in a slow-scan low res format. I haven't cared because those backup tapes are irrelevant. Nobody in history had ever even watched those backup copies, not a single time. So, why are they relevant to you now?
    4
  1012. "It was really early in the morning" Dewdrop, the Apollo 11 moonwalk took place at 1pm through about 4pm in Sydney, Australia time. Already, you know that this "early morning" story has a million holes in it, including the fact that it's the completely wrong time of day. Yet, you buy it, hook line and sinker? Dewdrop, why would they do this "deception" live anyway? I thought you deniers thought it was all pre-recorded. But, you're saying that there was a live streaming mistake with a bottle on the set, and they cut to "technical difficulties," which none of the other hundreds of millions of viewers ever saw? And, you can't get the time of day right. You can't name anybody's name. Just a random story about an old lady hallucinating a Coke bottle. And, THAT is what you're sticking with?
    4
  1013. From the moon.
    4
  1014. Dewdrop, nobody is claiming that this CGI is real. Good gods. If you want to see moon dust on the landing pads, go look in the archive photos.
    4
  1015. When your understanding of the Van Allen belts is limited to 30 seconds from a video made for children, sorry, you don't have anything. I'll grant you that the video you're talking about was clearly edited way down (or scripted to be super-brief), removing all of the details required to understand protonic radiation and how to protect from it, and how it affects electronics, but, who cares? Why should you limit yourself to a tiny 30 second segment from a 7 minute video made for children? Go learn about the Van Allen belts. Study some of the thousands of papers that have been written about it. Try to learn about modern electronics, memory parity errors (and their #1 cause), and the overall sensitivity that modern miniaturized circuitry has to ionic radiation (sensitivity that the Apollo computers never had). The problem is, it already takes more time to write these few sentences than the couple of sentences spoken by Kelly Smith. Again, you're quoting from a video MADE FOR CHILDREN. The irony is that I'll bet the target audience (children) understood that video better than you did. And, sorry, but if you actually believe a single word from the "Funny Thing" movie, you seriously have some problems determining fact from fiction. Every single thing stated in that movie is demonstrably wrong. And, every point it attempts to make is a manipulation of the facts/video. Debunking that silly movie is as simple as watching the original Apollo videos that Sibrel is trying to slander. Why in the world would you trust a single thing he tells you?
    4
  1016.  @gives_bad_advice  So, by that logic (which I know you're not advocating, you're just outlining), the Soviets "faked" having 4 of their moon rockets blow up, and "faked" canceling their moonshot program in shame?
    4
  1017. Yes, last time I checked (which was probably about 5 years ago), about 500 of the 11,000 samples had been stolen. These range from dust grain size to larger rocks. It doesn't include the approximate 180 samples missing from the goodwill giveaways, which brings the total to about 680 missing samples (or more, if the missing goodwill samples had multiple rocks). Why is this relevant? Yes, valuable items get stolen, especially when NASA was just handing them out like candy to any geologist in the world who asked for them.
    4
  1018. Oh look!! Another denier who reads and writes like a 2nd grader.
    4
  1019. "I DONT BELIEVE FOR 1 SECOND THAT A COUNTRY THAT WAS BEHIND RUSSIA FOR THE ENTIRE SPACE RACE ALL OF A SUDDEN GOT THINGS TOGETHER AND WENT TO THE MOON AND BACK." Huh? The USA was behind the Soviets during Mercury. But, during the entire 10 manned missions of the USA's Gemini program, the Soviets didn't launch a single manned mission. Not one. So, no, it wasn't "all of the sudden." It was an entire space program that made the USA surpass the Soviets. "THE REASON YOU SEE NO STARS IN ANY MASA PHOTOS IS SIMLY BECAUSE THEY COULDNT ALLOW ANY STARS TO BE SEEN BECAUSE THEY YOU COULD TELL THE EXACT DAY AND TIME THE PHOTOS WERE TAKEN BY THE POSITION OF THE STARS." They can? Wow. That's pretty impressive. I always figured there were no stars in any of the regular photos because they would have required 20-30 second exposures, which would completely ruin any photo of stuff on the moon. And, I wouldn't think you could be that accurate with star charts. But, hey, you're mistaken about no star photos being taken anyway. They took 125 photos of the stars using the Carruthers UV telescopic camera on Apollo 16. So, now that you know you're wrong about no star photos being taken, go right ahead, use those photos to disprove Apollo.
    4
  1020. "that technology, if existed to date, would have been easier to return to the moon without starting from scratch." Dewdrop, it *IS* easier now!! Apollo costed (adjusted for inflation) about $300 billion in hard costs, and roughly $150 billion more in soft costs and support from other nations. In 2019, congress gave a budget of $30 billion to Artemis. Yes, it's a government operation, and costs will increase past the budget number, and if you drag into the equation the precursor programs (Orion and SLS), the total will be more like $90 billion. But, that's still a far cry from Apollo numbers, because YES, IT IS NOW EASIER WITH NEWER TECHNOLOGY!! What more do you want here? You got your wish. And, starting from scratch? What? Are you even aware that SLS is reusing decades old shuttle engines? Are you aware that Orion is a product of the Constellation program from 2005, nearly 20 years ago? Who said anything about starting from scratch? You know absolutely nothing, and you're extremely proud of it.
    4
  1021. "prove to me that we went to the moon." There's far more evidence than could ever be put into a YouTube comment. So, before I'd even begin, I'd need to first know what type of evidence you'd expect and accept. See, the thing is, this isn't my first rodeo. I've provided evidence to deniers like you for a heck of a long time. It always goes in one ear, and out the other. There's so much evidence that it's impossible to really encapsulate it all into a single comment. So, when I've tried to give like a "top 10" or something like that, inevitably, the denier just refuses to read it as "TLDR," or the denier runs for the hills, or the denier just says, "you protest too much, therefore you're a CIA agent" or whatever else. Anything besides actually admit being wrong. Take, for example, the recent photos taken by both India and China with their individual lunar orbiters, showing the Apollo landers on the lunar surface, exactly as was shown by the original mission photography, and the LRO photography. None of you people ever explain it. You always run away, or attempt to change topics instead of acknowledging it. So, I'm not playing that game. Name the evidence you'd expect, and accept. Otherwise, it's a waste of time. "You will have to use psuedoscience" If you can't even spell it, I doubt you even know what that means. "and your indoctrinated education" Ah, preempting, you have no education, therefore, you are saying, in advance of anybody even responding, that education is a bad thing. Right. Sure. The uneducated people know better than the educated ones. Right. Yeah. "because real science proves we didn't go." Yet, there has never been a single article at any point in history in any recognized science journal anywhere on Earth that supports what you say. Not once. Not ever. Every single attempt to submit a scientific article to any of the world's recognized science journals to claim Apollo didn't happen has failed on its first attempt. If you think "real science" supports your viewpoint, why don't any science journals anywhere on Earth reflect what you're saying? "Did you go?" You sound like one of those evolution deniers a la Ken Ham. "Were you there? No? Therefore evolution never happened." "Go watch Capricorn One" Is this a joke? Were you under the impression that it's a documentary?
    4
  1022. "Real post year 2000 imagery of the Apollo sites will make these trips and landings more believable." So, like the Arizona State University LRO camera images? Like China and India's photos from their respective orbiters? Like those post-2000 images? "Here we are in 2024, incapable of repeating such feats with more technology advancements" Huh? What does technology have to do with it? What technology do we have now that we didn't have in 1969-1972 that is relevant to successful moon landings? "and landing small robotic landers can't complete their missions in more than half of the attempts." Yes. You already said it: robotic. They shoot those things up there with about 10% of the quality control and testing and redundant systems as a crewed mission. They don't care. It's better that way. They can spend 10x the time and money to make extremely reliable robotic probes. Or, they can shoot 10 of them up there for that same amount of money (and a lot less time) and hope some of them land successfully. Which is smarter? This is exactly the same as the 1950s and 1960s. They were perfectly happy with failures because they just kept sending more of them up there. Nobody wants to wait a decade in development and spend 10x more money on putting a robot on the moon. Just fire it up there, and if it works, great. If it doesn't work, shoot another one up there. By your own math of half of the probes working, the other half not, this would mean that, over time and 10 attempts, they'd get 5 successful robots on the moon, rather than spending 10x more money to make only one robot ultra-reliable to a manned landing standard. "I have an open mind either way" You'd be the first. I've seen a thousand people say that, and it never turns out to be true. "as to whether it really happened or not" Ridiculous. Like, what? You think the entirety of the world's 77 space agencies, staffed with about 99.9% of the experts on the topic (either directly or as contractors) somehow can't spot this stuff that the yoga instructors and taxi cab drivers who make conspiracy videos spot? Which do you suppose the REAL liars are here? "I hope I live long enough to see modern proof" Well, what proof have you examined thus far? Somehow, I think the answer is: "none, but, I've watched a lot of conspiracy videos, and they don't show me any proof." "and not AI-assisted CGI composits." If you can't spell "composites" correctly, sorry, but, I have absolutely no faith in your ability to determine what's a composite or not.
    4
  1023. And, you'd believe that she did nothing wrong, why?
    4
  1024. How about watching and listening to the entire mission, not just some cherry picked quotes?
    4
  1025. Well, I would have disagreed with you. But, "period" means it's official.
    4
  1026. A conspiracy video told you that. And, rather than simply downloading terabytes of information that they claim is missing, you just went with it.
    4
  1027. 1) The images on Google that show your car in the driveway are not from satellites. Those images come from low flying planes, despite that Google puts "satellite" in the caption. Look at their own FAQ about how they get those images. It's from planes at about 1200 feet, and/or balloons and drones. 2) Arizona State University has an entire section of their site dedicated to the LRO images (they built and manage the camera) that show you hundreds of photos of the Apollo landing sites, with or without labels. You can see rover tracks, landers, foot paths, shadows of the 5 flags that are still standing, and you can even see a slight bright spot that might be the Apollo 11 flag that fell over (hard to know for sure, though), etc. If you don't like the labels, just click the button to turn them off. 3) India's Chandrayaan-2 shot of the Apollo 12 landing site is probably the most impressive of all of the shots of the landing sites, with very clear images of the shadows of the flame deflectors (still standing), the flag shadow (just north of the lander, exactly where it's supposed to be, still standing), etc. And, comments with links get blocked all the time on YouTube, as do instructions on where to find them, so, you'll have to figure out how to find the photos for yourself.
    4
  1028. "NASA has shot itself in the foot by doctoring photos" Why? They always publish which photos are doctored and which ones aren't. All of the originals are readily available. But, yes, they "doctored" them all the time to produce panoramas, or clean up some exposure issues or unwanted artifacts, or crop them to get things centered, etc. Look at the archives yourself. You'll see that each "doctored" photo contains a reference to the original(s). "and "loosing" all the telemetry" As opposed to tightening the telemetry? Dewdrop, they lost TWO backup tapes, and the originals are still intact. If you can't even spell it, you can't pretend you understand it. "and irreplicable data" Why? What data are you worried about? You think they somehow "faked" the entire world's engineers, right? So, exactly what "data" couldn't have been faked, in your mind? And, what data do you think is missing? Did a conspiracy video tell you the data is gone, and you just blindly believed it? "and evidence of this mission ." There are mountains of evidence, dewdrop.
    4
  1029. "Chinese, Japanese and Indians have all been there, but what is disputed is whether Nasa sent a human being to the moon." So, you acknowledge that China and India have photographed the Apollo landers on the moon. You left out Arizona State University's LRO camera on that list, by the way. The landers are the correct size and everything (basic geometry). But, you think they were unmanned? Why? If they could get a lander of that size to the surface of the moon, what possible reason would they have to NOT put people inside? Also, you can see rover tracks, foot paths, the shadows of the flags still standing, etc. Are you going to argue that those were all robotic?
    4
  1030. They sent unmanned probes to the moon first, you know.
    4
  1031. Well, there are no functional cameras at the landing sites to show what the equipment looks like after 50+ years. So, what choice does he have but to generate it with CGI?
    4
  1032. A few additional tidbits you missed. Yes, her long legal/arrest history, you talked about it briefly, but, you didn't mention her felony prison time for stealing cars, among many other arrests and offenses. More than just one person called the police. And, one of the witnesses captured the incident on video, which is described in the police report as a very loud and public act in front of multiple people, including children. I realize this differs from the version the woman was trying to tell when she was attempting to avoid her millionth arrest, claiming it was a little discreet incident that nobody could see. But, yeah, I think I'll stick with the version caught on video by innocent bystanders, rather than the version told by a convicted felon who didn't want to go to prison again. The bodycam arrest video was not seen by anybody until 2.5 years later. She was already dead for 1.5 years by then. They kept it private while the open investigation was still going on (which was difficult because she kept no-showing for her court dates and tried to change her name to evade the police). But, once she was dead long enough, yes, a legal FOIA request to release the video must be honored.
    4
  1033. "your assertion concerning the absence of a blast crater" You have no concept of what kind of thrust it would take to dig a crater. Helicopters have far more downward thrust than the lunar lander did. A typical helicopter lands with 10x the vertical thrust. Big ones land with 40x the vertical thrust. No craters, not even when they land on sandy beaches. Why would you expect a crater from the lander? And, why do you suppose there aren't any aerospace engineers that agree with you? "or a disturbance of any reasonable metric" Well, there was plenty of dust blown, and it shows when you look at the close-up photos. It's pretty clear that rocket engines were running. But, if you think there are some "reasonable metrics," then go publish a science paper on those metrics. Submit it for peer review. What are you waiting for? "a departure from reality and common sense." So, the "common sense" is to believe that the world's aerospace engineers can't spot these "problems" you think you've spotted. And, people like you, with no knowledge in this field, are the ones who are the real experts? Really? That makes "common sense" to you? "pressure that the F-1 engine would create decending to the lunar surface" The F1, huh? With 1.5 million pounds of thrust each. For a lander that weighed about 2500 to 2700 pounds at landing. Um, dewdrop, the only thing that would be happening if they fired an F1 with a lander attached (I dare not even say a lander with an F1 attached, because, at that scale, it's a rocket with a craft attached, not a craft with a rocket attached), is that the astronauts would be crushed from the force of acceleration, and the only direction they'd be going is straight up. "would have washed the surface underneath the LEM kicking up dust and debris everywhere." OK, you've got me there. Yes, if they had an engine with 1.5 million pounds of thrust, sure, now maybe you might expect a blast crater or something. "No evidence of this exists under any of the LEM's for all 6 Apollo missions. That's the proof" Sorry, but your "proof" fails miserably. I mean, seriously here, did you REALLY think you spotted this "gotcha" that not a single aerospace engineer on the face of the Earth has been able to figure out? Really? C'mon man. The F1? It couldn't even be throttled. It was 100% thrust, or turned off. Those were the only two settings. And, have you seen one of those things in person? The engine bell alone was 12 feet wide and 20 feet tall. Just the bell alone. That doesn't include the rest of the rocket. You think that huge rocket was on the bottom of the landers? "okay, fair enough the LEM rocket may not have been an F-1" And, yet, this doesn't give you pause. You think you understand more about rocketry than the entire planet's aerospace engineers. Yet, when you don't even know what rocket was used, you don't even step back and realize that you're out of your lane. Nope. You continue to believe that, somehow, the entire planet's experts are wrong, and you're right... while you confuse 1.5 million pounds of thrust with 2.5 thousand pounds of thrust. You are off by a factor of 600x. And, this doesn't even cause you to skip a beat. Nope, it's still full speed ahead, denial denial denial, accusing thousands of people of participating in a fraud... while you can't identify the difference between an F1 engine and a lunar lander's engine. "since it was never disclosed as to what engine it used" Ridiculous babble. When will you ever understand to just stop? Why? Why would you EVER say such a silly thing? What possible reason? There are terabytes of documents outlining the exact specifications of the engine. But, beyond that, just walk into the Smithsonian and look at it. They have F1 engines on display. They have the lunar modules engines on display. They're clearly labeled. Don't sit here and pretend they were never disclosed. This is beyond nonsense, and you're just making excuses. "i just assumed it was the F-1" Why? "nevertheless NASA did disclose that it produced 10k lbs. of thrust, can we agree on that?" Yes, 10,500 max. But, that engine (on the descent stage) could be throttled. The F1 couldn't. And, upon landing, it was down to about 2500 to 2700 pounds of thrust. Go take the cross section of the engine bell, and do the math yourself on the PSI. (Hint: it's less pressure per square inch than a human footprint.) "for ot not to have completely washed the surface below it is an impossibility." See what I mean, dewdrop? Do you understand why nobody can respect such gibberish? You just demonstrated time and again that you don't even have an entry level understanding of the topic. Not even the basics. And, you certainly don't understand this either. Dewdrop, before you go running around, accusing thousands of people of being criminals who would spend the rest of their lives in prison if you were correct, how about asking a few questions first? How about getting an education? How about realizing that you don't actually know anything? No? Accuse first? And, I was going to say that you might learn something second. But, I seriously doubt you really want to learn anything.
    4
  1034. So, employing 450,000 people for a decade, giving them training and workplace skills, and advancing science and computer technology doesn't help fight against poverty? What would you propose instead? Government handouts that don't advance training or technology at all?
    4
  1035. Are you watching with your audio turned off? It's the hammer.
    4
  1036. Yeah, you don't care, which is why you used the phrase "astro-nots." Sure. Nice backtracking. Nice pretending that you knew what you were talking about when you spewed total nonsense.
    4
  1037. So, that's it? You ignored the other replies, and declared victory? You even asked Hobbes about the Van Allen belts, when he already answered you? Then, you ran for the hills? And, you ignored sorac altogether? What's wrong with you?
    4
  1038. Dewdrop, understanding the Van Allen belts isn't about watching a 30 second clip of a Kelly Smith video made for children. Good grief. There have been hundreds of probes sent into the belts, and thousands of scientific publications about them. And, you're going to dismiss all of that because you didn't understand what Kelly Smith meant in a tiny little clip in a video made for children? Really? And, you arrogantly sit there and say, "Don't tune out when you get upset at the facts"? Really? Hey, dewdrop, if you have an issue with the Van Allen belts, PUBLISH YOUR FINDINGS IN THE SCIENCE JOURNALS. Don't sit there and talk about a silly video made for children, and how they wanted to test the Orion craft in belts before putting people inside. They did the same on Apollo, you know. They sent Apollo 6 up through the belts and back before putting people inside. And, they did a virtually identical mission with Orion back in 2014, and it passed the tests. So, why would you still be quoting from a 10 year old Kelly Smith video made for children? Is that really the limit of your understanding? A few sentences out of a video produced for children? Why do you suppose there are no radiobiologists anywhere on Earth who believe what you do?
    4
  1039.  @occhamite  And, Apollo 12 landed right smack next to the large "snowman" crater that the Surveyor probe landed in. Yet another "why no craters" irony.
    4
  1040. YOU SAID: "NASA is working very hard on inventing the technology to send man beyond low earth orbit." == Not really. It's been quite a long and slow effort. Back in the Apollo days, they were basically handed a blank check, and told that speed is the only thing that mattered. So, they cranked out 15 Saturn V rockets (only 13 of them flew, but, you get the point). They had bunches of landers and command modules, etc. Today, it's quite different. They're still slowly but surely building the SLS. It's been in development for almost 10 years, and they still haven't flown a single one of them. This is because congress only granted the money to go at a very slow pace. There's not a lot of manpower or money allocated to the project. So, no, they're not "working very hard" on it. They'd like to be, of course. But, they are constrained by whatever money congress grants them for that particular project. But, there's possibly some relief in sight. With the approval of Artemis in late 2019, they are accelerating the pace. YOU SAID: "I would love to see that dream come true!" == Well, we'll see. Personally, I think odds are strong that Biden's administration will kill Artemis, much like when he was vice president under Obama and they killed the Constellation moon program before it even got started. Every democratic presidential administration since Apollo ended has reduced NASA's budget, and every republican presidential administration has raised NASA's budget. (Not that the president decides, congress does, but, obviously, the president has a lot of pull.) YOU SAID: "That is still the claim." == Yes, it's the claim by every single one of the planet's 72 space agencies. What's your beef? YOU SAID: "Many believe the manned moon landings were propaganda" == Sure. There's no shortage of morons on Earth. So what? Many believe that Sylvia Browne spoke to dead people (before she became one of them herself). Many believe the Earth is flat. Many believe aliens are abducting people while they sleep, and returning them to their beds when they wake up. Many believe lots of extremely dumb things, based on the silly claims of people who have no understanding of the topics. So what? Why does it matter to you what "many people believe"?? YOU SAID: "to have a perceived edge during the cold war." == Pffttt. And, what? The Soviets were just going to take our word for it? Tell me, why would they fall for it? I mean, just take Apollo 11 as the most obvious example. The Soviets sent Luna 15 (unmanned) to orbit the moon a couple of days ahead of Apollo 11. They tracked Luna and Apollo with their radar and radio telescopes, just like bunches of other countries did. They waited for Apollo 11 to get to the moon and land on it. Then, they initiated their plan to land Luna 15 in the Sea of Tranquility while the astronauts were still on the surface, with the intent to grab some lunar samples and race Apollo 11 back home. Unfortunately for them, they rushed this mission, and ended up crashing Luna 15 into a lunar mountain. But, the point remains, they tracked Apollo 11 with radar and/or radio telescopes, just like Australia, Spain, Madagascar, Turks and Caicos, USA, Guam, Canary Islands, UK, etc. (the list goes on). If it was faked, why would the Soviets (and all of the other countries tracking Apollo) just go along with it? What good does a "perceived edge" do, when the entire rest of the world "knows" it never happened?? I don't understand this logic of yours. A "perceived edge" only works if other countries just blindly believe what they're told. But, nobody did that. Thousands of people in dozens of countries tracked Apollo missions to and from the moon. The "perceived edge" goes right out the window if those countries would use their radar dishes and spot nothing, huh? YOU SAID: "If our grandparents pulled it off," == Funny. I guess you think everyone watching this is your age? YOU SAID: "it was the greatest mechanical achievement of all time." == Yup. YOU SAID: "Realistically though it looks like we are stuck in low earth orbit and will be for a long time." == Well, as I said, I think you may be correct. Artemis was approved by congress in late 2019 under Trump's administration. Bezos was contracted to build the landers. They ordered 2 more Orion capsules. SLS's development is accelerating. But, yeah, that can all be scrapped. We'll see. As of right now, they're on a pace that would put people in lunar orbit in about 4 years, and put people on the lunar surface by around 2028 or 2030. But, that pace can be sped up (more funding), slowed down (less funding), or stopped altogether (zero funding). We'll see. YOU SAID: "NASA says they destroyed that technology." == Yup. All that's left now are the schematics and the museum examples. It's destroyed in the exact same sense that Concorde's technology was destroyed a couple of decades ago. The people are gone. The contracting companies have either closed their doors or have moved on to other things. The facilities to build and maintain the equipment are long gone, either ripped down, or retooled to do other things. The launch facilities have been torn down and replaced. Etc. Yeah, it's been destroyed. YOU SAID: "Sounds like a fish story to me" == Because you're clueless, and your only input is from conspiracy videos made by other clueless people. Blind leading the blind. YOU SAID: "but when someone says they caught a world record rainbow trout who am I to say no you didn't." == Well, you could start by actually asking for the evidence, and actually researching Apollo in a REAL way, instead of watching conspiracy videos made by people who have the same level of understanding that you do. That would be a great start.
    4
  1041. They sent 9 manned missions to the moon, 6 of which landed. How is that NOT "going back"? How many more would it take to convince you? Why is it at all relevant about what "future" (from their perspective) generations do or don't do?
    4
  1042. "inconsistent or lack of communication delays" This is because you dewdrops refuse to grasp the simple matter of where the communications are being recorded. You people don't know when to expect a delay, and when not to expect one. Like, delays between when an astronaut speaks and Houston answers. There's no reason for someone in Houston to wait before answering an astronaut. The recording is taking place in Houston. Why should the person in Houston wait 2.6 seconds to answer? Every time you people complain about inconsistent delays, it's inevitably because you have absolutely no idea where the recording is taking place, who's speaking, who's answering, etc., and you just blindly think there's supposed to be 2.6 seconds between every word spoken.
    4
  1043. And, this makes a difference to you, why? He'd look transparent because of the camera used, whether on Earth, or on the moon. So, why does the camera issue mean anything to you whatsoever?
    4
  1044. It's the burn-in effect, dewdrop.
    4
  1045. "No skepticism or controversy when the Wright Bros." Just plain wrong. Many countries rejected the idea that they lost to the Wright brothers. Remember, news didn't travel all that fast back then. And, once the internal combustion engine got light enough, the race was on to make the first heavier-than-air flying machine. Most of the race consisted of well sponsored teams and companies that got tons and tons of government funding from various nations all over the world. The Wright brothers only won the race by how much? A couple of weeks or something, right? As a matter of fact, the French publicly announced that they considered the Wright brothers as "bluffers." And, what happened? They brought their plane to the first air show, and the Wright brothers had the best plane at the show by such a large margin that the French basically shut their mouths and conceded that, yes, the Wright brothers undoubtedly were flying before anybody else. "Apollo 11 is drenched in skepticism and controversy" Only because this is an age of misinformation. Anybody can spew any nonsense they feel like (like you're doing right now), and silly opinions spread like wildfire. But, there's never been an ounce of controversy among the experts. None of the entire world's 77 space agencies have ever published a single article making any claim like you are. And, sorry, but you aren't "skeptical." That's not what skepticism means. "because it never happened." Yet, you offer no evidence whatsoever. The evidence is what matters, dewdrop. Your blind rejection isn't "skepticism." "There is controversy" isn't an argument. "How come nobody's been back to the Moon?" That's not evidence either, dewdrop. That's a question. And, since you've made it 100% clear that you have no interest in the answer to your question, sorry, again, all you're doing is proving that you're NOT skeptical. A truly skeptical person would want those answers, and pay attention to them, not reject the answers before even hearing them (as you are clearly doing). All you're doing is pretending to ask questions, while saying, "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." But, for any that actually want the answer, it's because congress pulled the funding. And, congress didn't fund a single dime toward new moon landings until the funding of Artemis started in 2019. "There is no evidence." Once again, all you've proven is that you're NOT skeptical. Skepticism isn't the blind rejection of something (that's what you're doing). Skepticism is a method of analysis of the facts. You don't even know the facts. I'm skeptical about just about anything in life, because I analyze the facts in a skeptical manner. I've analyzed the Apollo evidence, and am quite certain that you're wrong. But, guess what, I'm a million times more skeptical than you are. You seem to think that skepticism means rejection. No, that's not what it means. Skeptical people accept the facts all the time. You're so NON-skeptical that you don't even know what the evidence is, and you've gone as far as claiming that it doesn't exist. There's enough evidence to fill many encyclopedias, dewdrop. But, here are a few highlights of evidence that you believe don't exist: 1) China, India, and the USA, have sent individual orbiters to the moon which have taken photos of the Apollo landing sites. You can see the landers' descent stages, shadows of the flags, foot paths, rover tracks, etc., that exactly match the original mission photography. Yet, you don't know about this evidence, and deny evidence exists. 2) Dozens of countries tracked the Apollo missions with radar and radio telescopes, including enemy countries. Yet, you don't know about this evidence, and deny evidence exists. 3) Spain had the world's largest telescope at the time, and used it to photograph the Apollo 13 debris field, and the SIVB fuel dumps near the moon. Yet, you don't know about this evidence, and deny evidence exists. 4) 850 pounds of lunar rocks/dust have been returned to Earth by Apollo. And, it chemically matches the samples the Soviets and Chinese returned with their unmanned landers. Furthermore, those samples have been examined by thousands of geologists and geology students, and not a single one thinks they're fake. As a matter of fact, they say that these samples have never been exposed to oxygen or moisture (killing any notion that somehow they were found on Earth). Yet, you don't know about it. 5) The Apollo laser reflectors placed on the moon by 3 different landings have been used every day since those missions landed. Numerous countries/universities around the world can hit those reflectors and assure you that they are there. Yet, you deny it. I could go on for hours, but, like all of your ilk, you're probably not even reading at this point. It's my position that you don't actually want responses to your gibberish, and you will refuse to read any responses that prove you wrong. So, I'll stop here on that type of evidence, and ask you to prove you're reading this by writing "green" at the top of your reply (if you make one). "You just lack an understanding of basic science." Oh, so it's a scientific thing? Oh, ok, so, you know the cornerstone of the scientific method is scientific peer review, right? So, why are you here? Why are you not publishing this "science" that you think supports your viewpoint in any university-recognized science journal anywhere on Earth? You think YouTube is a science journal? Sorry, but, you don't get to cry the mantra of science, while ignoring science. "mask, and take a photo with the Ukrainian flag" And, this has to do with "skepticism" how? You were challenged on some of the points you made. You changed topics and ran for the hills. Where is that part of the scientific method? Seems more like what internet cranks do when they're defeated.
    4
  1046. Some landing pads had dust in them, some didn't. As for the rest of what you wrote, I'm afraid it's out of my league to address it. For that, you'll need a psychiatrist.
    4
  1047. YOU SAID: "Least likely case: We went. Never went back. But we Have really crappy resolution photos from only 18 miles from the moon surface to "prove" we went, even thought we can read license plates off cars from space with satellite spy gear." == Sorry, but you're just plain wrong. It is more than highly doubtful that we can read license plates from space. I've seen this claim, and, yes, it's common for countries to overstate their spying capabilities. The size of lens it would take to do such a thing would be really huge, much bigger than anything they've ever put up there, and you'd have to find some yet-unknown way to correct for atmospheric distortion. You probably just don't realize that the close-up images you see in Google Maps isn't from satellites, despite that they say "satellite view." It's mostly from airplanes flying at about 1,200 feet. And, sorry, but, LRO's cameras were designed and built by Arizona State University, and their resolution is quite well understood (by everyone except you). YOU SAID: "And that is with an atmosphere on the earth." == Exactly why you should be skeptical of claims of being able to read a license plate from space. Yet, if it fits your conspiracy narrative, you swallow it hook line and sinker. It's quite fantastic that you apparently trust the spy community that has said such things, in which disinformation is a hallmark, but you distrust the hundreds of engineers/PhDs/students at Arizona State University. Funny. YOU SAID: "We should have crystal clear photos of moon landing sites, not cheap photoshop cover ups." == LRO is a complete package, not just a camera. They had a limited amount of weight that they could lift to the moon with the rockets available at the time (a lot less than weight they can lift to low orbit). And, they needed to pack in solar panels, communications equipment (radios/dishes), gravimeters, fuel for a decade of orbital adjustments, rocket engines to propel and orient the craft, cameras, etc. They had to work within their budget and weight constraints. If they had a bigger camera (which is what it would take to get better resolution), what EXACTLY are you proposing that they give up? I mean, you're right, the cameras in low Earth orbit ARE better than LRO's cameras (I still doubt they can read a license plate, but, they're better than LRO's). However, those booster rockets didn't need to lift those satellites to the moon, they only needed to lift them to low Earth orbit. So, you can have a much bigger payload because you don't have to lift it to the moon. And, if you dedicate a satellite to just the camera, and don't have all of the other stuff onboard (like LRO has). So, in your massive expertise, please explain EXACTLY what you'd have given up on LRO in order to make the cameras bigger? And, don't forget, more resolution = more pixels you have to transmit back home, so, don't forget to upgrade the radio equipment while you're redesigning LRO also. So, what EXACTLY are you going to give up on LRO, in order to place a bigger camera onboard? YOU SAID: "Well, in any case technology always goes backwards" == No. But, it often goes backward. See any supersonic airliners around lately? Do we have the capability today to fly 100+ people across the Atlantic at mach 2? Or, did we lose that capability when Concorde was retired? Nowadays, we can only fly 1-2 people for a few hundred miles at mach 2. We used to be able to fly 100+ people, plus luggage, for 3000 miles at mach 2. Today's mach 2 capabilities are a tiny tiny tiny fraction of the mach 2 capabilities of the 1969 Concorde. So, by your logic, Concorde is fake, right? SR71 mach 3 spyplane? X15 mach 7 test plane? Hmmm, it would seem that the 1960s were the golden age of aerospace, huh? Is it all fake? Or, just Apollo? YOU SAID: "and "we lost that technology" according to Don Petit, NASA astronaut. His words. Not mine." == Yes, the technology IS lost... in the exact same sense that Concorde technology is lost. Every single thing that it took to make a Concorde airplane is long gone, decades ago. We can't order a single Concorde engine. None of the remaining fuselages are airworthy. We don't have the manufacturing facilities. We don't have a single functioning airplane, and it would be a long and ugly process to try to rebuild it. Don't you use the same standards here? Why do you suppose the current companies trying to build supersonic airliners don't just whip up a new Concorde? Could it be because it's easier/faster/cheaper/better to build a new one from scratch, rather than trying to make a bolt-for-bolt copy of a 1960s era jet? Same goes for Apollo. The launch facilities have been destroyed and replaced to launch other things. There are no training facilities. Every single one of the manufacturing facilities to make parts for Apollo has been torn down and replaced. The ground-based IBM mainframes that ran every Apollo mission are long gone, scrapped. The communications/radar arrays to track Apollo, and communicate with Apollo, have all been gutted and replaced with much newer electronics that couldn't possibly work with anything designed for Apollo. The LLRV/LLTV vehicles were all modified to do other things, and then either crashed, scrapped, or retired. The list goes on. Pettit chose to make the answer very short, and said it's all destroyed. A bit colorful to say it that way, but, entirely accurate. Why do you think this means Apollo was fake? Did you expect they'd keep the entirety of the Apollo program running, ready to build new rockets to the moon? YOU SAID: "Wake up for the love of your country." == Oh, the irony. A clueless internet dolt thinks he's "loving" the country while spitting in the face of one of the country's greatest achievements. Could you be any more of an arrogant prick?
    4
  1048. You need more emojis. Nobody can understand you.
    4
  1049. Did you expect them to send employees of governments from other countries instead?
    4
  1050. You're a little low on the number of minutes. But, close enough. And, you seem to have forgotten that there were two astronauts on the surface at at time. Have you ever looked at the photo archive? And, did you ever watch the videos in their entirety? You can usually see them on video taking each photo. It's basically an average of 1 photo every 2 minutes per astronaut. Most of the time, they'd take bunches of photos all at once. So, if you think about it, that's basically stopping every 10 minutes to whip through 5 photos. It's not as difficult as you'd think. And, do you have any concept of how many photos the guys took from the passenger seats on the rovers? It's not difficult to maintain an overall average of 1 photo every 2 minutes, if you're blowing through 100 photos at a time just between one rover stop and the next.
    4
  1051. New airplanes still crash sometimes. Therefore, the Wright brothers never flew.
    4
  1052. Wow, what a powerful argument. The words "dust" and "flag" disprove Apollo, with absolutely no context whatsoever. It's like saying, "Green proves aliens." What does that mean? Your guess is as good as mine. But, it means exactly the same as just saying "dust" and "flag" with no actual context about what in the world that's supposed to represent.
    4
  1053. Nick already answered you, but, I'll add the same basic sentiment a bit differently. You can look up the schematics and demonstrate your claim that the stuff wouldn't fit. But, none of you conspiratards do that. You just say "too big" or "too small" or "not enough" or "too much" to things like the size of the lander, radiation, fuel, etc. None of you people ever calculate it. None of you people look at the schematics and do the math. No. Instead, you go on YouTube and pretend you know what you're talking about. Dummy, how do you think this conspiracy goes, anyway? The thousands of Grumman engineers and technicians who designed and built the lander never said, "oh, wait a minute, we forgot to make the rover fit!!!" No? They're all too stupid to realize they forgot to make the rover fit? But, YOU say it can't? How about the engineers at Boeing and GM? They never realized they forgot to make the rover be able to fold up and fit in the lander either? No? Decades go by, and not a single one of them has ever said, "wait a minute, we forgot to make the rover be able to fold up!!!!" No?
    4
  1054. Was this a cut-n-paste from the other times you post this nonsense, and ignore the answers? Pfftt. Clown. Your 6 remaining brain cells seem to be on an infinite loop. YOU SAID: "They should have used a blower to simulate a small blast crater underneath the lander" == That would have meant it was fake. There's no way that engine creates a crater. YOU SAID: "and maybe a little dust sprinkled over the footpads to give a more realistic effect." == There was dust on some of the footpads. Your favorite conspiracy videos lied to you, and you have never fact-checked them. You just blindly swallow anything they tell you. YOU SAID: "They shouldn't have used the same backdrop on different Apollo missions." == Pfftt. The black sky? Hilarious!! YOU SAID: "They jumped the gun a bit when Nixon already had a pic of the Earth from the moon on his office wall." == Dummy, I have told you before, Apollo 8 and Apollo 10 went to the moon before Apollo 11. You refuse to accept input, and repeat the same garbage. The photo came from an earlier mission. But, of course, you don't even realize that there were earlier missions than Apollo 11, because you know NOTHING. YOU SAID: "Before they even supposedly landed and wouldn't the guy who filmed Neil Armstrong step off the ladder onto the surface technically be the first person to step on the moon?" == Camera was mounted to the side of the lander before leaving Earth. YOU SAID: "Ya'll should have started that 30 second communication delay from the beginning instead of moving to that later." == Communications delay is about 1.3 seconds. You don't know what you're talking about. YOU SAID: "Your getting better with the CGI now though. Won't be to much longer before your bs looks real. Maybe you can edit those moon buggy shots and make the dust shot out from the tires have a little longer hangtime." == If you think the hangtime is wrong, why are you not providing those calculations to science journals? Why? It's just a high-school level physics/math equation. Yet, none of you people ever do the math. You just say it's wrong, and never back it up with math. YOU SAID: "I know you didn't have the CGI technology then to do that but now you can actually make it look like there isn't gravity and have a cloud of dust floating like a Nimbostratus cloud." == That would mean it was fake. Only the very duuummmbbbesssttt of the conspiratards thinks the moon doesn't have gravity. YOU SAID: "I doubt anyone would even catch the change since most people have lost their critical thinking skills." == Did you really just say this after you just got done asserting that there's no gravity on the moon? Hilarious!!! YOU SAID: "Why did you change the Van Allen Belt bs with an article I read on NASA'S website to a man made barrier shrouding Earth that's impenetrable." == You left a couple of words off of that sentence, dummy. Impenetrable TO LOOSE ELECTRONS. Sorry, you don't get to intentionally leave those words off of the sentence, and make it seem that the article says something it doesn't. YOU SAID: "It kinda contradicts the perseverance going to Mars doesn't it?" == Perseverance isn't made of loose electrons. YOU SAID: "But what really baffles me" == Is why no woman could ever love you. YOU SAID: "is when you have a crew of actors perish in a shuttle accident. Why did they have to go back to working again without some of them even changing their names. Captain Micheal J Smith a professor at the University of Wisconsin now. Engineer Judith Resnik a law professor at Yale. Using the same name still? I suppose her students at their age wouldn't recognize her or see the connection at all. At least with Richard Scobee he went to his nickname Dick Scobeej head CEO of Cows in trees unlimited. The famous teacher who died aboard the shuttle went by her middle name at the time of the tragedy. Sharon Christa McAuliffe is also a law professor at Syracuse now? I thought when your actors died you named a school or road after them in their honor. You didn't pay them enough to retire with the money your agency brings in annually? Did any of them get to see their funerals? It would be interesting to see all who showed up to your funeral. Don't you think?" == You are the lowest of the low. How dare you insult the memories of those fallen people by buying into a silly conspiracy video like that one. Those aren't the same people... and, while I know you have the ultimate defense from the slander/libel you're committing (you're sstttttuupppiiddd), I would love to see you thrown in prison for such illegal libel. Fortunately for you, the "I was dumb enough to believe my own nonsense" is the perfect defense. But, shame on you for such an insulting pile of slander.
    4
  1055. The first "cell phone" networks (just called "car phones" at the time) were in the early 1940s. That's about 25 years before Apollo went to the moon. Forgive me if I don't think you know what you're talking about.
    4
  1056. If you actually wanted answers to your questions, you wouldn't be putting the emojis there. Let me know when you REALLY want to understand more about radio. Hint: sorry, dewdrop, you haven't found a "gotcha" that the entire planet's communications engineers somehow overlooked.
    4
  1057. "Open minded?" Yet, you didn't want answers to your own questions. Right. That makes total sense.
    4
  1058. Dewdrop, 20 minutes before this posting, you said you didn't want to hear anything about anything that happened after July 16, 1969. Now, you want to talk about July 20, 1969. It took you a whopping 20 minutes to change your tune. Has it ever occurred to you that your true problem can be found in your own mirror?
    4
  1059. Who told you it didn't? Have you watched any of the landings?
    4
  1060. Sorry dewdrop, when you can't even spell his name correctly, you don't get to drag it through the mud.
    4
  1061. "the russians are the first to send a camera to the moon so they did kinda win." Huh? When was a race to send the first camera ever declared? I mean, the Soviets also sent the first probe to Venus. I guess they "won" that also. But, in order to win a race, don't all the participants need to know they're even in the race to begin with? "btw, these austronats we love to idolize, are the same people that dont like the idea of space travel being commercialized. according to them, only special people deserve to go to space." Well, ya know, we don't exactly have airliners in space. And, going to space requires a different level of skills that most people don't have. So...... "they completely rejected elon musk. good thing elon pretty much gave them the middle finger and pretty much putting nasa to shame lolol." Well, first of all, Musk's comments about some stuff regarding space travel are downright ridiculous. $200,000 to go to Mars? You can't even buy the fuel for that, let alone the 99.99% of the rest of the stuff required. I mean, I could sit here and rattle off a few hundred Musk quotes that demonstrate that he has zero understanding of rocketry or space travel. But, whatever. You won't listen anyway. But, middle finger to NASA? Huh? Where do you think SpaceX gets most of its money? Hint: NASA. Who do you think writes the requirements for the rockets? Hint: NASA. Do you even understand how NASA works?
    4
  1062. China has publicly acknowledged Apollo because in 2021, their orbiter photographed the 6 Apollo landers on the lunar surface, exactly where they're supposed to be. Oh, but, you're holding out for China? What exactly are you expecting from them at this point? They're going to negate that which they already acknowledged? Huh?
    4
  1063. Stars will never show up on videos like this because of many reasons. First of all, the exposure time is too short. Secondly, the resolution is not good enough. Thirdly, the vidicon pickups were not designed to pick up something as dim as stars. Fourth, the camera was configured for daytime. If you want to see videos of the sun, watch the entire mission videos, not these documentaries. The sun tended to drown out the rest of the picture, and did not make attractive viewing. They tended to avoid pointing the camera at the sun, but, yes, over the hours upon hours of video, they did do it sometimes.
    4
  1064. Or, you could watch one of the million videos demonstrating that your favorite video maker Bart Sibrel (the maker of that movie) is the actual liar. Or, just fact-check him yourself.
    4
  1065. The Apollo program costed more than the gross national product of 80% of the countries on Earth. The only reason the USA was able to pull it off was because the economy was so massively large compared to the rest of the world. At its peak, Apollo costed about 4.5% of the federal budget in hard costs, and approximately 2% in soft costs. And, for that, they got 13 Saturn V launches, resulting in 12 guys walking on the moon for a few hours each. The largest payload was a 400 pound rover and about 100 pounds of experiments. To manufacture hotels, houses, speedways, etc., how many millions of pounds of payload would that take, and how many thousands of launches? What percentage of the federal budget do you think that would require?
    4
  1066. You're correct. They didn't do it once. They did it dozens of times. You are making it very obvious that you have never looked for yourself. Instead, you watched a conspiracy video that tells you they never did it, and just blindly swallowed it.
    4
  1067. The police didn't publish it. But, they did have to release it due to a legal FOIA request. But, that wasn't until 1.5 years after she died. So, um, no, it had nothing to do with her suicide.
    4
  1068. "To date, and since the Apollo missions we have never been higher than about 600 miles above the earth on a manned mission." Correct. Do you know of a booster in service that could have lifted a manned craft higher (after the Saturn V was retired)? "Go and watch (although you prolly won't find it on here) "A funny thing happened on the way to the moon" and see what they did." Bart Sibrel is a convicted criminal taxi cab driver, who made that laughable video for silly dupes to believe nonsense. Every single item in that video has been debunked a million times over. Why would you believe a single word of it? "The moon is a vacuum correct, well how then did the noise (sound waves) of hitting the metal stake with the hammer travel so it was picked up by a microphone somewhere?" Sound conducts through any physical medium. This includes hammers and gloves. Sound will traverse through those physical mediums and resonate in the microphones inside the spacesuits. "Recently I went to the NASA website and picked 3 Apollo mission photo's, downloaded them and ran them through a photo analyser, all 3 came back as fake." Sure you did. Was the "analyzer" written by a nut just like you?
    4
  1069. So, your definition of "independent" is anybody who agrees with you, right? Dozens of countries have verified Apollo in dozens of ways. But, you're going to claim that those countries are not "independent." All sources that agree with you are "independent." All sources that disagree with you are not "independent." Sure, you're really honest. As for bouncing radio off of the moon, there are two replies: 1) An experienced ear can tell the difference. 2) The radio telescope tracking was good to within 1 mile of accuracy, and relied on the Doppler effect. Bouncing a radio signal off of the moon wouldn't lead to that much accuracy, and would have ZERO Doppler effect. Also, radar wouldn't have anything to do with bouncing audio HAM signals off of the moon.
    4
  1070. First, come to your conclusion. Second, ask questions. Oh, you're sooooo honest. Dewdrop, if you ever REALLY want to learn about Apollo, learn it the normal way. Watching conspiracy videos that lie to you isn't a source to knowledge.
    4
  1071. Good gods, do you REALLY not understand photographic perspective? Really? You're not aware that shadows converge? Dewdrop, it's the same as if you squat down between two train tracks and take a photo. It looks like the two train tracks are converging, right? It looks like there's no way a train could ever roll down those tracks, because the left track is converging toward the right, and the right one is converging toward the left. Yet, you know darned well that if you took the photo from above, the two tracks are parallel. Well, same thing goes in that photo you're talking about, dewdrop. The shadows converge. That's what they're supposed to do. If they didn't then that means that the light source was inside the camera, not 93 million miles away. You have pointed out a very good photo that confirms the single light source that's extremely far away. But, somehow, you managed to believe that the shadows shouldn't converge?
    4
  1072. There were multiple callers, not just one. And, sorry, but the woman ruined HER OWN life. Why is "accountability" not part of your vocabulary?
    4
  1073. Here's a clue: galaxies are big. The stuff on the moon is small. Do you not know the difference between distance and resolution?
    4
  1074. Dewdrop, does every single video you watch need to be about providing proof? There are a fringe group of people who know nothing whatsoever about the topic, who deny Apollo out of pure ignorance. And, providing proof has never mattered to them. You're clearly one of them. There are mountains of proof. And, not every maker of every video cares to waste half of their videos trying to convince people who have no intention of listening anyway.
    4
  1075. "I know NASA landed a few mission on the Moon." 6 of them.
    4
  1076. "But they lied to us with Apollo 11 and the Mission that installed the equipment Apollo 11 did not installed." Yet, India and China captured similar photos of the Apollo 11 landing site with their orbiting cameras as LRO did, showing the lander exactly where it's supposed to be.
    4
  1077. "The first mission to land on the Moon was Apollo 12. And I can prove it." Yet, the best you can do is complain about sun angles (which you probably got wrong anyway, but, an upward slope easily explains anyway)? Or, you don't understand the shadows differ in craters depending on sun angles and the angle that the photos were taken from, and you conclude that the craters are different, and nobody in the world noticed? And, you've come to a YouTube comment field to reveal this massive oversight to the world?
    4
  1078. Regarding the sun angle, I'll add a bit more. Since all shadows went west, then that's "uphill" for the terrain topography at that landing site, and explains the 5-6 degree discrepancy. Since the sun was to the east, then if you did your calculations based on the photos into the sun, then the "downhill" terrain toward the east also explains the 5-6 degree discrepancy. Either way, I think I've explained your discrepancy simply because the terrain wasn't flat. It was a wide gradual upward slope toward the west. Don't believe me? Just look at the 3D topography maps. Or, for that matter, just look at how far the horizon is for all eastward facing photos, and how close the horizon is on the westward facing photos.
    4
  1079. Not the brightest bulb, eh Eddie?
    4
  1080. "They would've been extremely serious and working to overcome unpredictable challenges getting back." They were working to overcome unpredictable things? How do you work on something if you cannot even predict what it will be? "The old men in this film are saying the truth" Crack, meet pot. "The gov't had a very low risk and high reward situation by faking" Really? And, if caught faking it, you don't think the USA would be the laughing stock of the planet? "ensuring billions in future tax investment." Dewdrop, the government doesn't need Apollo to ensure taxes. They set the tax rate, and we pay it. And, for any shortcoming, they borrow. And, for anything they can't borrow, they print new money. Good grief. Did you flunk out of Economics 101? (As if I could believe you've ever even taken it....)
    4
  1081. Once again, dewdrop, you already proved that you weren't reading answers to your own comments/questions. You don't get to pretend you have some sort of "upper hand" here.
    4
  1082. Conclusion first, ask questions second, right? Typical. Dewdrop, exactly what purpose would it serve to swear on the taxi cab driver's bible? Bean, Mitchell, and Cernan swore on his bible. Do you believe they went to the moon?
    4
  1083. Correct. Not in this level of detail anyway. We have orbital photos, but, they cannot show the small details.
    4
  1084. Dewdrop, India, China, South Korea, and USA, have each sent orbiters to the moon that have taken photos of the Apollo landers on the lunar surface. You reject that. Why would you accept this "simple to prove" [whatever]? What more do they need to do? And, if they do it (whatever it is), would you accept it, or continue to reject it?
    4
  1085. Oh goodie, another denier who reads and writes at a 2nd grader's level.
    4
  1086. The arrest video was released on November 24, 2023. I'm not sure what your definition of "a long time ago" is.
    4
  1087. Huh? You mean the #1 most famous photograph in human history? And, somehow, we went 55 years without anybody noticing this "street clothed" man on the moon, until YOU noticed it?
    4
  1088. I already told you, dewdrop, radio isn't affected by the radiation you're talking about. I also told you where the tape was located (in Parkes, Australia). You don't know anything about the topic, and should stop pretending you do.
    4
  1089. This is another butchery of the facts (as usual). NASA produced a document that said that when they were looking for the two missing BACKUP tapes from the Apollo 11 moonwalk, they found out that thousands of similar Apollo era tapes were disposed of or erased. They suspected that the two backup tapes may have been mixed with those similar style tapes. Of course, if you remove the word "era" from those words, it sounds like they got rid of thousands of Apollo tapes. But, nope, they were unrelated to Apollo, other than they used the same format of tape. Bottom line: the dewdrops have removed the word "era" from their quote mines.
    4
  1090. They weren't talking about the onboard computer at that point of this video. They were referring to the IBM mainframes back at mission control, which were what was used for the primary guidance. Primary guidance was based upon ground radar tracking. The onboard computers you're referring to were only for backup guidance, based upon star sightings and inertial/gyroscopic sensors onboard. The exception is the landing sequence, when the onboard computer in the lunar module became the primary guidance mechanism, based on inertia, gyroscopes, and a radar array on the lunar module itself (but, they used Earth/ground radar tracking to verify). And, the other exception is the liftoff from the moon, which used a combination of using the ground based IBM mainframe from ground radar, and the onboard computer with radar from the dish on top center of the lander. I guess you'd call the onboard computer the "primary" while the engine was burning, which was heavily tracked by the IBM mainframes on the ground, until the onboard radar could lock onto the command module. The onboard computers they built at Draper Labs (at MIT) were not flown. They were like prototypes. The ones actually flown were built by Raytheon (based on the ones at Draper). As a side note: since the MIT/DraperLabs/Raytheon computers weren't ready in time (the intended deadline), they designed the system to be able to fly to the moon with no onboard computers at all, and would have proceeded without them. That's the point at which they decided to make the ground radar tracking become the primary mechanism, and the onboard computers would be the backup mechanism (if they were ready for the actual flights). The onboard computers were ready for the flights themselves, but, they were late in NASA's desired timeline for testing and training. As it turned out, they probably got more accuracy out of the ground radar tracking and the IBM mainframes anyway. So, they were pretty well suited for the primary role, and may have been promoted to primary anyway, even if the onboard computers were ready on time. MIT staff were also the main architects of the Earth/ground based radar tracking for guidance with the IBM mainframes, as they were the main architects of the onboard computers (with some Raytheon staff participating also). Another note: they wouldn't have made the Apollo 15 or Apollo 17 landing attempts without the onboard computers in those landers. (too many mountains in the landing path). But, they would have attempted landings like Apollo 11 without any onboard computer (big wide open flat lands).
    4
  1091. "they just cut to the science guy and he just says pretty much "I'm very confident these are lunar" like alright man thanks for your opinion" So, you wanted them to teach you lunar geology in a couple of minutes within a 50 minute video about a wide range of topics? This ranks right up there with those people on Twitter who demand that you teach them evolutionary biology in 280 characters, else it's fake. Dewdrop, you're welcome to read any of the thousands of scientific articles written in the geology journals by the thousands of international geologists over the years who have studied the Apollo moon rocks. To expect a 50 minute long YouTube video that spends a whopping 2 minutes on lunar geology to actually teach you the details of lunar geology is ridiculous. And, don't pretend you'd understand it if they did.
    4
  1092. Questions are never a problem. The problem is that the deniers are only PRETENDING to ask questions. They have no interest in the answers. Have you ever engaged any of those people? You answer their questions, and it all goes in one ear, out the other. You ask them some return questions, they never answer a single one. And, when faced with evidence they cannot refute, all they ever do is constantly change topics until you cannot stand them any longer and walk away. They never admit to being wrong a single little fact. Example: "They never took a single photograph or video of Earth from the moon, this means that it was done in a studio." You show them exact photos and videos that they asked for, and all they do is change topics, and will never admit to being wrong. Tell me those people don't deserve ridicule.
    4
  1093.  @bradleyrex2968  And, people who have accomplished nothing want to feel better about it, so, Apollo makes a perfect target. Rather than the decades of education and experience it takes to understand the topic, it's very easy to just watch a few hours of conspiracy videos and believe that the most accomplished people on Earth have actually accomplished just as little as they have (which is zero). It makes them feel better about their own failures, to believe that nobody else succeeds at things either, and need to fake it.
    4
  1094. Part 1: YOU SAID: "This guy didn't refute any of the questions that people who don't believe in the moon landing had.He just just went into why people may believe it is because they don't have control of their lives" == Correct. This video isn't about that. YOU SAID: "that NASA has tried not try to refute most of the conspiracies which has caused them to grow,that uneducated people are proven more likely to believe in conspiracies." == Well, what EXACTLY is NASA supposed to do? Staff armies of people to respond to scientifically illiterate people, and teach them rocket science? I mean, a vast majority of the conspiracy nuts have never set foot inside a university physics classroom, and have no hope in hell of understanding why their puddle-deep arguments are wrong. The conspiracy nuts will never let an argument die, not ever, because they simply don't/won't listen to the answers to their own questions. The conspiracy nuts still ask dumb questions about why there are no blast craters under the landers, or why the photos don't include stars in the background. They don't understand basic physics or chemistry, or even photography, and they're not really interested in answers. And, most have decided in advance to reject anything NASA has to say, so what purpose would there be in NASA giving responses to ridiculous "challenges" when the "challengers" have zero understanding of the topic, and zero interest in the true answers? YOU SAID: "The issues I have are firstly-why do most experts say they don't have the technology to go beyond the Van Allen Belt even Obama saying that there are working to be able to do that in the future." == There are no human-rated rockets capable of boosting a craft that high right now. They built 13 functional Saturn V rockets, and flew every one of them. There were a couple more that were never flight worthy, and are now at museums. But, they cannot actually fly. So, yeah, mankind currently doesn't have any human-rated "technology" capable of taking large enough spacecraft through the belts. The problem most people have is in this major misunderstanding about not knowing how to do it, vs. not actually having anything capable of doing it. Everyone knows how. There's no "technology" that hasn't been invented yet. But, until someone funds big rockets, and gets them reliable enough to be considered "human rated," yeah, we don't "have the technology." Also, remember, things are different now than in the Apollo days. They were perfectly willing to stick humans in poorly engineered and untested craft (remember the horrendously poorly engineered Block-1 spacecraft that killed the Apollo 1 crew?). And, they didn't do so great with shuttles either. They built 6 shuttles, 1 of which was never space-worthy, and was designed just to be tested by dropping it off of the back of a 747. They built 5 space-worthy shuttles, and 2 of them blew up, killing their crews. Not a very good record. So, yeah, they've really tightened the belt around what they consider human-rated any longer. YOU SAID: "If we did it already why do we need to work on that?" == About the Van Allen belts? Because the next generation spacecraft (i.e. Orion) is a different craft than Apollo was, with different mission profiles. I mean, I will never understand why the hoax nuts find this so difficult to understand. Lots of the hoax nuts make the argument, "Hey, if they went through the belts in Apollo 50 years ago, why can't they just use the same shielding for Orion? The fact that they are re-engineering the shielding proves that Apollo never happened." It's a fantastically dumb argument. I mean, just look at ANY aircraft as an analogy, with a 50 year gap, and change the words from "shielding" to "wings" and listen to how stupid it sounds. Like, "Hey, if they already made wings work for the WWI era Sopwith Camel biplane, why did they need to invent new wings 50 years later for the Boeing 747 in the mid-1960s? The fact that they are re-engineering the wings proves that WWI never happened, and the Sopwith Camel biplane never existed." It's an amazingly stupid argument. The Orion spacecraft might have a gumdrop shape like Apollo did, but that's about where the similarities end. Orion is a bigger craft, and has massively different mission profiles engineered for it. Apollo had computers with rope memory, yes, quite literally, metal ropes for memory, gazillions of atoms across. Ionized particle radiation won't do a darned thing to rope memory, because a tiny ion hitting a metal rope is like a fly hitting a freight train. It's not going to make a difference. But, modern computers are massively more sensitive to ionic radiation. We have gained computing power billions of times more powerful than 1960s computers, yes, but it comes at the expense of miniaturizing the components to the point that the memory pathways are just a few atoms across. Cosmic radiation is the #1 cause of modern computer memory parity problems ON EARTH, let alone in the Van Allen belts. So, yeah, you had better believe they needed to beef up the shielding since Apollo. Plus, they have plans to put astronauts in the belts for WEEKS at a time for Orion (and/or to endure different kinds of radiation that would be experienced in long-term voyages to Mars or distant asteroids). Apollo went through the belts in 2 hours. Apollo astronauts experienced 1 rem per hour of radiation exposure while going through the belts. Today's legal limit for a radiation worker is 5 rems per year (or 25 rems in an emergency). So, an Apollo astronaut received about 4 rems in one mission (2 on the way out, 2 on the way back). That's close to a year's worth of legal exposure (in today's standards). Imagine if they just did the same thing for Orion, then stuck astronauts in the Van Allen belts for 3 weeks. At 1 rem per hour, that's 500 rem in 3 weeks... which is a guarantee of getting massively ill and permanent damage at a minimum, with a decent chance of actually killing the person. Add another week or two, forget it, everyone dies at that rate. So, yeah, different craft, different computers, different mission profiles, yeah, they needed different shielding. And, they did that, and the shielding passed its tests in 2014.
    4
  1095. Part 2: YOU SAID: "There is a tape from NASA apparently accidentally sent that shows a person who could not be heard in the live TV feed trying to make it look like they were far away from earth and telling Neil Armstrong when to speak and immediately after he spoke." == According to who? The criminal taxi cab driver, and massive liar, Bart Sibrel? Is this part of the whole "round window cutout trick" that he promoted in his movie packed with utter lies? That's the one where he claimed that NASA gave him the original Apollo 11 films (pfft, because, sure, any time a criminally convicted taxi cab driver asks for the Apollo 11 original films, they hand them right over). And, he claimed that he had them carbon dated (pfft, because, sure, carbon dating works on film?? um, no.). And, then he showed this stuff where he pretends that there's a round window cutout over the trapezoidal window, arguing that the astronauts were in low Earth orbit, pretending to be half way to the moon. But, hmmm, the problem is, the clouds weren't zipping by at 17,000 mph, which is what would be required if they were in low Earth orbit. And, hmmm, if you actually look at the original video, you find that there is no cutout, you can see the trapezoidal window, you can see the Earth, and you can see them moving from window to window... funny that Bart Sibrel edited all of that stuff out of his movie though, and cropped together clips to make his argument... all completely lies. Yeah, is that the guy making this case you're talking about? YOU SAID: "Also on this film their was discussion on how to make the whole thing seem believable." == Yeah, they made it believable by going to the moon. YOU SAID: "Also there is video of one of the guys pounding a steak into the lunar soil and you can hear noise emanating outwardly(something that's impossible) because in space there is a vacuum and noise requires air molecules to propagate sound." == Yeah yeah yeah. We've all heard that a million times. It's not very distinct. The sound could be from many different things, including reverberation through the suit, to even perhaps the astronaut grunting a bit, and the noise getting clipped a bit from the auto-sound detection. It only happened a couple of times, and is very non-convincing. YOU SAID: "This story has a lot of parts to it.Firstly there was the excuse that through impacting of the microphone in their space suits that sound was able to be heard." == Sure. But, nobody knows exactly. So what? YOU SAID: "Although many clips were also showed of work being done on the International Space Station(ISS) where absolute silence is observed when doing work that would make noise." == I'm not drifting onto a million topics here. I mean, what's your main point? Do you not think the ISS is up there? You can see it with your eyes, you know. And, with a good telescopic camera, you can see it in more detail. YOU SAID: "Also it's very clear that in the first interview after the moon landing none of the guys seem particular happy as would be expected from guys who accomplished probably the single greatest exploratory feat in history." == Bullshit. In parts of that interview, they joked around. But, yes, in many parts, they were a bit somber. So what? These guys had just spent weeks in a tiny aluminum can, and then weeks more in a tiny quarantine trailer. And, they gave hundreds of interviews. And, you know, these were seasoned military guys who didn't get all excited in general. Have you ever spoken to any of those guys? That's just how they are. YOU SAID: "They seemed to be trying to get their stories straight and the whole thing just did not seem right." == Bull. Fucking. Shit. There was nothing wrong with "their stories" that they had to "get straight." This is nothing but conspiratard talk about topics they know nothing about. YOU SAID: "Also during the the interview the discussion of stars which should have been seen,no one remembered seeing any at the time" == No. This interpretation is a product of a very low IQ, and is a very well known phenomenon of low IQ people. The question was, "did you see stars in the solar corona despite the glare?" So, they answered that question EXACTLY. They said they didn't remember seeing any. And, that's because the only time they could see the solar corona was during the very brief period from lunar orbit as the sun had set, but the corona was still visible. The corona is/was never visible at any other time period. It only is visible basically during eclipses. They were instructed to observe the corona as the moon's curvature eclipsed the sun, and look into the glare of it, and to take photos of it. So, that's what they did. It lasted like a minute or something. And, literally the next minute, the astronauts commented about how they could see millions of stars again. So, when Moore asked if they saw stars in the solar corona despite the glare, they answered about that very short/specific time period when they were observing the solar corona, and they simply didn't remember seeing any stars in the solar corona's glare. The problem is, people with a very low IQ omit words that they don't understand. You don't understand what the solar corona is, when they could/couldn't see it, and what glare they were talking about... so your low IQ brain simply didn't listen to those words. All you heard was "did you see stars?" A high IQ person would have realized that he/she doesn't understand what the solar corona is, when they could see it, etc. So, that person would dig deeper. Bottom line: in order to understand the answer, you first have to understand the question. But, you clearly don't understand the question. You omitted the 2nd half of the question from your mental processing. "Did you see stars in the solar corona despite the glare?" turns into "Did you see stars?" because your brain doesn't know what the solar corona is, nor when they could/couldn't see it. You didn't understand the question, your brain omitted half of the words, so you don't understand the answer.
    4
  1096. Part 3: YOU SAID: "but then later years they talked about how great the stars looked on the moon." == No, SIXTY SECONDS LATER they talked about it. SIXTY SECONDS!!! And, no, it wasn't from the moon's surface, but from lunar orbit. Listen to the original tapes, rather than listening to clueless conspiratards. Good grief. YOU SAID: "Most troubling for me is there is a very clear tape made of Neil Armstrong within the last probably 15 years of a guy repeatedly challenging him that if he really landed on the moon to put his hand on a bible" == Yes, criminally convicted taxi cab driver Bart Sibrel is a liar, and an asshole. And, what EXACTLY did you expect Armstrong to do? He was not a Christian, so the bible didn't mean much to him to begin with. And, hey, after Cernan and Aldrin and Bean warned the rest of the moonwalkers about Sibrel's little lies and tricks to get astronaut interviews, do you think Armstrong was going to give that asshole the time of day? Sibrel accosts Armstrong at the university, sticks a bible in his face, and you expect Armstrong to just comply? And, was this before or after Aldrin punched Sibrel in the face? I've forgotten the sequence of events a bit. YOUS AID: "that he had on his person and say he actually did.Neil Armstrong couldn't and he told the guy that knowing him he probably did even have a real bible." == Yes, because Bart Sibrel is a chronic liar. Nothing the man says is true. This is the guy who said that NASA gave him, a criminal taxi cab driver, the original Apollo 11 video films. This is a guy who said he had those films carbon dated by professional scientists (funny that none of those professional scientists told Sibrel that carbon dating doesn't work on film, it only works on former LIVING things). And, then Sibrel dishonestly edited a press-kit release, making it seem like the astronauts were in low Earth orbit, when they were half way to the moon. And, c'mon, get real here. How can you believe a single word out of that complete liar? So, yeah, I don't blame Armstrong for saying that knowing Sibrel, it probably isn't even a real bible. Sibrel couldn't tell the truth if his life depended on it. YOU SAID: "Not to say all these things indicate for sure that a moon landing didn't happen but there is definitely some troubling issues with that whole story." == No, it indicates your utter willingness to swallow ANY stupid claim you see, from ANY lying idiot who makes the claims. A tiny bit of fact-checking would reveal who the real liars are. But, nope, you don't do it, do you? YOU SAID: "I know that there also things that people initially put out that could be explained.For example the flag that waved in the lunar surface without air being attributed to the fact that with very little resistance once it's touched it would flutter for a lot longer without the influence of air." == Yes, and there were two occasions where flags moved without anyone touching them. One was due to offgassing of the PLSS when an astronaut walked by, and a tiny breeze was created from the gasses being released. Another was when Apollo 14 opened the release valve, and the entire LEM's air rushed out over the lunar surface, blowing the flag. So what? YOU SAID: "Also the amount of light in that the lunar surface had being attributed not to special lighting but due to the highly reflective lunar surface." == Yeah, the moon's albedo is 12%. On a clear night, it's very bright. Not too shabby for a dusty rock. YOU SAID: "There are many conspiracies that could be rationally explained.The thing about it though is very troubling there are things that just make absolutely no sense." == To WHO? YOU? You're falling for Bart Sibrel's obvious pile of lies. That shows a lot about your own gullibility, and a complete lack of sense... or that you never lift a finger to actually think critically. I mean, I know you THINK you're thinking critically. But, you're really just swallowing any nonsense that fits with your predetermined notions, no matter how ridiculous or false the claims are. YOU SAID: "How can you tell me had technology in the 60's to go to the moon but scientist and including president Obama admitting that we are working out the bugs to be able to send men beyond the Van Allen Belt." == Explained already. Not explaining again. YOU SAID: "Scientist say today that we had the technology then but it's all lost now" == I wouldn't have used the word "lost" like Pettit did. But, Pettit is a very colorful speaker. But, in essence, it IS lost!! It's all gone!! I mean, not that the blueprints are gone. They're still all around. But, the 400,000 people who made Apollo happen are all dead or retired. The buildings used to manufacture everything have been knocked down and replaced, or completely retooled. The launch facilities are gone, and pad 39 has been converted for other uses. The VAB has been retooled, and couldn't stack a Saturn V today if there was one to stack. There are no more workable Saturn Vs. There are no more CSMs. The few LEMs that are still around were never finished and made flight worthy. The lunar training facilities are all gone. The LLRVs and LLTVs are gone. Most of the companies that built everything are long gone. I mean, look, you're getting hung up on the word "lost" like all conspiratards do. It's ridiculous. Yeah, fine, I wouldn't have used the word "lost" myself, because too many people falsely assume that means that none of the information exists any longer. But, that's not the case. That's an internet rumor that went out of control. The hardware, yes, is "lost" in the sense that none of it exists any longer, and it would take a hell of a huge effort to rebuild it. But, it's not "lost" in the context that nobody can find it. That's just silly. YOU SAID: "and the flight path to the moon is lost and they don't know how to get there now" == Good fucking grief. The flight path is lost?? Where are you getting this utter garbage? And, even if it was lost (which is painfully dumb), it doesn't take that much effort to recalculate it. Rocketry 101. Any entry-level student can calculate it. YOU SAID: "when they did it over six time between 1969-1972, how plausible is that?" == It's not plausible. So, why do you believe that's what happened? The internet said so? YOU SAID: "Also people's behavior can say so much.Neil Armstrong after the initial interview refused to give any formal interviews" == Oh, good fucking gods, what ARE you talking about? Hell, that "stars" comment you're talked about earlier... he gave an interview to that same questioner (Patrick Moore) just about 4 months later!! And, good grief, he's given interviews all over the place, there are tons of them online. You haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about. But, yeah, he gave less than most of the astronauts did. And, you know why?? Because it's damned near impossible for him to walk down the street. A few years back, I was at a formal black-tie dinner, seated next to Gene Cernan. Buzz Aldrin was behind me to my left. Dave Scott was across from me. Jim Lovell was over to my right by about 20 feet. Charlie Duke was about 40 feet in front of me. There were a bunch of famous actors all over the place also, as well as a bunch more astronauts. Everyone was just seated and chatting. In comes Neil Armstrong who sat down at the next table about 2-3 feet behind me... and what happened?? MOBBED. Nobody cared about any of the actors or moonwalkers. But, Armstrong walks in, and BAM, these black tie wearing mobs of people were literally climbing over tables to get at him... yes, literally, climbing over tables. My wife and I were pushed and shoved and nearly knocked to the ground with mobs of people trying to climb over us to get close to the guy. And, this was a $3000 per plate formal dinner!! Imagine if this was just a blue-collar place. The man couldn't do a damned thing without being mobbed. So, yeah, he unfortunately became a bit of a recluse. So what? Everyone deals with stuff different ways. And, you'll need to do better than that to discredit Apollo. YOU SAID: "and his behavior even when directly approached and swear on the bible" == Why would a non-Christian swear on a bible? And, why would Armstrong give the time of day to a lying asshole like Bart Sibrel, whose only purpose was to lie and discredit Apollo? YOU SAID: "about the veracity of the lunar landing story seemed troubled and simply couldn't do it.I'm not saying it didn't happen" == Yes, that's exactly what you're saying. Don't pretend otherwise. I am not falling for your puddle-deep attempt to pretend like you're intellectually honest. If you were intellectually honest, you wouldn't believe a damned word out of criminal taxi cab driver Bart Sibrel. YOU SAID: "but I'm saying that his curious behavior added to some of the other nonsensical explanations about the lunar landing makes me very unsure as to whether or not it did.I do agree however that even doubting they didn't land on the moon has it's complications for instance how could 400k people working on this project all keep it secret,how the Russians, America's arch enemy and the persons who would most want to undermine the US moon landing story confirm it.So to me this is a story that both ways it's hard for me to say yes and no to." == Well, then start studying all of the REAL evidence for Apollo, and quit this stupid psychoanalysis about a topic you don't understand... or listening to liars... or your halfwit interpretation of when they could/couldn't see stars. Look at the ORIGINAL sources on that stuff, not the edited and cherry picked quote mines made by dishonest conspiratards. Start doing that, and maybe you'll be able to talk about it. Short of that, you're just as bad as the lying conspiratards you're quoting from.
    4
  1097.  @Tejaye777  First of all, THAT is your reply? I offered line-by-line responses, explaining why your questions were wrong, or your interpretations were wrong. I asked dozens of questions. I offered dozens of challenges. In one ear, out the other, huh? No? No response to any of it? YOU SAID: "Listen I'm not anyone who is trying to think everything is a conspiracy." == Pfftttt. Your entire original posted message came line-by-line right out of the official Bart Sibrel Handbook of Dumb Conspiracy Questions to Ask on the Internet. And, given that I answered every single line from you, and you didn't bother to reply to ANY of it... yeah, don't sit here and pretend to be intellectually honest. YOU SAID: "Two days ago I accidentally fell on a youtube video showing you some issues with the whole lunar landing story." == Yeah? And, there are thousands of videos talking about how the world is flat. And, there are thousands of videos talking about psychic powers and people talking to the dead. And, there are thousands of videos trying to talk about problems with the Apollo missions. And, there are thousands of videos claiming that airplane contrails are actually chemical poisons that mankind is intentionally spraying in order to kill people. And, there are thousands of videos claiming to have invented magnet powered motors, or perpetual motion machines. So what? Why are any of those videos convincing? I mean, quite clearly, you're talking about Bart Sibrel's videos. I recognized it immediately. As I explained at length, Bart Sibrel is a complete liar. And, you can prove it to yourself by looking up any of his outlandish claims (as I outlined). YOU SAID: "I never knew they were saying that we had the technology then and not now" == The words "have the technology" have a double meaning, and you're choosing to interpret the wrong meaning. Quite literally, to "have the technology" means to literally have it in our possession right now. But, as I explained, yeah, it's all gone. The manufacturing facilities are gone. The working spacecraft and rocket boosters were all used. And, most of the people are dead or retired. OF COURSE we don't "have the technology" right now. But, we "have the technology" in the sense that everyone knows how to do it. The knowledge isn't lost. YOU SAID: "something I was amazed by." == Yeah, and you're the guy who thinks that the flight paths to the moon have been lost. And, you're the guy who can't listen to the entire question "did you see stars in the solar corona despite the glare?" You made it 4 words into that question, and ignored the next 7 words, and concluded that the astronauts were mysteriously confused/lying about when they could/couldn't see stars. Frankly, what YOU are "amazed by" is not very impressive. YOU SAID: "Also it showed a bit more of oddities of the whole story." == Puddle deep oddities, which all have rational explanations. Almost every "oddity" you specifically named, I replied to, and explained. I mean, seriously, the only reason you're even susceptible to these shallow "oddities" is because you WANT TO BE. YOU SAID: "It also showed the full interview after the moon landing" == Bart Sibrel's video doesn't show the full interview. If you went and watched the entire interview, fine. But, you won't find the entire interview in Bart Sibrel's videos. YOU SAID: "which I never saw before and when I saw how the guys were acting I said to my self something is seriously wrong with the way all these astronauts were acting,it's like they were not happy at all after their amazing accomplishment." == Again, have you ever spoken to any of those guys? I realize that's a key difference, perhaps, that I take for granted. I've spent hours upon hours upon hours upon hours talking with most of the moonwalkers, sometimes one-on-one, sometimes over breakfast/dinner, sometimes in groups, whatever. I mean, I realize I've probably forgotten what an initial impression is like, since it's been decades since I've had an initial impression. But, whatever man, your impression is wrong, that's all I can say. YOU SAID: "Also when it was explained that after that Neil Armstrong never did an interview on the whole moon landing episode." == And, you didn't lift a finger to verify if that was correct or not. I replied to this already. OF COURSE HE DID. He did HUNDREDS of them. HUNDREDS!! Hell, I've been there for one of them myself. And, again, FOR YOUR OWN EXAMPLE of the Patrick Moore question about seeing stars, he did a one-on-one interview with him about 4 months after the interview you claimed was his "last one," and you claimed "he never did another." HE DID ANOTHER ONE WITH THAT SAME GUY!!! Good gods. Again, this is the amazing thing about you. You just blindly accept what Bart Sibrel says. Sibrel said that Armstrong never gave another interview, and you just blindly accept that. Why? Why would you believe a single word out a criminal lying taxi cab driver like Bart Sibrel? YOU SAID: "I'm not saying I fully belief the story" == Yet, you regurgitate it line by line, then ignore my answer completely... oh, yeah, you're convincing alright. You're open minded, right? You're intellectually honest alright (while blindly accepting the word of a known liar like Bart Sibrel). YOU SAID: "but sufficient doubt has been put to me based on everything I know now." == You know NOTHING now!!! NOTHING!!! You know the lies told by Bart Sibrel. That's what you "know." Sorry, but lies are not knowledge. Good grief.
    4
  1098.  @Tejaye777  Again, THAT is your reply?? Do you know why I'm 100% confident that you're not intellectually honest? Do you know why I'm 100% confident that you're not honestly asking the questions you're pretending to ask?? Because YOU IGNORE THE ANSWERS. I responded with an arsenal of questions/challenges. You have not responded to a single one. Not one. Not a single one. You have not admitted to being painfully wrong about some of your interpretations. You haven't lifted a finger to fact-check any of the assertions you've made. You've blindly accepted the word of a convicted criminal taxi cab driver who claims that NASA handed him the original Apollo 11 video films. THAT is the level of the liar you're blindly believing in. So, don't sit here and continue to pretend to be intellectually honest, or pretend you care about the answers to your own questions. Clearly, you do not. Clearly, you are ACTING like you are asking questions, but you truly do not want answers. THAT is why I'm 100% confident that you're not intellectually honest. YOU SAID: You seem to have dedicated a lot of time into this particular subject.I must admit I just stumbled upon a video that raised questions.You have answered a lot sufficiently I'm not saying you haven't but there are still things that I find pretty odd.Like the issue of the noise emanating while working on the lunar surface" == So what? Sound can conduct through physical mediums other than air. Sound can conduct through the glove into the suit. Or, the sound could be just as simple as the astronaut grunting a bit while pounding the hammer. I mean, this is the type of "gotcha" moment that makes you ignore the massive amount of evidence for Apollo? Someone grunted while hitting a hammer, therefore Apollo is fake? I mean, I know the exact sound you're talking about, and you can barely make out what it is. It's not very conclusive of anything. YOU SAID: "and you may not have found anything odd by the way the guys looked in the first interview after the moon landing but I do" == You think it's odd because you have had NO EXPOSURE to those people. You don't know how they acted in any other circumstance either. YOU SAID: "and also of Neil Armstongs response to Sibrel." == You expected Neil Armstrong (not a Christian) to swear on a bible. You expected Neil Armstrong to sit there and talk to Bart Sibrel while Sibrel barged into the university and accosted him. You expected Neil Armstrong to have a dialog with Sibrel after Sibrel had just got done accusing Bean, Aldrin, and Cernan of all being liars, after Sibrel himself lied to them to get the interviews. You expected Neil Armstrong to talk with Sibrel, who claimed that NASA gave him the ORIGINAL Apollo 11 films, and who said he had that film carbon dated (even though carbon dating doesn't fucking work on film). I mean, good gods, Sibrel is ridiculous and his lies are totally obvious. I don't blame Armstrong for not wanting to talk to him. Yet, you do, huh? Your mind is lost. YOU SAID: "Whether he's a liar or not if the points he brings up can stand the test of time" == He MANUFACTURED the lie about the round window trick by editing a press kit!! He claimed that NASA gave him the ORIGINAL Apollo 11 films. You find those lies have "stood the test of time"?? Good grief. You are not only intellectually dishonest, but very stupid also. YOU SAID: "I don't have an issue listening to it.Also your response seems very emotional,like you have a lot invested into this subject emotionally." == The only emotion I have about this is astonishment. I am astounded by people like you. You are about as stupid as someone can get. And, you blindly trust people like Sibrel, whose claims are about as outlandish as anything imaginable. I mean, do you actually believe NASA handed him the original Apollo 11 film footage, as he claims? Why would they give a criminal taxi cab driver the original Apollo 11 films? Do you believe him when he says he had them carbon dated by professional scientists? I already know you will not answer me. You haven't answered a single question/challenge I've put forth. In one ear. Out the other. You're a moron pretending to be intellectually honest. Do not pretend you are. Nobody believes you.
    4
  1099.  @rubenoteiza9261  TRANSLATION: "I deleted my thread because you destroyed me. I went to new threads and cut-n-pasted the same nonsense elsewhere. Now, I just want you to stop posting stuff, because I know I can't handle the information you put forth. But, I can't let go of my delusions, so, I'm declaring victory, and refusing to address anything from now on." Again, just as I said, you don't get to claim any high ground here, dummy. You are intellectually dishonest. And, you refuse to face facts that tear your delusions down. And, when you have to stoop to deleting threads and running for the hills, sorry, you don't get to claim it's because *I* am the problem. You are the problem here, and you know it. Stop pretending otherwise. Nobody, even your fellow conspiratards, would believe your lame excuses and garbage. Pfftttt. Secret moon missions with secret moon rockets and secret landers placed the LRRs and ALSEPs on the moon? And, until a few minutes ago, you didn't even know what those things were?? Yet, you understand it better than the thousands of people who worked on them?? Yeah. Sure. Right.
    4
  1100.  @rubenoteiza9261  YOU SAID: "Now that I think of it, STOP BOTHERING ME." == Hilarious!!!! YOU are the one posting message after message after message on an open comments forum... in this thread and others... in this video and others. I'm merely replying to you, on this open comments forum. But, you want me to go away, huh? Dummy, if you didn't want replies, then don't post messages. Good grief. Furthermore, dummy, I'm not the one accusing thousands of people of being criminals. That's YOU doing that. You don't get to sit there and commit this kid of slander/libel, and then tell others to "stop bothering you." I could easily tell you to stop bothering the 450,000 people who worked on Apollo, stop spitting on their graves, stop accusing them of being criminals who would get a lifetime in prison for the crimes you accuse them of... all based on your sick and twisted mental deficiencies, which make you feel compelled to drag other people down to your pathetic level. Dummy, you kept talking about physics and stuff (butchering it, getting it completely backward, etc., but still, insisting that physics was on your side), remember? Why aren't you publishing this physics of yours into a physics journal? Why do you believe YouTube comments is the proper forum to make radical claims about physics, which go against the last 50 years of physicists? Why won't you publish, and get a Nobel Prize for rewriting everything known about the physics of rocketry?
    4
  1101. There are numerous science journals around the world that are perfectly suitable for the topic of radiobiology and radiation in space. Nobody in history has ever successfully published a single article in any university-recognized journal anywhere around the world that has made the claim you're making. Most of your ilk wouldn't know how to do the math if your lives depended on it. Those few that almost know how to do the math have attempted to publish, only to find out that they made serious mathematical errors, and are rejected before even getting past the first hurdle. There has yet to be a single one in history that has correctly done the math, and successfully published such an article. Yet, here you are on YouTube, making a bold claim with no math to back it up. James Van Allen, as well as every radiobiologist and particle physicist on Earth, say you're wrong. What do you have in your favor? You made a barely literate YouTube comment posting? Therefore you're correct?
    4
  1102. Hilarious!! Atmospheric pressure on the moon? How far gone are you?
    4
  1103. It wouldn't make a bit of difference. There are mountains of evidence for Apollo. If the astronauts pass a lie detector test, it would just be (yet another) piece of evidence that the deniers ignore.
    4
  1104. Well, I suppose a lot of people think it's weird, sure. But: (A) What's the point in going higher than 300 miles, unless you actually have a destination in mind (such as the moon or Mars or soemthing)? And, (B) What rocket would you propose they use to go much higher? Once the Saturn V was retired, do you have a particular rocket in mind that would be capable of carrying people higher, plus all of the craft and life support needed for such a mission? As a side note: thanks for proving for the billionth time that moon hoax nuts cannot read and write. I know it has no impact directly on the arguments you'd make. But, good grief, if just ONE of you nuts was capable of writing a sentence, it would be quite refreshing. "Wierd"?? Good gods. Go back to school.
    4
  1105.  @mikep9604  I'm pretty sure he meant manned missions. But, yeah, with the hoax nuts, you never know what in the world they're saying.
    4
  1106. First of all, you clearly have been rejecting the obvious, since you keep asking the same silly questions over and over. What else WOULD it be, if not remote controlled? Stop pretending you're asking an honest question in a video about moon conspiracies, when your question clearly hasn't been honest. You were answered repeatedly, and repeatedly just kept asking. Secondly, if you cannot even manage to post your response within the same thread, and you start a new thread instead, your aptitude is greatly in question. Third, is your Google broken?
    4
  1107.  @RADIUMGLASS  YOU SAID: "it would have been an honor to walk over their worthless lifeless bodies." == Well, it seems that Smith may have done more than that. After all, he said "cute" after killing the girl, and then didn't report it until 24 hours later, and the girl was found with her shirt open (make of that what you will).
    4
  1108. The Saturn V rockets were nearly complete, yes. Technically not 100% complete, but, close enough to call them complete. However, the landers were not completed. They didn't even have the computers, and a lot of the electronics, as well as many other components. The ones closest to completion were put into the museums, and were later cosmetically augmented to look almost "complete" (but they weren't).
    4
  1109. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    4
  1110. "the original plan was to continue the program with one mission every two years to the moon." Shocker. Plans change over time. Say it ain't so?!?! "But it never happened." They sent 9 manned missions to the moon, 6 of which landed. And, by the way, the only REAL "original plan" was to beat the Soviets there. You can talk about the "original plans" of various engineers and program managers, etc. And, you'd be both correct and incorrect on many levels. So what? "But what does concern me, is that that there have been no manned space missions beyond earth orbit since 1972. That does not make sense." Congress ended the Apollo moon program. What's so difficult to understand here? How many more missions do you require in order to believe it? "I have a powerful feeling there is a lot we have not been told." Why? Apollo was one of the most documented programs in human history. And, no program had ever had that much press coverage. Congress only funded Apollo on the basis that it was to be completely open, no top secret clearances, no patents, no trademarks, no copyrights, nothing. Everything was freely available. The only parts of Apollo that were labeled as "secret" were the official transcripts from the mission logs, because they wanted to take a couple of days to scrub out the swearing before releasing them. But, given that the audio was already released, they decided not to bother, and released them as-is. Beyond that, I don't think there was a single part of the Apollo program that was secret. And, let's not mince words here, you know and I know darned well what you're implying. Don't blanket it under crafty wording about "not being told" something.
    4
  1111. They were given 8 years and today's equivalent of $300 billion in hard costs, and about another $150 billion in soft costs and international support. Funding for Artemis began in 2019, with about $30 billion, and congress refusing to increase the funding or pace. See any difference there, dewdrop?
    4
  1112. So, you don't know something as simple as how the camera worked, yet, you know enough to declare that the entire planet's aerospace engineers are wrong about their own expertise, and you're right?
    4
  1113. Lasers are not radio. Sorry that you don't understand.
    4
  1114. So what? Why do you think the temperature of a few tiny microscopic particles matters? I will explain this to you plainly, but, somehow, I doubt you want the explanation. It's a simple matter of an analogy. Hot water melts ice, right? If you had a swimming pool filled with near-boiling water, and you put an ice cube into it, the ice cube doesn't stand a chance, right? It's going to melt very quickly, right? But, reverse that. Suppose it's a glacier of ice, and it's a tiny thimble of boiling water. Pour the thimble of boiling water onto the glacier. Does the glacier melt? No. The thimble of water is nothing but a joke to the gigantic glacier, which remains essentially unaffected. Same goes for spacecraft in these "hot" regions of space. There are so few hot particles that it's like pouring a thimble of hot water onto a glacier (the spacecraft is the glacier). Get it now? Or, do you need a lesson in thermodynamics?
    4
  1115. Yeah, lots of the engineers, not the least of whom was the famous Maxime Faget, said that they should have used a color camera on Apollo 11. But, the upper management overrode those decisions, and stuck with black and white? Why? Because it's more reliable. See, a color TV signal consumes 3x more "bandwidth" (not bandwidth, because it's analog, not digital, but, close enough) than black and white. They had the high gain S-band antenna/dish with them. But, they didn't want to use it unless they really needed. Apollo 11 was just a short trip, one moonwalk of a couple of hours, and not a lot of time to assemble the big dish if they didn't need to. They wanted to just run the video through the small dish on the lander. The engineers still thought that color TV would work through the smaller dish. But, management didn't want to take the chance, and opted for the lower requirements of a black and white signal, rather than the higher demands of a color signal, for the sake of being doubly sure that they wouldn't need the big high gain dish. And, yes, the small dish worked. Would it have worked if it was a color TV picture? Probably. But, my point is, choosing black and white for the first landing was rooted in a logical choice that was being made, and NOT because color TV didn't exist. Congratulations on "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake" logic. But, next time, you'll need a few more emojis.
    4
  1116. Oh, get real here. If that was even remotely true, the entire world would stop, there'd be congressional hearings, lawsuits, front page news throughout the world, etc. But no. That's not what we have. We have a couple of crackpot videos that intentionally twist his words. Shame on you for being that gullible.
    4
  1117. Dewdrop, I know you don't actually read the responses to your own questions/statements, but, there were no major solar flares during Apollo. Yes, had there been, it could have been lethal. Yes, for Orion, they wanted to protect against the possibility of a major solar flare (like the intensity only seen about once in a decade). Within about a month of Apollo 16, there actually was one such flare, and they were lucky that it didn't happen during the mission. As usual, you don't understand what you heard, probably because you're just watching silly videos made by people who know the same amount that you do (zero), and they confuse the facts (just like you do).
    4
  1118. Don't forget chemtrails and Bigfoot.
    4
  1119. So says a conspiracy video, on a channel of a known convicted criminal taxi cab driver... and the "confession" comes from somebody who wasn't even born at the time, and was relaying stuff his father told him. Sure. Really reliable.
    4
  1120. YOU SAID: "384,000 miles from Earth" == Pffttt. Really? That's how far away you think the moon is? YOU SAID: "there is a clear signal in 1969" == Well, not super clear. But, what's your point? What EXACTLY would prevent the signal from working? YOU SAID: "hahaha" == Yes, looking in the mirror must cause you lots of laughter.
    4
  1121. So, you literally blame everyone except the criminal herself? Wow. No accountability whatsoever, huh? Here's a clue, dewdrop: if she didn't commit so many crimes, maybe she'd have stopped getting arrested so often.
    4
  1122. YOU SAID: "Why is the flag blowing in space?" == As far as I know, a flag only "blew" twice during Apollo missions on the moon. There are countless other occasions when moon hoax nuts claim it was "blowing," but if you actually look at them, they are merely moving because they were being handled, or it was right after they were being handled. And, of course, flags will move around when they're being handled. But, there were two (that I know of) "legitimate" times when the flags were "blowing." And, quite literally, yes, that's what they were doing. One time was on Apollo 14, when they were opening the purge valve on the LEM to go outside (EVA) for their 2nd surface visit. They had already planted the flag and camera and dish on the first EVA. So, there was surface video available. And, yes, they opened the valve, and the flag clearly moved quite a bit. The dishonest conspiracy videos refuse to play the audio, of course. So, all a viewer sees is the flag moving. But, if anybody reads the transcripts or syncs the audio with the video, they are clearly stating that they're about to open the valve of the LEM. And, with the open valve, the oxygen was pouring out of the LEM, and blowing the flag around. It made about a 180 degree rotation on its pole. The other time was either on Apollo 15 or 16 (I think 15, but I'm struggling to remember). An astronaut was passing by a flag, and it slightly moved without the astronaut touching it. But, again, it's a matter of understanding the equipment. Their PLSS backpacks occasionally off-gassed for venting/cooling. So, a nearby flag would move slightly. It's not difficult to understand, and it's even a tiny bit surprising that it didn't happen more often. YOU SAID: "Whats with the Radiation in space" == The main "problem" with asking about radiation is the fact that most conspiracy nuts have absolutely no understanding of what the word "radiation" even means. To most conspiracy nutjobs, all "radiation" is the same... it's the same stuff that comes out of nuclear bombs and nuclear reactors, and you need lead (or equivalent) to shield from it. But, to any REAL scientist, the word "radiation" alone means almost nothing. It's a matter of understanding what TYPE of radiation you're talking about. The fact is, a piece of paper is plenty of protection against most forms of radiation. And, actually, even more important to understand: most forms of radiation aren't even harmful. I mean, radio is radiation. Light is radiation. Gravity is technically radiation (look up gravity waves). Not all radiation consists of high-energy neutrons that scream through human tissues causing damage. And, in space, frankly, there's actually very little of that ultra-harmful type of radiation. But, there are zones of certain types of radiation that can cause damage if you don't take precautions. The classic one that the conspiracy nutjobs talk about is the layer of Van Allen belts. But, none of the nutjobs actually understand it. The Van Allen belts consist mainly of ionized particles, not high-energy neutrons or gammas. Ionized particles can be damaging, yes. But, they're also a lot easier to shield against than the super nasty types of radiation. Apollo used the aluminum hull of the spacecraft itself to protect from the ionized particle radiation. And, since they went through the belts quickly (just a couple of hours), they really didn't get as much exposure as the conspiracy nutjobs think. They got about 3 rems, which is somewhat "bad," sure. And, perhaps that's why some of the astronauts died younger than most people. But, it's not instantly fatal or anything. It would be different if they intended to stay a long time in the belts (like modern mission plans for Orion, for example). YOU SAID: "why no stars?" == You can't see stars in the daytime on Earth, why do you think anybody should see stars in the daytime on the moon?
    4
  1123. You clearly never watched the videos you're pretending look like they're in a studio. You were told they look like they're in a studio, and just went with it because it makes you feel good to pretend.
    4
  1124. Well, first of all, "atmospheric" pressure is confusing. They weren't pressurized to an atmosphere (about 15 PSI). They were pressurized to about 3.5 PSI. So, I'm not 100% sure what you mean. But, secondly, yes, they were "inflated." They are more ballooned than if they were just laying there at zero pressure. The suits had 24 layers, and most of those layers were not all that elastic (like a balloon would be). Think of a bicycle tire. It changes shape when you inflate it, but, not all that much.
    4
  1125. Huh? You cannot imagine it? Therefore what? Therefore it didn't happen? Can you imagine 70 PSI? Every day, scuba divers routinely go to 70 PSI at around 140 feet of depth. They don't "feel" anything. High pressure. Low pressure. Doesn't matter. Once your ears are equalized, you don't know the difference.
    4
  1126. Sorry, those are not nearly large enough for what you're proposing. Optical resolution just isn't good enough for that. It's not a limit of technology. It's a limit in understanding how light works. There's a well understood formula for calculating the size of lens/mirror required to see [whatever] resolution at [whatever] distance. And, the short version is that it would require a lens or mirror a quarter mile wide in order to do what you're proposing.
    4
  1127.  @nickgar6935  Huh? I never mentioned anything about myself. This was a comment about how Inside Edition skews videos to get more ad revenue, regardless of the inaccuracy of the picture they paint.
    4
  1128. So, you don't know how the equipment worked, but, before you could get answers to your questions, you came to your conclusions. And, somehow, you think that not a single aerospace engineer at any of the world's space agencies, in friendly or enemy countries, for the past 50 years, have ever noticed this "problem" you have spotted? Did you really want answers to your questions? Or, were you just pretending to want them?
    4
  1129. If you cannot even spell "Apollo" correctly, why do you think you understand anything about it?
    4
  1130. So, let me get this straight: You watched a clip of Aldrin talking to a little girl who asked why they haven't been BACK to the moon in such a long time. He explained that. And, both before and after that point in the conversation, he talked about his mission to the moon. But, you think that a single sentence about why they haven't been BACK to the moon is somehow proof that they didn't go? And, you say this even though he told her multiple times that he did? How far gone are you?
    4
  1131. I think I see the problem here: you have absolutely no ability to filter good information from bad. Russian coworker says missions are real: correct information, but only by luck, because what your friend says is irrelevant. Russian coworker says photos are fake: incorrect information. Government was displeased with the photos, so they made new ones: incorrect information. If that was even remotely true, then how do you explain the thousands of absolutely lousy photos in the archives? Russians wanted out of the race: incorrect information. They continued trying to go to the moon until about 1975 (3 years after Apollo's moon missions ended), before they finally gave up on their N1 rocket that kept exploding. And, they launched their final lunar lander (test mission) in 1971, and that stayed in orbit until 1981. So, sorry, but if they wanted to stop the race, why'd they keep on racing? This video is likely a smoke screen: incorrect information. Pure paranoid delusional fantasy. You think 50 years after the missions were over, they put up a "smoke screen" via a British Apollo video? What? The designer of the cameras said that the photos didn't come from his camera: incorrect information. You seem willing to believe anything a conspiracy video tells you. No ACTUAL representative from Hasselblad has ever claimed that the photos weren't authentic. They still to this day are proud of their role on Apollo. But, anybody can parade some guy around and make ridiculous claims. Why would you believe it?
    4
  1132. Dewdrop, first of all, since its inception, NASA still hasn't even had a total budget of $1 trillion, let alone trillionS (plural). So, sorry, but it's pretty difficult to take you seriously. Secondly, congress didn't pay NASA much of anything, outside of salaries. A vast majority of the money went to contractors. So, how would you explain how NASA made anything at all? Do you even understand who controls the money and where it goes? (HINT: no, you don't, which is why you spew absolute nonsense.)
    4
  1133. "The sov!ets were winning/leading in many scientific and space exploration - hence the need to compete and win at all cost, reclaiming the throne as leading most powerful super power" Well, you're close to correct. Not quite. But, whatever, I won't quibble over the small details. But, dewdrop, how does this mean it was fake? The Soviets tracked the Apollo missions to the moon and back with radar and radio telescopes, just as dozens of other countries did. Are you under the impression that they would have just let the USA lie to the world, and lie to themselves, and would say nothing about it?
    4
  1134. "Almost zero transparency regarding the mission." What ARE you talking about? It was mandated by congress in 1961 that the press have open access to Apollo, and that all materials from Apollo would be public. To this day, you can get all of the schematics, photos, videos, wiring diagrams, etc. It's one of the most documented programs in human history. "What is/was shown to the public is chopped up clips, selected photographs, selected audio." Good grief. All 7000 of the photos taken on the lunar surface are available in the online archive. The entirety of the video and audio are available on DVD, and much of that has been uploaded to YouTube by enthusiasts. The online archives have most of that stuff also. And, anything you cannot find online, you can send away to NASA and they'll send copies of whatever you want if you pay the copying fees.
    4
  1135. You know what's amazing about people like you? You believe you're the skeptical ones. You believe that the rest of us, you know, the sane people, are the ones blindly believing everything WE are told. But, you are regurgitating absolute nonsense fed to you by conspiracy videos, which can be proven wrong quite easily. Just read the actual reports about the Van Allen belts. There are thousands of them. Do the math. Go look at the actual online photo archive of the 7000 photos taken from the lunar surface that you pretend were never released to the public. Spacecraft Films has assembled nearly the entirety of Apollo videos and audio, and published them for anybody to see. Go buy them, and watch/listen to them. Or, if you don't want to pay them, go ahead and order them directly from NASA.
    4
  1136. "Zero evidence they ever made any serious attempt to return to moon." They sent 9 manned missions to the moon, and landed 6 of those times. What in the world are you talking about?
    4
  1137. A) Apparently, that's all you DO know. B) You didn't even get that much right. Orville Brothers? Good gods, you people sure are proud to spew gibberish.
    4
  1138. Well, you're failing to include the 88 pound suit, 80 pound PLSS backpack, 20 pound OPS, etc. But, beyond just that, force = MASS x acceleration. Like, if you had a 25,000 pound truck (Earth weight) on a planet with 1/1000th gravity, are you under the impression that you could toss it around like a 25 pound barbell? Do you really not understand F=MA?
    4
  1139. Young, Cernan, and Lovell all went twice. The total is 24.
    4
  1140. Dewdrop, both India and China have orbiters around the moon that have taken photos of the Apollo landers. So, what now? Did they join "the deception" 50+ years later?
    4
  1141. Well, let's see... how can we tell the difference between reality and deception? People like you seem to believe that it's just a matter of rejecting what you feel like rejecting, and accepting what you feel like accepting. Anything you reject is because "Assange and Snowden exposed deception, therefore anybody can reject anything they want." Meanwhile, sane people feel that EVIDENCE is what should dictate what's true and what's not. And, there's a mountain of evidence in favor of Apollo, and literally zero evidence against Apollo that can survive even the most superficial scrutiny.
    4
  1142. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    4
  1143. That's not one of its objectives. There have been a million other ways to prove Apollo. Adding one more is not going to make a bit of difference to the deniers.
    4
  1144. Not the brightest bulb, eh?
    4
  1145. So, all anybody has to do is show you the tons and tons of photos of the Earth and sun? And, you'll change your mind, right? I mean, have you even looked for the photos you think don't exist? Heck, on Apollo 11 alone, I think one of their film rolls has about 90-100 shots of the Earth in a row. Yes, almost 100 Earth shots IN A ROW. That's in addition to all of the other photos across the rest of the missions. They took fewer photos of the sun, of course. It's just so bright that it drowns out nearly the entire rest of the photo. But, yes, there are still plenty of shots of the sun, just not as many as there are of Earth.
    4
  1146. QUOTE: "The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight. The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months' duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure. A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week. However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. James A. Van Allen"
    4
  1147. The astronauts understood their suits and equipment better than you do.
    4
  1148. Hilarious! I clicked on your nickname, and it comes up as "TRUTH." More proof positive that everyone who uses "truth" or "woke" in their nicknames has no idea what the truth is, and is fast asleep. Dewdrop, you saw "Shooting Stanley Kubrick" (2015) by Hollywood director T. Patrick Murray. There are several versions of that movie on his YouTube channel. It's got an IMDB credit, and actor Tom Mayk plays Stanley Kubrick. He made the video to mock people just like you.
    4
  1149. I think if you actually believe that, you have much deeper problems.
    4
  1150.  @stusue9733  Add South Korea to the list.
    4
  1151. Grumman set it up for the first steps. About 20 minutes into the moonwalk, Armstrong removed it from the side of the lander, mounted it to a tripod, and walked it out to its final spot.
    4
  1152. Deniers simply reject all photos. Taking more of them won't change their minds. For example, in addition to all of the LRO photos of the landing sites, including landers, rover tracks, foot paths, and shadows of flags, both China and India have taken photos of the landing sites. China's aren't quite as good, but, you can see the landers. India's photos are even better than LRO's photos, and you can see additional details that LRO can't see (including, yes, shadows of flags). None of that matters to the deniers. They simply keep denying, and just increase the number of countries involved in "the deception."
    4
  1153. Because congress never funded going to other planets (manned anyway). If going to the moon consumed 4.5% of the entire federal budget in hard costs, and another 2% in soft costs and international support, how expensive do you think it would be to go to other planets? As for going to other galaxies, good grief, the closest other galaxy is 2.5 million lightyears away.
    4
  1154.  @u.s.lawyer8542  So, basically, your position boils down to the notion that they're never allowed to stop going. Apollo was never allowed to be canceled. They sent men to the moon 9 times, landing 6 of those times. But, if they stop the program, and don't start another one in the timeframe that YOU dictate, therefore, Apollo never happened. Good grief. How many times would it take before it was good enough for you? And, why should congress keep to your own preferred timeline of when you think they should/shouldn't go back?
    4
  1155. So, first you came to your conclusion. Then, after you already had your conclusion, you asked a bunch of rudimentary questions that demonstrated that you know absolutely nothing about the cameras used in the missions. So, basically, if you don't know how the cameras worked, this means it's fake? After all, anything you don't know about must not be real, right?
    4
  1156. I'm not one of those "back in my day" type people. But, every once in a while, I miss the days when people were actually ashamed to be s7up1d. Now, they think it's a badge of honor.
    4
  1157. Seriously? You can't tell that this video is highly edited down, and they are picking it up from the middle? Is this not completely obvious to you? And, you have KIDS??? Please tell me that it's not your offspring in your photo. Poor child.
    4
  1158. You underestimate the size inside. It was very tight/small, but, not so small that they couldn't put suits on. The interior was "T" shaped. AS17-134-20524 shows you how they stored the suits when they were not wearing them.
    4
  1159. Sorry. Not only do I not believe you, but, I further don't believe that you'd actually expect others to ignore it and walk away also.
    4
  1160. But, the arrest video didn't get released until 1.5 years AFTER she died. I realize Inside Edition never wants to say that, but, look up the dates.
    4
  1161. Aww. You poor thing.
    4
  1162. Let me guess, you watched a conspiracy video that compared Apollo's oxygen systems to a scuba tank, and you believed every word, hook line and sinker, right?
    4
  1163. "In scenes with both astronauts working together, who is panning and zooming the camera?" Ed Fendell.
    4
  1164. 2,140,195 (your nickname), what ARE you talking about? YOU SAID: "Understand this :....we can’ t leave earth, first of all because of the cosmic radiations , now...how stupid should this people be to believe otherwise ?" == So, the entirety of the world's aerospace engineering community is unaware of this condition YOU are aware of? YOU SAID: "just lie down on the beach on july and you'll feel some of the radiations I'm talking about, simple as that 👍" == So, the entirety of the world's aerospace engineering community has never laid down on a beach? For a guy whose nickname consists of numbers, it's ironic that you can't do math. Why do none of you conspiratards ever just calculate the things you're asserting? If you think there's too much radiation, calculate it. Why is it always just "too much" or "not enough" or "too hot" or "too cold" or "too far" or these other things you conspiratards are always claiming? Can't ANY of you ever just do the math to back up your claims?
    4
  1165.  @AM-rd9pu  He did. In his other thread, he gave his most powerful evidence. He didn't like their facial expressions during one of the press events. That's the best evidence he has to offer.
    4
  1166. Oh? How did they fake the radar tracking done by dozens of countries (including the Soviet Union)?
    4
  1167. Huh? The flag IS knocked over. Aldrin said he saw it blow over when they lifted off. And, LRO can see the shadows of all 5 flags from the other landings, verifying that those are all still standing, but, it cannot see a shadow of a flag for this mission. Instead, LRO sees a bright spot on the surface exactly where the flag was, which indicates that it fell over.
    4
  1168. Yes, digital communications are much worse than analog, especially if padding video at the same time, and bouncing the signals up and back multiple times, filling multiple dejitter buffers along the way. The propagation delay is only one component of digital/packetized delays. With analog, the propagation delay is the only delay.
    4
  1169. "forget Spain, Australia and etc" Convenient. You want to forget about the dozens of countries that provide evidence for Apollo. Right. You're perfectly honest. "these countries weren't even in the same league as the US and the USSR in their space programs at the time." Doesn't matter. They had the best telescope and the best dish. "The audio could be sent from any where in space" Wrong. Radio telescopes only receive signals in the exact direction that they are pointed. If it's off by even a few degrees, you don't hear anything. "including very close to the moon." So, they got close to the moon, but didn't land on it? Huh?
    4
  1170. "The video could have been prerecorded on earth, taken to space and sent back to earth." Well, then you just involved hundreds of others in the "scam." See, in mission control, there were hundreds of people who would ask the astronauts to do things. "Go pick up that rock and bring it to the camera." "Hey, the ALSEP isn't giving good temperature readings, can you re-dig that hole and place the probe deeper?" Tons and tons of this stuff happened throughout the missions. This would mean that you have now involved those hundreds of people, because they'd have to pre-record their live concerns. Furthermore, at that point, why not just go? If they could send craft to the moon with these prerecorded messages and video, why not just send people? "the fact that the best space industry of the time the Soviets" Wrong. They were ahead in the early Mercury stages. But, by the time the US Gemini program started, guess what? The Soviets didn't send a single manned mission into space during the entirety of Gemini. The USA surpassed the Soviets by that point. And, by Apollo, the Soviets were completely dwarfed by the USA's capabilities. "couldn't try and emulate it" Huh? The Soviets sent FOUR lunar landers into space on test missions. They tried to launch FOUR N1 moon rockets also (all of them exploded). I'd say they were trying pretty hard to catch up. " and more importantly the fact that these landings have never or could never be repeated even by the US" We can't fly supersonic airliners right now either, dewdrop. There are only museum pieces left, completely gutted out, permanently disabled. No supersonic airliners for decades now. That's what happens when a program is retired. You lose those capabilities. We also don't have any mach-7 airplanes either, since the 1950s era X15 was retired. We don't have any mach-3 spyplanes either, since the SR71 was retired. We don't have ANY of those capabilities. And, it would take about a decade to build back programs like that. Sorry if you think a Saturn V rocket is just like a 1969 Ford Mustang, where you can just throw some new spark plugs in, fill the gas tank, and go for a ride. It's not like that in aerospace stuff. It takes thousands of people to even get one off the ground. Oh, why am I bothering? You don't understand it, therefore it's fake. That's your entire argument. "Look at all technology today including jet propulsion and compare it to how it was 40/ 50 years ago" Yeah, 4-5-6 decades ago, we had supersonic airliners, mach 7 airplanes, and mach-3 spyplanes. It was vastly superior in raw capability. That's why it was called the "golden age" of aviation. All of that has been displaced for cheaper options. But, somehow, I think you were under the impression that today's capabilities are better than back then?? They're cheaper now. They're more efficient. Jets are more quiet. But, make no mistake, in raw capability, the "golden age" of aviation from 40-60 years ago is far superior. "Don't you think if the US had infact landed on the moon 50 years ago, we would have military or scientific equipments on the moon by now?" For what? To take on alien invasions? What in the world are you talking about? What would you use military equipment on the moon for? "Don't you think they would have advanced the whole endeavor? Do you think they would go to the moon just to plant a flag and place a laser reflector?" Dewdrop, do you even know what else is up there? Do you even know what the other experiments and evidence are?
    4
  1171. Apollo 1 doesn't count?
    4
  1172. "China would love to show the world there is US flag, or foot print, or any human rubbish left there, but there was nothing" Dewdrop, China announced that they confirmed the Apollo landings, and have released the photos from their Chang'e orbiter of all 6 landing sites. The resolution isn't good enough to see flags or footprints. But, you can see the outlines of the landers exactly where India's probe shows them, and LRO's camera shows them, and where the original mission photography shows them.
    4
  1173. You ignored the replies last time you posted this message. Why would anybody believe you'd pay attention this time?
    4
  1174. Dewdrop, I didn't say you asked a question. Yeah, my words fall on deaf ears because you are WILLFULLY deaf to any input, ever.
    4
  1175. Fred, what difference could it possibly make to you? You asked for a photo of the flag. I provided you with a photo taken by India with their orbiter, showing the shadow of one of the flags of the Apollo missions. It's a photo that includes a very nice image of the Apollo 12 lander, and the flag shadow just north of it, exactly where it's supposed to be. And, you reply by saying it's "weak"? What more do you want? Let's get real here: it wouldn't matter one bit to you if they had a camera in lunar orbit with a mile wide lens on it that could see the stars and stripes. You'd still reject it. You never wanted to see a photo of the flag. You wanted a way to shift the goalposts. There are hundreds of photos of the landers on the moon, taken by different countries. So, in your effort to reject Apollo, you figured you'd ask to see something smaller, like the flag. But, you weren't aware that some of the images include shadows of the flag. So, now you shift the goalposts and want something even closer. If they had a camera capable of reading the serial numbers off of the equipment on the moon, you'd still say that wasn't good enough. You will always just keep shifting the goalposts. That's why you changed topics immediately also. When it was clear that you bit off more than you can chew by pretending to ask for photos, you came up with a new line of "questions." Duck. Dodge. Change topics. Stick your head in the sand. Stick your fingers in your ears. Yell "lalalala, I can't hear you, lalalala."
    4
  1176. Oh, and by the way, here's the timeline. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released to the public (Freedom of Information Act). People in the comments blame the police for her death, but, they kept the arrest video private until long after she was dead. It's downright ridiculous.
    4
  1177.  @laneyljk  You mean the backup copies that had never even been viewed a single time in history?
    4
  1178. Um, ok, did you think we had cameras this close up after 50+ years?
    4
  1179. First of all, Cernan and Schmitt accomplished more science on their mission than any others. Secondly, yes, they tended to be a bit more lighthearted in attitude than some of the other astronauts, but, guess what... that's humanity for you. Sometimes people can be very good at their jobs, yet not always behave the exact way you expect. It doesn't mean that they don't get the job done. Third, when you can't even spell "Abbott and Costello" correctly, I hardly think you're in much of a position to complain about the competency of others. The irony is just too thick at that point.
    4
  1180. Tell me, how would YOU have engineered the lunar lander, if you disapprove of Grumman's designs? What would you have done differently?
    4
  1181.  @williamholmes9807  Well, that might be fine, had she not violated other laws during the detainment. By the time she wanted to confront the store, she had already refused to ID (legally required, and arrestable not to provide it), obstructed and obfuscated (also illegal). She also added resisting arrest to the pile. Had she not gone bananas instead of just following the laws regarding police investigations, I'd agree with you. But, she didn't, and it was too late, because she would have been arrested regardless of whatever the security cameras showed.
    4
  1182. Too off , able to mile , doc is 1960s ................. I think Landing imagine 55 amazing Module gas. Yet tooing , abling , 3500 hours up to out ........ imagine.
    4
  1183. And, what did Newton know about radiometric dating, and how to prevent rocks from ever being exposed to oxygen or moisture?
    4
  1184. As if your posting wasn't stupid enough already, when you said "Buzz even admitted they didn't go to the moon," this confirms that you are completely off-the-charts insane. How does this go, in your mind? He "confesses" to never going to the moon, and what?? Nothing happens?? No arrests?? No congressional hearings? No commission is put together to investigate? No press coverage? Nobody cares whatsoever? Or... hmmmm... nutbag, perhaps you are intentionally skewing his words to suit your own delusion? How far down the toilet have you flushed your brain away?
    4
  1185. "But for some reason it is not done yet." Good grief. Did you think maybe you'd want to fact-check this statement before posting on YouTube? Yes, it's been done. Japan, USA, China, and India have all flown satellites over the landing areas and their cameras have confirmed Apollo. Japan's didn't have the required resolution to see landers, but, could render images that confirmed Apollo's photography. The rest have the resolution to see the landers. India's has the best resolution of all of them.
    4
  1186. I read again, and I think I understand better. You're upset because they don't post the photos on ISRO's website, right? Well, they've mapped the entire moon, and have zero of those posted there. But, yes, the photos have been released by them in numerous ways. Frankly, I don't even recall on which outlet I first saw them. But, you want it from the horse's mouth, right? "GUJCOST Celebrates Vigyan Utsav (STI Ecosystem for Atmanirbhar Bharat) | 3rd September 2021" Just past the 1 hour mark, the director of SAC-ISRO himself presents one of the photos. Good enough for you now?
    4
  1187. You know, Hector, when you actually want answers to your questions, let me know. But, it's clear right now that you don't.
    4
  1188. Are you under the impression that the moment the sun rises, bing, the surface temperature hits 127 degrees (C)? And, the moment the sun goes down, bing, the surface temperature drops to -160? You don't think it takes a long time to heat up and cool off? Good grief. Don't sit there and quote surface temperatures of a lunar overnight, or a lunar high noon & afternoon, and pretend it has any relevance on the temperature during the early lunar morning. All missions landed on the moon at the Earth equivalent of about 6:30am, long before the super hot temperatures. And, a standard fireman suit withstands 1000 degrees (F), which is about 540 degrees (C). Really good ones withstand 2000 degrees (F), which is about 1100 degrees (C). Why are you so astonished by the relatively mild surface temperatures on the moon?
    4
  1189. So, you watched conspiracy videos, and believed every word they said, huh? What "research" could you possibly have done about the Van Allen belts? Have you read the thousands of technical papers written about them? Do you know the exact levels of exposure astronauts would get (and got)? Or, did a conspiracy video say they'd be a problem, so, you just went with that? What "files" do you think were destroyed, dewdrop? Did a conspiracy video tell you files were destroyed?
    4
  1190.  @rawhenrnh  No, dewdrop. As a matter of fact, I consider the photos and videos to be the least important of all of the evidence for Apollo.
    4
  1191. It's part of the only two rules that conspiratards operate by. Rule (1): all evidence against their delusion is fake, no matter how real it is. Rule (2): all evidence supporting their delusion is real, no matter how ridiculous it is. Of course there are real photos of the Earth from space, thousands of them. But, in order to support the delusion, they simply must dismiss them all as fake. So, that's what they do.
    4
  1192. Nope. NASA never "admitted" any such thing.
    4
  1193. Huh? What do you call LRO?
    4
  1194. "Isn't ever brought up that we have sent probes all over the Milky Way" Um, did you just confuse the solar system with the galaxy? Forgive me if I don't have much faith in your level of expertise here. "but we can't send folks to the moon?" They DID send people to the moon. However, did you think that's the same as sending probes to places? See, let me give you a rocketry 101 lesson for a moment: The main thing you need to worry about is the payload weight. Probes typically have an approximate payload weight of 4,000 pounds. For the manned moon missions, the command module, service module, and lander are the payload, which weighed a total of about 100,000 pounds. The more pounds you add, the more you need to add fuel. The more you add fuel, the more you need to add more fuel to get the payload up there. The more fuel you add to lift the fuel, the more fuel you need to lift the fuel to lift the fuel. There's a multiplier effect here, which is why, for the Saturn V, it took a 6 million pound rocket to lift 100,000 pounds of payload. Once the Saturn V was retired, sorry, we just didn't have another rocket capable of lifting 100,000 pounds to the moon, nor a program approved by congress to do so. "I know these experts think they know" The experts? Like, the ones who know the difference between a galaxy and a solar system? "but perhaps the gov't had stuff that wasn't made public" Super secret stuff that's capable of violating the laws of physics?
    4
  1195. Digital rockets? How does digitization make a rocket fly?
    4
  1196. Ah yes, another denier who tries to "logic" her way into silly beliefs. Does evidence matter? No, of course not. The only thing that matters is to come up with some "logical" (sigh) reason to believe nonsense.
    4
  1197. Well, nobody ever had any real reason to believe it was a hoax in the first place... except nonsensical reasons that fall apart instantly with a little bit of scrutiny. But, what do you mean "find the camera"? Find it how?
    4
  1198. Huh? LRO was sent in 2009, and its lunar orbit was dropped to only about 12 miles up in 2012. It took hundreds of photos of the landing sites. You can see the landers, rover tracks, foot paths, etc. Both China and India sent orbiters up there, which sent back photos of some of the landing sites also, showing the landers in exactly the same locations as the original mission photography showed them, and the LRO photos showed them. What good would more photos do? The deniers don't care about the 7,000 mission photographs, the hundreds of LRO photographs, the photos from China and India, etc. Why would you think those dewdrops would care one bit about a few more photos?
    4
  1199. A) How would going again prove anything? B) You do know they ARE going again, right? You've heard of the Artemis program, right?
    4
  1200. This entire complaint basically boils down to "I don't understand it, therefore nobody else does either." Yes, dewdrop, there are many ways to determine the size of Mars, the distance to Mars, etc. And, sorry, but you don't get to wiggle out of the fact that you didn't even know about Apollo missions after 1969. When you don't know anything about the topic, you're in no position to express doubt.
    4
  1201. A) What a shocker. Another denier who reads and writes like a 2nd grader. B) Nobody who was ACTUALLY worried about "servailance" (your spelling) would even have a Google/YouTube ID.
    4
  1202. So, let me see if I understand the rules of your game: Rule 1: If people oppose your position, they are "bots" or "paid." Rule 2: If people support your position, they are real. Rule 3: If people present evidence, you ignore the evidence, and instead, you attack the person presenting it (see rule 1). Is that basically the way it works, in your mind? Is that, or is that not, the living definition of being delusional?
    4
  1203. Is this a joke? Unarmed? You can see the gun at several points in the video (laying on the ground a couple of feet from the body), and also including if you slow it down and look at a few frames as he opens the door and points it at the officer.
    4
  1204. Says the one who can't spell "literally" correctly. Bravo!
    4
  1205. Flagged as spam (again).
    4
  1206. "I’ve talked to countless experts" No, you've watched countless conspiracy videos. "and they’ve all told me the technology for retropropulsive powered takeoffs" Dewdrop, if it's a takeoff, then, by definition, it's not retro-propulsion. How can you fire a rocket against the direction of motion, when there is no motion? You don't even understand the definition of the words you use. "and descents does not yet exist." Dewdrop, have you ever seen those guys flying around with rocket packs (sometimes called jet packs) on their backs? That stuff was taking place before the Apollo program even began. When someone comes in to land one of those rocket packs, they use retro-propulsion. How did the space shuttle re-enter the atmosphere? Retro-propulsion. How did the McDonnell Douglass DC-X land? Retro-propulsion. How do the current SpaceX boosters land? Retro-propulsion. Yet, these "experts" you're talking about couldn't figure that out? Let me guess, these experts are yoga instructors, taxi cab drivers, and warehouse workers, who think the Earth is flat, right? "But apparently it was super easy 50 years ago" Yup.
    4
  1207. It's been a whopping 10 hours since the last person asked about the rover. But, the golf balls were on Apollo 14, not Apollo 11. Similar answers for the rovers, by the way.
    4
  1208. Apollo has been verified by dozens of countries in dozens of ways, and continues to be throughout recent times. One example: India's orbiter photographed Apollo landing sites from lunar orbit, showing the landers exactly where they're supposed to be. The deniers continue to deny. Sending a lander near the Apollo landing spots will simply be another thing that they'll label as CGI.
    4
  1209. "No human has stepped on the moon since this landing in 1969" "do a little research" Good gods, man. You clearly didn't even know that there were landings after 1969. That's how little you understand. How much "research" could you possibly have done, if you're unaware of Apollos 14, 15, 16, and 17? And, no, dewdrop, watching conspiracy videos isn't "research." You have absolutely no understanding of the topic. Don't tell people who know 1000000x more than you do to "do research."
    4
  1210.  @marksprague1280  A lunar cycle is 708 hours from sunrise to the next sunrise. Daytime is about half that. I'm not sure where your 168 hours is coming from, because that's more like 25% of a lunar "day."
    4
  1211. "It's already been PROVEN those batteries could NOT have operated in 250F. End of story." Finally, you said something correct. Yes, dewdrop. The rover's camera and batteries gave out when the surface temperature got that high. So what? It doesn't get that hot until the lunar high noon.
    4
  1212. So, you opened by asking about why they aren't doing it now (even though they are). And, when corrected, not an ounce of humility after being so tragically wrong... nope, you come back and double down? Dewdrop, technology has nothing to do with it. If congress doesn't fund moon missions, there are no moon missions. The hundreds of thousands of people it takes for a manned moon program don't work for free. They want to get paid for their work for a decade of their lives.
    4
  1213. "Punching a guy holding a Bible" No, he's a convicted criminal holding a bible.
    4
  1214. Robert, get real here. You don't know what you're talking about. Don't pretend you do. This is about "optical resolution." You clearly do not understand that topic. But, if you look that up, you'll find an algebraic formula that allows you to use a little bit of high school trigonometry and algebra to determine the size of the lens you'd need in order to see objects of a certain size from a certain distance. You don't even need to understand how light works. You perform the trig and algebra, you punch the numbers into the formula, and you get the size lens required.
    4
  1215. Gort, No problem. I failed to mention that Japan has TWO laser ranging facilities. One on the north side, and one on the south side. They built them not only so they could tell how much the island was moving (as I said), but also how much the island is rotating. By having both a north and south facility, they can tell if the north end is moving more than the south end (rotating). They also cross compare with laser readings from the dozens of facilities on the major continental land masses, to further pinpoint the geologic activity. There are dozens of such facilities around the world taking readings every single day off of the Apollo reflectors. I just focus on Japan so much because it's the pinnacle of laser ranging. Japan even launched a satellite that consists of only corner cube reflectors, so they can cross compare against the Apollo reflectors. Those guys are REALLY enthusiastic about tracking their island's movements. And, they use laser ranging to do it.
    4
  1216. Yup, just a few more decades, right? How many more do you need?
    4
  1217. Please name the super technology you'd use to land on the moon today. Can you? Or, are you just going to say "technology" and leave it at that?
    4
  1218. Sound doesn't just conduct through air only. It conducts through physical mediums as well. In this case, it vibrates through the hammer, into the glove, and is picked up by the microphone. It won't sound the same as through air, of course, but, yes, that's how it works.
    4
  1219.  @kungfoochicken08  Wait, what? You think Musk started those companies?
    4
  1220.  @leeli4692  The arrest video was released on November 24, 2023. She committed suicide in March of 2022.
    4
  1221. Yet, you wrote all of that, and couldn't manage to scroll down to the 2835984 times that your same question was asked and answered in the past week? Apollo 11 didn't have a rover. Later missions did.
    4
  1222. Oh, you're a real genius alright. Your Nobel Prize is in the mail. Yeah, pure intellect. Dewdrop, first of all, he's alive, not dead. He is now facing charges. But, twice, you said he was dead. It shows how little you understand about reality. Secondly, they cannot just have a 96 hour stand-off. The man was clearly deranged, threatening to harm police, and others. Suppose you got your wish, and the cops didn't try the less-than-lethal weapon, and just prolonged this incident... suppose that happened... and then the guy goes and stabs his girlfriend or family member. What would you be saying then? Undoubtedly, you'd blame the police for NOT trying to stop him before that happened. With geniuses like you, the cops can NEVER win, no matter what. If they act, you blame them for their actions. If they don't act, you blame them for their inaction. How about blaming the guy with the knives? No? It never occurred to you? How about THAT for the "direct" cause of his "death" (not dead)?
    4
  1223. A) No. Australia only handled 1/3rd of the time. And, even then, they didn't always use that ultra big 64m dish. They had many dishes. Goldstone handled 1/3rd of the time, and Madrid handled 1/3rd of the time. It depended on the orientation of the Earth to the moon. As the Earth spun, they'd switch the communications from Australia to Spain, and then from Spain to USA, and then from USA to Australia again. B) There were hundreds of scientists involved with each country's dishes, not just 12. C) You are correct in that none of them have ever claimed Apollo was fake. They were the ones that were pointing those dishes at the moon and receiving the video and audio. They knew darned well about where those signals were coming from. I agree.
    4
  1224. "Kennedy ... WMD" Wow, that didn't take long. You're already changing topics. Good grief.
    4
  1225. How do you explain the dozens of countries (including enemies) that confirmed Apollo in dozens of ways? And, how do you explain how these "select few" were able to pass the torch to current generations? Like, in recent generations, Arizona State University's LRO camera has taken hundreds of photographs of the landing sites, and can see landers, rover tracks, foot paths, etc. China confirmed Apollo in 2021 with their Chang'e orbiter that photographed all 6 landers on the lunar surface. India published a couple of very impressive shots of the Apollo landers on the moon, including the Apollo 12 flag shadow just north of the lander (exactly where it's supposed to be), and foot paths that 100% match the original mission photography. How do you explain these things with your "very few people knew" argument? Wouldn't India and China need to be "in on it" 50+ years later?
    4
  1226. "Im one of those that dont believe we've landed on the moon." Why? Thus far, all you've done is ask questions. That's nothing more than "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." Most people, the sane ones anyway, wait for answers to their questions before forming conclusions. Not you, though, huh? You open by stating your conclusion, THEN you ask questions? "Why havent we done it again, and again." They did. They sent 9 manned missions to the moon, and landed 6 times. If you don't understand this, and you're under the impression that there was only one mission, then, sorry, you're in no position to have any opinions at all. You cannot understand THAT little about the topic, yet accuse thousands of people of being criminals based on this topic you know nothing about. "Its physically, humanly, impossible" Says who? You? The guy who thought there was only one mission? What could you possibly understand that the hundreds of thousands of engineers and technicians who worked on the program didn't understand? "even in todays age and technology to get something up and out there , so far away." Yet, the ISS and other low orbit craft travel that distance all the time, except they don't leave orbit. Are you under the impression that the craft just stop working somehow unless they're close to Earth? "Why hasnt been any advances since then?" There can only be advances if there's funding to advance. Congress pulled the plug on the manned moon program in 1972, and didn't fund another one until 2019 (Artemis). How EXACTLY do you propose any "advancements" could be made if nobody funds them?
    4
  1227. Most of the missions did it the way critthought2886 outlined. They skirted around the outside edge of the inner belt to minimize exposure. But, frankly, it wasn't going to matter that much anyway. Apollo 14 shot right through the middle. Yes, as a result, that mission had a higher dose than any other Apollo mission. But, it was still less than 1% of a fatal dose. The belts are only dangerous if you're in them a long time. Apollo went through at 24,000 mph.
    4
  1228. It's the Apollo 14 solar wind collector, or "Solar Wind Composition Experiment." It's not 10 stories high, it's about 5 feet high. The editors of this video have borrowed that footage of climbing down the ladder from Apollo 14.
    4
  1229.  @theofficialdiamondlou2418  The best photo of it is AS14-64-9198. You can just Google it, or you will find it on the "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal" website (along with all of the rest of the photos). Basically, it's nothing but a sheet of aluminum foil (ok, slightly more complicated than that, but not by much). At the end of the mission, they roll up the foil and bring it back home. Then, it's analyzed by the scientists to figure out what materials hit the foil. From there, they can determine the composition of the solar wind, and quantities of those materials, etc. The idea is that we can't do this on Earth because none of that stuff makes it through the atmosphere. And, we can do a bit of this experiment in orbit around the Earth, but, the Earth's magnetosphere alters the quantities of the materials in the solar wind. So, by doing this experiment far away from Earth (like on the moon, which has almost no magnetosphere), it's a much more "pure" result, allowing scientists to get the most accurate idea of the composition of the solar wind.
    4
  1230. Dummy, that ridiculous video doesn't expose any "facts." It's a fabrication from start to finish. Good grief. All of that stuff has been debunked a million times over. Shame on you for blindly believing such claptrap.
    4
  1231.  @vidtech2630  Sorry, you've been watching conspiracy videos too much. Nothing you say is correct. And, anybody who says that Buzz Aldrin "admitted they didn't go" is at the absolute bottom of the intellectual food chain.
    4
  1232.  @vidtech2630  Dummy, you're the one who says Aldrin confessed to never going to the moon. That's YOU making that ridiculous claim. You don't get to pretend you have the high ground here, when you scrape the bottom of the barrel in laughable conspiracy garbage like THAT.
    4
  1233. Why is it that you hoax nuts can never answer questions? You ask questions, ignore the answers, then ask more questions. No. I'm not playing this game.
    4
  1234. They all commented on seeing stars and constellations while looking at the night sky (from lunar orbit while on the dark side). But, they were never on the surface of the moon during the night.
    4
  1235.  @aemrt5745  They also talked about it during the missions themselves. Apollo 8 astronauts tried to get photographs (they turned out horribly, of course). Apollo 11 astronauts commented on the stars within about 30 seconds of them becoming visible (just as they entered the lunar shadow for the first time).
    4
  1236. So, if you own a computer, how is it that you don't know how to scroll down to see that question asked and answered a few billion times?
    4
  1237. Yeah, I love the one where the fiducial marker (crosshair) shows up on the red stripes of the USA flag (thus the markers are "before" the object), while the crosshairs don't show up on the white stripes of the very same flag (thus the markers are "after" the object). I guess this means that someone placed markers before the red stripes, and behind the white stripes, huh? Well, either that, or slight overexposure will bleed out the fiducial markers for sections with white light (brighter, more chemical reactions on the film emulsion), and not for darker colors (less bright, less chemical reaction on the film). Gee, which to choose, which to choose. This is a tough one. I guess you're going with the notion that they somehow botched where they put the markers for white objects, and didn't botch where they put the markers for darker objects. Naw, it can't be film chemistry that caused the problem. No, that would be silly. Dewdrop, there are no issues that arise to ANYTHING, except in the minds of nuts who insist of twisting the facts.
    4
  1238. "Much of the technology needed to get to the lunar surface and return didn't exist at the time of Kennedy's famous 1962 speech." Depends on what you mean. Rockets existed. Metals existed. Computers existed. Radar existed. Radio existed. All of the basic fundamentals existed. But, yes, engineers needed to design and build all of that stuff on a scale and scope never seen in history, and they did it in 8 years. "I believe the government stage the lunar Landing to bankrupt the Soviet Union." Awww. Aren't you sweet? And, you think the Soviets would just believe it?
    4
  1239. "no issue with agreeing that we pass a law" Defrauding taxpayers is already illegal. Passing a new law to specify fraudulent moon landings is of no consequence. We don't pass individual laws against robbing a convenient store vs. robbing a bakery vs. robbing a bank vs. robbing chocolate factory. Why would a new law about this one particular version of defrauding taxpayers via moon missions be required?
    4
  1240. "Show me a current law that exists that would apply to this situation." The 1948 18 U.S.C. matches up rather nicely in many sections/categories. And, that's just for starters. How about you stop pretending to know things you don't, huh? You're not good at it.
    4
  1241. Don't like when your delusions get shattered?
    4
  1242. Yes. Were you unaware that TWO people walked on the moon at the same time?
    4
  1243. So, basically, you're very proud to know absolutely nothing.
    4
  1244. The vacuum of space doesn't have a temperature. Only material things can have a temperature. The air outside of an airplane can be very cold, yes. But, with no air on the moon, it doesn't work the same. On the moon, they were more worried about stuff heating up from the sunlight than they were worried about being too cold. So, they lined the cameras and film canisters with silver to reflect a lot of that energy.
    4
  1245. How convenient. You first ask for photos, then complain in advance that the pictures aren't "real." So, basically, before anybody can give you what you're asking for, you first declare that, if they do, you are going to label those pictures as fake. Bravo.
    4
  1246. Um, ok, so what? Why is that relevant to the Apollo program?
    4
  1247. Do you really not understand the burn-in effect on vidicon tubes?
    4
  1248. Well, if there's a quote, it must be true. All quotes are always true, especially when you don't know who made the quote.
    4
  1249. Well, that's certainly one way to bury yourself in your delusions. Before anybody can even respond, you declare that responses are either (A) dumb, or (B) paid. In other words, you have closed your mind to all input, and that's the excuse you're using. Bravo.
    4
  1250.  @johnsergei  Do the math, dewdrop.
    4
  1251.  @Cougar139tweak  "it also has to have enough fuel to not only escape the moon" You wrote this to the other guy, but, I just saw that you had responded to me from a different comment. So, I responded to that, and, now, I'll respond to this. Um, no. The lunar modules never achieved escape velocity from the moon. They only reached orbital speed. Perhaps I can cut some slack because, casually, you may have just meant that they needed to get up into orbit. But, in orbital mechanics, using the word "escape" implies something else. And, no, the lunar modules didn't have the fuel required to reach escape velocity from the moon. The only exceptions were the two lunar modules (Apollo 10 and Apollo 13) that went to the moon but never landed on it. Those two had the fuel required to escape. But, for any lander that actually made it down to the lunar surface, no, they never reached escape velocity. "but catch up to the orbiter." You don't even know that this is the same basic thing as orbit. They just needed to reach orbit, dewdrop. You're acting as if "fuel to escape the moon" and "fuel to catch up to the orbiter" are two different things. As I said, I'm cutting the slack that, in your mind, you think "escape" and "orbit" are the same thing. So, ok, fine. But, dewdrop, the fuel required to reach orbit is the very same concept as the fuel required to catch up to the orbiter. It's a matter of timing. They planned the launch off of the moon so that the orbits with sync up. I mean, technically, it's even more complicated than that. But, for a YouTube comment, this will do. And, all you're doing is demonstrating that you haven't got the foggiest clue what you're talking about. None whatsoever. Did you REALLY think that the 7,000 engineers at Grumman who designed and built the lunar module... all somehow forgot to include enough fuel to do the job? Really? That's how your mind operates?
    4
  1252.  @mingmen9908  "And the camera man was already on the moon waiting for the 1 man on the moon" What ARE you talking about? What exact footage do you believe came from any cameraman already on the moon?
    4
  1253. Yeah, the 7000 engineers at Grumman, and the hundreds more at GM and Boeing, all simultaneously forgot to make the rover fit. And, they never realized it for the past 50+ years.
    4
  1254. They took 110,000 photos of the moon from orbit throughout the 9 manned missions to the moon, half of them from the far side. Many of them still remain the basis for Google Moon today. What ARE you talking about?
    4
  1255. You're extremely generous with that 87.
    4
  1256. Shocker. Another denier who reads and writes like an 8 year old.
    4
  1257. YOU SAID: "Ok so build a space camera that can take high resolution images of the moon surface." == I am not sure what you're talking about... LRO has done that. The resolution is good enough to be able to make out the landers, rover tracks, etc. Granted, they had to drop the orbit and switch to black and white (gives them better resolution than color). But, yes, they've already done that. Did you not watch the video before commenting on the video? YOU SAID: "what about satisfying science and the pursuit of knowledge." == LRO is still up there, orbiting the moon, sending about 400 GB per day of photographs and data. What is the EXACT purpose you're proposing for another one? YOU SAID: "your explanation is not adequate." == Adequate FOR WHAT?? To answer your single sentence? You posted a single sentence, suggesting that a camera should take high resolution images of the moon's surface. They're already doing that, and have been doing so for over 10 years. I'm guessing Yazzam just figured you're asking for even more high resolution than we're already getting from LRO. And, he's correct in his reply. The resolution doesn't matter to the conspiratards. If they made a camera capable of reading the serial numbers off of the equipment on the moon, they'd still call those photos fake. As it is, we have hundreds of photos of the landing sites, from just about every sun angle possible, which clearly include the landers, rovers, shadows of the flags (the 5 still standing anyway), foot paths, rover tracks, etc. And, yet, the conspiratards just say, "not good enough, I want higher resolution." All they do is shift the goalposts, and they're going to continue to do that, no matter what evidence is presented. So, Yazzam is correct. If they sent up a new LRO-2 or something like that, with double the resolution, all that would happen is that the conspiratards would demand triple the resolution. Then, after LRO-3, they'd demand quadruple the resolution. And so on, and so on, and so on. The conspiratards have no intention of acknowledging ANYTHING. There are only two rules to their game. (1) Anything that supports Apollo is fake, no matter how real it is. (2) Anything that goes against Apollo is real, no matter how ridiculous. Those are the only two rules. And, better resolution isn't going to get past those two rules. YOU SAID: "your belief in what the mainstream science tells you" == It's not about what has been TOLD by "science." It's an understanding of the way science works. If you don't like the fact that there is a formula to calculate the maximum resolution that any specific lens/mirror can have, then, you can refute it via the scientific method. You can demonstrate a mirror or lens that has better resolution. You can show calculations that refute the maximum resolution. You can make an explanation for how photons in the visible wavelengths should be able to get through a lens more densely without interfering with each other. You can do all of these things, all without ever just blindly believing what anybody says. But, until then, sorry, going on YouTube and just declaring that the science is wrong... doesn't actually mean anything. It just means you're a crackpot who doesn't understand the science, therefore you reject the science in favor of your delusions. YOU SAID: "has become like a new religion." == Good grief. Science is the OPPOSITE of religion!!! Anybody can submit articles to scientific journals!!! Science is always refining, always improving, always working on new developments. Religion is the OPPOSITE of that. With religions (for all of the big ones out there anyway), all truth and data is already logged in ancient books, and there is no refinement, no development, no changes, no appeals, no modifications, nothing. YOU SAID: "Instead of constantly challenging everything in the pursuit of knowledge." == You stated ONE SENTENCE, asking for a high resolution camera around the moon (when there already is one). Now you're jumping to "pursuit of knowledge"??? What EXACT knowledge are you pursuing, that LRO is not already giving you? YOU SAID: "Instead the people that subscribe to this because it gives them a false sense of superiority in there belief." == ENGLISH!!!! Good gods, forget your silly statements, and just go back to school. I promise you, becoming literate will serve you far better in life than wasting your time asking for things that already exist. YOU SAID: "No different than any narrow minded fool." == You didn't even watch the video before commenting on the video, you dummy. Good grief.
    4
  1258. Seriously? Dewdrop, the boot prints 100% match the overshoes the astronauts wore. I'm sorry that you just watch silly conspiracy videos that feed you garbage. But, to tell OTHERS to "wake up"? Good grief.
    4
  1259. This is just pure nonsense at this point. You're spewing a bunch of gibberish that you know nothing about. You open 4 or 5 new topics every day. And, for many days now, I can't even get you to acknowledge the photos you deny exist. And, you never acknowledged your silly mistake about expecting photos of mountains on Apollo 11 (which didn't land near any mountains). It takes a dozen times of explaining things before you even start to absorb them (yet, never acknowledge you're wrong). You've made it 100% clear that you don't want answers to your own questions, and your only tactic is to keep changing topics until nobody can stand you any longer. Dewdrop, don't sit there and keep demanding new answers to new questions when you keep abandoning your old topics.
    4
  1260. Dewdrop, they have the locations of all 6 landing sites down to an accuracy within less than an inch. They have hundreds of orbital photos showing the Apollo equipment exactly where it's supposed to be.
    4
  1261. "My dad worked on the lander pod." Not a single engineer at Grumman ever called it the "lander pod."
    4
  1262. Todd, "As per NASA's website they also left their suits" Well, then you need to write to NASA and tell them that the site is wrong. They wore their suits back home. "and breathing tanks" Yes, the PLSS backpacks were discarded onto the lunar surface. "and everything to be lighter in weight." Correct. Every pound that they discarded was another pound of lunar rocks that they could bring back home instead. "My question is how did they do that did they just hold their breath and throw it out the door?" Well, given that you're under the impression that they discarded the suits (which is incorrect), then I suppose your question makes sense. But, since you're incorrect, your premise is wrong. They left their suits and helmets on. They connected the suits to the craft's internal oxygen supplies (instead of connecting them to the PLSS backpacks). They opened the door, and tossed the stuff out.
    4
  1263. From Earth? Of course not. Did you expect to be able to see the individual stuff from Earth?
    4
  1264. "It never happened in real life. Trust me." Random internet crank wants trust. Sure. "You are looking at parts of a well staged media event, which were meant to raise the moral among Americans, while the Soviets were number one with all new space events." Funny that the Soviets congratulated the USA and verified Apollo, huh? Why would they do that? Also, sorry, but the Soviets fell well behind. During the entirety of the Gemini program of 10 manned spaceflights, the Soviets did not launch one single manned flight. The USA took the lead during that time, and maintained the lead all the way through Apollo. Yes, the Soviets were ahead when the USA was in the Mercury program, but, Gemini fixed that issue, and Apollo utterly left them in the dust. "NASA can't even bring a manned module into outer space today, 2023." And, the Soviets no longer exist. The Soviet Union dissolved 3 decades ago. "the complicated re-entry from outer space - never tried before" Sorry, but they first sent the unmanned command module out past the Van Allen belts on Apollo 6, and it experienced full re-entry speed when they lit the SPS to accelerate it back to the same speeds as returning from the moon. You don't know what you're talking about. Of course, they then did it on Apollo 8 and every other manned mission to the moon. You deny those missions, of course. But, you apparently don't even know Apollo 6 happened. "The Sun is deadly when the belts no longer are between." Then why are you in YouTube comments? Why aren't you writing this up for cosmology journals? Show your calculations!!! Prove it to the world scientifically!!! Do you not understand the difference between a science journal and a YouTube comment?
    4
  1265. So, you're a photographer who has never looked at the photo archive?
    4
  1266. Apollo Lunar Surface Journal.
    4
  1267. You might be confused. I don't think there are any new NASA photos of the sites. All of the ones on Arizona State University's site (they're the ones who built and manages the LRO camera) are around 10-14 years old at this point. I don't exactly follow LRO stuff, but, I think they've been using it to study other stuff, not to take even more photos of the landing sites (they already have hundreds of such photos). Anyway, fairly recently (like in the last year or so), India and China have released their photos of the Apollo 11 landing site from their individual orbiters. Maybe those photos are the new ones you're referring to? Not NASA ones?
    4
  1268. Why did James Van Allen disagree with you? What do you know about the Van Allen belts that James Van Allen didn't know? How do you even know about the Van Allen belts, if not from the NASA probes? So, when NASA tells you there are invisible belts, you believe it. When NASA tells you what the radiation levels are, you don't believe it?
    4
  1269. So, you refuse to respond to my questions, eh? Those were vary basic questions. The fact that you think you know more about the Van Allen belts than James Van Allen knew, just illustrates your amazing off-the-charts arrogance. You can do the math yourself, you know. We have extensive data on the belts, the level and type of radiation in those belts, and we know exactly how penetrative it is through an aluminum hull. You can do those calculations all by yourself. But, here, I'll get you started by giving you a quote to outline what James Van Allen calculated: "The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight. The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months' duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure. A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week. However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable. -- James A. Van Allen"
    4
  1270. Space doesn't have a temperature, dewdrop. And, the mere fact that you ask about "radiation" without specifying types and quantities tells me that you don't know anything about the topic whatsoever. And, let's get real here: no, you don't actually want answers to your fake questions. You're here to pretend you know things you don't.
    4
  1271. Another dewdrop who refuses to admit being wrong. You just shifted the goalposts. You originally claimed no other nation tried. Now, you've shifted it to no other nation succeeded. And, instead of admitting you were wrong, you're now shifting the goalposts and trying to ask new questions to distract from the fact that you were wrong.
    4
  1272. Just how many people do you think ever believed in the Loch Ness monster? And, sorry, but it would take thousands of people, across decades, to fake it. You clearly don't know what the evidence is.
    4
  1273. All zero of them you consulted?
    4
  1274. You forgot to read the other 458973532945387539478 comments that asked about the rover... which Apollo 11 didn't have. Apollo 15 was the first with a rover.
    4
  1275. I think he's talking about the loose flap on the PLSS backpack.
    4
  1276. Here, I found a photo of the strap (in the position it's supposed to be). It appears to not be attached in the clip he's talking about. AS16-108-17622. Yeah, a loose strap/flap definitely means that Apollo was fake.
    4
  1277. Not at the level of detail of seeing all of those small things being outlined in this video. But, yes, there are 3 lunar satellites (USA's LRO, China's Chang'e, and India's Chandrayaan) that have photographed the larger details, such as the landers themselves, shadows of the flags, rover tracks (at the sites that had rovers), etc.
    4
  1278. Technology cannot defeat the laws of physics. Light doesn't work the way you think. You can't see stuff that small from this distance due to resolution limitations and atmospheric distortion.
    4
  1279. So, when congress ended the supply of money to the Apollo program, hence everyone stopped working on the Apollo program, you have some sort of different reason that everyone stopped sending missions to the moon? 450,000 people were supposed to just work for free and keep on sending more missions?
    4
  1280. Cross their fingers and hope there isn't a big one when they're up there.
    4
  1281. Comput pwer with Apolo beliv fist try we went mun one other count ree ahead of behind areas go did got less cellphone expect!!!
    4
  1282. It depends. Currently, the plan is to land at the lunar south pole, so they shouldn't really have significant radiation or temperature issues with the suits. But, that's not the only option for future missions. For example, if they want to land more toward the equator, and if they want to stay months at a time, yeah, radiation and temperature become bigger problems. Again, why is any of this relevant to Apollo? What IS your point? You heard a sentence or two about future mission plans, and, in your mind, this means Apollo was fake?
    4
  1283. India, China, and the USA have sent lunar satellites that have taken photos of the lander "bases" on the lunar surface. Japan also sent one that didn't have the resolution required to see the lander "bases," but, confirmed Apollo in other ways. Sorry, you don't get to just deny reality by insisting that other countries haven't confirmed what they confirmed.
    4
  1284. "Why is it that the US has an answer for every doubt that a conspiracy theorist has." Because there's an answer for every doubt the conspiracy theorist has. I'm sorry that you think it would be "better" if there were no answers. But, all you're really doing here is confirming your bias. "Why do you have answers for everything?" As opposed to what? NOT having answers?
    4
  1285. Let's recap, shall we? 1) You think that all of the engineers on Apollo were wrong, because you think porous plate sublimators don't work as a cooling system, and you insist that water/vapor wouldn't be able to flash it into ice at 0 pressure (vacuum) as the gas expands. You think the entirety of Apollo engineers for both the craft as well as the suits (each used the same system) have overlooked this glaring error you've spotted. 2) You think that geologists cannot tell the difference between meteorites and lunar rocks. I pointed out two years ago that your entire idea of carving up meteorites and trying to pass them off as lunar rocks gathered on Apollo is ridiculous on many levels. You denied every objection, and insist that you understand this better than the thousands of geologists who have analyzed those rocks, all of whom you believe have been duped. 3) You believe that radio cannot reach the moon. I pointed out two years ago to you that radio operates in the exact same electromagnetic spectrum that light does. So, if light can make it between the Earth and moon, you'd have a difficult time trying to rationalize why radio cannot. I also pointed out that backyard amateurs have been bouncing radio signals off of the moon since long before the Apollo program began. Anybody with half way decent equipment can do what's called a "moon bounce" by aiming a dish at the moon, and hooking it up to a radio transmitter, and use the moon as a radio reflector to talk to someone half way around the Earth. You denied that this was happening. You said the radio signals weren't bouncing off of the moon, but were actually bouncing off of the ionosphere. I offered you an easy way to prove it. I said you can just perform the very same "moon bounce" at a time when the moon isn't in view of your dish, thus proving that the moon wasn't required in order to do a moon bounce, and that the radio was bouncing off of the ionosphere and traveling around the globe. I mean, it would be pretty tough to claim that nobody on the planet has ever noticed that they didn't need to aim at the moon in order to bounce a signal half way around the world. But, hey, the floor was yours, go ahead and demonstrate it!!! What did you do? You ran for the hills and refused to reply. Tim, what in the world makes you think you understand science and engineering better than scientists and engineers? Why?
    4
  1286. "I never said radio cannot. All strawman arguments" Dewdrop, sorry, but you don't get to pretend. This is from August of 2022.... I told you that there's no way to "fake" radio triangulation to pretend a radio signal from the moon was coming from somewhere else. You kept insisting that the radio signals from the moon weren't really coming from the moon. I said that dozens of countries had their radio telescopes aimed AT THE MOON to receive those signals, thus, there's no way to fake that and say that those signals were originating somewhere on Earth. Your response: **"Tim Parziale rockethead7 Yes you can. It's done all the time. So there is no way to know where it's coming from. Not to mention you cannot send a radio signal without it being scrambled and blocked by Earth's magnetic field. The Moon is far past Earth's magnetosphere." ** Yes, Tim, you denied that radio signals were capable of reaching the moon (and back). I then told you about the backyard amateurs who do it every day, and it's called a "moon bounce." Your response: **"Tim Parziale rockethead7 They don't replicate "Moon bounce". The radio waves come back down to Earth once hitting the ionosphere.** So, sorry, you don't get to act now as if you never said these things. This thread of yours is still there. I'd link it, except YouTube blocks links. Your posts are from August of 2022 in the video "Apollo 17: The Last Men on the Moon (Space Documentary) | Real Stories." Additionally, you went on to argue with others who told you about moon bounces, and that you don't know what you're talking about. You again argued with them, the same way you argued with me, claiming that moon bounces were impossible, and that the radio signals were bouncing off of the ionosphere, not the moon. Stop pretending, dewdrop. Now, are you going to demonstrate that moon bounces are not actually bouncing off of the moon, or not? That was your claim. You insisted that you understood this topic better than the radio communications engineers around the world. And, you said it wasn't possible to get a radio signal to the moon and back. And, you said that everyone in the world was confused by moon bounces, and that the signals were actually bouncing off of the ionosphere, not the moon. I challenged you to demonstrate this by performing the exact same feat, except when the moon was not in view of your dish. You've had over a year. Why haven't you done it?
    4
  1287. Sure, why not? They gave bunches of samples to China from Apollo. Why wouldn't they want China to return the favor?
    4
  1288. Buzz Aldrin saw the flag get knocked over by the rocket blast upon liftoff from the moon. All 5 of the other missions' flags remain standing, and this is confirmed by the LRO photography that shows the shadows of the flags from the various sun angles. But, the Apollo 11 flag doesn't project a shadow on the surface, thus, it's no longer standing (confirming what Aldrin said). If you look at the LRO photography from a sun angle of 12:39 (just after lunar high noon), you will see a bright spot on the lunar surface right where the flag was. The resolution is not good enough to 100% confirm, however, given what we know, and its placement on the surface, it's likely that the flag is at least intact enough to make the orbiting LRO see a lighter "color" (it's black and white, but, you get the idea) at that spot. If the flag was completely deteriorated and absorbed into the lunar dust, it probably wouldn't generate that bright spot. But, we don't know for certain until/unless a camera gets a lot closer.
    4
  1289. Karen, who told you that it would fill the moon's sky? That's outlandish. Have you done the math? Do you think the entire planet's aerospace engineers and rocket scientists can't do the math either, such that there isn't a single space agency on the planet who can figure this out the way you can? Or, did you watch a video made by someone who told you this, and you just decided to believe it without checking for yourself?
    4
  1290. "Thrust line below C of G easily could create tipping." Below, huh? And, you're an engineer? What's wrong with below the center of gravity? I mean, with rockets, you're more worried about center of mass, not center of gravity, but, ok, those two concepts are basically the same thing, so, I can forgive the misnomer. But, didn't you mean to the SIDE of the center of gravity? No? Below it will cause tipping? You're worried about a line of thrust that's directly below? Why? Also, rockets have these things called GIMBALS to deal with any center of gravity/mass issues. Nearly all rockets have them, because no rocket has 100% perfect center of mass/gravity. I'm surprised that an aviation engineer such as yourself would fail to understand something so simple. It's true that the ascent engine on the lunar module didn't have one, and it used RCS instead. So what? If you're an engineer, why would you choose YouTube comments as your forum to announce to the world that you've calculated that the lunar module wouldn't do what it was designed to do? Why aren't you publishing in the engineering journals? Only crackpots think YouTube comments are the place to provide this Earth-shattering revelation. You're not one of those, are you?
    4
  1291. Proving for the millionth time over: those who reject the moon landings universally can't read or write.
    4
  1292. Go take a look at India's orbital photo of Apollo 12's landing site. You can see the shadow of the flag just north of the lander (exactly where it's supposed to be). China's orbiter doesn't have that kind of resolution.
    4
  1293. Who told you the dust wasn't disturbed? Have you actually viewed the photographs for yourself? Or, did you watch a conspiracy video that showed a couple of low-res photos from bad angles, and told you the dust wasn't disturbed? See, here's the thing: nobody on Earth who has actually looked at the photo archive has ever said what you're saying. That's because every single landing left very distinct marks of dust being blown by the rocket engine, and you can see it in the photographs. But, people like you, who have never viewed the photographs for yourself, and just watch conspiracy videos that show you a couple of bad-angle low-res photos, and say, "look, the dust wasn't disturbed!," just jump at the chance to believe complete and utter nonsense. You love it. You love the notion that you have "secret knowledge" that defies the entire planet's experts. I mean, it's gibberish, of course. All you have to do is look at the photo archive to know you're wrong. But, you won't do it. You don't want to do it. You'd rather lie to yourself, than ever believe you're wrong. As for a crater, do the math, dewdrop. There wasn't enough pressure to cut a crater, not even close. Blow dust? Yes, of course. Cut a crater in compacted regolith and rock? Not in a million years. A conspiracy video told you that it should make a crater, and you just believed it without doing the math.
    4
  1294. What in the world are you talking about?
    4
  1295. I've started to write much shorter replies because of that exact reason. I now just take a sentence or two at a time. Otherwise, odds are that my comment will post, and be visible for a little while, then evaporate.
    4
  1296. Pfttt. For what? What did "the state" do wrong?
    4
  1297. Well, LRO has been up there since 2009, and has taken hundreds of photos of the landing sites. It doesn't phase hoax believers one bit. They just call those "fake" also, and keep increasing the number of participants in the "scam." Why would it matter to anybody if they land at a prior landing site? Do you think it'll change their minds? And, why waste money going someplace we've already been? Wouldn't you rather have missions lasting many weeks/months (polar landings)?
    4
  1298. My a believer? Was that your 2nd grader education level attempt at saying "you're"? Tell me, if you actually believe the delay was wrong at any point in the missions, why hasn't anybody ever found such an example? Why are the only examples ever shown just from people with no clue where the recording device was located, expecting a delay when CAPCOM speaks (no delay expected) instead of when an astronaut speaks? Is the entire aerospace community for the past 50 years unable to recognize something so simple that a guy with 2nd grader spelling can find it? Or, hmmm, could you just be another person with no clue that no delay is expected when CAPCOM speaks, because it's recorded at that side?
    4
  1299. Please name the mission you think would produce the resolution you're expecting? Can you? Or, is this just "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake"?
    4
  1300. She wasn't the only one who called about this incident, you know. But, regardless, what ELSE should someone do when witnessing a crime?
    4
  1301. I aM 45 Yo ThAnK gAwD :face-blue-smiling::popcorn-yellow-striped-smile::clock-turquoise-looking-up::face-fuchsia-poop-shape:😵‍💫 and i waTchD CoNspIrACy ViDeEoohS tHat toLD mE thAT BLue-PRTs wErE DeSToRyD. i PrE tEnD i Am UnDEciDeD sO U wiLL TaKe mE SeeReeUSLee whEn i 🤪😜😝aT MooN. Good gods. How far gone are you? How bad is your life when you buy into silly nonsense like this, and you feel like posting this message was a good idea?
    4
  1302. Everyone knows that DTMF phones are required to go to the moon. How could they possible get to the moon by spinning a dial instead of pushing a button? TRANSLATION: I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    4
  1303. When someone's entire understanding of a massive program that lasted for over a decade and was worked on by 450,000 people across numerous countries... comes from a single sentence taken out of context... you know there's something seriously wrong. When has technology decreased? Very often, if the technology doesn't work economically. We had the X15 mach 7 airplane in the 1950s and 1960s. Where is it now? Retired. And now we can't go any faster in an airplane than about mach 2. We had the 1960s era SR71 spyplane that could fly thousands of miles at mach 3+. Where is it now? Retired. And, now we can go about mach 1.5 for a couple hundred miles and then need to slow down. We had the 1969 Concorde, which could fly 100+ passengers and luggage at mach 2 for thousands of miles. Where is it now? Retired. And, now there are no supersonic airliners at all. I'm sorry you know nothing, but, if you want your questions to be taken seriously, then ask them seriously.
    4
  1304. Fyre Festival - Elon Musk style.
    4
  1305. Yes, you've now seen the cream of the crop.
    4
  1306. Huh? The USA's LRO has taken hundreds of photos of the landing sites, ever since 2009. You see the landers, rover tracks, flag shadows, foot paths, etc. Arizona State University manufactured and manages the camera on LRO, and you can scroll through dozens of those photos on their website.
    4
  1307. "All their pix only show an arrow mark with descriptions." Huh? You clearly didn't look. I told you exactly where to find them. And, they have the option clearly outlined to see the photos with or without the labels/arrows. If you don't like arrows and descriptions, you simply turn that off. "Any one can make such a picture. If you are really inclined, i can send you pix of Indian landing on the moon and playing basket ball." But, dewdrop, if you were going to reject the hundreds of photos anyway, WHY DID YOU POST A QUESTION ASKING FOR SUCH PHOTOS?? Good grief. First, you complained that they should have taken these kinds of photos (because you didn't know the photos existed). Then, when I told you that they DID take those photos, you reject it. What was the purpose in asking for photos that you intend to reject? And, speaking of Indians, you do know that the best orbital camera around the moon right now is from India, right? And, it has taken photos of the Apollo landing sites also. You should go take a look at the one of Apollo 12 that they released last year. It shows the lander, shadows of the flame deflectors, a nice view of the shadow of the flag (still standing) just north of the lander, exactly where the original mission photography shows it, etc. Are you going to reject it also? Did India decide to join "the deception" 50+ years afterward for some reason?
    4
  1308. There are a couple dozen laser ranging facilities around the world that have the capability. Only a handful still do it on a daily basis, though. There are a few reflective satellites closer to Earth that do the job (of tracking continental movement) a bit easier now. But, before those satellites were put up, the reflectors on the moon were the primary method of tracking the movement of continents on Earth.
    4
  1309. And, you think it's a GOOD idea to announce to the planet that you have no education or understanding about anything? Dewdrop, if the moon doesn't have gravity, what do you suppose makes the tides to up every time the moon is directly overhead, and makes the tides drop every time the moon goes out over the horizon?
    4
  1310. Good gods. Have you looked at the comments lately? None of them are even asking what the evidence is. They don't have any expectations of the evidence, because evidence isn't even what they want. They want excuses to pretend they know things they don't. They want to pretend that their high-school-dropout level education is just as good as the world's aerospace engineers, or even better, because they want to believe they are in a superior position without knowing anything about the topic. They don't even want answers to their own questions.
    4
  1311. A) And I thought your initial posting was a train wreck already. Now, the edited version is an even worse train wreck. Good grief. B) So, your new position is that it's not possible to have craters and hills and valleys produce any variance in light level, shadows, etc.? Good gods. A steep slope facing toward the sun should have the exact same luminosity as a shallow slope away from the sun? Really? That's your understanding of how light works? C) Personally, I think your entire understanding of how light works is so distant from reality that I can barely even digest the gibberish. But, hey, what are you doing on YouTube? If you think light works that way, guess what? It's in defiance of the entire physics community's understanding of light. And, you should be able to prove your assertions via the scientific method. Just show your calculations and your hypothesis in a physics paper, and submit it to any university-recognized physics journal on Earth. If you're right, you'll almost certainly win a Nobel Prize for rewriting everything understood about light. That comes with about a million dollars right there. But, that's chump change next to the fees you can charge on the university lecture circuits, book deals, etc. So, I truly fail to see why you're here on YouTube at all, if you actually believe you've rewritten the entirety of the physics of light. Publish. What are you waiting for?
    4
  1312. Arizona State University has a few hundred photos on their site (they manage the LRO camera). China posted their orbital photos on their site, but, you need to be a member to see them. India released a couple of their photos, but, sadly, most of them haven't been released. South Korea released a few of theirs. It helps if you actually look for the things that you deny exist.
    4
  1313. Well, how do you solve that problem? How do you get past the "listening to what people say" problem? Yes, anybody can say anything. So, "what people say" means very little. Personally, I base my beliefs on evidence. That way, it doesn't really matter what anybody says. What do you do to solve the problem?
    4
  1314. Have you tried doing the math yourself? Exactly how much exposure (in Rads or Sieverts) do you think they got, over what period of time, and what type? Can you share your level of expertise in radiobiology? Or, did a conspiracy video say "too much" and you just went with it?
    4
  1315. The answer is "no" for all practical purposes. But, technically, there are some trace gasses in extremely small quantities. Long story short, the moon has one trillionth of the atmosphere as Earth (literally). Can't technically say zero, but, at that low level, yes, it's perfectly acceptable to say it has zero atmosphere.
    4
  1316. "We as humans are stuck in our own orbit." Well, sure, until they have the new large rockets and craft ready. Why would you expect otherwise? Until Artemis, can you name a program that was approved by congress to send people higher than that? Can you name a rocket after the Saturn V was retired that was capable of bringing a large craft that high? "Due to the Van Allen radiation belts." James Van Allen disagreed with you. Every cosmologist and radiobiologist on Earth disagrees with you. "If you go though them it would be like a frog in a microwave." The Van Allen belts do not consist of microwaves, dewdrop. You don't know what you're talking about. But, please explain how the Soviets were able to send up two dogs into the thick of the inner belt (the worst of the two belts), and they lived for 3 weeks. Can you? Why are you on YouTube making these claims? Why aren't you demonstrating your calculations in the astrophysics science journals? "There's been no recent photos of the flag or the rover." Well, Arizona State University's LRO camera took a few hundred photos of the flags (their shadows anyway), and the rovers, and the rover tracks, etc. Yeah, most of those were about 10 years ago. So what? Why do they have to be "recent" photos, in your mind? Do you think something happened to them in the last 10 years? How would that matter? Let me guess, they must constantly take new photos of these stationary items every single year, else it's fake, right? If we don't dive down to the Titanic wreck and take photos every single year, this means that the Titanic isn't really down there, right? "And what the USSR claimed they left a rover there too. Yeah right." They put TWO rovers up there. One was lost for around a decade, because they couldn't hit it with lasers and get a bounce-back. They suspected that it may have run into a ditch and turned over, and/or was somehow completely covered in dust, or something. But, with some more powerful lasers, they have finally located it, and it's giving some bounce-back from the laser ranging facilities around the world. It's a weak bounce-back, but, it's there, and it's been found. The other one was never lost. "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake" isn't an argument.
    4
  1317. "The Haselblatt Camera" Oh, goodie. Another denier who cannot even spell what he's denying. It's Hasselblad, dewdrop. If you can't even spell it, what do you think you know about it that the engineers do not?
    4
  1318. "if you fake the photos it brings it all into question" Wow, how profound of you.
    4
  1319. "I can imagine similar issues" Seems that's where you get all of your issues, from your imagination... and that pipe you can't put down.
    4
  1320. When people claim that we didn't have the technology to go to the moon in 1969-1972, I always ask them to tell me the exact technology they think was lacking. 99% of them run for the hills, because they can't name anything. You actually opened by naming the technology you think was lacking, and it's touch-tone phones?? Dewdrop, what in the world do rotary telephones have to do with rockets?
    4
  1321. "Anyone with half a brain would know how ridiculous that is." I agree. Thankfully, though, those of us with full brains know better. Half a brain indeed. "They can't even locate the MH-370 Malaysian Airliner" Irrelevant. "which disappeared over the ocean, yet they locate something in a quadrillion square miles of space?" I don't understand it, therefore it's fake. "You are not being genuine my friend." Is this a joke? You're calling him a "friend" simultaneously to accusing him of lying to you? Yet, HE is ingenuine? Not you? "Exactly how much fuel do you think those little shuttle rockets had?" Wait, what? So, now, not only are you accusing the people who manned the worldwide radar tracking networks of not realizing that they couldn't track Apollo (despite that they did), but, you're now saying that the 7,000 engineers at Grumman forgot to put enough fuel in the craft? "We are not talking about rendezvousing over the ocean; we are talking rendezvousing over trillions...if not quadrillions, miles of empty space." What didn't you understand about radar? You asked the question, you were given your answer, and now you're just rejecting the answer and repeating the same nonsense? "And how exactly were they supposed to locate each other, since they had no way of triangulating a fix?" They triangulated via ground based radar located in various countries aiming their dishes simultaneously. The Earth is about 8,000 miles across, you know. And, that's enough to triangulate, by using radar from various countries at one time. Sure, they're tight angles, which means the triangulation wasn't super accurate (only 1 mile of accuracy). But, it's enough to get the two craft within visual distance to see the rendezvous lights on each other, and can do the rest by eye. But, again, that was only required if the onboard rendezvous radar didn't work. Again, as I told you, there was a dish on top of the craft, right in the center, and that's the rendezvous radar dish. I'm not looking up the accuracy of that dish for your sake (because you'll just ignore it anyway), but, I'm sure it's a matter of inches at that range. "Think about what you are saying before you say it." The irony. "You/we have been duped." But, dewdrop, you don't know anything!! You're saying that the thousands of people from dozens of countries (including enemies) who designed/built/manned the radar tracking stations around the world have all failed to understand that those tracking stations won't work, and that the 7,000 engineers at Grumman forgot to put enough fuel into the craft... yet, you have the audacity to claim you know better? And, you've come to YouTube comments to announce this to the world? What's wrong with you? "Aint that much mathematics in the world." Oh? One of my degrees is in mathematics. Are you here to teach me that my understanding of math is wrong? I mean, yeah, you addressed that to a different guy, but, I figured I'd chime in anyway. Top of my graduating class, every award/honor they had (not that I care all that much, because I abandoned mathematics for an actual field that pays money), but, you're going to tell me that you understand the math better than I do? Oh, please enlighten me. What part of the mathematics used on Apollo doesn't work? Be specific. "We are talking about two objects moving in an infinitely vast empty void with absolutely nothing to triangulate by." How many times do you have to be told the same answers? "Are you telling me that they had ground based radar...60s technology...on something a quarter million miles away" Yes. They used the very same dishes (some of them anyway) that they used in the 1950s to track Mercury and Venus. You do know this, right? You're an expert, right? Back in the 1950s, they used those radar dishes to track the motion of the surface features of Venus and Mercury because they were unable to visually tell the direction and speed of their rotation. Visible light just isn't that great for seeing things that far away (and Venus is cloud covered anyway, very difficult to know the speed/direction of the surface underneath). But, using the Doppler effect on radar is a lot more effective for stuff like that. So, when, in the 1950s, they had no idea about the rotational speed and direction of Mercury and Venus, they used those massive radar dishes to track the surface features, thus revealing the rotational data of those planets. They're several tens of millions of miles away. Yet, you're complaining about 238,000 miles? Yes, dewdrop, radar works. "when they had absolutely nothing on MH-370" Once again, you don't know what you're talking about. You're comparing apples and oranges. "It's time to wake up my friend." I'm all ears. Please tell me what I don't understand about mathematics, and radar. Write it up. Explain why radar won't work, and explain why "there isn't that much mathematics in the world." Can you? And, by the way, I'm not your friend, nor will ever be your friend. I don't befriend dewdrops who pretend they know more than the entire planet's experts, and accuse thousands of people of being criminals that would be thrown in prison for their entire lives for the crimes you're accusing them of, based upon "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake" logic. But, hey, you're telling me that I don't understand mathematics or radar, right? And, you're saying nobody else on Earth understood it either (because numerous countries were involved in tracking those craft, including the Soviets who did the exact same tracking with their own global network, and used it to track Apollo also). So, here's your chance: write up a scientific paper outlining that radar doesn't actually work, and that the results of tracking Venus and Mercury in the 1950s was not actually accomplished (despite that somehow they turned out to be exactly correct), and that "there isn't enough math" to manage to triangulate the Apollo craft's location. What are you waiting for? Your fame and glory won't be achieved via YouTube comments, you know. You have to publish. "Ever heard of the inverse square law of light and sound? Things in the electro-magnetic spectrum spread out exponentially when the distance from the source is doubled, and so they become vastly weaker." Um, dewdrop, that applies to omni antennae. It doesn't apply to directional antenna (dishes). Like, you used the analogy to light, right? OK, I'll go with that, because you're correct. A lightbulb would suffer from the inverse square law. As you get further and further away from the lightbulb, yes, the amount of light you receive drops off very quickly because of the inverse square law. But, a laser doesn't, right? Why? Because that's focused in one direction. That's how the radio and radar worked on Apollo. They used parabolic dishes that focus the radio/radar waves, a lot like a laser focuses the light. I'm beginning to think maybe you're not the expert you're pretending to be, if you think that the inverse square law applies to the dishes used on Apollo. Who told you to apply the inverse square law to the radar and radio telescopes they used during Apollo? Was it a conspiracy video? I mean, in the prior paragraph, I told you to write up your notions and submit them to science journals. But, if you walk in with this "inverse square law" notion, and try to apply it to radio telescopes with those big parabolic dishes, um, I'm afraid you're just going to be laughed out the door. "No amount of radar would have picked up a signal that far away, let alone be able to triangulate the location." So, MIT designed the radar tracking network to be used on Apollo. IBM wrote the code for the massive mainframe computers to use all of that input from the worldwide tracking radar dishes. But, they didn't realize that it wouldn't work? YOU know it, though? MIT and IBM were incorrect, and you are correct? And, the dozens of countries that focused their radar on the Apollo craft throughout the missions... including enemy countries... none of them realized that those blips they saw on their scopes were not actually there? Somehow, they saw the blips, and the blips just so happened to be seen by dozens of other dishes around the world also, but, those blips were NOT Apollo craft, huh? That's your position here? Again, why are you on YouTube? If you actually believe that none of the world's experts who designed and built the worldwide tracking networks understood how radar works, and you think you know better, what possible reason would you have to reveal this amazing understanding you have in a YouTube comment? Why aren't you writing it all up for science and engineering journals? "How could they know where the needle was in several quadrillion square miles of empty space without any form of triangulation? Don't say radar" What is 2+2? But, don't say 4. 4 isn't the answer. So, I'm going to sit here and repeatedly demand that you answer what 2+2 is, but, I'm going to reject the answer 4, and just keep asking again and again until you agree that 2+2 = conspiracy. "because radar would not work that far out, and even if it did, they could not possibly establish of a fix on the two crafts." Dewdrop, why are you even asking the questions, since you're making it 100% clear that you don't want the answers? You clearly have no intention of listening to any input. So, I'm not kidding here, I want to know why you're even asking questions AT ALL? The answers don't matter to you. You don't want the answers. You reject the answers. You think you understand the topic better than the entire planet's experts. So, why are you here?
    4
  1322. Because the James Webb telescope isn't close. It's a million miles away.
    4
  1323. Optical resolution. This is a property of light that directly relates to the wavelength. Go look up the formula to determine the size of lens needed to see the Apollo stuff on the moon from the distance of Earth. Do the math. The answer is that you would need a lens 75 feet in diameter to see the Apollo landers as a single dot, or a lens a quarter mile in diameter to see them with enough detail to know what they are. The only way to make a telescope "more powerful" is to make them larger. And, thus far, the largest lens ever constructed is 5 feet in diameter, and costed $168 million to build.
    4
  1324. "putting away all the salacious conspiracy nonsense" Pffttt. At what point did you put that away? Your entire posted message amounts to: "Apollo was fake, and the people who perpetrated it are criminals who would get a lifetime in prison for what I'm accusing them of" (which is the only logical result of what you're saying). "and looking at things from a true logical perspective" The irony is too thick for words to describe. "an analytical mind has to sometime wonder why it is hard to replicate the moon landing with all the technology we have today." They ARE replicating it today!!! Do you know nothing of Artemis? Artemis was funded by congress in 2019. They are trying to make the Artemis moon landings happen on a $35 billion budget, while Apollo (adjusted for inflation into today's dollars) was $300 billion in hard costs, and another $100-$150 billion in soft costs and international support. But, if you're talking about the time from 1972 through 2019, there was zero funding approved by congress for moon missions. It isn't an issue of technology. It's an issue of lack of funding to do so. "I personally do not buy that the technology to go to the moon was lost." It was "lost" in the exact same spirt that Concorde supersonic airliner technology was lost, and X15 mach 7 airplane technology was lost. The knowhow is there, but, the actual physical technology has been retired. "You do not loose old technology" Oh, look. Another moon landing denier who reads and writes like a 2nd grader. The word is "lose." Good grief. Is it too much to ask that people like you might know how to read and write before you slander thousands of people? Really? Look through these comments. They are a parade of barely coherent jibberjabber coming from people just like you... people who can't form a sentence, can't spell, don't understand punctuation, etc. It's irrelevant to the argument you are trying to make. But, good grief. The issue is that this is an expression of your reading and writing comprehension level. And, if you read and write like a 2nd grader, your comprehension is likely that of a 2nd grader. Case in point. "in a modern one which should be a piece of cake to replicate." Replicate? Why? Nobody wants a repeat of Apollo. Apollo was quite limited. They couldn't stay very long. They couldn't carry very much. They couldn't land more than about 20 or 30 degrees off of the lunar equator. They couldn't land on the far side. The list goes on. Artemis wants to be capable of doing most of those things that Apollo wasn't capable of doing. And, beyond that, what are you going to do? Replicate 1960s mainframes for guidance? Replicate 1960s radar? Replicate 1960s analog radio? There isn't a communication station anywhere on Earth that could, today, communicate with, or track, a Saturn V rocket to the moon and back. All of that hardware is long gone, replaced with more modern counterparts. And, do you really want to fly in pure oxygen craft any longer? That was abandoned in the 1970s. Yet, you act like going to the moon is just a matter of rebuilding a 1969 Mustang, sticking gas in, and going for a ride. Nope. Sorry, rocketry doesn't work that way. All of these systems are integrated. And, building a replica of Apollo is a very bad idea. "Comparing to what was available in those years" OK, name what EXACTLY you think was available in those years that wouldn't have done the job it was designed to do. Can you? "and taking into account that there have been more failures with the space X programs" Gee, and your "evidence" (not evidence) comes from a rocket company owned and managed by a conman? Really? Do you know what the most ironic thing is about this "logical perspective" you're talking about here? It's the fact that NOWHERE in this "logical perspective" of yours do you actually address the evidence. Nope. It's just a pile of "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." And, "why don't they try to replicate it?" And, "but SpaceX is a disaster, therefore Apollo didn't happen." It's ridiculous. The most "logical" thing (in reality, not your fantasy) is to analyze the evidence itself. Whether or not Apollo happened shouldn't depend on what SpaceX (a company that didn't even exist during Apollo) does or doesn't do. It shouldn't depend on what congress does or doesn't fund. It shouldn't depend on what internet nuts think should or shouldn't happen. Nope. It should depend on THE EVIDENCE. And, not once have you even mentioned the evidence for Apollo. So, don't sit there with this "logical perspective" of yours, and pretend that it matters one bit about what SpaceX is or isn't doing. Michael Jordan's kids didn't become professional basketball players, therefore Michael Jordan wasn't a professional basketball player. (That holds as much water as your silly comparisons between what Apollo did, vs. what any company today is doing.) "it seems almost impossible that an event, such as the moon landing, would have taken place with the technology of that time." Again, then name the EXACT technology that you think they lacked. Can you? What precise Apollo technology wouldn't have done the job it was designed to do, and why didn't the thousands of people who designed it ever realize that they failed to make things that could do the job? "I mean, think about how precise everything has to be when it comes to general flight in general so there is no mishap where lives are at stake, not to mention travel way out there, in what it is called outer space" Huh? What's your point here? Are you trying to imply that Apollo had no mishaps? What? "even if the moon is within the firmament" So, you reject the moon landings, which have a mountain of evidence. And, you accept a "firmament," for which there is zero evidence. Good gods. No, you do not get to claim that there is any "logical perspective" in anything you're claiming. "it would be to this day a monumental task." Yes. And, that's why Artemis is taking many years to develop, especially at the limited budget it has. "From a systems engineering communication standpoint, alone, I have huge reservations" So, you're a communications engineer? "considering that only in recent years we have technology that allows us to communicate via airwaves with clarity and more precision" Radio has been around a long time, you know. Long before Apollo went anywhere. "but even today present technology is not fully reliable within a given distance or area much smaller" OK, so, you're a communications engineer, right? Do you understand why that is? I could explain it, but, somehow, I doubt you're reading it. Most people who spew the stuff you're spewing don't actually read the replies to their own questions/comments. So, I'll ask now, can you prove you're reading this by responding with "green" at the top of your reply (if you make one), and then explain why Apollo's radios worked, but "present technology" isn't as reliable. I know why, but, I'm testing you. If you're a communications engineer, you'd know also. "in scale to what I think would be required in a feat such as a moon landing." Then, provide the calculations that shows that Apollo's communications wouldn't work!!! Don't just spew a sentence making that claim. Illustrate why with actual math. "Perhaps the moon is not what we have been told it is and maybe it is a lot closer as our senses tells us." Yet, an EME moon-bounce takes 2.6 seconds. How do you explain that, if you think the moon is closer than about 240,000 miles? "Maybe it is best to leave that celestial body to the will of God, as he intended it to be." And, once again, I thought you said you wanted a "logical perspective"???
    4
  1325. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake. Dewdrop, if you didn't want answers to your questions, why'd you ask? You obviously already came to your conclusion before getting an answer to your own pretend questions.
    4
  1326. Both India and China have photographed some of the Apollo landing sites from lunar orbit using Chang'e and Chandrayaan orbiters. They each released the photos last year. As you predicted accurately, the nuts simply refuse to accept it. They just conclude that India and China have decided to join "the deception" 50+ years later. Sending a rover for even closer photos isn't going to change that. India's orbital photos are even better than LRO's orbital photos (which already showed the landers, rover tracks, foot paths, shadows of flags still standing, etc.). The nuts reject them. They're going to reject photos from a rover also.
    4
  1327. Congress didn't fund another manned moon program. No funding = no missions. And, 20 year old technology? Math just isn't your thing, huh? The technology was developed SIXTY years ago, dewdrop. Not 20. And, why aren't you asking for evidence? Why are your questions about incredulity, rather than just plain evidence? And, dewdrop, numerous countries have acknowledged Apollo. Dozens of countries tracked the missions with radar. Australia and Spain received the video transmissions. I could sit here for hours telling you about how other countries have confirmed Apollo. But, even most recently, India confirmed Apollo. They have a lunar orbiter that has taken photos of the Apollo landing sites. Check out the photo from India's Chandrayaan 2 of Apollo 12. You can see the lander, the shadows of the flame deflectors and flag (still standing) just north of the lander. So, now that you see that other countries have confirmed Apollo, you believe it now, right?
    4
  1328. They just went beyond 400 miles about 2 months ago. But, what does that have to do with Apollo? Why should the veracity of Apollo be based upon what future generations do or don't do?
    4
  1329. Dewdrop, there were 9 manned Apollo missions to the moon, and one a couple of months ago that went into the belts. Given that you don't even know that there's more than one belt, you're hardly an expert.
    4
  1330. And, what proof/evidence have you even looked for? I'd eat my hat if you even knew what it was.
    4
  1331.  @ronaldgreene5733  You're not fooling anybody with your gibberish. I answered it before, and you didn't pay attention then, and you're not going to pay attention now. None of you people are interested in how this stuff worked. You're only interested in the ridiculous claim that somehow the thousands of engineers forgot to track the craft.
    4
  1332. Why should NASA spend a single dime on trying to prove things to internet crackpots that have no intention of listening anyway? They sent LRO up there, right? They spent a half a billion dollars on it, right? Arizona State University's camera onboard took hundreds of photos of the landing sites, right? You can see the landers, rover tracks, foot paths, etc. And, still, the dewdrop fringe rejects it anyway, right? China and India each sent orbiters up there that also photographed some of the landing sites, right? They showed the exact same thing that Arizona State University showed, right? It doesn't make a dent on the people who reject Apollo. They ignore it all, and continue spewing garbage about topics they don't understand in the slightest. What makes you believe that showing a flag in a vacuum chamber is going to be any different? Why should we waste taxpayer dollars on producing an experiment that has no purpose, other than to try to convince crackpots that they're crackpots?
    4
  1333. Yes, this is very easily explained. All of the examples of the crosshairs being "behind" something are from frames that are a bit overexposed. They happen almost every time the cameras were pointed at the sun, and the sun would wash out the crosshairs. Or, they happen with white objects and slight overexposure, and the white objects would wash out the crosshairs. Film is chemistry. And, the chemical reaction from the light can sometimes bleed over where a crosshair should be. One of the most telling examples is "Apollo crosshairs over flag." No links allowed, so, Google is your friend. Did the secret lizard people who were staging the landings put crosshairs onto the red stripes, but not the white stripes? Why do you suppose there are no dark objects where the lizard people forgot where to correctly place a crosshair, and it's always white objects or the sun where they botched the job? Or, hmmm, maybe it's a simple matter of being a bit overexposed, and white light is brighter than darker colors, causing more "bleed" on the images to wash out the crosshairs?
    4
  1334. I am "humbly" accusing thousands of people of being criminals.
    4
  1335. Why do people who would lose a game of checkers against a hamster believe themselves to be smart?
    4
  1336. "observations from Earth that could resolve the moon landers would require a front lens about 800 feet wide" Yeah, and you'd need double that if you want enough detail to barely make out that it's a lander (like Atari 2600 level graphics). Reasonably, if you actually want a half way decent level of detail, it would take a lens a couple of miles across. But, then you'd have atmospheric distortion, so, that's a different problem on top of it all.
    4
  1337. No wonder you don't know anything.
    4
  1338. Here's why your questions are a problem, dewdrop: they are immediately indicative of the fact that you don't actually want answers. Not a single person in history who has decided to go learn about Apollo (the normal way) has ever asked those questions. When people are first learning about how Apollo's equipment worked, they start with the rockets themselves, then learn about the progression taken from one mission to the next, then they start to learn more about the astronauts and their training, etc. And, along the way, they happen to pick up the facts about how the radios worked and how the rovers worked. You've jumped off of the normal path, and went straight to asking questions straight out of conspiracy videos. Sorry, but it's very difficult to take anybody seriously who asks silly questions (in the false anticipation that there are no answers), instead of simply spending 10 seconds to use a search engine.
    4
  1339. Man are still struggling to send "submarines" to the ocean bottom today in 2020s ...and in 1960s man already dove there and safely return back to land wow!.With lightening speed advancement in technologies we should have gone to vacation on the ocean bottom by today if we did that on 60s.
    4
  1340. paulanderson79: YOU SAID: "And remarkable camera control given it was being remotely operated from Earth." == Well, it took a lot of practice first. They didn't have the chance on Apollo 15, because the vertical tilt mechanism on the camera had broken. On Apollo 16, Ed Fendell really struggled to keep the ascent module in frame. But, on Apollo 17, they put the rover further away from the module than they did on 16 (so there'd be a relatively bigger frame to keep it in), and Ed Fendell made several simulated practice runs right beforehand, and it worked out pretty well.
    4
  1341. Well, the 7000 engineers at Grumman who designed and built it looked at it for 10 years. You're saying you looked at it for 10 minutes. And, you think you know more in 10 minutes than the engineers who designed and built it for 10 years?
    4
  1342. Dewdrop, why do you people think this Antarctica thing means anything besides what all of the press back in 1967 said it was? I mean, the conspiracy version is that they were looking for meteorites to pass off as lunar rocks for the Apollo missions, and somehow managed to find 850 pounds of them on this one trip (which is about as likely as my backyard containing Jed Clampett's oil, De Beers' diamonds, and Montezuma's treasure, all in one place). And, why would they publicize the Antarctic exploration so much, such that they were in all of the newspapers, magazines, etc., with bunches of articles written by Werner Von Braun and others? What is it that you think you understand about going to Antarctica that nobody else on the planet ever realized?
    4
  1343. You've spoken to ZERO experts on any of these topics you pretend you have. And, every time you're proven wrong, you run for the hills.
    4
  1344. This has been answered, but, to emphasize a few things in different wording: 1) They used compressed oxygen in some of the tanks, and liquid oxygen in other tanks for other things. The oxygen for breathing was compressed. You are referring to volumes of air at atmospheric pressure, not the volume of oxygen a high pressure tank. 2) In addition to #1, air is only 20% oxygen. They breathed 100% oxygen. So, already, your claim about 2,000 gallons a day is skewed. As it turns out, even that's irrelevant anyway, because the only thing that mattered is to understand how much oxygen the human body needs, but, my point is that you don't know what you're talking about. 3) When humans breathe 2,000 gallons per day, guess what? Most of it is completely wasted. We breathe in, and out, and most of the oxygen never gets absorbed. Our lungs only absorb a small percentage of the oxygen in each breath. But, the Apollo craft were essentially big rebreathers. You're breathing the very same oxygen over and over and over, until the body absorbs/consumes it. No waste. 4) Did you REALLY believe that none of the thousands of engineers remembered to include enough oxygen to breathe? Really?
    4
  1345. "Explain how they made it through the Van Allen belt then." By going quickly. Can you explain why you're concerned about them? Did a conspiracy video tell you Apollo's astronauts wouldn't be able to do it?
    4
  1346. "Explain that the Saturn V engines had enough fuel to get it to the moon." Huh? What explanation do you want? There was enough fuel. You can calculate it yourself. It's called the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation from 1903. Goddard also replicated the formulas also (it's more of a derivation than a creation, and anybody can do it). What are you waiting for? It's been the cornerstone of all rocketry since long before NASA existed, and still remains the cornerstone today.
    4
  1347. "the films max rating of 50 degree Celsius" Um, ok, how many times must you be told that all Apollo missions landed in the lunar morning, long before the super high temperatures? How many times must you also be told that temperature doesn't work that way in space? Heat transfer is basically just radiant. How hot do you think it gets inside an aluminum canister lined with silver, designed to reflect the sun's energy? Why didn't Kodak and Hasselblad figure out this simple stuff you think you've figured out?
    4
  1348. "At the time of the Apollo 11 landing, the temperature at the landing site, Tranquility Base, was approximately 107 degrees Celsius" Ridiculous nonsense. First of all, any Google search would show you instantly that you're wrong. (-23°C to 7°C.) Secondly, they always landed early in the lunar morning, basically just after dawn. The temperatures don't get up that high until about a week later (high noon on the moon).
    4
  1349. YOU SAID: "I have been hearing that the "public had lost interest" for years.....bullshit." == Not bullshit. Everyone knew who Aldrin, Armstrong, and Collins were. But, by the time they got to the later missions, few people even knew who the astronauts were. Armstrong couldn't go out in public without being ambushed by fans. But, the later astronauts were rarely recognized in public. YOU SAID: "They wanted an excuse to get the public off their back." == "Excuse"?? The public wanted to stop spending money on Apollo. Why is stopping spending money on Apollo an "excuse"? YOU SAID: "the space program had a secret component from the beggining." == Pfftt. Apollo got funded under the premise that it would NOT have a secret component. Apollo got funded under the premise that it would be 100% transparent, and that there wouldn't be any intellectual property whatsoever. Everything developed for Apollo was public. No trademark. No copyrights. No patents. No vendors' names on the equipment. Full press access to everything and everybody. That was congress' condition for funding Apollo. Oh, but YOU know otherwise, huh? So, what secret component was there in Apollo? And, how do YOU know about it, if it was secret? YOU SAID: "the time came and that component simply didn't need the public component any longer." == What was the secret component? I mean, this is the amazing thing about unfalsifiable claims. This is why unfalsifiable claims are gibberish. Sorry, but if it's so secret that nobody knows about it, then you can't make the claim. YOU SAID: "so the media stopped talking about it." == So, the media is in on it?? How does THAT go? You think the media was soooooooo out of touch with their viewer/reader base that they simply refused to feed the public the stories that the public wanted to see?? And, why? Because the media was in on "the secret"?? How ridiculous are you? If it's a secret, how could the press be in on it? YOU SAID: "because the "public lost interest" LOL! If you believe that....... your beyond salvation." == My beyond salvation?? Learn English, you moron.
    4
  1350. See, most people resolve this by looking at the EVIDENCE and then deciding what to think of it. Not you, though. In your mind, if some husbands cheat on their wives, all of them do. If some car mechanics charge for oil changes they don't even perform, all of them do. Whether or not there's ample evidence for Apollo, is irrelevant to you. To you, if the government lied about something last year, they lied about 55 years ago also, and that's your sole criteria.
    4
  1351.  @therealzilch  His high school graduation.
    4
  1352. Sorry, but when your best "evidence" is looking at people's faces a month after their mission, after being stuck in quarantine for weeks, then only sleeping on airplanes as they are flown from city to city for all kinds of speaking engagements, parades, etc., then being stuck in a boring scripted press conference... yeah... you've got nothing.
    4
  1353. Who told you the original footage was all lost? Why would you believe such a silly thing?
    4
  1354. First: state your conclusion. Second: demonstrate that you don't know what you're saying. Third: read and write like a 2nd grader. Fourth: pretend to ask a question. Fifth: ignore the answer.
    4
  1355. Are you talking about the nut who tried to climb onto the lunar lander, and got booted out for it? So, he eyeballed it, and attempted to use some sort of laser ranging equipment to measure the door from afar instead? Is that what you're referring to? An engineer, huh? Really? And, how does this go, in your mind? The 7,000 engineers at Grumman who built the lunar module all forgot to make the door big enough to get through? Seriously? And, you'll trust a nut who nearly got himself arrested, rather than the 7,000 engineers who designed and built the craft?
    4
  1356. No gun? Huh? What do you call the thing on the ground next to the 2x4 piece of wood at 5:02 in the video? What do you call the thing in his hand as the car door opened, pointed at the officer? Why in the world would you say there was no gun? The family acknowledges he went there with a gun. The family's attorney acknowledges the gun. Why don't you? And, huh? He went to investigate a car while wearing a balaclava ski mask in the middle of a Kentucky summer, and YES, carrying a gun?
    4
  1357. Why? You support premeditated murder?
    4
  1358. Bart Sibrel? The convicted criminal taxi cab driver? The guy who has been debunked a million times over, and caught lying more times than Bernie Madoff? The video where, at the end, he shows this "round window trick" to pretend the astronauts were in low Earth orbit instead of half way to the moon... but he forgot that, if that was true, the clouds should be zooming by the window at 17,500 mph, but, whoops, the clouds aren't moving? That video? That's your "evidence"?
    4
  1359. "What kind of film" Kodak 70mm. "did neil buzz use in their cameras?" They had only one of that type of camera on the lunar surface on that particular mission, which they passed between each other. "To keep it from freezing?" Temperature doesn't work the same in space as it does in an atmosphere. Go take a physics class. "I've seen nat geo vids from artic Circle and photos have to use cameras for short time or they freeze and lithium Batts would die." Irrelevant. "I guess we'll have to wait if robot Rover will reveal truth of all apollo landing sites." Pffttt. Why? "Also you know china would do anything to discredit u.s. landings with their moon orbiter." Yes, I'm sure they'd have loved to discredit the USA with their orbiters. But, the opposite happened. China released photos of one of the Apollo landing sites from their orbiter, showing the lunar module still exactly where it's supposed to be on the lunar surface. "Did apollo 8 actually orbitthe moon too??" Yes, 10 times.
    4
  1360. "Anyone who has actually studied this" Um, sorry, dewdrop. Watching conspiracy videos isn't studying.
    4
  1361. "1. ALL the telemetry data is "missing". That's ridiculous." Yes, you're right. That is ridiculous. So, why do you believe it? Because a conspiracy video told you?
    4
  1362. "2. The film used in the cameras -- nor the cameras themselves would have operated properly under the extreme temperatures on the moon." Dewdrop, they didn't take the film out of the canisters and put it on the lunar surface. They didn't leave the cameras outside to bake in the sun in between EVAs. You clearly don't know that a vacuum is an excellent insulator. Like, you know, a Thermos bottle... the vacuum layer in between the piping hot coffee and your fingers... you don't even feel the heat, less than a centimeter from your fingers. Same for cameras. The vacuum between the rocks and the camera provides excellent thermal insulation, and the cameras were lined with silver to reflect solar energy. Did you REALLY believe you understood this topic better than the engineers who built the cameras and film?
    4
  1363. "3. The film would have been exposed to tremendous radiation on the moon." What kind? They kept the film inside metal canisters lined with silver. What exact type and quantity of radiation do you think would have harmed the film? And, why weren't Kodak and Hasselblad aware of this?
    4
  1364. "4. NASA has said we cannot go beyond near-earth-orbit due to the Van Allen Belts." No, dewdrop. They said they wanted to test Orion and its electronics in the belts before putting people inside. They did the same on Apollo 6 (unmanned through the belts). So what?
    4
  1365. "5. No other country has sent humans to the moon." And, that's relevant, why? Why should the veracity of Apollo depend on what other countries do or don't do?
    4
  1366. "such as "puppet on a string"" Dewdrop, there are no strings. The conspiracy videos show you the communications antenna on top of the PLSS backpack, and tell you it's a string.
    4
  1367. Well, you could go look at the original mission photography. But, if you want to see what it looks like today, at this level of detail, no, we don't have any current photos.
    4
  1368. Gotta love the "lol" at the end. It really means that you're totally interested in the answers to your own questions. Sure. But, let me guess, you know the rocket was going nearly 25,000 mph at its peak. And, you forgot that the Earth's gravity is constantly slowing the craft down throughout the voyage. So, you think that it should have gotten to the moon in around 11 hours. But, it actually took about 73 hours. And, you think this is some sort of "gotcha." Am I right? Did I guess correctly? You forgot Earth's gravity, right? Edit for clarity: I was allowing for a couple of hours in Earth orbit first when I said 11 hours.
    4
  1369.  @remokit  HILARIOUS!!! "Hear say"? Sorry, dewdrop, if you cannot spell it correctly, you don't know what it is. And, yes, I read the police report that you obviously did not.
    4
  1370. You people are impossible to satisfy. If they take it easy, you people complain, "why didn't they jump 25 feet?" If they jump run, you people complain, "they are running around without a care." If you want to live your life afraid of your own shadow, never enjoying some adventure, hey, be my guest. But, don't accuse thousands of people of being criminals because you can't understand that some of the astronauts took a few moments here or there to enjoy what they were doing.
    4
  1371. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    4
  1372. ​ @therealzilch  I think you meant the Venn Allen diagram.
    4
  1373. We could fly 100 people at mach 2 for 3000 miles across the Atlantic decades ago, but can't now. Therefore, it's fake because I talked to a gorilla and can't now.
    4
  1374. "They still have the problem of getting man through the Van Allen Radiation belt alive today" You are intentionally misunderstanding little 1-sentence quotes fed to you by deceptive videos. The Van Allen radiation is harmful, sure, yes. But, exposure time and capsule shielding matter a lot here. They didn't send the ISS, space shuttle, Skylab, Mir, etc., into the belts because those missions lasted long enough to actually be harmful. But, for a short stint through the belts in a couple of hours, no big deal. Are you aware that the Soviets sent two dogs in and out of the belts for 3 weeks back in the 1960s? They lived a normal lifecycle after returning home. But, if you disagree with any of this, why are you on YouTube? Why aren't you writing up your calculations and submitting to science journals on radiobiology and astrophysics?
    4
  1375. "HOW DID THEY FIT A BUGGY INSIDE THE LITTLE CRAFT?" It folded up. You can find many documents and videos showing this.
    4
  1376. "HOW HEAVY IS IT" 400 pounds (Earth weight).
    4
  1377. "LOOSE FINE DIRT DON'T MAKE VISIBLE FOOTPRINTS UNLESS THERE IS WATER" Well, lunar regolith isn't "dirt." And, nobody says it is. Under low gravity, and with the jagged edges at the microscopic level, yes, footprints are quite visible.
    4
  1378. "FINE DUST WOULD FLY AWAY IN A BIG CLOUD" Lots of dust did "fly away" on each landing. You should watch the landing videos sometime. But, a "cloud" is formed when dust gets suspended in the air. No air = no dust cloud.
    4
  1379. "EVER STOOD BEHIND A JET ENGINE WHEN REVVING AT FULL THRUST" With only 2500 pounds of thrust? Those are pretty hard to come by. Most jets produce at least 10x more thrust than the lunar module's rocket engine did.
    4
  1380.  @simonferrier7936  What ARE you talking about? None of my examples were "superseded with new and improved ways." There are no "new and improved ways" to fly across the Atlantic since the 1969 Concorde. There were no "new and improved ways" to build huge structures like the pyramids for THOUSANDS of years. There hasn't been another 13,000 mile long wall since China between ONE AND TWO THOUSAND years, even through today. There were no "new and improved ways" to sail around the world after Magellan did it, until about 50 years afterward. Good grief. You're just an idiot. Look, dummy, it wouldn't even matter if you're correct (which you're not). Apollo went to the moon.
    4
  1381. TRANSLATION: "I don't have evidence, I just watch conspiracy videos, and I believe every word they say without question. But, I don't want to admit that, so, I'm just going to say that there's too little space to explain it."
    4
  1382. Have you ever done the math on the size of lens you'd need in order to do what you're asking? There's no mechanism to invent a magical telescope that can see that level of resolution, because photons themselves are restricted by Dawes' limit / Rayleigh criterion. (The layman's version is that photons interfere with each other in transit, thus making it impossible to resolve small items from large distances.) The only thing you can do in order to solve this issue is to build a bigger lens. There's a well known formula you can use to calculate the size of the lens you need. I doubt you know much about doing math, so, I'll skip to the end, and tell you that it will take a lens about 75 feet in diameter to see a lunar lander as a single dot. It takes a lens a quarter mile in diameter to begin to see its shape. It takes a lens about 5 miles in diameter to start seeing the smaller Apollo artifacts. The largest lens ever constructed costed $168 million to build, and is 5 feet in diameter. We're a long way away from the lenses required.
    4
  1383. It's called "evidence." You should check it out.
    4
  1384. Good grief. You cannot even manage to post your response in the actual thread. As usual, your mind is just too far gone.
    4
  1385. Please elaborate on how you would have designed and built it differently. Be specific.
    4
  1386. I wish all people would be willing to display stuff like this on the internet. It would make the hiring process a lot easier. Usually, it takes months to figure out when people are so far gone, past the point of no return. But, people like you make it very easy to know that immediately.
    4
  1387. Oh, the irony. You read and write like a 2nd grader, questioning OTHER people's intelligence?
    4
  1388. No, you cannot see people from any satellite at 600-1200 miles up. Clearly, you never read the FAQ of Google Earth, which says its images come from low flying planes and balloons, despite that it says "satellite" in the caption. The far away views are from satellites, yes. And, I have no idea why they have still labeled their closer airplane views as "satellite" (despite that they're not).
    4
  1389. "They told us need to do the "bacon roll" on the way too moon" Barbeque roll. Not bacon. "in front of not cooking the astronauts about suns radiation." They wanted to keep the outer components of the command/service module at a fairly even temperature, so, they slowly rolled the craft. "Where did they the same thing on the surface of the moon ?" They always landed east to west. The back of the craft had the most heat shielding, because it faced the sun. They used a thermal blanket to help insulate the inner layers from the outer layers, using black surfaces to radiate heat, and shiny Mylar/Kapton foil to reflect energy, crumpling it to create vacuum gaps. They still use this method to this day for most satellites. "The stay there about a few days ( in later moon landing,) always at the day side ." A few days of Earth time, but, about 10% of a day in lunar terms. One day on the moon is about a month on Earth. "There more than 120 C Degree in front of sun light !!" Depends on the time. You're talking about afternoon temperatures. The Apollo astronauts were long gone before the surface got that hot. They landed early in the lunar morning when temperatures were about 0 degrees (C), and lifted off in the same lunar morning. You are quoting temperatures for a timeframe that the astronauts were not even there.
    4
  1390. So, you're just going to repost the same gibberish again? I asked you a dozen times, and you always refuse to answer: if you think you understand this stuff better than the entire world's radiobiologists and particle physicists, why are you not publishing in any science journals?
    4
  1391. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    4
  1392. Four different orbiting satellites (from India, USA, South Korea, and China) have photographed the Apollo sites and can see the landers exactly where they're supposed to be. Some even have the resolution required to see foot paths and rover tracks. It doesn't matter to the deniers. They simply just increase the number of countries involved with "the deception."
    4
  1393. So, if all of the employees and scientists (and, engineers too, by the way) thought that the stuff they built to go to the moon would do the job, then why didn't they just go to the moon? Who knew it wouldn't work, and how? If everyone, "all employees" (so you say) were duped, then I assume you're talking about some sort of management that somehow knew it wouldn't work. Right? So, what did those managers know that the hundreds of thousands of engineers and technicians didn't know?
    4
  1394. What purpose? How about giving the ability to travel over 20 miles, while carrying a bunch of experiments, samples, tools, etc.? Do you think they could do that on foot?
    4
  1395. "Soo...no one though of a 360' " Though what? 360 feet of what? Did you mean "degrees" (°)? Did you mean "thought"? "turn vid" Yes, dewdrop, they panned the cameras around 360 degrees numerous times. How about actually watching the Apollo videos instead of watching conspiracy videos tell you that they never did things that they did? Good grief. They could tell you that it was raining donuts on the moon, and you'd believe it. You'll believe anything a conspiracy video says, as long as it aligns with your predetermined conclusions. "air lock door being opened" What airlock (one word, not two)? What in the world are you talking about? How about first learning to read and write, then worry about conspiracies you don't understand, huh?
    4
  1396. Yet, Hasselblad and Kodak, the makers of the cameras and film, disagree with you. What do you know that the actual engineers who made the stuff didn't know?
    4
  1397. Gee, it's almost as if there was more than one camera on the mission, huh? Did you really want to understand it? I can explain the choice of black and white for the lunar surface. But, something tells me that you really don't care about the answers to your fake questions.
    4
  1398. You mean like the Carruthers UV telescopic camera they brought on Apollo 16, specifically for the purpose of taking those 125 photos of the stars from the lunar surface?
    4
  1399.  @michaelstillman1171  Yes, the astrologists predicted that there'd be ten million people who pretend to ask for things, thinking it's a "gotcha" that those things don't exist, not knowing that the things they're pretending to ask for... actually already exist.
    4
  1400. You're not interested in space radiation, and therefore reading a bunch of the thousands of studies that have been done. You're interested in slander, and regurgitating little one-sentence quotes as fed to you by conspiracy videos, that are intentionally taken out of context. If you really wanted to understand it, you'd be reading the source material, not some fluff article published that merely outlines at a very high level about why they're concerned about space radiation. Anybody who knows anything at all about radiation knows that time of exposure is one of the most crucial factors. Yet, the little article you're quoting from doesn't mention a single thing about exposure time. To anybody above the age of 11, this would immediately indicate that it's merely a summary, and in order to understand it, you'd need to read the actual studies the summary is based upon. And, once you do that, it is made extremely clear that they're talking about long duration missions (much longer than Apollo), and also talking about the possibility of extremely large solar flares. Already in this paragraph alone, I've elaborated more than the little 1-2 sentence quote you've provided. Stop pretending you understand things you don't, or PUBLISH YOUR RESEARCH IN JOURNALS ON RADIOBIOLOGY.
    4
  1401. Huh? You clearly don't know what a theory is in science. In science, there's no point at which a theory gets "promoted" to a fact. It's not like casual conversation, where you say "I have a theory." In science, that would be a "hypothesis." A theory, in science, is a model that explains facts. Like, in biology, there's the "germ theory of disease" (it's a theory that says diseases are caused by germs like bacteria or viruses). We have various diseases. We always find specific germs in the body when people have those diseases. We understand the mechanisms for those germs to infect people and cause the symptoms. When we get rid of those germs, the symptoms stop. But, there's no point at which it's ever going to be called "the germ fact of disease." It will always be called a theory that germs cause diseases, no matter how well proven it is. In science, the words "fact" and "hypothesis" and "theory" just don't mean what you think they mean.
    4
  1402. So, you believe the USA could manufacture moon rockets and landers, but, bringing a camera was just too difficult?
    4
  1403. Who said the footprints weren't disturbed? I'm sure they got some effect from the rocket blast. Wouldn't be even remotely enough to wipe them clean. But, yeah, blowing some dust from some of the footprints, I'm sure it would. I imagine that you might be used to looking at videos of rockets with millions of pounds of thrust. But, all we're talking about here is 3,500 pounds of thrust, with most of it being blocked by the descent stage acting as a launch platform. As a frame of reference, a basic Huey helicopter from Vietnam landing and taking off on sandy beaches used about 10,000 pounds of downward thrust.
    4
  1404. Pfftt. Is that what you call it? Um, no. Have you looked through these comments? Can you really believe any of the deniers are "critical thinkers"? Not a single one of them can read and write past a 2nd grader level. And, they never answer questions/challenges. They pretend to ask questions, but clearly do not want the answers. That's not "critical thinking."
    4
  1405. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    4
  1406. "You may want to re-think that." Evidence is what matters. "Have you not studied the lunar lander?" And, you're going to pretend you have? "Gold tin-foil" I thought you studied the lunar lander. Right? That's what you implied, right? The Kapton and Mylar foils... yes... so what? Please explain what you would have used instead? And, please explain why that very same type of thermal blanket is used on most satellites today? Can you? If you don't like the layered and crinkled foil method, please expand on the method you'd use instead? "and duct tape?" Not duct tape, but, close enough to let it slide. Yes, again, what method would you use to secure the layers of foil, if not tape? Please explain what you'd do, that the aerospace engineers at Grumman never realized? "No way we landed on the moon." TRANSLATION: "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." "Ask yourself this question: "If Armstrong was the first to walk on the moon, then who was already on the moon to take the famous shot of him walking on it?"" Is this a joke? Do you really not know where the camera was, and how it worked? I thought you said you studied the lunar lander?!?!? Why don't you know this? "Plus "who filmed the take off of the lander as it headed back? 1969." So, again, you don't know what you're talking about. Sorry, "how did [something] happen" isn't evidence. It's a question. Since you don't know the answer, all you're doing is saying: "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." "Black and white tv's," Black and white TV's what? You didn't finish this phrase. "land lines" Really? Do you really believe that radio didn't exist in 1969? "and no internet." Please explain why the internet was required in order to get to the moon. "Yeah right" TRANSLATION: "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake."
    4
  1407. "Have you watched the take offs closely yourself?" Yes, and I've had this debate (about the "constant speed") numerous times. I've calculated the acceleration myself, based upon the apparent distance traveled in the first second, then the second second, then the third second, etc. The craft is definitely accelerating. But, humans are remarkably bad at detecting acceleration when viewing. Have you ever watched a drag race from the viewpoint directly behind the race cars? They look like they accelerate very quickly, then stop accelerating and are just going the same speed the rest of the way down the track. Of course, that's not true, it's just that humans don't detect acceleration very well (unless you're inside the vehicle). The same is true of watching F1 races. Those cars are accelerating, yet, in most of the clips that aren't straight out of a tight turn, it just looks like they're all going the same speed. They're not, of course. But, from a distance, it's difficult to tell. This is why you need to do the math. Measure the distance on your screen that the craft travels in the first second, the second second, the third second, etc. Tell me that it's not traveling a further distance each successive second. Can you? Don't just cry "watch it." Use math. "The top of modules (all of them) are, or seem to be centered, as base of module wobbles around just after take off. Just like lifting a heavy object with a crane that is slightly imbalanced." You don't understand it. Almost all rocket engines since the 1950s (bigger than a toy rocket anyway) have gimbals. That's how/why a rocket flies straight. The gyro detects the slightest movement off of center, and the computer (or basic electronic/physical mechanism, depending on the era) adjusts the gimbals accordingly. This keeps the rocket thrust directed in a straight line directly through the center of mass. No rocket is ever perfectly balanced. So, gimbals provide the instantaneous adjustments that keep the rocket flying straight. No wobble. Yet, that's exactly why the lunar module does... it wobbles. It wobbles right from the start. It actually wobbles even more as it pitches over. That's because the craft isn't perfectly balanced. So, why don't the gimbals instantly correct this, so the wobble doesn't happen? Because the ascent stage rockets on all of the lunar modules didn't have any gimbals. That rocket was the most major component in the entirety of the Apollo program that had absolutely no backup. Every other phase of the missions either had backup systems, or abort systems, that could get the astronauts home if there was a failure of the main component. Not that rocket, though. If that rocket didn't work, those astronauts were stuck. So, what did they do? They made that rocket as simple as possible. They used hypergolic fuels/oxidizers that burned on contact, no ignition source required. They sacrificed energy yield also. Other fuels are far more efficient, and produce more thrust per pound than the hypergols. But, SIMPLE was the name of the game for that rocket. As long as the valves could open and close, the rocket worked. And, they weren't going to stick more moving parts onto that engine (like gimbals). The only moving parts they wanted were the valves that allowed the fuel and oxidizer to flow. That's it. No other moving parts whatsoever. So, no gimbals (which also saved weight and physical space inside the lunar module cabin). So, how did they keep the rocket flying straight? Well, they didn't. It wobbled. They allowed it to wobble. And, then they'd correct it with RCS. Go watch the liftoff videos taken from inside the module. You'll see as they're climbing into orbit, the craft rocks back and forth. That's the wobble. It's by design. They don't want the RCS firing every second, wasting fuel. So, they let the craft wobble, and then the RCS would correct (and over-correct). This meant a minimal amount of firings of the RCS, and minimal amount of complexity of the ascent engine. Astronauts described it like a boat on the sea, rocking back and forth. The exception was the initial phase of climbing straight up, when the computer did fire the RCS more frequently. But, after they pitched over, they went into the gradual slow wobble. Again, just watch any video of the climb taken from inside the lunar module. "proof of moon landings." Sure, but, there are mountains of proof. What is your opinion on the most recent proof, which comes from both India and China, each of which used the cameras onboard their orbiters to take photos of a couple of the Apollo landing sites. The most impressive is India's Chandrayaan2 photo Apollo 12. Have you seen it? It's got even better resolution even than Arizona State University's LRO camera from 14 years ago. You can see the Apollo 12 lander, the shadows of the flame deflectors and the flag just north of the lander, etc. I mean, sure, I would agree that no one particular item is "proof" all on its own. But, there are mountains upon mountains of proof from numerous countries. And, those India photos of the Apollo landing sites are mighty impressive, do you agree? "Wernher von Braun, the father of spacetravel did visit to Antarctica right before apollo missions." So, how does this conspiracy go? The most visible man in the entire space program short of the astronauts themselves went off to Antarctica to get moon rocks? No, not geologists or some sort of other experts. They selected a rocket engineer to go find rocks. Right? And, somehow, he found 850 pounds of rocks in Antarctica? Yet, amazingly, not a single one of the Apollo rocks show any scorching from entering the Earth's atmosphere at meteoric speeds. And, most of the samples are tiny dust fragments that would never survive entry at all. And, geologists from all around the world have tested them, and dated them as billions of years old, but never have been exposed to oxygen or moisture. And, the minute they get exposed to oxygen, they start to oxidize (like the rock version of "rusting"). Yet, none of the Apollo samples had any oxidation at all (until a few of them were taken out of their vacuum seals). And, not a single one showed any sign of having been exposed to water (kinda strange for rocks sitting in snow, huh?). No? It was von Braun who found more moon rocks than anybody in history, before or since? Is that how this goes, in your mind? "What's in Antarctica" He liked exploring. "what does that have to do with spacetravel?" Nothing. Is he not allowed a vacation? "Antarctica is in fact the place that has the most recovered space rocks on earth." Yes, because it's fairly untouched territory and it's easier to find dark rocks among white snow and ice. So what? Are you not interested in EVIDENCE? You talked about "proof," but then you don't seem to care about it. Instead, it's "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." And, "Why did the rocket scientist take a vacation?" Nobody owes you any explanations. Look at THE EVIDENCE. Quit watching conspiracy videos that fill your head with distractions that don't mean anything. Thousands of scientific articles have been written about those moon rocks by geologists and geology students from all around the world. Yet, decade after decade, not a single article has ever claimed that these could be meteorites found in snow and ice. Quite to the contrary, they all say the opposite. "Why would the US fake moon landing? America was obsessed with space travel, Cold War, Nationalism, maybe fulfillment of a dead presidents promise, world wide publicity?" So what? Do you think the rest of the countries would just go along? Dozens of countries tracked the Apollo missions to the moon and back with radar and radio telescopes, including enemy countries. That doesn't matter? How do you think the USA "faked" that? Are we capable of faking the origin of radio signals, or faking radar bounce-back? "One more thing, 10,000 pounds of thrust, and there is soft, loose dust under and around the landing site?" Well, they didn't land with 10,000 pounds of thrust, did they? Apollo 11 landed with about 2,500 pounds of thrust. Other missions landed with a bit more thrust, but, not significantly more that it made much of a difference. And again, you can do the math. How much pressure/force is that per square inch? Do you know how to do that math? No? Well, do me a favor, if you will. Can you go over to the video "CH 53 Beach Takeoff" and tell everyone there it's fake. I mean, that thing landed on that beach with about 40,000 pounds of downward thrust. And, there's still a heck of a lot of sand underneath it. They then took off again after they fixed the problems, and those 40,000 pounds of thrust blew a lot of sand, but, it really didn't look like a big deal. Therefore, the CH53 is fake, right? Why are you worried about Apollo? Why aren't you debunking helicopters landing on beaches. I mean, back in the Vietnam war, helicopters landed on sand/beaches all the time, right? Why weren't they creating massive craters? Or, hmmm, could it be that vertical thrust doesn't mean what you think it means? "Seems fishy." No, what's fishy is that you know nothing about the topic, and clearly just watch conspiracy videos as your only input, and you don't know anything else about Apollo, other than whatever they spoon fed to you. It seems like someone with your intelligence should know better, and should focus on the actual evidence, not spurious arguments presented by people who lie to you.
    4
  1408. The descent engine was throttleable. The maximum thrust was 10,500 pounds. But, if they had tried to land at maximum thrust, the only direction they'd be going was straight up (no landing). The Apollo 11 craft landed with approximately 2,500 pounds of thrust, whether you like it or not. But, anyway, thanks for a few things: 1) You have abandoned any notion that you were earlier pretending, about asking questions. Clearly, you didn't want the answers. 2) You have demonstrated your true beliefs, instead of your feigned "neutrality." 3) You have determined that you don't want my input, and have decided in advance to reject anything I say. And, why? Because you didn't like the answers you were given. And, you've falsely labeled my answers as incorrect, because of your complete lack of understanding of rocketry. But, hey, be my guest. Explain to the world why the computer mode P66 somehow decided to land the craft at 10,500 pounds of thrust instead of adjusting the throttle to match the rate of descent selected by the commander, vs. the lunar weight of the craft after it burned off almost all of its descent fuel. Can you? Or, is a question like that the exact reason that you've decided to ignore all input from me? It might expose how little you understand, and might make you admit you're wrong... so... instead... run for the hills while declaring victory, eh?
    4
  1409. As usual, you hoax nuts come to conclusions first, then ask questions second. And, let's be serious here, you're not REALLY asking questions. You're only pretending to ask questions. I mean, Apollo tested the Saturn V twice before putting people on top. Yet, you begrudge Artemis for wanting to test the SLS once before putting people on top? Get real here. You know darned well that it's wise for Artemis to send an unmanned test mission first, with a new rocket, new capsule, new mission parameters, etc. And, you know darned well also that, had they NOT sent Artemis 1 to the moon first, you'd just be saying it's fake anyway. With you hoax nuts, there's never a way to win. "Oh, they wanted to test a new rocket and capsule before putting people inside? This means Apollo was fake!!" "Oh, they didn't want to test Artemis before putting people inside, this means Artemis is fake!!" No matter what, you people were going to scream "FAKE" every chance you got. Sorry, but, you cannot possibly pretend your "questions" are real. No thinking person would begrudge anybody for wanting to test a brand new rocket and craft before putting people inside. All you're doing is making up excuses to cry "FAKE" every chance you get.
    4
  1410. Well, let's see.... During the peak of Apollo spending, it took 4.5% of the entire federal budget in hard costs, and roughly the equivalent of another 2% in soft costs and international support. And, for all of that, they managed 13 Saturn V launches, and the largest payload they could carry to the lunar surface was a 400 pound rover, and another 100 pounds of miscellaneous experiments. And, the longest they could stay on the moon was 74 hours before running out of consumables. A moon base capable of sustaining crews of people for extended periods would weigh how much? A couple of a million pounds? How many thousands of Saturn V launches would that require to get all of that stuff there, and how many missions to assemble it all? What percentage of the entire federal budget do you suppose that would take?
    4
  1411. Is that all you're capable of? You start thread after thread after thread, each time, running for the hills and refusing to respond to (or even read, most likely) the challenges and questions. In one ear, out the other. Post a new thread. In one ear, out the other. Post a new thread. This is not a sign of strength, dewdrop. This is the absolute weakest form of thinking possible. And, good gods, just go take a photography class. Is it really that difficult?
    4
  1412. Dewdrop, the effect you're copying and pasting is so insignificant that it basically doesn't matter. Yes, a scientist might specify that charged particles will affect radio. But, to draw an analogy, a scientist will also say that a clear pane of glass affects light, right? Does it stop anybody from seeing through it? No, of course not. And, the charged particles do not affect the radio signal in any way that a sane person would say actually matters. Stop pretending you know things you do not.
    4
  1413. The original poster of this thread has just replied directly to me a few minutes ago in a different comment thread from 4 months ago, rather than replying in this thread. He claims in his reply that he doesn't see any evidence of dust in the landing pads. Apparently, he doesn't want to address anybody else but me, because he won't reply in this thread. And, I guess he has no idea how to find catalog numbers of photos that I (and others) gave him. The conspiracy videos he watches haven't taught him that skill yet.
    4
  1414. And, now the original poster of this thread continues to reply in the other thread from 4 months ago instead of this one (this time, he's replying to someone else, but, I'll copy and paste it here): Quoting from him: "The boot prints didn't match up with the boots the astronauts wore. "Users have been comparing a photograph of U.S. astronaut Neil Armstrong’s space suit with a photograph of a footprint on the moon and falsely claiming that the moon landing must have been faked due to the boot’s sole and footprint not matching." It is claimed that they left the boots on the moon but that would mean they went in to the capsule, took off their boots, purportedly put on another spare pair that didn't match the originals and returned to Earth. Why on Earth would they have done that?" No, dewdrop. They were OVERSHOES. They never changed the inner boot. On the lunar surface, they wore overshoes that strapped to the outside of the inner boot. ap11-S69-38889 shows you both the inner boot and outer overshoe.
    4
  1415. Do you even know what it would take to convince you? 99% of you dewdrops wouldn't be convinced if someone took you to the moon and you could stand upon the descent stages and could look at the footprints and rovers and stuff. You'd just say that those were planted there 55 years later.
    4
  1416.  @ThxChan  And, again, you won't answer. No wonder you believe silly things. Castle doesn't apply to this case. Castle is meant for defending from surprise invaders. It doesn't apply if you know in advance that they're coming.
    4
  1417. So, you're pretending to be an attorney... but didn't know anything about the Freedom of Information Act? Oh, yes, I really believe you.
    4
  1418. He doesn't really quite describe the laser situation all that accurately in this video. The lasers aren't able to be focused on that small reflector. Rather, they hit a large patch of the moon and then a few photons bounce back.
    4
  1419. There's no helping people who are proud to be stupid.
    4
  1420. QUOTE: "The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight. The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months' duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure. A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week. However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable. -- James A. Van Allen"
    4
  1421. Hilarious!! Why would you believe such a strange thing?
    4
  1422. Oh, dandy. Yet another poster with "peace" in the nickname, accusing thousands of people of being criminals. And, it's based on pure nonsense. If Earth's gravity doesn't pull people apart, how would the moon's gravity (1/6th of Earth) do that?
    4
  1423. So, you believe that loose protons and loose electrons cause things to burn, huh? And, you believe that not a single aerospace engineer or radiobiologist on Earth is aware of this, but, YOU know about it? Somehow, I don't think you understand this topic very well.
    4
  1424. "The two biggest questions have NEVER been answered or even addressed" Hilarious. Those questions come up daily in these threads, and have been answered a million times over. "going through the deadly radiation belt" By going quickly. It's only deadly if you stay in the worst parts for a week or two. "and how they heated and cooled themselves" Well, they had heaters, and coolers. The heaters were basically conventional. The coolers were porous plate sublimators. "at +250 degrees in sunlight" No, that's the surface temperature at approximately "high noon" on the moon. All missions landed early in the lunar morning, long before getting that hot. "and -300 in the dark." By not being there in the dark. Again, all lunar landings happened early in the lunar morning. It was daytime when they were on the moon. Yeah, it was a low sun angle, because, ya know, morning. But, why would you quote the surface temperature for the lunar overnight? "Batteries and/or fuel cells couldnot have possibly achieved this." Says who? Go tell Eagle-Picher that they did their jobs wrong, then. What do you know that they didn't know?
    4
  1425. Yet, these "anomalies" have never been found by any aerospace engineers, rocket scientists, or physicists. Instead, they're found by taxi cab drivers, warehouse workers, and yoga instructors, who make videos and post them on YouTube. Now, which is more likely, in your mind.... (1) These "anomalies" are legitimate concerns that the experts cannot see, but taxi cab drivers can? ... Or (2) You have gobbled up a bunch of complete nonsense that doesn't hold up under any actual scientific scrutiny? Let's hear it, what are these "anomalies" and "evidence"?
    4
  1426. So, you didn't watch the video that contains the answer to your question. And, now you're doubling down and basically saying you never wanted the answer to your question in the first place.
    4
  1427. coisansnatv: Oh, good grief. THAT is what you meant? Yes, the actual original tapes were of course re-used, as they had been every single time, for every single prior mission, and for subsequent missions that used those kinds of tapes. The procedure was to transfer the tapes to the archives (which they did) and to re-use the original tapes over and over. That's how the system was designed to work from day 1. And, that's what they did. And, that's what all companies on the planet did who also used that identical kind of system. What's your beef with that? You're arguing that NASA should have done it a different way?
    4
  1428. "The whole thing did nothing for the betterment of mankind." The primary purpose of Apollo was as a technological and industrial demonstration to the Soviets during the Cold War. It was a message: "mess with us, and we'll beat you, we will always beat you." At the time, it seemed inevitable that war was going to happen. Apollo was one of the primary mechanisms to scare the Soviets into backing off. And, many people think that Apollo kept the Cold War from becoming a real war that would have resulted in the loss of tens of millions of lives, and holes in the ground where cities used to be. I'd say that mankind benefitted. "And with technological advancements over the past 50+ years, you'd think we'd have the moon colonized by now." There's a huge difference between going somewhere and colonizing it. Do you see any cities at the bottom of the ocean? We've gone to the deepest ocean depth, right? We've even done it 22 times, right? Why is there not a city down there?
    4
  1429. "there’s a lot that went into it, which i didn’t feel the need to point out. I just went straight to the point." So, you had "lots more" you could have talked about, but didn't. So, your key point, the most important one, was the concept that Neil Armstrong (which you don't know how to spell correctly) criticized a rocket? THAT is your most important reason to reject Apollo? And, you're proud of this?
    4
  1430. Oh, get real here... parents (plural)? How much do you want to bet that it's "parent" (singular) at best?
    4
  1431. A conspiracy video told you that all records were lost, and you just blindly believe it. The amazing part is that you think the SANE people are the ones blindly believing what WE are told. Hey, dewdrop, Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. It has terabytes of the records and data you're claiming are missing. It'll take you 10 years to view it all. Come back here in 10 years after you've looked at those records and data, and I'll give you more archives that'll take another 10 years for you to go through. Then, come back and tell me it's all missing.
    4
  1432. Thanks for proving you didn't even read my questions before determining they were "fictional." Bravo. You're a real hero.
    4
  1433. The Apollo 11 landing site has been photographed by the following: 1) Original mission photography. 2) Japan in 2008 with its JAXA/Selene lunar orbiter. The resolution wasn't good enough to see the lander, but, it was good enough to be able to tell that the landing site had been discolored due to some sort of activity there. 3) Arizona State University's LRO camera starting in 2009, which took dozens of photos of the site over the years from every possible sun angle, and you can see the lander, foot paths, etc. 4) A few months ago, China released its images of the Apollo 11 landing site using its lunar orbiter, and it shows the lander in the exact same position as above. 5) Also a few months ago, India released its images of the Apollo 11 landing site, just like LRO and China, showing the lander exactly the same as above. After all of that, the deniers still do not accept it, and they conclude that all of these countries/organizations are seeking to deceive people. So, what do you think the results will be if they send (yet another) probe? Do you think they'll magically accept it this time?
    4
  1434. So, you know SO little about Apollo that you think Apollo 11 had a rover (it didn't), you don't know one mission from another, or maybe don't even know that there were 9 manned missions to the moon (6 of which landed)... that's how little you know about the program. But, you think you know enough to declare that it's fake? Dunning-Kruger.
    4
  1435. Huh? Are you complaining about the flag moving while it's being handled? What? Or, if not, then please name the timestamp that is bothering you.
    4
  1436. Your Nobel Prize is in the mail. Sunlight has a temperature now?
    4
  1437. You could also simply use Google for a few of such photos.
    4
  1438.  @randyschissler5791  There are lots and lots of photos. And, they pointed the video cameras at the sun also, once they switch to the hardened RCA version.
    4
  1439. Huh? It's fake because you don't know the answers to very simple questions? So, by that standard, calculus is fake, because you don't understand it. Brain surgery is fake, because you don't understand it. Metallurgy is fake, because you don't understand it. Dewdrop, you aren't presenting evidence. You're asking a pile of silly questions, demonstrating that you don't know anything about the topic. And, let's face reality here: you have no interest in the answers.
    4
  1440. You answered your own question again.
    4
  1441. Yes, you're correct. SpaceX and Tesla aren't full blown scams... only 1/2 scams.
    4
  1442. Wow, you really drank the Kool-Aid, huh? Nothing you're spewing makes any sense. And, I'll tell you exactly why. "the purposed temperatures on the moon (250F to -208F) from extremely cold to extremely hot" Yes, and that's the temperature range of the surface through an entire lunar day. From sunrise, to high noon, to sunset, to overnight, and back to sunrise again. These changes in temperature are very gradual. It's not as if sunlight hits the lunar surface and "bing" - it's instantly 250F. No. It doesn't get to its peak temperature until the lunar high noon and early afternoon. But, all lunar landings happened early in the lunar morning (with a sun angle of roughly the equivalent of 6:30am on Earth). So, no, the astronauts were never there for these high temperatures you're complaining about. And, no landing occurred during the lunar nighttime, so, no, they never experienced the super-cold either.
    4
  1443. "Apollo supposedly had near constant radio communication with Houston for days firing signals 250,000 miles back to earth over and over again" Um, no. It wasn't near constant. You keep thinking you have 500 objections, but, you still have not yet named a single one that holds water. "in addition to heating and cooling the lunar lander and providing oxygen, so those batteries hardly ever got turned off" Yeah, but, you're talking about most of the time just being an extremely slow trickle of electricity. They didn't have everything turned up to full power the entire time. But, how does this objection go, anyway? Are you saying that the 7,000 engineers at Grumman forgot to include enough power for the craft that they designed and built? And, you think you know better? You? You're batting 0.000 in your objections so far. Why do you think this one is any different? "and no they weren't that big." Congratulations. Your first correct thing. They were not very big, relative to actual car batteries (your comparison). As I explained, they selected a completely different kind of battery that would be wonderful for Apollo, packing in a heck of a lot more energy per pound, and not taking up as much space, yet, yielding far more energy than a car battery. That's the point. Bravo. You accidentally got something right. "Do you know how much power it takes for a radio station to create radio waves?" Huh? Like a radio broadcast tower? A decent one is about 100,000 watts. Why? Do you think that's actually relevant? "Probably more than a few car batteries." So, you haven't done the math, huh? Dewdrop, radio broadcast towers send signals in ALL directions. That consumes boatloads of energy. But, Apollo's radios had directional antennae (dishes). That consumes only a little bit of energy, less than a lightbulb. You cannot compare an omni antenna to a dish. It's not the same thing. Good grief. Any backyard amateur can go make a ham radio setup, and bounce signals off of the moon, with about 20 watts, and use it to talk to someone half way around the globe with a similar setup, with the moon as a reflector. 20 watts. Double the distance of the Apollo transmissions (because the backyard amateurs are sending signals to the moon that must bounce all the way back to Earth). 20 watts, dewdrop. "You can do math on the power required for all these operations and it far exceeds the batteries capability" So, the entire world's radio experts don't understand radio... but YOU do? "on the tin foil, metal tape and aluminum piped flying homeless shelter." You don't understand this topic either. Stop pretending you do.
    4
  1444. You're not the brightest bulb there, Mike. Stop pretending otherwise.
    4
  1445. So, let me make sure I understand you correctly. You made two replies. One reply said that you were going to ignore everything I stated, and you ranted about my "inadequacies" and other nonsense... anything you could to to shift the focus off of the facts, and targeting me personally instead, making it quite clear that you have no interest in anything I say. Yet, your second message was asking me more questions? Huh? And, your opening question basically proved that you didn't even read my first reply, because immediately, you claimed that I was saying that they couldn't jump more than a couple of feet... even though I clearly said that Duke jumped about 4 feet (double what you thought I said)? So, you won't read what I wrote, you'll ignore it, but, you want me to sit here and explain more stuff for you to ignore?
    4
  1446. I will answer what I assume you're talking about. If you watch any of the TV video, and do the math, you'll find that the dust follows the exact trajectory and time expected for 1/6th gravity. Remember, acceleration is a square function. So, 1/6th gravity doesn't result in 6x hang time. It's 2.45x hang time. A rock on Earth will go up let's say 10 feet, and come back down. A rock on the moon that goes up 10 feet, and comes back down, will take about 2.45x longer (again, because acceleration is a square function, 2.45 squared is 6). If you do the math on all TV videos, and calculate the acceleration, you will come up with about 5.3 feet per second squared as the acceleration. Or, 1.6 meters per second square if you go metric. That's the correct figure for the moon's gravity. However, most people who say that it looks like the dust is in Earth's gravity is saying so because they are watching 16mm films, not TV video. The fact is that most of the time, the 16mm films on Apollo were recorded at 12 frames per second, and then played back at 24 frames per second. So, you're seeing them "sped up." They did this to conserve on film. The reels only lasted about 3 minutes at regular 24 frames per second. So, the astronauts rarely (if ever) recorded at 24 frames per second. Frankly, off the top of my head, I can't think of a single 16mm film segment that was recorded at 24 frames per second, but, well, maybe I'm wrong. Doesn't matter. I mean, the Apollo 11 16mm film was recorded at 1 frame per second, because they didn't want to get back into the lander every 3 minutes to change film reels. And, some were shot at 6 frames per second. But, yeah, most of the 16mm film video was 12 frames per second. Thus, when you watch it at 24, it's double speed. 2x speed is awfully close to 2.45x speed, so, yes, at a glance, it sure looks like Earth's gravity. There are a number of channels that take the 16mm original films and up-convert them to higher frame rates by using CGI to insert the "missing" frames (the frames that were never shot). Or, you can just go look at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal and check out the frame rates that each piece of 16mm film was shot at. Or, read the mission transcripts and try to line it up with the video. (The astronaut almost always said the frame rate setting over the radio, so later it could be matched up with what he was filming.) Anyway, the bottom line is that I suspect you've been watching some videos, such as rover traverses, that were shot at 12 frames per second, and you see the wheels kick up dust, and you watch the dust come down too quickly for the moon's gravity, and you think this means it was in Earth's gravity. But, nope, it's a matter of understanding the frame rates of the videos you're watching. The sad part is that, on YouTube, or in documentaries, when they take a piece of film shot at 12 FPS, and then play it at 24 (sped up), they don't always tell you that. But, all of the original films are noted on the NASA archives with their frame rate (well, almost all of them, there are one or two that they didn't label, but, that's a minor quibble).
    4
  1447. Yes, it's willful. He knows that "in the solar corona" destroys his "they never saw stars" narrative. So, he intentionally left that part off.
    4
  1448. So, you're going to repeat the same incorrect nonsense?
    4
  1449. Stars during the daytime, taken by a low-res TV camera? Huh?
    4
  1450.  @eventcone  Well, my friend, I'm afraid it's probably YouTube doing that to you. If the channel owner doesn't permit links in comments, YouTube will auto-delete any comments with links. And, I don't think this channel owner permits links. I wish YouTube would tell you what's going on when you try to post your comment. But, they don't. Instead, they just delete your comment about 30 seconds after you make it. I guess I should say it's better than their prior algorithm, which was to let your comment post (or appear to post), but you were the only one who could see it. You'd have no idea that nobody else could see your comment, and you'd just assume nobody was answering you. But, about a month ago, they changed the algorithm. Still, the correct algorithm would be to tell you that links aren't permitted, thus giving you the opportunity to modify/fix your posting, rather than wasting your time. But, they don't. Instead, YouTube just lets you waste your time. A couple of years ago, I got in the habit of keeping my Chrome window open and signed in, where I make my comments. And, I'd keep an Edge window open, not signed in. Thus, when I'd make a posting in Chrome, I'd take a look in Edge (anonymous not-signed-in viewer) to see if the comment is really visible to everyone (you must wait 30-60 seconds, because it can show up and get auto-deleted afterward). It's worked ok, but, they still to this day sometimes "ghost block" comments if they don't like what you write (various censorship algorithms). There are still comments that I post, which are only visible to me, hence increasing the need for having a window signed in, and having one not signed in, to verify if others can see what you post. I know I'm off on a tangent, but, Google/YouTube is gradually eliminating a famous rocket scientist/engineer from history because of this algorithm. His first name is Max or Maxine. His last name cannot be posted, because the spelling is too close to looking like a homophobic slur that they censor, and the message will either be "ghost blocked" (invisible to everyone else), or will be auto deleted. But, his last name starts with F. Sad. The man was a legend in aerospace. But, he's been censored out of history by Google/YouTube because of the spelling of his name.
    4
  1451.  @Tim22222  There are only a couple from Apollo 11 (I'd have to double check), but, yeah, all you'd see is a tiny bit of the lens. Apollo 12's photos are much better.
    4
  1452.  @Tim22222  Ooops, sorry, I must have typo'd the photo ID. But, you found them anyway. Thanks.
    4
  1453.  @adeboyegrillo3408  Flags wave when being handled. There are inconsistencies in WWII reports also. There are reports of battles in 1946, after the war was over, for example. Human mistakes happen. So what? Technology has nothing to do with it. You clearly don't understand anything.
    4
  1454.  @surijosuperbaby  Why do you think it would be? Did a conspiracy video tell you that?
    4
  1455.  @samuelkebede4231  The astronaut was handling it, dewdrop. If he twists the pole, the flag moves.
    4
  1456. Huh? Video navigating the camera? What does that even mean? I do not understand.
    4
  1457. Photographic perspective. If the shadows had been parallel exactly in the photo, it would mean that the light source was right next to the camera. But, since the light source was 90+ million miles away, you get converging shadows, just like you're supposed to get.
    4
  1458. You have confused distance and resolution. Distance isn't the problem here. Resolution is. And, you cannot see the stuff on the moon with a telescope due to an offshoot of Dawes' limit (a term in physics that relates to how light works). Photons interfere with each other. There is no way to get that kind of resolution without making a bigger lens. You can calculate it yourself. It's called "optical resolution" and there's a well understood formula relating to the wavelength of light you want to see, at the resolution you specify, vs. the size lens it requires to see it from [whatever] distance. Bottom line: it would take a lens about a quarter mile in diameter to begin to have enough resolution to make out a lunar lander from this distance.
    4
  1459. What difference would that make? Japan's JAXA/Selene orbiter confirmed Apollo via comparing its mission photography to their lunar orbital 3D photography in a level of detail that wasn't available in 1969-1972 (except by actually being there). Deniers didn't care. LRO confirmed Apollo by taking photos of all of the landing sites, showing landers, rover tracks, foot paths, etc. Deniers just chalked that up to NASA CGI. China took photos with their Chang'e orbiter, showing the landers exactly where they're supposed to be at all 6 sites. Deniers say the resolution wasn't good enough. India took photos of the landing sites with their Chandrayaan-2 orbiter in the highest resolution yet taken from Lunar orbit, again showing landers, shadows of flags, foot paths, etc. Deniers pretend that India "joined the deception" 50+ years later. You can hand them a million new photos, and all they're going to do is reject them, no matter who takes the photos.
    4
  1460. Huh? The deniers don't want answers. Most of the time, they refuse to even read the answers to their "questions."
    4
  1461. Huh? LRO was sent to the moon (orbiter) and took photos of all of the Apollo landing sites, showing the landers' first stages, the rover tracks, the foot paths, etc., exactly matching the original mission photography. The deniers simply brush it aside and reject it as fake also. China and India both sent their own orbiters that took photos of some of the Apollo landers, showing them in the exact same spots that the original mission photography and LRO showed them. The deniers just brush it away and say that India and China have "joined the deception" 50 years later. How exactly do you propose it gets "proven" to people who intend, in advance, to reject the proof?
    4
  1462. I'll give you the short version, and you can do your homework from there. The fact is, this is a property of light. The photons interfere with each other, in direct relation to their wavelengths. The result is that, by the time the light gets to Earth, there simply isn't the resolution any longer, because the photons have interfered with each other to the point that you just can't resolve them, because those photons just aren't there. This is the optical resolution limit, and you can calculate this with a well known formula. The only way to resolve this is with bigger lenses or mirrors (thus, you're picking up enough photons that haven't interfered with each other in transit, because they were far enough apart). And, the grand finale is that you'd need a lens about 75 feet in diameter to see a lander on the moon as just a dot, or a quarter mile in diameter to see them with enough detail to actually know it's a lander. The largest optics grade lens ever constructed was 5 feet in diameter, and costed $168 million to build.
    4
  1463.  @stusue9733  I beg to differ. If the deniers want to argue that the 3 Apollo reflectors were placed there robotically on secret missions, then they have to explain how 3 moon rockets somehow disappeared without anybody realizing it, and how they got 3 moon rockets off the ground without anybody seeing. Those things could be seen for hundreds of miles. And, it took about 3,000 people 1-2 months to prepare a moon rocket (even one of the smaller ones) while it sits on the launch pad in full public view. Furthermore, someone would have to build a specialized lander (x3) with deployment mechanisms (another task that would take thousands of people). Yeah, I'd say the reflectors are darned good evidence for Apollo. Otherwise, someone would have to explain how they got there robotically. The Soviet ones were never a secret. Everyone knew they were launching those rockets to land those rovers/reflectors. To make 3 secret moon launches in the USA... that's another story.
    4
  1464. Yeah, Al Jolson, Douglas Fairbanks, and Rudy Valentino all lied 100 years ago about the moon landings.
    4
  1465. Aww, you poor thing. Your stupidity is showing.
    4
  1466. "No stars" And, who told you that? If you wanted to see stars, why don't you go look at some of the photos they took of the stars? "no crater under the capsule landing" Well, that means it worked as designed. Why would they want a crater? "what about the belt of van Halen" And, you don't feel the slightest bit embarrassed by writing this? "highly radioactive" Radioactive? Radioactive? Are you even serious? Do you even know what that word means? No, dewdrop, the Van ALLEN belts aren't radioactive.
    4
  1467. Which iteration was that, dewdrop? The original intent was to put about a dozen people on the moon for months at a time, and to do it with direct ascent. Yes, this would require a rocket many times larger than the Saturn V. Eventually, Apollo's mission profile kept getting whittled down to a craft only capable of taking two astronauts down to the lunar surface for between 22 and 74 hours. Which exact iteration are you referring to? And, why do you think you understand a topic that you clearly don't?
    4
  1468. Why should the veracity of Apollo depend on what future generations do or don't do? Why does it matter to you about whether they've gone this year or not? You know you'd still label it as "fake" either way, so, what's your point?
    4
  1469.  @stusue9733  I think it's the next new ED drug.
    4
  1470. It was 52 years between the first dive to the deepest ocean depth and the second. Does this mean it's fake too, dewdrop? And, WHY ARE YOU NOT PUBLISHING IN SCIENCE JOURNALS??!?!?! Why do you think YouTube comments is the best place to post your infinite "knowledge" (pffttt) on the topic?
    4
  1471. Funny, before they did that, they confirmed Apollo and took photos of all 6 Apollo landers on the lunar surface.
    4
  1472. Yet, the evidence keeps pouring in, decade after decade, and still, not a single one of the world's 77 space agencies denies Apollo. Quite to the contrary, more and more of them confirm it. Sorry, dewdrop. But, you aren't getting wiser. You're losing your mind.
    4
  1473. "If H3 is so valuable" It's not really. In theory, maybe. But, it's like diamonds. We don't dig for diamonds that are 1000 miles deep, despite the fact that we know they're down there. Why? Because it would cost more to dig down and get them than you can ever sell them for. Same for stuff on the moon. There's nothing up there worth enough money to justify the cost of retrieval. "why didn't the space shuttle slingshot out there, dump a buggy out the bay doors scoop up a few hundred pounds and bring it back?" An aerospace engineer, you are not. Good grief. There was no such capability in the space shuttle, and, even if there was (which there wasn't), there's no way they would have done it the way you're prescribing. You don't understand the topic. "Did you watch Stanley Kubrick's interview at his house?" Let me guess: you're so completely clueless that you watched 2015's "Shooting Stanley Kubrick" (a movie by Hollywood director T. Patrick Murray, with Tom Mayk playing Kubrick, basically made as a mockumentary to mock people exactly like you), and you thought it was real. Am I right? Is that what you watched? Dewdrop, that movie was made to demonstrate how gullible people are. You believe a guy who doesn't even look like Stanley Kubrick, is actually Stanley Kubrick, with spooky lighting and ridiculous content that makes no sense whatsoever... and... you fell for it. Right?
    4
  1474. For 1969? Yeah, they didn't jump much on Apollo 11. And, Apollo 12 had no TV video, so, you won't see jumping there either. But, after 1969, when you're talking about the missions in 1971-1972, they did more jumping. But, if you're comparing to Earth, then it's not fair to compare your jumps in a T-shirt and sneakers to jumps wearing a moon suit. If you want a direct comparison between jumping on Earth vs. jumping on the moon, then, that's what you need to do. You need to do an absolute direct comparison, where all things are equal except the gravity. That means that you need to strap on an 88 pound pressure suit, an 80 pound life support backpack with a 20 pound oxygen purge system and radio on top, and another 20 pounds or so in miscellaneous tools and stuff, double layered bulky moon boots, and then jump on Earth. That's about like carrying a 200 pound man on your shoulders, and then seeing how high/far you can jump. Then, you compare to the jumps you see in the Apollo videos. Personally, I'm aware that the act of jumping is far more complex than 1/6th gravity is 6x jumping ability. Jumping has a lot to do with the angles of your knees, the torque you can apply, and force = mass x acceleration (keyword = mass, not weight... mass doesn't change due to gravity, only weight does). I also tend to analyze the actual evidence for the moon landings, rather than grasping at straws to find some contrived reason of "logic" (using that term loosely) to dismiss them. "But, they didn't jump like I wanted them to jump" isn't an argument. It's a lame attempt to fuel delusions.
    4
  1475. Why? They already released their orbital photos. You can see the Apollo 11 lander right where the India orbiter shows it, LRO shows it, and the original mission photography shows it. The deniers don't care. They just say China "joined the lie." So, what purpose would it serve in having China spend more effort to confirm what they already confirmed?
    4
  1476. Dewdrop, you clearly do not understand how telescopes/cameras work, or what resolution they have. Don't pretend you do. Four different countries have used their lunar orbiters to confirm Apollo. Three of them have enough resolution to see the landers. And two of them have enough resolution to see foot paths, rover tracks, landers, shadows of the flags (the 5 that are still standing), etc. You clearly reject those photos, so, why are you pretending you'd accept ones from Hubble or Webb? Tell the truth, dewdrop, if you got what you're asking for, and they were able to take those photos (they can't, but, pretending they can), you'd simply reject those also.
    4
  1477. You watched a video that used clips from other missions. There was no video of the Apollo 11 lander liftoff.
    4
  1478. All you've done is continuously change topics. You refuse to even address your "evidence" one at a time. Every single thing you're asserting is wrong. But, you need to forget all of that. Your main purpose shouldn't be to slander people from 50-60 years ago, it should be to make sure your apple falls as far away from the tree as possible. Good grief.
    4
  1479. Alright, then here's your assignment: Go acquire a meteorite and use lasers to make them seem like they're not meteorites, and see if the world's geologists can be fooled by your rock. Don't forget to somehow adjust the chemistry of the rock to somehow make it so that it never has been exposed to oxygen or moisture also. Do the lasers somehow make that happen? What do lasers have to do with removing oxygen atoms from chemical bonds to the stuff in the rocks?
    4
  1480. "There is more proof that we didn't go to the Moon then we did." Good gods, that's not even remotely true. There has never been a single speck of evidence against Apollo that has withstood even the slightest amount of scientific scrutiny. Not one. Not ever. Yes, there are lots of conspiracy videos making claims and offering "evidence." But, that's like being a juror in a court case, and only listening to one side, and coming to your conclusion before the other side tears everything they say apart, and demonstrates that those claims are all wrong. "And everything's missing and erased or lost." Seriously? That's your evidence? Dewdrop, a conspiracy video told you that. Meanwhile, you can download schematics, operations manuals, mission logs, wiring diagrams, tracking information, photos, videos, the works. I simply will never understand why people like you just blindly accept these claims that everything is lost. Why? What possible reason would you have to believe it? Why have you not lifted a finger to simply look at the archives for yourself and find out that those claims (about everything being lost) are just plain wrong? "He got one or two pictures of the first man on the Moon." Because Armstrong had the camera much more than Aldrin did. (They only had one Hasselblad on the lunar surface EVA on that mission, and they took turns using it.) And, because, let's face reality, Aldrin wasn't exactly the most thoughtful person around. "Add color photo but you decided to use black and white." On Apollo 11? All photos were color. On subsequent missions, they had a mixture of some color, some black and white. Do you know why? Because black and white film has a higher resolution than color film. If they really wanted to have the absolute best photographs of the lunar surface, they didn't care about color (because the rocks were almost all basically gray anyway). The silver halide emulsion in black and white film just produces more clarity than color emulsion does. It's a simple fact of chemical photography. If the moon was really colorful, they'd probably not have used any black and white film at all. But, given that it's almost completely colorless, they decided that a lot of their photos would be best in black and white. Do you really care? Why is this evidence against Apollo (in your mind)? Are you even reading this? Can you prove it by writing "green" at the top of your reply (if you bother to make one)?
    4
  1481. But, dewdrop, you're not even responding to the comments/questions in your other threads. Why would you start another new thread (that you intend to ignore)?
    4
  1482. "Build another Apollo Rocket" Good gods. Do you know what that would take? What's wrong with just using SLS?
    4
  1483. Huh? They went to the moon 9 times, and landed 6 of those times. That's quite a bit of returning to the moon. And, Artemis is slated to return to the moon whenever they can get the rocket to work correctly. Why on Earth would you make any claims about a "lost" technology? Did you listen to one sentence spoken by one person, and decide to discard the work of 450,000 people for a decade of their lives, based upon that one sentence you intentionally took out of context?
    4
  1484. Well, it goes beyond keeping their mouths shut. They didn't keep them shut. They publicly acknowledged Apollo. And, in the case of China, they even published their photos of the Apollo landers on the surface of the moon as taken by their Chang'e orbiter.
    4
  1485. Apollo Lunar Surface Journal is the official archive.
    4
  1486.  @agentviktor3297  Oh, sorry. With the cult of Elon Musk, sometimes you can't tell who's serious and who's just joking. My genuine apologies.
    4
  1487. Huh? What would you do when a criminal points a gun at you?
    4
  1488. So, before you get the answers to your questions, you already came to your conclusions. Bravo. The Van Allen radiation is dangerous if you stay in the worst of it for over a week (or so). Hence, they don't go up into them with the ISS, because, as you already pointed out, those missions last for many months. Furthermore, the higher you go, the more energy you need to put into a craft. There's a big difference between lifting a craft a couple hundred miles vs. lifting a craft a couple hundred thousand miles. You seem to think that time is what matters, and not energy? Um, no. Thermodynamics. Go learn it. Yes, they send 4,000 pound orbiters to the moon, but, if you want to lift a manned craft, landers, etc. (total weight is about 100,000 pounds), that's a different thing entirely. Are you under the impression that the entirety of the world's aerospace engineers (who universally disagree with everything you're saying) don't understand how this stuff works, and you do?
    4
  1489. He spewed all of that nonsense, and you just KNOW that he's thinking, "yeah, I'm totally dominating here, I'm going home today!"
    4
  1490. Dewdrop, they didn't just launch like a ballistic cannonball and hoped to hit the orbiter. These were craft that had onboard radar tracking, and the ability to "steer" their way through space. For example, Apollo 11 lit the ascent engine 7 times before docking, and it took 4 hours to do the rendezvous. Each burn was carefully calculated to adjust their trajectory, make course corrections, etc., to meet up with the orbiting command module. They had onboard radar, as well as Earth's land based C-band radar tracking, using the Doppler effect and transponders. Spare the world your ridiculous notion that these were ballistic craft like bullets. Stop being proud to know absolutely nothing.
    4
  1491. Jose, I'd explain how the oxygen systems worked. But, you never once have bothered to even read the answers to your own questions. You post questions, then run for the hills. Time and time again. Why do you keep doing this?
    4
  1492. "Why US went to the moon?" Many reasons. But, the primary reason was as a demonstration to the Soviets of the technological and industrial capability we have. It was a method of telling them to back off, and not mess with us, otherwise we'd beat them.
    4
  1493. "What's the next plan?" Artemis. Its funding began in 2019. They have had some slowdowns, and have made a horrible choice with the Starship HLS, but, things are getting back on track, Blue is building a lander to use in the [likely] event that Starship doesn't work, and progress is being made.
    4
  1494. "Look at what Chinese did to moon." Lots of stuff. Are you alluding to the fact that they photographed all 6 Apollo landers on the moon?
    4
  1495. "Who is real, who is fake?" I'm real. You're fake.
    4
  1496. You can't even spell "Apollo" correctly, yet, you think you understand it better than the last 50 years of aerospace experts across the entire globe. You conspiratards are always good for a laugh.
    4
  1497. Even pretending that nonsense is correct... how does that change the fact that he was defending himself against armed attackers?
    4
  1498. Huh? Google Earth gets its photography from low flying planes mainly.
    4
  1499. Surprise surprise. Another denier who thinks all radiation is nuclear. Dewdrop, sound is radiation. Do you need a spacesuit for protection? Light is radiation. Is that nuclear? When you first heard the term "nuke it" (regarding putting food in a microwave), did you believe that there is a nuclear reactor in your mom's kitchen appliance?
    4
  1500. Alaska has an atmosphere, and temperature works the way you'd expect. No atmosphere = an entirely different form of heat transfer, and temperature isn't what you expect. And, sorry, but those extreme cold surface temperatures on the moon do not happen until the lunar overnight. They weren't there for a lunar overnight. All landings took place early in the lunar morning. And, since a lunar day is 708 hours (a month), sorry, they never even made it past mid-morning before coming home. Your entire argument is useless.
    4
  1501. Oh, you're a real expert. 3 Apollo missions to the moon? Not 9? Good grief. You don't even know how many missions there were. How can you pretend you know enough about the topic to declare that the entire planet's experts are wrong? And, dewdrop, unmanned probes fall into the "make it cheap and fast" category. There's a reason that manned missions cost literally over 100x more money than unmanned missions. The Soviets had the identical philosophy, by the way. The USA and Soviets were sending about a probe a month up to the moon back in the 1960s. Many of them failed. Some succeeded. If they failed, they just sent another. They don't engineer unmanned craft to the same extent as manned craft. Sure, they could spend 10x the money to make unmanned probes more reliable. Why? Which would you rather have for 10x the money? One unmanned probe that has a 99% chance of success? Or, 10 cheaper probes with about a 50% success rate?
    4
  1502. Can you just please put that on every job application you ever fill out?
    4
  1503. "Far too limited? How far up does NASA want to go?" See what I mean, dewdrop? You don't know anything. Apollo couldn't land at spots that were more than about 30 degrees (angle, not temperature) off of the moon's equator. They now want to land at the poles. Apollo couldn't stay on the surface more than about 75 hours, with about 22 hours walking on the surface, before running out of consumables and needing to leave. They now want to stay for weeks/months at a time, and do surface EVAs throughout. Apollo couldn't carry much more than a 400 pound rover to the surface, and about 100 pounds of experiments. They now want to bring lots of equipment to the surface to do a lot more research. Apollo couldn't carry more than about 200 pounds of rocks home (for any one mission). They want to bring a lot more material back home on future missions. Again, stop pretending you understand this topic. You know NOTHING, and you're extremely proud of it.
    4
  1504. "one need full control of the lunar lander thrusters beneath and around the lunar lander" Wrong. Not a single one of the commanders ever used P67 (the full control mode you're asserting, whether you know it or not). Every landing was performed under P66, with the "rate of descent" sub-mode. This gives the computer the control over the throttle, while the commander controlled pitch/yaw/roll. Before you reject Apollo, how about trying to actually understand Apollo? No? It's "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake"? Why didn't any of the hundreds of engineers at MIT, Draper Labs, and Raytheon, who designed and built the landing guidance computer, ever notice that P66 wouldn't do what they designed it to do? What do you know about the guidance computer that the designers of it didn't? "then gradually decrease and control the thrust" As I said, the computer controlled the thrust. The commander merely selected the desired rate of descent, and the computer made the gradual adjustments to the throttle to keep that rate. "As a result there should be a clearly visible crater created beneath the lunar lander" From 2500 pounds of thrust out of a 20 sq. foot engine bell cross section? Wrong. Have you done the math on that? The amount of pressure per square foot is less than a human's footprint. You're not cutting any craters with that. But, yes, under every lander, there are clear signs of rocket engines having blown a lot of dust. "There is/are clearly no visible crater marks created by the lunar lander's thruster(s)" Gee, it's almost as if the engineers didn't want a crater, and instead, used a 20 sq. foot engine bell cross section to prevent it, huh? It's almost as if they knew what they were doing, huh? "As well, the lunar lander is also top heavy and such that multiple thrusters would be needed on each side of the lunar lander" Oh, you mean the 16 RCS thrusters? Those thrusters? Where'd you get the idea that they didn't have the 16 thrusters? Have you ever even looked at a single photo of any of the landers? "Clearly, the moon landing were faked." Hilarious!!! Every single sentence you wrote was laughably wrong. Every single one. Yet, you think your conclusion is correct? "Decide for yourself." Yeah, I've decided that you have ZERO understanding of the topic you're pretending you understand.
    4
  1505. What difference does it make? There are mountains of evidence. Does it make a dent on your beliefs? About 9-13 years ago, Arizona State University's LRO camera photographed the landing sites in enough detail to see rover tracks, landers, foot paths, etc. It doesn't mean anything to the deniers. Both India and China sent their own orbiters to the moon, and have released photographs last year, showing the Apollo landers right where the original mission photography showed them. India's camera is the best one around the moon right now, and you can even see a spectacular photo of the Apollo 12 landing site that they released last year, showing the lander, shadows of the flame deflectors, and the shadow of the flag (still standing) just north of the lander. It makes absolutely no difference, the deniers still deny. So, tell me, what good would additional probes be? What EXACTLY do you think they're going to show, that the deniers will actually accept?
    4
  1506. They ARE vaporware rockets. He promises these massive cost savings, and doesn't deliver. He professes that reusability is going to drive the cost down to a fraction, but, it doesn't. I mean, sure, they fly (sometimes). But, it's nowhere near what's promised.
    4
  1507. Who told you radiation would kill them? Was it a conspiracy video?
    4
  1508. Hilarious! You need only look at the archives to get exactly what you are asking for. Film roll 40, frame 5862 through 5869 are photographs of Aldrin climbing out of the lander and coming down the steps. And, if you'd simply watch the 2.5 hour moonwalk video, you see the astronauts climbing back inside the lander at the end. But, I know you'd rather watch a video made by a yoga instructor that told you this stuff never happened, rather than looking at the actual photo/video archives.
    4
  1509. Proving again that all users with "awake" or "truth" in their nicknames are laughably crazy.
    4
  1510. "They would’ve been filled with excitement about the whole deal." And, how does this euphoria last? Do you think they're still jumping for joy like a 9 year old a month later? "They even sometimes looked at one another with an expression of being afraid to say the wrong thing." Look, dewdrop, you don't know what you're talking about. Stop pretending you do.
    4
  1511. The RCA TV camera had remote controlled pan/tilt/zoom.
    4
  1512. Yet, space shuttles, space stations, and numerous other craft orbit higher than 60 miles. I rest my case.
    4
  1513. Huh? Three different countries photographed the Apollo landing sites from probes in lunar orbit. USA, China, and India. You can see the landers, foot paths, rover tracks, etc. No, you cannot see the smaller items depicted in this video, and you cannot see the state the stuff is in after +50 years and hundreds of cycles of days/nights on the moon. But, you can see enough to know it's there.
    4
  1514. Do you really believe that starting 800 different topic threads, refusing to address any questions or challenges, and ignoring replies, is somehow putting you on some sort of higher ground here? Every single thing you've asserted for the past couple of months has been wrong. You've never once addressed the evidence itself. It's been a pile of "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." Dewdrop, do you really expect us to believe that the hundreds of PhDs and engineers at MIT, Draper Labs, and Raytheon, who designed the onboard computers, and IBM who built the ground based computers, all simultaneously were unaware that the computers they built were not capable of the task they built them for? Don't sit there and pretend your position is the "sensible" one. Answer the flipside of your own statement. In order to think that the computers couldn't do the jobs they were designed to do, you'd have to explain why none of the people who designed and built them were aware that they wouldn't do what they built them to do. Also, while there are no working IBM mainframes from that generation still in existence to simulate the tracking and guidance, there's at least one working onboard computer, and, guess what? It still works, and can still land the craft with inputs that would exactly match the live inputs during a mission. How do you explain that, if your position is that the computers weren't good enough? Why don't you answer questions?
    4
  1515. "So how’s the flag blowing?" Depends on the video clip you're referring to. The flags moved for a few reasons. When being handled. Just after being handled (momentum). When the backpacks or suits were off-gassing, blowing the flags slightly. When the lunar module was off-gassing from the porous plate sublimators, or from the purge valves. Static electric charge attracting nylon. Do you have a specific clip in mind, and can name it?
    4
  1516. "Why does space look like the back hills of Arizona" Can you name the geographic coordinates in Arizona that compares to any Apollo scene? Or, did a conspiracy video tell you to say this?
    4
  1517. "I believe you can orbit the earth with unmanned ships or satellites." Yes, you're right, they can do that... and this is relevant to Apollo, how?
    4
  1518. "The gravity, on the moon would not allow you to leave the moon." So, in your mind, a rocket can orbit Earth (as you just acknowledged), but, a rocket cannot do the same in 1/6th gravity? Huh? It's EASIER to leave/orbit the moon than it is to leave/orbit Earth.
    4
  1519. "The fuel resources on the ship would not be enough to get the astronauts off the moon or back to earth." The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation (the cornerstone of all of rocketry for 120 years) disagrees with you. Please explain why you haven't published your math in the physics and engineering journals? Can you?
    4
  1520. Why? LRO has flown over the landing sites with the Arizona State University camera and has taken hundreds of photos. China and India each sent orbiters that have flown over the landing sites and sent back photos. The deniers just shift the goalposts. They either claim Arizona State University, China, and India have all joined "the deception" decades afterward, or, they claim the resolution isn't good enough (even though you can see rover tracks, landers, foot paths, etc.). Why would yet another bunch of photos change anything for them? They don't care. You could show them photos of the serial numbers of the equipment on the moon, and they'll just call it fake also.
    4
  1521. Hilarious. Who told you Musk was the first? Musk himself? (Hint: you can trust Musk about the same amount as you could trust Bernie Madoff.) Why would you believe him? I mean, it's wrong from top to bottom, but, just at a glance, how about the McDonnell Douglas DC-X? That could take off and land a decade before SpaceX ever existed.
    4
  1522. Whoever exposed her? Hilarious! Um, dewdrop, she exposed herself. That's the entire point here.
    4
  1523. They did take pictures of the stars, and brought along cameras exactly for that purpose (some on the command/service modules in orbit, and the Carruthers UV camera for the lunar surface). But, beyond that, the problem is that it would have taken 20-30 second exposures to take those photos with the hand-held Hasselblads. That doesn't work very well for a handheld camera. That's why you always see photographers taking star photos on a tripod, facing away from any bright light source, and using extremely long exposures.
    4
  1524. "23:00 total instability at 1/6th gravity compared to solid steps on the moon?" Huh? He's standing there. I don't see any instability. I haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about, and neither do you. "If they jumped they would have to go 6 times higher in a jump" Really? That's how you think jumping works? It's just linear, that 1/6th gravity = 6x jump height? Um, no. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. But, let's pretend you're right. Let's pretend that it's a direct 6x equation. OK, now, here's what you need to do: go strap on an 88 pound pressure suit, an 80 pound PLSS backpack, double layered moon boots, about 20 pounds of miscellaneous tools and hoses and cameras and stuff, and jump. See how high you can go, while carrying about 188 pounds. That's essentially the same as trying to jump with an entire adult man sitting on your shoulders. How high can you jump with all of that stuff on? Then, multiply that number by 6x to fit your linear equation. Sorry, you don't get to compare your ability to jump on Earth with tennis shoes and shorts on, and then say it should be 6x higher on the moon because it's 1/6th gravity. If you think it's supposed to be a direct comparison that results in 6x jump height, ok, you need to compare apples to apples. How high can you jump while wearing an extra 188 pounds? "and suspension wires would have been unable to simulate it with the uncontrollable falls." Yet, they fell many times. You'd think Stanley Kubrick would have asked the astronauts for another take if they fell down. But, nope. He just left those falls in the videos, with the wires pulling them up, and said, "oh, good enough, nobody will notice," and moved on to the next shot. In a movie, if someone falls, they shoot it again. But, for the greatest deception of all time, nope, they just left people falling down, and gale force winds blowing the flag around, and said, "good enough." "They had full atmospheric pressure on the plane and "0"on the moon with no resistance." Um, ok, and this is relevant to jumping height, why? "The camera was not shielded from heat, cold or radiation." Absolutely false. They layered the cameras in silver, and encased the film canisters also in silver. This was decent protection from radiation, and bounced the light/heat away very nicely. "The film emulsion would have melted at 100º (boiling point of water) and instantly frozen in the shade." Really? You think it instantaneously heats up and cools off? Like, move the camera into a shadow, and BING, it instantly freezes. Move the camera into sunlight, and BING, it boils. Really? That's your understanding of thermodynamics? Funny that no physicist on the planet would ever say such a thing, nor Kodak or Hasselblad. Oh, but you know better, right? "The camera gears could not worked, being expanded and contracted radically." Have you ever considered that, maybe, just maybe, the reason you don't understand anything is because you can barely read and write at the level of a second grader? No? You believe you understand these concepts (butchering the living daylights out of them), and you believe that no physicist on Earth has ever noticed these "gotchas" you spotted, and somehow Kodak and Hasselblad just ineptly provided cameras and film that wouldn't actually do the job, and nobody has ever known about it for 50+ years until YOU came along.... Meanwhile, you don't know how to form a sentence. Is that actually how this goes? Or, does your understanding of physics equate to your understanding of English, which is basically at the level of an 8 year old child? "The professional level photos from that "mission"were just not possible." Huh? Why not?
    4
  1525. You seem nice enough, but, c'mon. Are you honestly even entertaining the notion that the entire world's aerospace engineers for 50-60 years have failed to recognize something as trivial as having enough fuel?
    4
  1526.  @stusue9733  They use "microgravity" as a term because, technically, gravity isn't 100% perfectly distributed in the Earth or moon. As they fly over a more dense area of Earth, there will be ever so slightly more gravity than a less dense area. We're talking about counting millionths of a G here, nothing any human would ever feel. But, for people who want to be scientifically accurate, they say "microgravity" instead of zero. Think of it like saying the vacuum of space. Technically, there's no perfect vacuum.
    4
  1527. The boots were actually overboots attached by straps. They wore the inner boot home.
    4
  1528.  @proto-t7k  THAT is your response?? Good grief. You people will believe anything you see, if it aligns with your delusions.
    4
  1529. "I also noticed that the lunar surface never gets smaller as they descend" You got that nonsense from a silly video made by a lawnmower repairman who made that ridiculous claim. Anybody can simply watch any landing video, and measure the size of the craters on their screens, and watch it increase as they get closer to the surface. You didn't do that, and instead, decided just to regurgitate an incorrect claim. You even got that wrong, because the surface gets LARGER as they descend, not smaller. You couldn't even regurgitate your claim correctly.
    4
  1530. What exact technology do you think they lacked? I mean, I've seen a thousand of you hoax nuts claim the technology wasn't good enough. Yet, I've yet to see a single one of you actually name the exact technology that was missing, and explain why none of the engineers ever realized that they failed to make [whatever] technology.
    4
  1531. "I remember seeing the arrest video fourteen hours after it happened." Nope. It wasn't released until 2.5 years later.
    4
  1532. China's Chang'e orbiter didn't "visit" the site, but, it flies over it from time to time, and has take photos from orbit.
    4
  1533. Did you even graduate the 8th grade? Good grief. No gravity? Heat? Radiation too strong? Government loves you? You wouldn't happen to be a drug addict, would you?
    4
  1534. Oh, what a shocker. Someone who cannot even read and write at an 11 year old's level doesn't even have an 11 year old's understanding of Apollo. Bravo, dewdrop. I'm sure you're extremely happy that your mind stopped learning things at 6 years old, but, wow, your poor family....
    4
  1535. Regular film would have worked, but, Kodak manufactured specialized film for space conditions. As for radiation, they put the film in aluminum canisters lined with silver. For the third part of your comment, yes, you can confirm you are correct by looking into your mirror.
    4
  1536. "with their hand on the Bible" Dewdrop, three astronauts swore on Sibrel's bible. After that, when the word got out that he was a charlatan, the astronauts knew better than to cooperate with him again. "punching the reporter" But, he wasn't a reporter. He was a convicted criminal taxi cab driver who made it his life's purpose to slander the astronauts. He worked for no news outlets of any kind. "It is a fact" You don't know what you're talking about. It's hilarious that your icon says "peace" on it while you're accusing thousands of people of being criminals based upon your own misinformation.
    4
  1537. You people are amazing. He was asked why they haven't been back to the moon in such a long time. He answered "we didn't go" and then proceeded to explain why they haven't been back to the moon in such a long time. The context was completely obvious. But, you cherry pick one sentence, ignoring the context, and accuse him of "confessing"? Does it matter at all to you that he talked about his moon mission with the little girl both before and after that one sentence? No? You're going to ignore that, and focus on one sentence? And, seriously, you can't even grant an 85 year old man (his age at that time) the courtesy of a simple mis-speak? I don't think he was mis-speaking, I think it's a context issue. But, even in your universe where you're going to cherry pick one sentence, you can't grant the man a single mis-speak in his life? You've never accidentally said a sentence incorrectly? He has said a million times before the Zoey interview that he went to the moon. He has said a million times since the Zoey interview that he went to the moon. He said multiple times DURING the Zoey interview that he went to the moon. But, you won't even grant the man the courtesy of allowing a mis-speak a single time in his life? Look, dewdrop: there's a reason that there were no senate hearings after that Zoey interview, no arrests, no front page news, no press coverage whatsoever... and that's because sane people understand the context of what was being said. Sane people can listen to the question, and understand the answer in context. And, even if sane people don't watch the entire interview to know what the context was, and all they know is a single sentence, sane people are willing to give a person the courtesy of mis-speak. Sane people do not assume that, after 5 decades of secrecy, Aldrin decided to "confess" to an 8 year old.
    4
  1538. Proving that every denier has the reading and writing skills of a 6 year old.
    4
  1539. "Just graduated"? 15 years prior? And, dewdrop, USC isn't in Hollywood. You're a real hero.
    4
  1540. Yes, with the limited payload, we really wanted them to bring back a bunch of useless junk rather than moon rocks.
    4
  1541. My favorite (not depicted in this video) was when she gave him her written decision on "subject matter jurisdiction" and he tore up the paper, then when he complained about it again, she asked if he read her written decision, his reply was "I don't have to read it."
    4
  1542. If you have a beef with the explanation of the Van Allen belts, do the math yourself. There have been hundreds of probes/satellites that have taken readings in the belts since 1958, by various countries. There are thousands of articles you can read, published in science journals, giving you the data.
    4
  1543. "Apollo 17...1986 photos in 844 minutes .......2.35 photos per minute Or, to put it more simply:Apollo 17........one photo every 26 seconds" They tended to work on their geology and experiments, then take a whole bunch of photos, then work on geology and experiments again, then take a whole bunch of photos. With the electric advance and hundreds of exposures per roll, this wasn't difficult. "Any professional photographer will tell you it cannot be done." Gee, then why didn't Kodak or Hasselblad, the makers of the film and cameras used on Apollo, say it couldn't be done? Why didn't any of their competitors expose them for participating in such a deception, since it's so "obvious" that anybody should know it couldn't be done? "Virtually every photo was a different scene or in a different place" Huh? Have you actually looked at the photos you're complaining about? Entire groups of photos in the same place. They usually took 2 or 3 photos of the same thing in rapid succession, just to make sure they got a good one. "requiring travel." Yes, and they took photos during the travel also. "As much as 30 miles travel was required to reach some of the photo sites." Wrong, dewdrop. No mission even traveled 30 miles TOTAL. There were 3 rover missions. The total amount of miles traveled on Apollo 15 was about 17. Same for Apollo 16. Apollo 17's rover drove a total of 22 miles. So, no, there was never a time when they drove 30 miles to any photo site. You have absolutely no understanding of the topic. And, by the way, you're mainly complaining about Apollo 17, right? Have you looked at the photo archive? Half of those photos were taken from the passenger seat of the rover, just clicking away constantly. Sometimes Schmitt would take over 100 photos while just on a single traverse from one station stop to the next. Click, click, click, click, every few seconds throughout the traverses. "Extra care had to be taken shooting some stereo pairs" Pointing and clicking = "extra care"? "and panoramas." Dewdrop, panoramas are part of the reason they had so many photos. They'd point, click, turn, click, turn, click, turn, click, turn. This goes AGAINST your position, not for it. "Each picture was taken without a viewfinder" Except for the ones with a viewfinder, right? You do know this, right? You didn't just listen to an interview with Aldrin from Apollo 11 when he said they didn't have a viewfinder, and then assume that no mission ever used cameras/lenses with viewfinders, did you? You investigated these thousands of photos you're complaining about, right? Like, maybe you can explain this to me (?): Video "Apollo 17 - 146:40 - 154:40" - at timestamp 58:18 ... what's that little thing sticking out from the top of the camera/lens housing? Kinda looks like one of those... what's it called again... viewfinders? "using manual camera settings, with no automatic metering" They mostly just set for infinity focus and 1/250th of a second exposure time. "while wearing a bulky spacesuit and stiff clumsy gloves." And a camera designed to work with that. "such a feat is clearly impossible" Then why'd they do it? I mean, you believe that all of those photos are fake, right? Why would they "fake" 9 trips to the moon and 7,000 surface photos (if you include the ones taken from inside the lunar module looking out the windows), and 110,000 orbital photos? I mean, this just boggles the mind... you people complain that things are fake, and yet, you're making their jobs more difficult with your own "facts." If they were going to "fake" photos, why not just fake a few hundred and say that's all the film they brought? Why 9 manned moon missions and 117,000 fake photos that somebody had to doctor up? "The quantity of photos purporting to record the Apollo lunar EVAs could not have been taken on the Moon in such an impossible time frame." Yet, nearly every photo has been documented with who took it, and when in the exact mission time. And, with 2 astronauts per landing, that cuts the photo workload in half. Sorry, dewdrop, but you've made it quite obvious that you never looked at the photos you're rejecting. Many of those photos were taken while the video cameras were running, and you can even watch them take the photos you're denying they took.
    4
  1544. Do you even know who that is? That's Bill Kaysing. In denier circles, he's considered the father/leader of the moon landing conspiracy, and the foremost expert on the topic. They believe him to be an accomplished aerospace engineer, who worked on the Saturn V rocket, and was a whistleblower who revealed to the world that the Saturn V F1 engine wasn't capable of doing the job. In reality, he worked at Rocketdyne as a document writer, and didn't have any credentials as an engineer (and wasn't an engineer), and left the company in 1963, long before the F1 engine was even finished. But, yeah, he was their main man for decades.
    4
  1545. First of all, why in the world are you quoting surface temperature for nighttimes? Do you think Apollo missions were on the moon at night? Secondly, why are you quoting the high noon temperature? Do you think Apollo missions were on the moon at high noon? Third, you clearly know nothing about batteries, so, stop pretending.
    4
  1546. "How did they transport a dune buggy when it barely fit 2 men? Seriously!" I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    4
  1547. "And drive it around when they were only only "on the moon" for 2 1/2 hrs?" No, dewdrop. The rover missions spent over 70 hours on the lunar surface, with about 22 hours walking/driving around on it. You clearly know absolutely nothing about Apollo, and you apparently believe that Apollo 11 was the only mission. No, dewdrop. Apollo 11 didn't have a rover.
    4
  1548. "Look up the video of Stanley Kubrick himself tells of making the video of the moon landing!" And, you don't feel the slightest bit of embarrassment for believing such nonsense? Really? "Shooting Stanley Kubrick" (2015) was a mockumentary video made by Hollywood director T. Patrick Murray. It stars Tom Mayk as Stanley Kubrick (who doesn't even look like him, but, that didn't bother you, did it?). He made that movie to poke fun at people just like you. There are several versions of it on his channel. Go take a look. I especially like the one that includes the outtakes where he calls the actor "Tom" and tells him exactly what to say. He uses spooky lighting to mock people just like you, who are willing to swallow ANYTHING, no matter how outlandish, to bolster your silly beliefs. Yes, look it up, dewdrop.
    4
  1549. And, it never occurred to you that they lost the FUNDING, not the "directions"?
    4
  1550. If we had GONE,, to the bottom of the ocean in 1960,,, there would be a Walmart down there!!!! The exclamation points declare it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    4
  1551. Once again, nuts never want evidence, they want to just "logic" their way into disbelief.
    4
  1552. Thanks for demonstrating that you didn't want answers to your fake question.
    4
  1553. Um, ok, but, I fail to understand who you're blaming. Who exactly is exhibiting this lack of respect you're complaining about?
    4
  1554. Another nut who asks questions, but doesn't wait for the answers before coming to conclusions. Bravo. True genius at work.
    4
  1555. Oh, what a surprise. Someone with the reading and writing skills of a 2nd grader denies the moon landings, and asks questions, but comes to conclusions before getting the answers. This is a total shocker. I've never seen this before.
    4
  1556.  @bradleyrex5861  So "secret" that HE knows about it.
    4
  1557. Let me make sure I understand you correctly here. Apollo, one of the biggest and most documented program in human history, lasting from 1961 through 1972, and then through 1975 for the Apollo applications programs, a total of 15 years, employing 400,000 Americans and 50,000 people internationally, averaging about a decade of their lives, costing today's equivalent of $300 billion in hard costs, and another $150 billion in soft costs in international support... is now summarized in something you're saying about "lost the technology" (or something you can't remember)? And, from those 3 words, you're willing to discard 4.5 million man-years of human effort? On a comment you don't even remember or understand. And, from those 3 words, you've concluded that they wrote down those 4.5 million years of human effort into a notebook, and now have lost the notebook? Do I understand you correctly?
    4
  1558. "The Apollo missions used a radio station in the remote Australian outback to 'repeat' the radio transmissions between the spacecraft and Earth. This had no purpose but to employ a tape-delay system" Oh? You don't think the purpose is to have spots on Earth that actually face the moon throughout the mission? Take, for example, Apollo 11. The USA didn't have a line of sight to the moon during the moonwalk. Australia did, though. See, there's this problem that the Earth actually spins. The USA can have a line of sight to the moon at 9am, but, by 9pm, it's out of sight. So, hmmm, how to solve this problem? Hmmm. Maybe ask Australia and Spain to use their massive dishes to receive those signals when the USA is facing the wrong direction?
    4
  1559. "just entertain the possibility that all these years, you might have been wrong" Can you even be taken seriously at this point? Have YOU done this YOURSELF? You clearly haven't even thought through these silly stories of yours. Your version of events falls apart instantly if you actually think about it.
    4
  1560. "the moon landing was the whole reason I got my degree in physics" So, let me see if I understand this claim of yours. You have a degree in physics. Yet, rather than using the scientific method to prove your point, something that anybody with a degree in physics would understand, you have come to a YouTube comment to offer your scientific claims? No? You don't make those fake rocks you claim are easy to make, and submit them to geologists. Nope. Instead, the path you've chosen with your physics degree is to go on YouTube and make claims in the comments section?
    4
  1561. "and there is no 3D data on the video eluding the moon landing" Are you under the impression that this sentence means something?
    4
  1562. Respect is EARNED, dewdrop. And, you're not earning mine with your abysmal behavior.
    4
  1563.  @gives_bad_advice  "microgravity" That's a term that replaced "zero gravity" in the modern vernacular. When orbiting Earth (or whatever), there are areas of greater density that cause slightly more gravitational pull over one spot on the globe than another. Hence, it's never truly "zero" gravity. So, between that factor, and the fact that there's no perfect vacuum, and there's no true zero-resistance freefall, etc., blah blah blah, they just replaced the term "zero gravity" with "microgravity" overall. It is not a term that applies to standing on the moon. That's not microgravity.
    4
  1564. Thanks for re-proving, as has been proven a thousand times before you, that all moon hoax believers have the reading and writing skills of a 2nd grader. If life cannot survive in the Van Allen belts, tell me, why did James Van Allen disagree with you? He stated that Apollo astronauts would receive less than 1% of a fatal dose because they went through quickly, and it would take at least a full week in the worst parts of the belts to kill astronauts. And, there are no space agencies anywhere on the planet that believe any differently. What do you know that they don't? Also, how do you explain that the Soviets sent two dogs into the belts, who lived for 3 weeks? (They probably got the fatal dose in a week or two, and it took a week or so to die.) How do you explain this?
    4
  1565. Really? That's how this goes, in your mind? +50 years have gone by, and none of the 450,000 people who worked on Apollo ever realized that they forgot to include a method to film the landing? Really? And, you've come to YouTube to announce to the world that putting a camera in the window is beyond your capability to grasp? Dewdrop, did you really want an answer to your questions? Or, let's face reality here, you're absolutely uninterested in answers to your own questions?
    4
  1566. Have you looked through the mission photos?
    4
  1567. Dewdrop, as I told you before (yet you ignored), they DID take star photos on Apollo. They took hundreds of photos from lunar orbit. And, they took 125 photos from the lunar surface using the Carruthers camera. But, since you don't read the replies to your comments, you still don't know any of that. No matter how many times it's repeated to you, photographing stars is about the type of film, the camera settings, the exposure times, etc., you simply refuse all input. And, no, I don't believe for a single second that you took a photo of stars.
    4
  1568. Family? You mean the husband and two sons she walked out on more than a decade ago to live a life of crime and drugs? They no longer even communicated with her, probably since before her prison term 6 years ago.
    4
  1569. The more ridiculous part is that you believe her. Why? Why do you believe the repeat felon was not given her meds? Because she said so? Do you think the "journalists" (sigh, not journalism, fluff piece editorial) didn't go ask the prison why they didn't give the meds? No? They'd just let that go without asking a single question? That's what you believe? What do you suppose the odds are that they DID ask the prison about the claim of not getting the meds, and they said, "oh, she says that all the time, she just wants more, she wants to sell/trade them, so she always claims she doesn't get them, it's very common for these criminals to make that claim." No? Does that make good heart-string-pulling TV? Nope. See, we're supposed to feel sorry for the criminals. Oh, but you go right ahead and take the word of a repeatedly convicted felon whose own family can't stand her bullshit any longer, and even they won't keep taking her in. As a side note, I have a bridge for sale. Interested? It's near my oceanfront property in Kansas. I promise, it's perfect for you.
    4
  1570. Shocker, a moon landing denier can't write basic words like "lose," and believes complete nonsense. I've never seen THAT before. Yes, dewdrop. Nobody believes anybody loosened any documents, nor tightened them, nor lost them. The ones that have been lying to you are the makers of the silly videos made by taxi cab drivers and yoga instructors that you love to watch.
    4
  1571. Well, there isn't a radiobiologist on the planet who would agree with your conclusions. But, there's a solution here: provide your calculations, and publish them in journals on radiobiology. What are you waiting for?
    4
  1572. Pffttt. Who told you such claptrap? Was it a conspiracy video? Why would you believe it? Have you checked the archives? Start with the official Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, which has terabytes of the stuff you people think is missing. That'll take you about 10 years to go through. Come back when you're done with that one, and I'll point you to the mission archives that store all of the logs and additional data, which will occupy you for another 10 years after that.
    4
  1573. 1) So, your objection is that if we don't/can't do it now, this means it was never done before, right? OK, so, please explain the EXACT rockets and craft you would have used to get to the moon after the Apollo program was retired by congress, and how would they have managed to do that without congress allocating a new program for it? 2) By your logic, does this mean that the X15 mach-7 plane was fake? After all, we've never flown a plane at mach-7 again (or even half of that speed) since the X15 was retired in the 1960s. And, it seems like your logic is that if it was done before, we are never allowed to retire that technology, else it's fake, right?
    4
  1574. How would going now prove or disprove the missions from 1969-1972? What does one have to do with the other?
    4
  1575. Have you heard the term, "peaked in high school"? That's what happens when people are at the greatest points in their entire lives when they're in high school... because they have utterly failed at everything in life afterward. See, Donna, most of us, ya know, the sane ones, actually did a heck of a lot better in life after high school, and we don't cling to the silly things we believed as high schoolers. Not you, though. You haven't been able to do better in your life since high school. So, you keep on clinging to the stuff you clung to in high school. And, in those 50+ years, what have you done to actually prove or disprove your beliefs? Nothing? Just "it looked that way to me then, and it looks that way to me now"? That's it? That's the best you could muster after 50+ years? I usually make it a rule not to pity others, but, in your case....
    4
  1576. "Hmm how come the LRO and other missions do not focus on this most historic site." LRO has taken hundreds of photos of the landing sites. What in the world are you talking about? "In 2024 we should have the technology to observe these sites in great detail from our orbiting craft." The detail isn't good enough for you? You can see the landers, the rover tracks, foot paths, shadows of the flags, etc. Yes, it's true that you cannot see the smaller stuff as more than just a single pixel. But, if you want more resolution, you need a bigger camera/lens, and unless you want a heck of a lot of wasted photography, you'd also need a bigger/better communications array to send back more data. So, do tell, what experiments should they have left behind in favor of a bigger camera and communications system? You have 4,000 pounds to deal with, and LRO used every pound of it. Should they have left fuel behind so they could put bigger cameras on the thing? Should they have left the detailed laser altimeter off of it, and gone with a bigger communications dish and radio? What would you give up in order to get more resolution from the cameras? And, what would be the point? Deniers know darned well that the LRO photos are good enough. They just complain about the resolution because they don't know how else to preserve their delusions. "Maybe when non government missions go to the moon we will one day really see the evidence." Oh? Like China's Chang'e orbiter that photographed the landing sites? Like India's ISRO Chandrayaan2’s photos of the landing sites? The US government played no part in those. Yet, two other countries photographed the landing sites, and you can see the landers, shadows of the flame deflector and flag, etc. Not good enough for you? "Until this I remain sceptical." Dewdrop, everyone should be skeptical about everything. Skepticism is a method of thinking. But, you seem to think skepticism is blind rejection. "Strange why we have not been back for so long." How would you propose NASA go back? Congress has denied any funding to do so (until they funded Artemis in 2019). So, explain how you think they should have gone back, when congress wouldn't supply the money to do it?
    4
  1577.  @therealzilch  Did you watch Conan and Jennifer Garner?
    4
  1578. Richard, just how far gone are you? C'mon man, this is just plain ridiculous.
    4
  1579. "US is struggling as if it is doing it for the first time" Dewdrop, the landing missions for Artemis are far more difficult. They want a polar landing (not possible for Apollo), longer stays (not possible for Apollo), more EVAs (not possible for Apollo), with far more science. And, they have to do it on about 10% of the budget that Apollo had.
    4
  1580. "refuses to give the exact location" Ridiculous. The exact locations are published down to within about a centimeter of accuracy.
    4
  1581. "point our telescopes and see the American flag" It would take a telescope with a quarter mile diameter to see an Apollo lander from Earth. A flag? As seen from above (not a very good viewing angle)? How many miles across would that lens need to be?
    4
  1582. "China will put the first man on the moon" China has published photos of all 6 of the Apollo landers on the moon as taken by their Chang'e-2 orbiter, and has publicly acknowledged Apollo, dewdrop.
    4
  1583. From a video camera during the daytime?
    4
  1584. It's not so much about enjoying being subjugated. It's more like an excuse. Rather than dealing with the fact that they haven't done anything that warrants getting somewhere in life (decades of education, hard work in a career path, show intelligence, etc.), it's appealing to think that they are being "held down" by an oppressive government. It's a way of avoiding looking into the mirror. Blame their failures on a government that won't allow anybody to do better in life.
    4
  1585. Gee, why didn't anybody else ever think of using a telescope?!!?!?! Wow, the world sure is lucky to have you. Either that, or, hmmm, just going out on a limb here, maybe it's because of the property of light, such that photons interfere with each other in transit, and you'd need a telescope a quarter mile in diameter to be capable of seeing just the lander, or many miles in diameter to see the smaller stuff shown in this video?? I dunno. Maybe you should write up a paper and submit it to physics journals, eh? Who needs those pesky laws of physics anyway?
    4
  1586. Really? You think you understand this topic better than the entirety of the world's physicists, and opened by asking such a ridiculous question about trying to see Apollo artifacts on the moon with a telescope, and, you believe you're directly over the target? Seriously? How far gone are you? Have you been diagnosed yet? Or, is it just one of those things where, in real life, you say absurd things, people look at you funny, and you go off thinking, "I really showed them!!"? Is that how your mind operates?
    4
  1587. Who told you the ground wasn't disturbed? A conspiracy video? You obviously never looked at the photo archive for yourself. Flat areas are flat. Hilly areas are hilly. Valleys look like valleys. Mountains look like mountains. Lots of big craters too. You obviously never looked at the photo archive for yourself. No, they didn't lose the data. Did a conspiracy video tell you they did, and you just blindly believed it? Yes, dewdrop, all planets/moons will have some sort of multiplier that adjusts for gravity, such that hopping along will look "correct." For the moon, it's 2.5x film speed (1/6th gravity works out that way). So what? Have you watched ALL of the films/videos at 2.5x speed, not just the simplistic motions shown in conspiracy videos?
    4
  1588. So, every physicist on Earth is wrong about physics, and basic Newtonian laws of motion are wrong? You watched some videos made by yoga instructors and warehouse workers that told you otherwise, and that's what you'll stick with?
    4
  1589. Wow, with evidence like that, who can dispute you? Your Nobel Prize is in the mail.
    4
  1590. So, you ask questions, but, before anybody can answer you, you already came to your conclusion. Dewdrop, why did you ask, if you didn't care about the answer?
    4
  1591. Dewdrop, why do you believe conspiracy videos that tell you that all of the telemetry is gone? In 2006, NASA announced that they lost two BACKUP telemetry tapes from one mission, and since that time, conspiracy videos keep increasing and increasing the claims about what's been lost. Some of the makers of those videos even take interviews about the two lost tapes, and then dub over the audio to adjust the interview to claiming that ALL tapes are lost (while anybody watching the video can easily tell that the audio has been replaced, almost as if they do it as a joke to see who's gullible enough to fall for it). Why? Why would you possibly believe such claptrap?
    4
  1592. "why did they not take a telescope that could capture images of the universe further out than any man had ever seen before." You don't really understand what that would take. In order to accomplish what you're talking about, it would take a HUGE telescope. And, sorry, but the moon's surface would be a lousy place to put it. It would be much better to place such a telescope in space, where you don't have to burn a bunch of fuel to land the thing on the moon, only to have the moon obscure its view of half of the sky. You'd need to wait 2 weeks before being able to point it where you want. And, why bother? The lunar lander couldn't carry a payload large enough for what you're asking anyway. You're far better off with a huge telescope on Earth, or just in space, rather than a tiny telescope on the lunar surface for that purpose. The only advantage the moon has for viewing stellar stuff is in ultraviolet light, because the Earth's atmosphere blocks most UV. So, yes, you could argue that if you wanted a telescope on the moon, it should be for the purpose of capturing star photos in UV light. Welcome to Apollo 16, on which they brought the Carruthers UV telescope/camera, and took 125 star photos in UV light. "Its because and astronomer would have been able to see any slight differences between renderings and actual stars." So, before anybody could answer your question, you already came to a conclusion? And, you really believe that a difference of 238,000 miles could be detected in photos of stars that are lightyears away? We have a difficult enough time establishing parallax (the concept you're talking about) when the Earth swings 180 million miles around the other side of the sun. We really can only detect the slight parallax of the very closest stars using that method. But, you expect astronomers to magically be able to detect parallax from a mere 238,000 miles? Math just isn't your thing, eh? But, ok, fine, go take the Carruthers photos from Apollo 16, and establish parallax from them, and show that they weren't taken on the moon, ok? What are you waiting for? "If they took 3 rovers to the moon they could have taken a small telescope with them." Hold on just a second. First of all, yes, they did. Apollo 16 - Carruthers telescope. Look it up. Secondly, you said in your first posting that you wanted to see stuff further away than any Earth-based telescope. You expect to be able to do that with a small telescope? Again, math just isn't your thing, eh?
    4
  1593. The USA spent about 4.5% of its entire federal budget on Apollo's hard costs at the peak of spending, plus about 2% more in soft costs and international support. That's about 6.5% of the entire budget of the USA. And what did they get for it? They got 13 Saturn V launches, resulting in 6 landings on the moon, with the largest delivery payload item being the 400 pound lunar rover. Now, you want a base up there? So, housing, medical, fuel, transportation, communications, power, crops to grow food, dozens or hundreds of people, oxygen, reserve food supplies, etc. How much would that weigh? About a million pounds maybe? If the largest payload Apollo could deliver was 400 pounds, plus maybe a couple hundred more pounds of miscellaneous, just how many thousands of Saturn V launches do you think it would take to build a base, and supply it (and resupply it) with everything needed to support a base colony? Maybe 1000 launches? 2000 launches? What's your guess? If 6.5% of the entire federal budget bought 13 launches, with the longest surface stay being 74 hours before needing to come home because of a lack of supplies, what percentage of the federal budget would it take to make a thousand or two launches? And, given that there's never been a successful "bio-dome" on Earth, how do you suppose to build one on the moon?
    4
  1594. Refuse to answer questions, change topics. Right? That's how this goes, right? Isn't that what ALL deniers do when backed into a corner, and rather than just admitting that they don't have the foggiest understanding of the topic, they just change the topic, and run for the hills, right?
    4
  1595. "The space suits look exactly the same in 14.7 psi on earth" Um, yeah, when pressurized to about 18 PSI, sure. What else would you expect? It's the relative pressure that matters. "would have looked like the stay puff marshmallow man" It's spelled "Stay Puft." And, why would they design a suit to do that? What possible reason would any of the engineers at ILC Dover want a puffy suit? And, what's the basis for your opinion? Have you examined the 13 layers of the outer garment made of ripstop fabrics? Do you know anything about the 11 layers underneath, including the rubberized self-sealing layer, which didn't expand or contract very much? What testing have you done? And, why would you understand the topic better than the hundreds of engineers who designed and built the suits? "in a pressurized suit in 0 psi." It was pressurized to about 3.5 PSI. Hint: that's a fraction of an atmosphere. They weren't trying to make the astronauts into blimps, they just wanted them to have a workable suit. But, hey, you're the expert here in aerospace engineering and spacesuit design. So, please elaborate. Explain what the ILC Dover people did wrong (?)... can you?
    4
  1596. Good grief, when you feel the need to lie to support your position, you have nothing to offer. No, dewdrop, the Hubble doesn't have the resolution required. At its very best, it would be able to resolve down to about 90 feet on the moon per pixel (one pixel = 90x90 feet, or 8100 sq. feet). More practically for pointing at a surface instead of at deep stellar objects, it's more like 160 feet per pixel (160x160) on the moon. But, even at its very best of its design limits, you couldn't see the 30x30 foot lander (and that's even including the landing gear) as even a single pixel. Not one Hubble pixel. Not one. Oh, but, you're an astronomer? And, you don't understand Dawes' limit or the Rayleigh criterion? You can calculate the size of the lens you'd need to be able to see what you're claiming, and Hubble doesn't have it. No telescope does. There have, however, been lunar orbiters that have photographed the landing sites. LRO has done it. China's Chang'e has done it. India's Chandrayaan 2 has done it. You can see landers, foot paths, rover tracks, etc., that exactly match the mission photography. Yet, deniers just label all of those as "fake" anyway. Why would they trust a hypothetical Hubble photo (if you could even take one, which you can't)?
    4
  1597.  @Tim22222  For 50+ years, people have offered these silly objections, each and every one of which fails miserably. So, nowadays, most of them don't even try to offer evidence. Instead, their key arguments are, "look in their eyes during the conference," or "Buzz Aldrin admitted it." They're really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
    4
  1598. Honestly I cannot believe that people with absolutely no understanding of aerospace engineering think they know more than the planet's aerospace engineers.
    4
  1599. Well, you already got your answer. On Apollo 11, the camera was hooked up to the lander's power supply and radio. So, you can't keep powering a camera after the radio and power supply have lifted off. But, if it's any consolation to you, they did leave the cameras running on Apollo 15/16/17 (because those were powered by the rovers' batteries, and piped through the rovers' radios). I can't remember how long Apollo 15's camera ran after they left. But, Apollo 16's camera ran for 36 hours, and Apollo 17's camera ran for 27 hours. But, even I, who has watched every single piece of Apollo footage that they ever shot, can't sit through those videos. I tried. Pan the camera around, stop. Look at Earth. Stop. Pan the camera around. Stop. Look at the sun. Stop. Pan the camera around. Stop. Look at a mountain. Stop. Pan the camera around. Stop. Look at Earth. Stop. Pan the camera around. Stop. Look at another mountain. Stop. I think I actually made it through about an hour before I just couldn't watch any longer. I'll bet most people can't make it 5 minutes.
    4
  1600. Having been alive that long, I'd wonder why you can't figure out to scroll down and see the other 59843847524897 times that question has been asked and answered.
    4
  1601. Ask a question, don't wait for an answer, come to your conclusion. Basis = "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." You're a true genius alright.
    4
  1602. Conclusion first. Ask questions second. Yeah, you're really honest. "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake."
    4
  1603. And, I'm still waiting for a single moon landing denier who understands anything about Apollo. I think I'll be waiting for that for longer than you'll be waiting for the 7th moon landing.
    4
  1604. "I wonder how that camera that was left behind got set up way out there if it recorded the first steps of man on tne moon." Did you try watching the 16mm film video that shows you exactly what you're asking for? I mean, seriously here, did you think the thousands of engineers forgot to include a way to set up the camera? "Also how it tilted up" Not on Apollo 11. There was no outside video of this liftoff. The first outside video of a moon liftoff was on Apollo 15. But, it didn't tilt up (the servo was broken). Apollo 16 tilted up, but lost the lunar module in frame very quickly. Apollo 17 did the best job of it. Again, did you think the engineers forgot to include a tilt-up mechanism? What exactly is your complaint? "and maintained focus" Pfftt. At the distance of about 1.5 football fields away? Set for infinity, no focus required. You don't know very much about cameras, eh? "😂" I just love when you deniers put emojis in your messages, as if you magically know things that the entire rest of the world doesn't know.
    4
  1605. "it looked like they got pulled back up by wires" Low gravity will do that. But, what's your version? They fell down and didn't just do another take in the studio?
    4
  1606. "the interview after they got back looked way suspect" Gee, months in training (no sleep), an 8 day mission (no sleep), quarantine with doctors probing every inch (inside and out), interview after interview (no sleep), speaking in front of congress (no sleep), parades and dignitaries (no sleep), and you're going to pick one particular interview of the many? Why? Because a conspiracy video told you that was the one you needed to worry about? Why'd you not question any of the other public things they did? What would you do if you were in a middle of a massive whirlwind of attention, then be told you need to go give a boring scripted speech to a room full of press?
    4
  1607. "how did they get through the Van Allen radiation belt?" Just one? Why "belt" instead of "belts"? How much do you think you know about them if you don't even know how many there are? Have you done the calculations on how much radiation exposure they got from the belts? Or, did a conspiracy video tell you that you're supposed to worry about the belts, and you don't care to actually find out if anything those silly videos say is actually true?
    4
  1608. "I just got a lot of questions." As fed to you by dishonest videos that you fell for, hook line and sinker.
    4
  1609. "how did they lose the original footage?" They didn't. They lost two BACKUP tapes. Primary copies are still intact. Did a silly video lie to you and tell you otherwise?
    4
  1610. "LMAO" This doesn't make it look like you actually want answers to your questions. It makes it look like you're spewing a bunch of silly nonsense you gobbled up like Christmas dinner, and you think these are "gotchas" with no valid answers.
    4
  1611. "how did they get off the moon once the lunar lander landed" By using a rocket.
    4
  1612. "The lunar lander was exactly what that is, a lander." And, you think the 7,000 engineers at Grumman forgot to install a rocket to use to get off of the moon's surface? And, YOU found the problem? Really? No, you're not arrogant at all.
    4
  1613. "how exactly did it doc with the space shuttle will the primitive technology they had back then" Radar. Radar had been around for quite a while, you know. They used radar from Earth to track the location of the command module. And, once in orbit, they used the rendezvous radar on top of the lander to find the command module and home in on it like a radar guided missile can track an airplane.
    4
  1614. Well, that's one way to demonstrate that you don't know anything about anything.
    4
  1615.  @LG-cf4dl  Sure. I made up the arrest reports, coroner's reports, and interviews with people who knew her (including her own family). The 1 minute long Inside Edition story got it all correct, despite that the FOIA records disagree.
    4
  1616. Actual whistle blowers = 0%. Tinfoil hat = 100%.
    4
  1617. So, you don't know what happened in a recent issue that was separated from Apollo by 50 years, you didn't follow up on it at all, therefore Apollo was fake. Bravo, dewdrop, you're a true hero.
    4
  1618. YOU SAID: "If this was really true" == There's no "if." It's really true. YOU SAID: "why NASA haven’t gone back to the moon" == They DID go back!!! They sent NINE manned missions to the moon. Six of those missions landed on it. YOU SAID: "since 1969" == They sent 5 manned missions to the moon after 1969. YOU SAID: "with the advanced technology we have today?" == Technology has nothing to do with it. Congress pulled the funding. It was very expensive, you know.
    4
  1619. You were probably the only one who could ever see that comment, and eventually it was deleted so even you couldn't see it. It happens to all of us. YouTube's censorship is bananas.
    4
  1620. The Soviets were in the lead through the USA's Mercury program. But, during the entirety of the Gemini manned missions (10 missions), the Soviets didn't launch a single manned mission. Not one. The USA surpassed the Soviets during Gemini. And, by Apollo, they were so far in the lead that all the Soviets could do was "bluff" that they were still in the race. Side note: the bluff worked, and the USA truly didn't know they were as far ahead as they were. The Soviets even tried to launch a moon rocket (unmanned) a couple of weeks before Apollo 11 (it blew up). So, as far as the USA was concerned, the pressure was still on. But, they learned later how far behind the Soviets really were.
    4
  1621. No, the highest temperature is 120 Celsius. And, no Apollo mission ever landed when it was that hot. They all landed early in the lunar morning, long before the temperature got that high.
    4
  1622. So, let me get this straight... I just got done saying that it's impossible to have a dialog with someone who constantly changes topics (as you do). And, your reply was to change topics? Are you being paid to make yourself look this ridiculous?
    4
  1623. How far gone do you have to be in order to believe people get paid to follow you around online and correct the gibberish you spew?
    4
  1624. People who know absolutely nothing about a topic will often use laughter as a replacement for the knowledge they lack.
    4
  1625. So, all of the mountains of actual evidence don't matter to you? The orbital photos of the landing sites done by 4 different countries, 3 of which had good enough resolution to see the landers? No? The laser reflectors? No? The 850 pounds of moon rocks, none of which have ever been exposed to oxygen or moisture? No? You want lie detector tests? THAT, you think is more reliable than actual evidence?
    4
  1626. If AI says it's fake, it's fake. If AI says it's real, it's because the AI is managed by "them," hence, it's fake.
    4
  1627. No, dewdrop. The rover had spun wire mesh. No inflated rubber on the rover.
    4
  1628. "astronauts took back moon rocks which were not identical to moon rocks brought back this year" Of course not. They were from a different part of the moon. Rocks from Egypt are different from rocks from Japan. Rocks from Australia are different from rocks from France. Why do you think all rocks should be alike? Geologists certainly don't think that.
    4
  1629. "apollo brought back 200 kg" Who told you that number? It's wrong. Dewdrop, when every sentence you write is incorrect, why do you believe your conclusions are correct? There's literally not a single thing you've gotten correct in any of your postings.
    4
  1630. Yet, you won't name a catalog number of the photo you're talking about? Yes, dewdrop, lots of people make lots of composites from the Apollo photography. Most of the time, when I see you people making these claims, it's simply because you don't know what you're talking about. But, yes, sometimes, you people are referencing composite photos. With absolutely no way to know what photo you're talking about, how can anybody take you seriously?
    4
  1631.  @joedoe-sedoe7977  Well, to be honest, I did address it. But, YouTube's filters have gone absolutely crazy for the past few months, blocking messages for absolutely silly reasons. I mean, for example, I posted something (unrelated) in a different video that said, "my car got wrecked" (among other stuff written in the message). It got blocked. I changed just those few words to "my car was wrecked," and it let me post it. That's how crazy YouTube's algorithms have been lately. And, it often takes a lot of time to hunt down the words or phrases that YouTube is blocking. And, then, it lets you post those exact same words or phrases elsewhere. YouTube's comment department must have lost their minds. Things were always bad, comments and notifications often don't work correctly, but these last few months have been off the charts madness. Anyway, I just didn't find you to be worth hunting down what YouTube's problem was with the message I posted that addressed everything you said line-by-line. So, I didn't bother. You're a nutcase. That's all there is to it. And, not a very bright nutcase at that. After all, anybody who replies with "your the idiot" .... (Sigh, if you can't even spell your insults, while attacking someone's intelligence... yeah, just backfires in your face.) You can remain useless the rest of your life, or you can make something of yourself instead. Choose one. But, if you think that social media comments are more reliable than a proper education, your mind is already lost, and there's probably no hope for you.
    4
  1632. I had a friend whose cousin had a next door neighbor that was a security guard at Hasselblad who said you're wrong.
    4
  1633. Not for this issue. But, with all of her open warrants, they had to take her in no matter what.
    4
  1634. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    4
  1635. He wasn't president for Apollo 8. So, that means you believe Apollo 8 went to the moon, right? So, going to the moon wasn't a problem, but, landing was your issue?
    4
  1636. The cops held the arrest video private for 2.5 years, which was 1.5 years after she died. But, after a case has been closed that long, sorry, but they can no longer block a legal FOIA request. You cannot embarrass a dead person.
    4
  1637. "destroyed by NASA" Good grief. Who told you such a ridiculous thing?
    4
  1638. Let me guess, you heard some pilot story somewhere about someone ejecting, getting injured, and forced to retire from flying. Right? And, from that, you just assumed this meant that all ejection seats are the same, all ejections are the same, and all circumstances are the same. Right? I'd wonder how you'd explain away the fact that there are plenty of military pilots who have had multiple ejections in their career, if, supposedly, they were forced to retire from flying after the first one. But, whatever, you're a lost cause. There are no such mandates. If you have a bad ejection that retires your career as a pilot, ok, that happens. If you have an ejection and sustain no injuries, ok, that happens too, and you keep on flying. And, once again, all you're proving is that (a) nuts who reject the moon landings always read and write at a 2nd grade level, and (b) none of you people care about evidence, and only care about trying to "logic" (using that term loosely) your way into disbelief.
    4
  1639. Well, sure, they could send larger lenses up there, which would give more resolution. But, what are you giving up? The payload to the moon for the LRO rocket was 4,000 pounds. They used every single bit of it. So, if you want a larger camera (the only way to get more resolution), and a larger communications array (to be able to send the larger images and data), you need to give up something. So, in your vast aerospace engineering expertise, please advise about what equipment or fuel you would give up in order to do that? And, why does it matter to you? LRO's camera can see the landers, rover tracks, foot paths, etc. Are you saying that if they doubled the resolution, you'd believe it? You wouldn't just say, "I want 4x the resolution." Then, if you get it, you'll say, "I want 8x the resolution." Shifting the goalposts doesn't change the fact that the orbiters can see the Apollo stuff on the moon, regardless of whether you understand the reasons for the level of resolution, or if you don't understand. It's good enough to see the stuff there. Tell me you wouldn't just say "fake" anyway, even if you got the resolution you're asking for. Can you?
    4
  1640. Oh, wonderful. So, you'll be extremely pleased to find out that everything you're saying is wrong. There isn't a single photo with shadows that can't be easily explained by sun angles, meandering terrain, and basic photographic perspective. Looking at basic photos of "converging shadows" usually answers 99% of people's concerns about the Apollo photos. Or, just looking down the middle of a train track from a low angle, showing the tracks pointed directly at each other, yet, you know they're parallel, nips the shadow concerns for most people.
    4
  1641. Landing crater? Like, you think the engineers built a 20 sq foot engine bell (cross section) just for grins? You don't think they needed to spread the rocket exhaust wide enough not to cut any craters? A mere 2500 pounds of thrust out of a 20 sq foot engine bell isn't cutting craters. This is like the difference between pumping water though a pinhole slit that can carve aluminum car rims with a jet of water, vs. pumping that same amount of water through a much larger opening, like a garden hose, and it's not cutting anything. Same thing for rockets. The bigger the cross section, the lower the pressure.
    4
  1642. Loss of data, well, you'll be very pleased to know that no data is lost. That's just a myth born in conspiracy videos, on the basis that they lost two backup video tapes from one mission (primary copies are still intact). In 2006, when it was announced that they lost two backup tapes, deniers jumped for joy. No, they didn't care one bit about those backup tapes before 2006. But, once it was announced that they were missing, wow, it meant the landings were faked. But, over the years, the video makers keep increasing what was lost. First, it wasn't just backup video that was lost, but backup data also. Then, it wasn't the backups at all, and it was the primary copies that were missing. Then, it wasn't just 2 hours, it was all of the tapes from that mission. Then, it was all tapes from all missions. Then, it was all data, all video, all film, all photos, from all missions. Of course, in reality, the only thing that was lost were those two backup tapes that nobody in history had ever even viewed. But, that never stopped the video makers from lying to their gullible followers. Now that you know the truth, you can relieve yourself of this silly burden of thinking the entire planet is out to get you.
    4
  1643. "No stars saids it all" Your 2nd grader vocabulary says it all. "when you see stars at night" The Apollo astronauts were not on the lunar surface at night. All lunar landings were in the lunar morning. It was daytime, not night. "if you go to the highest mountain on earth the stars in the night sky would be breathtaking" Again, why do you keep talking about the night sky? The Apollo missions were during the lunar daytime. "plus why do you think we never went back? Because we never went there" Dewdrop, there were 9 manned Apollo missions to the moon. 6 of those missions landed on it. If that's not "going back," I wouldn't know what is.
    4
  1644.  @MrFlores0594  Has it ever occurred to you that bad people can get shot by another bad person? I mean, what IS your point? I am not going to lose any sleep over the two criminal teen thieves. But, I'm also not losing sleep over the fact that the man who planned and committed their murders is behind bars for the rest of his life. Scumbag kids got killed by scumbag murderer gunman.
    4
  1645. Um, of course not. When did he even claim they were real?
    4
  1646. Stars? On video? Dewdrop, go try to take video of stars with a low resolution camera. Go right ahead. Try it.
    4
  1647. "NOT SURE IF THAT WAS THE SAME MISSION BUT MY POINT IS IT DOESNT ADD UP" Dewdrop, if you know so little about the topic that you don't know one mission from another, why in the world would you ever believe that something doesn't add up? Why would you think YOU are capable of spotting these "problems" that not a single aerospace engineer in history has spotted? This is like walking in on your first day of 3rd grade math class, barely able to add and subtract, and saying, "What's all of this nonsense about calculus? It doesn't add up!!" How about learning the topic before determining whether something "adds up" or not?
    4
  1648. Blame the victim?
    4
  1649. Yet, you cannot name a single piece of this "fabricated film"? You just blindly assert it because Joe Rogan's latest position on the moon landings were that they happened, but films were faked? Have you even watched the hours upon hours of film you're accusing of being fake?
    4
  1650. "This documentry is bias" You couldn't make it two words into your posting before displaying that you have a 2nd grader's level of spelling and grammar. Bravo. You're only confirming that which every other denier has already displayed. None of you can read or write. "and doesn't inform you that NASA didn't even know about the Van Allan Radiation belt" Just one? You're not aware that there are two belts? How about the third transient belt? "because it hadn't even been discovered until afterwards!!" Dewdrop, Explorer 1 first discovered the inner belt in 1958. Are you a child?
    4
  1651.  @JayVee-d  Drug addled rock bands are the reason we know about the Van Halen belts.
    4
  1652. One of the people who called the police recorded it, and gave a copy of the video to the police. So, I think it's safe to say that the incident happened. And, why should "the news" pay anything at all for reporting the story?
    4
  1653. And, you've chosen YouTube comments to reveal this international fraud involving hundreds of thousands of people? No congressional hearings? No scientific peer reviewed papers to prove your point? You think a YouTube comment is the way to expose something like you're saying? What a crackpot.
    4
  1654. I reject your use of the word "skeptics." What those people are doing isn't skepticism. It's blind rejection. Skepticism is a method of analyzing and understanding. It's not "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." The truly skeptical people accept the moon landings.
    4
  1655. Cosmic rays hit Earth too, you know. Yes, the atmosphere and the magnetosphere help block them. But, it's not 100%. As a matter of fact, cosmic rays are the #1 cause of computer memory parity errors. Usually, a computer or network equipment crash is the result of faulty programming, but, sometimes, it's because a cosmic ray hit the memory and changed a 0 to a 1. You're getting hit by cosmic rays as you're reading this (oh, who am I kidding, you're NOT reading this). If you want to talk about forms of radiation that can destroy atoms/DNA, there's a slight amount of radioactivity in grains of sand at the beach. Laying on the beach, you're exposed to high velocity neutrons that can disrupt atoms within your DNA also. Even neutrinos, as tiny and insignificant as they seem, as billions of them pass right through you every second of your life, occasionally can strike an atom's nucleus and disrupt it enough to basically destroy the atom. It's extremely rare, but, does happen. There's a massive underground neutrino detector in Japan that has been observing and studying neutrino strikes for more than 30 years. There are newer and better ones now, making the exact same observations. So what? What's your point? Are there more cosmic rays in space than on Earth? Sure. So what? Have you studied the amounts? Do you know the probabilities of having any effect on someone? Why do you consistently behave as if the entirety of science is unaware of these concepts? Why do you keep pretending you've consulted "experts" (while simultaneously completely making it clear that you have no understanding of the topic on any level)?
    4
  1656. What in the world is the point of your posting? "didn’t 100 % point to answers like dust" Um, ok? What about dust? How can anybody address your "dust" concern when all you gave is the single word "dust"? If you cannot bring yourself to spell out what your beef is, why do you post anything at all? "or surviving radiation" Write it up!!! Publish in journals on radiobiology!! I'll never understand why you people think a YouTube comment is the proper forum to express to the world that none of the aerospace engineers on the planet know enough about radiation in space, and you do!! Go publish your findings and calculations in astrophysics journals and radiobiology journals. Explain to them why they have all gotten it wrong for the past 60 years. "rinkadinky that space equipment was like ship" Which ship? The lander? The command module? Please outline exactly what you'd have done differently. What exact components couldn't do the job they were designed to do? "or answers w the land rovers" See what I mean, dewdrop? Nobody can possibly even understand what your beef is here. Answers? What answers? How can anybody possibly ever give you answers to a question you never ask? I'm not bothering with the rest of your comment. I don't think you know ANYTHING about the topic. I think you like to pretend to know things you don't.
    4
  1657. No, you're not wondering anything. You're pretending to ask questions, while clearly not actually wanting the answers. Stop pretending. You're not good at it. Any honest person would simply ask how the equipment worked, not asking silly nonsense like "who got left behind?"
    4
  1658. Dewdrop, I just got done saying you didn't really want answers to your questions, and you proved me correct 100% by the fact that all you did was change topics.
    4
  1659. "produced really poor quality photos?" The resolution of the photos as taken by LRO are better than just about any commercial digital camera you can buy today. However, when they show you the photos of the Apollo landing sites, they're zooming in on a very small section of a massive photo. Take the highest quality photo of anything you want, and then zoom in and zoom in and zoom in, and you'll see pixilation and complain that it's low quality. Take a photo of a tree, and then zoom in on an ant crawling on the tree, and it'll look pixilated. If someone showed you a photo of the tree, and zoomed in on the ant, would you say the ant was fake because the resolution wasn't good enough to see the ant's eyes? You can definitely see that it's an ant, but, yeah, eyes, you can't quite see. Is the ant therefore fake? That's what we have with LRO. You can definitely see the landers, foot paths, rover tracks, etc., at a level of enough detail to know that's what you're looking at, and they're exactly where they're supposed to be, a 100% match for the original mission photography. But, yeah, it's a product of really zooming in. So what? LRO did the best they could with the budget and weight limitation. The payload capacity of the booster was 4,000 pounds, and that's exactly the initial weight of LRO, exactly 4,000 pounds. You want better photos, ok, that takes a bigger camera and a bigger communications array. What are you going to give up? Some of the fuel, so the mission can't last as long and they can't make too many orbit changes? Some of the other experiments, like the laser ranging tool? The radiation detectors? What? You need to give something up, if you want a bigger camera capable of taking even higher resolution photos, so, what are you giving up? "Everybody knows that an earth satellite can see even the shoe size of a person!" If you want to read the number on a shoe from Earth orbit, it would take a lens about 6 miles in diameter. I mean, putting aside atmospheric distortion, which would block you from seeing the shoe size anyway. But, pretending there's no distortion, the raw physics dictates that reading the number on a shoe from orbit would require a lens 6 miles across, and then the focal length would probably be about 10 miles. Are you aware of any 6 mile wide, 10 mile tall, satellites orbiting Earth? Optical resolution. Go learn about it. There are well understood mathematical formulas that you can use to calculate the size lens you need from whatever distance to see objects at whatever resolution. In reality, the Earth orbit satellites have roughly the same resolution as LRO has. Yeah, a bit better (not by much), even though they're higher up. But, this is because those satellites were put up with much larger optics than LRO has. Again, this goes back to the tradeoffs. NASA could have put a larger camera on LRO, but, it would have meant sacrificing something else. There are satellites around Earth that are 100% dedicated to just having a big lens and taking better pictures. So, yeah, a little bit better than LRO. But, nowhere near the level you think. It also doesn't help anything when Google says "satellite" on their map photos, when those photos were taken from low flying planes at only 1/4 of a mile above. Lots of Apollo deniers think that those photos are actually from space, therefore have unrealistic expectations. But, hey, check their FAQ. "to end once and for all any doubt" Get real. This is absurd. The LRO photos are good enough to see the stuff on the moon. Yeah, you're not reading the serial numbers, but, yeah, good enough. And, they haven't silenced any denier. The deniers only have two rules to their game: (1) Any evidence against Apollo is real, no matter how easily it's debunked. (2) Any evidence for Apollo is fake, no matter where it comes from. Those are their only two rules. If we had a 6 mile wide camera orbiting the moon, that could read the numbers on the equipment left on the surface, it wouldn't make a bit of difference to the deniers. They'd just call those photos fake, just like they call LRO photos fake. We now (in the last year or two) have photos of some of the landing sites from China and India from their obiters above the moon, showing the same things that LRO shows. India's camera has double the resolution of the LRO camera, showing more detail than LRO shows. The deniers just conclude that China and India have joined "the deception" 50+ years later. So, your request for better resolution photos is just plain goalpost shifting. We could send up a camera with 10x the resolution, and deniers will just ask for 20x. Give them 20x, they'll ask for 40x. It's just a method they use to keep denying. The reality is that LRO's images are GOOD ENOUGH to see the Apollo stuff. And, asking for better is just disingenuous. If you reject LRO's images, you'll reject better images the exact same way you reject LRO.
    4
  1660. "We have a hundred billion times more money now" No. "then" Than. "in the 60’s" Inflation matters too, dewdrop. "and we don’t go NOW with a million more experience and technology" And, how does this technology help fund a moon program? "But have no plans to ever go again!" Huh? Artemis was funded in 2019, dewdrop. They just sent Artemis 1 to the moon a few months ago. Artemis 2 will send people. "But in most peoples eyes we never actually ever went!" No. Your fringe cult isn't "most people." "So prove us all that we actually went and land in the same spots!" Why? So you can call the new missions fake also? Why go back to the same spots we've been? To convince cult members that they're wrong?
    4
  1661. Dewdrop, given that in your prior thread, you didn't even know what retro-propulsive descent was, because you tried to apply retro-propulsion to liftoff (which makes zero sense), I'd hardly think you understand this topic. Is there ever a point that you'll actually address any of your 800 comment threads? Or, are you just going to keep posting one message after another, and run for the hills every time you're proven wrong?
    4
  1662. If only the world's aerospace engineers knew as much as you do about the lunar surface....
    4
  1663. And, in those couple of years, you haven't figured out that Apollo 11 didn't have a rover?
    4
  1664. The tragic reality is that you cannot simultaneously protect society from criminals, while leaving criminals alone. It's one or the other. If the cop left the criminal alone in this case, and he sped off and killed a pedestrian by driving like a maniac, underage, on a bike that isn't street legal, what then? Didn't the innocent pedestrian deserve protection? Wouldn't you then just say, "it's the cop's fault for NOT pulling the kid over"? See, like I said, you either have to protect society from criminals, or you have to leave criminals alone to do harm to society. You can't have it both ways.
    4
  1665. Who can watch this man waving his hands around all the time? How distracting and ridiculous. Are those constant hand motions rehearsed?
    4
  1666. Huh? So, you believe they went to the moon, but didn't get out of the lander and walk around? What?
    4
  1667. But, she didn't end her life over this. This video had nothing to do with it. It wasn't released to the public until 1.5 years after she died.
    4
  1668. Then you have failed to understand the point. Musk touts full self-driving whenever his stock price needs a boost, and says "next year" over and over. Years go by, and he hasn't delivered, but keeps telling investors and car buyers that it's just a software update away from full self driving, and says, "next year" again. Then, legislature gets involved, and says, "Hey, wait a minute, you're not putting full self driving cars on our roads, are you? Those have to go through a legal certification process, and that's not 'next year' before it get approved." What does the Tesla legal department say in response to legislature? It says that Tesla has NO PLANS to put full self driving cars on the road. Musk says one thing, and then the company's own legal department says the opposite. Nobody is going to be "really pissed" if/when Tesla makes full self driving cars. That day is coming sooner or later, as it will for many auto manufacturers. But, it's the snake oil deceptive nature of Musk presenting that it's "a year away," and "buy one of our cars now, and I'll give you full self-driving robo-taxis next year," that people don't like. I mean, GM, for comparison's sake, is working on full self driving robo-taxis right now. But, they don't plan on selling them. They plan on keeping them as a money-generating fleet. It's the same for other auto manufacturers. Nobody sells a money-printing machine. Musk says he plans on selling these things to the public (why?). It's snake oil.
    4
  1669. Step 1: make a conclusion that the moon landings were fake. Step 2: ask questions demonstrating that you have no understanding of the topic. Bravo, dewdrop. Sane people ask questions first, then come to conclusions after discovering the answers. Your entire premise is "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake."
    4
  1670. Well, your entire premise is wrong. Nobody ever claimed that the dust wasn't disturbed (other than conspiracy videos that lie to you).
    4
  1671. Is there any particular reason that you are making junk up out of thin air?
    4
  1672. Almost all of the rover footage was recorded on 16mm film at 12 frames per second or 6 frames per second to conserve film. At full 24 frames per second, it would burn through the film reels in about 3 minutes. So, they almost always recorded at a slow rate. But, most outlets just show it at 24 frames per second, and never tell you the original rate it was recorded at. In other words, you're watching most of the rover videos at a sped-up rate, resulting in people like you thinking it's Earth's gravity. There are a number of videos available online to see those videos speed-corrected.
    4
  1673. Is there ever a point in your life that you'll wake up and realize you don't know anything, and it's a bad idea to advertise it to the world? Yes, dewdrop, the moon has gravity.
    4
  1674. When you see a full moon, then you see a new moon two weeks later, do you believe that's because the moon ISN'T rotating? (Um, no. Yes, it's rotating.)
    4
  1675. "power source" - Batteries in the lunar module's descent stage. "transmitted" - Radio and a dish. "panned up" - It didn't. You don't know one mission from another.
    4
  1676. Well, there are hundreds peer reviewed journal articles written by geologists from all around the world who studied those materials to come to that conclusion. They have been studying them for about 48 years now, and you can read all of those papers, if you'd like. And, of course, you're welcome to refute the papers. But, if you think YouTube comments is where you'd refute lunar geology studies, you are completely delusional. So, here's what you do: you read those papers to determine how they came to those conclusions. You write your rebuttals or objections into your own scientific paper about lunar geology. Then, you submit that paper to science journals. Sorry, but declaring the work of hundreds of geologists from around the world to be wrong... via a YouTube comment... is how CRACKPOTS do it. Actual geologists would mount their objections via geology journals.
    4
  1677. "Seeing how SpaceX struggles building a decent reusable rocket" What does that have to do with Apollo? They didn't even try to build anything reusable, other than the launch tower. Why should you base your opinions of Apollo on what other companies do or don't do? "it boggles my mind that people actually think the moon landing is true." It boggles your mind? Well, that doesn't sound like a very difficult thing to do. Sorry, but, you come across as someone who is remarkably easily boggled. The entire aerospace engineering community across all 77 of the world's space agencies do not have any trouble understanding the difference between Apollo's craft and SpaceX's craft. No aerospace engineers are boggled. But, you think YOUR boggled mind means something?
    4
  1678. Well, given that John Young landed Apollo 16 about 625 miles away from Cone crater, um, yeah, I'd cut him more slack than you do. And, given that you don't know the difference between Apollo 16 and Apollo 14, um, yeah, frankly, your opinions are garbage in the first place. But, you go right ahead and keep pretending to know what you're talking about. Pfffttttt. Clown.
    4
  1679. Every time a Boeing crashes, it's a big slap in the face to those who believed that the Wright brothers flew an aeroplane.
    4
  1680. "That’s easy to debate." Not if you know anything about the topic.
    4
  1681. "didn’t say anything for the same reason America won the revolutionary war. Ussr was going bankrupt and still having to many civil conflicts" Dewdrop, the revolutionary war was in 1776-1783. The USSR didn't exist until 1922. The USSR wasn't going bankrupt 150 years before it existed.
    4
  1682. "going bankrupt" Yet, amazingly, they persisted for another 22 years? How bankrupt could they have been? And, they managed to build a nuclear arsenal for the next 20 of those years? I mean, ok, you're only off by 20 years here, instead of 150 years, but, good grief.
    4
  1683. Well, one of my degrees is in mathematics, and, I must say, I have no idea what in the world you're talking about. Are you trying to say that you're taking "constant solar energy directed at Earth" and then multiplying that by 1% to get the amount of that energy that hits a human being? So, like, you think a person is 1% of the size of Earth? And, you then assume all of that 1% is is gamma radiation, not other types? And, you thought a YouTube comment was a place to publish this math? Not in radiobiology journals or astrophysics journals?
    4
  1684. Mainly because we already explored those locations, and would find the most value in going somewhere new.
    4
  1685. I guess that none of the 450,000 people who worked on Apollo remembered to make the lander fit into the rocket.
    4
  1686. "why haven’t they come back to the moon ! We have better technology now you know why !?" Because congress never funded more manned missions after Apollo 17 (until funding for Artemis began in 2019). Again, why is this important to you? How does this mean Apollo didn't happen? Why should what future generations (from their perspective) do or don't do matter? Apollo happened whether anybody repeats such a program or not. Explain why you think otherwise?
    4
  1687. Awww, does that not fit Bishop Usher's timeline?
    4
  1688. I was also too young during the moon landings to have had any part of them. But, as for "could not have been born at a better time for Apollo" ... well, my asperations would have been a bit different than yours. I'd have wished to have been born at a time to BE one of them, not just "be inspired" by them.
    4
  1689. Yes, dewdrop. They went to the moon 9 times on manned missions, and landed 6 of those times. If that's not going back, I don't know what is.
    4
  1690. Yup. Whenever an individual YouTube channel makes a CGI version of something, that means the "something" never existed. Perfectly sound logic.
    4
  1691.  @FURST420  Google "Parkes radio telescope," select "images," and open the first one. That thing with a full acre (literally) in surface area was one of the dishes used during Apollo. Yes, those really are 40 foot tall trees in that photo, being dwarfed by the massive antenna, not just some tiny 2 foot tall shrubs. Then Google "cellular antenna for iphone 7" and look at the little piece of wire a few inches long.
    4
  1692. YOU SAID: "We NEVER went to the moon...we have NEVER been outside of the van Allen radiation belt..." == James Van Allen disagreed with you. What do you think you know, that he didn't? YOU SAID: "consider this if we could go to the moon with 1960s technical know how is it that we've never been able to go back with 80s 90s early 2000s or present technology." == "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." So, because you don't know the reason for this, Apollo is fake? What's wrong with you? Apollo's veracity doesn't depend on whether you understand the reasons for it. In brief, the reason is because congress canceled the Apollo program, and never approved/funded another manned moon program again... until 2019. YOU SAID: "also the Russians at the time were more advanced than us in space flight...putting up the first satellite... the first man in orbit...the first woman the first space station and their orbiters were more advanced than ours and still are...yet they NEVER attempted to go to the moon." == "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." Dummy, which conspiracy video has been feeding you this garbage? The Soviets DID try to send people to the moon. They flew FOUR of their lunar landers in space, in preparation for going to the moon. And, just a couple of weeks before the USA launched Apollo 11, they attempted to launch their N1 moon rocket (it blew up), which was about the same size as the Saturn V. They were still very much in the race. But, after blowing up four of their N1 moon rockets, and never getting it to work correctly, they eventually just gave up. And, you're greatly warped in your perception of how far ahead of the USA that they were. Yes, they did pull off some impressive "firsts." But, you need to understand that they stopped putting up manned space missions for TWO YEARS!! Once the USA started flying the Gemini program (10 manned flights in preparation for Apollo), the Soviets didn't fly AT ALL for the next two years. The entirety of the USA's 10 manned Gemini flights for two years flew, without a single Soviet manned flight. Not one. So, yes, the USA surpassed the Soviets. But, again, yes, the Soviets were still very much in the race, and had they gotten their N1 to work correctly without repeatedly exploding, it's very possible that they'd have landed on the moon a couple of weeks ahead of Apollo 11. But, nope. They killed a bunch of their key rocket engineers by making them work on fully fueled rockets (instead of draining them first), and boom. They never really recovered after that. YOU SAID: "it's because they knew they couldn't get there." == Really? Then why did they try? Why did they track Apollo missions to the moon and back, and acknowledge that Apollo had beaten them? What do you know that the Soviets didn't know? They would have loved to be able to claim that the USA was faking it. Why didn't they? Sorry, dummy, you don't get to just "declare" that the Soviets knew they couldn't get there. You have to explain why, and you have to explain how you know this?? Why couldn't they get there (other than their N1s kept exploding)?? Name the reasons?? They had all of the technology required, except a working N1 booster. So, can you name the reasons you think the USA couldn't do it? What EXACT technology do you think the USA lacked? YOU SAID: "it's been nearly 60 years" == Not very good at math, eh? 2022 - 1972 = 60??? Clown. YOU SAID: "and we can't orbit or get to the moon now?... something else is going on" == "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." Sheeessshhh. Dummy, the Saturn V was retired. And, after that, we haven't had a big enough booster to send people/craft that high again. The Saturn V had the capability to lift 100,000 pounds to the moon. (That's the lunar lander, command module, service module, and everything to keep 3 astronauts alive for a couple of weeks.) It was, by far, the biggest rocket ever flown (without blowing up). The only thing that could match it was the Soviet N1 (which kept blowing up). There has never been another rocket capable of lifting 100,000 pounds to the moon. YOU SAID: "use common sense." == Sorry, dummy, you don't get to hide behind "common sense." If you had any "common sense," you'd realize that when you don't understand the answers to these basic questions you're posing, you're not in any position to question the veracity of the Apollo program. You are soooooo amazingly ignorant about the topic that you didn't even know the Soviets were trying to go to the moon. And, you obviously don't know what the evidence is that we did. If you had "common sense," you'd be asking these questions long before you'd come to your conclusions. And, you wouldn't be using conspiracy videos as your source of "knowledge" (sigh). If you had "common sense," you'd realize that there's never once been a single scientific peer reviewed article in ANY recognized science or aerospace engineering journal, anywhere on Earth, that has offered anything that denies Apollo. Not one. Not ever. There's a reason that the entire world's aerospace engineering community doesn't agree with you. If you had common sense, you might realize that you don't understand the stuff you're blindly rejecting. YOU SAID: "we never went to the moon at worst...or someone told us don't go back...one of the two." == Or, you don't know what you're talking about, and you're an absolutely arrogant prick.
    4
  1693. Well, India, China, and USA have sent orbiters that have taken photos of the larger stuff. But, to see the small details, the small items, and the exact state that this stuff is in right now, no, nobody has an orbiter with a camera THAT large.
    4
  1694. This video depicts where the camera was left on the lunar surface, not where it was installed on the side of the lander.
    4
  1695.  @shantishanti1949  Quote: "it’s a pity that the unknown taker of the photo - could only be one of 3 people-" I have no idea why the narrator doesn't know that Jack Schmitt took the photo. Quote: "did not take the moon landing shots as it’s so much better than any other footage or still shots and clear as can be." == Schmitt also took the landing video. But, basically, he just attached it to the window mounting bar. Quote: "That’s why I say not unadulterated a raw beginning of CGI it definitely is tampered with to my eyes and I too was around then." == I was around then too. So what? It's the same photo. I guess I could check the archives to see which scan that they used for this video. Some of the photo scans of that image were a little too bright, some were too dark. It really depends on the equipment they used to scan the photos, and the settings. But, it's all the same photo. Have you looked at the archives to make your comparison? Quote: "Perhaps it went around the world millions of times and within days because it falls under the “ this is something I prepared earlier “ Just my opinion and we can all have them. Would love to see all the shots on that same camera - as they would be fascinating and great quality." == Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. All of the photos from that camera are scanned there, in a couple of different scan quality levels/settings for each photo. There are at least 2 or 3 versions of this photo on there too, maybe more, I'd have to check. They have the uncropped one for sure (the Earth is off-center in the original uncropped version). And, yes, they have a few different scans of this particular photo, some brighter, some more bland... again, all depending on what they used to scan it. Eric Jones might know more, he's the one who scanned them. He's trying to retire (still answers his emails, though). Stephen Garber is his replacement. If you're curious, go to the source and ask.
    4
  1696.  @centripetal6157  OK, but, there was evidence. The store employee said she thought the woman didn't pay. That's evidence. The woman herself refused to provide her ID or her name. That's further evidence in the form of non-cooperation and obstruction. She then tried to assert unrelated garbage that made no sense, accusing the cop of profiling her, which makes no sense, and is just an attempt to obfuscate. I mean, to sit there and say something like someone can't get arrested without evidence... like, what do you think happened here? Do you think the cop just randomly plucked someone from the crowd and accused her of stealing?
    4
  1697. So, basically, you don't understand it, therefore it's fake. And, you believe that the world's aerospace engineers in friendly and enemy countries have not mastered "the shapes" correctly. And, you don't want evidence for your beliefs. Nope. Evidence doesn't matter to you. In your mind, having questions is enough to disbelieve. You don't want to wait to get answers to your questions. Nope. Just having questions means it's fake.
    4
  1698. “it’s too expensive" What don't you understand here? Congress controls every dime of the money. Congress decides what programs to fund, or what not to fund. They didn't fund a single manned moon program between when Apollo's moon missions ended in 1972, and when they began funding Artemis in 2019. How EXACTLY would you propose that NASA send people to the moon, if congress doesn't fund it? "Your full of" Oh, shocker, and you have the reading and writing ability of a 2nd grader. Doesn't it ever dawn on you people that none of you can read or write? No? You think the world's educated people are the clueless ones, and the high school dropouts are the smart ones? "we just sent 100’s of trillions of dollars to Ukraine" Oh, you're a true genius alright. The entire GNP of the USA is $23 trillion. But, you think we sent at least 10x more than that to Ukraine? "it was 62 million a day back then" No. It wasn't. "even if you quadrupled that in todays money" You'd have to quadruple it in 1965 money to even get to your initial number. You don't know what you're talking about. "we have more than enough to send one astronaut up there." Dewdrop, do you think (A) NASA decides what to do with its money? And (B) NASA only has one active program? "If you trust anything this government says" You can know Apollo happened without trusting a single word from government. Do you even know what the evidence is?
    4
  1699. Distance and resolution are two different concepts.
    4
  1700. "you don’t know how deep the dust is" You do know that they sent probes to the moon before they sent people, right? "could have prevented them from getting into the Lander" Yeah, right, because they couldn't possibly figure out a way to get onto the ladder. Sure. It's not as if they were in a 1/6th gravity environment or anything... errrr... wait....
    4
  1701. Are you talking about 7:17 in this video? Alan Shepard was the cameraman, Mitchell was the astronaut coming down the ladder. Is it really beyond your comprehension that the two astronauts didn't go down the ladder at the same time? One gets out first, then points the camera at the other one. If this concept is too much for you to handle, I suggest you have much bigger problems in life than understanding silly moon conspiracies.
    4
  1702. moonyprongusa Yeah, I know the conversation is going nowhere. Your brain is sealed shut. 
    3
  1703. Jansen Ravioli: YOU SAID: "1) Musk is paying for most of this himself" == Um, no. Not even close. YOU SAID: "2) If successful, it would be cheaper than nearly all other forms of long distance transportation" == Says who?? This design isn't even established. They have no idea how much it will cost. And, each estimate they pick a number (which they pick out of their asses, because they have no idea what it will cost), and they throw that number out on the table, they double it a few months later. YOU SAID: "3) Solar power has come a long way and more research is ongoing to be able to get it better. 22% efficiency is still not good by todays standards but with more time, it'll get there." == So what? Do you think solar cells are cheap? Even with the advancements a few years ago that bring commercial solar cell efficiency up to 40%, they don't manufacture/install/maintain themselves, you know. Solar power is not a magic bullet cure-all. I want it to succeed as much as everyone else. But, the returns are still just borderline when compared to costs. YOU SAID: "Reusable energy doesnt just come from solar panels." == Your point is?? We're talking about the hyperloop, which is supposedly going to be solar powered. Why are you bringing up other things? YOU SAID: "4) I certainly hope you dont think that solar panels dont work when theres no sun. If you actually believe that, I will have wasted all my time writing this comment. I believe I already have anyway." == Pffttt. Oh, please, yes, by all means, grace us all with your massive expertise and knowledge. Pfftttt. YOU SAID: "The problem isnt the money." == Good freekin' grief. OF COURSE THE PROBLEM IS THE MONEY!!! YOU SAID: "Its people like you using that excuse to not advance and reject progress." == The guy you were talking to never said a single time that the technology could't be achieved. He clearly spelled out that the main objection is financial. That was Frank's main point. Yet, here you are, as if you didn't even lift a finger to read what you're replying to, refuting an argument that Frank didn't even make. Good grief. And, you think you're doing other people favors by gracing the internet with your (pfffttt) "wisdom"??? Good grief. YOU SAID: "Reusable energy? NO! ITS TOO EXPENSIVE!" == The term is "renewable," you nutbag, not "reusable." You don't even know the definitions of the words you're using. And, yes, the main reason that renewable energy hasn't become more mainstream is due to the costs. YOU SAID: "People used to laugh at flying in the early 1900s because it was way too expensive" == And, the inevitable false sequitur to flying rears its head. If I had a dollar for every time a nutbag like you draws a false equivalence to flying, I'd have built you your hyperloop by now. Um, no, nutbag, flying wasn't expensive in the early 1900s. How do you think two guys who operated a bike shop managed to independently build themselves an aircraft company, if you think flying was relatively expensive? Nobody thought cost was the problem, because it wasn't the problem. YOU SAID: "seen as dangerous, seemingly unpredictable and unreliable in adverse weather" == Yup, and it was in those days. But, nutbag, there's a reason that, as a worldwide society, the population invested heavily in air travel, such that it went from 1-seater Wright Flyers to passenger airlines in less than 10 years. Vacuum tube travel ideas have been around for over a century, and haven't gained traction, for good reasons. YOU SAID: "and was deemed pointless because trains got you everywhere you wanted to be." == Um, nutbag, then explain the massively fast migration from trains to planes? Explain why airline technology evolved far faster than any other travel technology in history. If you're so convinced that there was so much opposition to air travel, why did it succeed so very quickly? Sheesssshhh. You know you don't have a leg to stand on when your entire argument depends on false equivalences, utter ignorance, and modification of history. YOU SAID: "Who would ever want to fly, thats ridiculous!".....Have you never taken a single history class?" == Oh, the irony. YOU, who knows absolutely nothing about aviation history, is telling other people to take history classes. Good grief. YOU SAID: "Technology advances whether society likes it or not. New tech starts out expensive and as times progress, society adapts, rates go down, tech becomes more available and then everyone ends up saying "Why didnt we do this sooner!"." == Another false equivalence. Look, nutbag, you can sit there and advocate whatever you can think of, using your warped logic. Nobody cares. If you honestly believe that this hyperloop monstrosity is actually going to transport people 400 miles in 1/2 hour for $20 per ride, you're completely delusional. YOU SAID: "I assume youre probably older than 19-20 years of age. Im 25." == You're 25 going on 17. YOU SAID: "If youre anywhere near my age, or know any sort of history in the mid 80s to late 90s, everyone literally laughed at the thought of having a mobile computer." == Good freekin' gods, you're an idiot. Um, nutbag, Moore's Law was created in 1965. Nobody in the 1980s or 1990s was laughing at the idea of mobile computers. Hell, I bought an Atari 800XL personal computer back in 1983 (which was quite small, and quite powerful for its day). I don't remember a single person who ever laughed at the idea of having a mobile computer in the 80s or 90s. I mean, sheeeesssshhhh, the 1984 Corvette was highly computerized. And that was just a car. You're making this shit up about people laughing at mobile computers in the 1980s and 1990s. You're modifying history to suit your own idiotic argument. You don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about. YOU SAID: "Early laptops sold for nearly $20,000." == Oh, go fuck yourself, you stupid clown. More self-created history modifications. My Atari 800XL from 1983 was essentially a laptop (except no screen, you had to plug it into a TV). And, you could write programs, play video games, do word processing, you name it. It was under $300, not $20,000. I mean, are you even fucking aware of how stupid you sound? Do you REALLY believe that people were paying $20,000 for a laptop? That would be more like $50,000 in today's money. Do you REALLY believe people were paying today's equivalent to $50,000 for a laptop? That's what you believe? Just shut your stupid trap, you clown. You don't have any understanding of anything. And, you're making up your own version of history to suit your delusional opinions. YOU SAID: "Ridiculous! Stupid! Inconvenient! Financially insulting!" Yet here we are......open your eyes dude. Or at least...take some sort of history class." == No, asshole. YOU go take some history classes. You are clueless.
    3
  1704. Somewhere between 100 million and 300 million sharks are killed by humans every year. And, you're worried about a couple a year that they're trying to capture for the sake of science and study.
    3
  1705. Allen Fogarty YOU SAID: "Prove magic" == Magic cannot be proven, by definition.
    3
  1706. bishop, What on Earth are you babbling? YOU SAID: "Yea, so don't blame her if she becomes a stripper or prostitute" == Oh, good grief. What utter bullshit is this? If someone loses her job, now you jump straight to stripping and prostitution? And, if she DOES do those things, we shouldn't blame her for it? So, let me use this same stupid logic right back at you. If a man lost his job, and then resorted to armed robbery, we shouldn't blame the man? It's the fault of whoever fired the man? That's the logical pathway you're going to use here? YOU SAID: "because she cant find a normal job without a man firing her for being attractive." == Did it ever occur to you that the only reason that this incident got the kind of press that it did was because it is extremely rare? If there was a rash epidemic of women getting fired for being attractive, that would be a different story, and maybe you'd have a leg to stand on. But, this happens so rarely that you can't seriously sit there and say that this is some sort of major problem in society, and that attractive women will constantly get fired from their jobs. YOU SAID: "I guarantee If she was an attractive male she would still have her job." == Oh, you're a real genius. Of course she'd still have her job. The dentist is a heterosexual man. He's not attracted to other men. What is your point? YOU SAID: "You treat people like this and you deserve the world you get." == What a buffoon. Did you even bother reading my words before you posted this? I clearly said that I thought the dentist is an idiot for firing her for this reason. YOU SAID: "What happen to being fired for poor work performance?" == Anyone can get fired for that reason also. So what? The issue here is whether the dentist owes this woman a job. And, he doesn't. Nobody "owes" anyone a job. In this country, people have the right to fire someone for ANY reason, or NO reason, except for the legally defined "protected classes." These "protected classes" include age, religion, gender, race, etc. This woman wasn't fired for any legally protected class reason, therefore her firing was legal. Do I think the dentist is a jackass for doing it? Of course I do. Do I think the dentist had a legal right to fire her? Of course I do.
    3
  1707. bishop, You are an utter buffoon. So, now you've edited your message, and you're still saying the same stupid bullshit. In your updated edit, you now say: YOU SAID: "He fired her because he couldn't control himself? that kinda borders on sexual harassment." == You clearly have no understanding of what the term "sexual harassment" means. YOU SAID: "Yea, so don't blame her if she becomes a mugger, stripper or prostitute because she cant find a normal job without a man firing her for being attractive." == I already answered this. It's nonsense. We don't have an epidemic of attractive women getting fired. Actually, it's the opposite. Attractive women more EASILY get/keep jobs than unattractive women, even in jobs where attractiveness is irrelevant. I mean, we're not just talking about getting a job at Hooters. Attractive women more easily get/keep jobs in virtually every type of workplace. This incident with this dentist is a rare exception, so you don't get to sit there and try to make the claim that this woman is doomed to lose every job she gets. YOU SAID: "I guarantee If she was an attractive male she would still have her job. You treat people like this and you deserve the world you get. What happen to being fired for poor work performance?" == I answered all of this already also. It's pure babble. The main question is whether it's legal to fire someone for the reason the dentist fired her. And, yes, it is legal. Why? Because nobody is OWED a job. As long as you don't fire someone for a reason that falls into the "legally protected classes," it's legal to fire that person. If you own your own business, and you don't like blue cars, you can fire an employee for buying a blue car. I would think anyone was a complete idiot for firing someone for buying a blue car, just as I think this dentist is an idiot for firing the woman for being attracted to her, but it's legal.
    3
  1708. bishop, You're a complete idiot, and that's about all that can explain the utterly stupid stuff you're spewing: YOU SAID: "You clearly have less of a life than I do because I have to keep my reply it short." == Then you should spend more time reading and less time spewing nonsense. YOU SAID: "Yes he doesn't owe her a job. Yes its legal" == And, that was my point. So, why'd you spew such utter nonsense in the first place? My point was that the supreme court ruling was CORRECT, yet this video makes it seem otherwise. YOU SAID: "but its no less right ex: Prohibition or Jim Crow." == So, let me get this straight, you're in favor of making "being too attractive" a legally protected class? That's what you're arguing for? Well, you're actually probably NOT arguing for that, but you're too stupid to realize that's what it would take. YOU SAID: "If she where a man" == If she "where" a man?? What? YOU SAID: "would she be fired for the same reason probably not." == You are an imbecile. I already answered this. You're clearly replying to my messages without even reading them. What a buffoon. YOU SAID: "You cannot start to complain about a society were people" == "Were"?? Look, maybe if you knew how to read and write, perhaps you wouldn't be so amazingly confused. YOU SAID: "start to take shady work If more companies fired people for reasons other than hard work and merit." == Oh, good grief. I addressed this TWICE already. Again, you're clearly not even bothering reading my replies before you write more nonsense. Look, dumbass, if you're going to say I'm wrong about what I'm writing, READ IT FIRST!!!! Sheeessshhh. YOU SAID: "Its kinda sad to see a woman lose her job because a man cannot control his urges. I suppose the good dentist is not the only one with inferiority issues this is pathetic good day." == You're the pathetic one here. Trust me on that.
    3
  1709. Dan Sanger Dan, you're missing the bigger picture. This car is an investment scam, nothing more, nothing less. 1) If the issue is that the nuclear reactor is merely used to charge a battery, what's the point of putting the nuclear reactor inside the car?? We already can and DO use nuclear reactors to charge batteries in electric cars on the road TODAY. 2) What you say is in direct conflict with what the "maker" of this car is claiming. They don't claim that the nuclear reactor is going to charge a battery. "Laser Power Systems" says they're going to shield the nuclear reactor with something as thin as a sheet of aluminum foil (go find a single nuclear physicist on Earth who says this is even possible... pfffttt... it's impossible). They also say that they're going to use Thorium to power a laser to generate heat to generate steam to run the car. They make no mention of any trickle charging of batteries as you say. Also, their claims about this are ridiculous, since the lasers are completely stupid and inefficient in this sort of design they're claiming, because they can generate the steam using the Thorium alone. (There's no point in the lasers, and that's just adding extra inefficiency.) 2) There are countless other ways you can tell this is a total scam, but let me just name a handful: - The car model they're promoting, the one with the Cadillac logo, isn't a Cadillac. It was made by a skateboard designer, and a Cadillac logo was put on the car to give it a sense of legitimacy, but Cadillac had nothing to do with it. - The CEO of "Laser Power Systems" (Charles Stevens) is a known conman, and he and his friends are being sued by the SEC for fraud. Their last scam (which he was CEO also) was to sell medical investments which they claimed would "cure ALL disease, and regrow lost limbs" (his own words). The SEC's case (which you can read yourself online, as I have, says that over $6.5 million was duped out of investors. He listed his company's address in the Sea of Tranquility on the moon (yes, I'm not kidding, look it up). In the scam before that one, he took investments for a DNA research company, of which he was apparently the only employee. And, he posted on Omniinvestor that "Laser Power Systems" is taking investments for typically $200K for this Thorium car nonsense. Yes, you're correct in that putting super-high-powered lasers (that don't even exist) in the public's hands, and putting nuclear reactors in the public hands, is also ridiculous and silly. All that's happening here is that this conman made an investorbait video (as usual) making impossible promises... because he has a track record for running ridiculous scams, duping investors out of their retirement funds. The car in the video is pure bullshit. And, the Young Turks (as usual) don't have the slightest clue what they're talking about... and now their policy of doing no research whatsoever has made them unknowing shills for the conman. And, now you're a shill too.
    3
  1710. ***** Wow, you really take Dunning-Kruger seriously, don't you? YOU SAID: "Being relatively heavy and positively charged, alpha particles tend to have a very short mean free path, and quickly lose kinetic energy within a short distance of their source..." (and you continue) -- A cut and paste from a wiki article?  Seriously? YOU SAID: "whats that about impossible shielding?" -- Because a Thorium reactor produces high velocity neutrons and gammas, you nitwit. Your cut-and-paste about alphas is irrelevant. Alphas aren't the problem. YOU SAID: "tfool is NOt a physicist, he is a chemist who specializes in food science." -- Fine. I couldn't care less. That doesn't mean YOU know what you're talking about. This Thorium car is just an investment scam. The claims made by Charles Stevens are patently absurd. And, he (and his friends) have already been shut down and sued by the SEC for their prior medical investment scam that promised to "cure all disease and regrow lost limbs" (yes, literally). You can look it up yourself on the sec.gov website and read the lawsuit (I have). Now, since that scam was shut down, he's moved on to this Thorium car scam, making ridiculous bullshit claims that defy everything we know about science, taking quarter-million dollar investments into this bullshit. And, the latest address he provided (at least that I could find) lists his business address to be in the Sea of Tranquility on the moon (again, yes, literally). And, he claimed this car was made by Cadillac and showed at the 2009 Chicago Auto Show.  (Cadillac denies any involvement with this car, and no such car was at that auto show.  The car was actually designed by a skateboard designer that Stevens hired, and was just a computer rendering.) YOU SAID: "a designer who designs things was used to design a concept SHAPE for a car. uh oh its a scam" -- You are truly an idiot. YOU SAID: "funny how you say experts in their fields dont know about this, yet your guru tfool is not a physicist either, whoops." -- Go find a single nuclear physicist who says this car concept is real. Go find a single physicist who says that Thorium can be used to directly make a laser work.  Go find a single engineer who would make Thorium power a laser, and then use the laser to heat water, to spin a turbine, to drive a car. Spare the world your idiocy, please. You clearly have zero understanding of science. You read a wiki on irrelevant alpha decay, and completely missed the point. High velocity neutrons and gammas are the problem, not alpha decay. And, that's only one issue amongst countless others that indicate that this car is a scam. Go read the sec.gov website about their prior medical scam (which preceded this Thorium car scam), where they duped at least $6.5 million out of investors, falsified the scientific backing, and then skipped town with the money.
    3
  1711. Wow, it's been a while since I've seen someone post so much gibberish that literally EVERY sentence is wrong. YOU SAID: "Thorium is the most radioactive material available on earth." -- Um, no. Polonium is. Thorium is many orders of magnitude less radioactive. As a matter of fact, if you want to make a nuclear energy plant, you really don't want the most radioactive material. You want something far more manageable that produces a more steady and slow and even flow. The "most radioactive materials" would make lousy energy sources. YOU SAID: "Brazil has the largest reserves of thorium in the world and India has the second largest reserves." -- Um, no. India is currently estimated to be #1.  Brazil is estimated to be #6. YOU SAID: "Indian government is already in the process of making two thorium based power plants after that India will become the first country in the world to generate electricity from a thorium reactor :)" -- Um, no. Germany had a Thorium reactor power plant as far back as the 1980s. They shut it down after being in operation for about a year and a half due to costs and technical problems. And, other countries are still ahead of India in development. Anyway, why does any of your incorrect Thorium gibberish matter to this video?  Even if you were correct (you're not), it's all still irrelevant to this "Laser Power Systems" car scam. I mean, just because these Young Turk morons fell for this investment scam... that doesn't mean that suddenly anyone else should, too.  And, all of your incorrect nonsense is irrelevant to the scam being promoted in this video.
    3
  1712. YOU SAID: "im going to have to say something.........many NASA employees hint that we never went to the moon." == How EXACTLY does this conspiracy work? Employees are allowed to "hint," but not outright say it? Why? What will happen to them if they just say it? YOU SAID: "1 said " i can not wait to see human kind leave low earth orbit"" == Pffttt. How old was he or she? Was he or she old enough to have witnessed Apollo? You know, the majority of NASA employees nowadays were not even born when Apollo happened, or, if they were alive, they were children with no memory of Apollo. So, yeah, that statement doesn't sound like a conspiracy to me. It just sounds like someone who didn't see Apollo happen. YOU SAID: "another said " we need to send this probe into these regins" == Sigh. Sorry, if you cannot even spell it, what could you possibly know about it? YOU SAID: "of space (van allen radiation belt) before we send humans through them"" == With very little doubt, you are referring to Kelly Smith. He said that because he made a very entry-level video, geared at very young people, to explain the purpose of testing the Orion craft in the Van Allen belts. That video was from 2014. At that point, they had never flown Orion in space before, you know. And, with the very sensitive electronics onboard (far more sensitive than the stuff they used on Apollo), they needed to make sure the new craft could go through the Van Allen belts without the computers flaking out due to ionizing radiation. He only talked about it for about 30 seconds, but yes, he DID mention the electronics. Yes, they want the craft's electronics to work correctly, if they're going to put people inside. So, they did the exact same thing with Orion that they did with Apollo 6, and sent it up through the Van Allen belts and back, to make sure it all works ok, before putting people inside. What's so surprising about NASA wanting to test the craft before putting people in it? I mean, this is the amazing thing about you conspiratards. If they want to test a new craft before putting people inside, you people cry, "FAKE!!! Why do they want to test it?!?!!" If they didn't test it, you cry, "FAKE!!! They'd never just stick humans inside without testing it first!!!" Either way, you people were going to cry, "FAKE!!!" So, what EXACTLY is your point? Please explain how this is even remotely relevant to the veracity of Apollo? YOU SAID: "another said -----"at the moment we can only fly in low earth orbit, but with these new building blocks we can eventually go to the moon and beyond"" == Key words, "AT THE MOMENT." This doesn't mean it didn't happen during Apollo. It means we don't have any of that stuff right now, because it's all been retired. I mean, seriously, what EXACTLY did you want him to say? Do you want him to say they CAN do it right now?? YOU SAID: "come on people....wake up.......we never went to the moon at all" == Why? Because a conspiracy video mashed up these silly one-line quotes together, completely out of context?? What's wrong with you? Seriously, what's wrong with you? I sure hope you're just a child, because, ya know, if you're an adult, and think this poorly, you're doomed to a life of complete failure. If you're a child, at least there's time to screw your head back on straight.
    3
  1713. During the peak of Apollo's spending, it consumed about 4.5% of the entire federal budget in hard costs, and roughly the equivalent of 2% more in international support and soft costs. After Apollo, they slashed NASA's budget to about 0.49% of the federal budget, and had them spread it over hundreds of various programs.
    3
  1714. Fake video's what? You failed to finish your question/sentence. Or, you no undur staynd Engrush?
    3
  1715. Or, you could learn how telescopes actually work....
    3
  1716. Yet, you've come to a YouTube comment to announce this amazing discovery of yours? Do you publish it in aerospace engineering journals? Nope. Do you publish your calculations and formulas in science journals on physics, demonstrating that the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation (the cornerstone formula of the physics of rocketry, which says that the 3rd stage did have enough fuel) is wrong, and you've got a new physics formula to prove that the 120 year old rocket equation is not correct? Nope, you do not. Nope, that pesky "scientific method" of publishing and peer review is too far beneath you. You have elected to announce this to the world via a YouTube comment. Bravo. Your Nobel Prize is in the mail.
    3
  1717. Wow. I think she left her dignity behind about a decade ago when she left her family and career to go on a drug and crime spree for the remaining years of her life.
    3
  1718.  @Sandro-ww3hc  YOU SAID: "wow !and I always thought that the us bombed the hell out of the bikini atoll same as for hiroshima and nagasaki . I must have been wrong all the time ." == Yes, I guess you were. They dropped one bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, around 15-25 kilotons each. That's nothing compared to Bikini. And, that's nothing compared to what the Soviets would have dropped on the USA if the cold war turned hot. Stop being such a sarcastic and insufferable twit. Good grief. Take it from experience, it gets you nowhere.
    3
  1719. Yes. But, it wouldn't matter. If he didn't start it, someone else would have.
    3
  1720. Yet another dewdrop pretending to know things he doesn't. 1) Go ahead, try to take photos/videos of stars yourself. Notice how they don't show up without long exposures. Try it. 2) Wrong on so many levels. The warning for a solar flare is anywhere between roughly an hour, and 2-3 days. Solar flares (coronal mass ejections) move at different speeds. Bigger ones actually travel slower. And, the light shows up first, so, we can see it before it arrives. Also, "the radiation" includes light, you know. Light moves at light speed. The coronal mass doesn't.
    3
  1721. "Moon gravity doesn't cause tides... Thats just more lies." Huh? So, when the high tide is always when the moon is overhead, and the low tide is always when the moon is at 90 degrees from overhead, you think this means that the moon isn't causing the tides? It's just a big massive coincidence for the past thousand years of recorded history on the tides? How about gravimeter readings? When the moon is overhead, you can take a gravimeter reading, and it's always lighter. When the moon is on the opposite side of the globe, it's always heavier. If that's not because of the moon's position and its gravity, what is causing these things?
    3
  1722. Right. You keep on quoting from silly conspiracy videos, and displaying an utter ignorance of every single topic you present, while believing that I don't understand stuff that you do. Sure. Your entire list of ridiculous questions truly exposes how gullible you are, falling for every conspiracy video you see.
    3
  1723. “compartmentalized as was the atomic bomb program.” Nonsense fed to you by a conspiracy video. Apollo was nothing like Manhattan. It couldn’t be accomplished by compartmentalizing, because all of Apollo’s systems were intertwined. And, Apollo was many orders of magnitude larger, involving numerous countries and 450,000 people. Furthermore, Manhattan was full of leaks all over the place, to the point that Stalin knew about the bomb before Truman even did. You are only making this comparison because a dishonest video spoon fed this to you. “it was controlled by a few who knew it was unreal and faked where it needed to be.” Who? Don’t just sit there and pretend you understand this. Name the people. Explain how they could possibly fake the evidence without the overwhelming amount of engineers never realizing it. Why didn’t the thousands of engineers realize it couldn’t be done? How did the “few” know it couldn’t be done if the thousands of engineers didn’t?
    3
  1724. “Humans flew up in the rocket designed only to fly in low earth orbit.” So, the tens of thousands of engineers didn’t realize that their designs would only work in low orbit? Really? Those engineers somehow only designed things to work in low orbit, and were completely unaware that their designs wouldn’t work on the moon? “And then they landed as lying heros.” Thanks for proving the universal truth that hoax nuts are illiterate. Not a single one of you can read or write past the 2nd grade level.
    3
  1725. “CIA/NASA actors is all they were.” Oh, so, Aldrin’s combat kills and MIT education never happened? Schmitt never went to Harvard and got his PhD? Armstrong never flew his 78 combat missions? Secretly, all of these highly skilled career test pilots, engineers, and a geologist all worked for the CIA, and, somehow, they manufactured resumes, without anyone in the military or universities ever saying, “hey, wait a minute, I’m the dean at MIT’s physics department where we teach orbital mechanics, and we never gave a doctorate to Buzz Aldrin, he never even attended here.” Nobody ever said, “hey, I worked as an X15 test pilot out at Edwards, and I never even saw or heard of Neil Armstrong flying one of these, why are they saying Neil was an X15 test pilot?” No? They manufactured combat missions and educations and test pilot experience without anybody noticing that these people weren’t really at those universities or aircraft carriers or flew those test planes? “Why did NASA recently test an unmanned flight called Artemus, anf fly it to the Van Allen radiation belt, to measure radiation levels” There were hundreds of objectives of the Artemis mission. Why NOT measure the radiation? It was a new capsule with new mission parameters atop a new rocket that had never flown before. There were hundreds of things that needed to be tested. Are you begrudging them putting a dosimeter onboard? Why pick that one little meter, and ignore everything else they accomplished in the mission?
    3
  1726. “flew there without incident 7 times 54 years ago?” You know nothing about Apollo, not even how many missions there were. There were NINE manned missions to the moon, dewdrop, not 7. Sorry that your favorite conspiracy videos didn’t tell you about all of the missions. But, this is exactly what happens when you get 100% of your “education” from dishonest sources. “People they are lying to you in these videos.” Oh, the utter irony. Bart Sibrel, a convicted criminal taxi cab driver, lies constantly throughout his videos. And, you have fallen for it hook line and sinker. But, you think OTHERS cannot recognize when they’ve been lied to? The complete and total irony.
    3
  1727. “We can only stay in low Earth orbit under the protective shields of the earth.” Yet, only a “few” (your claim) knew about this, and the thousands of engineers were completely unaware. And, the entirety of the world’s 72 space agencies is still to this day unaware of this. But, YOU know it. You watched some hoax videos, after all. Therefore, you understand the topic better than the entire planet’s aerospace engineers and cosmologists and radiobiologists. Sure. “Why are they probing the Van Allen radiation belt with unmanned probes if they already supposedly sent people through it 7 times?” Again, NINE times, dewdrop. Not 7. And, well, technically, 18 times, if you include travelling out and back separately. And, the answer to your question is that they’ve been sending probes into the Van Allen belts because they study them. They change, you know. Back in 2013, there were even three belts, not the normal two. But, hey, if you know about the hundreds of rockets/probes/satellites/equipment that have been sent up into and through the belts over the decades, how do you rectify this with your notion that only “a few” people knew about how deadly they are? That was your contention, right? Things were compartmentalized, right? So, how do they accomplish this compartmentalization when they’ve got thousands of engineers sending probe after probe up into the belts, commercial, military, NASA, international partners, etc.? How does that make sense to you? There are over 400 geosync satellites that passed through the belts, dozens more are still in those belts at this very moment, and numerous other probes sent to study the belts, many of those missions sent up by other countries, including enemies. Yet, none of those engineers ever realized that humans cannot survive it? No? But, YOU know, don’t you? You have secret knowledge that conspiracy video makers have given you, that none of the thousands of engineers who send those probes into the belts ever realize. I guess engineers don’t know how to watch conspiracy videos, right?
    3
  1728. “Why can only Americans go to the moon, no one else” Anybody can. But, who else has been willing to spend that kind of money on it? The Soviets came close, but they never got their N1 to work correctly. They eventually killed enough of their rocket engineers via sloppy and rushed safety standards, and realized that their design was too flawed to begin with, and would have to start all over again, and gave it up. They lost the race to the moon, so they shifted to space stations and Venus probes. But, yeah, the USA was the only other nation (thus far), willing to spend that kind of money for manned moon missions. “How did we go there with 54 year-old technology” Name the technology you think they lacked, can you? What EXACT technology wasn’t good enough? And, why didn’t any of the tens of thousands of engineers ever realize that their technology wouldn’t work?
    3
  1729. “and cannot go back to this day?” Well, until Artemis was funded in 2019, congress never approved another manned moon program. How would you suggest that NASA go to the moon again, after congress canceled Apollo? Where would they get the funding? NASA cannot buy a stick of chewing gum without congress approving it. How would they fund a manned moon program? “It would be the only documented case in all of human history where an achivement was not exploited and built upon.” Conspiracy video garbage. History is full of examples of stuff that was accomplished, and it took a very long time before it was repeated. There were 50 years between the time Magellan sailed around the world, and that was repeated. There were 50 years between the first time people dove to the bottom of the ocean and it was repeated. There were 4000 years between mankind building the Great Pyramid and building anything that large ever again. The 1950s era X15 mach-7 airplane was last flown over 50 years ago in the 1960s, and nobody has ever flown an airplane that fast again, still to this day. Concorde has been retired for decades now, and we never again have flown 100+ people at mach 2 for 3000 miles. Now, the best we can muster is a couple of people in small fighters going mach 1.5 for a couple hundred miles before they need to slow down. Yet, the 1969 Concorde could fly over 100+ people (and luggage) faster, and further, by far, with capabilities that are orders of magnitude more than today’s capability. The list goes on and on and on. See, dewdrop, the 1950s-1970s were the “golden age” of aviation and space travel. I’m sorry you don’t know what that means, but, we sane people understand those things. The makers of your favorite conspiracy videos will never tell you what any of it means.
    3
  1730. “Have you actually thought that through?” Good grief. YOU haven’t thought through a single one of your silly arguments and questions. “Why do we have no ability to use the old technology from the past, if it supposedly worked?” Huh? How? Are you going to go try to fire up some 1960s IBM mainframes and try to get them to feed navigational data to the Saturn V rocket? Who’s going to build them? North American Aviation built all of the command modules, and they went defunct before Apollo even ended. Who’s going to build more, without funding from congress to do so? All of those radar and radio telescope dishes used during Apollo… some are long gone now, others have been upgraded to equipment with no hope of ever interfacing with the craft. How will you solve that? I mean, good grief, you act as if this was a 1969 Ford Mustang, and you can just go change the spark plugs, put some fresh gas in the tank, and go for a ride. You have ZERO understanding of how rocketry works, and the sheer size and scope of Apollo. You couldn’t so much as even roll the thing out to the launchpad without tens of thousands of people revamping everything just to get one off the ground, let alone have any actual craft to launch. Good grief.
    3
  1731. “Why did NASA lose the blueprints and photo evidence so we can't rebuild and use what they used back then?” Ah, another conspiracy video claim that has no merit. Silly dewdrop, NASA never lost anything, except two backup tapes from one mission. But, well, sure, the “blueprints” are probably long gone. Who would keep them, and why? They still have all of the schematics. But, a blueprint is a very specific type of document, merely used for a machine shop to manufacture a specific part. It’s a play on words. The makers of the conspiracy videos say the “blueprints” are gone (which, sure, probably most of them are gone), and then gullible followers think this means nobody knows how any of it was built. It’s a matter of substituting the word “blueprint” for the word “schematic,” and watching the gullible followers just eat it up. It’s nonsense. We have detailed schematics of everything. But, sure, the actual blueprint to go make some flange or elbow joint or valve? Um, sure, probably those are long gone. Who cares? Who uses blueprints nowadays anyway? Is there a single machine shop anywhere on Earth still using them? Why does it matter to you if we don’t have blueprints? “Why has it all conveniently been lost, dismantled and disposed of?” It hasn’t. You just swallow anything a conspiracy video tells you.
    3
  1732. “Why are unedited NASA photos so rare and hard to find?” HILARIOUS!!! Have you tried the official archive? Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. It’s that easy. Good gods. See how inept you are? Are you getting a clue? A conspiracy video told you that it’s sooooo difficult to get copies of the photos, and that they’re all gone. But, you can visit the site and download as many of them as you want. I’ve had my copies of every single Apollo photo taken on the moon for decades. When they posted updated copies in higher resolution around 10 years ago, I downloaded those also. And, if you want film copies, you need only send away for them, and pay the copying fees. Congress mandated that all of these materials are public, otherwise they wouldn’t fund Apollo. And, to this day, it’s all public. But, conspiracy videos don’t want you to know that, because it kind of ruins their false narrative that you’ve fallen for. Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. Terabytes of video, photos, schematics, mission logs, etc. And, that’s only scratching the surface. It’s probably only 1% of the total evidence. There are plenty of ways to get the rest of the evidence also. But, it would take you about 10 years to get through the 1% that’s on the online archive. And, if you’re hinging your notion on the idea that these are “edited” somehow, sorry, dewdrop, that doesn’t fly either. See, immediately after each mission’s photos were developed, thousands of copies of every single photo were distributed to countless media outlets all over the world. If they went back and edited any of them, there’d be thousands of copies out there in the “original” form, and it would be impossible to go back and pretend that the “edited” versions are the original versions. It would be spotted too easily. Nope. The very same images available online today are the same ones originally published. “Why don't the astronauts give interviews?” Huh? I’ve interviewed most of the moon walkers. I’ve had dinner/lunch/breakfast with them. I’ve talked with them at various events. You name it. Astronauts give interviews all the time.
    3
  1733. “And in the rare cases when they do, why do they charge $2,000.00/hour?” Yeah, that’s probably about right. I really don’t remember how much I paid for a lot of the ones I did. But, that seems like it might be in the right neighborhood. I mean, some were “free.” Some were just at charity events, or other gatherings, whatever. But, yeah, for some, I just simply paid the fees. I mean, I’m sorry that you think $2,000 is a lot of money. But, these guys have to make a living, you know. How much would you charge? “Why has NASA been trying to go back but cannot?” Huh? They only started trying to go back in 2019, when Artemis was funded. When else have they ever tried? What ARE you talking about? Artemis was funded in 2019, and they used that money to build more Orion capsules, complete the SLS rocket, build and prepare the launch facilities, etc. Congress funded Artemis at the pace that would put people back on the moon around 2028-2030. Sure, Trump/Bridenstine/Pence kept pushing the 2024 date, so that it would happen in his 2nd term (had he gotten reelected), but, congress never approved the funding at that pace. They spread the money out over a much longer period. Go read the White House OMB reports. Stop blindly trusting everything you see. Good grief.
    3
  1734. “Why do they keep making deadlines and cannot meet them?” Huh? Like when they had technical problems with a rocket they had never flown? Like when a hurricane made them bring it back inside the VAB? Huh? “They always project best future dates and then miss them decade after decade after decade.” Welcome to space travel, dewdrop. The same has ALWAYS existed. The same was true of the shuttle, always scrubbing and delaying launches. The same was true of Mercury/Gemini/Apollo. The same is true in every space agency on Earth. But, what in the world are you talking about with “decade after decade”? It hasn’t even been ONE decade since Artemis was funded. It got its funding in 2019. That’s 4 years ago, not decades. So, I completely fail to understand why you’re complaining about decades, when there were only two manned moon programs ever funded by congress. Apollo, funded in 1961. Artemis, funded in 2019. That’s it. No more. No less. So, where do you get this “decade after decade” notion? What EXACT program are you referring to?
    3
  1735. “Go look at the history.” The irony is too stunning to even fathom. Yes, dewdrop, go look. Good gods. “They just have to keep deceiving the current population.” So, by this logic, if/when they had delays and scrubs of the shuttle missions, the shuttle didn’t exist. Right?
    3
  1736. “Watch a YouTube video called "Space Radiation Won't Stop Us from Going to the Moon."” Can’t find it, sorry. Is it a conspiracy video? That’s clearly where you get all of your “knowledge” (not knowledge). Most conspiracy videos don’t last long on YouTube. Eventually those crackpots find out that their videos are wrong, and they pull them down. Only the really hardcore crackpots keep their conspiracy videos online a long time. “How did they protect Astronaughts 54 years ago in, in a tiny aluminum capsule with no room to move in,” Because the capsule was made of aluminum. It works really well for most forms of radiation.
    3
  1737. “that took a large rocket that spent all it's fuel just to get into low Earth orbit?” Good grief. I mean, again, all of you hoax nuts share the literacy level of most 2nd graders. And, I’ve only mentioned it a couple of times so far. But, I just can’t keep ignoring your lack of literacy. The word is “ITS,” dewdrop. No apostrophe. Use it. What you just wrote was “a large rocket that spent all it is fuel….” I mean, good gods, why cannot a single one of you nuts ever learn the English language? Why? Didn’t it ever occur to you that, maybe, just maybe, the reason you know so little is because you cannot read and write? No? You don’t think so? You get all of your “education” via YouTube videos, and you simply cannot bother to read technical documents and actual mission reports? Why? Because you won’t understand them anyway, because you don’t know how to read and write. Your reading comprehension level is extremely low, hence why you can’t write. If you can’t write, it’s because you can’t read. Are you even reading this now? Or, were there too many words for you? Can you prove you read this and understand it, and write the word “green” at the very top of your reply (if you even give one)? I suspect you have a very serious comprehension issue. This is true of all people who cannot write very well. It’s BECAUSE you cannot read very well that you cannot write very well. And, by corollary, it’s because you cannot read very well that you know nothing. To answer your question, do the math, dewdrop. If you believe that the rocket didn’t have enough fuel to get past low Earth orbit, then demonstrate it mathematically. Then, explain why none of the thousands of engineers ever realized that they forgot to include enough fuel. I mean, maybe one of my engineering professors in college was just an Apollo nut or something, but, I remember doing this math as routine homework. There are many ways to calculate it, you know. Tsiolkovsky rocket equation. Go learn it. It’s the cornerstone of all rocketry still to this day. You can use this formula to calculate the lifting capability of any rocket. Or, once you learn thermodynamics, you can skip that equation and just calculate the energy states. Oh, but, in your mind, only a “few” people knew that it couldn’t be done. Therefore, somehow, the thousands of engineers never did the basic math to realize that the rocket would never make it to the moon, right? See how this notion of yours about only a “few” being involved just falls apart under your own subsequent words? Look how many people YOU are now involving. You’re saying that the entire world’s aerospace engineers do not realize that the Saturn V lacked the amount of fuel it required to get to the moon. I mean, I did it as routine homework, as did who knows how many others. But, somehow, the thousands of engineers who actually designed the boosters and craft all simultaneously forgot to calculate whether there was enough fuel inside, right? That’s your current assertion, right? Yet, only a very “few” at the top knew it was a “hoax,” right? Somehow, they prevented all of those engineers from doing the simple math to see if the rocket would do the job it was designed to do, and, simultaneously, they magically prevented all subsequent aerospace engineers everywhere on Earth from also doing the math. And, I guess I must have done the math wrong when I did it back in college, as did my professors, and all of my fellow students. Right? After all, you believe there was only enough fuel to get to low orbit, right? I mean, yeah, one of my degrees is in mathematics, but, I’ve never actually claimed to be a mathematician. So, yes, you provide me that math you used to calculate that the Saturn V didn’t have the fuel required to lift the craft to the moon. Can you? Or, was that a claim you saw in a conspiracy video, and you don’t actually know anything about how to do the math, and you just decided to blindly believe the conspiracy video when they told you there wasn’t enough fuel? Yeah, I guess no experts anywhere in the world have ever figured out what is so easily figured out by YOU watching conspiracy videos. Sure.
    3
  1738. “And then this cramped aluminum can supposedly traveled through two Van Allen belts for over an hour both ways?” So what? James Van Allen doesn’t think an hour mattered much. What do you know about the Van Allen belts that James Van Allen didn’t? I mean, you could do the math yourself, you know. But, I’ll just provide this quote to get you started: QUOTE: "The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight. The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months' duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure. A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week. However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. -- James A. Van Allen" How do you justify your belief that the Van Allen belts were too dangerous for Apollo? I mean, sure, yes, they prevent longer missions from being in those belts, because longer missions deliver more radiation exposure. The longer you’re in there, the more exposure you get. But, it’s like a medical CT scan. If you just get one or two, well, that’s a lot of radiation, but, still nowhere near a fatal amount. If you sat in a CT scan machine for a week or something, yeah, that’s a problem. So what? And, yet again, how do you square away your belief that “only a few” people knew it wasn’t possible, if you think the Van Allen belts were going to be that much of a problem for the couple of hours we’re talking about here? Do you not think that the entirety of the world’s space agencies know about the Van Allen belts? Why don’t any of the world’s radiobiologists or aerospace engineers make this objection you got from your favorite conspiracy videos?
    3
  1739. “How could that aluminum capsule protect them from high radiation whew the scientists who discovered the radiation belts said it would take 6" of lead surrounding the capsule age taking measurements with probes?” This just (again) demonstrates that you don’t know anything about this topic. There are NO aerospace engineers ANYWHERE that would EVER recommend using lead to protect from the Van Allen belts. None. Lead causes secondary radiation from that particular type of ionizing radiation. Aluminum is a far superior material to use than lead. Lead is good for gammas and high velocity neutrons, but, even today, most of the time, they just use concrete for that. The only thing they really use lead for is Xrays nowadays. And, guess what, dewdrop, there are virtually no Xrays in the Van Allen belts. You have ZERO understanding of the topic. A conspiracy video told you lead should be used, so you believed it hook line and sinker. You’ve never set foot inside a single university classroom on the topic. If you had, you’d learn about Bremsstrahlung radiation caused by lead that would result from the ions in the Van Allen belts, and you’d never make any such comment. But, people like you will never know anything about that. Nope. A conspiracy video told you that they needed lead, so you just bought it, hook line and sinker. Meanwhile, there’s no lead in Orion. Why not? If you think that there were only “a few” people who knew about the radiation in the Van Allen belts, and that it takes lead to stop it, how do you explain why they aren’t putting lead into Orion? Is there an entirely new generation of criminals running NASA now, with criminal engineers also, who don’t understand as much as you do about lead? Why aren’t today’s engineers using lead? Did the hoax still perpetuate, decade after decade, as people come and go? Who passed down the torch to the modern generation of criminal engineers who deceive people by making craft out of aluminum instead of lead? “Does aluminum protect from that high radiation?” Depends on what you mean. First of all, the radiation is “high” in the Van Allen belts, but, nothing that is a problem if you go through quickly. If you linger around, yeah, it’s a problem. Virtually nothing protects against the protonic radiation of the inner belt. But, sure, aluminum is a fantastic shield against the electrons in the outer belt, much better than lead would ever be. How do you explain the two dogs the Soviets sent into the belts back in those days, by the way? Can you explain them? They lived for 3 weeks in the thick of the inner belt (the bad one). I mean, sure, you can probably argue that they received the fatal dose after 1 or 2 weeks, and it just took them a week or two to die. But, given that Apollo went through the inner belt in about 15 minutes, I mean, that’s nothing by comparison. The dosimeters show the evidence also. Apollo 14 was the only mission that went right through the middle of the inner belt. And, yes, that was the only mission that received more than 1 rad of exposure. But, hey, radiation workers today are allowed 5 rads per year, or 25 rads in an emergency. Are you really going to argue about 1 rad here?
    3
  1740. “Why are they trying water sheilds now if they didn't need them back then?” ENGLISH!!! Good gods. I realize I’m harping on your spelling and grammar repeatedly here, but, it’s nowhere near as many times as you make mistakes. I just can barely even get through this pile of nonsensical illiterate garbage. Has it ever dawned on you that learning to read and write will serve you a lot better in life than worrying about conspiracies you don’t even come close to understanding? How is this question any different from saying, “I don’t understand it, therefore it’s fake”? How? What EXACTLY do you think you know about radiation that you feel qualified to question what mechanisms they explore using for shielding? And, what mission profile are they trying to serve with water shields? Do you even know? Or, did a conspiracy video tell you to complain about what types of shielding are used? “How did we get there then if we currently have to discover how to get through the deadly Van Allen radiation belts, according to recent NASA prooaganda videos?” Out of context quote mine. Sorry, dewdrop, but the Kelly Smith video wasn’t talking about what you think it was. It’s a video made for children. Sorry that the entire extent of your understanding is limited to what you see in a video made for children, but, you know, the rest of us actually got our educations from universities.
    3
  1741. “Why are they flying unmanned probes into the radiation belt now?” Because they have been since 1958. And, virtually every probe sent up actually has a different primary purpose, but, as long as they’re going through the belts anyway, they figure they’d take readings. This is no different than Artemis 1. As long as they’re going up anyway, sure, why not include a dosimeter? Do you begrudge them for it? Why WOULDN’T you want readings, as long as you’re going up anyway? “Von Braun said it would take 3 rockets each 4 time larger” Different mission profile, dewdrop. His original lunar plans were for at least a dozen people, with at least a few months on the moon per mission. Over the years, they pruned back and back and back, changing the mission profile, thus reducing the requirement. A conspiracy video told you that Von Braun said this, but, you never bothered to lift a finger to determine which mission profile he was referring to. Sorry, but it takes a much larger rocket to lift a dozen people and a large return rocket to the moon, than it takes to lift 3 people and a small lander. Stop pretending to understand things you do not. And, sorry, but “I don’t understand it, therefore it’s fake” isn’t an argument.
    3
  1742. “How were those 7 supposed flights” NINE!!! Sheesh. Now you’ve claimed it was only 7 times, at least 3x in your message. So, you don’t get to claim it was a typo or something. You really do think it was only 7 moon missions. You are completely oblivious to anything about Apollo. “the only ones in history where they worked the first time with no deaths unlike any other technology?” This is absurd. Good grief. Aviation itself started with the Wright brothers, who had YEARS and HUNDREDS of flights before the first death. Maybe thousands of flights. Good grief. Why is it that you hoax nuts want to see dead astronauts so badly anyway? What’s wrong with you?
    3
  1743. “Why did the lunar lander test flight fail miserably on Earth” No lunar lander ever flew on Earth!!! Good grief. Stop quoting from conspiracy videos!!! Go look up that craft, dewdrop. It wasn’t a lunar lander. The lunar landers weighed about 33,500 pounds, with a maximum thrust of 10,500 pounds. You cannot even get one off the ground on Earth. It was designed for operation at the moon, with 1/6th gravity. “Neil Armstring had to eject but worked flawlessly on the moon” So what? Yes, Armstrong had to eject from the LLRV. He ran out of control fuel due to a malfunction, and there was no way for him to know he was out. Why does this matter to you? He had over 100 successful LLRV/LLTV landings before/after that incident. I mean, this is what’s so ridiculous about you people: you just got done complaining that things went too perfectly for you to believe… and now, you’re quoting from a time that didn’t go perfectly, and you’re complaining that it wasn’t perfect enough for you? “7 times?” Dewdrop, what’s wrong with you? They didn’t land 7 times. They landed 6 times. They flew men to the moon 9 times, and landed 6 of those times. They intended to land 7 times, but, Apollo 13 exploded in space half way to the moon. So, you’re, once again, demonstrating that you know absolutely nothing about Apollo. Sorry, but you clearly don’t know enough to even accept or reject Apollo. You’re like a 5 year old child, first learning to add/subtract, while simultaneously saying you think calculus is all wrong. You don’t know anything about the topic you’re rejecting, dewdrop.
    3
  1744. “Why was one of the moon rocks found to be a piece of petrified rock from Earth?” Because the art museum failed to have it inspected to see if it was real. So what? Nobody thinks that rock came from NASA, not even the museum curators who accepted it. Why do you think it came from NASA? Did a conspiracy video tell you that it did? If a museum accepts a fake Rolex watch as a donation, does this mean all Rolex watches are fake? “Why are there intersecting shadows from the sun in the supposed moon photos?” Converging shadows, sure. But, what catalog number are you complaining about exactly? Did a conspiracy video tell you the shadows were wrong?
    3
  1745. “Why was NASA pretending to be half way to the moon while faking it in low Earth orbit” They didn’t. That was a lie produced by criminal Bart Sibrel, with editing and omissions in his video. If you actually believe a single word out of that guy, well, shame on you in the first place. But, if they were in low orbit, by definition, this means they were going 17,500 mph. So, why aren’t the clouds zooming by the window in his video? He is saying that those aren’t continental clouds as seen from half way to the moon, but, those clouds are localized as viewed from about 100-150 miles up, right? Why aren’t they zooming by those clouds at 17,500 mph? Ooops, Sibrel forgot about that when he was editing his video, huh? Go watch the original video, not Sibrel’s edited version. You can see the astronauts moving the camera from window to window. And, no, it’s not a round cutout like Sibrel pretends in his edited copy. You are absolutely amazing. You think you’re being rational and skeptical, criticizing sane people for understanding topics you don’t, professing that everyone ELSE just blindly swallows what WE believe. But, the reality is that YOU are the one doing that. You have blindly accepted every single little thing conspiracy videos have lied to you about. And, this laughable Bart Sibrel “round window trick from low orbit” is one of those examples. There are a hundred reasons to know Sibrel lied in that video, but, as I said, first and foremost, if he was correct, those localized clouds would be zooming by the window if they were in low orbit. Yet, they don’t move. Sibrel was deceiving you. “Why did Buzz Aldrin tell a girl named Zoey that we didn't go in a recent interview?” Because she asked why they didn’t go BACK to the moon after Apollo. The word “BACK” was implied. Let me ask you, if Aldrin was “confessing” to the little girl, why did he continue to talk about his Apollo mission, both before and after the “we didn’t go” comment? How does that make sense to you? He “confessed” to not going, then talked about his mission? Huh? Or, hmmm, are you selectively listening to one single sentence, and intentionally taking it out of context?
    3
  1746. “How did all the technology flawlessly supposedlywork for 7 missions” NINE, dewdrop. NINE manned moon missions. And, go tell Lovell that his equipment worked flawlessly, as it exploded in space. Sure. You know everything about Apollo, don’t you? And, there were tons and tons of other problems all throughout the missions, showing that saying “flawlessly” is just plain silly. But, you’ll never understand it anyway. You don’t even know what the missions were. You thought they landed 7 times (only 6 in reality), because you don’t even know Apollo 13 failed. And, you don’t know Apollo 8 and Apollo 10 went to the moon before Apollo 11. You literally know NOTHING about Apollo that wasn’t spoon fed to you by dishonest conspiracy videos. So, explaining the equipment failures to you is a waste of time. “before he was murdered?” Oh, yes, absolutely, they decided to kill Grissom and two guys. Sure. Right. Dewdrop, didn’t you just complain about things going to perfectly for you to believe? Yet, when they had a catastrophic event, it’s a perfect murder, and not an equipment failure? So, when things go well, it’s too perfect for you. And, when things don’t go perfectly, it’s a murder? Hey, dewdrop, you’re bordering on criminal slander/libel here, you know. The only saving grace (for you) is that you’re actually too st@#$pid to know you’re wrong, hence you aren’t technically guilty of a crime. But, hey, why would I expect more from you? A video told you they were murdered, so you blindly accepted it.
    3
  1747. “How did they have enough battery storage to heat up the cabin from -250 in the shade for all the days and cool it down from +250 in the sun the entire trip” Again, you don’t understand thermodynamics. These magical -250 and +250 numbers you keep referring to aren’t really how this stuff works. The thermodynamics for this stuff really relates to how much energy is absorbed, how much is reflected, and how much is radiated. All things have an equilibrium state between those factors. Some things heat up more, some heat up less. I’m sure some particular pieces of Apollo reached over a thousand degrees (F). Some never got hot at all, especially if they were extremely reflective. I cannot teach you thermodynamics over a YouTube comment, and you’re not really interested in answers to your questions anyway. But, this is just another case of “I don’t understand it, therefore it’s fake.” And, yet again, you seem to think that only “a few” people knew about these temperatures you’re talking about. Somehow, you think the thousands of engineers never prepared for things getting hot or cold, huh? Are you getting it yet? Your entire notion that only “a few” people knew about the “hoax” is falling apart with every statement/question you make. The more of these simplistic issues you’re presenting, the more it demonstrates that it would take THOUSANDS of people to participate. Or, you believe that NASA and its contractors universally hired the most incompetent engineers who ever existed, none of whom would ever even wonder if the equipment they designed and built, could survive the temperatures it’s going to experience. Right? As for your question about batteries: they were specialized silver-zinc batteries that costed a fortune (about $400,000 each, when adjusted for inflation). They offer the most energy packed into the smallest weight, with the exception of batteries that explode when vibrated too much. And, guess what, they couldn’t be recharged. So, your favorite conspiracy videos will say, “why don’t we use these magical batteries today in our cars?” Well, sure, if you want to spend $400,000 on a battery that can’t be recharged, and you need to replace every week, sure, you go right ahead and buy that battery for your car. Be my guest. But, in the meantime, dewdrop, you do know that Apollo mainly used fuel cells, right? Why would you ask about the batteries? The lander used batteries, sure. But, that wasn’t the main power source for most of the missions. You know this, right? You’re not just blindly parroting a claim from a conspiracy video, are you? “We had excellent resolution film back then. Why were the recordings so grainy?” Because they didn’t use film for the stuff you’re complaining about. Those were TV broadcasts in low resolution, not film. All of the stuff taken on film has the exact resolution you would expect. I’m sorry you don’t understand the various cameras used on Apollo, and which cameras were used for which functions, but, why should your own ignorance be an issue for the credibility of the missions?
    3
  1748. “They are continually lying to you.” Oh, you’re being lied to alright. But, you fail to realize that the conspiracy video makers are the ones doing the lying. “The rockets we had were designed to reach low earth orbit. They weren't designed to go to the moon with humans.” So, once again, thousands of engineers participated in this “hoax” that you think only a “few” people knew about. None of those thousands of engineers designed all of those rockets to go to the moon, they only designed them for low orbit. Sure. Again, do you see your pattern here? You said only a few people knew, but, every time you type something, you make it clear that your own version of the “conspiracy” requires far more people, thousands, tens of thousands. “There is more.” Where? From conspiracy videos? Sorry, the more you post, the more you fail. You know NOTHING about Apollo. Nothing at all. There are mountains and mountains of evidence for Apollo, which have been confirmed by numerous countries in dozens of ways, over multiple decades. You’ll never know about any of it, because you’re not actually studying Apollo, you’re just watching hoax videos. No more. No less. And, you’re quite proud of your own ignorance. Go back to school. Learn to read and write. Learn some science. Go try to actually understand something about radiation and rocketry, rather than regurgitating ridiculous complaints made by dishonest criminal taxi cab drivers. Go watch the original videos, not the ones edited and modified to fit a false narrative. And, once you learn how to read and write, go read the technical manuals that you think were all destroyed. Go learn how this stuff all worked. And, stop committing slander/libel against people you know nothing about, just because you have this psychotic need to fuel your fragile little ego by thinking you understand aerospace engineering better than aerospace engineers. Good grief. What a useless pile of @%$ you are.
    3
  1749. Dewdrop, I asked a number of questions, none of which you're answering. I also asked you to prove you were reading my messages by writing "green" at the top of your reply. You didn't. Why do you keep asking questions while making it 100% clear that you won't read the answers?
    3
  1750. Multiple people called the police. Why shouldn't they? She was putting on a show in front of people, including children. And, why would you think this had anything to do with her suicide? Because Inside Edition asked the question (but never provided the answer)?
    3
  1751. You have done a fantastic job of pretending to know things, and using legal sounding terms. In reality, however, nothing you said is even remotely correct. Yes, you can be questioned without proof. Proof is for courtrooms, not for the side of the road. The standard of questioning is called "reasonable suspicion." If they required that a case must be proven before anybody could be questioned, then nobody could ever be questioned. You're essentially asking for a conviction before questioning. I wouldn't even be able to imagine a system that worked that way. The store employee had told him that she thought the woman went through without paying. Yes, that's enough reasonable suspicion, therefore, he should detain and investigate. What illegal search are you even talking about? Asking for a receipt isn't a "search." It's a request. Nobody claims he used the Taser because of any search. You sure are correct, this *IS* beyond you (but not in a good way). She was Taser'd because she resisted arrest. It really doesn't even matter what the other crimes are, or are not. She could be suspected of murder, theft, jaywalking, tax evasion, whatever, and none of that matters. What mattered for the Taser was that she told him outright that she wasn't going to comply until/unless he used the Taser. She wasn't going to comply, and practically begged for it (almost undoubtedly because that was her tactic to amp up a future lawsuit). So, the cop had two choices: (1) manhandle her and tackle her to the ground to get the cuffs on her, or (2) use the Taser to force compliance. The Taser was the less aggressive of the two options. But, hey, if you think the cop did stuff wrong here, why aren't you explaining it to her attorneys? She hired a high profile attorney, and two of his attorney associates, for this case. They filed a $50,000 lawsuit against the store (and lost badly, but, at least they tried). Now, if the cop did all of the things wrong that you're accusing him of, that's easily a 7-figure case against the police, that would settle out of court for $500K. Now, please explain why you're not contacting her attorneys to let them know that they made the mistake of pursuing a mere $50K, when they had a slam-dunk $500K by suing the police. Ask them why they never even filed a case against the police. And, give them the benefit of your massive legal expertise on the matter. I'm sure they'll give you a percentage of their "winnings" when you tell them how to do their jobs.
    3
  1752. Well, anybody can define "solid proof" however they want. But, I'm betting that you don't even know what the evidence is in the first place. What is the strongest piece of evidence that you're aware of?
    3
  1753. And, you started out so correct... too bad it went downhill just a sentence later.
    3
  1754. Do you see that button on your bed that says "nurse call"? Press it. Ask her to change the channel to Wheel of Fortune (a favorite of people suffering from a deteriorating mind). Clearly, you've been watching the wrong stuff.
    3
  1755. Rockets.
    3
  1756. Not likely to get his life together. Anybody who murders his own father and throws the body in a lake, because he wouldn't let him borrow the truck, um, yeah, probably no rehab will ever work. Add that to the numerous charges he's going to get for this chase and shootout, and yeah, he'll be going away for a very long time.
    3
  1757. China acknowledged Apollo in 2021 when their Chang'e orbiter spotted the landers on the lunar surface. Why would you claim otherwise? Who told you that the Chinese didn't see any traces?
    3
  1758. Well, you can go watch the Apollo 11 moonwalk videos themselves. One was taken from the TV camera on the surface, and the other was taken from the 16mm film camera pointed out the lunar module's window.
    3
  1759. Huh? You mean the sun?
    3
  1760. 6 seconds? And, you got that number, how?
    3
  1761. Each crew was a bit different. Apollo 11's crew was extremely serious. Apollo 12's crew were constantly joking around, and were quite far from serious. Bean and Conrad were the ones with the centerfold pictures in their mission checklists, remember? Conrad was the one whose first word on the moon was "whooopieee." Then you have Apollo 14, with Mitchell already starting to lose his mental faculties (that would get worse as he grew older), doing ESP experiments on the moon. Apollo 15 was riddled with the stamp incident. Apollo 16 saw the most consecutive four letter words of any mission. And, yeah, Apollo 17 had Cernan and Schmitt, who were fairly lighthearted, yet simultaneously could get the job done. It's just like any other walk of life. Personalities differ.
    3
  1762.  @anxiouserror7379  YOU SAID: "it says in the video that it was not the first time happening" == What did I miss? Can you point to where in the video it says that this isn't the first time it happened at that resort? I thought the video said it DIDN'T happen at this resort before, and that this resort actually had never been found with tainted alcohol... which is why the "news" story had to stoop to finding people to interview who went to OTHER resorts/bars. Am I missing something?
    3
  1763. The more relevant number isn't the rads, it's the rems. There are many different kinds of radiation. If you are just talking about rads, without saying what kind of radiation it is, it doesn't say much. Like, for example, if you get 2 rads of gammas (basically just high energy light), it doesn't do anywhere near the same amount of damage to a human that 2 rads of fast neutrons does to a human. Also, when it comes to the Van Allen belts, you're really mainly talking about ionized particles. Ionized particles are very well shielded by a thin sheet of aluminum. But, for comparison, if you used a thin sheet of aluminum in something like a nuclear reactor with those high energy neutrons flying around, they would cut through that little sheet of aluminum like a knife through butter. You don't use the same kind of shielding for all kinds of radiation, you use different types of shielding based on the types of radiation you're protecting yourself from. And, shielding that works well against one type, can be ineffective on other types, or even worse, can actually magnify the effects of a different type. I don't know where you're getting this "52.8 minutes" number, nor what relevance it has on Apollo. Are you saying that you think the trip through the Van Allen belts took exactly 52.8 minutes? If so, it doesn't work that way. The Van Allen belts don't have these super-distinct boundaries, like "We're entering the Van Allen belts....... NOW. We're leaving the Van Allen belts...... NOW." No. It doesn't work that way. It's a more gradual thing. Also, the Van Allen belts fluctuate, and they don't have the same effects in all areas. In the end, I've read that they estimate the astronauts were exposed to about 2-3 rems going through the belts (each way), or around 4-6 total to the moon and back. They also knew how much the astronauts would receive, not only because of all of the probes they sent into the belts, but also because they sent the command module on Apollo 6 unmanned through the belts and back before ever sending humans through it. The legally allowed annual limit for a radiation worker in the USA is 5 rems per year, or 25 rems per year if they have to deal with a radiation emergency. So, the astronauts basically received their legal annual limit (if you use today's standards) in one round trip. And, yes, you need to be way up into the hundreds of rems before you're talking about instantaneous sickness or fatality. There's way more to this, of course. But, I'm just scratching the surface. The bottom line, however, is you cannot use numbers and figures on conspiratards. They don't know what they mean. To them, "there's too much radiation in the Van Allen belts" is all they need to know. They cannot do the math. They don't know what kind of radiation is in those belts. Frankly, they don't even know that there are different kinds of radiation. To them, ALL radiation is the stuff that comes out of nuclear reactors, but even then, they couldn't tell you what that radiation consists of, nor what it's called. They just know you need a whole bunch of lead to protect yourself from it, and they have no idea that lead can be a massively WORSE type of shielding against Van Allen belt radiation than a thin sheet of aluminum. Again, to them, the word "radiation" only means one thing. And, they have no idea how much of it there is, nor how to shield from it, nor what the effects are on the human body, nor how to do the math. Someone on the internet said "there is too much radiation in the Van Allen belts, you'd need 4 feet of lead to protect yourself from it" and that's all they need to know, and in their minds, once somebody says it, it must be true. All pro-Apollo claims are rejected at face value, regardless of how scientifically sound. All anti-Apollo claims are accepted at face value, regardless of how ridiculous or unfounded. And, math to a conspiratard is like a crucifix is to a vampire.
    3
  1764. So, if 99.99% of the NASA employees thought that the equipment they built to go to the moon, would be able to go to the moon, why not just go to the moon? What did the 0.01% know that the other 99.99% didn't know?
    3
  1765.  @stusue9733  Exploding nukes over the Martian poles to make Mars habitable for humans (good grief). Roof shingles that are solar panels. Chicago tunnel from downtown to O'Hare. Expanded Vegas tunnels all over the city. As for full self driving, well, I'm with you, it belongs on the list. But, what he did was just rename his level-2 system as "full self driving (level 5)" when it's not, so he could say he did it. So, if you're talking to a cultist, he/she will tell you FSD already exists. Give Eberhard his rightful car. 420 stock buyback. A functioning lunar lander. Working ventilator breathing machines. A mini sub to rescue cave divers. A car with a 600 mile range. Flying cars that run on compressed air. I don't think we could list all of the false promises without crashing YouTube.
    3
  1766. Huh? Dewdrop, ok, you're the NASA administrator any time between Apollo and today's Artemis program. You want to start another manned moon program. How do you do it?
    3
  1767. Only one? Which one was faked?
    3
  1768. Which of the 3 at the site? And, on what basis?
    3
  1769. David, if you are under the impression that Apollo 11 had a rover, then you obviously know absolutely nothing about Apollo. Nobody has EVER claimed that Apollo 11 had a rover with them. They had one moonwalk that lasted a couple of hours, and that was all. They didn't even venture out past just a short walk. There was no need for a rover, and no rovers had even been built by the time of that mission. Yet, here you are, completely oblivious to what the missions were, what was included, what was not included, very very basic entry level things... yet, you think you know enough about the topic to call it a Hollywood production? WHY?!!?!? What EXACTLY do you think you understand about Apollo, that the entire world's experts somehow overlooked for 50+ years, while simultaneously knowing so little about the topic that you think Apollo 11 had a rover?? That's like, "I have no idea where the brain is located in the human body, but I know that brain surgery is fake." That's exactly what you sound like.
    3
  1770. Yes, they ARE going now with more advanced technology. It's called Artemis. If they hadn't chosen that ridiculous lander, there'd have been a shot at a landing by 2027 or so. But, as it is, we have to wait for Blue to catch up. But, yes, it IS happening.
    3
  1771.  @WalkingFree-eo8mc  What wasn't filmed? Are you capable of completing a thought in writing?
    3
  1772.  @DeputyNordburg  Doesn't matter, they'll just shift the goalposts anyway. If we hypothetically got pictures so detailed that show the serial numbers, they'd just declare those to be fake anyway. There will never be a resolution that is good enough for them.
    3
  1773. What in the world are you talking about? Good gods. You "scoured the photos," but couldn't find any of the sun? How about AS12-46-6762? How about AS14-64-9062? How about AS17-134-20411? Want dozens more? How about ACTUALLY looking at the photos, instead of lying and saying you did.
    3
  1774. "It would really serve no purpose, other than if they had done something like a pan footage across the sun" You claimed that they never took any pictures or video of the sun "at all" (your words). You're wrong. Then, you came back and lied and said you looked for photos that you clearly never looked for. A simple search for "photos of the sun from the lunar surface" would show a few. Or, looking at the photo archives would show bunches more.
    3
  1775. Not the brightest bulb, eh?
    3
  1776. What difference would it make to send a rover to a prior Apollo landing spot? USA, China, and India have taken photos of the Apollo landing sites, showing the landers, rover tracks, etc. The deniers just conclude that those photos are fake. Why would they believe rover photos?
    3
  1777. The TV camera was located in the MESA (quadrant 4 of the lander). When Armstrong got out onto the porch, he pulled the lanyard to lower the MESA. This resulted in the camera being pointed at the ladder. After some of the initial tasks, Armstrong dismounted the camera from the MESA, and attached it to the tripod, and carried it out to the spot where it would be used for the rest of the moonwalk. A picture (or video) is worth a thousand words. "APOLLO 11 16MM ONBOARD FILM 1969" at about 54:40. AS12-46-6728 (be sure to look at the high res version, not the standard version) shows the MESA lowered, as Alan Bean climbs down the steps after Pete Conrad, and you can see the TV camera pointed at the ladder. I chose an Apollo 12 photo for this because the Apollo 11 photos only show the camera still covered by the thermal blanket, so you just see a tiny piece of the lens, not the whole camera. But, Conrad removed the thermal blanket on Apollo 12, so, you can see the camera on the MESA better.
    3
  1778. Did you ever go to school?
    3
  1779. "Why is there nothing said about this footage except for how they moved" This is a 50 minute documentary that addresses some of the common silly objections to the moon landings. Everyone has a little pet preference about what they want to discuss. But, again, 50 minutes. If it addressed every single thing ever said by the deniers, it wouldn't be 50 minutes, it would be 50 hours.
    3
  1780. "why would they need lasers to measure the distance there wouldn't they already know that information" Radar gave an accuracy within about 1 mile. Lasers gave an accuracy within about 2 inches. Both of those mechanisms have improved since the 1960s, and are more accurate today. Nowadays, the accuracy with the laser reflectors is within millimeters. But, they weren't just using the distance to the moon for the purpose of tracking the moon. They used them to track continental shift on Earth. Bouncing lasers off of the moon and other space reflectors is now the #1 way that plate tectonics on Earth are tracked.
    3
  1781. "Alls that tells me is they were taking from the same place" No, dewdrop. You are intentionally missing the point. And, you know it.
    3
  1782. Why do you think nobody could do it? What EXACT technology do you think they lacked?
    3
  1783. Why do you think nobody could do it? What EXACT technology do you think they lacked?
    3
  1784. Why do you think nobody could do it? What EXACT technology do you think they lacked?
    3
  1785. I've heard two versions of this. 1) The Apollo 11 flag was some sort of Mylar infused fabric, and all of the rest of the mission flags were nylon. 2) All 6 flags were nylon. I don't know which is true. But, it certainly isn't raw Mylar.
    3
  1786. Yet, you cannot name "the guy"? Sounds really reliable. Who told you? The internet?
    3
  1787. YOU SAID: "A movie producer, he came out and said...he helped film the fake moon landings..." == Wrong. This is just ridiculous. You are talking about a JOKE video. That video was made in order to make fun of people like you. They had an actor portray Stanley Kubrick. This "confession" video was released simultaneously with the "behind the scenes" video of this "confession," which showed them telling the actor playing Stanley Kubrick (named Tom) what to say. And, he doesn't even look like Stanley Kubrick. It was a social experiment to determine how dumb people are to fall for such and obvious joke video. And, amazingly, a couple of years ago, the conspiracy crowd jumped for joy, and repeated that video like crazy... for about 24 hours... until it was pointed out that it wasn't actually Stanley Kubrick, and the whole thing was just a "troll" video to demonstrate how stupid people are to fall for an obviously fake confession. Yet, here you are, still falling for it. YOU SAID: "then buzz Aldrin, told a little girl, on video...he said, he never went to the moon.......BUZZ ALDRIN, SAID THIS...STARTING TO GET A GUILTY CONSCIOUS..." == Pfttt. Another ridiculous statement. Aldrin was asked by the girl why they didn't go BACK to the moon. He said "we didn't go...." (and proceeded to explain why they didn't go BACK). He talked about his lunar mission in that very conversation. He didn't say the word "back," but that was implied in the question. Again, the conspiracy crowd jumps for joy because he said "we didn't go" (and the conspiracy crowd simply doesn't listen to the rest of the conversation, nor even understand what the question was).
    3
  1788. Well, that's one way to announce to the world that you have absolutely no understanding of the topic.
    3
  1789.  @gives_bad_advice  "but it's not so clear what the deniers get out of a fake moon landing" Like I said, so they can pretend to have "inside knowledge." And, as I've said before, but gets blocked almost every time, so, I'll soften the wording, it's a mechanism to drag everyone else down to their level. Take the most accomplished people, and accuse them of accomplishing nothing. It makes it easier for a denier to look in the mirror to believe that nobody else accomplished anything in their lives either.
    3
  1790. "I am fairly certain that military satellites have far better resolution at distance than civil equipment" Maybe. I wouldn't know (and neither would you). But, the only way to attain it would be by having bigger lenses/mirrors. Size is the main factor here. And, sorry, but we haven't even begun talking about atmospheric distortion. "What is the point other than taking some condescending or belittling position for the sake of it?" Because you don't know anything about the topic you're repeatedly pretending to know. It's quite annoying. "the spacecraft uses a lot (relatively speaking) of fuel to stay in such a low orbit" You greatly overestimate the effect of this "uneven gravity" you're talking about. See what I mean? You're pretending to know things you do not.
    3
  1791.  @axle.student  Thanks for demonstrating exactly what I was talking about. Look, dewdrop, if you want to pretend to understand how the LRO camera should have been built better than the people who built it, hey, be my guest. But, don't expect the rest of the world to cater to your ridiculous gibberish. You don't know what you are talking about.
    3
  1792. There is no video from a distance of Armstrong coming down the ladder. There were two cameras running. The 16mm film camera in the LMP window facing downward, and the TV camera on the side of the lander facing the ladder. If you saw any video of astronauts coming down the ladder as taken from a distance, it has been borrowed from a different mission and passed off as Apollo 11. 20 minutes later, Armstrong moved the TV camera to the tripod about 40 feet away from the lander.
    3
  1793. "You people are asking the wrong questions." Pfftt. Everyone has their own little useless pet questions that they think are "gotchas," but none of you people have ever been correct. "First question i have is how did they stay strapped into a rocket with a space suit on for three days" Huh? Have you never looked at the videos? Do you really think they wore their suits the entire time? Why would they do that? "traveling at unbelievable speeds" And, you think this is relevant to wearing suits, why? "and when they land they get out like they just had a great night's sleep." It's 3 days, dewdrop, not 3 years. "There legs" Oh, what a shocker. A moon landing denier who reads and writes at the level of a 2nd grader. Gee, I've never seen that before. "working fine and full of energy." It's 3 days, dewdrop, not 3 years. "They would have been completely exhausted" Why? "and probably had a very hard time walking if they could have even walked." It's 3 days, dewdrop, not 3 years. "Can the human body take that kind of punishment???" Dewdrop, the human body feels acceleration, not speed. You can sit on an airplane going 550 mph for 22 hours to go half way around the world, and there is no "punishment." The same is true of thousands of miles per hour. You don't feel it. You feel acceleration, not speed.
    3
  1794. "Fact: The Russian Cosmonauts were carried out on stretchers after 3 days in space." That is NOT fact. You're talking about missions that lasted about a year, not missions that lasted 3 days. You have no understanding of the topic, and should not pretend you do.
    3
  1795. You're joking, right?
    3
  1796. The Soviets DID "bother." They flew multiple lunar landers in space during test missions. They built capsules similar in concept to the Apollo command module capsule. They sent unmanned probes to the moon with the intent of gathering information for future manned landings. What they lacked was a working heavy-lift rocket. They kept blowing up (4 of them, none successful). So, they gave up rather than wasting more money to make the 7th landing. But, yes, make no mistake, they tried.
    3
  1797. The surest way to guarantee that the poor stay poor is to hand out food or money. The only true way out of poverty is to give the poor real skills that enables them to sustain themselves.
    3
  1798. Because there have never been any cameras close enough to get this level of detail since the mission photography of July, 1969.
    3
  1799. So, the photos from India, China, and LRO aren't good enough?
    3
  1800. Somehow, I think you are unaware that you negated your own position. That's what happens when you have the reading and writing capabilities of a 2nd grader, though.
    3
  1801. "Does it not stand to reason that you should be able to see the stars on the same frame as the earth shot?" There are two concepts you don't understand. "Apparent magnitude" and "dynamic range." You should read up on them. And, for that matter, just go outside after dusk. Watch how the sky transforms over time. You will start to see planets long before you will start to see stars. Make note of which planets you see first, then as it gets darker and darker, note which stars become visible, and in what order, etc. Then, go read the Wiki article about apparent magnitude of all of these different things in the Earth's sky. And, you'll find that things in the sky become visible in the exact order of the apparent magnitude charts. And, both cameras and human eyes have similar issues with dynamic range (for different reasons, with a similar end effect). You can't see/photograph bright objects in the same frame as dim ones, if they're outside the dynamic range. Yes, you can see the Earth from the moon during the day. But, you can't see stars during the day (unless you use some sort of optical aid). You should also learn about the film chemistry. Dim stars take a very long exposure time to show up on film. That long exposure time would bleach out every other thing in frame that has normal lighting. Go try to take photos of the stars on Earth. Even with a modern smartphone, you need an app that changes the camera's exposure time to 30 seconds before you'll see them.
    3
  1802. "Times the flag is stationary, time it waves around." The flags were always stationary except for the following conditions: 1) If someone was handling them, or, still waving because they had just been handled. 2) If an astronaut walked near a flag while the PLSS backpack or suit was off-gassing. People think the suits and backpacks were closed systems. They were not. They had various valves that opened and closed, and sometimes needed to vent off spent gasses. If this happened near a flag, yes, the flag moved slightly. And, for that matter, static electricity was a huge issue on the ultra-dry lunar surface, and that attracts nylon from a distance, so, a flag can move from that also if an astronaut is nearby. 3) If the lander itself was doing the same sort of things that the suits/backpacks did. There's one time, for example, on Apollo 14, when the astronauts were inside the LEM, and they opened the purge valve, and oxygen rushed out over the surface, blowing the flag enough that it rotated about 180 degrees (the pole wasn't perfectly vertical, so, that also helped the movement, but, you get the point, the flag moved without being touched).
    3
  1803. "Still not sold on NASA's explanation that they could not replicate how they are able to protect the astronauts and the film because they lost the files." Of course you shouldn't be sold on such a silly thing. Nobody lost the files. Who told you that? A conspiracy video? Nobody is having any trouble protecting astronauts or film if the mission profile is the exact same as Apollo's was. They have trouble protecting astronauts with increasing safety concerns about longer stays (which means longer exposure time), and they aren't willing to take chances like they did during the Apollo program for dealing with massive solar flares (which is addressed in this video), which only happen every few years. There were no large flares during any Apollo mission, but, had there been it could have been a huge problem. Apollo 16 missed one of those big flares by only a month or two. And, of course, with modern electronics being millions of times more sensitive to radiation than Apollo's electronics, they're always worried about the extra hardening that is required to fly modern computers in the Van Allen belts. But, none of these concerns are from "lost files." I have no idea why you'd believe such a thing. I mean, I do know why you believe it, because a conspiracy video said so. I just will never understand why you people think conspiracy videos are accurate... as if the entirety of the world's aerospace engineers don't know how to watch conspiracy videos, and somehow have forgotten how to deal with radiation. It's ridiculous.
    3
  1804. And, that's how you'd feel if it was a man at a playground, right? You're going to walk up to him while he's, ya know, doing his thing, and talk to him?
    3
  1805. Well, look, I don't want to argue with someone who acknowledges the Apollo moon landings. But, sorry, Odysseus has nothing to do with Apollo. They build those unmanned probes and shoot them at the moon like candy ("cheap" - relatively), and if they fail, they fail, and they just try again. The reliability is about 50%. To make the reliability 99% would take about 10x more money. So, which would you rather have for the exact same amount of money? 10 probes with 5 of them being successful? Or, 1 probe with a 99% chance of success? As for the rest of your "logic," sorry, but the deniers really don't care about successful probes today or unsuccessful probes today. They intend on denying Apollo no matter what.
    3
  1806. Dewdrop, no mission was ever there at night. No mission was ever there for a hot afternoon either. They landed early in the lunar morning, and lifted off in the very same lunar morning. A lunar "day" (sunrise to sunrise) isn't 24 hours, it's 708 hours (basically a month). Why are you quoting temperatures for times that the astronauts were never there?
    3
  1807. Conclusion first, ask questions second. How typical. "So now we send rovers to mars and pass up the Moon? Why?" Because those were the missions congress funded. "Have you ever seen any pictures of that stuff on the Moon that were captured recently?" Sure. There have been hundreds of photos taken by LRO over the last dozen years. You can see rover tracks, landers, foot paths, etc. And, both China and India have taken similar pictures of some of the landing sites in the last couple of years with their individual orbiters. "Hubble Telescope that can see trillions of miles into the Universe, but we can't see updated pics of the things we left on the Moons surface" Another topic you don't understand. You have confused distance with resolution.
    3
  1808. And, you'd think that, why? I mean, do you REALLY believe those thousands of engineers forgot to include enough power? And, for 50+ years, not a single engineer who worked on those systems ever said, "hey, wait a minute, we only included 6 watts of power, how did all of this stuff work?" No? YOU think YOU understand it better than the people who built the things? And, a simple search yielded this quote: "The Apollo Command Module's primary source of electric power was from a set of three "fuel cells" housed in the Service Module. Each fuel cell combines hydrogen and oxygen to produce electricity and water. The water was used for drinking by the astronaut crew. Each of the fuel cell power plants contain 31 separate cells connected in series. Each cell has hydrogen and an oxygen compartments and electrodes and in combination produce 27 to 31 volts. Normal power output for each power plant is 563 to 1420 watts, with a maximum of 2300 watts." So, let's see, maximum = 2300 per each of the 3 cells... that's 6900 watts total maximum. You thought it was 6. You were off by a factor of 1,150x. That's like claiming you make $115 million per year when you make only $100K. That's how far off you are. Bravo. I hope you're proud.
    3
  1809. Huh? So, what did these "small part" few people know that the other 450,000 didn't know? If everyone made equipment capable of going to the moon, what would make those "few" feel the need to fake it? I mean, you're wrong anyway. It would take thousands of people (including enemy countries to cooperate). But, just pretending you're correct, at that point, if everyone thought the equipment would work, just go, right?
    3
  1810. Yeah, I had dinner with Gene Cernan once, met him a few other times for drinks (he drank, but, I don't drink alcohol), a couple of informal interviews, etc. And, I almost bought his blue Corvette (but, I already had a '72, and didn't need a '74). I never met Young. He's one of the few moonwalkers I didn't meet. How was Young in person? He doesn't seem to talk much in some of the interviews I've seen. But, I know nothing about his actual personality.
    3
  1811. Looks like you didn't make it.
    3
  1812. Another proud graduate of YouTube University, huh?
    3
  1813. Dramatic nonsense. Very few people actually believed the War of the Worlds broadcast, and could see it for the satire that it was. And, sorry, but if you think the only evidence for Apollo came on a fuzzy black and white TV, you know nothing about the topic.
    3
  1814. You have an olympic sized swimming pool at 68 degrees. You have an eye dropper of hot water at 212 degrees. How much do you think the drops of hot water will raise the temperature of the swimming pool? You have a spacecraft at 20 degrees. You have a few atomic particles at 3000 degrees. How much do you think those few atomic particles can raise the temperature of the spacecraft? Every second of your life, about 100 trillion neutrinos pass through your body. They are about neg-450 degrees. Why aren't all humans frozen solid?
    3
  1815. There were 9 manned missions to the moon. 6 of those missions landed. If that's not "going back," what is? And, is congress never allowed to end a program? The Apollo program ran from 1961 to 1975. Is 15 years not long enough for you to believe it existed?
    3
  1816. Your grandmother was confused about his own identity, yet he knew all about the moon. AOK, very progressive.
    3
  1817. "There's also no reflection of the earth visible on the astronauts visors." Huh? The Earth wasn't always directly overhead, but, yeah, it was relatively high in the sky, because they never landed more than about 30 or 40 degrees "off center" (from our perspective). And, their bubble helmets were covered on top, and the only reflections you'll see are horizontal, or a few degrees vertical, not high enough to see the Earth. Who cares? Why does this matter to you? "Neither of you have provided evidence that the earth was visible from the lunar surface" Huh? First of all, you didn't ask for it. Secondly, how about all of the photos of the Earth they took from the lunar surface? How about the video segments taken from the lunar surface showing the Earth?
    3
  1818.  @critthought2866  Wait, maybe I've got my directions mixed up... I will leave my prior message intact, but, I might be eating my words about the direction the dish is pointing.
    3
  1819. .toidi na er'uoY
    3
  1820. Sorry, but when you need to change to a half dozen other topics in your opening comment, you have nothing. Apollo stands whether you believe it or not. We don't need a single piece of evidence from the US government in order to know Apollo happened. There has been plenty of evidence from dozens of countries, such that you don't have to listen to a single word of what the US government says, and still, you would know enough about Apollo to know it happened exactly as described. So, spare the world your silly logic of "look over here at these other topics, therefore Apollo is fake" nonsense.
    3
  1821. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    3
  1822. Technology little alone. USSR simple moon. Almost sentence.
    3
  1823. Yes, the flags moved for various reasons. Without a timestamp to explain the particular movement you're complaining about, it's pretty difficult to answer.
    3
  1824. "put together and assembled by the cheapest parts they could find" This is pure nonsense. Apollo was one of the most expensive programs in human history, and THE most expensive exploration program. Almost the entirety of the budget went into purchasing the equipment from contractors that hand-built everything. With the exception of little things like nuts and bolts, virtually everything was crafted from scratch.
    3
  1825. THAT is your reply? You ignored all responses and questions, and now you're just asking another question? "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake" seems to be your entire mantra.
    3
  1826. Then why did China confirm Apollo 11 by releasing photos taken by the Chang'e orbiter?
    3
  1827. "got that load of celluloid 'back to earth' in such pristine shape" Well, Kodak and Hasselblad designed it accordingly. But, if you think everything was in "pristine shape" then you haven't looked at the photo archive yourself. "celluloid shatters at or below zero" I doubt you're correct, but, so what? A vacuum doesn't have a temperature. "and not have any imperfections" Again, you clearly haven't viewed the photo archive yourself. "120C day time temp. and -130C night time temp" Dewdrop, again, a vacuum doesn't have any temperature at all. Temperature is basically (loosely) the measurement of the energy state of material matter. No material matter = no temperature. The lunar surface can have a temperature, and that's apparently what you're quoting. But, why would you quote night temperatures at all? Are you under the impression that they were there at night? And, your 120C quote is only in the lunar afternoon, so, again, I simply can't understand why you'd quote it at all. All Apollo missions landed early in the lunar morning. "Your conceit is insufferable." I wouldn't even know how to be more ironic if I tried.
    3
  1828.  @vernonfrance2974  Oh, and why are you replying here anyway? You started a brand new fresh thread on this very topic a few hours ago. I replied there with photo catalog numbers and everything. But, you came to a 4 month old thread to reply?
    3
  1829.  @DemonDrummer  I guess he figures that nobody for 50+ years has done the math.
    3
  1830. "just dropping a lazer reflector" If you don't know how to spell it, why do you think you know anything whatsoever about it?
    3
  1831. No advancements in the area of educating people on how to read and write, sadly.
    3
  1832. What would you give to a guy cranking at the playground?
    3
  1833. How about looking at the photos for yourself, rather than blindly trusting conspiracy videos, huh? Yes, dewdrop, there was dust in some of the landing pads. But, by and large, the reason there isn't much dust in them, nor on the craft in general, is because on the moon there is no atmosphere for dust to swirl around and come back to the craft. It just blows outward and never comes back. The small amounts of dust that were in some of the pads was just whatever little amount that managed to bounce its way into the pad just after the engine was cut off, and didn't get blown far away.
    3
  1834. Of course dust would be displaced, and it was. But, in a vacuum, there's no mechanism for the dust to swirl back around toward the lander. What don't you understand here? And, why are you ignoring the fact that you didn't look at the photo archive for yourself to find out that you're wrong? Some of the landing pads did have dust in them.
    3
  1835. Well, thanks for confirming that you didn't want answers to your questions. None of you deniers ever do. "ISRO Chandrayaan2’s photos of Apollo 11 & 12 landing sites" yields the exact photos you're talking about. So, don't pretend you tried. Just admit that you have no desire to see anything that goes against your predetermined conclusions, and you have decided, in advance, never to seek anything that derails your delusions? Is it really that hard? I promise you, nobody who actually reads a word out of you believes otherwise anyway. So, you may as well admit it.
    3
  1836. Dewdrop, any backyard amateur with a 50 watt radio and a nice dish can bounce radio off of the moon. It's called a "moon bounce" or "EME" (Earth Moon Earth). There are literally thousands of videos and articles that show you the exact equipment you can buy to do this yourself. You aim your dish at the moon, and you can use the moon as a radio reflector, and talk with someone half way around the world to someone who also has a dish aimed at the moon. Or, you can simply receive your own radio signal back to yourself (2.6 seconds later). People have been doing this since a decade before the Apollo program even began.
    3
  1837. Dewdrop, do you or do you not acknowledge that there are thousands of backyard amateurs around the world who perform radio "moon bounces" routinely? There isn't a day that goes by when someone in the world isn't doing it. Why do you refuse to address it?
    3
  1838. Gravity = realistic? Good gods. As they show pieces of debris coming at them from orbiting in the other direction, smashing into their craft? So, 17,500 mph in one direction coming toward stuff at 17,500 mph in the other direction, and you think they could just see it like that? That's 35,000 mph relative speed. Sorry, there's nothing "realistic" about what was shown in that movie.
    3
  1839. "clouds look like copy paste in a lot of images." Yes, there are lots of composites out there made from low orbit images with gaps in the images that they copy and paste clouds or other stuff to fill the gaps. So what? They tell you they're doing it just for the sake of making a pretty picture. And, when it's a raw image, unmodified, they tell you that also. So what? Why does this matter about the veracity of Apollo?
    3
  1840. "Spent trillions" NASA hasn't spent trillions yet, from inception through today, let alone just on Apollo.
    3
  1841. Marcus Allen? The photographer who knew absolutely nothing about photography? The guy so clueless about Apollo's photography that he didn't even know the cameras could detach from the front of the suit mounts? The guy who thought Apollo was fake because he didn't even realize that they only had one Hasselblad 70mm film camera on the lunar surface on Apollo 11, and thought there were two? The guy who kept changing his story every time it was pointed out to him that he was wrong about every single slanderous assertion he made, never once actually admitting he was mistaken about anything? That guy? You're thanking him? Good grief. How far down the toilet have you flushed your human standards away, if you think THAT guy is worth thanking for ANYTHING? And, oh, nobody has a clue about what happened to that airliner. Oh, but YOU know. Sure. You wouldn't happen to have one of those psychoses where you feel better about yourself by pretending to know things others don't know, are you?
    3
  1842. Every time you go to the beach, you're walking on a radioactive surface too, you know. And, the sidewalk. And, open grass fields. There are microscopic traces of radioactive material just about everywhere. On the moon, there's more of it than on Earth, but, still such microscopic quantity that it would take extremely long exposures before it would matter. And, cooked? Tell me, if you think there's so much radioactivity that it could "cook" something, why does the lunar surface drop to -280 degrees (Fahrenheit) at night? Does the radioactive material deactivate itself at night or something?
    3
  1843. How much time do the prison guards let you use the computer?
    3
  1844. Tell me, do you go to the conspiracy videos and complain that they're not unbiased?
    3
  1845. What in the world does Armstrong's suit have to do with nylon? But, let me guess, you don't understand overshoes, right? And, why won't you address the fact that you're wrong about nylon's melting temperature?
    3
  1846. Does a single drop of hot water melt a glacier? No? Why not? Because there's not enough of the hot water to matter to a giant glacier, right? Same for hot material in space. There's so little material (you're basically counting loose ions and atoms) in space that it doesn't matter how hot they are, they aren't going to affect a spacecraft. The spacecraft is the glacier, the hot material is the drop of water.
    3
  1847. In front of children.
    3
  1848. "If the US really wanted to prove" The US government and NASA are not trying to prove anything... not really aggressively anyway. Last time I checked, they put a whopping $50K (which is nothing) into proving the moon landings. It's simply not worth taxpayer money to convince dewdrops that they are dewdrops.
    3
  1849. "Why is Elon Musk having issues accomplishing the same thing right now with new advanced technology?" Because he is more hype than actual engineering knowledge, his rocket company is a joke, and Starship HLS is a mess, that I'd bet dollars to donuts was the result of under the table negotiations and corrupt politicians, rather than merit.
    3
  1850. "They all seemed to acknowledge that sending a Rover to the moon is much safer." And, between 100x and 200x cheaper than a manned mission.
    3
  1851. And, you'll reject that video, like you already reject the 80 hours of Apollo mission video.
    3
  1852. Yes, that's a tremendous lie by Bart Sibrel. Shame on you for believing a single word. He made that video in his editing room. But, he forgot that if they're in low orbit (as he claims), the craft would be going 17,500 mph. Hence, his own version of the video is wrong, because the clouds are not moving by the window at 17,500 mph. They're virtually stationary. He took the original video, cut it into pieces to present a false narrative, and sold it to Fox to be aired about 20-25 years ago. There are a million ways to know it's a lie, starting with the speed issue and the fact that the clouds aren't moving... but... ultimately, you can just go watch the original version, and you can see exactly where he edited out the parts that prove himself wrong. Again, why would you believe it? What possible reason would you have to trust a criminally convicted taxi cab driver? And, why haven't you lifted a finger to fact-check him? There are countless debunk videos out there, exposing exactly why that video is wrong, some of which are hours long. But, with your short attention span, I'd recommend "Addendum A Funny Thing Happened... (By GreaterSapien - MIRROR)" because it's only 4 minutes. It only shows a small amount of the debunks, but, it's good enough to make it very clear to you that Sibrel is the liar here, not NASA.
    3
  1853. You don't need to imagine it. The temperatures have been well recorded.
    3
  1854. "As an adult" That's clearly not the case.
    3
  1855. Well, they have lots of rehab facilities that can help you with your addictions, you know.
    3
  1856. This is downright ridiculous. Yesterday (before you deleted your thread and ran for the hills), you claimed that the TV video wasn't possible because you thought they ran the video through the Apollo computers to be digitized before it was transmitted. You had absolutely no idea that TV video could be (and was) analog. Today, you're claiming to be an expert on TV transmissions? How does an expert on TV transmissions NOT know that TV signals were analog until a few years ago?
    3
  1857. Dewdrop, how about actually doing what you claim others should do? But, nope, you just watch conspiracy videos and regurgitate. Nobody who looks at the actual photo archive for himself would ever say what you're saying.
    3
  1858. No, dewdrop. If you still think there was no dust on any of the landing pads, and that there was no evidence of dust being blown under the landers, you have NOT looked at the photo archive for yourself. Stop pretending.
    3
  1859. Yeah, sorry, my bad, it was difficult to know that you were being sarcastic. So many people here say such weird things (and mean it).
    3
  1860. Well, that's a tough one, for sure. That's Apollo image AS17-145-22261, and the ALSJ doesn't say who took that photo. Naturally, you'd assume it was Schmitt. But, scrolling through the before/after photos in that same sequence, it's clear that Cernan and Schmitt passed the camera between them for that series of photos. The photos that show part of the lunar module structure in frame make it easy to know if it was Cernan or Schmitt who took the photo, of course. But, that particular photo doesn't show any of the lunar module in frame (except the warped reflection in the curvature of the command module). I can only tell you that, my guess is that it's most likely Cernan who took that particular image. Why? Well, the photos directly before and after were taken by Cernan (as you can tell because you can see part of the lunar module in frame in those photos, so you know whose window the photos were taken from). And, the angle of those seems congruent with AS17-145-22261. Plus, on the original AS17-145-22261 (non-cropped version), there's a tiny bit of something appearing in the bottom right corner of the image, which might be part of the lunar module as seen from Cernan's window. You won't see it in this video's version, because this one is cropped. But, if you look at the HR version on ALSJ, you can see a tiny bit of something in the lower right corner, which matches the prior/after images taken from Cernan's window. So, bottom line: yes, the camera could have been passed to Schmitt for this particular photo. But, given all I've said, and given that the images just prior and just after were also taken by Cernan, my money is on Cernan who took the photo.
    3
  1861.  @gerardoconnor4278  That's what I answered about.
    3
  1862. "Any high risk activity no risks are taken" Wow. I mean, do you ever think before you type? This one is absolutely stunning. An amazing self-contradiction.
    3
  1863. YOU SAID: "The evidence is overwhelming that we never went to the moon." == Hmmm. You'd think if that was the case, you might find at least ONE space agency anywhere on the planet that agrees with you. But, alas, you can't. There are none that agree with you. And, it's funny that not a single bit of this "overwhelming evidence" can be found in any science journal articles, huh? Why not? Why has there never been a single anti-Apollo science journal article in history that has ever made it through even the first level of peer review? Why has every single anti-Apollo claim ever made in history fallen apart with the slightest bit of scientific scrutiny? YOU SAID: "We've been lied to yet again." == Well, you sure have been lied to. But, I think you've gotten it backward about who the liars are. The liars are the ones polluting your brain with these ridiculous conspiracies. YOU SAID: "Add this hoax to 9/11 and WMD's. Turn off the TV and your own research." == What "research" would that be? What scientific publications do you suggest people "research"? Sorry, but watching conspiracy videos on YouTube isn't "research." YOU SAID: "The media is a joke!" == It sure is.
    3
  1864. Which version was that, exactly? Was that the version that include 50 people at a time in space, and a couple of dozen of them descending to the surface of the moon? Is that how this goes, in your mind? You get to sit there and quote some early version of mission profiles, and this means Apollo didn't happen? Dewdrop, just calculate it. It's not that difficult. The rocket equations have been understood for 120 years. Calculate it!!! If you think there wasn't enough fuel, it's a simple math formula away. But, I guess you figured that nobody on the planet for the past 55 years has bothered to use the basic rocket equations?
    3
  1865. And, those mangled sentences came from a college graduate? I hope that English is your 2nd language, and the college is somewhere else in the world. But, if it's a US college, please tell me which one, so I'll know never to hire anybody who graduated from there.
    3
  1866. Oh, and, not that my example needs video support. Everything I said stands on its own, with or without video. There are a thousand videos out there debunking Bart Sibrel's claptrap. But, a nice short one that demonstrates Sibrel's lie about the "round window trick" is on dailymotion. It's video x2zt9g6. Links are not allowed, so, you'll have to determine on your own how to view that video ID.
    3
  1867. Don't pretend you actually want the answers to your own questions. I mean, seriously here, what's your position? You think that the thousands of engineers forgot to include oxygen in the craft?
    3
  1868. Well, I don't think you evee went to high school.
    3
  1869. Blame the victim?
    3
  1870. Technology has nothing to do with it. But, you got the money part right. Yes, it's very difficult to run a moon program with zero dollars to do it.
    3
  1871. The oldest rocks found on the moon were around 4 billion years. You seem to accept the fact that they found those rocks, but, simultaneously you think the Earth is young, and that the rock came from Earth? This makes no sense. But, then again, I suppose I couldn't expect someone like you to make sense in the first place.
    3
  1872. 1) Why can't/won't you answer a single question asked of you? 2) If you didn't want answers to your questions, why did you ask them? 3) Why can't you provide the examples you're talking about? Will it reveal that, yes, you're just blindly repeating stuff you saw in conspiracy videos that lied to you? 4) Did you even read anything I wrote?
    3
  1873. HapPend, BunchA TaX UsInG dOLLerS CoNtrOlLeD 2 DA mUN.
    3
  1874. YOU SAID: "Where did they store the space suits" == Posting links is apparently blocked (I tried). But, if you Google image AS17-134-20523, you can see a photo of the suits stowed. YOU SAID: "how did they put them on in such a small space." == It was a tight space, but, not THAT tight. They had enough room.
    3
  1875. "I'm still waiting for the pictures." I'd eat my hat if you have even bothered to look at the original 7,000 photos taken from the lunar surface, or the 110,000 photos taken from lunar orbit. You want new pictures before you bothered to look at the old pictures. Tell me I'm wrong. Can you? "Google earth can take detailed pictures of street signs, pedestrians and lamp posts." Yes, they mount huge cameras to the roofs of cars and drive them around town. "Why can't we do the same thing with the Apollo landing sights?" Drive cars around each site? Or, sorry, spelling it your way, drive cars around each sight? "With all of our advancements in computer science" How much thrust does a modern computer generate? "aeronautics" And, that's relevant to space travel, how? "and rocket design" Please tell me the advances in rocket design that would make any difference today vs. 50 years ago? "TODAY, no nation on the face of the earth, neither the United States nor any other technically developed nation; not Russia, China, India, France, Japan, Great Britain, Germany nor any other nation, NONE of them has the technology at present to send men from the Earth to the Moon" And, NONE of them have supersonic airliners. And, NONE of them have mach 7 airplanes. And, NONE of them have mach 3 spy planes. So what? The 1950s and 1960s were the golden age of aviation and space travel. Virtually unlimited budgets result in amazing feats. Now, it's tough to get anybody to spend that kind of money. "with all of our advancements in computing power" Again, how much thrust does your computer generate? Why do you think computing power means anything? "communication" OK, but, are you saying that analog communications wouldn't work? "aeronautics" Again, why does this matter to you? "and physics" What aspect of physics has advanced since the 1960s in any way that relates to space travel? "We simply don't have the ability to do it." Bingo. It was retired, like most of the other relics of the golden age of aviation and space travel. "This is equivalent to nobody being able to fly a plane for 50 years after the Wright Brothers flew at Kitty Hawk in 1903. That makes no sense." Let me help you make sense of it. Airplanes = profitable. Moon missions = not. "Men never walked on the Moon." So, you couldn't even wait to get answers to your questions before declaring your conclusions. Hey, dewdrop, why didn't your list of objections include looking at the EVIDENCE?
    3
  1876. Huh? When?
    3
  1877. Wow, I never thought I'd say this, but, yeah, your posting was so convincing, I guess I'll go ahead and discard the work of 450,000 people for a decade of their lives. I mean, if you were a model2dude, no, I wouldn't believe you. But, since you're a model3dude, I'm totally convinced by your thorough explanation that defies the entire planet's experts.
    3
  1878. As I said, I believe everything you tell me. Your arguments are THAT convincing.
    3
  1879. Huh? She was already dead by the time she was put on blast.
    3
  1880. Yes, that's correct. There are no lenses a quarter mile in diameter (the size required) now, and it's quite unlikely anybody will build such a lens in the future. Also, atmospheric distortion is another issue that is unlikely to be solved. So what? Who said we need telescopes to confirm Apollo?
    3
  1881. "It is false to claim that the Russians never questioned the authenticity of the moon landing. There exist numerous interviews where they express doubts about its veracity" Wow, numerous interviews, eh? That must mean it's real. Bigfoot too. There are numerous interviews of people who claim Bigfoot sightings. Psychics also. There are numerous interviews with people who say they had psychic readings. Yup, as long as there are interviews, this means it's legit. Let's forget all about the fact that the Soviets tracked the Apollo missions with their radar and radio telescopes, and could listen in on the Apollo audio by pointing their dishes at the moon. Nope. That stuff doesn't matter. There were interviews of people doubting the authenticity. That's what matters the most. "and they even attempted to construct their own multi-engine rocket for a moon launch" Um, yeah. You do know that they tried to launch two of them before the USA ever landed men on the moon, right? They both blew up, as did the two that they launched later. But, my point is, yes, the veracity of Apollo is SUPPORTED by the Soviets' efforts to catch up, not the other way around. They were behind, and they knew it, and were pushing their program to try to catch up. I fail to understand why you think this is evidence for your crackpot notions. "It is worth noting that NASA has been purchasing the same Russian engines since the 90s because they are based on superior technology, deemed impossible to achieve in the United States." WOW!!! What secret documents do you know of, that the rest of the world doesn't? I mean, it's always been documented and understood that the US's policy since WWI has been to attempt to embrace and assist the countries it defeats. Japan after WWII. Germany. Etc. So, after the fall of the Soviet Union, the USA wanted to inspire good commerce and relations, and also non-proliferation, so it formed a partnership for buying their rocket engines. Oh, but, you must know of some secret motive to get rockets from them for technical reasons, eh? No, they wouldn't just buy one and copy the design (had that been the issue). Nope. It was because the USA just couldn't figure out how those rockets worked, and gave up, ever to even try. Sure. Right. Um, dewdrop, didn't you just get done outlining the FAILED Soviet N1 rockets that couldn't even get off the launch pad without exploding? Yet, in the very next sentence, you're implying that the Soviets had the superior rocket technology that the USA just couldn't replicate? How do you make sense of these two sentences right next to each other. First, you say the Soviet rockets failed/exploded, and they never got them to work. Then, in the next sentence, you say the Soviet rockets were superior to the USA's rockets? Huh? I'm beginning to think you might not be the aerospace engineer I thought you were. "This suggests that the Russians were more advanced than they were given credit for." WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU!??!!? What "credit" do they lack? You just got done presenting the fact that the USA purchased rockets from the Russians for decades, and now you're saying they didn't get any credit? What better "credit" do you want, besides buying the rockets for decades? I mean, I'll tell you this much, in my personal life, I'd much rather have a check to deposit into my bank account than a friendly pat on the back of "credit." And, the USA supplied BOTH!!! They complimented the efficiency of the liquid oxygen based engines, and ALSO wrote checks for decades. Now, you're saying that they weren't given "credit"? What? "Furthermore, the documentary fails to mention the missing NASA footage" Who cares? You're talking about the missing two backup tapes of the Apollo 11 moonwalk, right? So what? The primary copies aren't missing. Why would you care if the backup copies are missing? They have never once been watched. They were recorded only in the event that the NTSC conversion failed. But, since the NTSC conversion worked properly, there was no need for those two tapes. They were put somewhere, and nobody even asked where they were until 2006. But, now they're important to you? Why? "which has yet to be located." No, but, equivalent copies have been located, so, again, who cares? "Additionally, it is worth noting that in 2023, despite advancements in technology and infrastructure, it is still a challenge to reach the moon." And, it was a challenge back then also. What's your point? Going to the moon is supposed to be the same as ordering a pizza? "This stands in stark contrast to the 1960s when they accomplished it seemingly with ease." This has GOT to be a joke. Nobody can possibly say this seriously. Apollo 13 exploded in space half way to the moon. The three Apollo 1 astronauts were killed in their capsule. Williams, See, Bassett, etc. were killed while in training for Apollo. And, it was the most expensive program in human history (short of permanent programs like the military, or social security, etc.). How does this mean it was "easy"? What ARE you talking about? Who ever claimed it was easy? "Additionally, the lunar dust did not adhere to the shiny surfaces of the equipment, raising questions about the validity of the moon landing." So, the dust didn't stick to the surfaces that they designed to repel dust... therefore Apollo is fake. Your Nobel Prize is in the mail. "As we wait to see how they will approach this task today, it is clear that faking such a monumental event is impossible nowadays." It was just as impossible to fake back then, dewdrop.
    3
  1882. Let me guess... the "faked" footage came from criminal taxi cab driver, Bart Sibrel, who shows some edited video from Apollo 11 on its way to the moon, and claims that they're really in low Earth orbit, right? He claimed that he got these "leaked" footage from NASA, and had the film professionally carbon dated to July 19, 1969 (to prove that they were not close enough to the moon to be able to land by July 20), right? He claims that they used a round window cutout over the trapezoidal window to make it look like the Earth from a distance, when really in low orbit, right? Assuming my guess is correct: 1) Bart Sibrel is a convicted criminal taxi cab driver, why would NASA give him these "films"? He lied. 2) Guess what, it wasn't even on film to begin with, it was a TV transmission from a Westinghouse television camera, not a film camera. No film was involved, therefore there was nothing for Bart Sibrel to have "carbon dated." He lied. 3) Carbon dating doesn't work on film. You'd think the "professionals" who carbon dated that film would have told Sibrel that carbon dating only works on things that WERE ALIVE. Not film. He lied. 4) Carbon dating isn't that accurate anyway. You cannot get an exact date of July 19, 1969 by carbon dating. He lied. 5) Hmmm, why do the clouds not pass across the screen at 17,000 mph if they're in low Earth orbit, like Sibrel claims? Why are they virtually stationary? Because he lied. 6) Go watch the ACTUAL footage, and you can see the windows!! There's no round cutout. And, you can even see the camera go from window to window. Funny that Sibrel's version doesn't show that. Why not? He lied.
    3
  1883. TRANSLATION: "I don't understand anything about the topic, therefore the topic is fake."
    3
  1884. So, the point was that you don't understand it. And, your reply is in the form of additional things you don't understand? Hilarious!!! You know, most people, the sane ones anyway, would seek to get educated in a topic before coming to conclusions. Not you, though. You prefer NOT to know anything.
    3
  1885. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    3
  1886. What's "fishy" is that you clearly haven't keyed that exact question into Google, and, you're pretending that you have. I'd be happy to give you full and robust answers, if I thought for a single second that you were actually serious. But, this isn't my first rodeo.
    3
  1887. A) A citation for an aggravated misdemeanor? Huh? B) With number of open warrants she had, do you really think she wasn't getting arrested?
    3
  1888. "talks to them on a land based telephone" Yes, and he talked to ocean ships on that telephone also. And, he could talk to/from Air Force One while in the air. And, he could talk to anybody's car phone since the 1940s. Is it REALLY that difficult to understand that a wired call can simply be patched into a radio transmitter? Really? This is a major stumper for you?
    3
  1889. "Buzz even says we never went there" This is downright ridiculous. Taking quotes out of context isn't evidence, dewdrop. No sane person could listen to these "confessions" and come out of it believing what you do. See, this is what happens when you people have no evidence to support your beliefs. You stoop to looking for little quotes and then twist them into meaning things they don't. How is this "reasonable" (in your mind)? Do you actually believe Aldrin would "confess" and not a single member of congress, member of the press, etc., would just say, "oh, ok, no big deal, we won't investigate this"? Really? That's how this "confession" would go?
    3
  1890. Another nut who doesn't understand the difference between radiation and radioactivity... thinking that all radiation is radioactive. Good gods. How about staying in your lane, huh? How about leaving aerospace engineering to the aerospace engineers? When we need advice on how to flip a burger and cook the fries, we'll give you a call, ok?
    3
  1891. Yes, that's an old video from about 25 years ago, long debunked. Bart Sibrel is a convicted criminal taxi cab driver that is very well known for his editing tricks to slander the Apollo program. There are a million ways to know his round window trick is not only wrong, but an outright deception. But, I'll give you the top 2: 1) The clouds aren't moving in his video. If they were in low orbit at 17,500 mph, and those were localized clouds using the round window cutout you're talking about, then those clouds should be zipping by the window at 17,500 mph. They don't. 2) Watch the actual original video, and you'll see it's not a round cutout around the window. Sibrel merely edited out the pieces of the video that show the window clearly. "Addendum A Funny Thing Happened... (By GreaterSapien - MIRROR)" is a nice short video that will show you the deception by Sibrel.
    3
  1892. I made two replies (plus this one, I guess), but I don't know if they're visible or not.
    3
  1893. I realize this is a minor quibble, but, good grief. "Since 911" would have meant AFTER 911. If you can't even structure a sentence correctly, know when to say "since" or not, and you can't distinguish between a phone number and a date, sorry, nobody can take you seriously.
    3
  1894. Ask a question, dismiss answers before you get them, come to conclusion without lifting a finger to find out. Bravo!!
    3
  1895. You don't even need to trust NASA to get confirmation of Apollo. There are dozens of other sources of evidence outside of NASA.
    3
  1896. Dewdrop, the moon doesn't have a perfectly circular orbit. The altitude varies by about 25,000 miles or so. It gets further away, and then closer, then further away, etc., on every orbit. But, on average, the moon is receding, not getting closer. I have no idea what you're talking about with this 7 inches nonsense, but, neither do you.
    3
  1897. No. The batteries would be long dead by now. The camera on the rover lasted 27 hours after liftoff. The batteries probably died during the lunar afternoon sometime.
    3
  1898. Well, first of all, there is no dark side. All "sides" get equal light. The dark side is just a quote from a Pink Floyd song. But, if you meant the "far side" (the side that never faces Earth), um, ok, they orbited back there, sure. But, none of the Apollo missions landed on the far side.
    3
  1899. Apollo took about 4% of the entire federal budget in hard costs, plus the equivalent of about 2% more in soft costs and international support. And, for that, we got 13 Saturn V launches, 9 manned missions to the moon, with 6 landings, and the largest payload was a 400 pound rover. No mission even had a full 24 hour day's worth of time walking on the lunar surface because there weren't enough supplies. Now you want colonies, eh? So, a moon base would weigh a couple of million pounds, and would require massive assembly efforts lasting years upon years. How many Saturn V launches do you suppose that would take? 5000 or so? For the equivalent of 6% of the entre federal budget, we got 13 Saturn V launches. Even with the benefits of assembly line efficiencies, what percentage of the federal budget do you think it would take to build this moon base you want?
    3
  1900. If you want to see the sun in the Apollo 17 videos, then watch them in their entirety, instead of just an edited documentary. They hardened the camera to be able to be pointed at the sun, however, it results in dimming out the rest of the frame. So, every time they pointed the camera at the sun, the rest of the picture darkens. It doesn't make a very good looking video for a documentary. So, the editors tended to leave that stuff out. But, it's all available for you to view if you really want. If you want to be taken seriously in life, spare the world your ridiculous emojis and fake questions. You know you don't care about the answers.
    3
  1901. He murdered his father, and got into a chase and shootout with police. I'd sleep just fine if he had died. Are you under the impression that this guy is an asset to society? Do you really think people learn in prison? Statistics prove otherwise. Statistics show the these guys come out of prison even more violent than when they went in.
    3
  1902. Gee, and no aerospace engineers anywhere on the planet have figured out that the craft was too heavy? But, you figured it out!!! Yaaaay!! Tell me, dewdrop, how much did it weigh after burning 9 tons of fuel/oxidizer on the descent? How much would it be in lunar gravity (1/6th of Earth's)? I mean, I have a degree in math and everything, but, somehow, I can't seem to figure out (16 tons minus 9 tons) x 1/6th = "too much" ... can you do that math for me?
    3
  1903. Well, it took me about 5 seconds to find this one: "Apollo 13 TV Transmission LM Tour."
    3
  1904. Getting a bounce--back before the reflectors was orders of magnitude more difficult, and less accurate. Confusing the reflection from a laser reflector with a reflection from random rocks is like confusing an aircraft carrier with a waterskiing boat. I acknowledge that this video didn't show why that is, nor did it spell out that we could get bounce-backs before Apollo. But, then again, I don't expect the deniers to really understand how laser ranging works anyway, and trying to teach them is like trying to teach calculus to earthworms.
    3
  1905. The lighting in this video? Yes, man-made. On the moon, it's called "the sun." Check it out sometime. It's really bright.
    3
  1906. YOU SAID: "To answer the big question .... they didn't land anyone anywhere. The radiation out in deep space will kill a human quite quickly. Don't believe me ... look at the charts, do the reading, it's all out there to see." == There have been thousands of peer reviewed documents written by aerospace engineers, astrophysicists, and radiobiologists, who universally disagree with you. Sorry if you found some sort of "chart" that says otherwise. But, unless it's in peer reviewed scientific journals focusing on this topic, the "charts" you've found have undergone no scientific scrutiny whatsoever. There are 72 space agencies on Earth, employing the virtual entirety of the world's experts on space exploration/travel, either as direct employees, or contractors. Not a single one has ever published any article at any point in time, ever, which has made any claim that Apollo didn't happen. Not once. Never. So, spare the world this notion that somehow YOU have found a chart that says otherwise. Submit it to a journal on astrophysics, or you've got nothing at all.
    3
  1907.  @nicsandee123  Ohhhh, darn. Sorry. I somehow thought you were the original poster. My fault.
    3
  1908. A few problems with your silly assertions (sorry, I'm going to divide them up into separate postings, because YouTube blocks way too many long messages. 1) It's not just the control room, dewdrop. Dozens of countries tracked Apollo with radar and radio telescopes. This includes enemy countries like the Soviets and Cuba. And, those other countries (friendly and enemy) did that tracking by aiming their dishes AT THE MOON. Look up how the C-band radar and the radio telescope tracking worked in the dozens of countries that did this. You can still visit at least 50% of the sites that tracked Apollo, and those countries will proudly say they did this.
    3
  1909. Thanks for proving you didn't read the responses to your own statements. Bravo, dewdrop!
    3
  1910. Just the ones who know how to read and write. The adults who can't write better than a 6 year old are the ones who think the moon landings were fake.
    3
  1911. Quote: "Mark Jaggers Sr., Jaggers' father, said following the shooting that he doesn't believe his son was trying to carjack the officers and that he didn't know anyone was inside the car. "That car was sitting here for three hours. ... My son thought it was a dumped car,"" Right. You need a mask and a gun to approach an abandoned car. Meanwhile, according to articles, the father also said this: "Jaggers’ father, Mark Jaggers, who was present at the press conference, said his son had said “who’s in that car?” before approaching Hayden." Funny that this contradicts the notion that his son didn't know anybody was inside the car, huh? In one statement, the father said the son didn't know anybody was inside the car. In another statement, the father said the son was trying to find out who was inside the car. Gee, did his attorney who is trying to collect money for the carjacker tell the father that it's a bad idea to say that the son knew someone was in the car while approaching it with a gun drawn? The obituary states, "Mark Lee Jaggers Jr., age 21, passed away peacefully." Peacefully, huh? If they give these people a single dime, our system is severely broken.
    3
  1912. Well, I guess those people either didn't watch the same conspiracy videos that you did, or watched them and recognized that those videos are always wrong.
    3
  1913. Spare me your backtracking nonsense, and go read your original message again. You tipped your hand quite plainly with the "supposed blue marble" comment. And, if you had any intellectual honesty at all, you wouldn't have been making statements instead of asking questions. You very clearly opened by saying "think about it," and the "instead" comment, which very obviously outlines what you believe. If you actually were in the frame of mind during your original posted message that you're pretending to be in now, you would have asked questions, and you wouldn't be using terms like "supposed blue marble," or "instead." I can't post links, nor comments on even how to find stuff (without the YouTube algorithms banning my post). But, you're smart enough to figure this out, so, "Tiny Moon by KD Granger" and "Get ready for Wednesday’s Blue Super Moon." Now, do those two photographs represent the same object in the sky, or not? The answer is yes. Those are both legitimate photos, both of the moon. Yet, the moon looks like a completely different size in the two photos. Why? Because of the lens/zoom, and the distance to relative objects in frame. Any photographer can get these same results, it's just a matter of understanding how a camera works (and how basic geometry works). Now, you can go through the Apollo archives and view the hundreds of photos of Earth, and you'll find the exact same type of results. Sometimes Earth looks really big, sometimes really small. But, it's well understood about the type of film used, the size of that film, and the lenses that were used. For any photo, you can use some basic geometry and trig to calculate the size the Earth should be on that piece of film. Now, tell me, in the 55 years since men first went to the moon in 1968 with the Hasselblad camera and 70mm film, through 51 years ago when the Apollo moon missions ended, taking hundreds of these photos, do you really believe nobody has done that math? Really? In the half century since Apollo, nobody on the planet has ever calculated whether those hundreds of photos depict the correct sized Earth? Is that really what you believe?
    3
  1914.  @critthought2866  I've gotten into the habit of keeping one browser open that's logged in, and one that's not logged in (to YouTube), so that I can see which ones of my messages are visible to others or not. YouTube blocks a heck of a lot of messages, and, the most annoying part is that you can always see your own messages. They definitely don't want to make it easy to know that you're the only one who can see your own messages.
    3
  1915. "all the Moon Rocks were burned petrified earth wood" No, dewdrop. One rock in an art museum was discovered to be petrified wood. It didn't come from NASA, and the art museum doesn't even claim it came from NASA.
    3
  1916. "A rich German boy had one back in the 80s" And, you accuse sane people of believing everything WE see?
    3
  1917. "Do you know how radiation work?" "The Radion would stay in the contaminated moon dust for years." I rest my case.
    3
  1918. "All Moon rocks certified by Nasa with serial number that were sold" Dewdrop, NASA has never sold ANY moon rocks. You don't know anything about the topic.
    3
  1919. "Moon's average ration per hr levels are 60 mircrosieverts." Still pretending to understand things you don't, eh? Over what area? 60 over the entire span of the moon? What type of radiation? Sustained or just in small bursts? How much protection does a suit provide from whatever unnamed type you're talking about? Dewdrop, is it really too much to ask that you understand a topic before spewing nonsense? Good grief. I can tell you that 100 trillion neutrinos pass through your body every second, but, if you don't know what a neutrino is, it means nothing to you, right? Well, the stuff you're spewing about radiation means nothing. Yet, you're pretending it means Apollo wasn't real. If you want to debate radiobiology, then do it in a science journal on radiobiology. Go explain in scientific terms to the world why "60" means Apollo wasn't real.
    3
  1920. Huh? Chandrayaan 2 took a marvelous photo of the Apollo 12 landing site, with a very nice image of the flag's shadow, 100% exactly where the original mission photography showed it. What ARE you talking about?
    3
  1921. Won't matter. Already, Arizona State University's LRO camera, China's orbiter, and India's orbiter, have taken orbital photos of the landing sites, showing the landers, foot paths, rover tracks, etc. It doesn't make a dent on the people who reject Apollo. They just keep adding to the number of people/countries that are "in on it." They've been rejecting the evidence for +50 years. Adding one more piece of evidence to the mountain of evidence won't make one bit of difference to them.
    3
  1922. Yes, dewdrop, the flags sometimes moved without being touched. On Apollo 14, for example, the flag rotated about 180 degrees when the astronauts were inside the lunar module. Other times, the flags moved a slight bit when an astronaut was nearby, but not touching it. So what? You're not under the impression that the suits/backpacks/module were closed systems, were you? There were all kinds of purge valves, vents, etc., for the suits/backpacks/craft to off-gas. When the flag rotated 180 degrees on Apollo 14, it was because the astronauts opened the purge valve and oxygen rushed over the lunar surface. Honest videos will play the audio along with the video, and the astronauts even say that they're about to do it. Dishonest videos just show the video without the audio, and leave people like you thinking there was a "wind" blowing it. There were also porous plate sublimators in the backpacks and the craft that occasionally vented. There were overpressure valves that opened and closed on the front of the suits and the craft. Etc. These things caused small "winds" that slightly moved the flags (which will move a lot easier on the moon with no atmosphere to dampen the motion).
    3
  1923. "Sure, there's going to be tendency to cite recent sources on any subject matter. Why would that mean that older sources do not exist?" Why don't you understand it? If they cite recent sources, this means Apollo was fake, because they didn't know enough about the Van Allen belts. If they cite old sources, this means Apollo was fake, because they stopped investigating the belts after Apollo, otherwise it would reveal "the secret" that they couldn't be traversed. No matter what happens, what sources, how many, where they come from, always, there's a mechanism to pretend to know more than the world's experts in order to declare "Apollo was fake."
    3
  1924. "The batteries used up there were awesome." Um, ok. Yes, the silver-zinc batteries were the absolute best available at the time for the purpose of packing the most amount of energy into the least amount of weight. Well, I should clarify, there were methods to pack in more energy, however, they weren't remarkably stable, and couldn't have withstood the rigorous vibrations of a launch, or heat, etc. So, yes, the battery platforms they used were the absolutely most energy effective (per pound) of any kind of battery that was capable of the mission profile.
    3
  1925. "Elon Musk should check with Nasa about this technology for his Teslas." Huh? Each battery on Apollo costed roughly the equivalent of $600,000 if adjusted for inflation. And, they couldn't be recharged. Can you name anybody who would be willing to pay $600,000 for a Tesla car battery that is one-time-use only?
    3
  1926. "Oh wait, Nasa lost that tech" Huh? There's nothing "lost" about silver-zinc batteries. They even made a cheaper and more rechargeable version of them, and tried to market them commercially. Of course, they failed miserably. Even the cheaper versions weren't cheap enough to be marketable to general consumers. And, the rechargeable version couldn't pack in the same amount of energy as Apollo's non-rechargeable versions. Nobody claims that the battery technology is "lost," dewdrop. As a matter of fact, Eagle-Picher still today makes various types of batteries for special applications, and for NASA missions, etc. Why would you claim it's "lost"? Did a conspiracy video tell you it was lost, and you just decided to believe it for no reason? "and it would be a painful process to recreate it." Yes, this is what happens when the entirety of your knowledge boils down to an out-of-context quote mine. I'm sorry you don't understand anything, which is why you've come to YouTube to pretend you do. But, ya know, the world's engineers don't rely on taking a single sentence out of context, like you rely on. Engineers get their knowledge from decades of education and experience. I realize that your motivation for pretending to know things you don't is so you can feel better about the fact that you don't have the decades of education and experience. But, should the thousands of people who worked on Apollo really need to pay the price for your passive-aggressive nonsense?
    3
  1927. Yes. One of the witnesses even caught it on video, and showed the video to the police. You should read the police report. Let's just say that it doesn't exactly match the story about a quiet discreet act with nobody around (her story). But, yeah, people will make up just about anything as an attempt to avoid getting arrested for the millionth time.
    3
  1928. So, when NASA tells you that there are belts, you believe them. When NASA tells you how they went through the belts, you don't believe them. You pick and choose what to believe, and what to reject.
    3
  1929. No, dewdrop. This was merely the most recent in her long list of crimes. If she didn't commit suicide from her felony prison term, her multiple judgements from other thefts, her mile long arrest record, and her drug and alcohol problems, one more arrest isn't going to matter. And, since virtually nobody knew about this arrest until long after she was dead, how much shame could she possibly have even felt?
    3
  1930.  @stusue9733  No. It must have been shadow banned.
    3
  1931. a entene tops wires jumping lander lololol unless see pack
    3
  1932.  @gregurbanek186  YOU SAID: "Jack is told that his visor is up. However, Jack is having a totally different conversation with his handlers." == First of all, quite obviously, the audio has been edited for the documentary, delays have been cut out, perhaps entire sentences have been omitted, etc. If you pay attention to the original video/audio recordings, you will find that these documentaries are always shaving the time down. They're trying to cram a 2 week mission, which had almost an entire 24 hours of time walking on the surface, into a 50 minute documentary. But, on this particular topic, Houston said that Schmitt's gold visor was up (not in use), and asked him to put it down (to use it). Schmitt replied that he would use it (the gold visor). Once again, a conspiratard simply doesn't understand the words being used, therefore, Apollo is fake, right? YOU SAID: "Did you just get off the boat? "WE THE SHEEPLE"." == Pfffttt. Let me make sure I understand this notion of yours... that the astronauts were chimps and sheeple who just did what they were told... how insane are you?? Do you have any idea how many times those astronauts nearly got killed in their professions as combat pilots in active warfare, test pilots flying unproven craft, and astronauts?? These are people who defied death for a living, and don't lose a wink of sleep over it. These are people who are about as "Type-A" as you'll ever find. Oh, but they all just did what they were told?
    3
  1933. "Mayhap NASA employed 400,000? , but only a select few would ever need ," Knowledge", of the conspiracy" It's absolutely amazing that you nuts think this is some sort of reasonable explanation. Like, the engineers were the ones that were clueless, unaware that their own technology they built to go to the moon, couldn't do what they built it for, and the management knew better? And, in the 50 years since, the actual people with the expertise on the topics remained clueless? Can you really sweep this under the rug so easily? What about the thousands of people worldwide, involved with tracking the craft with radar and radio telescopes, including enemy countries? How do you keep them in the dark? Were they all too inept to realize that there was nothing on their scopes, yet, they all thought there was? Or, are you implying that somehow the USA magically "faked" radar and radio telescope signals coming from the moon? "The rest would be for removed from that information" 400,000 people in the USA, and 50,000 internationally, worked on Apollo, yet not a single one of them realized they were duped in their own jobs that they held for a decade of their lives? Really? "If gravity is a Quarter that of Earth" A sixth, not a quarter. I'm beginning to think maybe you're not very much of an expert. "why does the dirt being disturbed poof and fall the same as it does on Earth" You've had FIFTY YEARS to do the math on that, dewdrop. FIFTY YEARS!!!! What ARE you waiting for? Why aren't you doing the simple Physics 101 calculations on the time it takes for stuff to fall on the moon, and demonstrating mathematically that it matches Earth? How could you possibly be under the impression that nobody on the planet has ever done that very same simple math? "But even just hearing that NASA Employee saying that none of the Mission Specs and info Learned had survived to Present Day" Nonsense. Absolutely nonsense!!! Who told you such a ridiculous thing? Was it a conspiracy video? "Well that is just too coincidental for just happenstance" Yeah, especially since you can go right to the archive yourself and download terabytes of the very information that you think doesn't exist. You never even checked, right? Someone told you the information was missing, and you never lifted a finger to confirm, right? "How does an Agency that only exists for Space Exploration lose all of the info for Doing the very thing it was Created to do !" Yeah, indeed. Smells wrong, doesn't it? Yet, you actually believe it? Why? Because you were told to believe it by a conspiracy video, right?
    3
  1934. What don't you understand about "what the Apollo 11 site looks like today"? He's speculating about what this stuff looks like after +50 years. If you want to see what it looked like back in 1969, look at the mission photography.
    3
  1935.  @WhyAreTheyOverHere  That movie only works on people who don't understand the topic (i.e. you).
    3
  1936. WHERE WAS GOOGLE??and why didn't you use it??
    3
  1937. Welcome to Inside Edition.
    3
  1938. Please name the exact technology they lacked. Saying "tech" without context means absolutely nothing. And, please explain why none of the thousands of engineers ever realized that the stuff they designed and built... wouldn't do the job they designed and built it to do. Can you?
    3
  1939. Oh, way to go on the facts there. Just making stuff up as you go, huh? And, you have the audacity to blame "this country" while you manufacture your own "facts" out of thin air? Dewdrop, multiple people called the police. One woman even video recorded it with her cell phone, and showed the video to the police. They described it in their arrest report as a very public and loud display, in view of multiple people. This hardly matches the version of the story as presented by a woman who is trying to avoid getting arrested, by claiming that it was a discreet and private thing with nobody around. No boat or binoculars were involved, dewdrop. Stop making stuff up.
    3
  1940.  @mbvgvskvrs868  Yeah, YouTube is out to get you.
    3
  1941.  @michaelstillman1171  The lunar module ascent stage in lunar gravity was about 1,950 pounds, not 33,000. You are taking the full weight in Earth's gravity, including the 18,000 pounds of fuel/oxidizer they burned on the descent, plus the descent stage and everything in it, etc. For a lunar liftoff, we're talking about less than 12,000 pounds in Earth weight, and less than 2,000 pounds in lunar weight.
    3
  1942. How many pounds of thrust does your laptop generate?
    3
  1943. Dewdrop, the craft and suits were not closed systems. There were purge valves, porous plate sublimators, overpressure valves, etc. The nearby craft and the astronauts' suits/backpacks vented the spent gasses from time to time. This can cause a slight "wind" (so to speak) that moves the flag a little bit, even when not being touched. Why? Why do you continuously pretend to understand topics that you do not?
    3
  1944. You spew complete garbage in many threads across multiple videos. And, yes, you ask questions while ignoring the answers, running for the hills. Don't pretend otherwise.
    3
  1945. I notice that the word "evidence" doesn't even enter into the picture, in your mind. Shocker. Those who profess "truth" (especially with a capital "T") usually know absolutely nothing about it.
    3
  1946.  @sesquashtwo  She did nothing wrong? Failing to ID? Obstruction? Obfuscation? Resisting arrest? What do you know that the legal system didn't? Do you really think that the judges and attorneys don't understand the law as well as you do, when her case was tossed out the window? Do you always use YouTube comments as a forum to pretend to be an expert on topics you know nothing about?
    3
  1947. And, you're PROUD of your ridiculous attitude?
    3
  1948. Um, no. There was only one such rock, and NASA had nothing to do with it. That rock was donated to the Dutch art museum. And, they never bothered authenticating it before accepting it, sticking it into a drawer for about 14 years, and then putting it on display, where it was instantly recognized to be petrified wood. Not even that museum believes it came from NASA, and they acknowledge that they should have had it authenticated before accepting it. So, why do you think it came from NASA?
    3
  1949. YOU SAID: "The untold story is that they never went to the moon." == Pfftt. Nonsense. YOU SAID: "And, if they did go to the moon why have they never been back" == They DID go back!!! Why do you idiots always say they never went back? There were NINE manned missions to the moon, and SIX of those missions landed. TWELVE men walked on the moon. Why do you say this is "never going back"?? Are you under the impossibly dumb impression that projects cannot ever stop?? Once a project starts, that's it, congress can never stop funding it? That's how this goes, in your mind? Apollo was funded for a dozen years!! That's a hell of a lot longer than a lot of government programs are funded. Yes, it culminated in sending people to the moon. And, once that was completed, yeah, congress cut the budget, and the remains of the Apollo program were used for Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz. Then, that was it. It was over. So what?? Why is this a problem for you? YOU SAID: "and why would'nt NASA use the moon as a satelite lift-off for all other exploration?" == Wait, let me get this straight... you believe that it's MORE efficient to burn a bunch of fuel to soft-land something on the moon, only to burn a bunch of fuel to lift it back off the moon again to go somewhere else?? What for? What purpose would that serve? If you want to send people to Mars (or wherever), why would you want to slow down and stop on the moon first? What ARE you talking about? If you are racing a car, is it a good idea to slow down, stop, go backward for a while, then slow down, stop, then go back forward again? What purpose would that serve? Space travel isn't like going on vacation to Disney in your family station wagon, where you have to stop here and there to buy gas. Any attempt to slow down and stop is a WASTE of energy, not the other way around. YOU SAID: "NASA now says they lost the technology to go to the moon." == It's not "lost" in the sense that nobody knows how. It's lost in the exact sense that, yes, the physical stuff, and all means to manufacture the stuff, is gone. We don't have any functional Saturn V rockets. We don't have functional command modules. We don't have functional landers. We don't have launch towers. We don't have training facilities. All of the buildings and tooling to build stuff for Apollo has long since been sold off, retooled to do other things, or shut down completely. Yeah, it's "lost" in that sense. Why do all of you conspiracy clowns intentionally twist a single sentence about "lost technology" to mean something that it was obviously never intended to mean? Is that REALLY all you've got? An out of context quote-mine proves that Apollo was faked? No ACTUAL evidence? No? Just an intentional desire to hear certain words the way your delusional mind wants to hear them? That's the best you can do? YOU SAID: "Where is all that money going?" == WHAT MONEY!?!?!?! NASA's budget in the 1960s during the height of Apollo was a whopping 4.5% of the entire federal budget. They also invested a ton of money in soft costs (tax breaks to contractors, free land, etc.). And, they had a bunch of international support on top of all of that. After Apollo, NASA's budget dwindled down to about 0.5% of the federal budget, they get no extra tax breaks, and very little international support. And, they have to run hundreds of programs with that money, and cannot sink almost their entire budget into a single program, like they did with Apollo. Are you REALLY asking these questions with a desire to listen to the answers? Or, are you going to be like every other conspiratard, and just clam up, and PRETEND to ask questions, while having no actual intention of listening to answers?
    3
  1950. Arrest = July 2021. Suicide = March 2022. Arrest video made public = November 2023. Sorry if you believe anything told to you on Inside Edition.
    3
  1951. "there are dozens of pictures of the lunar lander and I cant find any with the camera?" Just on Apollo 11? Well, I don't think Armstrong took any photos of the camera attached to the MESA while it was exposed. The only photos are with the thermal blanket still covering almost the entire camera, except for just the lens sticking out (which you can barely see). But, on Apollo 12, for example, Conrad removed the thermal blanket that covered the camera, and took a few photos. One of them is: AS12-46-6725. If you want to see the highest resolution copy, you'll find it on the official archive (Apollo Lunar Surface Journal). You will see the camera pointed right at the ladder.
    3
  1952. I will add (two replies in a row here)... if you're only interested in seeing the Apollo 11 camera as it was mounted to the MESA on the side of the lander, and you don't care that it was basically the same setup for Apollo 12 (which I already supplied you), yeah, you're looking for photos that do not exist. I already explained that Armstrong didn't take photos of that camera after removing the blanket, and before moving the camera to its tripod. So, you're wasting your time if you're looking for photos like that. But, if you just want to see the lens poking out of the thermal blanket on Apollo 11, AS11-40-5866 shows it. Go look at the high resolution copy, and you will see a little glass circle (the lens) pointed at the ladder. But, as I said, the rest of the camera is still covered by the lunar blanket (gold colored foil). As I said, you're far better off getting the idea about what's happening by looking at Apollo 12. But, frankly, at this point, it's difficult to take you seriously. I'm guessing all of the rest of the people in this thread were correct about you. I tried helping, though.
    3
  1953. What an amazingly profound statement!!! Very convincing evidence. You should put this on every job application you ever fill out.
    3
  1954. Why would you believe you understand this topic better than the entire planet's experts staffed at the world's 77 countries with space agencies? The evidence for Apollo is mountainous. The evidence against Apollo is laughable, and falls apart instantly upon any scrutiny. I would barely know where to start, because there's enough evidence to write entire encyclopedias about it, but, what do you have to say about last year's photography from China and India? Each sent orbiters to the moon, you know. Chang'e (China) and Chandrayaan (India). Last year, each of those countries released some orbital photos of a couple of the Apollo landing sites. You can see the landers in exactly the spots they're supposed to be, as photographed during the missions themselves, and as photographed by LRO about 10-12 years ago. India's photos are so good, as a matter of fact, that you can even see the flame deflectors and the shadow of the Apollo 12 flag (still standing) just north of the lander (exactly where it was planted 54 years ago). How do you explain this? You sit there and act as if you know better than India's and China's space agencies. And, you've come like a hero to YouTube comments to enlighten the world about how YOU know things that the entire planet's space agencies do not? Is that how this goes?
    3
  1955. This is the edited version. Did the unedited version spell the name as "Niel"?
    3
  1956. I will never understand why you people spew such nonsense, and don't bother to look through those telescopes yourselves. If you think there's a telescope with that kind of resolution, why aren't you looking through those telescopes and finding empty spaces where the landers are supposed to be? If you think any telescope has that level of resolution, why aren't you using them to prove your point?
    3
  1957. A) You don't understand the "petrified wood" story at all. B) If you think carbon dating would ever be used on moon rocks, you don't know what you're talking about. C) If you're arguing that the radiometric dating of other elements (not carbon) doesn't work, then why are you here? Publish in science journals. Explain to the world about how/why the entire planet's experts do not understand what you do. Note: I tried to put in more detail, but, of course, my response got banned.
    3
  1958. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    3
  1959. "who set the camera up to record the first astronaut coming down the ladder" Armstrong deployed the MESA via a lanyard at the top of the ladder, before he descended downward. The camera was attached to the MESA. Aldrin then activated the circuit breaker to make the camera work, and used the controls for brightness/contrast based upon feedback from Houston. "wouldn't that be the first person on the moon?" Do you find it THAT difficult to understand that the camera was there already, attached to the side of the module? Really? And, none of the 7,000 engineers at Grumman who designed and built the craft ever realized that they forgot to put a camera there, and none of them ever wondered how they got the video? Really? But, YOU noticed this problem. YOU did. None of the 7,000 engineers who designed and built the craft ever realized that there wasn't a camera there. But, you did. "I'm going buy what was just presented in this video the camera is on a stand" You clearly do not buy anything in this video. Stop lying. "so placed the stand?" Armstrong. "APOLLO 11 16MM ONBOARD FILM 1969" - go to 54:44, and you will see Armstrong carrying the camera and stand to its location. It was filmed at only one frame per second (otherwise they'd run out of film in about 3 minutes), so the motions are jerky and sped up. But, it's good enough to answer your question. "I dont belive we have ever been tothe moon" Well, I don't believe you ever graduated high school. But, that doesn't matter. I just wonder why you think you know enough about the topic to make such a declaration. I mean, you don't know how the camera worked, that's how little you know about the topic. Most sane people in your shoes would say they don't have enough knowledge about the topic to even have an opinion. Not you, though. Nope. If you don't understand it, it must be fake, right? "and my reasons why are simply this if we had why did we stop" Because it was, by far, the single most expensive exploration endeavor in human history, and congress didn't want to keep funding it. But, once again, your "reasons" aren't reasons. They're questions. So, basically, "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." Bravo. Pure genius at work. "it would have been a great way to develop technically for outer space travel" Then YOU fund it!!! Good grief. "and I belive its why they that being our govermant wont let people go to S4 i.e. area 51 because thats where we shot them so called moon landing." So, in your mind, there shouldn't be any top secret programs? We should just develop new military aircraft and stuff like that in the plain view of the public so that enemy countries know exactly what we're doing? Nope. That shouldn't happen. And, instead, you believe that they still have the moon "sets" sitting around in Area 51, 50+ years later? Nope, they didn't tear down the sets when they were done with them. Nope. Instead, they left the sets intact, and have assembled a secret base to protect those moon sets for 50+ years. Did meth do this to you? Something else? "If imm wrong I can live with that just prove me wrong." Fine. But, that's like asking for an encyclopedia of evidence in a YouTube comment. So, I'll just offer one piece of that mountain instead. Both China and India have photographed some of the Apollo landing sites on the moon, and those photos show the landers exactly where they're supposed to be.
    3
  1960. @ Apollo 11 (this mission): Landing camera = 16mm film from inside. Liftoff camera = 16mm film from inside, but, not turned on until 1,000 feet up. Surface TV camera was disconnected before liftoff. Later missions: A mix of inside/outside cameras, turned on/off at various times. But, you're thinking of the rover-cam from later missions. Those were never designed to handle a couple of weeks in direct sunlight, especially not a lunar afternoon. So, they all died within about 36 hours after liftoff, a few days (Earth days anyway) before the sun was directly overhead.
    3
  1961. YOU SAID: "IMHO" == You are not humble. Do not pretend you are. YOU SAID: "if the the moon landings did happen. they were a waste of time and money - in short if they did go to the moon why do they not have a base on the moon, why are they not mining the moon????" == So, let me get this straight, you are saying they were a waste of money, then you say they wouldn't be a waste of money (because they could be mining it), in the same sentence? Good grief. And, what? Do you have any concept of how much a BASE would cost? Apollo costed about $150 billion in hard costs in today's dollars, plus another $50 billion in soft costs and international support. And, for that money, they stretched the limits of their equipment, and managed to put 12 people on the moon for a few hours each. Oh, but you want BASES up there? You've now multiplied the costs by hundreds. You have zero understanding of the topic. YOU SAID: "where's your lecture to back up your statement by saying this is what they have done since the 69 moon landings?" == He's not saying they should have done this, YOU ARE saying they should have done this. YOU SAID: "the Chinese have also added to the belief system that it never happened with there joke 'james bond' type mission control and black and white camera shots and lack of stars in their pictures like Eon Musk's spaceman in a car!" == So, China's space program is a "hoax" now? And, Musk's car is a "hoax" too? Good grief. How many drugs are you on? And, why do you believe stars should be visible in those photos/videos? YOU SAID: "But listening to Curios Droid he basically thinks that there is no such conspiracy in anything, which defies logic???" == No, dummy. To believe every space program in the world is a hoax defies logic. YOU SAID: "As much as he sounds informed on moon landings. aliens and blinds us all with his facts and figures, they are just basically useless facts and figures" == Aliens? What? And, let me get this straight, you object to facts and figures? YOU SAID: "and uses his voice to make them sound 'this is it people your lives are banal and worthless if you want to believe in anything that goes against the grain of what he believes, the fact that he states that we are all gullible to believe in something to make us feel powerful, this could all be reversed on him as he ticks the same box as all of the people who believe in some kind of conspiracy, he obviously likes being lied too!" == I wasn't aware they put computers in mental hospitals. YOU SAID: "Curios Droid suffers from a severe case of sceptic block i'm afraid" == Well, maybe if he takes whatever drugs you're taking, he can kill his brain just like you have.
    3
  1962. Well, you could lay off the drugs for a few months. Things might get more clear for you then.
    3
  1963. Yes, lots of politicians have said they're going to send new missions to the moon, build walls, lower taxes, create healthcare plans, end wars, start wars, whatever. But, we don't live in a dictatorship. None of those things happen until/unless congress votes for them. And, when it comes to moon missions, congress has voted against them until Artemis in 2018 (funding began in 2019). As for the pace of the program, it is a direct reflection of the pace of the funding.
    3
  1964. It's the same physical camera. It was mounted to the side of the lander for the first steps, but, it was mounted to a tripod and moved for the rest of the moonwalk.
    3
  1965. First of all, if you cannot spell "Taser" correctly, I doubt your expertise on the topic. Secondly, can you name a single training course that advises people to use a Taser when a gun is pointed at them?
    3
  1966. Because there are no working cameras at the site today.
    3
  1967. The problem is that you deniers just reject any evidence given to you. There are mountains of evidence for Apollo, and zero evidence against. So, please explain what evidence you'd expect there to be, and would accept?
    3
  1968. So, basically, your position is that you don't understand it, therefore it's fake, right? And, you believe that the hundreds of engineers at GM and Boeing, and the thousands of engineers at Grumman, all simultaneously forgot to make the lunar rover fit into the lander? And, in the 50+ years since, not a single one of them said, "hey, wait a minute, we forgot to make it fit!!!"? Right? That's actually how you think? I mean, you clearly haven't watched the videos of the rovers being packed and unpacked, nor have you read the schematics, etc. And, you clearly don't realize that they redesigned the landers for the last 3 missions to accommodate bigger payloads. All of this is well documented, including the weight of the rovers and stuff. But, yeah, you don't need any of that. You can just eyeball it and conclude that if you don't understand it, it must be fake.
    3
  1969.  @AM-rd9pu  You have overlooked the first A in NASA. It also has a ton of programs for general aviation, making jets more quiet, exploring SST options (and coming to the conclusion that they aren't viable), improving aircraft safety, exploring new fuel options for jet aircraft, wind and climate/weather studies, exploring the viability of electric powered aircraft (I don't want to put the cart before the horse, but I'm predicting that it's not all that viable due to battery weight), rewriting air traffic control software, fly-by-wire control systems for aircraft, hypersonic airplanes, observatories on Earth, Earth's magnetic field studies, earthquake studies, and tons of other stuff. This is just the tip of the iceberg. There are hundreds of NASA programs going on all the time, most of which have nothing to do with space (but, the space ones tend to be the most expensive).
    3
  1970. Huh? The spacesuits WERE the radiation protection. Good grief.
    3
  1971. Sorry, but when you know THIS little amount about the Apollo program, you don't get to accuse ANYBODY of lying. You simply don't know enough. You're complaining that they never made a 2nd trip to the moon? Um, no, dewdrop. They made 9 manned trips to the moon, 6 of which landed. The mere fact that you think there was only 1 mission to the moon, and never a 2nd, just demonstrates that you know absolutely nothing.
    3
  1972. Hilarious!!! So says the person who cannot even spell her own nickname.
    3
  1973. Did you try hooking up the Parkes Radio Telescope (a massive dish nearly an acre in size) to your cell phone?
    3
  1974. Outside camera? No sign of dust? Good grief, where do you get such nonsense?
    3
  1975. They would need to abandon everything they were doing, and walk, yes. But, they never traveled 9 miles away from the lander. The total driving distance was about 20 miles. But, this is the total from 3 different trips, out and back.
    3
  1976. What has this got to do with Apollo?
    3
  1977. Well, he's the cream of the crop when it comes to deniers. You weren't expecting any real engineers to spew nonsense, were you?
    3
  1978. "NOT ONE ACCUAL PHOTO" Well, you're welcome to look at the mission photos. But, the point of this video is to speculate on what the stuff looks like after 50+ years, not what it looked like during the mission.
    3
  1979. "The Hubble telescope" Huh? Hubble's best resolution of the moon equates to 1 pixel = a 160 feet by 160 feet square. This is published knowledge, and perfectly equates to the size of the aperture and equipment. Do you have any concept of the size of the lens that would be required to see an Apollo lander? Just to barely make out what it was, it would take a lens about a quarter mile in diameter. If you want little details like depicted in this video, the Hubble lens would need to be multiple miles in diameter. Do the math. It's called "optical resolution." Look up Dawes' limit and Rayleigh's criterion, and use the formulas to calculate the size of the lens, if you don't believe me. I'm sorry that you have absolutely no understanding of optics and the physics of light, but, should the rest of the world really suffer from your incredulity because of the fact that you have no understanding of the topic?
    3
  1980. ​ @agitatedmongoose  Pffttt. Her felony term in a Florida prison, her million other arrests, her history with drugs and alcohol, the fact that she abandoned her career and family (including a 6 month old boy) to live a life of crime and drugs... those aren't a "checkered history" in your mind?
    3
  1981.  @agitatedmongoose  Is your Google broken or something?
    3
  1982. When you're SOOOO damned stupid that you cannot even spell your own screen name correctly, why should anybody listen to you? "Lifes to quick"?? Good gods, what a moron.
    3
  1983. You can pics all you want.
    3
  1984.  @TheWokeFlatEarthTruth  He already told you, that's all he's capable of saying.
    3
  1985. "did they just leave him there to die alone or is it all bull" Really? Those are the only two options? How about option 3? (You don't have any idea of what you're talking about.)
    3
  1986. 1) Doesn't it bother you in the slightest that the word EVIDENCE doesn't even enter any of your reasoning? All you're saying is that you don't understand things like why they went, why they stopped going, and why other nations haven't done it, therefore it's fake. You never once mentioned anything about the EVIDENCE for Apollo. You only express incredulity. You don't find that alarming at all?
    3
  1987. 4) This technological "regression" you're talking about has been repeated numerous times through history. Mankind used to build hundreds of gigantic pyramids, 3 of which remained the largest structures for thousands of years before anybody attempted to build something that size again. Magellan sailed around the world, and it was 50 years before anybody tried that again. Mankind dove to the deepest ocean depth (Mariana Trench) back in the 1960s, and it was over 50 years before that was repeated. A few decades ago, you could buy a ticket for a supersonic airliner that would carry you and 100 other passengers and their luggage for 3000 miles across the Atlantic at mach 2. Now that's all gone, and the best anybody can do is a couple of military pilots going supersonic speeds for a few hundred miles before they need to slow down. Why is Apollo so special in your mind, that it needs to be fake, and the Concorde doesn't?
    3
  1988.  @gives_bad_advice  "The Apollo missions were just that audacious." Yes, exactly. It was a ridiculous thing to do, outlandish. But, they did it anyway. And, it was essentially just a political stunt. To me, that's the impressive part.
    3
  1989. And, of course, two of my replies cannot be seen unless going back to the video and sorting by date. Dandy. YouTube comment glitches strike again.
    3
  1990. OK, if you don't want to trust the US government, alright, that's fine. But, how do you deal with the fact that numerous countries have confirmed Apollo in many different ways over the decades? For example, within the last year, both China and India have released their orbital photos of some of the Apollo landing sites, showing the Apollo descent stages still sitting on the moon in the exact same position that the LRO photos showed in 2012. So, yes, you can reject things that the US government says, alright, fine. But, when the evidence keeps pouring in, decade after decade after decade, how do you maintain the notion that the missions were fake?
    3
  1991. The only thing putting off a return is a functional lander. Everything else is on the schedule funded by congress. And, now that they've finally selected Blue to build a lander in addition to the train wreck lander from SpaceX (the writing is on the wall that it'll eventually get canceled and replaced by Blue), we'll see how well Blue can catch up.
    3
  1992. Why didn't they sail around the world again until 50 years after Magellan did it? Why did it take thousands of years to build a structure that large again after the great pyramids were built? Why hasn't anybody constructed a 13,000 mile long wall since China did it a thousand years ago? Why did it take 50 years between the first dive to the deepest ocean depth and the second time it was done? Answer: because being "more modern" has nothing to do with it.
    3
  1993. You're thinking about where to get your next fix.
    3
  1994. YOU SAID: "YALL ARE SOME TRULY DUMB DOWNED BOTS IF YALL STILL BELIEVE THEY WENT TO THE MOON !!!" == So, the entirety of the world's space agencies, physicists, and aerospace engineers, are "dumb downed bots"?? Meanwhile, you cannot understand that the phrase would be "dumbed down bots," not "dumb downed bots"?? Who's dumbed down here? YOU SAID: "I MEAN NASA SAID THEY LOST ALL THE DATA THEY SO CALLED HAD FROM ALL THE MOON ARCHIVES!" == No, NASA has never made any such claim. Conspiracy video makers claim that NASA says that. But, in reality, NASA has never said any such thing. NASA said they lost two backup tapes from one mission (primary copies still intact). And, from there, from those two lost backup tapes, the conspiracy crowd has manufactured a complete lie about NASA losing all of the data. Y'all are truly dumbed down bot to believe such claptrap you see in conspiracy videos. YOU SAID: "AND STANLEY KUBRICK TOLD THE WORLD HES THE ONE WHO SHOT THE MOON DECEPTION HERE IN THE DESERT ON EARTH !" == Pfftttt. Sorry, but if you are stupid enough to fall for that video, you're beyond hope. That video came out years ago, followed up within hours of the "behind the scenes" version of that video, which showed that Stanley Kubrick was played by an actor named Tom. I mean, good grief, he doesn't even look like Stanley Kubrick. Yet, years ago, you conspiratards jumped for joy at this "confession" video, spreading it like wildfire. But, within about 24 hours, when it was pointed out that this "confession" was just a spoof to see how dumb you people are to believe it, your conspiracy friends deleted all but a few of the postings, and disappeared with your tails between your legs. But, here you are, still displaying that ridiculous video, which was made in order to MOCK YOU!!!?!?!?!? The video you're talking about was manufactured for the purpose of seeing how stupid someone would have to be to believe a guy who doesn't even look like Stanley Kubrick, was Stanley Kubrick, confessing to faking the moon landings, decades later.... How dumb can you be? YOU SAID: "AND IF YALL HAD ANY COMMON SENSE YALL WOULD ASK WHY HAVENT THEY BEEN BACK SINCE WIGH ALL THE NEW TECHNOLOGY THEY HAVE ????" == Because it's not about technology. It's about funding. Congress hadn't funded any further manned lunar missions until late 2019. Artemis is funded now, the astronauts are named, and are in training, the SLS is being accelerated, two new Orion capsules have been ordered, Bezos is constructing the landers, etc. Personally, I think Biden will kill the program. But, at least, as of this moment, it's funded, and proceeding. But, if you have a beef with the fact that it's been almost 50 years, yeah, take it up with congress. They're the ones who decide how all of NASA's money is spent. NASA doesn't decide how to spend its money, congress does. YOU SAID: "ILL WAIT ON THAT ANSWER !!!" == Pfftttt. This is too funny to even describe. YOU SAID: "YALL BETTER WAKE UP AND REALIZE WEVE BEEN LIED TO ABOUT EVERYTHING THEY EVER TOLD OR TAUGHT US SINCE BIRTH !!!!" == So, literally the very next sentence after you said you'd wait for an answer, you have already declared that the answer doesn't even matter to you, because you've already reached your conclusion. How dumb can you get? Seriously? What's wrong with you? Why would you say you're going to wait for an answer, then immediately, one word later, declare, in advance, that the answer is wrong?? Good gods, what an idiot.
    3
  1995. You think NASA made this video?
    3
  1996.  @AM-rd9pu  I think you meant "funding."
    3
  1997. "how did they get through all 25000k of radiation when we get covered in lead to get a x-ray" Gee. Maybe because the radiation you're complaining about has nothing whatsoever to do with Xrays? Dewdrop, why are you pretending to understand topics you do not? What thrill does it give you? You clearly have ZERO knowledge about radiation.
    3
  1998. "other satellites get cooked from that radiation" Can you name these satellites?
    3
  1999. Why should the veracity of Apollo depend on what future (from their perspective) generations do or don't do? What do you think you understand about this topic that the entire planet's aerospace engineers don't know? And, China already acknowledged Apollo (repeatedly), most recently when their Chang'e orbiter saw the Apollo landers on the lunar surface. If you're going to mention China, why won't you mention that?
    3
  2000. Don't forget, the Earth is flat, chemtrails are poisoning everyone's families (including the lizard people who are doing it), Bigfoot is comin' to get ya', there are aliens in Area 51, and Elvis lives!
    3
  2001. I always love the "Kubrick was silenced" line of "logic." I mean, yeah, they waited 30 years? And, hmmm, a 70 year old who weighs 300 pounds at the height of 5'7" dies of a heart attack... and that's suspicious? Utter hilarity.
    3
  2002. Pfttt. You've claimed that the surface is identical to somewhere in Hawaii, but, no matter how many times I ask you for those coordinates, you never reply. As for "even China cannot find and evidence of the Apollo missions": == First of all, that's wrong. They said their lunar orbiters DID confirm Apollo. But, beyond that, let me guess... you're quoting from this article, correct? QUOTE FROM ARTICLE: "Top officials of the Chinese Space Program have come out this week and expressed their skepticism that the American Moon landings ever happened, reports the Beijing Daily Express. More than 2,000 high-ranking officials of the Chinese Communist Party have signed a petition this week asking explanations from the American government concerning the American Moon landings after doubts arose that the Apollo Moon landings ever happened. These allegations have come up after recent analysis of pictures taken from the Chinese Chang’e-4 probe allegedly found no traces of the American Moon landings existing on the Moon. Several high-ranking members of the Chinese Communist Party even stated publicly that these latest findings proved without a doubt that the Moon landings were an “elaborately orchestrated hoax to fool the world about America’s space program capabilities”." END QUOTE Is that the article you're talking about? (Yes, obviously it is.) You conspiratards are hilarious. That article has been touted by conspiratards left and right, jumping for joy. But, the problem is, the article came from World News Daily Report. That's a SATIRE website. If memory serves, that article came out simultaneously about a World News Daily Report story about a pack of housecats that were going from house to house at night, breaking in and stealing jewelry. (Get it? "Cat burglars"? Funny?) All of the articles on that site are SATIRE/COMEDY. Yet, you conspiratards reference it anyway. It's truly amazing to behold people as gullible as you. You people will believe ANYTHING if it aligns with your delusions. ANYTHING. If Saturday Night Live did a news skit that said something like this, you'd fall for that hook line and sinker also. You people don't even recognize a parody when you see it.
    3
  2003.  @yazzamx6380  YOU SAID: "Again, nothing else was lost from Apollo 11, and absolutely nothing was lost from Apollo 12, Apollo 13, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16 or Apollo 17." == Well, I hate to be an overbearing stickler, but, just for conversation's sake, it depends on exactly what you mean. One whole 70mm film roll is "lost" from Apollo 12. But, well, Pete Conrad said he left it on the moon by mistake. So, from that perspective, it's not "lost," because we know exactly where it is. But, it's "lost" in the sense that we don't actually have it, and nobody has ever seen it.
    3
  2004. Yeah, if you heard it somewhere, it's true. Everything you hear is 100% true.
    3
  2005. How did you graduate high school (granting the notion that you did), if you can't manage simple words like "lose"?
    3
  2006. "how did they live stream the landing" They didn't. The only camera operating during the landing was the 16mm film camera. They had to wait until they got home to get it developed. Live broadcasts weren't available until the moonwalks, when they were able to align the S-band dishes to the Earth.
    3
  2007. There's a long answer and a short one. The short one is that congress killed the Apollo program after the USA made it to the moon first, and then the Soviets dropped out of the race. Congress let NASA finish out the minimum number of missions to meet contractual obligations to the contractors, killed the rest of the missions, and have never funded another program to go to the moon again (until they funded Artemis in 2019). In short, there simply hasn't been very much reason to send people, when unmanned probes cost a fraction of the money, and can be up there for years/decades, rather than spending 30x the money for manned missions that can only last days/weeks.
    3
  2008. Well, given that she still had a bunch of bulky spots in that coat, I suspect that she probably had more stuff in there than just the hat and gloves. She probably just gave those up because it would gain sympathy, and she hoped they wouldn't try to find out what else she had stuffed into the jacket. The other reason to believe this is because she went right back to stealing from Walgreens immediately after this incident, so, I'd find it difficult to believe that she felt all that bad about it. Drug addicts don't really care about stuff like that. The only thing they care about is getting their daily supply.
    3
  2009. They brought back 850 pounds (across the 6 landing missions). They are still studying it for research purposes every single day. They kept some samples untouched (waiting for new technology to study it). Just last year, they opened one core sample that had never been opened before.
    3
  2010. See, the thing is, it's not merely that. One of the most tell-tale signs that you're correct is that, once confronted with evidence clearly demonstrating that they're wrong, what is their reaction? They double down and refuse to accept it. Just scroll down to the people who make comments like "they never took photos of the sun" or "they never took photos of Earth" (or a million other examples of false assertions they make). This is stuff that has been spoon-fed to them by conspiracy videos, and it's as simple as looking at the photo archive to prove that claim wrong, or fact-checking any of those ridiculous claims. Now, a normal person's reaction would be, "Oh, you mean the conspiracy video makers are the actual ones that were misleading people, and we weren't cheated out of billions of dollars in tax money? What a relief to learn that! Thanks! That's so nice to hear." But, nope. That's not what it's about for these nuts. When shown quite clearly that they're wrong, they're not relieved or happy at all. They usually get angry at the people who show them they're wrong, and then either run for the hills or double down and reject the evidence that they pretend to ask for. As an analogy, if someone feeds you a bunch of false information indicating that your wife has been cheating, ok, yeah, of course, this will make you upset and you're going to want to know what's going on. Then, someone else comes along and proves beyond any doubt that the information was completely false, and instead was a bunch of manufactured evidence and lies just to make you think the wrong thing. Now, any sane person would immediately be happy and relieved to find out that the first person falsified the information. But, in the case of these anti-Apollo nuts, are they happy to learn that they've been lied to? No, of course not. They scream and cry and insist that the charlatans are the honest ones, and the entire rest of the world has been duped, and simply refuse to address any of the evidence that proves them wrong. They'd RATHER believe their wives cheat, that's how far gone they are.
    3
  2011. So, that's it then? You're just going to completely ignore the fact that the Apollo 12 camera broke, and there was no TV from the lunar surface on that mission whatsoever? The transmission WAS lost, yet, they didn't use those fake videos you're claiming. Why not, dewdrop? When asked to explain Apollo 12, you just pretend you have "inside knowledge" and run away?
    3
  2012. What are you waiting for!?!?!? You know more about the Van Allen belt (there are actually 2 of them, sometimes 3, but you wrote singular) than James Van Allen himself knew about them, and more than the entire planet's radiobiologists!!! Why are you not publishing these calculations for the entire world to see!!!?!?!?! Why would you share this amazing knowledge in a YouTube comment instead of in a radiobiology journal?
    3
  2013. What a hero!!! You've come to a YouTube comment to tell others not to believe reality.
    3
  2014. Good grief. They are people who hold the theory that the moon landings were a conspiracy. Yet, you have a problem with basic definitions of words?
    3
  2015. First Man. Apollo 11. From the Earth to the Moon. Apollo 13. For All Mankind. Moonwalk One. And, yes, dewdrop, they went back to the moon. There were 9 manned moon missions, 6 of which landed. Maybe you should be asking yourself some questions before you pretend to know things you clearly don't.
    3
  2016. "So...people believe we had the technology to build a craft to go the moon and film it..but not the technology to just "film it" on earth ?" It would be very difficult to film it on Earth. But, I've never considered video/film to be the best evidence for Apollo anyway. I mean, if you want to argue that "they" (who?) faked 80 hours of mission video, 7,000 photos from the lunar surface, and 110,000 photos from lunar orbit, across 9 manned missions to the moon, um, ok, I'd wonder why they'd bother. I mean, they could just send 1 or 2 missions and a couple hundred photos, if they wanted to "fake" it. But, to fake that much media and 9 missions... why? "Not saying its real or fake but that dont make no sense" How much do you understand about the topic? "but you're telling me they can dedicate all the resources to building a craft, the spacesuits and equipment necessary to make it to the moon in just 4 day travel time." Yes, and it took a decade and about 400,000 people in the USA, and about 50,000 people internationally. Tell me, why don't any of those people realize that they designed and built stuff that couldn't do what they designed it to do? I mean, if the 450,000 people thought their stuff would work, why not just send the missions to the moon at that point? Why fake it? Who knew it wouldn't work, and how? "and transmit the live feed back to earth with basically crystal clear audio" Pffttt. You obviously haven't listened to the audio. It's constantly full of interference and squelch and static, etc. Who told you it was crystal clear? And, why didn't you go listen to it to verify if that claim was correct? "yes so what I'm saying is why do people find it so impossible they could fake it." Because both China and India have taken photos of the Apollo landing sites from their lunar orbiters, showing the Apollo craft exactly where they're supposed to be. Because dozens of countries tracked the Apollo missions with radar and radio telescopes, including enemy countries. Backyard amateurs could aim a dish at the moon and receive Apollo's audio. Spain had the largest telescope at the time, and photographed the SIVB fuel dumps around the moon. Australia had the biggest dish, and used it to receive Apollo's video. Literally every single day since Apollo, dozens of countries around the world have aimed their massive facilities with those huge lasers at the moon, and have precisely mapped out exactly where the Apollo reflectors are on the moon, and use them every day for tracking the moon's position and their own countries' plate tectonic movements. The Soviets sent Luna 15 (unmanned) to meet Apollo 11 at the moon, tracking both craft the entire time. The 850 pounds of lunar material brought back on the Apollo missions are confirmed by geologists around the world to have come from the moon, and to never have been exposed to oxygen or moisture. The list goes on and on and on. "to say that they didn't have the technology to fake it or that it couldn't be done" Do you know how to "fake" radar and radio telescope tracking from here to the moon? "Couldn't they have hypothetically took those resources and allocated them to filming a fake instead?" Um, ok, but, to think nobody would say a word?? What possible reason would you have to believe such a thing? And, sorry, there's just too much evidence that they actually went, and zero evidence that they didn't.
    3
  2017. "i disagree but to each their own." You wrote this to the other guy. But, I can't help but laugh at this reply. Dewdrop, when you refuse to read the answers to your own questions, you're hardly in a position to agree or disagree to ANYTHING. I mean, I know you're pretending to be neutral and everything, but, your behavior is 100% identical to the hardcore nuts. You ask questions, you don't read the answers. You refuse to respond to return questions. You lie, pretending that you read answers you didn't read. And, you refuse to budge in the face of clear evidence to the contrary of your position. Bravo. You're a total genius alright. Let me know when you're done pretending, ok?
    3
  2018. What in the world are you talking about? How is that an answer to anything I wrote? What does AI have to do with the fact that we have photographs of the shadows of the flags that are still standing? The only "AI" here is located between your ears. How would any "AI" determine what would happen to a flag? The only thing "AI" does is try to find answers on the internet. "AI" doesn't try to boil nylon to see what happens to it. Did you even read my response? Or, did you read the first 3 words and ignore the rest? Are you reading this now? Can you write "green" if you reply again to prove it?
    3
  2019. You continue to prove that you're not reading the replies.
    3
  2020. Dewdrop, I asked you to demonstrate that you were reading the responses by putting "green" at the beginning of your reply. You didn't do that. And, you cannot manage to address a single thing I wrote. So, if you're not going to actually address anything anybody writes to you, or even read it, why are you bothering replying at all?
    3
  2021. Pareidolia.
    3
  2022. Really? You were asked what you think is lost, and why you'd think that. And, "tsk tsk" is the best you can muster? Did a conspiracy video tell you the data and schematics were lost? Have you even looked for it?
    3
  2023. She served a felony prison term in Florida, and had a million other arrests.
    3
  2024. I do not believe you not graduated from not high school, not because of not lying thousands of not times and not saying you did not.
    3
  2025. "Where’s our newer more technologically advanced moon craft?" Where's our newer more technically advanced supersonic airliner (after they retired the Concorde decades ago)? Where's our newer more technically advanced mach-7 hypersonicplane (after they retired the X15 in the 1960s)? Dewdrop, these technologies only advance if there's a motivation to advance them. Most of the time, the motivation is commercial profitability. Since there was no commercial profitability in the X15 hypersonic plane, and there was no commercial profitability in the Concorde, and there was no commercial profitability for Apollo, those programs were ended after they served their initial purpose. (In the case of Concorde, they were kept around long past the initial purpose.)
    3
  2026. "Don Pettit" Yes, he said that we destroyed the technology. Do you have a beef with that? He's correct, you know, with respect to all of the physical hardware and means of manufacture. But, he also said we used to have the technology? Why do you quote the "destroyed" part, but not the "we used to have it" part from the very same sentence? If you trust his viewpoint about it being destroyed, why don't you trust his viewpoint about the fact that we used to have it?
    3
  2027. "It was obviously a staged event. To think other wise in 2024 is naive" Really? In the last handful of years, South Korea, China, and India have all taken photos of the Apollo landers on the surface of the moon, and have publicly acknowledged Apollo and published some of those photos. Are they "naïve"? Maybe if they listened to Don Pettit, they'd conclude that all of their photos of the landing sites are fake?
    3
  2028.  @emilybrooke_x  Nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive. They released it 1.5 years after she was already dead.
    3
  2029. Yeah, poor guy, just wanted to enjoy himself at the playground. Kids didn't know what was going on anyway, right? Why did parents react that way to the guy cranking in front of kids? (Oh, was that a different video? Sorry, it's ok, she's female.)
    3
  2030. I think it's pretty obvious that this wasn't the first encounter between the cops and the people in the car.
    3
  2031. As opposed to what, dewdrop? Were they supposed to get random burger flippers and warehouse workers to fly the missions to the moon?
    3
  2032. Kjerstin, YOU SAID: "It's weird to me that no one helped them right away after they passed out in the pool" == Well, if the "news" story is correct, they were face-down in the pool. They couldn't have been that way very long and lived. And, ok, yeah, the girl died, but, if she had been face down for any significant time, she wouldn't have even been alive when they pulled her out of the pool. So, again, it couldn't have been all that long.
    3
  2033. Yes, dewdrop, the close up Google images are done with low flying planes (mainly, but, also sometimes balloons or drones). You keep pretending that you know better. But, you do not. Google's own FAQ says that's how they get those photos. But, you have continuously rejected their own words about where their own photos come from.
    3
  2034. Stop pretending you'd believe it, even if they spent a billion dollars to send a rover where they've already been. You'd call it fake CGI, and you know it.
    3
  2035. Good gods. You won't answer anything I said/asked. Instead, you ask me basic concepts about how a rocket engine works? Are you under the impression that rockets don't work? Are you really under the notion that you need an external medium to propel something? Like, Newton's 3rd law is meaningless to you? I mean, I could ask you something similar, you know. Like, if a propeller propels a boat because it pushes on water, what propels an electric motor to spin? What propels one of the modern roller coasters that use electromagnetics? What propels an object to fall down due to gravity, if it had nothing to push off of? Guess what... there's more than one method of propulsion. And, if you don't understand it already, I certainly cannot explain physics to you over a YouTube comment.
    3
  2036. On Apollo 11? Huh?
    3
  2037.  @stusue9733  Because those are the questions that their favorite conspiracy videos told them to ask. And, they must obey.
    3
  2038. So, it's your opinion that a stripper gets "mortified" when she is exposed? I mean, you do know her landlord said she was a stripper, right? You do know about her extensive criminal history, right?
    3
  2039. This incident = July 1, 2021. Suicide = March, 2022. Arrest video released = November 24, 2023.
    3
  2040. Sorry, but this is just ridiculous. Quit reading from your playbook of silly things to write on the internet, and let the world know when you actually have any real questions.
    3
  2041. The police blocked the release of the arrest video for 2.5 years. That's 1.5 years AFTER she died before anybody even saw the video. And, what exactly do you think the police would get from views anyway?
    3
  2042. Like when someone is handling it?
    3
  2043. CGI in 1972? Good gods.
    3
  2044. "Even if the exhaust was "feeble" after being turned of 10 feet above the surface" It was ZERO after it was turned ofF. And, for most missions, it was more like 5 feet. But, two missions left the engine on all the way to touchdown. "it still would've disturbed the dust and pebbles." Yes, dewdrop. All landing sites show the signs of a rocket engine blowing on the surface. "And what's more, even under those conditions, there'd be some type of dust, dirt, pebbles etc visible on the gold foil on the feet." Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends on a bunch of circumstances. What's your position on this matter exactly? On the missions that had dust in the landing pads, those missions were real? But, the missions that didn't have that, those were fake? "And it would be obvious, even in small amounts" Well, then why are you blindly trusting conspiracy videos, rather than looking for yourself?? You're another person who watched a couple of silly videos that lie to you, and you've never once looked at the photo archive to see the clear evidence of dust being blown by the rocket exhaust, or dust in the landing pads. A video told you that those things didn't happen, and you just obediently swallowed it all.
    3
  2045. That's a good question, and there's a good answer. I mean, yes, thermodynamically, they could have just shot the Saturn V rocket straight at the moon. There was enough rocket fuel to do it. However, they didn't want to do this for a bunch of reasons. First and foremost, they really wanted a chance to be able to check the craft out, to make sure everything is working correctly, before heading off to the moon. You can't do this if you shoot straight up, because, if anything is wrong, you just fall straight back down. They wanted to first go into orbit around the Earth to give them a couple of hours to get the craft situated, make sure all systems are working, etc., before committing to going to the moon. Apollo 12 was a great example of why they needed this. Apollo 12 was hit by lightning twice after lifting off, and it caused a whole bunch of computer and electronics failures. They needed a lot of time to get everything reset and back to full operation (which they did in Earth orbit), before heading off to the moon. Had they shot straight up to the moon, rather than arcing into Earth orbit first, then Apollo 12 would have had to abort the mission entirely, and come straight back down. So, yes, going into Earth orbit first is a good idea. Also, by going into Earth orbit first, this allows more flexibility. If they wanted to go to the moon via a launch straight up, they would literally only have about an hour or so, and either the flight goes, or they have to wait a month for the next launch window. By going to Earth orbit first, this allows a much wider launch window, more than a day, before they'd have to wait a month for the next launch window. They had no desire to pin their launches down to just one hour. With all of the technical issues and delays involved with getting a rocket off the ground, they wanted a larger launch window. Going into Earth orbit first... allows that wider launch window. There are a million other reasons, also. But, this is enough for now.
    3
  2046. Yet, you cannot name the exact technology that was lacking? Why not? Please explain which exact technology was lacking, then explain why none of the thousands of engineers working on that particular technology were aware that they built equipment that couldn't do the job they built it to do. Can you?
    3
  2047. It would take more astronauts than that. Sure, 12 walked on the moon. But, 24 total people went to the moon on the 9 missions that flew there (3 of them went twice). And, of course, they'd need to include backup crew members, such as Gordon Cooper, Joe Engle, Vance Brand, William Pogue, and Gerald Carr. If the primary crew had an issue, the backup crew was equally trained and had to be ready to take over the mission (which actually happened a few times during Apollo and Gemini). So, you'd need even more to be "in on it" than the 24 that went to the moon.
    3
  2048. So, your very first attempt to learn something about Apollo was to watch a conspiracy video? Wow, just wow.
    3
  2049. There is far less than a 1% variance in the dimensions. Yes, the equator's diameter is "fatter" than diameter at the poles. But, you'd never notice it with the naked eye.
    3
  2050.  @joshsidebottom3811  Whatever. You got your answer. The variance between the diameter at the poles vs. the diameter at the equator is there, yes, and it's "fatter" at the equator. Furthermore, it tends to "bulge" a bit more in the southern hemisphere than the northern hemisphere. These things are due to (1) the spin of the Earth creating centrifugal force, and (2) the southern half has less land mass and more water. But, the variance in dimensions is so slight that the human eye would never detect it. There are numerous ways that this is calculated. But, mostly, nowadays, it's done with lasers and satellite ranging, as well as radar and satellite ranging. But, yes, there are other ways to calculate this also. I'm not going to sit here and write up a massive dissertation about how scientists do their jobs, and it's absurd for you to ask people for such an education about this in a YouTube comment. This is especially the case when you're making it clear that your underlying question has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth, but has to do with your doubt about Apollo. It would be a complete waste of time for me to try to educate you on one topic, when, the answers are ultimately not relevant to the question you refused to ask until I coaxed it out of you.
    3
  2051. "Watch Buzz Aldrin on Conan Obrien where he tells him it was animation." I will copy and paste the same response as I gave you in your other comment when you made this silly assertion. Dewdrop, did you pay attention to what he said? Or, are those the only words you remember? Conan said he and his family watched Aldrin's landing live on television. Aldrin correctly told him that he did not watch the landing live, because it was only an animation. Yet you believe that this was some sort of "confession"? Good grief. Have you bothered to watch the animations he's talking about? He even explained that they didn't have live TV for the landing. Have you watched the landing video? It's clearly not a TV signal. It was shot on 16mm film. Nobody saw it live, because they had to wait until they got home to get the film developed. So, yes, the broadcasters all played cartoonish animations during the landing instead. Go watch some of them. They're readily available on YouTube. The live TV wasn't available until after they landed. You don't know what you're talking about.
    3
  2052. There were 3 missions with rovers. You can see the rovers in some of the LRO images, but, they only occupy a few pixels (resolution limitation). But, the rover tracks, yes, they're all over the LRO images, much more vivid and visible. "Apollo 15 LRO photos" will show you a nice group of photos to demonstrate what you're saying.
    3
  2053. Let's see... the job of the Saturn V booster was to lift 100,000 pounds of payload to an altitude of 240,000 miles. The job of the lunar lander's ascent stage was to lift two people and some rocks to an altitude of 62 miles. And, no, dewdrop, there were no "firecrackers." It's a rocket engine. Sorry if you don't understand basic physics.
    3
  2054. "6 flights between 1959 and 1962 and none after that" Good gods. Please put this on every job application you ever fill out, ok?
    3
  2055. So, the person who knew... died... and took the truth to his grave (your claim), yet, somehow, YOU know about it?? Does that even make sense in the fantasyland that your mind lives in? Anyway, sorry, dewdrop, but, the VHF antenna isn't a suspension wire.
    3
  2056. Dewdrop, all 6 flags have been located by Arizona State University's LRO camera. 5 are still standing (we know this because of the shadows they cast at low sun angles). 1 has fallen over and is sitting on the lunar surface. India's orbiter has confirmed this, because their camera is even better.
    3
  2057. Well, there were TWO landings in 1969. So, right out of the gate, I question how much you could possibly know about the subject. But, alright, let's talk about those two landings. Apollo 11 and Apollo 12. Tracked by dozens of countries with radar and radio telescopes, including enemies such as the Soviets. Apollo 11's laser reflector was detected by 3 different countries before the astronauts even lifted off the lunar surface. Japan's JAXA/Selene lunar orbiter detected surface disturbance at those sites. Arizona State University's LRO's camera took dozens of photos of those two landing sites, showing the landers, foot paths, shadow of the Apollo 12 flag (still standing), and at about a sun angle of 12:35 (just after high noon), you can see a bright spot on the surface exactly where the Apollo 11 flag (now toppled over) used to be standing. China took photos with their Chang'e orbiter a few years ago. As well, India's ISRO Chandrayaan2’s took photos of Apollo 11 & 12 in April of 2021, using the best camera (to date) that is orbiting the moon. You can see those two landing sites in even better resolution than LRO's. Just take a look. But, anyway, how does this conspiracy go, in your mind? Dozens of countries were "in on it"? And, persisting even to today, new countries are joining "the deception" 50+ years later? How far gone are you?
    3
  2058. Well, ok, but, it's a lot easier to just go to the moon. I mean, the Soviets were tracking all of the missions with radar and radio telescopes (as were dozens of other countries). Anybody with a decent radio setup could receive the Apollo audio signals coming from the moon. They left laser reflectors on the surface which any nation with a laser ranging facility could hit. They left experiment packages on the moon that were nuclear powered and sent radio signals back for years after the missions were over. The list goes on and on and on. How long would such a "lie" last, if that's your opinion on what happened?
    3
  2059.  @Hobbes746  For clarification, it's $300 billion if you adjust into today's dollars. It wasn't $300 billion in 1960s and 1970s money.
    3
  2060. Pffttt. Deleted your thread when shown how wrong you are... then started a new one with [one of] the same silly claim[s]. What happened to the rest of your ridiculous claims? Starting a new thread for those also? Or, did you realize how nuts they were, and you think this claim is the only one remaining that holds water? (By the way, this claim doesn't hold water either, but, I know you think it does.) Watch out, dewdrop, you're a hair away from becoming a flat Earther... then it's too late for your mind to return to normal. You're right on the edge. Jump back to this side of the ledge before it's too late.
    3
  2061. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    3
  2062. Funny that none of those photos exist in the original photos published in 1969-1972. They all seemed to start showing up about a decade ago when the crack-meets-pot dewdrops figured out Photoshop.
    3
  2063. So, if I find an interview with someone who says the moon is made of cheese, would you believe that also?
    3
  2064. Did a conspiracy video tell you that? Nobody who actually looks at the photo archive themselves would ever say such a thing.
    3
  2065. And, why are you posting the same nonsense TWICE? You asked this same question a couple of days ago. Here's the answer: I will ask you again, what makes you think dust wasn't disturbed? Why would you believe such a thing? Did the conspiracy videos you've been watching all show you photos from bad angles, and tell you that no dust was disturbed, and you just decided to believe it without checking for yourself? Those videos don't show you photos like AS11-40-5921, for example? See those radial striations from the rocket blast? Notice that almost all of the dust layer is gone, blown down to the compacted regolith layer? No? You've never actually looked at the photos yourself? Instead, you watched a conspiracy video that told you the dust wasn't disturbed?
    3
  2066. Did you take one or two sentences intentionally out of context that you saw in a conspiracy video to come up with that gibberish you just spewed?
    3
  2067. A) Teleportation is not a technology we have, or had, or are likely to ever have. Making big rockets is a technology that we definitely had. B) You are correct, videos don't prove anything. But, you're making it very clear that you think videos are the only evidence. It's ridiculous. C) Dewdrop, other countries have confirmed Apollo in many different ways over the decades. The most recent examples came from both India and China, who independently sent their own lunar orbiters to the moon, and photographed some of the Apollo landing sites. Both China and India have each released some of those photos. They show the Apollo landers exactly where the original mission photography showed them, as well as where Arizona State University's LRO camera showed them in the hundreds of photos over the years since 2009. It doesn't match your request to send a manned shuttle there, but, it's pretty darned definitive. D) C'mon, get real here, don't pretend that you intend on believing the moon landings once confirmed by other countries. The landings were confirmed by dozens of countries, including enemies. And, you ignore that input. So, why would you start paying attention if they sent a manned mission? You're just going to deny that also. E) What is the point in trying to land somewhere that people have already been? Just to try to convince crackpots that they're crackpots? Do you think they'll listen?
    3
  2068. Well, I suppose anybody can joke around. She brought it on herself, what with her addiction and stealing. But, for whatever the reason, I can't quite bring myself to joke around about dead people. Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly willing to go hard on her for her life choices that led to her death. But, joking around about dead people... yeah... that's a bit too far for my own taste.
    3
  2069. I got your response in the other thread. But, I'll add a couple of tidbits here. Multiple people called about this incident, not just "one family." One of the audience recorded the show, and gave a copy of the video to the police. It didn't match her version about nobody being around. To the contrary, it was a loud and public act in view of multiple people including children. After her long criminal history, it's tough to get a straight job. So, her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the local club. Her neighbors said she did "private extras" for cash in her apartment. Personally, I think she was making "public beach" content for her fans, and got reported, and was trying to cry her way out of her millionth arrest.
    3
  2070. And, you came to a video that talks about a program that ran from 1961 through 1975 to ask about today's tax money?
    3
  2071. So your method of solving this "incredulous behavior" and your "curious at best" attitude is to post a message on YouTube, and then ignore the responses. Bravo. You're a real genius alright. The stuff you wrote is laughably wrong, because, as I said, they DID take 125 star photos from the lunar surface. But, nope. You'll stick with the notion that you're magically correct anyway, and ignore all input, refuse to answer questions, and run for the hills while declaring victory.
    3
  2072.  @UkraineIsNumber1  Pffttt. But, India didn't capture anything from Apollo 15 two months ago. That was 14 years ago. He was confusing the images of Apollo 12 and 11 from India that were released last year. Also, sorry, but "it's self" doesn't mean anything. The correct word is "itself." And, "it's self" means "it is self." And, sorry, but Aldrin never told people he didn't go to the moon. Yes, that guy was spewing gibberish.
    3
  2073. That's gibberish in English, and it's also gibberish in your own language.
    3
  2074. Why shouldn't they? The USA donated Apollo samples to China (and over a hundred other countries), and have given access to almost all of the Apollo samples (except a small percentage that they preserved untouched for future technology to study) to thousands of geologists from all over the world to analyze for the past 5 decades. Why SHOULDN'T the USA request that China return the favor? You're not under the impression that all moon rocks are alike, are you?
    3
  2075. 4 - I don't know who "they" are. Nobody I know thinks SpaceX is all that impressive. Actually, to the contrary, its seems that they're a joke of a rocket company that relies on hype rather than actual performance. They filled a low margin market niche that was left void after the non-proliferation agreements with Russia ended. So what? As for Blue, well, we'll see how fast they can ramp up in SpaceX's shadow. It took the government far too long to contract them to fill in for where SpaceX is failing. We probably lost 3-4 years.
    3
  2076. 5 - Which press event would that be? They had a million of them. Do you mean the one about a month after their mission, in the middle of a whirlwind of post-mission stuff? The one that all of the conspiracy videos tell you to parrot? Are you not aware of the other countless press events they did in the months following their mission? No? That ONE is important to you for some reason?
    3
  2077. Talk about intentionally missing the point. Good grief.
    3
  2078. Another dewdrop who isn't interested in the evidence, and would rather "logic" his way into silly beliefs. Like, 9 manned trips to the moon weren't enough. They had to do more, else, the first 9 never happened.
    3
  2079. You forgot to include emojis. Nobody can take a single word you've written seriously unless you include 40 or 50 emojis to really emphasize your expertise.
    3
  2080. Dewdrop, what IS your point? There are thousands of photos of Earth. All you're going to do is pretend they're not real. You pretend you're asking for them, but, you know, in advance, you're just going to refuse to accept them. So, why are you asking?
    3
  2081.  @eventcone  All 3 rovers lost fenders. Just FYI. They ignored it on Apollo 15 and 16. But, the one they lost on Apollo 17 was more crucial because it caused the dust to spray onto all of their stuff.
    3
  2082. A regular fireman's suit is built to survive 1000 degrees (Fahrenheit). A really good one is made to survive 2000 degrees. But, you won't grant the Apollo suit a mere 200 degrees? Also, why do you believe they were even there when it was 200 degrees? You believe NASA when they tell you the entire surface temperature range that the lunar surface goes through, but, you disbelieve NASA when they tell you that Apollo astronauts were never on the surface during those extremes?
    3
  2083. "I've actually heard rocket scientist criticizing every aspect of it and it's hilarious." No, you watched a conspiracy video with someone pretending to be a rocket scientist criticizing it. In actual aerospace engineering circles, the lunar module remains as the benchmark for spacecraft and satellite design, with many/most of its principles still practiced today. Basically, your assertion is, "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake."
    3
  2084. Translation: "My family couldn't afford their own phone line, therefore Apollo was fake."
    3
  2085. Well, dewdrop, they had option of using radio for Apollo, and used it.
    3
  2086. It's comments like that which make him the most punchable person I've ever seen.
    3
  2087. Aww, isn't that cute, the child is attempting to sound smart.
    3
  2088. Sorry, you're wrong. First of all, it's difficult to get a perspective from that angle. Secondly, they're parked at the base of a very steep slope, which messes with shadow angles. Go watch this segment in its entirety, not just a few seconds from a documentary, and it will make it much more clear. They were practically falling over because of the standing angle at that rock. Thirdly, if you're proposing that there were multiple light sources, sorry, that doesn't result in the effect you're talking about. Multiple light sources from different angles merely produce multiple shadows. You wouldn't get a single shadow from one astronaut, and a different shadow from another astronaut. Each astronaut would cast TWO shadows if there were two separate light sources at two angles. Once again, just as has been the case for years upon years of you spewing garbage on the internet, you're just plain wrong... again.
    3
  2089. Japan sent the JAXA/Selene probe to the moon in 2008. It didn't have the resolution required to actually see the Apollo equipment on the surface, but, they could see evidence of the landings. LRO was sent to the moon in 2009, and it took the exact type of photos you're asking for. The deniers just labeled those photos as "fake" and dismissed them. LRO was dropped to a lower orbit in 2012 (only about 12 miles above), and it took even better photos of the landing sites. The deniers reject those photos also. India released their photos of some of the landing sites from their orbiter in 2022. The deniers just conclude that India joined "the deception" 50 years later. China released their photos of the Apollo 11 landing site later in 2022 from their orbiter. The deniers simply reject that also. Tell me, how do you propose to get different results with the probe you're proposing? The deniers haven't accepted any evidence thus far, do you think they'll start now?
    3
  2090. Sticking off the side, in the quadrant in the descent stage under the commander's window. "Lunar rover deployment" will show you lots of videos you can watch on the topic.
    3
  2091. Let's see... bouncing radar, radio, and lasers off of the moon gives a measurement. If you time how long it takes to orbit Earth, you can then do the math to calculate the distance. You can send unmanned probes and do the measurement that way. I'm beginning to think maybe you don't know what you're talking about.
    3
  2092. a) Why should the veracity of Apollo be dependent upon what China does or doesn't do? b) If you are going to depend on China so much, ok, what do you think about the fact that last year, China released their orbital photos of the Apollo 11 landing site, showing the lander exactly where it's supposed to be? If your basis of belief or disbelief comes from China, ok, doesn't that prove Apollo right there? c) Why do nuts constantly try to "logic" their way into disbelief? What about evidence? Why do none of you ever just look at the evidence itself, and, instead, all you people do is look for these "logical" (using that word loosely) reasons to believe nonsense? Shouldn't EVIDENCE be the basis of belief or not? Not, "well, I will only believe what China does"??
    3
  2093. The conspiracy nuts already reject the orbital images of the Apollo landing sites taken by India and China. Why would they accept rover images? Also, you clearly are not aware of how far away those rovers are.
    3
  2094. "Lunar rover deployment."
    3
  2095.  @JohneeTruther  Really, dewdrop? So, you understand aerospace engineering better than the 7,000 engineers at Grumman who designed and built it? What EXACTLY would you have done differently?
    3
  2096. It's even worse than you're outlining. It's hard to notice, but, if you pause at 0:08, and go frame by frame, the criminal actually had the gun pointed directly at the officer's head as the door opened.
    3
  2097. For the command/service modules, they used fuel cells. Look them up if you don't know what that means. For the lunar modules, they used silver-zinc batteries. These batteries pack in more energy per pound than almost any other kind of battery (at least ones that are stable enough to place onto a spacecraft that's going to be bounced around). But, they were one-time-use batteries (they couldn't be recharged). And, they were outrageously expensive. If I recall correctly, each lunar module battery (that was about equivalent to a car battery) costed about $50,000 each. That's about $400,000 each in today's money. You don't commonly see batteries like that nowadays because there's very little purpose in one-time-use batteries that cost a fortune. But, for the lunar module, it made sense. Also, they shut down the electronics while not in use. They didn't leave the computers on while sitting on the lunar surface. And, radios don't consume very much energy. Yes, the craft were like "living and breathing machines" with pumps and electronics, etc. But, they had an entire bank of batteries to last them throughout the mission.
    3
  2098. Good grief. Where do you people get this nonsense? There were 9 manned missions to the moon. 6 of those missions landed on it.
    3
  2099. "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" by Bart Sibrel. It's a lie, of course. He sold it to Fox for 7 figures, so the rumors say. But, I guess he still has the rights to it, or something, because it's on his channel. Anyway, I'll explain the lie to you, if you're interested. About 25 years ago, there was a press kit released that included that footage. Sibrel, a taxi cab driver and aspiring filmmaker got one of those press kits. Since it wasn't a widely publicized piece of video, Sibrel figured he could edit it and pretend that it was "leaked" to him by mistake. Prior to then, yeah, anybody could get the video, but, it wasn't as if many people actually did (beyond me and a handful of other insane people willing to pay a mountain of copying fees). So, since this was a rather obscure video only seen by hardcore enthusiasts, he figured he could edit/change the video, clipping out the parts that prove himself wrong, then put it into that movie, and most people would never fact-check. And, he's right. Most people just blindly swallowed the nonsense. But, Sibrel isn't the brightest bulb. He went around telling people that it was a film reel that he got his hands on. But, it was never on film. It was always just a TV transmission, as anybody should be able to tell. He then said he had this film carbon dated by professionals, and that it dated to exactly July 18, 1969, thus proving that they were in low orbit, unable to get to the moon by the July 20 date of walking upon it. Well, again, this was a lie, because it wasn't on film to begin with, and, even it it was, you can't carbon date a piece of film to show you when it was exposed to light. Carbon dating is a tool to show when a living organism was last alive, not a tool to show you when film was taken. And, it would never be that accurate either. But, to his followers, it didn't matter. Sibrel said he got it carbon dated, and the scientifically illiterate people gobbled it up. All you have to do is watch the original video, not Sibrel's edited copy, and you'll see that they moved the camera from window to window, you could see the Earth in the distance, no secret round window cutout to conceal that they were in low orbit, etc. "Addendum A Funny Thing Happened... (By GreaterSapien - MIRROR)" is a good one to show the lie. The original on YouTube has the audio clipped out, but, the mirror has the full audio. But, the coup de grâce was that Sibrel forgot that low orbit requires the craft to go 17,500mph, otherwise it just falls out of the sky. And, he never dealt with that in his video. Sorry to put the biggest nail into the coffin at the end of this posting instead of the beginning. But, yeah, if you watch that video, and you don't see the clouds zooming by the window, then they're not in low orbit, by definition. Sibrel's version of being in low orbit CANNOT be correct, because those clouds aren't zooming by the window. Hope this helps.
    3
  2100. Sorry for the multiple replies. I'm having a hard time determining if others can see my reply or not, so, I'm deleting and reposting. Can anybody confirm if my "Funny Thing" reply (with explanation" is visible?
    3
  2101.  @luketracey3269  So, you deleted your ridiculous reply, made two new replies, doubling down on how ridiculous you are? Why are you linking to a video that has nothing to do with THIS incident?? What's wrong with you? Dummy, the cop in THIS VIDEO never hit the boy. Sheeeessssshhh. Yet, you linked a completely different incident???
    3
  2102. So, before anybody could even answer your questions, you declared your conclusions. Why do you ask questions while making it 100% clear that the answers do not matter to you? By the way, dewdrop, with the exception of RCS, the lunar module's rockets weren't used to land and then take off again. It was a completely separate rocket. Bravo on not knowing what you're talking about.
    3
  2103. The family with children weren't the only ones that called this in. There were multiple callers. And, apparently, she had walked up and down the beach looking for a spot, and specifically chose one in view of groups of people, then plopped down and went to town with a very loud show. One of the "audience" recorded it on video and gave a copy to the police. But, that video hasn't been released due to graphic content. If she wasn't making "public beach" content for her fans, I'll eat my hat.
    3
  2104. I don't think that's what skepticism is. You can be skeptical and still firmly believe Apollo was real. Skepticism is a method of analyzing facts, and a method of thinking. Skepticism isn't blind rejection. If you were truly skeptical, you'd be answering all of my return questions. That would be part of the process of actually being skeptical.
    3
  2105. It costs roughly $20,000 to send an apple up to the ISS (and that much for any other supplies, ounce for ounce). How much do you think it would cost to send supplies to the moon? And, who would pay for it?
    3
  2106. Are you referring to when the flag was being handled? What did you expect to happen? A nylon flag being handled is supposed to magically stay stiff as a board or something?
    3
  2107.  @gerryedroso1414  Then why do you ask questions when you decide, in advance, you are going to ignore the answers?? What's wrong with you? Sorry, dummy, but there isn't a single space agency on the entire planet who agrees with you. If you want to prove otherwise, go get a nylon flag, put it inside a vacuum chamber, handle it the way it's being handled in this video, and demonstrate that you are correct. Posting questions on YouTube, when you have no intention of listening to answers, just makes yourself into an idiot.
    3
  2108. Well, your frustration is understandable, but, your comments are not. See, there already are a number of laws that apply here. Underage driving is against the law. Dirt bikes on public roads is against the law. Fleeing the police is against the law. Reckless driving is against the law. Speeding is against the law. The boy violated all of those laws. There isn't a new law you can pass that would have changed the outcome here. And, "do something" doesn't magically change things. Unless you have some actual real-world ideas, "do something" just means nothing, unfortunately. But, don't misunderstand my tone here. I'm not ridiculing you. I agree that these things shouldn't happen. I just don't think that passing more laws will make any difference.
    3
  2109. Oh look!! A landing denier who reads and writes at a 2nd grade level. Shocker. I've never seen that before. Dewdrop, first of all, the very same AI cannot tell the difference between a tree and a tank. Secondly, and, if the AI said it was real, would you believe it? No? So, you'll only believe things that align with your predetermined conclusions, eh?
    3
  2110. "the "round picture" is now confirmed fake." Round picture of what?
    3
  2111. "The space station "live" shots are full of easily discovered fakery (air bubbles, green screen glitches)" Air bubbles that don't go up, right? (sigh) As for the rest of what you wrote, well, all I can tell you is that you're clearly suffering from addiction issues. You need to stop that stuff. Look what it's done to your mind!
    3
  2112. Trough is flying again, worlds are techy but hilarious, 2024 therefore is fake.
    3
  2113. This is even more ridiculous than the brutalization of the English language being expressed here. In the golden age of aviation (1950s/1960s/1970s), we had mach-7 hypersonic planes (X15). We had the Concorde supersonic airliner capable of carrying 100+ passengers at mach-2 for 3000 miles. We had the SR71 and the YF12 mach-3 spy/research planes. We had the XB70 mach 3-bomber. Etc. We don't have anything close to any of those planes today, nor their capabilities. All of those programs were retired and replaced with lower performing craft that were much more cost effective instead. Yet, the dewdrop insists that TODAY's flying is "high tech"? Good grief. If you're reading this, dewdrop (I'm sure you're not), first of all, learn 2nd grade English. Good gods, going through life unable to form a coherent sentence won't do you any good. From there, maybe you can go read about all of the programs in aviation/space that prove you wrong.
    3
  2114. And this mess was your edited version? Starting the weekend a day early? Drunken nonsense.
    3
  2115.  @DanPerissinotto  What proof would you even expect/accept? I mean, that's the thing with you nuts... you ask for more, more, more, but, you know ahead of time that you intend to reject anything you're given anyway. There are only two rules to your game: (1) if it supports Apollo, it's fake, no matter how good the evidence is, and (2) if it goes against Apollo, it's real, no matter how laughably wrong the evidence is.
    3
  2116. Why does this matter to you? Why are you not interested in EVIDENCE? They only went 9 times = fake? Congress didn't fund another program = fake? Look, dewdrop, there's a vast world of technology and discovery at your fingertips, if you'd care to shed your silly notions about somehow knowing more than the rest of the planet's aerospace engineers, and actually study Apollo for real. And, yes, dewdrop, Artemis is funded, and they ARE going again.
    3
  2117. You: "Since the military gets nearly 700 billion a year, and in a way this can be part of a military category." Stu: "are you one of the people that think the moon is a great place for a military base?" You: "your question did not make sense, who even talking about a military base on the moon?"
    3
  2118. Yet another denier who reads and writes at a 2nd grade level. Shocker.
    3
  2119. One of the "audience" did take video. She showed that video to the police. It's in their arrest report.
    3
  2120. Apollo's budget (adjusted for inflation) = $300 billion in hard costs, and about $150 billion in soft costs and international support. Artemis' budget = $35 billion. (But, this is, naturally, a government operation, expected to balloon out of control.) Apollo's time from beginning of funding to first landing = 9 years. Artemis' targeted time from beginning of funding to first landing = 6 years. (Though, this will change, because I think there's no way this will get done in time.) Apollo's lander = made by Grumman, one of the greatest aircraft and spacecraft manufacturers in history. Artemis' lander = made by a company run by a conman full of more false promises than the entire world's combined religions. I'll let you be the judge.
    3
  2121. Instead of looking on eBay, how about looking at the archives? But, you might need to learn to spell things before being able to find them.
    3
  2122. This is well understood. When people who'd lose a checkers match against a squirrel hear something they don't understand, they literally omit those words as if they never heard them. "Did you see stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare" becomes (for you) "did you see stars?"
    3
  2123. Good grief. How far gone do you have to be in order to believe that there were these three "confessions" you're talking about? And, somehow, you could only name one of them? And, it was nothing but an out-of-context quote-mine spoken to a little girl? Good gods. Stop worrying about topics you don't come close to understanding.
    3
  2124. Apparent magnitude. This is a concept of measuring the light levels of objects in the sky. The moon is many orders of magnitude more bright than stars. This is completely obvious, even on Earth, because you can see the moon even in daytime. And, if you simply watch the sky at night as the sun goes down, you will see the moon the entire time, while stars don't become visible until the sun has been down a while, and stars slowly come into view. Dynamic range. This is the ability for human eyes to see bright objects at the same time as dim objects. This is measurable, and has a specific range. Your eyes can see only within a specific range of brightness. If something is super bright, you won't simultaneously see something super dim.
    3
  2125. Another dewdrop with "truth" in his nickname, who knows nothing whatsoever about truth.
    3
  2126. Once again proving that moon landing deniers have the reading and writing skills of a 7 year old.
    3
  2127. Those are certainly some electric drugs you're using.
    3
  2128. I'm never going to understand the deniers' fascination with Kubrick. Like, why in the world would the US government ever contract a rich and famous director with no skill in special effects, known for making artsy movies, who could easily just say "no"? If their fantasies about fake moon landings were correct, why wouldn't they hire a completely unknown person that they could manipulate or eliminate if he says "no"? Yet, the deniers accuse Kubrick of being a criminal anyway, because that's what the conspiracy videos tell them to believe. Ironically, those people are the ones that say the SANE ones are blindly believing what WE are told.
    3
  2129. It was most likely released as a result of a legal FOIA request. So, what's your lawsuit exactly?
    3
  2130. No gravity on the moon? Sigh. Why in the world would you believe such a thing? I mean, not only does that demonstrate that you do not understand physics at the most entry level, but, it demonstrates that you are unable to even key in "gravity on the moon" to any basic search engine. What do you think even holds the moon together, if not gravity? What do you think causes the tides on Earth, if not the moon's gravity?
    3
  2131. What difference do you think technology makes? They haven't gone back because congress didn't fund another manned moon program until Artemis in 2019.
    3
  2132. At 4:33, you even highlight that they were referring to BACKUP tapes. Yet, somehow, you act as if the primary copies were lost. More evidence that nobody with "truth" in their nickname has any understanding of what that means.
    3
  2133. Hilarious. Yet another person who obviously gets his information only from conspiracy videos. Dewdrop, you clearly never looked at the photo archive yourself. There are countless photos of Earth from the lunar surface, from lunar orbit, and from the transit between Earth and Moon. If you had lifted a finger to fact-check the conspiracy video you watched that made that ridiculous claim, simply by thumbing through some of the mission photos for yourself, there's no way you would even be asking.
    3
  2134. "how come they need to have Elon Musk make a new type of rocket" Because the administrators at NASA didn't have the common sense to select Bezos instead of Musk, or Lockheed instead of Musk, or Northrop Grumman instead of Musk. "and new materials" Well, new everything, not just materials. "to combat the van allen belt" Huh? Why are you under the impression that they'd be combatting the Van Allen belts in the lunar lander? This makes no sense. Can you elaborate on why you think the lander would be combatting the Van Allen belts in the first place? "y dont they just upgrade the technology they had that got them there" Because it's 50+ years old, and obsolete. Because they want to stay for a month or more at a time, not just 74 hours. (I don't know if they'll succeed at that, seems right now that they won't, and will probably just stay about the same length of time as Apollo did, but, at least originally, the goal was more than 700 hours.) Because the Apollo mission format and craft couldn't really do polar landings (which is what they want next), and was designed around equatorial landings. They could probably adapt it for polar landings, at least just the lander (which is what you asked about), but, it wasn't really designed for those sun angles. Because they don't want to use pure oxygen environments any longer, and want to switch to 80% nitrogen. Because they don't really want to use hypergol fuel, because the engines didn't really like the corrosiveness, so, they'll need all new engines anyway. Anyway, the point is, it doesn't really work the way you're outlining. There are so many different things that would need to be upgraded, that it's just better to scrap the 50+ year old craft, and go with a new craft altogether. "5 times" There were 9 manned missions, 6 of which landed, 8 of which had landers with them. Which 5 are you referring to, and why? "and through the van allen belt 5 times?" There are TWO Van Allen belts, not one. And, well, sometimes there are even three of them (but, we haven't seen the 3rd since 2013). Anyway, what's your complaint? And, what does Musk's lander have to do with the Van Allen belts? Did you confuse Lockheed Martin with SpaceX? "Thats like the Wright brothers building that plane that flew, multiple times, then scrapping it" Yes, that's exactly what they did. The first plane wasn't really viable. So, they upgraded to the "Wright Flyer II" rather quickly (within a year). Then, they went on to the Wright Flyer III. Then the Wright Flyer Model A. Etc. Yes, they scrapped each one along the way. I fail to understand why you think this example bolsters your opinions, when it actually goes directly against what you're attempting to say. Backfire much? "and ill say this just for fun" So, accusing thousands of people of being criminals that would receive lifetime sentences in prison for the crimes you're accusing them of... is "just for fun" in your book? Oh, you're a stellar human being alright. "if we did make it to the moon" Huh? But, you know nothing. You're not in a position to make ANY comment. You don't know how many missions there were. You don't know one craft from another. You don't know how many Van Allen belts there are. You think a lander is supposed to deal with things that it doesn't deal with. You don't know who the contractors are. You can't figure out the difference between SpaceX and Lockheed Martin, and what roles they have with which craft. Why would you even believe you're in any position whatsoever to doubt the veracity of Apollo? Do you go to brain surgery videos and say that the surgeon is using the wrong techniques, and questioning the veracity of brain surgery? No? Why not? Because you know nothing about brain surgery, right? What makes you think you know anything about aerospace engineering? "the only way would be if the earth was truly flat and the moon and sun are in our atmosphere" Another goddamned dewdrop who knows absolutely nothing, yet says the entirety of the planet's experts are wrong. Oh, you're a real hero alright. Your Nobel Prize is in the mail, I can feel it.
    3
  2135. How does that work? Illegal driver on an illegal motorcycle driving recklessly, and the police shouldn't do anything? No? Just let the kid go out and plow somebody over? Tell me, if you got hit by a maniac driver, because you got your wish and the police never tried to pull over the offender, and the offender hit you as a result, what would you be saying then? Would you be saying, "I'm sure glad the police never chased the person who slammed into me"? Or, would you say, "Hey, we pay the cops to keep the roads safe, why didn't they try to stop the maniac?"
    3
  2136.  @RunDownBanG  If you didn't want answers on a public comments forum, don't post messages on a public comments forum. It's really that simple. You can be proud to be stupid all day long, that's your prerogative. But, when you do it on the internet, don't act all surprised if you get replies.
    3
  2137. Well, you could rewatch the moonwalk and find out for yourself. But, in short, the camera was attached to the side of the module (in the MESA) for the first steps, and then Armstrong moved it to a tripod about 30 feet away about 20 minutes later. The camera was running the entire time, including when being moved.
    3
  2138. You mean the backup copies that nobody in history had ever even watched?
    3
  2139. Sorry, dewdrop, you're wrong.
    3
  2140. Huh? Three different countries photographed the Apollo landing sites from probes in lunar orbit. USA, China, and India. You can see the landers, foot paths, rover tracks, etc. No, you cannot see the smaller items depicted in this video, and you cannot see the state the stuff is in after +50 years and hundreds of cycles of days/nights on the moon. But, you can see enough to know it's there. The CGI in this video is to depict what he imagines it looks like in the small details. I'm sorry you think it's a good idea to display your utter ignorance and incredulity to the world, but, hey, that's your own problem.
    3
  2141. Yet, you need only go as far as the 1st landing to know that you're wrong. There are photos of Aldrin getting out of the door. And, there's video of the astronauts climbing back inside. How does this work anyway, in your mind? You think the 7,000 engineers at Grumman, the hundreds more at Hamilton Standard, and the hundreds more at ILC Dover, all simultaneously forgot to make it possible to get in and out, and nobody ever noticed it until YOU came along? Delusions of grandeur, eh?
    3
  2142. Dewdrop, what film would that be? Have you ever seen a film of Apollo 11 leaving the moon? (Hint: there is no such video. The camera wasn't turned on until they were about 1,000 feet above the moon, and it's very obvious who filmed it, Buzz Aldrin.)
    3
  2143. Congress controls NASA. Congress decides what missions and programs to fund, or not fund. After congress retired the Saturn V, lunar module, command module, and everything else associated with them, what exact program/mission/rocket would you use to send people back to the moon (until congress funded another program to do so)?
    3
  2144. The Freedom of Information Act disagrees with you.
    3
  2145. "We were connected communication wise, by phone cords." Radio had existed since the 1800s, dewdrop. Car phones since the 1940s. How do you think they called ocean ships? You don't believe that they could simply patch a phone call to a radio, the exact same way they patched calls to car phone radios? "But we transverse space and went to the moon-238000-to 350000 mi away?" Hilarious! Nobody has ever been 350,000 miles away. The moon has never been 350,000 miles away. So, not only are you unaware of radios, but, you're also unaware of the distances to the moon. I'm beginning to think you're not the expert you're pretending to be. "We the earth people NEVER went to the moon." Well, 24 of us did. "EVER! Re-read that. Swallow it." That's a pretty tall order. You want people to keep reading all about your ignorance? Why? "I KNOW." Sure you do, dewdrop. Sure you do.
    3
  2146. Huh? Primative batteries? Is that like batteries for primates? Or, did you mean "primitive," but you're functionally illiterate? What's primitive about them? And, why do you think radio would have an issue with a vacuum? What ARE you talking about?
    3
  2147. The first mobile phones were the car phones of the 1940s. Yet, you think the first ones were 30 years after the moon landings? So, you think the first mobile phones came in 2002 (30 years after the last moon landing in 1972)? And, you think they were the size of an ammunition box? At this point, there is no possible way to take you seriously. You are either just pretending to know nothing, or you actually know nothing, either way, you're a train wreck. Batteries either give you the energy you need, or they don't. I fail to see how you'd say something is "primative" (your spelling) if it used a different chemical compound as today's batteries. 50 years from now, if there's a different chemical reaction used in batteries, are you going to say that 2023 batteries couldn't produce power? What EXACTLY do you think was wrong with the Apollo batteries? The PLSS backpacks with the radio on top were only VHF radio. They could use it to talk to each other. And, to talk with Earth, they transmitted VHF to the lander (or the rover on the later missions), and then the signal was relayed back to Earth via S-band radio. And, you think it takes a lot of power to transmit to the moon and back? Sorry, it doesn't. Backyard amateurs have been transmitting/receiving "moon bounce" radio signals since decades before Apollo. Get a nice 2 foot dish, and a 20 watt transmitter, and you can send a radio signal at the moon, it will bounce off of the moon, and someone half way around the world can listen to you talking (and can do the same to talk back to you). Again, it's called a "moon bounce" (or EME) that is done every single day by amateur radio operators in their own homes. Some of them use 1500 watt transmitters (it's an easy way to make up for bad alignment or poor equipment). But, the really good stuff needs only 20 watts, less than a light bulb. This entire thread is pure nonsense. Either you're just doing this to pretend, or you're actually so ignorant of basic elementary facts about science that you have no business even asking the questions. You don't see any 5 year old kids asking questions about college level calculus. They need to learn to add and subtract first, and a million other things, before they can ask questions about calculus. Yet, here you are, with absolutely no understanding whatsoever about batteries or radios, asking about how the Apollo communications worked? Spare me. You're playing games, and looking for a "gotcha" so you can claim Apollo was fake. Stop being so dishonest.
    3
  2148. Why do you keep asking questions that were already answered for you months ago? Do you ever actually read the answers to your own questions?
    3
  2149. Atronughts moon are real bunce like total.
    3
  2150. Sorry, but if you don't even know his name, your claims about what he said are already ridiculous. And, thanks for typing his name incorrectly twice, which confirms that it wasn't just a typo. Stephen Hawking talked about the moon landings several times, never once claiming that they didn't happen. So, at best, you're quoting dramatically out of context. But, more likely, you're regurgitating a claim you saw in a conspiracy video that lied to you.
    3
  2151. Is this a joke? You're linking a video to an inept musician who has no understanding of the topic he's singing about? Really?
    3
  2152.  @even7887  No, dummy. You have merely bought into flat-Earth nonsense, because you lack the education and intellect to understand these concepts. You opened by complaining about the temperature in space. That concept instantly falls on its face, because space doesn't have a temperature. You then made comments about converting to Kelvin/Celsius. But, this just shows your utter ignorance even further, because it doesn't matter what units you use, space still doesn't have a temperature. This continues to illustrate that you don't have a functional knowledge of anything related to space, even at an entry level. So, all you've done is tried to compensate for your lack of education and intellect, and you've found yourself gravitating to a bunch of flat-Earth conspiracy nonsense. Sorry, dummy. But, there are no secret lizard people trying to control everybody by telling them the wrong shape of the Earth. Your paranoid delusional fantasies are just that, paranoid delusional fantasies. The minute you dummies actually display a working understanding of any of the concepts you blindly reject, I'll eat my hat. But, thus far, every single one of you dolts just displays amazing ignorance.
    3
  2153. Well, they named the Artemis 2 crew a couple of weeks ago. Well, to be more clear, the Artemis astronauts were named about 4 years ago. But, they actually named the particular crew a couple of weeks ago.
    3
  2154. Putting on a show in public in front of children is an aggravated misdemeanor. And, sorry, but the witnesses, and the video of the incident itself, disagree with you.
    3
  2155. Two ways: (1) There aren't a heck of a lot of X-rays in the first place, and (2) placing the film inside aluminum canisters lined with silver.
    3
  2156. Gee, so when the Soviets and the dozens of other countries tracked Apollo with radar and radio telescopes, um, yeah, they, well, wait, huh?
    3
  2157. Yet, none of the 450,000 people who worked on Apollo thought that the technologies they designed and built were inadequate to get to the moon. What do you know that the engineers didn't?
    3
  2158. YOU SAID: "NASA admitted that we can't land man on the moon these days because we don't have the technology," == Um, yeah, that's correct. All of that technology was retired when congress cut the Apollo program. Were you under the impression that we do have the technology right now? I mean, don't sit here and quote mine one sentence, and then conclude you know all there is to know. "Have the technology" has multiple meanings. "Have the knowhow" is one meaning. And, yes, of course everyone has the knowhow at this point. Everything about Apollo was made public. But, "have the technology ready to launch right now" is the other meaning. And, clearly, we don't currently have anything capable of putting people on the moon today. Did you think we do have it? YOU SAID: "yet they landed In 1969 when the technology was so primitive," == Name one piece of the technology available in 1969 that was inadequate to reach the moon. Can you name one? YOU SAID: "they said that cell phones have more technology than nasa did in 1969." == Well, in computer processing power, sure. A cell phone today has more computing power than the biggest mainframes in existence in the 1960s. Moore's Law. So what? Do you have any reason to believe that MIT / Draper Labs, Raytheon, and NASA all botched the job with the computers they used in 1969? Was there not enough computing power, yet, somehow, not a single one of the computer engineers realized their computers wouldn't do the job? YOU SAID: "Besides the radiation would have fry them in minutes if not seconds, think about it." == Yes, YOU think about that insane claim. C'mon, get real here. If you think that's true, why aren't there thousands of radiobiologists making that claim? Why aren't thousands of particle physicists making that claim? Why aren't aerospace engineers making that claim?? What do YOU know about the radiation in space that all of the world's foremost experts don't know? And, why are you on YouTube? All you'd need to do for fame and fortune would be to produce the math to back up this claim you just made. Just write it up in a scientific paper, and submit it to a recognized science journal, and overnight, you'll have more money than you know what to do with. You'll get 7 figure book deals the next day. You'll be on the university lecture circuits for the next 5 years, making $70,000 per week. You'll be making paid appearances on every talk show on the planet. You'll get royalties from documentaries made about your publication. You'll get congress to put a halt to all NASA funding, and you will be the star witness. Many people will go to prison for the rest of their lives (the ones still alive). But, nope. None of you conspiratards ever publish your calculations. NEVER. Not a single time in history. Not once. None of you jackasses produce a single piece of evidence to support this notion that people would instantly fry from radiation. Instead, you people just make YouTube postings like this one, claiming that the entire planet's aerospace experts are completely wrong about aerospace... with not a single calculation to back up this claim. Not one. Yeah, YOU think about THAT.
    3
  2159. I fail to even understand anything you're attempting to ask. What IS your point? Yes, the fender broke, and they fixed it by using some papers and clamps. Why is this an issue for you? Yes, they brought along some seismic charges, and placed them in various spots. The purpose was to be able to understand more about the depth of the different layers of dust/regolith/rock on the moon. It works the same as on Earth. When you explode a seismic charge, the different layers create echoes, and you can create a virtual "picture" of the what's under the surface by using sensors to capture those echoes. It's how they know the depth of the various layers, and what those layers are made of. Like, on Apollo 16, you can go watch a video on a channel called "Airboyd" in a video called "Apollo 16 - Nothing So Hidden." At about 13:15 in that video, they show the astronauts planting the sensors, then exploding a charge. No, they weren't blowing a crater into the ground. These were small charges, about like a few firecrackers in power. And, they left the bigger charges to be exploded remotely after the astronauts left. What EXACTLY are you complaining about?
    3
  2160. Oh? You meant like India's Chandrayaan-2 lunar satellite that has photographed the Apollo landing sites?
    3
  2161. On what planet do you think Tesla operates at 30% profit margin? Last quarter, for example, they reported $11 billion in gross revenue, with $1.1 billion in profit. That's right smack at 10%. Are you confusing gross profit and net profit, maybe? And, given that 2020 was the first year that Tesla EVER recorded a profit, and lost money every single other year, let's face reality here, it's still far underwater in the bigger picture, having lost billions upon billions upon billions since inception. Also, given that Tesla was slapped around by the FTC in the past for its unorthodox and illegal accounting practices (basically falsely inflating their numbers), let's just say that I'm pretty skeptical about these sudden magical massive profits in 2021.
    3
  2162. "Now that there are technologies that could detect forgeries, any conspiracy theories would have vanished into thin air." Really? What mechanism would these "technologies" use to determine that the slow scan format is a forgery, while the NTSC format is not? Can you name this technology, and describe how it can do such a thing?
    3
  2163. "You really don't know the difference between an original and a copy?" Hilarious!! Dewdrop, YOU are the one who doesn't understand the topic. The primary copies are just as "original" as the backup copies that were lost. Again, both recordings were running at the exact same time, the slow scan format, and the NTSC format. Why would you consider one to be more "original" than the other? BOTH are original.
    3
  2164. "moon landing story was a lie" Really? How do they perpetuate this lie from generation to generation, involving more and more countries all the time? Can you explain that? For example, China, South Korea, and India have recently photographed the Apollo landing sites, and found the Apollo landers exactly where they're supposed to be. India's orbiter even has the resolution required to see foot paths, rover tracks, shadows of the flags, shadows of the flame deflectors, etc. How did the lizard people manage that? They somehow passed on "the deception" down through the decades, as administrators come and go every few years, and somehow convince other countries to join in, and produce false photos? Not a single country ever said, "Huh? No way. We're not getting involved with that nonsense!!" No? Everyone just says "yes" and goes along?
    3
  2165. Why do you keep posting questions, after having made it perfectly clear that you do not read answers? In the other thread, I asked you to prove you were reading the answers by writing "green" in your response. You didn't. Instead, you ignored everything I wrote, ignored every single answer to every single question you asked, and kept spewing more questions. Why are you even asking anything, when you have absolutely no interest in the answers?
    3
  2166. There's enough proof to write entire encyclopedias on the topic. So, as the other guy asked, what proof do you expect, and would accept? Not my first rodeo. People ask for proof, you give them some, and they reject it before getting through the first 3 words. So, yes, what proof do you expect, and would accept?
    3
  2167. What don't you understand here, dewdrop? A story about an old lady seeing things? Really? Hundreds of millions of people never saw anything like this. But you're sticking with some old lady's hallucinations? Why? Because someone concocted a story about "confirming it" via a neighbor? Good gods. You're unwilling to believe entire nations and their space programs that have confirmed Apollo in dozens of ways. But, an unsubstantiated story about an old lady hallucinating a bottle, oh, you find that perfectly believable, huh? Oh, please, keep on posting on YouTube. Show the world exactly how ridiculous your beliefs are.
    3
  2168.  @rebelruth9582  Hey, moron, don't act all surprised when YOU start a comment thread, and you get answers. Don't act all surprised that when you commit slander/libel against thousands of people, you're going to get a response. Don't act all surprised when you have absolutely no knowledge about a topic (outside of what's been spoon fed to you by conspiracy videos), and people tell you that you're ignorant. Don't act all surprised when people point out that you ignore all input, and refuse to answer questions. You don't have the high ground here. You didn't answer a single challenge/question I put forth. Not one. Instead, YOU are the one who is proud to be an idiot. Don't act surprised when people point out your stupidity to you, after you advertise your stupidity for the entire world to see.
    3
  2169. Yes. But, did you expect to perceive that with the human eye? This is easily found on Google. Diameter north/south = 7926 miles. Diameter east/west = 7907 miles. That's about 99.8% of "truly round."
    3
  2170. Hilarious!! So, the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, the cornerstone of all of rocketry for the last 120 years, is wrong? And, YOU know better? Please inform the world of the correct equation to use to make this calculation, since you think the entirety of aerospace engineering has gotten it wrong... can you?
    3
  2171. Oh look, another denier who reads and writes at a 2nd grade level. Shocker.
    3
  2172.  @casanovafrankenstein4193  I think you misunderstood his point. The guy was asking how they filmed the first steps if the camera was 30 feet away on the tripod. He wasn't aware that it was on the MESA when they landed, then moved later.
    3
  2173. "Well ask the CIA, they are the ones that killed Kenedy" Well, if you can't even spell his name, I somehow doubt you are much of an authority on what happened to him. "Do your research." How? By watching videos made by crackpots? "They also controlled who would be president since this country started!" So, an organization formed in 1947 has controlled the presidency since 1776? Huh? "Trump didn't listen so they got rid of him" Good grief. Trump lost the election because he couldn't keep his mouth shut. With the economy booming with almost zero inflation, unemployment near zero, China halting their nuclear arms program, etc., there was no chance Trump could lose, because even people who hated him would vote for him to keep things the way they were going. When the pandemic hit, all Trump needed to do is keep his mouth shut, tell the country to listen to his medical science advisors, pump money into the economy to keep things afloat, promising to return stuff to normal afterward, and cruise through the election. He'd have gotten 60+% of the vote. But, nope. He HAD to open his mouth, and expose absolute lunacy. The CIA had nothing to do with it. Very appropriate nickname, by the way.
    3
  2174. Oh, you poor thing. Does it hurt?
    3
  2175. Well, given that you have no idea what the materials are, I hardly think you're in a position to question anything at all.
    3
  2176. Tim already answered, but, I'll add: Yes, do the math (as Tim outlined). You'll find that the rocket exhaust pressure on the ground (per square inch) is actually LESS than the pressure of a human footprint (per square inch). Seems counterintuitive, but, c'est la vie. The landers had crushable honeycomb struts (inside) that acted like shock absorbers. They only could work once, because the honeycomb mesh crushed under the weight of the lander. You wouldn't want those shock absorbers on your car, because they'd be useless after the first bump you hit. But, yup, they worked great for the landers, because they only ever needed to work the one time to absorb the shock. No bouncing required.
    3
  2177. "Never A Strait Answer" Dewdrop, you cannot even spell the word "straight" correctly. And, sorry, but there's nobody in the world who believes you've ever actually asked NASA anything. Like, do you think they have a hotline people can call to explain aerospace engineering to common people who don't know the difference between nuclear radiation and ionic particles? Call toll free to One-eight-hundred-NASA-hotline and they give you classes on understanding radiation?
    3
  2178. As an additional side note: my favorite example of stolen moon rocks was from good ol' Thad and Tiffany, NASA interns who stole an entire safe with rocks inside so that they could, um, yeah, do it, on the moon. NASA got the rocks back, but, they were considered "contaminated."
    3
  2179. Really? How far gone do you have to be in order to think that 7 famous people can still live normal lives, not even changing their names, and not a single person on the planet would notice? Oh, but a conspiracy video said so, therefore it's true, right?
    3
  2180. Is this a joke? Japan photographed the Apollo sites in 2008 with JAXA/Selene. It didn't have the resolution required to see the landers and rovers and stuff. But, they could tell something had disturbed the ground, and, they verified Apollo's photography in a level of detail that wasn't available in 1969-1972 (except by actually being on the lunar surface). LRO was sent up in 2009, and has been in operation ever since, and has photographed all of the landing sites. But, that was a USA satellite, so, you reject it. Last year, both China and India released some of their photos of the Apollo landing sites from their individual satellites, and you can see the landers in the exact same spots that the original mission photography showed them, as well as LRO showed them, and what each other's photos showed them. Why are you here asking for things that already exist? Why are you saying they don't? What's wrong with you?
    3
  2181.  @aemrt5745  But, it wasn't over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor. Nothing is over until we say it is. EDIT: I'm worried that I might be dating myself with 1970s movie references.
    3
  2182. Dewdrop, Webb was out either way. You clearly don't know how that position is appointed. The president appoints that position. When the president leaves office, so does the person in that office. And, many of them will leave a little early to make way for the new person. In Webb's case, he was going to be replaced whether Humphrey won or Nixon won. But, when it became very clear from the polls that Nixon was going to win, Webb left a little earlier, because he was very vocal against Nixon, and wasn't going to stick around to take the boot. You act as if Webb had a choice to stay or not. Um, no. As has been clear in every posting you make, you have absolutely no understanding of the topic. It's true that Webb was appointed by Kennedy, and Johnson didn't replace him. But, that was because Johnson didn't want to disrupt things, and was honoring Kennedy's wishes. Nixon would not have done the same. What you're complaining about is equivalent to complaining that cabinet members (like secretary of education, etc.) leave when the president leaves. Yeah, because that's how that works. New president = new cabinet. And, also, new president = new NASA administrator.
    3
  2183. I posted my reply before reading the other responses. So, I'm posting two replies in a row here. So, let me make sure I understand you correctly. Others told you in this thread that NASA administrators leave office when new presidents come in. And, your reply was that those people used Google to find that information, therefore those people are wrong? Is that really your response when shown to be wrong? Look, dewdrop, I haven't used Google for anything in this thread. I am fully aware (unlike you) that the NASA administrator position is appointed by the president, much like the president appoints his own cabinet and cabinet-level directors and administrators. There is absolutely no surprise that when a new president has come into office, he selects a new cabinet/directors/administrators (secretary of state, secretary of agriculture, director of national intelligence, etc.). Frankly, I'm surprised that they haven't shifted the NASA administrator position over to just being one of those extended cabinet members, because it's basically the same thing. But, c'est la vie. Anyway, since you have denied the explanations given to you by people who used Google, fine, answer me instead: how would YOU have stayed in office if YOU were James Webb? What mechanism would you have used to see to it that Nixon didn't boot you out of that office, and appoint someone else instead? Can you? I mean, if you're going to accuse the guy of leaving the office because of some sort of massive fraudulent worldwide criminal activity on a level never seen in history, then the least you could do is explain what you would have done instead. Right? So, the floor is yours: how would you have managed to stay in office to see the moon landings under your term, if you were James Webb?
    3
  2184. I'll tell you what, dewdrop. You go strap on an 88 pound suit with 13 outer layers and 11 inner layers, add an 80 pound backpack, and a 20 pound backup oxygen unit with a radio on top, pressurize it to about 18 PSI to mirror the 3.5 PSI used on the moon (18 PSI minus atmosphere of 14.5), put double layered boots on, strap another 10-20 pounds of tools and stuff to your suit/waist, and then go see how high you can jump and how well you can maneuver. Then, compare that to what the astronauts did on the moon. And, then, can you still tell me that it's not "cartoonish feats" with what you see? See, you don't get to compare running and jumping in shorts and tennis shoes with running and jumping with a couple of hundred pounds strapped to you, while in a pressure suit. If you want to make the comparison between 1 G and 1/6th G, the rest of the parameters must be EQUAL.
    3
  2185. How does that pile of nonsense even begin to address your own comments about the physics of 1/6th gravity? Do you even notice how far off of your own topic you have to go, in order to duck and dodge the basic physics that YOU brought up in the first place? You have gone from discussing the physics of gravity on the moon, to talking about why you carry a gun, to government blackops, to giving car keys to your son, etc. Good gods, man. Get your head together. I've seen cleaner conversations from meth addicts. Sheeesshhh. You're all over the place. Why is it so difficult for you to simply say you don't understand physics? Why? Most people don't. But, nope, you won't admit it. You'd rather talk about car keys for your son, than admit you botched your understanding of physics.
    3
  2186. You made a misspelling. Thank GLOCK.
    3
  2187. Huh? So, they could get the spacecraft to the moon and land it, but, for some magical reason, without people inside? So, your claim is basically that they had all of the required technologies to land a spacecraft on the moon, but, the one technology that stumped them was to open the door and put a couple of people inside? Is that what you're saying?
    3
  2188. Where can we see these anomalies? In conspiracy videos made by crackpots?
    3
  2189. Yet, no aerospace engineer or physicist on Earth can spot these "anomalies" that you think taxi cab drivers and warehouse workers and yoga instructors can spot?
    3
  2190. The suits were pressurized to about 3.5 PSI. That's about 1/5th of an atmosphere. Not stiff.
    3
  2191. "Have you ever seen the HD pictures of the Lunar Lander? It's a piece of junk, made from aluminum foil." Oh, and where did you get your degree in aerospace engineering? Why didn't any of the 7,000 engineers at Grumman realize that the thing they designed and built was a piece of junk? Have you seen the photos of what's beneath the thermal blanket foils? What would you do instead of the foil? You're an aerospace engineer, right? So, please explain what you'd have done instead of foils.
    3
  2192. Law enforcement DIDN'T show this. They blocked the release of this video for 2.5 years. But, after she was gone, and the investigations were closed, they could no longer block legal Freedom of Information Act requests.
    3
  2193. Dewdrop, the Kuiper belt is over 2.5 billion miles away. The moon is 240,000 miles away. Good grief.
    3
  2194. Is this a joke? Aldrin wrote books describing his mission. He has done countless interviews. Lectures. TV shows. Yet, you think he's never claimed to have gone to the moon? How is it even possible to operate your life when you're so disconnected with reality?
    3
  2195. Granded landings are watching. Television evidence something is live. About topic know nothing granded. As has been pointed out, dewdrop, if he watched the Apollo 11 landing live, yeah, there was something not right about it. There was no television broadcast of the landing.
    3
  2196. So, in your mind, it's not even a possibility that they ended the program? It either never existed, or, the program has secretly existed all this time? You didn't think you were smart, did you?
    3
  2197. So, an astronaut on a steep slope fell over, and gets up (in 1/6th gravity), and this is "abnormal"?? This means he was pulled up on ropes? And, sorry, but if you have bought into this silly notion that the "original" video records are missing, there's really no hope for you. NASA lost two backup tapes from one mission. They didn't lose the primary tapes. They didn't lose any of the millions of copies. They lost the pre-NTSC conversion tapes. They had never been watched a single time in history, because there was no machine capable of playing them. They were only made in the event that the NTSC conversion failed, and then they'd still have the recordings, but would have to construct a machine capable of reading them. Those two tapes were lost. This was announced in 2006. And, since then, conspiracy videos keep escalating what was actually missing. First, they claimed the primary tapes were missing. Then, it was all tapes from that mission. Then, it was all tapes and all data from that mission. And, over the years, it developed into all tapes and all data from all missions. Sorry, that's ridiculous. Two backup tapes from one mission were lost. And, you should stop trusting conspiracy videos.
    3
  2198. "The space craft were launched and the spacecraft did land where they were supposed to land, but the probability exists that there were no humans inside." WHY?!?!!? If the 450,000 people who designed and built everything to go to the moon, built it all for humans inside, why not just put humans inside?
    3
  2199. "Nasa's own scientists have admitted that they do not have the technology to go to the moon and that it was supposedly lost" Oh, wow!! Yeah, that's the smoking gun alright!! You intentionally took a single sentence out of context spoken by one person, and, now you're willing to discard the work of 450,000 people for a decade of their lives. Who said it was "lost" anyway? I believe he said it was "destroyed," not "lost." But, it doesn't matter. Lost. Destroyed. Whatever. It's "lost" and "destroyed" in the exact same spirit that Concorde technology is lost or destroyed. We don't have it any longer, and everything it took to build those things has been destroyed. Why does this matter to you?
    3
  2200. "The US did not have the technology" Huh? You acknowledge that they had the capability to land Apollo-sized craft on the moon with pinpoint accuracy at their desired landing spots, but, you don't think people were inside? What EXACT technology did they lack, such that putting people inside those Apollo sized craft would have been impossible?
    3
  2201.  @jasonsanchez3441  Sorry, dewdrop, he never said any such thing.
    3
  2202. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    3
  2203. The exact same way anybody could call a radio car phone since the first radio car phone networks of the 1940s.
    3
  2204. "inside the camera?" Bingo. They leave the film INSIDE THE CAMERA. And, when it's not inside the camera lined with silver, it's inside metal canisters lined with silver. Were you under the impression that nobody at Kodak or Hasselblad thought of these things?
    3
  2205. "How about the van allen belt?" Which one? And, why do you think it would be an issue on the film? Can you tell the difference between a piece of film that has been exposed to ions and a piece of film that hasn't? Please outline EXACTLY what you think is supposed to happen, can you?
    3
  2206. "How about all the messages from managers in the years before the launch that it was harder and they are having delays" Please name a single project in history involving 400,000+ people that didn't have delays. Can you?
    3
  2207. I'm sorry you don't understand how YouTube comments work. But, I can't 100% blame you, because YouTube is the cause of it, making it darned near impossible to deal with comments. But, go back to this video fresh, sort comments by date, and look again.
    3
  2208. You clearly didn't bother to read my reply. Yes, dewdrop, I saw the video you're referring to. It's absolutely amazing that you'd accuse me of not spending the time to watch that video, while you're refusing to spend the time reading the replies.
    3
  2209. I'm not the one refusing to read replies and ignoring all questions/challenges, dewdrop. That's YOU.
    3
  2210.  @critthought2866  I thought about listing more craters, but, figured that the dewdrops don't read any responses anyway. The first other one I thought of was St. George crater that took a massive chunk out of Mount Hadley (Apollo 15).
    3
  2211. "there is no such pictures in existence of the landing sites" Correct, that's why he rendered it in a computer. It's speculation for how things might look today. "The sites that are left from the landings have never been photographed since the astronauts left." Well, not in this level of detail anyway. China, India, and USA have each sent orbiters to the moon that have photographed the Apollo 11 landing site, and you can see some of the bigger stuff (the lander, foot paths, a tiny hint of the flag laying on the surface, a few pixels of the larger experiments, etc.) But, yeah, the resolution of those orbital cameras is not good enough to really see the kind of detail he wanted to produce here. So, he made this video. Why is this a problem? "It is not a parent" Good gods. "why they want to photograph it or whether they even want to" Were you sober when you wrote this? I think not. Anyway, HOW would you suggest getting more detail than they got out of the Arizona State University camera, or India's ISRO Chandrayaan-2 camera? What exact mechanism would you use to get better photos?
    3
  2212.  @tmo4330  YOU SAID: "The earth is not flat" == Gee, thanks. I was wondering. But, now that you've confirmed it.... YOU SAID: "Isaiah 40:22." == And, that's relevant, why? YOU SAID: "I gave you thumbs up for your time making the comment! There are several things that bother me though. Seems like the masses believe what ever the government tells them." == What ARE you talking about? As I said, many countries tracked Apollo with radar and radio telescopes. You don't have to believe anything the USA's government says, and still, Apollo would be verified. I listed out a small handful of the countries that tracked Apollo, plus our enemies tracked Apollo. If you don't want to believe the USA's story, fine, the Soviets say the same thing... as does Australia... as does Spain... as does the UK... as does Turks and Caicos... etc. Fine, don't trust government. Trust the entirety of the planet's science on the matter instead. Either way, it's the same conclusion. And, you're not even answering a single question I asked. Not one. In one ear, out the other. YOU SAID: "I learned the U.S. invaded Iraq because there were weapons of mass destruction. Well, there weren't any." == Pfftttt. WHAT?!?!?!?! How is this relevant to Apollo?? And, even if what you say is true, it doesn't mean that the USA had been deceptive. They were simply wrong. So what? It changed nothing. YOU SAID: "Also many people that consider themselves "educated" believe in the theory of evolution and that has already been proven wrong." == Good gods, what an idiot. YOU SAID: "I am just not ready to swallow the hook, line and sinker on the manned moon landings." == Dummy, I didn't say you had to "swallow" anything. I offered you many facts, many questions, and many challenges. You're never going to reach any kind of "truth" by posting comment on YouTube, and then ignoring replies. Good grief. YOU SAID: "I do respect your opinion though." == Yeah, just what I wanted in life... respect from an idiot.
    3
  2213. The backup plan, if Apollo 11 failed, was Apollo 12.
    3
  2214. Um, no. This incident = July 1, 2021. She ended things = March, 2022. Video released = November 24, 2023.
    3
  2215. "didn’t have to release footage" Um, yes, dewdrop. It's called the Freedom of Information Act. They blocked the release for 2.5 years. But, eventually, after the investigation was closed long enough, they could no longer block it.
    3
  2216. "Essentially, they’ve brought about her death." But, nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive!! So, how does that even make sense?
    3
  2217. ""previous integrities" Huh? She was a career criminal with a mile long record, including a felony term in a Florida prison. Her landlord said she was a "dancer" (yeah, that kind), and her neighbors said she did "private extras" with lots of paying men in her apartment. Integrities?"
    3
  2218. Is it really that difficult to scroll down to comments from a few hours ago, and see the answers? People ask that question a few thousand times a week.
    3
  2219. You need to watch the highest quality version and go frame by frame. It's grainy, but, yes, you see him point the gun directly at the driver's head. And, the gun is much more clear at 5:02 on the ground next to a 2x4 piece of wood. Furthermore, his father and his attorney acknowledge that he was armed.
    3
  2220. So, that's your answer to my questions? Just change topics? Refuse to address a single thing I said/asked?
    3
  2221. "three sets of tire treads" You'll have to elaborate on this. Are you complaining because you're unaware that sometimes they drove the rovers right back over their own tracks? Or, are you unaware that sometimes the rovers bounced quite a bit, and ended up with 1 or more wheels off the ground, leaving gaps in the tracks? I mean, dewdrop, don't just sit there and list out a couple of words as if someone is supposed to understand you.
    3
  2222.  @mrs.truthseekertruthseeker5973  And, you believe her story about thinking nobody was around, why? Because she said so, as she was attempting to cry her way out of her millionth arrest? The video taken by the witnesses disagrees with her story about nobody being around.
    3
  2223. Well, you obviously don't want the answer to your own question, right?
    3
  2224. Wow, as if on command, you proved I was correct. You don't want the answer to your own question.
    3
  2225. What in the hell? You think no companies boasted about going to the moon? This is a joke, right? How about Tang? They made dozens of commercials focused on the fact that the astronauts drank Tang during Gemini and Apollo, and that Tang went to the moon. How about Kodak? They are STILL advertising that they were the makers of the moon film. How about Hasselblad? Well, anyway, I pretty much figured that you're just joking... your basis for objecting to Apollo is that corporations would never lie in their advertising? This has GOT to be a joke. Nobody is that dumb.
    3
  2226. So, Kelly Smith, who made an Orion video a decade ago, is now "the current NASA spokesman"? And, in that video made for children, he briefly talked about testing Orion in the Van Allen belts before putting people inside (something they also did on unmanned Apollo 6). Thus, Apollo is fake... because they wanted to test Orion before putting people inside also... right. Sure. A video made for children is now "the current NASA spokesman." No, the thousands of papers written about the Van Allen belts... they don't matter. The hundreds of probes... nope, who cares? In a video made for children, Kelly Smith said something you didn't quite understand, therefore, Apollo was fake.
    3
  2227. First of all, if you expect anybody to be able to understand this train wreck you undoubtedly wrote while in a drunken stupor, sorry, you need to sober up and reread what you wrote. Secondly, from what I could figure out from the couple of sentences you wrote that were coherent enough to understand, your objection seems to be that nobody has sent probes to land at the Apollo 11 site. Is that correct? Yes, Apollo 11's site was chosen for its relative flatness and ease of landing within the parameters of their orbital trajectories. However, it is not geologically interesting. If a country spends billions to send a probe, they want to land somewhere that will give some new knowledge. Nobody cares enough about what the Apollo 11 site looks like today to justify the cost of sending a lander there. What "problem" are you attempting to outline here?
    3
  2228. If you didn't hear it, you'd be saying, "Hey, wait a minute, shouldn't the sound traverse through the hammer into the suits and microphone? Apollo was fake because they are doctoring it and removing the sound." But, because you can hear it, you're saying, "Hey, wait a minute, how can you hear sound in a vacuum? Apollo was fake because you can hear the sound." Either way, you'd come to the same conclusion. So, what's your point?
    3
  2229. Well, there were no reports of methanol found in the blood, and their lawsuit never states anything about any blood tests that reported methanol found in their systems. There ARE tests for that, which, you would presume they'd have mentioned in their lawsuit had they tested positive. Instead, the strongest link they have been able to establish (according to the written lawsuit) is that this particular hotel buys from alcohol suppliers that also sells methanol laced alcohol to other resorts (but, no mention of ever selling such products to THIS hotel). Beyond that, the blood tests that show the blood/alcohol levels would not show them that high if the issue was methanol. In other words, these two kids were screaming drunk on REAL alcohol. Methanol wouldn't have made them test high on the blood/alcohol tests. Personally, I find this story to be an insult to my intelligence. Why do they need to stoop to talking about OTHER resorts having tainted alcohol? Why can't they establish such a link to THIS resort, and instead, needed to talk about unrelated cases at completely different places? Imagine owning a business, and the news does a story about your neighboring businesses that did something illegal, therefore concluding that you did something illegal too. The lack of journalistic integrity in this story is astounding. It's as if they aren't even entertaining the idea that these teens got rip roaring drunk, and were the cause of their own problems, and now the family is trying to blame anybody but themselves. That doesn't even seem to be a possibility, in the way that this "news" (not news) story is presenting this. And, the fact that this family sued the USA-based travel agency for booking them at this 5-star resort, claiming that they should have somehow known that this resort sells tainted alcohol (despite no record of tainted alcohol ever being found there), really makes me find their credibility to be ZERO. I don't lack sympathy. I have a daughter, and it would destroy me to lose her. But, in the case of this teen at that resort, at least her heart is still beating inside the chest of the heart patient who received it. But, to sue the travel company? For what? For booking them at a place they wanted to go? No, I can't have that level of sympathy.
    3
  2230. Huh? You do know that Artemis is funded and continuing, right? You do know that they named the Artemis astronauts about 4 years ago, and, ironically, 4 days ago, they actually named the next crew that will go to the moon on Artemis II. Russia and China have also announced that they're pursuing lunar missions in the not so distant future also. But, you sit there and tell OTHERS to "think" while making these silly statements? Huh?
    3
  2231. I told you already, I am not qualified to address your illness.
    3
  2232. So, the 7,000 engineers at Grumman forgot to make the door big enough? And, nobody has noticed it until just now? Is that really how this goes, in your mind?
    3
  2233. And, you're PROUD to display this level of ignorance to the world?
    3
  2234.  @jonathaneves5847  Hubble's resolution of the moon is about 1 pixel per 150 feet. You cannot come even close to seeing Apollo artifacts with Hubble.
    3
  2235. Were you under the impression that this was a science journal on cosmic radiation? Why aren't you producing those calculations and submitting them to science journals? I'm sure there'd be a Nobel Prize or two in it for you for rewriting everything known about radiation. Yet, none of you deniers ever do that. It's always just a drive-by YouTube posting to declare that somehow you people know more about everything than the very scientists and engineers that work on this stuff for a living. Not a single one of you people ever backs up your claims. Now, why do you suppose that would be?
    3
  2236. Dewdrop, you don't even read most of the answers. So, don't pretend you haven't been given adequate ones.
    3
  2237. "A LIGHTYEAR IS SOMETHING LIKE FIFTY MILLION MILES!" A lightyear means that it takes light one year to go that distance. It takes about 4 minutes for light to go 50 million miles. You don't know the difference between 4 minutes and a year. Somehow, I tend to doubt your level of expertise here.
    3
  2238. You know, that question gets asked dozens of times per week. It might not hurt to read the comments before asking the same thing that hundreds of others ask. Apollo 11 didn't have a rover. That wasn't until the later missions.
    3
  2239. "Watch the movie "Capricorn One"" It's not even all that good of a movie. Why would you recommend it? "Gus Grissom knew that spacecraft would never make it to the moon and wouldn't go along with the program." Oh, I see. So, to prevent people from finding out that there were problems with the spacecraft, they rigged up problems into the spacecraft to "silence" him, and then blamed the problems with the spacecraft, so people wouldn't find out that there were problems with the spacecraft. Um, dewdrop, did you think this through before slandering people? "Why is it that even now, we can only put people in "Low Earth Orbit"?" Because there hasn't been a man-rated booster capable of lifting a manned craft higher than that after the Saturn V was retired. But, the SLS is now man-rated, so, the next flight will lift a manned craft out of low orbit. "There are too many advancements in technology" Please name the technology you think Apollo lacked. Can you? "and telescopes" Huh? Advancements in telescopes prevent attempting more moon missions? What? "simply because it would easily be seen as the fraud it was back in 1969" Dewdrop, are you PROUD to know absolutely nothing?
    3
  2240. Publish. There have been countless articles in the peer reviewed journals about the pitfalls of radiometric dating. The reservoir effect is probably the most famous. That's why we have the scientific method. But, I promise you, absolutely nobody on Earth will take you seriously if your method of peer review includes "make a claim in YouTube comments on a video talking about moon hoaxes."
    3
  2241. The technology to fly at supersonic speeds with 155 passengers across the Atlantic and land safely existed in 1969 however , They can't do it today. That is because man never flew the Concorde supersonic airliner. If it is not possible in 2021 , It couldn't have been possible in 1969 - 2003.
    3
  2242.  @critthought2866  I believe he's saying "outer core" = "firmament." Kent Hovind says so.
    3
  2243. They took bunches of photos and videos of the sun. Have you tried looking at the archives?
    3
  2244. Dewdrop, orbits were not polar, they were equatorial.
    3
  2245. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    3
  2246.  @Existinginmymind  YOU SAID: "Wrong the officer waited for him to leave like a predator" == Where would you get that ridiculous idea? Who told you that, and why would you believe it? The cop car came from behind the gas station, around to the front, and all of the sudden, the kid on the bike gunned the engine and left. How would the cop even know he was there? What ARE you talking about? You are just making this up. YOU SAID: "to start a pursuit on purpose. Why not get off and talk to him" == Because, by the time the cop even saw the dirt bike, the boy was already trying to flee the scene. Sorry, once again, you do not get to just blindly assert that the cop somehow knew this kid was there before that point in time. That is your imagination and hatred talking. People like you are what's wrong with the world. Your hatred makes you see things that aren't there.
    3
  2247. He has no idea what Mariana Trench is.
    3
  2248.  @star_1_man214  "Since there is NO sound or vibration in a vacuum, how can radio waves be transmitted or received?" Because radio isn't sound, dewdrop. Radio is electromagnetic.
    3
  2249. Nobody has been to the bottom of the ocean.. if so it would be a lot of McDonald's hamburgers boxes in the ocean by now. Oh, and learn English. Good gods.
    3
  2250. "Well the sin is demonstrably closer than 93 million miles away." Huh? How do you propose to demonstrate such a silly thing? Basic geometry proves you wrong. "We haven't been to the sun to find out its composition, so your speculation is just that." Thanks for proving (yet again) that you don't want answers to your own questions/statements. Dewdrop, as he said, we know what it's made of from spectroscopy. Go to any university on the planet. Use a spectrometer or spectrograph. Point it at the sun. Every element/molecule gives off a unique pattern of wavelengths of light. Look at the pattern produced from the spectrometer/spectrograph. There you have it, 100% definitive proof of what the sun is made of. "We don't know unless we test it." And, you don't think spectrometers/spectrographs are tests? Have you ever even set foot into a chemistry or physics class?
    3
  2251. Wow!!! Ya don't say!!! What an eagle eyed observer you are!
    3
  2252. "One of those $2,000 telescope should be able to see it." Well, I have two replies: 1) Go write up your explanation for why the Rayleigh criterion / Dawes' limit are wrong, and submit it to your favorite science journal for peer review. There's certainly a Nobel Prize in it for you, for overturning 1.5 centuries of physics. 2) Then go get that $2000 telescope and show that the landers aren't there. Note: you'll have a hard time convincing the countries that have photographed the landing sites from lunar orbit, though. Those probes show you're wrong.
    3
  2253. Dewdrop, you don't have to believe me. I'm completely irrelevant. It's as easy as going to the Wiki page on "optical resolution." On that page, it gives you the formula for calculating the size of lens you need in order to see something of [whatever] size at [whatever] distance. If you disagree with that formula, as I said, you are welcome to rewrite everything known about optics and the known behavior of light, and win yourself a Nobel Prize or two. I will never understand why people like you just come to YouTube and say "nuh uh" instead of publishing your extreme knowledge of physics and making about $30 million from it.
    3
  2254. You never understood it, therefore it's fake.
    3
  2255. Wow. What impressive "logic" of yours. If you can't do it now, it didn't happen before. Right. Sure.
    3
  2256. I agree. However, I'll add one thought: no sane person commits suicide over one incident like this, this was probably the straw that broke the camel's back.
    3
  2257. He watched the "Mission to Mars" movie from 2000, starring Tim Robbins. When he took his helmet off, his face instantly froze. It's in a movie, so, it's true.
    3
  2258. "The American government officials and politicians and NASA know that they didn't land on the moon." No, dewdrop. That makes no sense whatsoever. There are thousands upon thousands of members of the US government that would jump at the chance to reveal any kind of deception. That's how careers are made. Look what it did for Truman. We can't even get our government to agree on WiFi standards, but, you want to sit there and claim that they agreed on committing the biggest financial crime in history? Good grief.
    3
  2259. "scientist from second world war" Good grief. There were 1600 Germans who worked on Apollo, out of the 400,000 in the USA, and the 50,000 abroad. That's not even 1%. Yes, their contribution was very nice, but, let's face reality here, we'd have gone to the moon with or without them.
    3
  2260. Huh? On Apollo 11, the antenna (dish) was 20 feet off the ground, mounted to the top of the lander. Who do you think bumped it?
    3
  2261. Let me guess, you watched a video stating that it's all gone, right? And, without checking, you blindly believed it, right?
    3
  2262.  @AttorneyDerrellBrooks  You spelled Darrell incorrectly.
    3
  2263. You cannot possibly be serious.
    3
  2264. Um, you do know that all of that merchandise already exists, right?
    3
  2265. I feel compelled to respond again, even if it's a bit repetitive. See, here's the amazing thing about all of this type of "wondering" you're doing: you clearly never looked. You watched a video that lied to you and said, "they never did a 360," and you just swallowed it. People who are genuinely curious about Apollo go about it a very different way. They read books. They study schematics. They talk to the astronauts. They look at the missions' photos and videos. They read the papers about the lunar rocks that were brought back. Etc. And, when along comes a video denying any of it was real, and it says, "They never did a 360, therefore it's all fake," the people who study Apollo the normal way just say, "Huh? They did 360s bunches and bunches of times. Anybody who believes they never did it clearly has never even looked." All you've done here is display that you never looked. Some dishonest video told you they never did it, and you never lifted a finger to fact-check. You just plain swallowed it, hook line and sinker. That's why those videos survive. They survive on the gullibility of people like you.
    3
  2266. And, then you grew up as a drug addict.
    3
  2267. To understand these payload capabilities, you need to understand a lot more about rockets in general. The answer to your question is that the little probes gathering only a couple of kg of material simply weren't capable of much more than that. And, Apollo's lunar landers were capable of much larger payloads. So, why is that? Well, it all goes back to the launch booster itself. If you want to lift a larger craft to the moon that can carry a larger payload, you need a larger booster to begin with on Earth. I'll give you a frame of reference to try to understand a bit better: Apollo's spacecraft (command/service module and lunar module) weighed a total of about 100,000 pounds. A typical lunar probe nowadays weighs about 4,000 pounds. The rocket booster required to lift 100,000 pounds to the moon is massively bigger than the booster required to lift 4,000 pounds to the moon. There's a lot more to it than just this factor, but, I hope it starts opening the door for you to understand how it all relates back to the size of the initial booster on Earth. Russia and China have never made a working booster anywhere near the size of the Saturn V. I mean, well, the Soviets had the N1 booster, which was approximately the size of a Saturn V... but, they never successfully launched one that didn't blow up.
    3
  2268. Dewdrop, just stop believing nonsense fed to you by conspiracy videos. They're not only wrong, but, they willfully lie to you, knowing darned well that you'll never fact-check them. If you scroll down a few days in these threads, you'll see plenty of "why didn't they ever point the cameras at the sun?" comments, as fed to you by recent conspiracy videos making that silly claim. There are tons and tons of photos of the sun. And, while the video cameras on Apollo 11, 12, 14 weren't designed to be pointed at the sun without frying out the vidicon, they hardened the video cameras on Apollo 15/16/17, and there are plenty of videos pointed at the sun also. So, rather than just listening to a silly claim made by a silly video, go look at the photo/video archives for yourself, and then come back here and tell me that you still think what you think. And, if you scroll down through the comments, you'll find people asking that question, with plenty of replies with photo catalog IDs, and video segments showing the sun.
    3
  2269.  @matchhunter6055  YOU SAID: "only at nasa technology goes backwards 😂😂😂we cant go today because they lost the technoloy. Wtf!!" == Hey, fucking dumbass, the technology isn't "lost" in the sense that nobody can find it. It's "lost" in the sense that it's all gone. There are no functional Saturn Vs. There are no functional landers. There are no functional command modules. All of the companies who built everything for Apollo are long gone, or have been acquired by other companies, and all of the tooling and buildings and personnel are long gone. The people are all dead or retired. Yes, THAT is the sense that it's "lost." But, you're intentionally taking it out of context anyway. And, by your logic, I guess the pyramids were never built, right? Since they didn't build any more of them since 4500 years ago, this means that they never happened in the first place. Nobody is EVER allowed to stop doing something, otherwise that means it never happened. Yup, there are no pyramids. There's no Great Wall of China, because nobody for the past 2000 years has built a 5500 mile long stone wall, therefore, since it wasn't done again, that means it didn't happen before, right? Supersonic airline travel, nope, never happened, because I cannot buy a ticket today. Is that how this "logic" goes in your feeble little brain? Unless people keep on doing it, it never happened, huh? Everyone was supposed to just keep on cranking out new Saturn Vs, new landers, new training machines, despite that the funding had been pulled, huh? Everyone was just supposed to keep on going, otherwise it didn't happen? YOU SAID: "Ohh i forgot that they are so smart (experts ) so smart that they are going backwards. Its evident you are blind. I would like to do bussiness with you😂😂. Sell you a swamp like a good piece of real estate. Ohh boy you and fake nasa made my day😂😂😂😂😂😂" == You can be proud of being a fucking imbecile all you want. You still haven't answered about why you think it's a good idea to advertise this level of stupidity to the world. But, whatever, I'm not answering you any further. You're a brick wall. I answered you line-by-line, explaining why every sentence you wrote was wrong, I asked return questions, I challenged every position you've expressed, and you have not answered a single word. Not one question. Not one challenge. Nope, you just keep changing topics, avoiding everything I asked. You're an imbecile. You are truly as dumb as anybody can get, and still operate a keyboard. If you were any dumber, the human race would need a new species classification for you, and would probably put you in a zoo.
    3
  2270. Dewdrop, there are about 7,000 photos taken from the lunar surface across all 6 landing missions. Some of those were from the inside of the lunar module in between going outside, just looking out the windows. So, those don't really count, because they had many hours in between EVAs. There are around 5,500 photos taken while actually being outside. Across the 6 landings, they spent roughly 80 hours out on the lunar surface. Two men were on each moonwalk, so, that's approximately 160 hours of manned time out on the lunar surface. 5,500 photos over 160 hours is an average of about 34 photos an hour per person. Are you going to tell me that you don't think you can take 34 photos an hour? Have you ever even looked at the photo library? Take a look at the rover missions, for example, where the LMP is snapping a hundred photos in a row while sitting in the passenger seat of the rover. Look at all of the panoramas they created by snapping a photo, turning a few degrees, snapping another photo, turning a few degrees, snapping another photo, etc. And, most of the time, they tended to snap several photos in quick succession, often photographing the same thing 3 or 4 times just to make sure they got at least one shot that turned out ok. You clearly know absolutely nothing about the topic, so, you shouldn't sit there and come to your conclusion first (which is what you did), then asked your question second. It's 100% clear that you didn't actually want the answer to your question. But, yes, every single photo ever taken on Apollo has been mapped out, and aligned perfectly with the timeline, and matched with the audio from each mission. These were electric advance cameras that had film rolls consisting of hundreds of images before they needed to change film cartridges. Go learn something about photography before spewing your incredulous "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake" argument. You couldn't even get your input numbers correct.
    3
  2271. "Just send a few people to the moon now…….. It should be easy because of all the technology we have today" Yes, they're doing that. It's called Artemis. Artemis' funding began in 2019. And, yes, the advanced technologies today are allowing Artemis to happen for a tiny fraction of the budget of Apollo (adjusted for inflation). But, I should really say that it's not really a technology issue anyway. It's more because there's not as much research and development needed. Artemis is flying to the moon on recycled shuttle rockets made about 40 years ago. The Orion capsule was designed about 20 years ago. Orion is far more efficient than Apollo because it takes old technologies and reuses them. The only thing brand new is the lander. And, they need it to be vastly different than the ones used in the 1960s and 1970s due to new mission requirements. Anyway, yes, it's far "easier" (relative term) now than it was in the 1960s. They're trying to make it happen in far less time, by far fewer people, costing far less money. You got your wish, but, you just don't know enough about the topic to even realize it. I reject your entire premise anyway. It shouldn't matter what people do today. Why should the veracity of Apollo be dependent upon what people do or don't do 50+ years later? Apollo happened, whether any other programs got funded, or not. "Furthermore, if they did go to the moon back then ……. they would have been a lot more people , between now and then, especially scientists going back-and-forth to the moon" Says who? Congress controls the funding, dewdrop. If congress ends the program, NASA cannot just decide for themselves to keep sending missions to the moon anyway. "besides the fact that every single one of those moon landing vehicles look like they should’ve been in the kids toybox they weren’t built to Withstand anything" Is that the same toybox where you found your degree in aerospace engineering? Or, was that a cracker jack box?
    3
  2272. No, Armstrong never did any such thing. Stop watching conspiracy videos that lie to you.
    3
  2273. So, as usual for your type, you asked questions, but, didn't wait for the answers before coming to your conclusions. I will never understand why people like you even bother posting anything at all, if you're not interested to the answers to your own questions.
    3
  2274. Weird, it blocked my first reply. I reworded, and it posted it. Then, it allowed my first reply again.
    3
  2275. YOU are the one who believes that the Saturn V rocket was a helium balloon, dewdrop. You have absolutely positively no business making any comments about what anybody ELSE believes. Your mind is on the moon this very minute.
    3
  2276. "TWR, which you've been unable to comprehend." Dewdrop, YOU are the one who claimed that a craft has no lift if the thrust to weight ratio is below 2 to 1. The reality is that you have lift if the thrust to weight ratio is anything larger than 1 to 1. 1.000001 to 1 is enough. If you have 101 pounds of lift, yes, a 100 pound object will go up. The fact that you think a 100 pound object cannot be lifted without 200 pounds of force is ridiculous, and demonstrates that YOU have the comprehension problem. Furthermore, as I've pointed out repeatedly to you, and you ignore, you keep harping on the 1.25 thrust to weight ratio of a Saturn V, because you don't understand it. 7.5 million pounds of thrust for a 6 million pound rocket, you claim isn't enough to do the job. Well, dewdrop, the darned thing's first stage burned tens of thousands of pounds of propellant every single second. So, it didn't stay at 1.25 to 1 very long. The craft kept getting lighter and lighter as more and more fuel burned off, thus increasing the thrust to weight ratio every single second. You ignore this completely, and pretend as if the 1.25 thrust to weight ratio remained constant throughout the flight. It's ridiculous. Yes, dewdrop, if you burn 4.5 million pounds of propellant in the first stage alone (which it did), the 6 million pound craft only weighed 1.5 million pounds toward the end of the burn. What's that thrust to weight ratio look like then? Why do you refuse to acknowledge this? And, spare the world this notion that you think a rocket should have a 20 to 1 thrust to weight ratio. The occupants would be crushed.
    3
  2277. Wait, what? You're talking about the convicted criminal Bart Sibrel's bible? The guy who went around from astronaut to astronaut, lying to them about the purpose of his interviews, putting together a bunch of fraudulent videos comprised of intentionally deceptive editing to create the illusion that the moon landings never happened, blocking the astronauts from walking, accusing them to their faces of being frauds, constantly harassing them to no end, eventually to the point that Buzz Aldrin punched him in the face? Now you want him to swear on his bible? That's what you expect? Nice job coming to your conclusions first and then asking questions second, by the way. None of you nuts actually ever want answers to your questions anyway. Most people, ya know, the sane ones, ask questions, wait for answers, formulating their opinions based on facts and evidence. Not you though. Nope. You come to your conclusions first, then you pretend to ask questions (undoubtedly not caring one bit about the answers).
    3
  2278. "there is a load of scientific evidence to prove it was all staged." Oh? Can you name the university-recognized science journal that outlines this evidence? Please cite the peer reviewed articles. "In 1960s technology was too primitive to achieve anything." Um, dewdrop, that's not scientific evidence. It's also ridiculous. In order for you to hold that belief, you'd need to believe that the 450,000 people who designed and built everything for Apollo were somehow unaware that the stuff they built... wouldn't do what they built it for. How do you explain this? Why didn't anybody who designed and built all of that stuff ever realize it wouldn't do what they made it to do? And, be specific. What exact technology wouldn't work? Already, you've shown that you were unaware that they used massive IBM computers that occupied multiple stories for guidance, because you thought it was done with "finger counting." So, sorry, but your credibility (if you ever had any) is already lost. But, hey, be my guest. Name the EXACT technology that they lacked, and then explain why none of the thousands of engineers ever realized that they lacked it. Can you? "even in 2024 we are not ready." So? Artemis is operating on a tiny fraction of the budget of Apollo (adjusted for inflation). And, funding for Artemis began in 2019. "Deep space is incompatible with life unless you are traveling in a capsule with 6ft thick lead walls." Why would you need or want lead walls? Let me guess, a conspiracy video told you this, right? "how were these astronauts unharmed by solar flares" By not being in space when there were any large solar flares. "constant radiation bombardment" By remaining inside their spacecraft and space suits. "van Allen belts" By going too fast for them to matter. Those are only dangerous if you stay inside them for a long time. James Van Allen calculated that it would take a week of the worst exposure in the belts before it would be fatal. I calculated it as more like 2 weeks. The Soviets sent two dogs up in and out of the belts for a period of about 3 weeks (spending about 1/2 of the time in the inner belt). They didn't die. Why would you think 15 minutes in the inner belt would matter to Apollo's astronauts? "these folks just had flimsy space ships covered with aluminum foil." And, you think science supports this? Dewdrop, the command module consisted of aluminum alloys, stainless steel, and many polymers. You don't know what you're talking about. "and even those they claim to have left on the moon wearing nothing but fabric space suits?" 24 layers, dewdrop. Some of them were aluminumized Kapton and Mylar. You, again, don't know what you're talking about.
    3
  2279. So, when she died, was that for your god's glory also?
    3
  2280. There are no real images from the past few years that would show how the stuff looks today. The only images are the original mission photography, and the satellite images (which cannot show this level of detail).
    3
  2281. It was the cold war. Apollo's purpose was to help prevent the cold war from turning into a real war. How many people would be "impoverished" if the cold war escalated to a hot war, killing millions, and leaving entire cities in dust?
    3
  2282. "It doesn't turn off the engines near the ground." Well, on Apollo 11 and Apollo 14, you'd be correct, they didn't actually shut the engines off until after they touched down. But, the correct procedure was to shut the engine off about 5 feet above the surface, and fall the rest of the way. The other 4 landings did exactly that. "I now believe there is a possibility the moon landing was faked." Based upon what? "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake"? Nothing you've said has been even remotely correct, dewdrop.
    3
  2283.  @ThomasKunderaBis  Yes, and I'll add that nobody ever said they landed on the far side either.
    3
  2284. So, your position is "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake"? You don't know how they made it to the moon without modern electronics, therefore it's fake? So, just out of curiosity, with those multiple big IBM mainframes in Houston being used for guidance, designed and built by literally thousands of people, do you suppose none of those people were aware that those mainframes wouldn't do when they were designed to do? How do you explain that? Why didn't anybody at IBM or MIT ever realize that the big mainframes wouldn't be able to calculate the guidance?
    3
  2285. Yet, every single day since a decade before the Apollo program even began, backyard amateurs could aim a Yagi or dish at the moon, bounce a basic analog signal off of it, using the moon as a reflector, and talk to someone half way around the world. It's called a "moon bounce" or "EME" (Earth moon Earth). With decent backyard equipment, they do it with as little as 10-20 watts. (But, yes, lots of the setups do it with 1500 watts to compensate for when the equipment isn't that great.) The dishes tend to be around 2-3 feet in diameter, and nobody has any problems doing it. Still today, people are doing it every day. And, here you are, saying that with that huge DSN network that they built for Apollo, with those massive dishes in Australia, Spain, and Goldstone, they couldn't do what backyard amateurs had been doing for nearly 2 decades with tiny little dishes/Yagi? Is that really your position here?
    3
  2286. Huh? What are you talking about? Artemis was approved by congress in 2019, and they have been working since then on the SLS rocket booster, the Orion capsules, and the new lunar landers. Artemis 1 is sitting on the launchpad this very minute. It was supposed to launch a few months ago, but there were technical delays. But, now it's slated to fly to the moon next month. Why are you saying that we're not going back, when there's a rocket sitting on the launchpad to do exactly that? Start doing business with the moon? Huh? What money is the moon going to give us? As for sending billionaires there, well, sounds nice and all. But, they don't get to be billionaires by wasting a lot of money. When you adjust for inflation, Apollo costed about $16 billion per person who walked on the moon. There are very few billionaires who would be willing to spend that kind of money to walk on the moon for a few hours. Now, Artemis is trying to do it for a lot less money. So, we'll see what happens. You might get your wish in another couple of decades. But, this is completely irrelevant to Apollo. Apollo happened, whether there are rides available for billionaires or not. Selling lunar properties? Well, there was a scam company doing that. But, nobody owns the moon, nobody can make claims on the moon, so, any such sale of properties wouldn't be enforceable anyway, and no nation would honor such property rights. The rest of what you wrote is more paranoid delusional fantasies.
    3
  2287. Yup. Ooops. The 7,000 engineers at Grumman forgot to make the lunar lander fit into the rocket. Nobody noticed it until you did just now.
    3
  2288. So, someone gave you an answer to your question, and you immediately reject it. You will get the exact same answer by taking a Photography 101 class at any accredited university on Earth. Exposure time is very relevant to what will (or won't) work on film. And, you can also know the answer by taking up photography yourself. So, anyway, you asked a question, then ignored the answer. Why? If you don't want answers to your question, why'd you ask?
    3
  2289. You refuse to even address your own original question, and the correct answer that you were given. And, when I pointed this out to you, you reply by stating that you want to change the topic EVEN MORE?!!?!? Good gods. No, dewdrop. I'm not engaging with anybody who essentially proves, in advance, that replies to his own questions do not matter to him. You don't know anything about the topic, and you clearly refuse to accept any input.
    3
  2290. I'll never understand why people like you think it's a good idea to advertise your ignorance to the world.
    3
  2291. "They would've been extremely serious and working to overcome unpredictable challenges getting back." They were working to overcome unpredictable things? How do you work on something if you cannot even predict what it will be?
    3
  2292. "They were behaving in a way they believed 1960's era, audiences would accept." No, they behaved in the way that their individual personalities dictated. "If authentic they would seem more professional and serious, knowing any failure would be certain death." Did you not read my reply? And, what in the world are you talking about? ANY failure would be death? Why? And, why didn't any of the engineers ever realize that every single failure would result in death? "Even "if'l" they made it to the moon, they would've had extremely high chance of failure returning the 60s era space ship and heading back to earth without going offcourse" They had a rocket engine, dewdrop. They DID go off-course in many of the missions. They lit up the rocket engine, and got back on course. "or having anything mechanical." They did have mechanical failures, dewdrop. Almost all of the systems had redundancy. "It's thousands and thousands of miles!!" So, in your mind, it's simply not possible? "Nobody landed on the moon and came back. You can quote me." Dunning-Kruger. "Even if they made it to the moon in the 1960s, they wouldn't have been able to turn around like they're driving a Cadillac back from the drive in movies." No, they'd use a rocket. "They would've lost power" Why? They had redundant fuel cells with redundant batteries. "or drifted thousands of miles off course" Yes, and then they'd use a rocket to get back on course. So what? "had a pressure leak" Yes, stuff sometimes leaked. Who cares? Why do you think a leak would mean it's fatal? "or burned up during rentery" Why? They had an ablative heat shield. "It was much cheaper to fake it in the desert and allocate the tax dollars amount themselves." Says who? How many thousands of people would it take to do that? They all kept the secret? "The technology did not exist to transport living people thousands of miles through space for days" Yet, you won't name the specific technology. Sorry, but "transport living people" isn't a specific technology. You have to name the exact technology you think they lacked, then illustrate why none of the thousands of engineers ever realized that they failed to make technologies that work. "for awkward press conferences" Are you just going to read through the conspiracy handbook of dumb things to say on the internet? "The media is controlled by the state which is used to control public perceptions." Hilarious!! And, when the media completely destroys members of the government, that's because the government was controlling them? And, how about all of the other countries that confirmed Apollo? Does the US government control them too?
    3
  2293. This is the most powerful evidence I've ever seen. A nobody on YouTube offers to sell a statue he doesn't own. Yup, I'm convinced now. I mean, most people, the sane ones, would actually offer evidence. But, now that a random guy posted something about selling a statue, that means whatever he says has got to be true.
    3
  2294. Arizona State University has a few hundred photos from their camera in lunar orbit aboard LRO. India published a few nice shots of the landers from their Chandrayaan orbiter. China published photos of each landing site also, and you can see the landers, but, the resolution isn't as good.
    3
  2295. First of all, dewdrop, the arrest video wasn't released until 1.5 years after she died. So, seriously, spare the world this notion about the police embarrassing her. Secondly, why would she be so ashamed of this particular arrest? She didn't commit suicide over her felony term spent in prison, nor her million other arrests. And, she waited a year after this arrest before doing it. Oh, but Inside Edition dictates to you how you're supposed to think about it, so, you blindly abide. You know, being a convicted felon with an arrest record a mile long means that it must have been very difficult to get a straight job. So, her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club, and her neighbors said she did "private" cash encounters in her apartment. I'd eat my hat if she wasn't making "public beach" content for her fans, but got reported, and tried to cry her way out of it. See the thing is, the multiple callers and the people who recorded the incident and gave the video to the police said it appeared very intentional. And, the video doesn't match her claims about nobody being around. To the contrary, it was a loud and public act in front of multiple people including children. Oh, poor thing. Tell me, when she got busted for stealing cars about 6 years ago, did you cry "poor thing" about the people whose cars those were?
    3
  2296. I can't believe you graduated high school. What does that mean? "Anyone was true"? Huh?
    3
  2297. Naw, they're probably well aware never to trust stuff you see on Inside Edition. And, they probably know that she was a "dancer" with a criminal record a mile long, most likely making "public beach" content for her fans, but got reported and tried to cry her way out of her millionth arrest.
    3
  2298. Your hatred is showing.
    3
  2299. Try some subtracts.
    3
  2300. It didn't. They didn't have that capability until Apollo 15. The only liftoff video from Apollo 11 came from the onboard 16mm film camera.
    3
  2301. Is there any particular reason you'd believe the stream of silly gibberish you just spewed? You're not a drug addict, are you?
    3
  2302. "ISRO Chandrayaan2’s photos of Apollo 11 & 12 landing sites" The best photograph is India's Apollo 12 photo. Arizona State University (who built and manages the camera onboard LRO). They have a slideshow on their site of various Apollo photos at each and every landing site, from various sun angles.
    3
  2303. Dewdrop, the effect you're talking about is extremely minor. Stop pretending you know what you're talking about, when you don't.
    3
  2304. Welcome to Inside Edition, where facts don't matter.
    3
  2305. Yes.
    3
  2306. So, you're basically saying that you don't know anything. Bravo! Most people try to conceal it. Thanks for advertising it to the world.
    3
  2307. Good grief. I could only watch the first couple of minutes of the ridiculous video you linked. The narrator has no idea what he's talking about, not even understanding what a "force" is. He doesn't know the difference between momentum and force. His trajectories are laughable. He doesn't understand velocity vs. acceleration. Nothing he said in those first couple of minutes was even remotely correct. Why would you get a physics lesson from him? That's like taking a calculus lesson from an earthworm. Hey, dewdrop, guess what? The reason he's posting that gibberish on YouTube is to AVOID the scientific method. There are hundreds of physics journals around the world where he could submit his nonsense for peer review. Why won't he? Because he would fail miserably. So, instead, he just publishes on YouTube, to avoid all scrutiny, and goes straight to gullible masses that understand even less about physics than he does.
    3
  2308.  @ornanongsavage8688  YOU SAID: "Not asking questions stating facts" == Pfftttt. I've been saying for quite some time now that when you conspiratards ask questions, you're ingenuine. I've been saying that you people only PRETEND to ask questions. Now, to prove my point, you have asked many many many questions in this thread and others, yet, now, you don't even remember that you asked them. You literally can't recall that you were asking questions, because, all along, you were only pretending to ask questions. Now you don't even remember asking them. And, you've ignored the answers. YOU SAID: "NASA cant go to the Moon today" == They don't claim to be able to go today. YOU SAID: "the same applied 50 plus years ago, impossible," == No. It was possible 50 years ago because they had all of the hardware and programs to do it. They no longer have those things, since they've all been retired. YOU SAID: "but since you are one of their stooges trying to convince the public otherwise. Maybe you should stop spanking your mouse, it's not good for your eyesight." == You are truly out of your mind. And, I doubt you're even reading anything. All you're doing is spitting in people's faces. You're accusing thousands of people of being criminal frauds who would get a lifetime in prison for the crimes you're accusing them of committing. And, you do this to try to compensate for your own utter failures. Rather than bettering yourself, you seek to drag the rest of the world down to your level. Pathetic.
    3
  2309. And, the murderer got what he deserved also.
    3
  2310. Then why didn't they have backup film for Apollo 12?
    3
  2311. They pointed the cameras at the Earth numerous times on Apollo 17. They took video of the Earth with the RCA TV camera. They took photos of the Earth with the Hasselblad 70mm cameras. Why is it that you seem to think they didn't? Have you looked at the videos? Have you looked at the photo archive? Or, did a conspiracy video tell you they didn't do this, and then you just blindly believed it? And, as for seeing the Earth rotating, um, what? How fast do you think the Earth spins?
    3
  2312. Huh? Take her life? What are you talking about? How did any of this even remotely relate to the concept taking her life? And, children? Are you even watching the video before commenting? They aren't her children, they're someone else's children. As for your complaint about not knowing if she's guilty or not, good grief, on what planet is a cop supposed to prove guilt before arresting? The proof of guilt or innocence comes later, in a courtroom. That has nothing to do with an arrest. The cop is required to have reasonable suspicion and probable cause. That's all. Can you even imagine a world in which the cop must prove guilt at the side of the road? Do you even want that? Cops are not judges and juries and attorneys, nor do we want them to be. How could any system ever function if guilt needs to be proven before an arrest can take place? You then revealed that you don't even know what she was arrested for. So, how can you possibly claim to have enough understanding of this case, if you don't even know why she was arrested? She was arrested because of the potential theft, because she refused to ID herself (obstruction), obfuscation, and eventually, she resisted the arrest also.
    3
  2313. Well, these documentaries are often borrowing footage from other parts of the mission, or sometimes from different missions altogether, just to splice together the story. If you're asking about the footage at 6:50 in this video, frankly, I don't even think that's Apollo 17. It looks a lot more like Apollo 16's surface features to me. If you look at AS16-117-18747HR or AS16-117-18747 (same photo, different scanning resolutions, from the Apollo 16 mission) on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal website, you'll see that the background matches perfectly. And, frankly, I didn't think Apollo 17 ever even mounted the 16mm camera to the rover, like Apollo 15 and 16 did. So, I don't know how that 16mm footage could even exist at 6:50 in this video from Apollo 17. Maybe I'm wrong about never mounting the 16mm camera on Apollo 17 to the rover. But, I've never seen any footage, and I don't even see the camera or the mount on Apollo 17's rover. AS17-146-22367HR or AS17-146-22367. You see the RCA TV camera. But, where's the 16mm camera behind it, or even a mount for it? The only 16mm film I've ever seen from Apollo 17 was from inside the LEM or command module. Bottom line: I'm 99% sure that the footage you see in this video of the rover driving from place to place is from Apollo 16, not Apollo 17, and the documentary just borrowed the footage.
    3
  2314. Pftttt. The drug addict is claiming that Apollo from 50 years ago is "mind control"? What do you call that crap you're smoking? You don't think that stuff is controlling your mind?
    3
  2315. The Soviets tracked the Apollo missions to the moon and back with radar and radio telescopes, and they publicly acknowledged the success of Apollo. China's Chang'e lunar orbiter has taken photos of some of the the Apollo landing sites, and they can see the Apollo landers still on the moon. I don't understand your reference to air and 173 degrees below zero, and neither do you. Why are you quoting super-cold overnight temperatures? All Apollo missions landed early in the lunar morning.
    3
  2316. Let's see... 3rd party evidence.... 1) How about the fact that Spain took photos of the Apollo SIVB fuel dumps around the moon? They had the largest telescope at that time, and used it to see the big vapor clouds that formed when the Saturn V 3rd stage dumped fuel. 2) How about the fact that dozens of countries used radar and/or radio telescopes to track the Apollo missions? This included enemy countries, such as the Soviets, who even sent Luna 15 (unmanned lander) to meet Apollo 11 in orbit around the moon, with the intent of racing Apollo home with the first lunar samples. It was a rushed mission and they made errors causing it to crash into the moon instead of a soft landing, but, the point remains that they tracked all 3 craft with radar (Luna 15, plus the Apollo command module, plus the lunar module). The same goes for dozens of other countries that tracked the missions with radar and radio telescopes. Canary Islands. Guam. Madagascar. Bahamas. Ascension Island. Australia. Mexico. Spain. The list goes on. 3) How about the Apollo laser reflectors placed on the lunar surface during 3 of the missions? Those are still in use today by multiple laser ranging facilities around the world, run by governments, universities, etc. 4) How about the radio communications? Numerous countries, and even backyard amateurs, could aim their dishes/Yagi at the moon, and tune in to the Apollo audio, and listen to the astronauts speaking. The audio was a simple clear-channel analog transmission that didn't require any coding/decoding or any type of signal framing. The video was a bit more difficult, because you'd need a lot bigger dishes for it, and some more advanced electronics to display the video onto a television. So, only the USA, Spain, and Australia had that capability. But, yes, Apollo 11's famous moonwalk was received by Australia's Parkes Radio Telescope, when they pointed it directly at the Apollo 11 landing site. 5) And, it's already been pointed out to you that there are multiple lunar orbiters from India, China, and Japan, that have all photographed the Apollo landing sites (in addition to Arizona State University's LRO camera). Japan's didn't have enough resolution to see the landers, but, they were able to confirm details from the Apollo photography that weren't known at the time (except by actually being on the lunar surface), and they were able to tell that the dust was disturbed at each of the 6 landing sites. China released only one photo (Apollo 11's landing site), but, they claim they've verified the others. India has the best camera in orbit around the moon today, and they released nice photos. You should take a look at the Apollo 12 photo in particular. You can see the lander (descent stage), and even the shadow of the flag just north of the lander (exactly where the original mission photography shows it), as well as the shadows of the flame deflectors. That's all I'll bother with for now. There are countless other 3rd party verifications. But, something tells me that you're probably not even reading this list. I don't think you actually want answers to your own questions, otherwise you'd already know this stuff by now. The only reason you don't, is because you haven't tried. It's called "willful ignorance." There's even a Wiki page about 3rd party evidence. And, of course, there are mountains of 1st party evidence also (which you reject). But, anyway, can you prove you're even reading answers to your own requests for evidence? If you're reading this, can you write "green" at the top of your reply (if you make one) to demonstrate that you're even reading the evidence you're pretending to ask for?
    3
  2317. "Don't call me names while I accuse thousands of people of being criminals. Don't insult me while I insult everyone who worked on Apollo." And, no, dewdrop, you didn't read everything. Like I said, I asked you to write "green" to prove you were reading. You didn't. Therefore, you didn't read.
    3
  2318. "Third party verification is funded at this point. NASA provides services or material for "testimony" in the guise of photoshop landers." See what I mean, dewdrop? You have defined, IN ADVANCE, an excuse to ignore all of the evidence you pretend you're asking for. You asked for 3rd party verification. Then, when you get what you ask for, you simply shift the goalposts and declare that the evidence is bought. Funny that not a single country, including enemies, have ever refused the offers, huh? You are aware that China and India have each provided photos of the Apollo landing sites from lunar orbit, showing the landers on the surface. And, you simply think that NASA paid them to provide those photos. Yeah. Like China wouldn't say, "Huh? You owe us a trillion dollars already, and we're not exactly fond of you people. We don't need your bribes, and we are simply going to expose you instead." Nope. Everyone we try to "bribe" into producing 3rd party evidence just goes along, with not a single one of them ever saying, "no way." Your mind has set sail off to a distant imaginary land, well past the point of no return, such that you have essentially made it impossible to even give you the evidence you pretend you're asking for. You've already decided that all evidence for Apollo is fake. And, you shift the goalposts by then declaring that you'd "accept" evidence from 3rd parties if it came from a rover that drives up to a landing site. Nonsense. I'd eat my hat if you weren't saying that exact same thing 10 years ago, except you would have accepted it if it was lunar orbiter photography. But, now that other countries have sent orbiters that have sent those pictures, you have shifted the goalposts to stating that you want a rover. Right. Sure. Like you wouldn't use the EXACT same excuses if/when that happens. "NASA paid China to send a rover and return CGI images of the Apollo stuff on the moon." You know darned well that you'll be saying exactly that when it happens. Stop pretending, dewdrop. You're not good at it. You're not reading the answers to your own questions. And, you have defined evidence as "fake" before anybody could even give it to you.
    3
  2319. PART 1: YOU SAID: "The Moon landing is so fake." == You do know there were SIX manned landings, right? Why would you write this in the singular form? YOU SAID: "Space Nerds like you believe the landing because it give you life even if its all fake like Santa Clause." == What ARE you talking about? Who ever made any such claim to have "gotten life" from moon landings? What in the hell does this even mean? YOU SAID: "Truth is man has never been pass low earth orbit aka Space Station." == Wrong. 24 people went to the moon. 12 of them walked on its surface. YOU SAID: "With hundreds of space launches no man to the Moon." == Wrong. 24 people went to the moon. 12 of them walked on its surface. YOU SAID: "Now there is talk of going back but now its very difficult." == Well, nobody claims that going to the moon is "easy." But, it's far easier now than back in the 1960s/1970s. I mean, the Apollo budget was (adjusted into today's dollars) about $150 billion. If you add soft costs (free land, tax breaks to contractors, etc.) and international support, the number is more like $200 billion. Today, they're proposing a $28 billion budget for Artemis. Now, mind you, I'll be the first to say that this number is most likely too low, and that like so many other government programs, they begin with a low number, and it balloons from there. But, the point is, it's far EASIER to go to the moon now than it was in the 1960s. They have the entirety of Apollo to reflect upon, and improve upon. There is far less R&D required today than there was during Apollo. YOU SAID: "Space science is more than 10 times more advanced than it was is the 60s and 70s" == Pffttt. How is this measured? How do you quantify "10x"? Advancements, sure. But, rockets have only gained a few percentage points in efficiency. They're still planning on using liquid oxygen and hydrogen as oxidizer and fuel, same as many of the rockets used during Apollo, almost no difference. The SLS rocket is virtually the identical size and weight as the Saturn V, with virtually the identical payload capability. So, where is this "10x more advanced" coming from?? WHAT PART is 10x more advanced? Sure, the computers, there's no doubt there... millions of times more advanced even. But, computers are a very small part of aerospace engineering. So, please explain EXACTLY what you think is "10x" more advanced now? YOU SAID: "but NASA only talks about returning to the Moon in the future." == Um, dummy, they got Artemis funded by congress in late 2019. It was the first time since 1961 that congress funded a program to put people on the moon. Yes, NASA talked about going back to the moon many times prior to then, but congress never approved it. NASA doesn't make these decisions, you know. Congress does. Congress decides what programs to fund, and what programs not to fund. The closest they came to funding moon missions was when they funded Constellation, which was a 3-part program. Part 1 was to fund the Orion capsule to go to/from the ISS. Part 2 was to fund the Orion missions to the moon. Part 3 was to fund Mars missions. Part 1 was funded, and that's why we have Orion at all. But, part 2 was never funded, and they never did even get to fully finish part 1 before congress pulled the funding under the Obama administration. Part 3 never got close to being funded. But, as of this moment, Artemis is funded. We'll see if Biden pushes to kill Artemis the way Obama/Biden pushed to kill Constellation. Time will tell. But, as of today, Bezos is building the landers, two more Orion capsules have been ordered, SLS is accelerating, and the astronauts have been named, and are in training. So, you really don't know what you're talking about. YOU SAID: "SpaceX is amazing and if they new" == Good gods. How much stupidity can you pack into one fraction of a sentence? "New"?? Not "knew"?? LEARN ENGLISH, YOU MORON. Secondly, who do you think funds most of SpaceX, if not NASA?? Third, do you even understand NASA's function? NASA has always used contractors to build the stuff. Do you think NASA built the Apollo equipment? Is that how backward you are? You seriously don't even understand NASA's role, that's how clueless you are. YOU SAID: "they could get to the Moon as easy as easy as they did in the past they would have been there already" == Pffttt. And, who would pay for it? Elon Musk?? Elon Musk's greatest talent is to get the government to pay for stuff, then he takes credit for it. YOU SAID: "but they know it very dangerous and nearly impossible" == So, why did they push so hard to be part of Artemis?!?!!?!? What ARE you talking about?!?!!?!? They even wanted to build the landers!!! They sure didn't mind taking their part of the $47 million to bid on it!!! Good grief!!! You don't understand ANYTHING!!! YOU SAID: "so how did man get to the Moon before with far less technology...they didn't!" == So, let me get this straight... you ask a question, and then three dots later ... you negate any answers to the question?? You don't wait for an answer before you spew your stupidity, and refuse to accept answers before you get them?? You think SpaceX is awesome, ok, fine. Why do you suppose nobody at SpaceX claims Apollo was fake? You admire their abilities in aerospace engineering, while claiming that their aerospace engineers are entirely wrong about aerospace engineering?? What's wrong with your brain? But, to answer your question about how they got there, first, you need to explain exactly which piece of technology you think was lacking during Apollo. Apollo's technology is a massive topic that would take years upon years to fully explain, and there are millions upon millions of pages of technical documentation. Sorry, I cannot regurgitate all of that into a YouTube comment. So, in order to answer your question, you have to first explain which EXACT aspect of the technology you think wasn't adequate to go to the moon? And, then please explain EXACTLY why the thousands of people who worked on that technology were unaware that they failed so miserably to design and build stuff to do what they designed and built it to do?
    3
  2320. PART 2: YOU SAID: "SpaceX knows that but they are partners with NASA and stand to lose their support if they tell the truth." == And, you know this, how? If they don't want to tell "the truth" to NASA, did they tell "the truth" to YOU instead?? YOU SAID: "Its like a bunch of thieves working together, as long as the money keeps coming in they stay quiet." == Yet, you think this organization is amazing?? "Wow, these guys are great!!! They're all criminals and frauds, but I really love them." You're an idiot. Hey, dummy, thousands of people work at SpaceX. Do you think NONE of them would spill the beans if they knew that they were involved in such a fraud? I mean, this is the thing about you idiots. You make these outlandish claims with no evidence whatsoever, and you fail to realize the implications. I mean, look at Theranos as an example. Theranos never produced anything (or, very little anyway). And, slowly but surely, the cracks started happening, and eventually everything fell apart before they were even able to sell their first machine. SpaceX is not on that trajectory (pun intended). They are building more and more models of rockets. They have numerous checks and balances. They produce things. They are behind schedule, but, they're putting people in space. Progress is being made. Things are moving forward. But, you're calling them a bunch of thieves?? Would you care to back up this libel with any evidence? YOU SAID: "The world was gullible in the 60s and 70s but today we are far more advanced" == All evidence to the contrary. YOU SAID: "with a PC in just about every home to fact check for ourselves" == Oh, the irony. What have YOU fact-checked about anything you've spewed here? Good gods. YOU SAID: "and not believe the lies." == Oh, you've believed lies alright... you're just too dumb to realize who the liars are. YOU SAID: "Now the focus is on man landing on Mars." == No, moron. There is no such program that is currently funded. Artemis is funded. The astronauts are named, and are in training to GO TO THE MOON. There is no funded Mars program to put people on Mars. Good gods, you don't know ANYTHING!!! YOU SAID: "Are you serious try going to the Moon first its a hell of lots closer." == THEY ARE!!!! You're so damned stupid, you don't even realize that they're doing EXACTLY what you say they're not doing!!! YOU SAID: "But I get it once again its about money. Sell us the Mars story now to keep the money rolling in until years from now you have to tell the truth." == You truly have no concept about how congress funds programs, do you? You truly have no idea how any of that funding works. YOU SAID: "We may never put man on Mars because we have never even been to the Moon its all fake. Just like those people that claim to have been visited by Space Aliens, stop it." == You have lost your marbles. Or, you never had any. YOU SAID: "Radiation from space as a host of other dangers beyond low earth orbit would kill any living being, rats, dogs, monkeys and for sure man." == Then WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR!??!?!? Publish those findings!!! Publish your calculations!!! Submit them to any one of the hundreds of worldwide journals in aerospace engineering, physics, radiobiology, etc.!!!! Why is it that all of you conspiratards make this assertion, but not a single one of you demonstrates the mathematics to support your statements??? If you think you understand aerospace engineering better than every aerospace engineer on Earth, and you think you understand radiobiology better than every radiobiologist on Earth, the answer is very simple... you stop messing with YouTube comments... you write up your calculations... you present them to any number of science journals anywhere in the world that is recognized by the major universities and engineering firms, and then you roll in money afterward. That's exactly what would happen, you know. If you could present your calculations to prove that you understand this material better than the entire planet's aerospace engineers and physicists, you'd have more money than you could ever dream of. First of all, you'd win a Nobel Prize or two for rewriting everything we understand about cosmology and the physics involved with that. Each Nobel Prize comes with about a million dollars. But, that's chump change next to all of the rest of the money that would be thrown at you. You'd be on the university lecture circuits for many years to come, making a minimum of $70,000 per week. And, that's on the light side. The really big names get even more than that. You'd have multimillion dollar book deals overnight. You'd be on every talk show on the planet. You'd be a hired expert commissioned by congress to help dismantle NASA for its lies and deceit. You'd be a paid witness that would be used in court to throw behind bars everyone who worked on Apollo (who is still alive anyway). The entire rest of your life would be bought and paid for, because you'd be a household name for single handedly rewriting physics, and for bringing NASA down after 50 years of lies. You'd take down Arizona State University for their role in perpetuating the Apollo "hoax" with their LRO (still in use today). I mean, seriously, what that kind of ammunition at your disposal, why are you on YouTube!?!?!? What are you even doing here??!! YOU have calculated that all of aerospace engineering is completely wrong!!!! YOU have done this!!!! Why would you waste your time on YouTube comments, when you have that kind of ammunition in your back pocket?? Only crackpots and idiots waste their time in YouTube comments, when all of the proof they need to completely dismantle NASA is just a few math formulas away!!!! YOU SAID: "If a lie gives you purpose in life (Santa Clause) then have fun but remember REALITY." == What an idiot.
    3
  2321. He just explained to you that you need to understand Dawes' limit. That's the simplistic concept that first led to the Rayleigh Criterion (which is the more detailed version of much the same thing). And, since I am well aware that you don't have any idea what any of that means, I'll just tell you that optical resolution isn't infinite. You cannot see the level of detail you're asking for. And, you clearly don't know the difference between distance and resolution. But, how do you think this works? Do you think the entire planet's physicists never thought of pointing a telescope at the moon?
    3
  2322. Is that how you got your high school diploma? You imagine something that doesn't exist? Good gods, why would any foil shred?
    3
  2323. Remove "either," and change "or" to "and."
    3
  2324. Is that the extent of your understanding of Apollo? One person said they lost the technology? Really? Do you know what even means? Yes, it IS lost, in the exact same spirit that the technology is lost to fly in supersonic airliners, or the technology is lost to fly X15 mach-7 airplanes into space, or the technology is lost to fly mach-3 SR71 spyplanes over enemy countries. That's the spirit that it is "lost." Everyone knows how it was done, but, everything that it took to make it happen is long gone.
    3
  2325. Well, I wouldn't say they can't. But, they certainly haven't done that. But, just as a side note: NASA has never built any craft whatsoever. They always contract it out. But, anyway, I agree that nobody yet has built a craft to land on the moon and safely return to Earth. So what? Who ever claimed they have done that?
    3
  2326. Any "trained eye" would know that you cannot see stars on film that has been set for brightly lit (short) exposure. Go take a photography 101 class. Or, just go try to photograph some stars yourself, and see what kind of time exposure is required.
    3
  2327.  @Tejaye777  YOU are the one accusing national heroes of being liars and frauds, based on blind belief in lies produced by a taxi cab driver. Don't call ME the rude one here. YOU are the one who came here posting your parade of questions, then completely ignoring the answers. YOU are the one who avoided answering a single question or challenge. YOU are the one who refuses to admit a single mistake. Do not pretend you are intellectually honest. You're a complete and total bullshitter. Yet, you have the audacity to call yourself civil?? A civil person admits when he's wrong. A civil person doesn't ask questions, then ignore the answers. A civil person doesn't accuse armies of people of being liars and frauds, based on his own pure ignorance. No, asshole, you're not civil. YOU are the dickhead here.
    3
  2328.  @ThomasKundera  YOU SAID: "Your answers are very informed, can I steal some?" == They're not "mine" to steal. Facts are facts, regardless of who tells them. "Steal" whatever you want. YOU SAID: "In return, a few points that you may add to some of them: - As "destroyed tech" the ability to fly a supersonic passenger plane is a good example. Incidentally Concorde made its first test flight in 1969." == Yes, history has a ton of examples (like supersonic passenger flight) that always shut up the conspiracy nuts who assert that people should repeat Apollo quickly, otherwise Apollo didn't happen. The first circumnavigation of the Earth was not repeated until about 55 years later. Nobody built the ships and funded the explorations again until 55 years had passed. Also, the Egyptian pyramids are a very nice example. It took thousands upon thousands of years before anybody built any buildings even remotely that size again... and never again consisting of 500 foot tall stone pyramids weighing 12 billion pounds. By the warped "logic" that all big undertakings need to be quickly repeated, or they didn't happen, then we should all live in massive pyramids by now. But, above all else, the thing is, there hasn't been an undertaking like Apollo at any other time in history. Circumnavigating the Earth was NOTHING in comparison. Building the pyramids was NOTHING in comparison. Supersonic airliners were NOTHING in comparison. There simply is nothing else like Apollo. Yet, these conspiratards just shrug it off, expecting it to be commonplace by now. YOU SAID: "Orion spacecraft: afaik it's easier to chose a quite polar route to the Moon than to Mars, as the Moon own gravity can help the spacecraft back in line for a Moon orbit with little efforts while getting out of the ecliptic plane with high speed will requires lots of energy to correct. So for non Moon remote missions, Orion will need to cross more dangerous areas of the VAB." == Yes, the moon can help. But, let's face reality here, it still takes far more energy to blast up through the poles. Apollo certainly didn't have the fuel for that. So, they compromised and went out through the belts at around a 30 degree angle (just from memory, you'll have to look it up). This allowed them to avoid the worst part of the belts, but yeah, the "best" path through the belts would have been straight north above the north pole, or straight south below the south pole. However, moon's help or not, there wasn't nearly enough fuel for that trajectory. But, yeah, for Orion, if they have that kind of fuel on board, ok, fine. But, they won't need it, because Orion has much beefier radiation protection than Apollo had. YOU SAID: "- Stupid Bible swearing episode: afaik, at least two astronauts lent themselves to this comedy and swore on the Bible (Cernan and Mitchell). Did that change anyone's opinion on the issue? Absolutely not, I'm sure. Pure conspi-sheeps "logic": if the don't swear, that's because they didn't went there, if they do, they are lying." == Yes, this is a prime example of the conspiratards setting up a no-win situation. If one of them swears on the bible, they are still lying. If one of them doesn't swear on the bible, it's because he's hiding something. It's insanity. In the end, swearing on the bible isn't REALLY the issue for the conspiratards. They are just looking to add things to their list of complaints, whether those complaints are valid or not. And, as I said in my postings here, Armstrong wasn't a Christian anyway, so why would anybody expect him to swear on a bible? YOU SAID: "- press conference: the conference was Sept 16, while they cam back on July 24. They just came back from the Moon, and then spent 21 days of quarantine in a cramped converted trailer, then rode three parades in three different US cities, and then were ferried around 27 different countries through 45 days, meeting countless officials and riding additional parades, and then finally came back to answer journalists questions. No wonder they feel a bit burned out at this point..." == I've talked with Aldrin on several occasions. I have had breakfast with him and Jim Lovell. I have spoken to him one-on-one. I have spoken to him in groups. I've seen him give interviews and speeches. His behavior in that press conference was no different than any other time I've seen him. I've met Michael Collins as well, not as many times as I've met Aldrin. Again, that's just how he talks. He's got an interested cadence in his speaking pattern. When he speaks, he emphasizes words that most people do not. It seems a bit odd, but, he's extremely smart, and that's simply how he talks also. I've "met" Neil Armstrong... sort of... I mean, I sat near him at that dinner I mentioned in this thread. I have seen him speak publicly, and at interviews. My wife snapped a bunch of photos of me and him. But, to be honest, I really can't claim to have really "talked" with him. Maybe "hello." That was about it. And, frankly, maybe it wasn't even that much. I really don't remember. Now that he's dead, it's impossible to remedy that situation. But, anyway, from what I have seen of him, again, that's just how he talks. And, what's my point in all of this... well... tired or not after all of that travel and quarantine... which, yes, I'm sure had an impact... I'm not 100% sure that it would have been any different if they were "fresh" and "energetic." These guys just never get all that excited during speaking engagements, period, especially Neil Armstrong. He was never very animated before going to the moon. He was never very animated after going to the moon. He's a hardened veteran of 78 combat missions. He was shot down behind enemy lines. He had to bail out of the LLRV a second before it crashed. His Gemini mission nearly killed him. He flew the X15 rocketplane (which was a deathtrap). I mean, this is a guy with ice in his veins. Public speaking engagements weren't going to make him all excited. And, as you pointed out, quite some time had passed before that interview the conspiratards all talk about. And, the conspiratards always ignore the big smiles they had in all of those images of them through the quarantine trailer window. Nope, they concentrate on the behavior in an interview a couple of months later... and ignore all else... because that fits their delusion better. YOU SAID: "I'm still reading the rest and learning a lot :-) Anyway, your answers are very clear and informative! Thanks." == Well, thanks. But, apparently they weren't clear enough for the original imbecile who posted this thread. I must have said 100x that his problem was that he was not listening or responding to the ANSWERS to his questions... and still... in his deluded mind, somehow he came to the conclusion that I was saying he shouldn't even ask questions. I mean, good grief, I don't know how much more clear I could have been. But, I didn't get through to the moron who started this thread. But, again, that's how/why we know he is not intellectually honest. He clearly didn't want the answers to his own questions.
    3
  2329. The speed of that film at about 26 minutes is "sped up." See the unnatural fast motion of the astronauts? What you need to understand is that the 16mm film reels were pretty small for that tiny little camera. They only lasted around 2 or 3 minutes (I'd need to look it up to be exact) at full speed. So, they very rarely operated the camera at full speed (24 frames per second). They usually ran them at 6 frames per second, or sometimes 12, or sometimes even just 1 frame per second. They had no desire to change the film every few minutes. As a result, when they play it back at a standard rate (24 frames per second), this renders the videos faster than they were recorded. There are lots of videos out there that play it at the corrected speed to be time-accurate. It's a bit like Clay-mation then. It doesn't look smooth. Lots of people would rather just watch a sped up 24 frames per second than a speed corrected 6 frames per second. But, it's out there if you want. "Apollo 14 Flag Deployment 16mm Film + TV" is a nice way to see it. It's got TV (live speed) along side the speed corrected film of that very same clip you're complaining about.
    3
  2330. WOW, what a convincing and comprehensive argument.
    3
  2331. The 70mm film resolution from the Apollo 1969-1972 missions still today has about 10x the resolution of the best digital camera you can buy today for about $50,000. Film resolution is almost at a molecular level. Digital resolution is very limited by comparison, at least so far. Eventually, I'd assume that digital resolution will catch up and surpass film resolution. But, today, even the very best scanners available cannot capture the film's resolution. Digital dominates the market today because it's massively cheaper. You basically don't have to pay for photography any longer. No film costs. No development costs. Just point and shoot, and keep on shooting. You can store tens of thousands of photos on a simple pocket phone nowadays. But, make no mistake about it, as for image quality, a phone's camera is nowhere near a professional grade 70mm film camera.
    3
  2332. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?
    3
  2333. James, don't you ever get tired of being wrong? I've seen you post again and again, and it's just silly at this point.
    3
  2334.  @rubenoteiza9261  You know all of your cut-n-pasted garbage was answered already. You know you were totally destroyed in your other thread, which is why you deleted it. Now, you're just cutting and pasting the same garbage here? Why? Who would bother answering you, when you'll just delete your threads and run for the hills again, like the true coward you are?
    3
  2335. The LRO cameras are NOT 4K. They're better. Far better. But, you apparently don't understand the difference between digital zoom and optical zoom. Dewdrop, they had to use digital zoom to show the landers on the surface. Take any 4K digital photo of someone that you want. Now, digitally zoom in on a single hair on his/her head. Tell me it's not pixelated. Or, just go download the original LRO images, and see how much zooming is required to see the landers. "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake" isn't an argument.
    3
  2336. "People underestimate how compartmentalized the federal government" And, what percentage of the people who worked on Apollo were federal government employees? Do you even know that NASA doesn't build anything? You do know that everything that gets built is done by contractors, right? Boeing. Grumman. JPL. GM. Lockheed. Etc. You do know this, right? "and it’s programs are." The word "its" exists for a reason, dewdrop. Use it. What you just wrote was "and it is programs are." "Everyone working on project know nothing except their part in it" Pfttt. Not even remotely correct. But, let's pretend you're right. OK, so every individual who worked on Apollo thought their individual part would work as designed. So, ok, why not just go to the moon? Which "individual part" do you think wouldn't work as designed, thus the lizard people in charge of everything knew not to just send Apollo to the moon? And, why didn't the compartmentalized people working on that "individual part" know that they failed to build something that would do the job they designed it to do? "they don’t even communicate with other departments unless it is of critical importance." I'm sorry if you have the kind of job (or no job at all) that you'd actually believe that's how the world works. But, ya know, the rest of us know better.
    3
  2337. The Apollo 11 flag blew over, yes. The remaining 5 flags are still standing. We know this is true from the LRO images.
    3
  2338.  @michaelstillman1171  It's exactly like when they keep harping on "Armstrong refused to swear on a bible." Like, so, what if he did? Other Apollo astronauts swore on a bible, and the deniers just ignore that, and focus on the ones who didn't. You ask them if they believe Apollo 12 happened because Bean swore on the bible, but Apollo 11 didn't happen because Armstrong refused, and the deniers just stick their heads in the sand and refuse to answer. But, one thing is very clear, the deniers really don't care one bit about whether they swore on bibles, because they're going to reject Apollo either way. They just like to make accusations, while not caring one bit about the results.
    3
  2339. Dewdrop, in this thread and others (full of complete nonsense), you mentioned more than once that you think there were 7 manned trips to the moon. No. There were 9. 6 of those missions landed. The number "7" that you keep mentioning has no significance. You don't even know how many missions there were. That's how little you know about Apollo. Yet, you think you know more than the entire planet's experts. What's wrong with you?
    3
  2340. Generally speaking, the conspiracies attract weak people, who are general failures in life. This is not a universal rule, but, overall, on average, that's what we're talking about. They're failures, and feel bad about it, so, conspiracies are very attractive to them. This is a way for them to sit there and watch 2-3 hours of conspiracy videos, and feel like they know more than the armies of scientists who spent an extra decade in school, and decades more in scientific careers. After watching a couple of hours of conspiracy videos, they get to feel "superior" to the people who poured decades into the science. It's comforting to them to believe that there's a spooky secret society out there is responsible for why they are failures... keeping them oppressed... keeping their income low... lying to them about everything including moon landings... it's a mechanism to blame spooky unknown people for the reason that they've failed so badly in life. Anything besides looking in the mirror at the REAL reason they've failed. So, yeah, spooky global conspiracies are quite attractive to people who know nothing, and never have any hope of learning anything.
    3
  2341. Yet, he's the cream of the crop in the denier crowd. That says quite a bit right there.
    3
  2342. Good grief. Dewdrop, nobody can see any links. Welcome to YouTube. Guess what? You're the only one who can see any link you posted. Try looking at this video with an incognito window (not signed in). You'll not see any links that you posted while signed in. It's called "shadow banning." They let you see your own posts, but, nobody else can see them.
    3
  2343. I mean, I already knew that you'd lose a checkers match against a squirrel. Nothing you say is even remotely correct, and you lack intellectual horsepower the same way as if someone hooked up a leaf blower engine to a Mack truck and expected it to be able to drive around. But, this one is hilarious. No color television in 1967, therefore Apollo was fake? Color television wasn't required to go to the moon. And, color television was first demonstrated in 1928, and the first commercially available color TVs were in 1954. Anybody could walk into a department store and buy a color TV since 1954, yet, you think there wasn't color television in 1967. It's irrelevant to the moon landings, but, seriously, why are you so very proud to know absolutely nothing?
    3
  2344. Dewdrop, what in the world are you talking about? The carjacker walked up to the car wearing a balaclava ski mask in the middle of a Kentucky summer (so, no, not because it was cold outside), opened the car door, drew a gun, and pointed it at the cop's head. What EXACTY would you have done instead? Just sit there and let the carjacker kill you?
    3
  2345. Right. The 7000 engineers at Grumman forgot to make the hatch be able to get an astronaut through it. Sure. Who told you that? Was it a conspiracy video?
    3
  2346. Sorry, you don't get to cherry pick 3.5 words and make that ridiculous conclusion. He said both before and after that in the same interview that he DID go. But, you've picked one sentence and you're omitting the context. That is not honest, and you know it. There's a reason that we didn't have congressional hearings, court cases, front page news around the world, etc., when he said "we didn't go." It's because SANE people know darned well what he was actually trying to say.
    3
  2347. It's more like about 6%. But, they're a very loud 6% that is extremely proud to know nothing at all.
    3
  2348. Pffttt. And, you're going to go up to her while she's cranking it and have a conversation?
    3
  2349.  Goorpijp Wessel  YOU SAID: "Nah it had to be tainted alcohol. Drinking too much does lead to death, but not in this way. Seriously do Americans not get educated?" == So, you're asserting that you cannot drink to the point of excess, such that you drown yourself? Things cannot happen that way? And, **Americans** aren't educated, while you make a stupid assertion like that? And, hmmmm, if this extremely busy 5-star resort is giving out tainted alcohol, why didn't they find any history of this resort buying tainted alcohol? Why aren't there a parade of others who have the same thing happening at this resort? Why'd the "news" need to stoop to talking about OTHER resorts/bars who have been busted for tainted alcohol? They couldn't find a single incident of tainted alcohol at this resort? You're a moron.
    3
  2350.  @ljezebel1  YOU SAID: "Cunt were you there to see them drink all that liquor?? Noooo! So go fuck yourself" == If the blood alcohol was 0.25, um, yeah, they drank a lot, whether she saw them or not. YOU SAID: "before YOU go blaming them for something you didn't see.. Pendeja!" == Oh, but you're going to blame the hotel for something YOU didn't see?
    3
  2351. It's called the Gish Gallop.
    3
  2352. Yet, what happened? You told me (in the other video/thread) that if I gave you a single piece of evidence in favor of Apollo, you'd demonstrate why it's wrong. I did exactly that, and, immediately, you fell on your face, and made up a silly excuse about why none of the dozens of countries that tracked Apollo could actually track Apollo. You said the Earth spun too fast to track Apollo. I corrected you. And, I asked you how you explain it, and why those hundreds of engineers in dozens of countries (including enemies) thought they were tracking Apollo, and you ran for the hills, never to return. Now, you're here, spewing new gibberish. Why?
    3
  2353. No, dummy. The kid was fleeing the police, and hit a curb and wiped out all on his own. It's pretty clear that you are clouded by massive hatred.
    3
  2354. You clearly don't understand anything about what happened here. Nobody (sane anyway) is "defending" the teen punks... at least not in the context you're asserting. They were guilty. But, sorry, Smith didn't get to plan two murders and then follow through on that plan. Guilty thieves were killed by a guilty murderer. And, he installed the video cameras after the 2nd break-in, right? Why didn't he take that evidence to the police? Why did he go to the police for the first two break-ins (before the cameras), then never again? He knew the girl was wearing his stolen flight jacket to school, right? He knew both kids, right? She was the daughter in a family he had been feuding with for years. The boy used to work for him. Why not do something besides planning their murders? Go to the parents. Go to the police. And, I mean, if nothing else, once he knew they were coming to his house that final day, why not call the cops to come there and catch them in the act? I mean, personally, I'd have called the cops as soon as I knew who was doing it. But, even if I didn't do that, and I let it go that long, I'd have called the cops to come to the house (parking far away, just as Smith did, so the kids wouldn't know I was home), and then waited inside with the cops, who could bust them red handed. But, nope. He never called the cops again after the 2nd break-in, until 24 hours after he murdered them. Again, it's not about "defending" the teens. It's about the rightful fact that a murderer was removed from the public and put in prison where he belongs. You seem to think there must be a guilty party and innocent party. Um, no. Think of it more like you'd think of gangland crime. They're ALL guilty!!!
    3
  2355. That's nonsense. Nobody is even trying to recreate it. Nobody wants to recreate it. Artemis isn't even trying to rebuild Apollo. Artemis is trying to send missions to the moon for 1/10th of the cost, and stay on the surface 10x longer. If you have questions about Apollo, I suggest you look into real institutions to get the answers, not from the conspiracy videos that have obviously plagued your mind.
    3
  2356. If nobody argues, it means that the moon landings were fake, because nobody is arguing. If people argue, it means that the moon landings were fake, because they're trying to convince people.
    3
  2357.  @ubermenschen3636  Who said anything about "deserving" to die? It's not about that. It's about whether or not the boy was at fault for his own death. "Fault" and "deserve" are two different things.
    3
  2358. "There is NO "independent" verification of the Apollo 11 flight as many erroneously claim." Dozens of countries tracked Apollo with radar and radio telescopes, including enemy countries. China and India have photographed the Apollo 11 landing site, and can see the lander there. Spain used its telescope (the largest at the time) to photograph the SIVB fuel dump around the moon. Australia and Spain tuned into Apollo 11's radio and TV signals by aiming their dishes at the moon. The list goes on and on. "All those independent people that "saw" the A11 are connected with NASA." Um, no. "Ham radio operators knew how to bounce signals off the moon before NASA did too." Really? And, they could therefore bluff a transponder signal, and a type-C radar bounceback with the correct Doppler frequency change to indicate the correct speed to the dozens of dishes around the world? Do explain how Ham radio operators can "fake" Apollo's tracking by dozens of countries' radar. Can you?
    3
  2359. So, you believe they had the capability to send men to the moon in 1968 with no lander. You believe they had the capability to send men to the moon in May of 1969 with a lander to practice everything it would take to land. You believe they did NOT have the capability to land in July of 1969. And, you believe they had the capability of landing in November of 1969. Huh? What's so special about July of 1969 that meant they couldn't land, but, they could land in November? And, if you think Apollo 11 didn't land, but Apollo 12 did, how do you explain the orbital photography from Arizona State University's LRO camera, China's Chang'e orbiter, and India's Chandrayaan orbiter? You do know that they show Apollo 11 and 12 landers both on the lunar surface, right?
    3
  2360. You seem to think that they just keep a bunch of spacecraft ready to go, and all they need to do is gas it up, and go. Sorry, but that's not the way it works. It took worldwide communications and tracking. It took thousands of highly trained specialists to even get a moon rocket off the ground. All of the command and service modules were used during the Apollo program, there were no spares to launch. You'd need to start up a whole new program to build them. The remaining few landers were never completed. If you were allowed to climb inside the ones in the museums, you'd find that they had no innards, no computers, no electronics, no radios, no wiring, etc. They were only completed cosmetically from the outside, and would have no chance of ever flying in space. The launch facilities were ripped down. The training facilities were retired. The highly trained people all retired, died, or moved on to other things. Sorry, but, the only way you get return missions is by starting an entire moonshot program, which congress had never been willing to fund from 1975-2018. Your incredulity isn't evidence.
    3
  2361. The boots were overshoes that simply strapped on to the inner boot. The inner boot was the airtight one.
    3
  2362.  Dem 1  YOU SAID: "It’s not like he went out and seeked them out to kill them." == Read my above response to the other guy. Yeah, he quite clearly DID seek to kill them.
    3
  2363.  @damiendevil333  Most of it is in his own police confession tape, as well as his own tape (or digital recording) that he ran while committing the murders. I mean, get this through your skull... you don't know anything about this case. The 12 jurors, prosecutor, investigators, police, and judges, DO know about this case. None of those people agree with you, and they know more about this case than anybody besides the convicted murderer himself.
    3
  2364.  @damiendevil333  Some additional info: -- Sorry, I had forgotten the facts a bit. He shot her TWICE in the left eye (exactly as he had said on his own tape prior to the criminals even getting to his house). -- He waited something like 20-30 minutes after killing the male teen criminal, still in waiting, before the female arrived. But, during that time, he had already gathered the body up with the tarp he had ready. He actually had it SO ready, that within about 30 seconds of killing him, he already began wrapping his body in the tarp. You can hear all of this on the tape. -- He reloaded his guns and then sat and waited a while for the girl to get there (he knew she'd come eventually). -- After putting some bullets into her torso, she layed on the ground saying "oh my god," and this crazed murderer then apologized for not immediately killing her, then put the two bullets into her left eye (exactly as he said on tape that he would do, hours before she got there). Then, he waited a couple of minutes, and put another bullet under her chin up into her brain, just to make sure she was dead. In his police confession, he even said he knew she wasn't a threat any longer, and just wanted to make sure she was fully dead. -- After killing her, he said, "cute" about her, and then, as I said, later, she was found with her shirt open (figure that one out). -- Before the criminal teens even arrived, he rehearsed what he was going to say to the police and the attorney about the shootings... BEFORE he ever shot them. -- He says they had robbed him 6-7 times before, knew their names, knew their parents, etc. Clearly he understood their pattern, and expected this to happen on that day. All of this was quite preventable if the guy would have just gone to the police, and said that he expected to be robbed, and the police could have been there to catch them in the act. But, no, this guy wanted them dead, and took it into his own hands to make it happen. Again, I am a full supporter of people's rights to defend their homes and families with firearms. But, sorry, I cannot condone premeditated double murder. And, your defense of this particular murderer is quite misplaced. You didn't lift a finger to verify your assumptions that this was just a guy defending his home when, by surprise, some criminals broken in, and he had to resort to deadly force. No. He PLANNED these murders. And, when the two teens didn't come in at the same time, he sat there and waited for the other one to finally show up, so he could make sure he killed them both. Keep in mind, when listening to some of the tapes, they cut out the long breaks. A half hour tape available on YouTube, actually took place over a few hours. And, bottom line, my message to you is to have a bit more trust in the juries/judges/prosecutors. You clearly didn't know ANYTHING about this case, yet, somehow, you think you knew enough to declare that all of those people were wrong, and you were right. It's quite rude, actually.
    3
  2365. Wow, another legal eagle. They give citations for crimes now, huh? I always thought citations were for infractions, not crimes. And, a notice to appear? Isn't that an immigration thing? You're the legal expert here, so, please explain?
    3
  2366. A) Apollo 11 didn't have a rover. The first was on Apollo 15. You're in the wrong video, but, no big deal. B) "Lunar rover deployment" is a wonderful phrase to search for. There are plenty of tests done on the ground, animations, photos, live videos, and even including the actual deployment during Apollo 15. C) Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. A couple of nice photos are ap15-71-HC-682 and ap15-71-HC-684.
    3
  2367. I've got a secret. I'm not going to tell you what it is, I'm just going to make a posting on the internet to say I've got a secret, then tell the rest of the world to figure out what the secret is.
    3
  2368. When you feel the need to lie and say you've seen tracks with a telescope on Earth, sorry, but your claims fall on deaf ears. There is no such telescope. Optical resolution and atmospheric distortion prevent what you're claiming. Look up Dawes' limit and the Rayleigh criterion (basically the same concept, just two different ways of presenting it). In order to see the rover tracks just a single pixel wide, you're talking about a telescope about 2 miles in diameter... and that's not including atmospheric distortion.
    3
  2369. Ed Fendell operated the camera. But, you couldn't just ask the question, huh? You had to put "astronauts" in quotes??? Proud to be an idiot, eh?
    3
  2370. Um, no. Not even remotely close. Do you ACTUALLY believe that the entire planet's geologists couldn't tell the difference? Really? Meteorites show massive scarring from entry into the atmosphere. Why don't the moon rocks show that? Meteorites are exposed to oxygen and moisture once they're on Earth. Why don't the moon rocks show any exposure to oxygen or moisture?
    3
  2371. "just "hide behind a rock" if confronted with a mult-megaton solar flare." Better than nothing. That type of radiation doesn't penetrate rock very well. "You're right, the inhabitants of Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and Chernobyl survived by hiding behind rocks." Yes, dewdrop. For example, not even half of the population of Hiroshima was killed. Yes, if they were in well shielded areas, they tended to live. "Honestly, the moon landing is now religion, not science." But, dewdrop, there are mountains of evidence for the moon landings. You haven't even looked at it. "No moon trips for 50+ years despite dirt cheap technology and better rockets." Huh? I mean, yeah, it's cheaper to go to the moon now than it was in the 1960s, but, "dirt cheap"? Um, no. And, why do you think there are better rockets now? "Btw, solar flares are fairly instantaneous, I strongly doubt one could "duck" a solar flare." Wrong, dewdrop. They can see one on Earth before the radiation would get to the moon. "I strongly doubt that" What do you know about it? How many solar flares have you observed and taken radiation readings from? "So am I willing to confront a solar flare to confirm that using a random rock will prevent my incineration?" All you're doing here is revealing how little you know about the topic. A solar flare won't incinerate anything on the moon, dewdrop. It's the after-effects, the radiation, that they're worried about. Why in the world are you pretending to understand topics you do not? "Thus, I can reasonably assume that a solitary moon rock will not protect one from the heat of a solar flare, albeit maybe a degree of blast damage and radioactivity." So, all you're doing here is further demonstrating that you think there'd be a fiery blast that would hit the moon. Um, no. That's not what anybody is talking about. There is no solar flare that would hit the moon with a blast of fire. There is no blast damage, dewdrop.
    3
  2372. Ask a question, don't wait for an answer, come to your conclusion. Sure. How honest of you.
    3
  2373. Huh? What do you know that the medical examiner didn't know? That's a mighty huge accusation, basically libel.
    3
  2374. At atmospheric pressure or greater with 100% oxygen, yes, it's called oxygen poisoning. At 3-4 PSI, no. Why? Because that's approximately the partial pressure of oxygen that you're breathing right now. If you believe you'd get oxygen poisoning in an Apollo capsule, then you believe that you'd get it just breathing on Earth. But, can you do me a favor? Tell me what recent video is spreading that nonsense you just spewed? I haven't seen that one yet.
    3
  2375. I guess you find all kinds of people on the internet. Your exact question in any search engine yields endless pages of answers, videos, diagrams, etc. But, for whatever the reason, people like you won't type that question into a search engine, and instead type it into a comment field and expect others to sit there and answer comments instead. Bravo.
    3
  2376. So, the US faked the first landing, but, not the other 5? Why? As for the bible, why would a non-Christian like Armstrong swear on the bible? And, sure, Aldrin's a Christian, but, why would he swear on that guy's bible after needing to punch the guy to get away from him?
    3
  2377. Take a look at some of the highly magnified photos of the lunar dust. The dust is basically shattered rock, with extremely jagged and sharp edges, which gets stuck in fibers very easily.
    3
  2378. What do you know about the Van Allen belts that James Van Allen didn't know? He disagreed with you completely.
    3
  2379. Well, if congress approved it, sure. But, why? What purpose would it serve to send a rover for a billion or two, when they're already spending billions on Artemis?
    3
  2380. No evidence? Good grief. You cannot possibly know very much about the topic if you're saying that. But, ok, I'll bite. Please name the evidence that you'd expect and accept. Can you? What exact evidence do you think we should have, but don't?
    3
  2381.  @critthought2866  "won't get the cost down below $2B per launch" That's a skewed number. Maybe a launch costs that much. But, the entire program is slated for $35 billion (and growing). And, if they factor in the other programs that feed Artemis, and the programs for an Artemis gateway station, etc., the projected costs are over $90 billion. They're not planning on 45 launches for that money (well, not manned ones anyway). I guess if you include the hideous SpaceX HLS, yeah, you'll burn dozens of launches just in fuel, so, um, ok.
    3
  2382. Watch out, silly dewdrop. You're just a heartbeat away from becoming a flat Earther. From there, your mind is completely lost permanently.
    3
  2383. "vacuum and glove" There was a 3.5 PSI difference between the outside vacuum and the pressure inside the suits. Yes, astronauts' hands got a bit tired inside the gloves. But, c'mon man, a standard bike tire is 100 PSI. Are you really going to complain about 3.5? Do you really believe that the hundreds of engineers who designed the suits forgot to make the gloves usable?
    3
  2384. "how they avoided radiation" By going fast. Van Allen radiation is only lethal if you're in it for extended periods (like a week or two). And, let's face reality, the only belt that mattered all that much was the inner belt. The craft was plenty of protection from the much less potent outer belt. And, 15 minutes of exposure to the inner belt doesn't matter. Why do you suppose not a single space agency on the planet thinks this was a big deal for Apollo? What do you know that they don't? Are you even aware that the Soviets sent two dogs in and out of the strongest parts of the inner belt for 3 weeks (oblong orbit)? They spent around 1/3rd of the time (about a week) in the worst part of the inner belt, and came back home to live a normal lifecycle afterward. Yet, you think 15 minutes would be an issue?
    3
  2385. "Tell me about there being no debris or holes in the landing zone" Is this a joke? 2500 pounds of thrust out of 20 sq. foot engine bell? You expect holes from that? Math just isn't your thing? A human footprint exerts more force per square inch on the lunar surface than the rocket exhaust. Again, why do you suppose none of the engineers who designed and built the craft were worried about holes/craters? What do you know that they didn't?
    3
  2386. How about this, dewdrop? How about being honest? How about just plain admitting that your ONLY source of input has been watching conspiracy videos that lie to you? How about admitting that you don't know anything whatsoever about Apollo that isn't found in anti-Apollo videos, because anti-Apollo videos have literally been your only source of input on the topic? Are you capable of making that admission?
    3
  2387. It's called "math," dewdrop. Go figure it out.
    3
  2388. Oh, bravo. Where'd you learn physics? From watching Battlestar Galactica? Dewdrop, there's this thing called "gravity." And, yes, Earth's gravity is stronger than the moon's gravity. It only took a short burn to break free from lunar orbit. And, from then forward, it just "falls" back to Earth. If you don't agree, write it up and publish in any university-recognized physics journal on Earth. I promise I'll be your first rebuttal.
    3
  2389. "And I said that Russia monitor the radio signals, not that they track the them to the moon." Wrong. They had radar also. They used it to track their own craft (i.e. Luna 15), and the Apollo craft (i.e. Apollo 11, which was in orbit around the moon at the same time as Luna 15). And, guess what? The dishes they used to receive the radio signals (that you're acknowledging happened) were pointed AT THE MOON. They weren't pointed at a desert in Nevada, or Area 51, or a big hangar in an Air Force base. They were pointed AT THE MOON, receiving those radio signals.
    3
  2390. "They never went to the moon. It is scientfically and technological impossible. Otherwise, they would have gone there several times these past decades. We still don't have the technology to do it." Scientfically? Publish in some scientf journals then, dewdrop. Demonstrate why it's scientf impossible. But, first learn to read and write. Good grief. You have no understanding of the topic. Stop pretending you do.
    3
  2391.  @Souljourney22  These last few days, YouTube has been blocking millions of posts for no reason. I don't see anything from you. You're the only one who can see whatever you typed.
    3
  2392. Is this a joke? She abandoned her family over a decade ago, including a 6 month old son, husband, and another son, to live a life of crime and drugs. She spent a felony term in a Florida prison. And, she has an arrest record a mile long for various crimes: stealing cars, drug and alcohol charges, other thefts, failures to appear, etc. Nice person?
    3
  2393. Theirs way they they advanced tuck nolegee. Engirsh not stood undur.
    3
  2394.  @critthought2866  And 70 years old.
    3
  2395. Dewdrop, suspicious timing would be if he died immediately after Apollo. But, nope. He lived for about 3 more decades, dying at 70 years old of a heart attack, while being short and weighing 300 pounds. Why would they hire an artsy, rich, and famous director anyway? It's just silly.
    3
  2396.  @yassassin6425  I suspect that they'd still have canceled Apollo 18-20, with or without the Apollo 13 incident. I believe that Apollo 13 made a good "excuse" to cancel those missions. But, I think they were already brewing to cancel Apollo, and even wanted to cut it shorter. Many people wanted to end it after Apollo 11 (but couldn't), and were gunning to end it after Apollo 14. But, like all things in politics, there are multiple sides to the coin, and there were advocates who also wanted Apollo never to end. But, yeah, in my opinion, Apollo was doomed to be canceled early anyway, and they used Apollo 13 as a nice ammunition, but, that they were probably going to cancel it by Apollo 17 anyway, with or without Apollo 13. My opinions might be worth nothing, and when it comes to political decisions, everyone has opinions worth nothing. But, those are my thoughts.
    3
  2397. Why should they? Her arrest had nothing to do with her suicide.
    3
  2398. Huh? They confessed that he parachuted out of the craft instead of landing in it. Why would they get "silenced" by it?
    3
  2399. "at the equator the earth spins at 1,000 mph" A little bit faster than that, yes, but that's close enough for conversation. "but we don’t feal it due the contrast of its enormous size" You don't "feel" speed in the first place. Do you "feel" speed when seated in an airplane at 600 mph? People don't feel speed, they feel acceleration. "why is the earth’s 1,000 per hour spin not noticeable when filmed,and photographed from the moon" How many Earth revolutions did you expect to see, and how much time would the camera need to be pointed at Earth to see it? "I would think that even if the technology of the 1969 cameras used on the moon was that of it’s time, or current time for that matter;the pictures sent back would be blurry from movement" Again, in order to respond, can you put a number on this? How many revolutions are you expecting to see, and in what amount of time? Don't just say you expect blur. So, for example, if you're looking at Earth from the moon, and you're paying attention to one cloud formation, or one continent, or whatever, how long do you think it would it take to be seen on the "left" side of Earth, and then disappear on the "right" side? "not to mention that the Astronauts would have mentioned something in regards to this…wouldn’t they??" Well, they mentioned the Earth a lot. They all said it looked spectacular. But, no, they never mentioned any blurring or wondering why they don't see it spinning.
    3
  2400. So, in your mind, once something is done, it must continue, else it was fake, huh? How many missions are enough for you? They sent 9 manned missions to the moon, 6 of which landed. That's not enough for you to believe it? They need 100 missions, otherwise it's fake? And, why can't congress cancel a program once its primary objective was achieved? During the height of the Apollo program, they spent about 4.5% of the entire federal budget on Apollo's hard costs, and about the equivalent of 2% more on the soft costs and international support. Do you think all of the other countries were just going to indefinitely contribute to Apollo for free? Do you think that spending that kind of money is sustainable? Apollo was approved and funded by congress in 1961, and carried through 1972 for the moon landings, and through 1975 for the Apollo applications such as Skylab and Apollo Soyuz. That's 15 years that congress funded Apollo, and they spent more money on it than a lot of wars cost (and for a lot longer). And, by then, not only had the public lost interest in spending that kind of money so that a handful of people could walk on the moon for a few hours each, but, the technology was getting quite old. Apollo wasn't scalable. They stretched it to the limits as it was, let alone more. They couldn't do polar landings. They couldn't do surface stays more than 74 hours. North American Aviation (the company that manufactured the command modules) was defunct long before Apollo even ended, and NASA had run out of capsules, with nobody lined up to make more of them. But, congress is never allowed (in your mind) to end a program that lasted 15 years? Why not? And, let's not pretend that this really matters to you. All you've done in thread after thread after thread is stick your head in the sand and deny the evidence presented to you, then you complain that the evidence doesn't even exist, and run for the hills and start a brand new thread instead. Sorry, but, you don't get to pretend that it would really matter to you if they continued Apollo longer than they did. It was a FIFTEEN YEAR LONG PROGRAM that spanned the presidencies of Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford. And, you can even maybe claim (sort of) that it even made it to Carter, because Skylab (an Apollo sub-program) was still up there until 1979 (though no manned missions went to Skylab under Carter). Apollo was one of the longest programs ever run by congress, and certainly THE longest one that costed that much money (outside of the permanent programs ya know, examples i.e. the Army or the Navy). So, explain to the world why you believe that congress shouldn't have ended Apollo, especially in the face of lacking public support, and already achieving all of the main objectives of the program?
    3
  2401. Do you just go from video to video to video, posting this same nonsense?
    3
  2402.  @Cliffmchrist  What in the world are you talking about? I'm not the one who cut-n-pasted the same message into about 50 different videos.
    3
  2403. It's called the Freedom of Information Act. And, sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. Nothing you're saying is even remotely accurate.
    3
  2404. Your English is a bit incorrect. But, I'm sure it's better than my [your language]. So, thanks for writing in English. Yes, at the lunar noon, the surface is very hot. They handled it by never going at the lunar noon. They always landed early in the lunar morning, long before it ever got that hot.
    3
  2405. Well, according to the police report, the video of the incident didn't match her story about a discreet act with nobody around. I tend to trust the police and innocent bystanders more than I trust a convicted felon who was trying to avoid her millionth arrest.
    3
  2406. Well, I could go on for hours about the evidence. But, just picking one piece out of a million pieces of evidence, what do you think about India's photos of the Apollo landing sites? You can see the landers, shadow of the Apollo 12 flag (still standing), shadows of the flame deflectors, etc.? You ask people to "think for a while." OK, have you thought about that?
    3
  2407. Huh? Where do you think most of SpaceX's money comes from, if not NASA? What in the world are you talking about? Are you under the impression that NASA builds rockets and spacecraft?
    3
  2408. You cannot possibly even be real at this point. Yes, dewdrop, a lunar day is 708 hours. The longest stay on the moon was 75 hours. There was no "overnight." There was no "high noon." There were no temperature swings of 370 degrees.
    3
  2409.  @stusue9733  "Apollo sun angles" will give you a much better relative time of day comparison. Only one mission even stayed on the lunar surface past 45 degrees (angle), and that was just barely. All of the troubles with the SPS engine caused a near abort, which resulted in delay in landing of Apollo 16. Otherwise, it would have been out of there before 45 degrees also. That's the equivalent of 9am at the equator.
    3
  2410.  @stusue9733  You'd also need to solve the problem of atmospheric scatter. That's something I've brought up with deniers before, in addition to the pure size of the lens/mirror you'd need. But, ultimately, they don't absorb very much information as it is. So, I dropped that issue lately. But, yeah, that's why we have space telescopes in the first place, to get outside the atmosphere, and avoid atmospheric scattering. But, if anybody builds a quarter mile wide mirror/lens, yeah, now you either need to get that thing into space somehow, or you'd need to wait for some amazing miracle cold days with extremely low air movements, or you're still not seeing anything.
    3
  2411. Really? A truck rolling a few feet is a "working truck"? It's not hauling tens of thousands of pounds of cargo down the road. It's rolling a few feet on a stage. Good grief.
    3
  2412. Arizona State University designed, built, and runs the LRO camera. Their site has most of the rover photographs. It's only a few pixels each, but, they label them if you aren't sure where to look. Frankly, you'll find the rover tracks a lot easier than you'll find the rovers themselves. But, anyway, go check it out, if you still have difficulty finding them, let me know.
    3
  2413. Wow, can't do math, can't read or write, yet you think you understand aerospace engineering better than the entire world's aerospace engineers.
    3
  2414.  @KaoticReach1999  Of maybe you of know of you're wrong of if you of read of my initial posting of of.
    3
  2415.  @eventcone  Yes, each mission really only had one brief launch window per month. If they waited too long, the sun got too high at that landing spot, and they wouldn't be able to do the mission. Yes, sun angles are part of it. You're right, all Apollo missions landed while the sun was to the east at a low angle. But, it was for more reasons than just lighting (that was part of it). They also wanted to make sure the surface temperatures were correct also. By landing in the lunar morning (low sun angle to the east), this was after the deep cold of the lunar night, and it was before the high surface temperatures of the lunar afternoon. As much as it's true that a vacuum is a great insulator of heat, once you get to the real extreme temperatures of the lunar night or lunar afternoon, none of that equipment was designed for it (except the ALSEPs and the EASEP). So, yes, they landed in the lunar morning, stayed no more than 74 hours, and left in the same lunar morning. Apollo 16 saw the highest sun angle on the surface of any mission, at a hair over 45 degrees. Apollo 17 stayed a bit longer than Apollo 16. But, Apollo 16 was more equatorial, and also had a delay in landing due to a problem with the SPS engine. This caused them to land a good deal later than they planned, thus putting the sun angles a little bit higher, and recording the highest surface temperatures of any Apollo mission. But, yeah, 45 degrees is still nothing compared to what it would be like during a lunar noon, or afternoon.
    3
  2416. It's BECAUSE they themselves don't have great minds. So, they love to target the great minds to attempt to drag them down to their own level by pretending that the great minds failed just as badly as they have.
    3
  2417. "seemingly human beings"? Soooo, you think they're actually lizard people, right? Was it drugs? Is that what did this to you?
    3
  2418. The Apollo 13 movie took a lot of liberties with the facts. Like, what in the world was all of that 20 amps stuff about? (Listen to the commentary track, even Jim Lovell himself has no idea where Ron Howard came up with that story line.) The answer is rather straightforward: there was no way to actually represent the technology in the couple of minutes they spent on it, so, Howard simplified the plot by just making this "20 amps" story so that he didn't have to burn 20 minutes of the movie trying to explain the complexity of Apollo's power systems. A similar thing is true of the Mylar and Kapton foils. They just give you a simplified view. The Mylar and Kapton foils were made for protection from radiation, yes, but, only specific types. Mainly, frankly, light, and anything else in the low energy electromagnetic spectrum. Sure, those foils aren't doing squat against gammas or something. But, thankfully, there just aren't that many gammas in space. The foils reflected basic electromagnetic energy (such as visible light photons, and most other wavelengths causing heat) pretty well, and, they weren't bad against basic particle radiation either. And, by wrinkling them, they created thousands of little vacuum gaps to help prevent heat transfer by physical contact (vacuums are great insulators). There's no way Ron Howard was going to sit there and burn 10 minutes of movie time on explaining electromagnetic radiation, particle radiation, etc., and the role of the foils. It wasn't a documentary. It was a drama based upon true events. It stayed true to the actual Apollo 13 mission as much as reasonably possible, but, yes, they took liberties in the interest of telling the story more cleanly, without trying to make the movie into an engineering lesson. No, the foils were not the only thing protecting them. There was a complete spacecraft hull underneath those foils. The foils were known as part of the "thermal blanket."
    3
  2419. You've asked this same thing in different ways in other threads... unless there's another "D M" who refuses to read the answers to his own questions in these videos.... There are many reasons, starting with the fact that you're confused by the fact that Google Maps shows the word "satellite" when actually referring to photos taken from low flying airplanes (read their own FAQ on how they actually got those photos). This has made you painfully unaware of reality when it comes to satellite photography. Secondly, what difference does it make anyway? You'd reject it regardless, right? Thirdly, yes, the best Earth orbital photography is a bit better than lunar orbital photography from LRO, even when LRO dropped its altitude. Why? Because LRO isn't a spy satellite. It's not made for that. It's an entire package of numerous sensors and communications equipment, designed to last over a decade (and it has). If you want better photography, then sorry, but you need to give up something else (some of the fuel, some of the other sensors, etc.). They packed as much as they could in the 4,000 pounds they had as the payload maximum. And, sure, they could have made the camera larger (the only way they'd get better pictures), but, at what cost of what other stuff? Do you want them to sacrifice some of the fuel in order to install a bigger camera? Name the item you'd give up. Can you? And, lastly, sorry, but all you're doing is shifting the goalposts. I realize the LRO photos are not clear enough to read a serial number or something, but, they're definitely clear enough to see the landers, rover tracks, shadows of flags, etc. So, what's your beef? What EXACTLY do you want? If they got better photos with double the resolution, you're just going to say it's not good enough until there's triple resolution, right? When they get triple, you'll say it's not good enough until they get quadruple. Shift the goalposts. Shift the goalposts. That's all you people ever do.
    3
  2420. "DO THEY HAD WIRELESS CAMERA" Yes. "JUST NEED A SIMPLE PUSH" A rocket engine isn't a simple push.
    3
  2421. Yes, the Apollo 11 moonwalk was viewed all around the world, with the largest TV audience in history at that time.
    3
  2422. Sorry. I don't know what you're talking about, and neither do you.
    3
  2423. A) Do you really think electrical stuff withstands higher temperatures than nylon? B) We don't know for sure why the solar panels stopped working after 3 weeks, but, it's not likely due to heat. It was quite cold when they failed (lunar overnight).
    3
  2424. So, you don't know what the evidence is, yet, you've clearly already come to your conclusions. Good grief. And, you're already changing topics. Dewdrop, you're supposed to change topics and run for the hills AFTER people present you with the evidence you're pretending to ask for. You've preempted that, and you're basically telling the world that you're not interested in the evidence you're asking for. And, note: you didn't open by asking for the evidence. You opened by ignoring the evidence, and looking for warped reasons to deny reality. Bravo!!
    3
  2425. And, this mess was your edited version? Good gods, man. Have you considered learning to read and write, rather than worrying about conspiracies you don't even come close to understanding?
    3
  2426. And, my reply isn't visible. So, I'll rewrite. Yeah, they landed literally on the landing of the landing. And, sorry, but you cannot feel texture through gloves and boots.
    3
  2427. "A couple things that I haven't heard from people who don't think we went to the moon are communications to and from earth" That's because the people who reject the moon landings have no understanding of communications systems. "and the video footage that was allegedly shot in real time from the earth to the moon." Well, yes, "real time" plus 1.3 seconds of propagation delay. "Considering the beginning of satellite dishes" The beginning? You mean like a decade or two prior to the Apollo missions? Like, back in the 1950s, when they were aiming those massive dishes at Mars and Venus and Mercury? They weren't called "satellite dishes" because there were no satellites. But, yeah, they used those massive dishes to try to receive radio signals from distant pulsars, or to shoot radar at Venus, etc. "with them having to be pointed in a certain direction to be able to get channels in on earth" Yes and no. Low orbit satellites could be picked up with omni antenna. But, yes, for geosync satellites, they used directional dishes. "could be an argument of proof that it could have been impossible to get real time footage from the moon to earth." Well, people who know nothing about Apollo do "argue" that, but, it's ridiculous. They don't know what they're talking about. I mean, these very same dishes that could receive a radio signal from a pulsar from lightyears away, amounting to a millionth of a watt of energy... couldn't be pointed at the moon to receive Apollo's radio? It's a silly belief. OF COURSE those dishes could pick up Apollo's signals. There were thousands of engineers around the world setting up the DSN to do exactly that. The world's foremost experts on radio communications were involved. And, yet, the deniers are so ridiculous that they say silly things like, "a TV antenna on Earth can only pick up a signal from 100 miles away, how does anything communicate with the moon?" (The answer is that they don't understand radio, they don't understand Earth's curvature, they don't understand omni antennae vs. directional dishes, and don't understand anything about communications systems in any way.) "Same with radio and phone communication from the moon to earth." Um, you wouldn't happen to be one of those very same nuts, would you? "It's still hard to do so on earth even with today's technology." What in the world are you talking about? Today, you can go buy a dish from a satellite TV provider, and install it yourself in a couple of hours, and you'll be streaming TV in no time. There are even some dishes that self-align, scanning the sky all by themselves, until they find the correct angles. That's how easy it is. And, I mean, good grief, have you ever heard of a "moon bounce" or "EME"? That's when backyard amateurs bounce radio signals off of the moon to talk with people half way around the world, using the moon as a radio reflector. They have been doing that since a decade before the Apollo program even started. Why do you think this is difficult today?
    3
  2428. Is this a joke? The GTA6 rumors were all over the place for the past few years, well before the official announcement. Just look up "GTA6 rumors" from the last few years, and you see them all over the place. So, you're wrong about the notion that it was kept a secret. And, dewdrop, you're not asking anybody to become a criminal by making GTA6 (a bit ironic given the subject matter of the game, but, whatever). But, if you ask 450,000 people to commit the largest crime in human history, um, yeah, that's a different animal altogether.
    3
  2429. She had two kids. And, good grief, go back to school to learn to read and write.
    3
  2430.  @nicsandee123  Yes, it's quite amazing that the conspiracy people just look at a footprint (large grooves), look at the inner boot (smooth with a layer of Velcro), and then scream "FAKE!!" without taking the time to realize there was an overshoe boot used on the moon. It just goes to show that they're not really interested in the actual information. They're only interested in adding to the pile of nonsense that they use to defame Apollo. They won't take 2 minutes to verify if their own claims are accurate. To them, the only important thing is to make the claims... they don't care if their claims are true or not... just making the claim that Apollo was fake is the important part.
    3
  2431. Um, yeah. Was there a point that he even pretends this CGI video is real?
    3
  2432. So, loose protons and electrons cause fire/burning? That's what you believe? Yet, you don't believe that people went to the moon?
    3
  2433. Yeah, when you see a guy cranking at the playground in front of kids, leave him alone, he's not hurting anybody.
    3
  2434. It was the path back to the police cars. And, why do so many commenters make such a big deal of the walk? She had been arrested a million times before, so, I'd expect she'd be used to it by then. Plus, she wasn't shy when cranking it in front of an audience on the beach, so, why would she suddenly become shy when in the restaurant?
    3
  2435. There are tons and tons more. But, if I key in too many, YouTube blocks the posting.
    3
  2436.  @michaelstillman1171  They've moved the timeline info over to NASA document SP-4029. So, unfortunately, you can't just Google it any longer. It's more cumbersome now, because it's all crammed into one document. But, whatever, things change.
    3
  2437. You rest your case that this video consists of computer animation? Um, ok, was anybody ever claiming that this video ISN'T computer animation?
    3
  2438. And, the "evidence" you offer to support this silly viewpoint is that there isn't an Apollo national holiday? THAT's your evidence (from your other posting)??
    3
  2439.  @aaaaaa2206  No. That's not how it works.
    3
  2440. Hilarious. "No way to dispute"? How about simple photochemistry? My favorite example, was "apollo crosshairs on flag." The red stripes show the crosshairs. The crosshairs are bleached out on the white stripes. So, did the lizard people who staged Apollo paint crosshairs onto flags, but only painted the red stripes, and not the white stripes? Or, is it because a slightly overexposed image will cause bleeding of the film chemistry to white out the crosshair on the light spots, but not the dark spots? Which is the more reasonable explanation? I mean, with all of these crosshair "errors" throughout the Apollo photographs, is it not surprising to you that there's never a missing crosshair on a dark object, only light objects? No? The lizard people knew how to properly paint crosshairs on dark objects, but, forgot to do so on light objects? It's not just film chemistry that causes it?
    3
  2441. "Show us the sun while you're up there? Never will happen," Dewdrop, they took many photos of the sun. And, after they hardened the video cameras for Apollo 15/16/17, they pointed the video cameras at the sun also. Yes, the cameras on Apollo 11-14 couldn't be pointed at the sun without burning out the vidicon. But, after that, they pointed the cameras at the sun numerous times. And, as I said, there are countless 70mm photos pointed toward the sun. "the reason the shuttle will never be sent during the nite sky" Both Apollo and the shuttles had night launches sometimes. Good grief. You clearly know nothing. "They can't land correctly back on earth now with gravity. No way to land without gravity and damages. Atmosphere pressure is always moving unless tied down" Good grief. You weren't under the impression that those sentences mean anything, were you?
    3
  2442. The backup tapes and the primary copies were both just as "original" as each other. They were both recording at the exact same time. Yes, they lost the backup copies, and the primary copies are still intact. So what? Why does this matter to you? Nobody in history ever even watched the backup copies. Not a single time. Why do you care whether they were lost?
    3
  2443. "How did they get the moon car there" seems like an awfully good thing to put into a search bar. But, I guess that's too much trouble, eh?
    3
  2444. The Concorde is a lie. If they could carry 100 passengers and luggage at mach 2 for 3000 miles back then, why now in 2022 we can't?
    3
  2445. They sent 9 manned missions to the moon. 6 of them landed. That's not "going back" in your mind?
    3
  2446. Really? Enoch says the moon is a hologram and talks about electromagnetic waves?
    3
  2447. Um, shouldn't he have "blessed" them all BEFORE this incident?
    3
  2448. What do you think you know about the topic that every single space agency on the planet, staffed with the vast majority of the world's experts on the topic, don't know?
    3
  2449. "there being no way to remove air" It's called a purge valve. There were two of them on each lunar lander. "and store it" It's called an oxygen tank. Each lunar lander had them. "and allow them to exit" It's called a door. Each lunar lander had one. They also had a docking hatch. "and return the air" Return it to where?
    3
  2450. Thanks for confirming that every single person who has "true" or "truth" in his nickname, actually doesn't know what that means.
    3
  2451. Five of the six flags are still standing. Only Apollo 11's flag was blown over.
    3
  2452. "The video follows the two of them around" That is completely untrue on Apollo 11. The camera only moved when Armstrong took it off of the side of the lander, and mounted it to a tripod, and placed it around 40 feet away from the lander. It never moved a single time after that.
    3
  2453. Dan, Yes, it's part of the 2 rules that I've been saying for years: Rule 1: All evidence for Apollo is fake, no matter where it comes from or how valid it is. Rule 2: All evidence against Apollo is real, no matter how outlandish. Those are their only two rules. So, when they see a "confession" by Stanley Kubrick, from a guy who doesn't even look like Stanley Kubrick, they just blindly accept it. Meanwhile, they pretend that THEY are the skeptics, and that the sane people are the ones blindly accepting what we are told.
    3
  2454. YOU SAID: "Wellllll N.A.S.A. has Stated we CAN'T go to Mars until we figure out how to pass through the Van Allen belts without Dying . Post is on YouTube . Just saying ." == Well, that's what you get when your entire "education" about a subject is a 30 second clip of an "introduction to Orion" video made for children. See, in your mind, yup, all of those decades upon decades of study of the Van Allen belts, yup, toss it all in the trash, Kelly Smith said they're working on shielding, therefore Apollo never happened. That's how your brain works, huh? If a 30 second clip says something, nothing else matters to you, huh? Oh, who cares that he was talking about shielding for an entirely different craft with entirely different mission profiles... naw, that doesn't matter... if they don't just slap the identical shielding on it that they used for Apollo, Apollo didn't happen. After all, a 30 second clip said so, and that's all you need to know. If it takes more than 30 seconds to understand something, then pooof, it doesn't matter to you. That's your attention span, and if the rest of the world doesn't fit into your 30 second understanding, then the rest of the world is committing a giant hoax, just to fool YOU.
    3
  2455. Huh? This is a CGI rendering. What could you possibly even mean when you ask who's filming it?
    3
  2456. Congratulations on demonstrating that you didn't read the responses to your own comments.
    3
  2457. Dewdrop, YOU are the one who knows so little about the topic that your original assertion was that there's no gravity on the moon. THAT is how little you understand. "What is the moon's gravity" would tell you that you're wrong (if you understood how to use a search engine). Or, you could go learn some physics. I mean, I would have thought any child would know that the moon's gravity causes the tides on Earth. But, whatever, you don't understand it. And, yet, after this embarrassingly ridiculous assertion of yours, what do you do? Do you back off, humbled by not understanding something any 6 year old knows? Nope, instead, you amp it up, change topics, talk about more things you understand nothing about, and declare victory? "I'm the world's greatest basketball player, with more underwater touchdowns than anybody 🤔☁🤣🤣🐻." That's exactly what you sound like. You don't understand ANYTHING about the topic. Yet, you profess expertise anyway. Sheeeesshhhh.
    3
  2458. "The technological ability in getting there(again if you will)" Can you name a technological ability that they lacked during Apollo, that would have prevented the spacecraft and rockets from doing what they were designed and built to do? Don't just say "technological ability" as if it's supposed to mean something. Name the exact technology you think they lacked, and then explain why the thousands of people who worked on that technology failed to realize that they built stuff that couldn't do what they designed it to do. Can you? "if they went there in the past under less sophisticated measures, what the hold up now?" Well, in the bigger picture, there is no holdup now. Artemis was funded in 2019, and has been proceeding at the pace that congress funded it. Yes, it's true that Trump/Pence/Bridenstine asked for more funding to get there by 2024 (which would have been during Trump's 2nd term, had he been reelected). But, congress never approved the money at that pace. So, Artemis has been proceeding at the exact pace congress has funded it. Sure, the pandemic was a holdup. And, selecting that ridiculous SpaceX Starship for a lander... that monstrosity will be another holdup. (I'd love to have been a fly on the wall when they selected that ridiculous thing... like why? But, I digress.) But, the program is proceeding. What don't you understand here? "Should be some what simple for them,being it's been done under less sophisticated technology." Yes, dewdrop. It is. If you adjust for inflation into today's dollars, Apollo costed about $300 billion in hard costs, and about another $100-$150 billion in soft costs and international support. Artemis is operating on a budget of about $35 billion. Yes, that's because it's far more simple now, because there's a lot less in research and development costs. You got your wish. It's simpler and cheaper now. What more do you want here? Why do you not understand this? I mean, don't get me wrong, this is a government operation, therefore the costs will balloon out of control, with no hope of doing it on time and under budget. But, whatever, it's still cheaper than Apollo was. "It's like aero dynamics," Dewdrop, doesn't it even remotely bother you that none of you deniers can read and write? I mean, I've read a couple dozen of your posted messages now, and it's always like reading a paper written by a 2nd grader. You constantly butcher the daylights out of the English language, just as badly as you butcher civics and your general understanding of how this stuff works. You understand the world at a 2nd grader's level (i.e. you DON'T understand things). Did it ever occur to you that you might have a shot at understanding the world better if you knew how to read and write? No? You're just going to walk through life with the understanding of the world that a 2nd grader has, and the reading and writing level of that very same 2nd grader? "Aerodynamics" is one word, dewdrop. I mean, it's just one spelling correction among a parade of absolute gibberish you've been spewing non-stop. But, good grief, message after message after message, I just got to the point that I couldn't read another word of this ridiculous babble you're spewing without saying something. Sheeessssshhh. Are you PROUD of your literacy level (lack thereof)? "the Wright Brothers flew and look at the aircrafts today, none regressive but most certainly progressed most certainly." Yes, dewdrop. Airplanes were always going to have a commercial market, thus keep advancing. Going to the moon has virtually no commercial market. And, unlike airplanes, there are virtually no economies of scale with rocketry to the moon. Thermodynamics prevents it. I'm sure that's another topic you know nothing about. But, good grief. This is like trying to explain calculus to an earthworm. "reverse engineering should be a cinch for the Artemis program in relatively no time." First of all, there's almost nothing in Artemis that needs any reverse engineering. Secondly, reverse engineering is more expensive and time consuming than engineering from scratch. Just look at the TU-4 if you want a nice example of reverse engineering that turned out to be a disaster. Thirdly, as I already explained, you got your wish. Artemis is operating on a budget of about $35 billion, whereas Apollo consumed about $300 billion in hard costs, and another $150 billion (approximate) in soft costs and international support. Artemis is looking to do the job for less than 10% of what Apollo did it for. But, don't you worry, dewdrop, we'll find a way to make it cost triple. It'll balloon out of control sooner or later. "no one else has seemed to made to the moon either" No other government has been willing to spend that kind of money. But, yes, dewdrop, there are other governments trying to do it now. China, for example. "but sending plenty probes up there but no human " Yes, and what do you think of India's and China's probes? You are aware that both Indian and China have used those probes to take photos of some of the Apollo landing sites, right? They show the Apollo landers on the lunar surface, exactly where the original mission photography showed them. What do you have to say about that? Not good enough, right? You're always going to keep shifting the goalposts, and ask for more, right?
    3
  2459. NASA's funding is fully public, you know. The only exceptions are occasional portions of the space shuttle missions that launched military payloads. The payloads and their budgets were secret. But, the rest of the funding isn't secret. I'll eat my hat if you have ever lifted a finger to read the budgets you're pretending you know so much about.
    3
  2460. The purpose of the Apollo program was mainly as a political demonstration of power, technology, and the industrial capability of the USA during the cold war. The Soviets were escalating their aggression, and it seemed inevitable that nuclear war would be the next step. Apollo was a warning: "if you mess with us, we will beat you, we will always beat you." And, if we could land a bunch of missions with pinpoint accuracy on the surface of the moon, we could land a bunch of nuclear missiles with pinpoint accuracy upon their cities. Among all of the buildup of military capability, Apollo became the tip of the sword in keeping the cold war cold, rather than escalating to a real war that would end with tens of millions of people missing in the radioactive holes in the ground where cities used to be. That's what we have to show for it.
    3
  2461. The air tanks were pure oxygen, and the suits had lithium hydroxide scrubbers to allow the astronauts to keep rebreathing the same "air" over and over until the oxygen was consumed. I know the conspiracy videos tell you to complain about this, and compare it to a scuba tank. But, for a frame of reference, the Apollo oxygen system was about 25x more efficient than a scuba tank just under the water line, and 100x more efficient than a scuba tank submerged in 90 feet of water, where a vast majority of the oxygen is just exhaled and lost in bubbles.
    3
  2462. There is hand movement in the video, but, the rover was designed to be driven with minimal motion. Frankly, I find the Apollo 16 rover video to be the most powerful evidence of "faking" Apollo... but, that's not saying much, because it's easily explained (just as every other Apollo objection is easily explained).
    3
  2463. Wait, what? You don't think Antarctica has an atmosphere? I mean, I don't really understand your overall message anyway, but, that part was particularly baffling. I see you edited your message, and I think you must have overwritten some crucial thing, because this doesn't make sense.
    3
  2464. Carried your drunken Saturday night all the way through Sunday, I see.
    3
  2465. "man traveled on average 28,000mph" They never once even got to 28,000 mph, let alone average. "land PERFECTLY" Apollo 11 missed its desired landing spot by miles. Apollo 15 crashed into the surface so hard that it cracked and bent the engine bell. Apollo 14 landed on such a slope that it nearly was to the limit of its takeoff angle. Where do you see "perfection" in any of this? "in a craft that they COULDN'T land on Earth AT ALL A SAFELY" Um, ok. Yes, they couldn't land the craft on Earth, because it couldn't even lift off on Earth. How would you propose they handle that? The lander's maximum thrust was 10,500 pounds. The lander weighed 33,500 pounds. Please explain how you'd expect it to fly AT ALL on Earth? What would you have done? "Then there were NUMEROUS other manned missions to the Moon that went off PERFECTLY EVERY time!" Oh, you're a real genius alright. Apollo 13 ring a bell? It exploded half way to the moon. Yeah, that's "perfection" again. I'm guessing you've never even heard of the Apollo 13 failure, right? "All of this while Russia was ahead of the US" Um, no. The US passed the Soviets during Gemini. During the entire Gemini manned program (10 missions), the Soviets did not launch one single manned mission. The US clearly passed the Soviets at that point. And, by Apollo, the US was so far ahead that the Soviets couldn't even successfully launch their N1 rocket. "NOBODY else could replicate the technology to this very day!" Who would want to? "IT NEVER HAPPENED WITH MAN INSIDE OF IT." But, you don't know what you're talking about! How can you even formulate an opinion when you literally know nothing about the topic?
    3
  2466. So, the initial velocity of the dust doesn't matter? The angle doesn't matter either? Kick dust at 2 meters per second, the dust will go 1.6 meters high. Kick it at 0.01 meters per second, it goes 1.6 meters high. Kick it straight up, it will go 1.6 meters high. Kick it to the right or left, it will go 1.6 meters high. Yup, just like a baseball on Earth, right? Hit a baseball, it always goes the exact same distance and height, regardless of power or angle.
    3
  2467.  @marvin902x  I don't understand your point about only two instances that couldn't be done by an astronaut. All throughout Apollo 15/16/17, all of the TV video was remote controlled by Ed Fendell in Houston. None of the TV-video on those three missions could have been done by an astronaut. I don't understand why you're talking about two incidents.
    3
  2468. "Even Buzz Aldrin told Conan Obrien it was animation" Dewdrop, did you pay attention to what he said? Or, are those the only words you remember? Conan said he and his family watched Aldrin's landing live on television. Aldrin correctly told him that he did not watch the landing live, because it was only an animation. Yet you believe that this was some sort of "confession"? Good grief. Have you bothered to watch the animations he's talking about? He even explained that they didn't have live TV for the landing. Have you watched the landing video? It's clearly not a TV signal. It was shot on 16mm film. Nobody saw it live, because they had to wait until they got home to get the film developed. So, yes, the broadcasters all played cartoonish animations during the landing instead. Go watch some of them. They're readily available on YouTube. The live TV wasn't available until after they landed. You don't know what you're talking about.
    3
  2469. Because it would cost more to mine the minerals on the moon than those minerals could ever be sold for. It's not all that different in concept to why we don't drill 1,000 miles deep for diamonds on Earth. We know there are diamonds down there. But, it would cost more to go get them than we could ever sell them for. But, who told you anybody is mining minerals on Mars? What are you talking about? There's never even been a single sample return mission from Mars yet... let alone a mining operation.
    3
  2470. That's it? It's been a week. You made multiple postings, asking questions. You got your answers. Now, you're just walking away without answering any return questions? You're not a crackpot, are you? You weren't just pretending to ask questions, falsely expecting nobody could answer, were you? You aren't a drug addled flat Earther, are you?
    3
  2471. Why aren't you rewriting physics then? If you believe that the well understood formula for calculating the size lens/mirror required to see things is wrong, then why aren't you writing the correct formula? I'm sure there's a Nobel Prize in it for you if you are able to prove that photons don't work the way we understand them to work. You were told the size lens/mirror required, and you rejected it. So, why are you on YouTube? Why aren't you rewriting physics? On wiki, there's a page called "optical resolution" which shows you the well understood formula for calculating the size of lens/mirror required. On Earth, the size is about 75 feet in diameter to see a lunar lander as just a dot. You wouldn't know what it was, it would just be a dot. If you want enough resolution to begin to know what it is, you need a lens/mirror about a quarter mile in diameter to produce that kind of resolution. That's what the math shows. But, you believe the math is wrong, and that no physicist on the planet is aware, right? So, publish. Prove it wrong. And, in the meantime, also explain why no telescopes are capable of doing what you propose. Can you?
    3
  2472. YOU SAID: "Where is the sun 🌞?" == Well, this documentary doesn't show it. But, if you go watch the original Apollo 17 videos, they point it at the sun many times. It doesn't make for very good documentary footage, though, because the picture gets all bright, the contrast looks pretty wacky, they try to adjust it, but then it just makes everything else (besides the sun) look blackened. But, you're welcome to go have a look anyway. YOU SAID: "We don't see the sun" == Yes, you do. You just have to watch the complete videos, instead of little documentaries. YOU SAID: "and earth 😂" == They pointed the camera at Earth many times also. And, if you'd watch the video before commenting on the video, they even show you one of those times in this very video. Oh, but no. Instead, you insert your ridiculous laughy face, as if you think stupidity is an asset. YOU SAID: "and no any star's from moon ? we see only black sky ?" == Um, generally speaking, yeah, it was daytime, so, it's hard to see stars on video. Black sky or not, it was very bright out. Even at night, it's very difficult to capture stars on video. Go try it yourself. It's very hard to do on Earth, without long exposure times, and time-lapse video to accommodate. With a low res live-feed camera, forget it, you can't see stars. But, they did take hundreds of photos of the stars, if that matters to you.
    3
  2473. Wait until you have children and it's a creepy guy at a playground with your kids watching.
    3
  2474. Is that what you'd do if you were at a playground with a guy doing the same thing? Just take your kids to a different playground?
    3
  2475. I think you're simply not aware of all of the problems encountered on the Apollo missions.
    3
  2476. You are naming productive and profitable industries. Of course other countries have replicated them. Apollo costed more than the entire gross domestic product of about 80% of the nations on Earth. The best equivalent (which still doesn't come close) is to compare it to building the pyramids, when 30,000 citizens spent a decade of their lives building a gigantic tomb for one person. We haven't done that again, have we? Well, Apollo had 450,000 people spending a decade of their lives building the equipment required for 12 people to walk on the moon for a few hours each. And, why is this a "logic" experiment for you? Why not just look at the evidence?
    3
  2477. Why are you pretending to know things you do not?
    3
  2478. Yet another dewdrop that thinks the word "radiation" automatically means the same stuff you get in nuclear reactors or nuclear bombs. Good grief. Sound is radiation. Light is radiation. Ionic particles are radiation. He probably thinks his microwave oven has a nuclear reactor inside, because microwaves are radiation.
    3
  2479. So, basically, you're saying the Concorde never existed? Huh?
    3
  2480.  @joemarshall4226  Dewdrop, if you think jumping is a linear equation, like 1/6th gravity is 6x jumping height, you're wrong. But, ok, let's play that game anyway. Now, go put on an 88 pound pressure suit, an 80 pound PLSS backpack, a 20 pound OPS and radio on top, and some miscellaneous hoses and tools and stuff for another 20 pounds, some double-layered moon boots, then see how high you can jump. OK? Then see if 19 inches isn't 6x higher. But, the thing is, it's NOT a linear equation. And, 19 inches wasn't the highest they jumped. Secondly, sorry, you don't just get to declare how high you think dust would fly. I'm sorry you're blinded by your hatred, but, should that really be the rest of the world's problem?
    3
  2481. Spring loaded, dewdrop. They didn't want it flopping open while driving. It's supposed to stay up when completely open, but springs would hold it shut when closed.
    3
  2482.  @stusue9733  No, he's correct, it's not a real photo, for many reasons. First of all, I don't recognize the photo. Not that my memory is foolproof, but, I'd expect to remember a photo taken while the guy is hanging sideways off of the ladder (something I don't believe ever happened). And, well, not that I necessarily remember 7,000 photos, but, I mean, believe it or not, I think I'd recognize it. Secondly, the mission patch, albeit a bit dark to make out, its undoubtedly from Apollo 11. To confirm, I took a screen shot and zoomed in. The only patch it could be from is Apollo 11, because you can basically make out the shadows of the white eagle head, the wing, and the Earth. There were no other mission patches that even remotely match. Yet, they only had one Hasselblad on the lunar surface on that mission. But, the photo is depicting two (the one taking the photo, and the one in the astronaut's hands). Plus, the sun angle is too low for Apollo 11. Apollo 12 was the only mission with that low of an angle. But, it's definitely not an Apollo 12 mission patch. Plus, like the original poster said, you'd expect the reflection of the camera to be more visible and closer. And, it really couldn't be from Apollo 14 or onward, because there was never a point in any of those missions where the commander was on the ladder when the LMP was on the ground. And, if the commander was on the ground, if it came from Apollo 14-17, then there should be a red stripe on top of the helmet. The only two missions that had no red stripe for the commander were Apollo 11 and 12. And, like I said, I just can't find a match. Anyway, I could go on, but, I think the makers of the documentary manufactured that photo. Just for confirmation, I went through every Apollo 11 and 12 photo, and couldn't find it. I also couldn't get the backgrounds to match either Apollo 11 or Apollo 12. So, yeah, a million things wrong with that photo.
    3
  2483. "No other nation has even attempted to travel to the moon" Huh? See, dewdrop, back in the 1960s, perhaps you might know that there was this thing called the "Soviet Union" or "USSR"? No? It's gone now. But, back then, yes, they attempted to go to the moon. They flew multiple lunar landers in space on test missions. They attempted to launch four different N1 moon rockets, which were the size required to send men to the moon. But, unfortunately for them, their N1 rockets had too many design flaws, and kept exploding. One of those launch attempts was just 2 weeks before Apollo 11 went to the moon. Yes, they very clearly were trying to go to the moon. Maybe you should know a little bit more about history before proclaiming that something never happened, eh? "plus with today's technology why haven't we went back?" Funding. Congress controls every dime of NASA's money, dewdrop. If congress doesn't give the green light (funding) for moon missions, then there are no moon missions. NASA can't buy a stick of chewing gum without congress' approval (funding), let alone just decide on their own to send people to the moon. Despite the attempts of many different administrations over the years since Apollo, congress always denied funding to any manned moon missions after 1972. But, that changed in 2019, when congress began funding the Artemis program. So, you're getting your wish. They are now building the stuff required to return to the moon. "Van Allen radiation belt, that's why!" So, you didn't wait for the answer to your question before providing your own answer? How honest of you. Um, dewdrop, who told you that? Was it a conspiracy video? Let me guess, you watched a Kelly Smith video made for children, presented to you within a conspiracy video, that told you that they had to solve a bunch of problems before sending Orion into the Van Allen belts, and you deduced that this meant Apollo didn't happen, right? Um, no. He was talking about the fact that Orion's electronic equipment is different than Apollo's, and they needed to test Orion in the Van Allen belts before putting people inside. And, they performed that test a decade ago. Yet, here you people are, still quoting from that video, as if it's relevant. And, you think that a video made for children is somehow an "admission" about never going through the Van Allen belts, eh? Am I correct? Do I understand you correctly? The irony here is that most children (the target audience of that video) understood the Kelly Smith video better than you did. Not all craft are the same, dewdrop. They ran the same tests on Apollo before putting people inside the Van Allen belts also. Apollo 6 went up through the belts with nobody onboard, just as they sent Orion through the belts with nobody onboard about a decade ago. So, why are you people still quoting from a video made for children?
    3
  2484.  @stusue9733  Well, the 50 year old primary tapes get played from time to time. They don't show much degradation in video. But, the audio is an issue. Because the reels of tape are wound up, the audio tends to "bleed" to pieces of tape touching each other. And, you can actually hear some faint voices before they're spoken (then spoken the normal way), because the audio has bled over to the tape touching it and gets played that way. I guess the video might suffer the same problems, but, I haven't personally seen it. But, then again, I don't work at NASA, so, I don't have access to check for myself.
    3
  2485. Yeah, the "dark one" steers you away from the creator, straight toward a crater.
    3
  2486. One of the "audience" recorded it and gave a copy of the video to the police. It didn't match her version about nobody being around (her claim as she was attempting to get out of her millionth arrest). To the contrary, it is described in the report as a very loud and public video in view of multiple people including children. My guess is that she was trying to cry her way out of it because she figured there'd be a 50/50 chance of getting let go, before they look up her open warrants.
    3
  2487. Why should the veracity of Apollo be dependent upon what India does or doesn't do 50+ years later? How does this "argument" (sigh) even make sense to you?
    3
  2488. "the sheet metal work is on the lunar module" So, you don't understand why it was designed the way it was designed. So what? Please specify what you find wrong with it exactly, and what you'd do differently. It also helps if you refer to an actual timestamp.
    3
  2489. Are you looking at your high school diploma?
    3
  2490.  @michaelstillman1171  No, the dewdrop doesn't understand that in a vacuum, heavy things and light things fall at the same rate. But, since he reads and writes at a 2nd grade level, he's unable to ask the question in a coherent way.
    3
  2491. "I guess someone feels threatened that the narrative they clutch to could be wrong" Huh? Someone just posted a comment 24 minutes ago that even told you which film roll to view to discover that you're wrong. I'll go one better, and give you one (of the many) catalog number(s) of a photo that proves you wrong: AS16-107-17442. You clearly have just blindly regurgitated a false claim from a conspiracy video, because you never looked at the photo archive for yourself. Instead, you just repeat what the conspiracy videos say. Hint: they always lie. Yes, some of the landing pads have dust. There's no reason to expect a lot of dust, because, in a vacuum, dust will follow the same trajectory as a thrown rock. There's no air for the dust to swirl around and come back to the landing pads. But, yes, occasionally, some dust found its way into them. About a blast crater, I mean, really? What do you know about it? Why do you suppose there are no aerospace engineers who think there should be a blast crater? One of the reasons they made such a massive (20 sq. feet) engine bell was so that the thrust would spread far and wide, thus not creating any craters. But, now you're begrudging the engineers for making a proper design to avoid the exact thing you're complaining about? If you were an aerospace engineer, would you build the lunar module in such a way to create a massive dangerous crater? How would you have designed it differently? Are you even reading this message? I've seen plenty of your ilk, and usually you don't read replies to your own gibberish. So, can you prove you're reading this by writing "green" at the top of your reply (if you make one)? There are many photos showing plenty of evidence of rocket engines blowing on the surface beneath the landers. I'm sorry if your favorite conspiracy videos don't show you those photos. But, you need only flip through the photo archive for yourself, and you'll find out that you're wrong. So, you've decided, in advance, that you will never change your mind. So, no amount of evidence will ever matter to you, huh? And, you're PROUD of this?
    3
  2492. How much could she have left on the loan if she's been paying for it for 20+ years? This makes no sense to me.
    3
  2493. Nonsense. The angle of the reflector doesn't matter one bit. And, the overall accuracy is within millimeters. We know the position and angle of the moon during each pulse because we can see the moon and calculate the angles.
    3
  2494.  @bradleyrex2968  It means it wobbles.
    3
  2495. "I was just like you up until about 3 weeks ago." Hilarious! Um, no. I can tell you right now, you have NEVER been like me.
    3
  2496. There were NINE manned missions to the moon. Why do you think there was only one?
    3
  2497. A cash register technician who can barely spell his own name declares that IBM, Draper Labs/ MIT, and Raytheon, all didn't know what they were doing. Dunning-Kruger.
    3
  2498. You cannot even manage to put the correct timestamp in your message. Why should anybody think you're capable of determining fake from real?
    3
  2499. Well, I wasn't going to believe you, but, the emoji at the end is so convincing.
    3
  2500. "In 54 yrs since the moon landing US should have had large bases built on the moon" Oh, LARGE bases, eh? Most nuts just complain about the lack of a small base. But, you want a large one, eh? Alright, let's see, Apollo ran from 1961 through 1972 for the moon landing program, and through 1975 for applications such as Apollo-Soyuz and Skylab. At its peak in spending, it consumed 4.5% of the entire budget of the USA/fed in hard costs, and 2% more in soft costs and international support. That's basically about 6.5% of the entire country's money. And, what did they get for that? They got 13 Saturn V launches, and a total of 12 people who walked on the moon for a few hours, with the largest payload being a 400 pound rover. Now, you want LARGE bases? Like, hundreds of people for years at a time? In huge facilities with housing, plumbing, power generation, communications arrays, transportation, water, crops in massive greenhouses, medical, routine supply ships, etc.? I figured it would be around 1,000 Saturn V launches just to build a small base. You want a large one, so, what's that? Around 4,000 or 5,000 Saturn V launches? If 6.5% of the entire federal budget bought us 13 Saturn V launches, and the longest stay on the moon was 74 hours for two astronauts, exactly what percentage of the budget do you think it would take to build a large base up there? "possibly carrying out manned liftoffs from moon to the nearest planets" Why? If you're heading for another planet, why would you want to burn all of that fuel to stop and land on the moon, then use even more fuel to lift off of the moon and go to the planet? Space travel isn't like driving a car that needs gas refills. Once you get a spacecraft up to speed, you need to burn fuel to slow it down and speed it back up again. You're way better off just going straight to the planets, rather than stopping at the moon. But, I'm all ears. What did you have in mind, and why?
    3
  2501. There's quite a large spotlight about 90 million miles away, you know.
    3
  2502. Oh, you're a shrewd legal expert, aren't you? So, in your mind, they should give tickets for crimes? You do know the difference between a crime and infraction, don't you?
    3
  2503. Radar had been around for a while by then, you know. In the 1950s, for example, they used those huge dishes to shoot radar at Venus and Mercury, to track surface features and determine the speed and direction of the rotation of those planets, because they couldn't tell visually. Well, a lot of those same radar dishes that could track surface features of planets that were 80 million miles away, were used a decade or two later for Apollo, tracking those craft from 238,000 miles away. Furthermore, if you look at photos of the landers, you will see on top, in the center, there's a radar dish there too. That was used to track the location of the command module. And, between those radar tracking mechanisms (ground based and on top of the craft), plus some standard orbital mechanics, they could calculate the trajectories, not all that dissimilar to how a radar guided missile can find an enemy airplane from 150 miles out.
    3
  2504. "NASA kept the biggest secret and scandal, and now it claimed it destroyed all evidence" No, dewdrop. Nobody has made any such claim. A conspiracy video told you that claim, and you blindly swallowed it.
    3
  2505. "Japan and India? Ok, most people never heard of it. Show me the link of sources of your info" The sources are Japan and India. Their space programs are called JAXA and ISRO.
    3
  2506. Why are you so proud to be a nunkin jdjot? Good grief. It's like you think it's a good idea to tell the world you know absolutely nothing.
    3
  2507. "Capricorn One,(1977) you seen that? It was so easy to make a fake." Huh? You think that looked "real"? Good grief. Yes, dewdrop. I saw that movie. It didn't look real at all. "And yes, the sun being behind the earth" Dewdrop, if the sun was behind the Earth (relative to the moon) then that's what's called a "lunar eclipse." What in the world are you talking about? How can light from the sun hit the mirrors on the moon during a lunar eclipse? Good grief!!! You make no sense whatsoever. "so for me, let's say it was night and in front of me the moon, the sun being bigger than the earth could send its rays to the moon and over the earth" You clearly do not understand what you are talking about. No, dewdrop. The Earth completely obscures the sunlight from hitting the moon during an eclipse. And, of any sunlight that goes "around the Earth" (or "over the Earth" in your words), basically missing the Earth, guess what, that light would be reflected right back around the Earth in the same direction it came from!!! What's wrong with you!?!?!? You are proposing a scenario where the light misses the Earth and goes around, but, you think it won't miss the Earth on the return path? "so that the moon would reflect them back." Again, dewdrop, you didn't even watch the video before spewing this nonsense, and you thought there were no mirrors on the moon, remember? Why can't you just bring yourself to admit that you have no understanding of the topic, and that you didn't watch the video, and that you have no understanding of how those mirrors work? Why? Why must you stick your head in the sand and pretend you understand things you do not?
    3
  2508. Oh, another example of "they should have done XYZ" (while failing to realize that, yes, they did exactly XYZ). Dewdrop, they took 125 photos of the stars from the surface of the moon with the Carruthers UV telescopic camera with extended exposure times.
    3
  2509.  @delaney1969  YOU SAID: "The second blow and the taunting before executing them is what landed him a murder charge." == No. The murder charge was because he planned the murders in advance, not merely because of extra shots. He recorded himself practicing what he was going to tell the cops about shooting these two criminal teens... BEFORE THE CRIMINAL TEENS EVEN ARRIVED AT HIS HOUSE. He knew they were coming. And, he rehearsed what he was going to say to the police, including saying, on tape "in the left eye" (about where he was going to shoot them), then a couple of hours later, he shot the girl in the left eye, twice, from point-blank range, to execute her after she was no longer a threat. The murder charge most certainly wasn't because he shot her in the left eye twice. The murder charge was because he PLANNED to shoot her in the left eye, long before she got there. Between that, and a bunch of other reasons they know he premeditated the murders, is why he got convicted.
    3
  2510. The best of the recent flag photos came from India's lunar orbiter: the ISRO Chandrayaan2. The photo it took of Apollo 12's landing site is really nice, including the lander, and a very nice shadow of the flag just to the north of it (still standing, exactly where the original mission photography shows it). Maybe if you spent less time on silly emojis and more time actually trying to learn something, you might have found it yourself.
    3
  2511. So, when the Soviets sent two dogs into the very worst part of the Van Allen belts, they lived for 3 weeks. But, you think humans couldn't live for 30 seconds? What are you doing on YouTube? Why aren't you submitting your calculations to the cosmology and radiobiology journals?
    3
  2512. Marco Ribeiro: YOU SAID: "Those Moon Hoaxes thrives because Nasa has been incompetent in prooving undisputedly that the moon landings were for real." == Do you believe there is some sort of department at NASA with the job of proving something from 50 years ago? Whose job is that? Can you call NASA and ask for the "Proving Apollo" department? And, look, spare the world this ridiculous notion that they need more evidence. LRO has sent back hundreds of images of the Apollo landing sites for the past decade. How do conspiratards respond? They just deny those also. There's no convincing certain people. It's not a matter of "more evidence." The parade of conspiracy idiots will persist no matter how much evidence they are shown, and no matter how thoroughly debunked their silly anti-Apollo assertions are.
    3
  2513. Yes, the exact same thing happens with astronauts, other engineers, etc. If they sense that you're asking questions to put the moon landings in doubt, they often just don't want to deal with you. Also, ya know, maybe the guy just wanted his car fixed, and didn't want a long conversation about Apollo engineering with the guy getting car parts for him.
    3
  2514.  @laneyljk  The tape wasn't in the camera. The tape was in Parkes, Australia. And, dewdrop, if you can see the moon, you can send radio to/from the moon. Light and radio are the same basic thing.
    3
  2515. A conspiracy video told you they didn't take photos of Earth, so, you decided to believe it without looking for yourself. The reality is, of course, there are hundreds upon hundreds of photos of Earth from the lunar surface, from the transit between the Earth and moon, and from lunar orbit. Many of those photos became the most iconic in human history. But, the makers of the conspiracy videos know they can say just about anything with full confidence that none of their followers will EVER fact-check them.
    3
  2516. Huh? China already confirmed Apollo in 2021 when they photographed all 6 landing sites with Chang'e-2. What difference would a mission from 2030 make?
    3
  2517. How about the astronauts who DID swear on Sibrel's bible? Are those missions real, in your mind? So, the missions which contained astronauts who swore on the bible were real, but, the other missions were fake?
    3
  2518. Did you really want the correct answer, or, do the emojis mean that you have no intention of listening to the answer?
    3
  2519. Dewdrop, there were 9 manned missions to the moon. 6 of those missions landed on it. If that's not returning, what is?
    3
  2520.  @blueforest4589  Hilarious!!! You, once again, just make things up as you go.
    3
  2521. So, what are you waiting for? If you think radiometric dating doesn't date the formation of the rocks, why are you bothering with YouTube? You can rewrite entire fields of geology!!! And, even though there's not a Nobel Prize for geology, I'm sure they'd squeak you in under chemistry or physics.
    3
  2522. Except the 2 engines that failed on Apollo 6... the 1 that failed on Apollo 13....
    3
  2523. And, given that China, India, South Korea, and LRO have all photographed all 6 of the Apollo landers on the moon, exactly where they're supposed to be... how does that go, in your mind? They managed to send landers exactly the right size, to exactly the right places, but decided not to put people inside those landers? India and LRO have the resolution required to see rover tracks and foot paths. Did the robots drive the cars and walk around? If they could do all that, why NOT just put people inside?
    3
  2524. Shocker. Another dewdrop who reads and writes at a 2nd grade level, with absolutely zero understanding of the topic, denying Apollo. I have over 1000 scuba dives, and I can assure you, you know absolutely nothing about scuba diving (nor about Apollo). And, for you to sit there and say that you think there's no gravity on the moon?? Clearly you never graduated high school. And, even grammar school is in question in your case.
    3
  2525. It's a CGI photo of Earth. That photo isn't in any of the Apollo archives. And, it's far too green to be an unmodified photo from space. Just like reds get lost in underwater photography without CGI help or red filters added, greens get lost through the atmosphere, and must be CGI added back in. NASA is pretty good at labeling which photos they modify and which ones they don't. But, in this documentary, where they're not telling you what photo that is, it's tough to judge.
    3
  2526. Well, if you can't find it, it must not exist.
    3
  2527. I don't even know what you're asking me at this point. What "dim light in a closet"? Good grief.
    3
  2528. Your sentence clipped off before you could finish it - "to high school."
    3
  2529. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    3
  2530. What EXACT technology did they lack, such that you think it was not possible? And, how do you explain how none of the thousands of engineers working on that particular technology ever realized that they failed to design/build something that could do the job that it was designed to do?
    3
  2531. So, you still can't name the technology you think they lacked, such that it was impossible (your claim). And, instead, you keep spewing "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake" while claiming that's not what you're doing. Good gods.
    3
  2532. More proof positive that nobody with "truth" or "awake" or "woke" in their nicknames have any idea what "truth" means, and are fast asleep. Nobody ever claimed that Japan's JAXA/Selene's 3D images were "photographs." Japan never claimed they were photographs. They used topographical scanning along with 2D images to render the 3D computerized images you see. It doesn't make them "fake." It's just a product of how they produce the images. Like, if you've ever used an electron microscope (which, c'mon, what am I saying, of course you haven't), the images they render aren't technically photographs either. Yet, they work, and they produce images of things that are too small for us to see, but are very real. And, a thermal imaging camera doesn't produce a photograph either, yet, you can use them to see fires that burn outside the visible light spectrum. And, I just love how you people pretend you're so keen-eyed as to spot all of these "gotchas," while completely missing real errors. Like, just a couple of seconds before the image you're talking about, they label an obvious Apollo 15 photo of St. George and Hadley Rille as "Apollo 12." Anyway, go discover the real truth that your nickname suggests.
    3
  2533. The exact same way that he could call to/from Air Force 1. The exact same way he could call ocean ships. The exact same way anybody could call anybody's car phone since the 1940s when car phones were first invented. A person with a landline phoned an operator, who then plugged 2 wires into a radio transmitter. Later, this was automated. But, back then, it was a manual patch cord done by an operator.
    3
  2534. Yeah, let's trust criminally convicted taxi cab drivers who know nothing about the topic.
    3
  2535. What is it about moon landing deniers that makes it absolutely impossible to put catalog numbers, or timestamps, or any further reference to whatever in the world they're talking about?
    3
  2536.  @brianvincent4165  So what? You asked a question. I answered your question. Ed Fendell controlled the rovers' cameras on Apollo 15, 16, and 17.
    3
  2537. You didn't finish your sentence. After "it has to be," you meant to write: "my fragile ego depends on it."
    3
  2538. madder is believable if People going to building moons used money earth is if would more use
    3
  2539. Oh, and is this a joke? Jets are 10x better now? Where do you get that idea? Trains? Seriously? What new train technology? Ships? Good grief. What ARE you talking about?!?!!? The SR71 was a jet from the 1960s. We don't have anything like that now, not even remotely close. Where is that "advancement" in the last 50 years?
    3
  2540. "it should’ve so much more accessible and east in this era of technology if we already accomplished it" Um, yeah, that's why Artemis' budget is about 1/10th of Apollo's budget. (But, yes, it's expected to balloon to only 1/3rd of Apollo's budget. Still pretty good, relatively.)
    3
  2541. "it is a fact that Stanley K was hired to take fake photographs of the moon landing" You'll believe just about anything you see, eh?
    3
  2542. "sounds pretty suspect to me between those two ideas." Well, your two ideas are wrong, so, there you have it.
    3
  2543. "America has got to be the best, why wouldn’t we fake it to beat the rest of the world" You do know that dozens of countries, including enemies, tracked all of the Apollo missions to the moon and back with radar and radio telescopes, right? You do know that both India and China have released their photos of the Apollo landing sites, showing the landers in the exact spot that LRO shows them, as well as the original mission photography, right? It would be mighty embarrassing to "fake it" only to be found out THAT easily, when nothing shows up on the entire world's radar screens, huh?
    3
  2544. And, apparently, it doesn't allow me to answer your first question without blocking it. So, the answer is that manned missions are very expensive, and congress replaced all of that with cheaper unmanned missions.
    3
  2545. That massive light in Las Vegas (the Luxor pyramid) is barely visible from 200-300 miles away. It uses 315,000 watts. Solar panels in 1969 generated about 10 watts per sq. foot. So, to replicate that wattage, you'd need 31,500 square feet of solar panels. OK, so, now you've got a light that can be seen from 200-300 miles away. How many millions of square feet of solar panels do you think it would take to power a light visible from 240,000 miles away? Oh, and by the way, they only used solar panels on the moon once. They failed in 3 weeks, and they never used them again, and switched over to a nuclear Peltier effect isotopic generator instead.
    3
  2546. No, dewdrop. You simply enjoy pretending you know more than the entire world's experts. So, denying reality is your "thing."
    3
  2547. They generally traveled to the furthest spots first (relatively speaking... not every time, if good stops were on the way, but basically, you get the point), giving them ample oxygen to always be able to get back to the LEM if the rover broke down from wherever they were. If they broke down, well, yeah, they'd need to abandon most of the stuff they were carting around on the rover, but, they'd make it home. You can see the rover traverse paths if you Google them. Furthermore, the top of the PLSS (by where the radio antenna is) is a backup oxygen system, giving a bit more O2 in an emergency (it was never used on any mission, but it was there). And, in a super bad pinch, they could actually share hoses, like "buddy breathing" in scuba diving. This is one of the reasons the hoses were on the outside.
    3
  2548. Honest? Huh? One of the witnesses who called about this incident recorded it, and gave a copy of the video to the police. It doesn't match her sob story about nobody being around. Why would you blindly believe her anyway? Do you know she was a convicted felon who spent time in prison and had a million other arrests? Do you know her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the local club, and that her neighbors said she did "private extras" for cash in her apartment? Why do you think she's honest?
    3
  2549. "could not go to the moon because it was impossible with the technology at the time." Yet, in all of your threads across multiple videos, you cannot name the exact technology they lacked? Why not? The word "technology" is meaningless unless you specify the exact one you're talking about. Can you explain which technology was lacking, and why none of the thousands of engineers who designed that technology were aware that it wouldn't work?
    3
  2550. "Suddenly the USA 'leapfrogged' and went to the moon" Dewdrop, the leapfrog happened during Gemini. During the entirety of the manned Gemini program (10 manned missions), the Soviets didn't send a single manned mission into space. Not one. Apollo then had a bunch of missions (both manned and unmanned) before Apollo 11 landed. There was nothing "sudden" about it. You don't know anything about the topic.
    3
  2551. "the USA couldn't go their either" As usual in all of your threads, you demonstrate that you don't even have the reading and writing capability of an 8 year old. Also, dewdrop, he asked you why you thought the Soviets would fall for it, given that they had the ability to track Apollo also, just like dozens of countries did. They even sent Luna 15 to the moon at the same time as Apollo 11, tracking all craft.
    3
  2552. "went to the moon, 6 times" No, dewdrop. They went to the moon 9 times, and landed 6 of those 9.
    3
  2553. "How can anyone with a smidgeon of knowledge" Is this a joke? He asked you why the Soviets would believe it. They had more than a "smidgeon of knowledge" about space travel, dewdrop. They looked at the same things you're looking at, and concluded that it was real. The same is true of every single space program on the planet, both at that time, through today. Ironically, you're correct, you'd need a smidgeon of knowledge to believe what you do. That's not a good thing.
    3
  2554. There are many reasons why this can't work. But, right out of the gate, let me explain that if you wanted to just be able to see the landers from Webb, the angles to be able (to see the Apollo 11 landing site) dictate that the moon would be about 1,200,000 miles away from Webb. And, it would be in darkness, because the sun would be on the wrong side. Secondly, the Webb telescope itself would need to be about 1.25 miles wide in order to just see the landers at barely enough resolution to know what they are, but Webb is only 21 feet wide, not 1.25 miles wide. If you want to even remotely approach the level of detail shown in this video, Webb would need to be around 20 miles wide. I'm afraid you don't really understand the limitations of optical resolution.
    3
  2555. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    3
  2556. Congratulations on knowing absolutely nothing about photography replication in the 1960s. See, dewdrop, here's the problem: those are photos of photos. Or, sometimes, they are photos of photos of photos. There is no light "drop off" in the sense that you're outlining. The fact is that the newspapers and media like that don't have time to get a print from the original negatives. So, they snap a photo of a photo, and as it gets replicated, the inner parts of the photo are brighter, and the outer parts of the photo have less light. This isn't "drop off." This is just quick and sloppy photography. Go look at any of the images drawn from the original negatives, and you'll see the effect you're concerned with just isn't there. Stop blindly listening to conspiracy garbage.
    3
  2557. Hilarious!! You used to actually ask questions (pretend to ask anyway), and offered your "evidence" (that always failed). Now, after learning you've been wrong about every single posting you've ever made, you resort to not even trying to offer any facts/evidence, and just come to your conclusion on the basis of nothing. Brilliant progression there.
    3
  2558. See, there was this thing called "the cold war." The USA and Soviets were quite close to abandoning the cold war, and entering a real war. Apollo was funded to avoid that. By putting on a display of technological and industrial superiority, it was a message to the Soviets: "back off, or we'll beat you, we'll always beat you." We will never know for certain about whether there would have been a nuclear war that would kill tens of millions of people, if not for Apollo. But, many people (including congress) believed exactly that: Apollo was the tip of the sword in keeping the cold war cold, saving tens of millions of lives. Is that enough of a benefit for mankind for you? Nobody needs or wants your lousy advice. You don't know what you're talking about.
    3
  2559. Oh, no you don't. No way, dewdrop. As usual, it's 100% proof positive that you not only are constantly wrong, but, you don't even know the definitions of the words you use. That's how little you understand this topic. And, as usual, you refused to answer return questions. Now, you want me to answer more questions for you, while you refuse to ever answer a single question I asked of you? Nope. Not playing your game.
    3
  2560. Um, I'm not sure I understand your point here. Can you explain? The video wasn't released to the public until about 2.5 years later... or 1.5 years after she committed suicide.
    3
  2561. Do you really believe that temperature just instantaneously changes by 200 degrees (C) by going in and out of the sun? Like, a sun's photon hits an object, and BING, it increases by 200 degrees (C)? And, the moment the photons stop hitting the object, BING, the temperature drops by 200 degrees (C)? Seriously? That's what you think happens? Thermodynamics mean absolutely nothing to you? Do you honestly believe there's enough energy in a photon to make that kind of heat change on an object? And, do you honestly think that an object instantly radiates all heat the moment the photons stop hitting it? Suppose your silly fantasy was correct... let's pretend that things instantly change temperature the instant a photon hits them. Alright, why stop at 200 degrees (C)? Why wouldn't they bump up by another 200 degrees a moment later, and another 200 the moment after that? Why stop at all? Wouldn't the thing just keep increasing temperature moment by moment? Or, hmmmm, maybe the reason that no physicists ever make this argument you're making is because they understand thermodynamics better than you do, and only uneducated crackpots are under the impression that temperature works the way you're proposing? Ya think maybe that might be the issue here? Ya think maybe that's why conspiracy nuts are limited to making YouTube videos and comments, rather than calculating and submitting these amazing "gotchas" in science journals? Who told you there's no damage to any of the film? I mean, there's not much. They kept the film in aluminum and silver canisters to deflect most radiation. But, yes, if you go look at the high res copies of the photo archives, you can see the slight effects of radiation on some of the photos. Are you trained to know what it should look like? Or, did a conspiracy video just simply claim there is none, and you just blindly believed it?
    3
  2562. For the same reason you cannot see them on Earth in the daytime. It's too bright to see dim stars.
    3
  2563. Why is it that none of you deniers ever actually wants to look at the evidence? Why is it always, "if it happened, then I expect that something else would happen also"? What does that have to do with anything? Why should the veracity of Apollo depend on what YOU think we should or shouldn't do?
    3
  2564. Conspiracy? Um, not really. It's just a massively misleading video.
    3
  2565. Why do people ask questions while making it 100% clear that they don't actually want the answers?
    3
  2566. Conclusion first. Ask questions second. Ignore answers third. Where have I seen this pattern before?
    3
  2567. The handle was outside, not inside. Armstrong pulled it. The best depiction I've seen is on "From the Earth to the Moon (2019): Moon Landing (Clip) | HBO" at the 16:20 timestamp.
    3
  2568. Yeah, you're really convincing when you put "first steps on the moon" in quotation marks. It's a sure sign that you don't actually want answers to your questions.
    3
  2569. Sorry? Why? You know things that no aerospace engineer on the planet knows!! You're in on "the secret" that not a single space agency on Earth knows!! You can't be "sorry" for having such inside knowledge, and then coming here to share it with the world. We should all be honored that you graced the world with your well informed opinions.
    3
  2570. She had a mile long record, and even served a felony prison term in Florida in 2018. She departed this world for unrelated reasons to this particular arrest.
    3
  2571. There's always a poetic irony when criticizing OTHER people's intelligence, while proving that you cannot read or write better than an 8 year old.
    3
  2572. "Temperatures were 250F degrees" No. You're quoting the maximum surface temperature. But, that's the lunar high noon and lunar early afternoon temperature. All landings were early in the lunar morning. There's no reason to quote a temperature during a time period that the astronauts were not even there. "and there's NO talk about it while they're supposedly on the moon" Correct. That's because, like I just said, that high temperature wasn't happening while they were on the moon. "also no shots of earth" Huh? There were tons of them. In transit between the Earth and moon. From lunar orbit. From the lunar surface. Yes, plenty of Earth photos. Did a conspiracy video tell you there were no such photos, and you never checked for yourself? Hint: those videos always lie, and you shouldn't trust them. "And their playfulness without any sense of seriousness of the dangers of tearing open or breaking their helmets when they fell down which we seen happened a lot!" No helmets or suits were broken when they fell. You don't know what you're talking about. "They also didn't take any data of the atmosphere or anything. Which I'm sure the technology wasn't even around to do so bac then, among a few questions" But, you're not asking questions. You're making assertions. Each of your assertions is wrong.
    3
  2573. Did you bother reading my reply before changing topics, dewdrop? I asked you who told you that there were no Earth photos. Why won't you answer? Why are you ducking and dodging, and changing topics? Why can't you admit being wrong about the temperature cycle? Why can't you admit you were wrong about the lack of Earth photos?
    3
  2574. I assume you're asking this because you don't know how they managed to open the door to throw the backpacks out, because you assume they needed the backpacks to breathe. No. The craft had oxygen hose hookups inside the cabin that connected to their suits.
    3
  2575. "dune buggy that was battery operated in 1969" Wrong. The first rover didn't go to the moon until 1971. You clearly know absolutely nothing about the topic you are rejecting. "And those batteries… Tesla would love to find out their secret" Dewdrop, you can order them from Eagle-Picher today, if you want. They're about $600,000 each, made from zinc/silver, and cannot be recharged. Do you think Tesla will sell a lot of cars with $600,000 batteries that can only be used once? There's nothing "secret" here. You just have no idea what you're talking about.
    3
  2576. Dewdrop, nothing you said in your initial message was correct. Why do you think anything in your follow-up messages are correct? No, I'm not playing the Gish Gallop game with you. Stick to your original points, and either admit you're wrong, or explain what you think you know that the entirety of the planet's experts don't.
    3
  2577. "Thrust works the same way in a vacuum as in pressure environment" Absolutely incorrect. "Inside a Rocket From Take Off To Orbit (External Cameras) in HD" Go look at it. As it climbs higher and higher, you see the exhaust pattern dramatically change as the pressure decreases. No, the rocket isn't changing throttle or settings or anything. The effect you're seeing is 100% because the surrounding pressure is getting lower and lower. "only difference would be the need for hypergalic fuels for the absence of 02" First of all, if you cannot even spell "hypergolic" correctly, what could you possibly know about it? Secondly, um, no, that's not what hypergolic fuels are used for. You don't even know the primary purpose or function of hypergolic propellants. "sorry, 3000 lbs. of decent thrust not gonna cut it." Yes, dewdrop. Do the math. The LEM weighed 33,500 pounds fully loaded (depending on which mission, some were a bit heavier). It generally used about 17,000 to 18,000 pounds of propellant to get down to the lunar surface (again, it also varied by mission and whether or not it had the J-type extended engine bell for efficiency). So, go right ahead, do that math, adjust for 1/6th gravity, and tell me that 3,000 pounds wouldn't work. "1. Kelly Smith's presentation for the Orion project." Kelly Smith doesn't believe Apollo was fake. Why do you? Because he made a video for children? He spent 30 seconds talking about the Van Allen belts, and why Orion needed to be tested before putting people inside? THAT's your "smoking gun"? Good grief. "2. The LEM proposal spects." Spects? Did you graduate high school? "only 110 pages long." Which version? Certainly not the final version that won them the contract. You're talking about just the executive summary, right? "When normally a project proposal for a craft such as Lunar lander should have been 5,000 - 8,000 pages." Depends. Are you talking about an executive summary? The initial discovery papers? What? "110 pages might only fetch about 1million dollars. The LEM would have cost a lot more than a million to build." Are you REALLY under the impression that this 110 page document you're talking about is the proposal that won the contract? You cannot possibly be taken seriously at this point. "3, No blast crater beneath the LEM primary rocket for any of the lunar missions." Correct. Had there been one, it would have meant that Apollo was fake.
    3
  2578. "because you refuse to put your right hand on the Bible and swear you went to the moon, kinda says more about the credible astronaut than the crazy conspiracy theorist!" OK, well, Bean and Cernan swore on that very same bible. Does this mean you believe they went to the moon, because they swore on Sibrel's bible? Or, hmmm, do you suppose that it got around to the other astronauts that Sibrel was lying to them and trying to create a hit piece rather than a documentary, and the rest of the astronauts would want nothing to do with the guy?
    3
  2579. "Why are the soles of the NASA boots different from the shoe prints they left?" Because on the lunar surface, they had "lunar overshoes." See, there's no reason to wear those big bulky overshoes while inside the lunar module or command module. They only needed them to walk on the moon. The overshoes had straps to mount them to the main boot underneath. They put them on before going onto the surface, and took them off when they were done.
    3
  2580. "Why did Stanley Kubrick die from something cliché" Being 300 pounds, 5'7"? Dying at 70 years old? What's your point?
    3
  2581. "Plus the interviews after they returned." Was there a point here? They gave hundreds of interviews, maybe thousands. Why do you have such a difficult time making a point? How can anybody even answer your questions if you make them so vague? If I asked you, "what about those red bricks?" - would that mean anything to you? Could you answer the question? "Red bricks" might mean something to me, but, it means nothing to you, right? See, dewdrop, if you want answers to your questions, you need to be more clear. What exact interviews are you asking about, and what is your issue with them?
    3
  2582. "then hearing Buzz Aldren" If you cannot even spell his name, why do you believe you know anything about him?
    3
  2583. "actually tell that kid we never went." No, he was answering about why they haven't gone back to the moon in such a long time, which was her exact question.
    3
  2584. So, they could have never even gone underwater, and not a single one of you people onboard would ever know that you were just in a studio that pretended to be a submarine.
    3
  2585. Yes, dewdrop. The moon rotates, and has days and nights. But, a moon's day (sunrise to sunrise) is about 708 hours instead of 24 hours. I mean, seriously, you haven't simply looked up at the moon to recognize that it is cycling through days and nights? I mean, I know you will delete these two messages you just wrote, but, good grief.
    3
  2586. Jeff, what IS your problem??? Yes, all lunar landing missions landed just after the lunar dawn. It was designed that way for many reasons. They wanted the low sun angle for good contrast/visibility of the craters. They wanted to avoid the high surface temperatures of the later part of the lunar day. And, yes, all lunar photography indicates a very low sun angle. The highest sun angle was just a hair over 45 degrees on Apollo 16. They had some problems, and couldn't land right away when they got to the moon, and had to fix some SPS engine issues before allowing the lander to go down to the surface. So, they lost many hours, resulting in the sun being at a slightly higher angle than they wanted. But, still, the maximum sun angle happened late in the ~70 hours that Apollo 16 spent on the moon, at just a hair over 45 degrees, the highest angle seen by any mission. The earlier missions didn't even come close to seeing 45 degrees. And, yes, all videography and photography reflects the correct angles. So, what "resting of your case" is this supposed to mean?? Why would you call them "astroNOTs"??? What's wrong with your brain?? This is the thing about you conspiratards... you're actually PROUD to be idiots.
    3
  2587. So, the results are classified... which is why you posted them into a YouTube comment. Yes, sure.
    3
  2588.  @ValMartinIreland  Yes, but Apollo's 3 reflectors were also put on the moon. The 2 Soviet reflectors are mounted to rovers that were sent on unmanned missions. But, Apollo's reflectors were placed by hand. To believe otherwise (that they were placed by unmanned probes, like the Soviets used) would require you to believe the following: (a) They managed to build and sneak off 3 moon rockets without anybody noticing, or accounting for where these 3 extra moon rockets came from, with no explanation of who built the landers and deployment mechanisms for them, etc. It takes 3000 people to get a moon rocket off the ground, and it's visible (and audible) for hundreds of miles. And, some company (consisting of hundreds of engineers) needs to design and build soft-landers that are capable of deploying and placing reflectors. Yet, no such people have ever come forth to say they built these unmanned landers, nor has anybody ever seen or heard of three extra moon launches. (b) Future generations would need to participate in the deception, such as Arizona State University and their LRO camera, which show the Apollo landers, and foot paths, and rover tracks, etc., at the exact spot that the reflectors are located. Why didn't LRO see these different types of landers that deployed the reflectors using unmanned probes? Why do those sites where the reflectors are located look exactly like the Apollo sites from the mission photography? In order to believe the reflectors were placed with unmanned probes, you'd need the cooperation of future generations to perpetuate the deception.
    3
  2589. I sense you've been doing the same thing at playgrounds in front of kids, and cops "ruined" you.
    3
  2590. Your high school education?
    3
  2591. YOU SAID: "Yeah!!!???? Jumping around sharp rocks in a pressurized suite?" == Most of the rocks weren't all that sharp. But, what did you expect? They shouldn't go to the moon? And, the suits were very good. There were 13 layers in the outer garment alone, comprised of ripstop fabrics. Below that, there were additional layers, including a thick self-sealing rubberized layer. Small leaks were not going to be a problem. YOU SAID: "And driving more then 20km away from lander?" == I don't think so. They drove about 30 km on each of the 3 missions with rovers. But, that was divided into 3 different voyages with many stops each, and they came back to the lander in between each. Average furthest distance was probably more like 10km. Did you look up the rover paths to find out the distance? Or, are you just making this up as you go? It's pretty clear that you don't know anything, so, I'm guessing it's the latter.
    3
  2592. Huh? What media?
    3
  2593. So, 1971 and 1972 don't count? Dewdrop, if you don't even know when the missions took place, why would you think you know anything else about the topic?
    3
  2594. If you don't like the fake CGI, then go look at the original mission photos instead.
    3
  2595. You clearly don't know who that cat guy is. That's Bill Kaysing. He is considered the father of the deniers, basically their #1 top guy. Of course, that alone says quite a bit, but, there you have it.
    3
  2596. Pfttt. Proven? Um, no.
    3
  2597.  @dannyaoalsson  Yup, addiction is a bad thing. And, as I said, I don't lack sympathy. And, while I don't have that problem myself (I've never taken drugs even a single time), I've dealt with enough drug addicts to know that you can't trust anything they say or do. This woman in this video went back to stealing from Walgreens immediately after this incident, and sorry, but I'm just not buying the notion that there wasn't a bunch more stuff in that bulky coat of hers (the claim of the original poster in this thread, who said that this woman only stole items to keep herself warm). She received an act of kindness from Walgreens, agreeing to let her go if she just returns the items in her coat. And, how did she repay them? By stealing more. Most sane people are thankful for second chances and leniency. Not her. She saw it as a sign of weakness, and empowered her to steal more, so she want right back at it until they arrested her. I think she was a very physically beautiful woman, and I'd hope that she would get past her problems. But, nope. Instead, she turned out to be a repeat offender, stabbing the people in the back that gave her leniency, and eventually her addiction killed her.
    3
  2598. A) Armstrong continued to work at NASA for another two years after his Apollo mission. B) Most of the moonwalkers made it their last mission. Yes, a couple of them continued to fly other missions. But, for most, they figured that nothing would ever top going to the moon, so they went on to other things. How does this mean Apollo was fake? C) Armstrong gave lots of interviews and lectures, but, yes, a bit less than some of the others. So what? Do you have any idea what kind of life that man led? He could barely set foot in public without getting ambushed. What's your point? D) There were dozens upon dozens of interviews the astronauts gave upon their return. Why do you people focus on just one? And, did you watch the entire thing? Or, just the clips fed to you by makers of conspiracy videos?
    3
  2599. Depends on what you mean. Arizona State University's LRO camera, China's Chang'e orbiter, and India's Chandrayaan orbiter, have each taken photos from lunar orbit. They can see the landers and some of the bigger items, but, cannot see the small stuff. And, the cameras have the highest resolution in black&white, so, there are no color photos from orbit. You cannot see the level of detail offered in this video.
    3
  2600. I don't know how cell phones work, therefore Apollo wasn't real. Oh, you're a real genius alright.
    3
  2601. "they left a bunch of stuff on the moon allegedly. So they got all these magnificent pictures of space, but why don't they turn one of the cameras around and get a shot of all the equipment they left behind" There are hundreds of such photos, perhaps thousands. Why haven't you looked at the archives for yourself? They took 7,000 photos from the lunar surface, many of which include the stuff they left on the moon. You can also see it in the liftoff videos as the craft flies over some of the stuff they left behind. "or maybe just a picture of earth" There are hundreds of those photos also. They took those photos during the transit between the Earth and moon, during lunar orbit, and from the lunar surface. You clearly haven't done any kind of investigating before spewing nonsense. I mean, good grief. On Apollo 11's film roll #36, there must be at least 80 photos of the Earth... on that one roll alone. "They don't because they can't." Huh? But, you never even looked for that which you claim they didn't do. Who told you they never took these photos you're talking about? Was it a conspiracy video? "it's only 236,000 miles right? Why not some real close ups? You know, because they have the Hubble and the space station? Or not" Good grief. There's a concept called "optical resolution" which you can look up. There's a formula for calculating the size of the lens/mirror you'd need in order to see stuff at [whatever] size from [whatever] distance. Do the math yourself on the size lens or mirror that you'd need. Hubble and the space station aren't even remotely large enough. Or, are you allergic to math?
    3
  2602. Yes, dewdrop, they took lots and lots of star photos from the dark side. Start with "Apollo stellar photography" and go from there.
    3
  2603. You made a number of postings in a row, denying the moon landings. And, in this posting, you make it very clear that you have never looked for yourself at any of this. A conspiracy video told you to doubt how they got the rover up there, so you doubt it. The video tells you to think a certain way, so, like a puppet, that's exactly what you do. You're not studying Apollo and formulating your own questions. You are listening to videos that lie to you, and gobbling up every word. Then, you pretend to ask questions, while you know very well that you aren't going to listen to the answers. And, you formed your opinions long before you asked the questions anyway.
    3
  2604. "We had that technology, but we lost it." It was retired, just like lots of air and space technologies. Concorde mach 2 carrying 100 passengers 3000 miles. SR71 mach 3 spy plane. X15 mach 7 hyperplane. The list goes on. Why is this a problem for you? "We had the original video tapes, but we recorded over it" No, dewdrop. They lost two backup tapes that had never been viewed a single time in history. Not a single one of you people thought those backup tapes were necessary until NASA said they lost them in 2006. Then, all of the sudden, they're important? Why? "If this happened in 69, we would be strapping go pros to everyone and doing weekly missions by now" Not true. You do not understand what you're talking about. "Look up the astronauts reaction to being asked about the van Allen belt." Yeah, a Bart Sibrel video that was talking about Skylab, not Apollo, but was edited dishonestly. Great job. That's so funny that you're talking about liars... then pointing to a video made by one of the biggest liars of all time. "Did you see stars... Well. I don't recall seeing any stars." Dewdrop, now YOU are the liar. The question was "could you see stars IN THE SOLAR CORONA IN SPITE OF THE GLARE." You have dishonestly eliminated half of the question. Hypocrite. "Did you see a stop sign at 1st and Elm Street?" "I don't recall." But, you twist that into meaning, "Did you ever see a stop sign?" "Look, he can't remember if he ever saw a stop sign in his entire life!!!" You have lost all rights to complaining about dishonesty, dewdrop. Look in the mirror.
    3
  2605.  @stusue9733  Apollo 14 and 15 both landed near the limit of the lean angle permitted by the mission specifications.
    3
  2606. Huh? Dewdrop, why is this so difficult for you to understand? A) They've only had an active moon landing program since 2019. It's called Artemis. And, it's currently got roughly 1/10th of the budget that Apollo had (adjusted correctly for inflation). You cannot expect them to already be on the lunar surface in just the 4 years that they've been working on it. Even if they had the same budget as Apollo, it's doubtful they'd have been able to do it by now anyway. 4 years just isn't enough time, even at 10x the budget. B) Your phone wasn't required to get to the moon. But, if you think there's a technology issue with Apollo, please NAME THE TECHNOLOGY. And, then explain why none of the thousands of engineers working on that technology ever realized that it wasn't going to work. Can you?
    3
  2607.  @pocket83squared  But, she wasn't publicly shamed from this video. It wasn't released until she was already dead for 1.5 years. And, it was probably a legal FOIA request. They can't block those if the case is closed for this long. The incident was 2.5 years ago. Welcome to Inside Edition. They ask questions, but never give the answers.
    3
  2608.  @sub2me543  You keep going from thread to thread with this misinformation. You have confused the arrest date with the date the video was released. No. The release date of the video was November 24, 2023.
    3
  2609.  @davidarnaud8290  What don't you understand about the Nielsen ratings system? Why is this such a difficult concept?
    3
  2610. An interview with Marcus Allen? The inept photographer who doesn't understand photography? The guy who didn't even realize that the cameras could detach from the spacesuits? They guy who said Apollo 11 was fake because the angles were all wrong, and he thought there were two cameras used on the lunar surface on Apollo 11 (there was only one used), because he had no idea that Aldrin and Armstrong passed the camera between them? That guy? Why would anybody pay attention to a single word that crackpot says?
    3
  2611.  @jackhammer9018  Jack, even in your wildest conspiracy imagination, seriously, does any of that gibberish make any sense to you? I know that there are a hundred conspiracy videos out there, all making the claim that they "forgot how to do it" and "all the tapes were erased." But, c'mon now, do you really think that's even remotely believable? I seriously wonder if the makers of those conspiracy videos even believe the crazy stuff they're spewing. It seems like those videos must be made just to poke fun at anybody who would actually swallow such ridiculous nonsense. No, dummy. Nobody forgot how to do it. Only two backup tapes were erased (not even the primary copies). And, the Van Allen belts are not fatal unless you stay in them for over a week (Apollo went through the worst belt in about 15 minutes, and both belts in under 2 hours). Good grief. You people will swallow ANYTHING that supports your delusions, no matter how ridiculous.
    3
  2612. Do you REALLY believe that NASA managed to somehow "bluff" radar dishes all over Earth, including ones in enemy countries, managed to somehow perfectly replicate 1/6th gravity movements on video before CGI even existed, managed to fool thousands of geologists about the 850 pounds of moon rocks brought back on the missions, and yet, somehow, forgot to equip the lander with an outside camera? Really? And, the only conclusion is that there was a cameraman? Really? That's how you think?
    3
  2613. @Christian Ball YOU SAID: "Alyssa If you break into someone’s house, you give up your right to life. If you break into someone’s house, they have a right to shoot you in self-defense. Why the hell are you trying to defend criminals?" 1) They weren't strangers. He knew them, and they had stolen from him before. 2) He placed his car away from the house so they wouldn't know he was home. 3) He unscrewed some of the lights so they wouldn't turn on, even if they flipped the switch. 4) He ran a recording device while he waited in the basement, clearly he knew they were coming. 5) Before either one of them arrived at his house, he rehearsed on that recording what he was going to say to the police, including "in the left eye" (he later shot the girl in the left eye). 6) He had a tarp ready for the bodies. 7) He gathered up the bodies, and put them in the other room so they wouldn't ruin his carpet. 8) He didn't call the police until the next day. 9) After killing the first thief, he then sat quietly waiting for a long time for the other thief to arrive, then shot her too. 10) Her shirt was found opened, make of that what you will. 11) After shooting the girl in the torso, she was still alive and incapacitated, yet he didn't want her to live (his own words), and wanted to make sure she was dead (his own words), so put a bullet next to her eye, and another one under the chin up into her brain (his own words). 12) While waiting for the criminals to arrive, he was armed with two different guns, one of which was a little bit faulty. 13) After he shot one with the faulty weapon, it wouldn't fire again. So, he literally apologized to the criminal (who was still alive) for not successfully killing right away, and switched guns for the fatal shots while the criminal was on the ground. So, the bigger question isn't why Alyssa is defending criminals, it's why are YOU defending a criminal?? Home defense is justified, of course. But, you don't get to plan out two murders.
    3
  2614. What? That's ridiculous. There are thousands of photos of the whole Earth from space. The "Blue Marble" photo is the only full Earth photo taken by a human, of course. That's because Apollo 17 was the only mission in which the timing worked out so that the capsule was directly between the Earth and sun at sufficient distance to capture a full Earth photo. There are thousands of photos from low Earth orbit, of course, but those are too close to really get a good photo of the globe. And, there are hundreds of other Apollo photos of Earth, but, it's always a quarter-Earth, or crescent Earth, etc., because the astronauts were not positioned directly between the Earth and sun at the time (just like the concept of a full moon on Earth that is only visible once a month, they are talking about the rarity of a full Earth from an Apollo mission). As for "CGI"?? Um, what? CGI in 1969 - 1972?? Are you insane? Fireworks?? What??? Are you talking about the debris from liftoff, which was captured by the RCA field sequential scanning camera?? That's normal for that type of camera.
    3
  2615. What in the world are you babbling? Fuel injected cars weren't readily available until 1950, therefore Apollo was fake? You know, when you have to dig THAT deep to find "evidence" to accuse Apollo of not being real, you've completely lost your mind. How about some actual EVIDENCE itself? No silly analogies to whatever YOUR mind (especially YOUR mind - sigh) thinks should or shouldn't happen with cars' fuel injection. This is downright ridiculous. If you think they lacked some particular technology in 1969-1972, such that moon missions couldn't happen, then name the technology. No, automobile fuel injection was not an issue for Apollo. Name an actual ROCKET technology that you think they lacked. Then, name the reason that none of the thousands of engineers working on that technology failed to realize that they failed to make something that actually works. Can you? As for probes to the moon, there were a few failures lately, but, not nearly to the point that you can say "most" fail. So what? There were a couple of Boeing 737-Max crashes also. Does this mean most 737s can't fly?
    3
  2616. No, you need to look into the mirror for that.
    3
  2617. Did I miss something? When did he say that he was attempting to show the site at the same time in the lunar day that the astronauts were there?
    3
  2618. The next time I saw Aldrin after he punched Sibrel, I shook that hand that did the punching, and told him I thought he did the right thing. He stopped for several moments, not saying a word (rare, for Aldrin), reflecting, and said that he didn't agree. He said that Sibrel wasn't going to stop doing what he's doing (he was correct, Sibrel never stopped), and basically regretted punching him. Yes, Sibrel's heightened aggression and harassment were the cause. It's not the first time that someone called Aldrin a liar, and wasn't the last time either. But, yes, shoving a microphone in his face, blocking him from walking, continuously ambushing him time and time again, all added to the aggravation. But, Aldrin probably went too far (legally) by punching. However, in order to convict him of anything, you'd have to find a jury of 12 that would side with Sibrel and not Aldrin. So, why do I think Aldrin did the right thing? Because without a smack in the face, Sibrel is never going to learn the lesson that he shouldn't lie/cheat his way in life. But, of course, Aldrin was right about that also, because the smack in the face didn't fix that problem either. Some people are born to be criminals, and Sibrel is one of them.
    3
  2619. Why would you want to watch a fraudulent video made by a convicted criminal taxi cab driver?
    3
  2620. Yeah, that one was too laughable, even for this video to address. Only the most hardcore nuts still use the "C-rock" argument. I mean, all of the deniers are pretty nuts already. But, to think that they went around labeling the rocks... yeah, you've got to be completely gone to think that. So, yeah, even this video didn't bother.
    3
  2621. And, when you cannot even spell "Apollo" correctly, you think you know enough about the topic to declare the entire world's experts are all wrong. Sure. Dunning-Kruger.
    3
  2622. Please put that on every job application you ever fill out, ok? Makes the hiring process so much easier.
    3
  2623. You can do it yourself, you know. There are at least 1,000 videos and articles telling you how to do a "moon bounce" (or "EME" for "Earth Moon Earth") using backyard transmitters and a small dish. You can send radio to the moon and talk to people half way around the world.
    3
  2624. He won't answer my question either. Hoax nuts are incapable.
    3
  2625. Wow, what an expert you are. Apollo 13 ring a bell? Exploded half way to the moon? That wasn't a failure?
    3
  2626. There is no footage of the Apollo 11 lander lifting off of the moon. The TV camera was disconnected by then. And, the 16mm film camera wasn't started until they were about 1,000 feet in altitude over the surface.
    3
  2627. So, the way this works, in your mind, is that it's not acceptable to make a mistake and think someone was stealing? Human mistakes are simply not allowed? And, unless they make the stop exactly at the register, they're not allowed to stop at all? After that, it's simply too late? Is that your position?
    3
  2628. "If it was so easy to go to the moon back then" Who told you anybody thought it was easy? "with the junk they had" Can you name any part of this "junk" that wouldn't do what it was designed to do? "How come they are having so much problem doing it now?" Well, Apollo had a virtually limitless budget. Adjusted for inflation, it was about $300 billion in hard costs, and another approximate $150 billion in soft costs and international support. (Again, those are numbers adjusted into today's dollars... which have been inflating like crazy in the past couple of years... a couple of years ago, I'd have said $250 billion in hard costs.) Anyway, what's Artemis' budget? $30 billion initially. I think they made it $35 or $40 billion lately, but, I don't follow it all that closely. But, the point is, you can do a lot more when you have virtually unlimited funding, vs. funding that barely scrapes by. It also doesn't help when they choose a rocket company run by a crackpot to build the landers. I'm sure that'll slow them down. In my mind, Blue had it all the way, or so I thought. Boeing or Lockheed would make good choices also. But, alas, the dark horse won the race, and they selected a rocket company that knows in advance that their rockets will fail, yet launches them anyway, with a massively bloated design that is not suited for the task. But, whatever, even with the poor choice, I anticipate that they'll make it work. I'm sure it'll become another typical government program when the timelines will be delayed, and the budget will inflate out of control. But, they'll pull it off. "With all the high tech they have now." Alright, please name the EXACT technology you think will make it easier now than it was in 1969-1972. Don't just wave the "tech" word around, as if it's a magical word to mean something it doesn't. If you think that the technology is different/better, in such a way that it makes lunar programs easier now, please spell it out. "Tech" means nothing. You have to elaborate. "And come on. Erasing tapes to reuse later. REALLY" Dewdrop, why is it that none of you people actually check on what happened, and blindly swallow anything a conspiracy video says? They suspect they may have erased two BACKUP video tapes from one mission. The primary copies are still intact, and have been replicated a million times over. They announced in 2006 that they lost two backup tapes. They suspect they may have been recorded over. But, every year since then, your hive-mind cult has amplified what was lost. First, you people switched it to thinking the primary copies were lost. Then, you people added this concept that data was lost also (it wasn't). And, nowadays, you people think it was all lost from all missions. It's ridiculous. They lost TWO BACKUP VIDEO TAPES from ONE mission. And, those two tapes had never even been watched a single time, not ever. Who cares if they're lost? What difference does it make?
    3
  2629.  @bulka5305  As I said, not until 1.5 years after she was already dead.
    3
  2630.  @johnkenny694  No, silly clown. Kelly Smith said they wanted to test Orion in the Van Allen belts before putting people inside. You don't get to spew nonsense from a twisted conspiracy video, intentionally missing the point. Smith said that Orion's electronics are very vulnerable to the Van Allen belts, and yes, that's true. Today's computers are millions of times more vulnerable to ionic radiation than Apollo computers. Today's computers are so powerful because they have been miniaturized to the point that electronic pathways are just a few atoms across. That's why they're so powerful. But, this renders them very vulnerable to ionizing radiation. Apollo's computers used ROPE memory. Yes, literally, wire ropes, gazillions of atoms across. Yes, they were bigger and slower, but, you could stick one of those Apollo computers into a nuclear reactor core, and I doubt that it would stop working. They were virtually invulnerable to radiation. Smith said that they wanted to test Orion's electronics and guidance systems in the Van Allen belts before putting people inside. They did that in 2014. So, why are you conspiratards still bringing it up? And, again, you failed to answer the questions: Why did James Van Allen say that Apollo could go through the belts with no trouble? What do you know about them that he didn't?
    3
  2631. This is what I hate about the "news." They've got NOTHING, yet still put together this dramatic sounding "news" piece. 1) The core of their story is tainted alcohol. OK, and authorities found tons of places selling tainted drinks. But they never found any at this particular hotel. 2) They paint the picture that the family was held hostage for money before medical treatments would be given (they wanted a deposit before giving care). OK, fine, but that was the hospital, not the hotel, and that is the hospital's practice for anybody, not just this family. 3) Where are all of the other bodies laying around at this hotel, if they supposedly serve alcohol so tainted that people pass out after 2 drinks? 4) What actual evidence is there that this isn't more than a "routine" example of a 20 year old girl and 23 year old boy drinking themselves into a stupor? There was a bar a mile down the road that served tainted alcohol? THAT is what this "news" story is hinging this on? Anyway, I'm not saying the hotel is necessarily innocent (because I wouldn't know). But, I do know that I watch the exact way these "news" stories are presented. And, when a "news" story cannot connect tainted alcohol with the actual hotel, and needs to stoop to talking about tainted alcohol at other places down the road, sorry, but this story is ridiculously weak. If there's no way to tell the difference between a 20 year old getting herself so drunk that she cannot function (big surprise there), vs. the hotel giving spiked drinks (with absolutely no evidence that it actually happened that way), sorry, but this "news" story should never have made the "news." If this resort had dozens of similar stories, and had actually been found with tainted alcohol, sure, you have a real news story. But, "down the road, a different place was found with tainted alcohol," doesn't cut it, and these "journalists" should be ashamed of trying to force that connection. And, well, this isn't "evidence," but, I mean, c'mon, when the best you can do to show the dead girl is to show a video of her gyrating like a drunken party girl to begin with (like at 7:05), you're not exactly painting a picture of the innocent girl heading off to Harvard next week, who was killed by the evil Mexican resort... you're painting the picture of a 20 year old girl who drank too much.
    3
  2632. You don't know what you're talking about. Be real.
    3
  2633. That very same AI couldn't tell the difference between a tree and a tank. Therefore, this is the tiebreaker for me. I now believe in the possibility that tanks do not exist.
    3
  2634. What? Apollo missions brought multiple camera types, and film types. TV cameras. 16mm film video cameras. Hasselblad 70mm film still shot cameras. 35mm stereroscopic cameras. And, yes, they had a choice between both black and white film rolls, and color film rolls. What's being "hidden"?
    3
  2635. "The point is there is no way you able to film on the moon" Conclusion first. "who is the camera man when spaceman walk out space capsule step on the moon ?" Ask question second. Dewdrop, if you're not honest enough to at least wait for answers to your questions, why do you post at all? It's clear that the answer doesn't matter, given that you've already declared it impossible.
    3
  2636. Well, have you noticed, after the months/years of you posting gibberish on all of the Apollo videos you can find, asking all kinds of questions, offering all kinds of objections, that you're not even doing that any longer? Now, all you ever say is that you don't believe it. You stopped asking questions or offering arguments because, each and every time, all that gets proven is that you don't actually want answers to your questions, and you ignore all input, and all of your arguments fail miserably upon the slightest scrutiny. So, now you retreat to just blind rejection. Evidence doesn't matter to you.
    3
  2637. Well, both China and India photographed the Apollo 11 lander (descent stage) a couple of years ago using their individual lunar orbiters. So, it hasn't been vaporized or anything. And, do you seriously not understand how the flag moves?
    3
  2638. They took about 7000 photos from the lunar surface, and about 110,000 photos from lunar orbit. That enough pictures for you?
    3
  2639. That's like asking why they test a new aircraft, if they already flew WWII B29s so many times. Tell me, dewdrop, if they didn't test new rockets and new spacecraft, wouldn't you be saying the exact opposite? "Hey, are they trying to tell us that they made entirely new rockets and craft and didn't want to test them?" Either way, you'd sit there and believe it's fake.
    3
  2640. "i'm talking about the DATA" From what? "and procedures" The procedures are well understood. I fail to understand your point. "not the equipment." Huh? All procedures depend on the equipment. "if we've done it so many times shouldn't we be able to pull out a book?!" There are thousands of books, dewdrop. What's your EXACT topic? "like the man in the video said, they are testing HOW to get a person safely through the Van Allen Belt." Go fast. Other than that, well, it depends on the equipment you want to ignore. "if its already been done, shouldn't we already KNOW?" Yes, of course we know how. What don't you understand here? "i'm not a closed minded person." I agree, you are not. In order to have a closed mind, you need to have one. "i'm not sure one way or the other." Spare me. You're reading straight out of the conspiracy online handbook. You're not discovering Apollo for yourself, poring through the terabytes of documentation, learning about how all of the systems worked, etc. You're watching conspiracy videos and regurgitating. Everyone knows what you think. Don't pretend. If you were really seeking information, it wouldn't come in the form of "how do we get through belts," it would be "what's the evidence?" All you're doing is listening to a bunch of silly claims, or taking 1-2 sentences intentionally out of context. You haven't read a single one of the radiation reports. You haven't looked at a single operations manual for a single one of the Apollo craft. You watch videos that make you feel like you've got "inside knowledge," and you feel good from this, so, it fuels your delusion. "but there are some serious question and things that don't make sense." Yeah, like did you graduate high school? You read and write like a 2nd grader.
    3
  2641. So, you ignore all input, you refuse to answer questions, but, you want others to answer your questions? YOU SAID: "where are these close ups amigo?" == Apollo Lunar Surface Journal.
    3
  2642.  @narajuna  As usual, you are completely incoherent.
    3
  2643. Long duration missions stay out of the Van Allen belts. Short duration transits are not affected very much.
    3
  2644.  @stusue9733  "I Dream of Jeannie" (1960s TV show).
    3
  2645. Hilarious!! And, you think the government needs any excuses to start secret programs? Why bother with a big fake front? Why not just start a secret program?
    3
  2646. Huh? The computer generated more heat than it ever received from the door being open. What "high radiation" are you talking about? What's the quantity and type?
    3
  2647. So, a conspiracy video told you there were no photos of Earth, and you just believed it without lifting a finger to check yourself, eh? Dewdrop, there were dozens of photos of Earth. This includes during the transit between Earth and moon, from lunar orbit, and from the lunar surface. Those conspiracy video makers have so much confidence that none of their followers will ever check to see if anything they say is correct, that they'll say the most outlandish things ever imagined. And, they're right. You people will believe ANYTHING you're told (if it aligns with your delusions), no matter how ridiculous, and no matter how easy it is to fact-check.
    3
  2648. Well, people are allowed to include (or not include) whatever they feel like. It's his video. He can make it however he wants. But, if you're interested in seeing the photos of most of this stuff, they're on the official Apollo archive. Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. You can see all of the bigger stuff, but, not the tiny little things that were tossed on the surface (I don't think there are pictures of the small stuff).
    3
  2649. What? Did you watch the video? The cop pulled into the gas station, and the boy immediately gunned the engine and fled the scene onto the public road. Immediately. Why do you blame the police for this? Why would you sue the police because a 13 year old was driving on public roads, fled the police, and crashed his bike in the process? What EXACTLY could the cops do to prevent this death?
    3
  2650.  @Tim22222  Just making sure (in the other thread) that you got my response about Aldrin. (?) YouTube's messages and notifications don't work really well.
    3
  2651. As far as I know, nobody has revealed what he left on the moon. First Man (movie) showed it to be his daughter's bracelet or something like that. Jan Armstrong, when asked what Neil left on the moon has always responded "that's private." If new information has come out, ok, I just don't know about it.
    3
  2652. The only departure video taken on Apollo 11 was from inside the lunar module, and, it only started at about 1,000 feet above the lunar surface. If you think you've seen departure videos of the Apollo 11 liftoff, it was because [whatever you watched] borrowed some video from the later missions that had the remote controlled rover camera.
    3
  2653. She abandoned her family (husband, infant son not even a year old, and another son) and career more than a decade ago in order to live a life of crime and drugs. She was a convicted felon who spent a term in prison 6 years ago, and had a million other arrests. And, her landlord said she was a "dancer" (ya know) at the local club, and her neighbors said she did "private extras" for cash from a parade of men coming to her apartment. Yes, what a quality individual.
    3
  2654.  @AM-rd9pu  Don't forget when he got shot down in one of his combat missions.
    3
  2655. Proof positive that you blindly listen to anything a conspiracy video tells you. Nobody who has actually looked at the photo archives would say what you're saying. But, the makers of those videos have no trouble lying to their audience, because they know that not a single one of you has ever lifted a finger to find out if anything they say is actually true.
    3
  2656. The camera on JAXA/Selene didn't have the resolution required to see Apollo artifacts in any detail more than just a single pixel. It wasn't until Arizona State University's LRO camera that there was orbital photography with enough resolution to see the landers and rover tracks and stuff. And, of course, we also now have China's and India's orbiters that have taken photos of the landing sites with enough resolution to see the landers.
    3
  2657. This is a joke, right? Everything was too perfect? Tell that to Grissom, White, Chaffee, Williams, See, and Bassett. Those were all Apollo astronauts who died while working on Apollo. Tell that to the dozens of others who died while working on volatile rocket fuels, or during construction. Tell that to Lovell, Haise, and Swigert, whose Apollo 13 craft exploded half way to the moon. Over 60 years ago? So, you don't know how to do basic arithmetic? The last moon landing was 49 years go. Good grief. Show some respect.
    3
  2658. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    3
  2659. Dewdrop, the third belt comes and goes. It hasn't been detected again in 11 years.
    3
  2660. And, sorry, no astronaut has ever stated that they never went to the moon. You're just lying.
    3
  2661. It blocks my responses if I write too much in one message, so, I'll answer you in pieces. First of all, nobody saw this arrest video while she was alive. It wasn't released until 2.5 years later, which was 1.5 years after her death.
    3
  2662. Yes, the police interviewed the different people who called to report the incident. I won't post names, but, they're in the police report, which you can find yourself. One of the witnesses was able to capture the event on video, and showed it to the police. The police report describes the video as a loud and public event in view of multiple people including children. Sorry if that doesn't match the story she's telling about a discreet act with nobody around. But, I tend to trust the words of innocent bystanders who were able to capture it on video, before I'll trust the words of a convicted felon who was attempting to avoid her millionth arrest.
    3
  2663. She wasn't convicted, because like she did for most of her cases, she failed to appear in court. After she left her family life (including two boys from two fathers, one son who was 6 months old) in order to live a "wild" and "off the rails" (her family's words) life of drugs and crime, yeah, she ended up doing a prison term for stealing cars, had multiple judgements against her for various other thefts, a long arrest record for drugs and alcohol, open warrants for her arrest, etc., she was having a difficult time with all of the charges and everything piled up. So, she attempted to change her name a few times to evade police. It seemed that she thought failing to appear in court was the best way to deal with the mounting legal battles she was having, so, she did the same with this particular arrest, and never showed up for the hearing. They tried to get the case going again, but, had a hard time locating her, and she killed herself about 9 months after this arrest, before anything could proceed in the courts (for this and any of the other charges and judgements).
    3
  2664. Did you really just say "he had no weapons on hand"? Really? So, the gun pointed at the cop wasn't a weapon in his hands? The same gun seen laying on the ground next to a 2x4 piece of wood at 5:02 (and other points in the video), that was "no weapon"? The gun the father acknowledged he carried to the site, it was "no weapon"? The gun the cop was talking about with the screaming banshee, that was "no weapon"? The gun his family's attorney acknowledges he drew on the cop... was "no weapon"? Is that really your claim here?
    3
  2665. Really? What shame do you think she suffered from? I mean, according to her landlord and neighbors, she was a "dancer" (yeah, that kind), and did "private extras" for cash with parades of men in her apartment. And, I'd think she'd be more ashamed of her felony prison term from 6 years ago, and mile long arrest record. And, still, they didn't release the arrest video until 1.5 years after she died. So, I really don't understand this "shame" you speak of.
    3
  2666. Depends on the quantity, type, and duration of the radiation. Sound is radiation. And, "hiding behind" a wall of foam rubber is excellent isolation from it. Light is radiation. "Hiding behind" a couple of pieces of thick paper is good isolation. Nuclear reactors give off radiation in the form of high velocity neutrons and gammas. "Hiding behind" some concrete walls is how most nuclear reactors provide protection to the workers. Xrays are radiation. Usually, you find those little lead belts to wear over your privates as the protection. Loose electrons are ionizing radiation. A nice sheet of aluminum is excellent protection. But, none of that matters. And, nothing said by anybody in this video really matters. What matters is what's evident. And, it's safe to say that 99.9% of the nuts who think the moon landings didn't happen... have absolutely no idea what the evidence is. None. They watch a few conspiracy videos that lie to them, and they confuse it for "evidence." It's not. Incredulity and ignorance do not make an argument.
    3
  2667. And, you're PROUD to be stupid?
    3
  2668. Can you be more specific about this "real question" you're asking? What video exactly do you think involved a video guy getting there first? You said that we see the entire landing, which, yes, you can watch the entire landings as taken from the LMP windows on each of the 6 landings. But, obviously, that's not anybody getting there first. Those are just taken from the window of the landers. So, what exact footage of the landings do you think required anybody to be there first? And, don't pretend this is your "real question" when you follow it up with "why did they leave him behind?" You know darned well that it's a ridiculous assertion, that boils down to "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." If you want real answers to real questions, then ask them. But, don't sit there with your nonsense about leaving people behind. All that means is that you don't really want answers to your own questions. What do you mean that there's "too much footage"? "Not one space walker has a video camera"? Huh? There were many cameras of different types on Apollo. And, yes, sometimes the moonwalkers used a hand-held 16mm film camera to take video. Most of the video was done with TV cameras mounted to the sides of the landers, or to tripods, or to the rovers. But, for you to sit there and say that none of the astronauts had video cameras makes no sense. What do you mean? Are you attempting to say the 16mm DAC didn't exist, and no moonwalker ever held one? Huh?
    3
  2669. Well, ok, so you now confirm that you wanted them to revisit the same site for the Apollo missions, rather than landing at 6 different sites. Sorry, but, if you need an explanation told to you for why that's ridiculous, I really can't help you. You're too far gone.
    3
  2670. It never ceases to amaze me that so many people actually believe her when she claimed she thought nobody was around. It's as if none of you people have ever heard a criminal say, "I didn't do it" before. She was a convicted felon who served time in prison, and had an arrest and judgement record a mile long. She had numerous failures to appear in court, resulting in open warrants. And, being difficult to get a straight job after that, her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club, and her neighbors said she also did "private" cash encounters in her apartment with various men. The witnesses told the police she did it intentionally. One of the "audience" recorded it, and showed the video to the police. Needless to say, it didn't match the idea that she didn't think anybody was around. Thanks, but, I'll believe the police and the innocent bystanders, long before I'll believe the woman in this video. Oh, but Inside Edition shows her crying for mercy, therefore it's everyone's fault but her own, right? Oh, and by the way, July 1, 2021 = this arrest. Suicide = March, 2022. Arrest video released = November 24, 2023. She suffered nearly zero humiliation, because none of the big news outfits covered it until the last couple of months when the arrest video was available. She was long dead by then. Only a couple of obscure blogs I've never even heard of covered this story while she was alive.
    3
  2671. Of course they went to the moon. And, of course, the Germans helped. But, don't overestimate them, nor underestimate our own engineers. They'd have gone to the moon with or without the Germans. And, I don't want to diminish their contribution. But, the picture you paint about "no other could have done" is not correct.
    3
  2672. "Said the ladder was thin foil," Nope. Aluminum.
    3
  2673. "would not support the weight of a man, even in zero gravity." Dewdrop, in zero gravity, a man weighs zero. Even in your silly universe, a piece of foil WOULD support zero pounds.
    3
  2674. "Moon is 1/3 gravity." Nope. It's 1/6th. I'm wondering what work your father could possibly have done on "the lander pod" if he didn't even know what the moon's gravity was?
    3
  2675. "Something smells wrong." Yes. Your entire story smells very wrong. Right out of the gate, what possible reason would there be to make a ladder that couldn't support a person? I mean, let's pretend it was faked. OK, why bother making a fake ladder also? What reason would they have NOT to make a ladder that works? Wouldn't you want the craft to be as functional as possible, even if you were going to "fake" it?
    3
  2676. There are thousands of scientific articles about the Van Allen belts. How many have you read?
    3
  2677. Apollo Lunar Surface Journal has copies of every photo taken on the lunar surface from Apollo 11. But, the purpose of this video is to take a stab at what it might look like after 50+ years. So, I fail to understand your complaint.
    3
  2678. Yes, do you know how big? Have you done the math?
    3
  2679. Yes, definitely, the veracity of an entire space program from 1961 to 1975 is dependent upon what a website that didn't even exist at that time decides to put on a screen. You're a true hero alright.
    3
  2680. The first thing the cop needed to do was secure the area, and make sure the woman wasn't a threat, and make sure the guy didn't have more weapons, and there weren't 10 more people waiting in the wings to come in and take over for where the criminal left off. He can't just shoot the guy and immediately render aid. But, it wasn't going to matter anyway. Hit in the chest like that? He stopped talking 30 seconds after being shot, and stopped moving another 10 seconds after that, with his head slumped to the side, and turning more white than he already was. Yeah, he was gone, and no amount of aid was going to reverse it.
    3
  2681. Well, you're a bit backward, ironically. Brooks is 5'8" and 150. He's arguing that the guy identified someone else because he's off by 10 pounds and 1 inch. Though, with the shoes on and big hair (he shaved it down for the trial), 5'9" was a darned good guess. So, I suppose he's trying to wiggle out of the identification over the 10 pound discrepancy.
    3
  2682. A conspiracy video told you that, therefore it's true. And, somehow, not a single space agency on the planet realizes it. I guess you must know more than the entire world's experts.
    3
  2683. There are mountains of evidence for Apollo. But, given that you read and write like a 2nd grader, I assume you probably have no idea what the evidence is, because you wouldn't know how to read about it.
    3
  2684. You cannot capture stars in the background on Earth, why should you be able to capture them on the moon? Do you have any idea what level of exposure you need in a camera to capture stars?
    3
  2685. Good grief. Dewdrop, the police blocked the release of the arrest video for 2.5 years. Nobody saw it while she was alive. Eventually, they could no longer block the release because of the Freedom of Information Act.
    3
  2686. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    3
  2687. Well, that's a rather large topic. But, the shortest answer = the Saturn V rocket. Once that was retired, we haven't had any man rated rockets large enough to carry a manned craft that high.
    3
  2688. Sorry, you don't get to just say "weaker than an iPhone." If you think they lacked the technology to go to the moon, you don't get to just compare it to an iPhone (which has ZERO thrust, and can't go to the moon), and assume this means you're correct. You must name the exact technology you're talking about, and then you need to explain why none of the thousands of engineers working on that particular technology ever realized that they designed things that wouldn't work. Can you?
    3
  2689. No, it was suicide about a year after this incident.
    3
  2690. And, a conspiracy video told you there wasn't enough oxygen, so, you blindly parrot it here. Right. Dewdrop, do you not see the irony here? You're accusing the SANE people of blindly swallowing anything they see, but, it's YOU doing that.
    3
  2691. Sorry, but, you don't get to make up silly excuses. I can see my prior message when in an incognito window (not logged in), so, if I can see it, so can you. You'll just say ANYTHING to avoid addressing things that outline how wrong you are. And, even now, rather than dealing with the core of what I stated, your reply avoided all of that (yet again). And, sorry, I'm not the one who was blocked by the YouTube algorithms. But, your last post was blocked as hate speech. I can't repeat it, but, you know what you wrote. You and I are the only ones who can see what you wrote, and I can't respond to it without being blocked too. But, yeah, clearly your hatred of the world runs very deep within you.
    3
  2692. I also see you wrote a response to Tim. Good gods. Do you REALLY get all of your knowledge from blog posts made by people who know absolutely nothing about the topic? Why do you suppose the experts aren't asking these same silly questions? Most of the stuff you cut-n-pasted was just talking about pure gibberish that's not worth my time. But, this part is particularly outlandish: "2. If the Apollo program was this incredibly successful why can't we just rebuild Apollo 11 or at least rebuild the F-1 engines and combine them into a new Saturn V?" Because nobody wants a new Saturn V. Those F1s were amazingly powerful, but, quite limited with their flexibility, you know. They couldn't be throttled. And, kerosene engines have a bunch of other limitations. And, sorry, but "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake" doesn't mean anything. So, I'll just use an analogy instead. It's like asking about whether we should build new carburetor engines for cars, rather than building modern fuel injected engines. Why would anybody want to build more Saturn Vs or F1s? See, the entire issue here is that you hoax nuts are under the false impression that nobody knows how to build a rocket, therefore they should go back and copy a 60 year old design. It's ridiculous. "Today we have year 2018, almost 50 years later and we can NOT lift higher than 340-400 km from earth" Yeah, because there were no programs that required it. So, those big rockets were retired. See, dewdrop, you don't just keep building 350 foot tall rockets if there's no program to pay for them, and to actually fly them. "due to van Allen belts" No, due to the lack of a program to pay for them. "Mankind has known magnetic fields since year 1000 BC." The Van Allen belts don't consist of magnetic fields, they consist of ionic particles that are trapped in those fields. "some kind of hush hush" Nope. Everything from Apollo is public knowledge. "with numerous important telemetry data and unique technologies are lost/destroyed/forgotten don't make any sense." They were retired. That's the only sense that they were lost/destroyed/forgotten. It's identical to the lost/destroyed/forgotten sense of the Concorde program. That's the same sense for the Apollo stuff. When you retire a program, yeah, those buildings and tooling and materials are destroyed and replaced to do other things instead. Surprise surprise, they don't keep building rockets that they don't get paid for. "Do you have any idea of what factors actually stopped us 50 years ago which led to for the first time in history that we went backwards in the scientific evolution?" Ridiculous babble. We can't fly mach-7 airplanes any longer. The 1950s X15 was retired in the 1960s. Since then, nobody has ever flown a plane at mach 7 again, or even half of that speed. The Concorde was retired a couple of decades ago. Since then, you haven't been able to buy an airliner ticket to fly 100+ people at mach 2 for 3000 miles. Not even close. Now, you'd have to get a ride on a fighter with 2 seats, and you can go mach 1.5 for a few hundred miles then need to slow down. Our supersonic capabilities are a tiny fraction of what they were with the Concorde. Does this mean the Concorde is fake?
    3
  2693. Do you really expect me to sit here and play your silly games, asking for "sources" to questions when you have no intent on listening to answers, while you stick your head in the sand and quote from videos made for children? Dewdrop, if you really have a beef with the amount of radiation in the Van Allen belts, forget about YouTube videos made for children, forget about playing games, and just write up your calculations, and submit them to journals on aerospace engineering, cosmology, and radiobiology. What ARE you waiting for?
    3
  2694. Yes, dewdrop. There are hundreds of photos of the rovers with wire mesh wheels. The Earth trainer vehicle had rubber wheels, because, ya know, wire mesh won't work very well in 6x gravity. But, you keep on pretending to know things you don't. It's your entire purpose here.
    3
  2695. So, you're denying that the Soviets tried?
    3
  2696. Tickets for aggravated misdemeanors? And, how do you "shame" someone who is already dead?
    3
  2697. Is there something wrong with you? Why the "lol" at the end of your question? You know, maybe you should stick to ACTUALLY asking the questions, rather than throwing your silly "lol" nonsense at the end, as if you believe you have spotted something that the entire world has somehow missed for the past 50 years.
    3
  2698. How can people "dig deeper" (in your mind)? Watch conspiracy videos made by people who know nothing about the topic?
    3
  2699. "So your telling me" Once again, as you usually do in all of your posts, you have demonstrated that every moon landing denier has the writing skills of a 2nd grader. "in 1969 but cant do it today?" Well, you do know that Artemis 1 is orbiting the moon right now, right? But, ok, land on it, no, not until the lander is ready. You do know they retired the moon lander program in 1972, right? There are plenty of things in aviation/space we could do in the 1960s and 1970s that we cannot do today. Why do you single out Apollo as an issue for you? We can't fly mach 7 airplanes right now either, you know. We can't fly Concorde airplanes. We can't fly SR71s. All of those programs have been retired, and we have nothing with those same capabilities to replace them. Does that mean they're all fake? "At leaset prove that you can do it." Again, would you make that demand of Concordes? We don't have any functional ones left. So, unless someone can fly one right now, it's fake? "Our technology is way better than it was 50+ years ago." Well, some technologies are better now. But, some were better back then. So what? "3 men went roughly 239,000 miles and landed perfectly on the moon" No. Nobody says that. 2 men would go to the surface. You don't even know anything about Apollo. "0 problems?" Apollo 15 crashed into the moon so hard that the engine bell cracked when it smacked the surface. Apollo 13 exploded in space and they never landed on the moon. Apollo 11 missed its intended landing spot by miles. Apollo 14 never got to its main destination. Good grief. Must I go on? "nor did they have enough technology to make that happen." So, what particular technology was lacking? Can you name it? And, then, can you explain why none of the thousands of engineers who designed and built the technology you're talking about, ever realized that they failed to design and build it correctly?
    3
  2700. So, Armstrong refused to swear on a bible stuck in his face from a con man who had been slandering all of the other moonwalkers. So what? Would you swear on a bible for him? And, if you're Armstrong (not a Christian), why would you swear on a bible?
    3
  2701. A) Because that's all Sibrel does: fake stuff. He creates a fake narrative in his videos, using fake evidence he creates in his editing room. I'd say the same thing to Sibrel if I was in Armstrong's shoes. B) Spare me. If Armstrong had sworn on the bible, you'd just reject it anyway. And, you'd probably criticize him for being a non-Christian swearing on a bible. You were going to criticize either way. C) Bean and Cernan swore on Sibrel's bible. So, does that mean Apollo 12 and 17 were real?
    3
  2702. So, you won't answer any questions or challenges I put forth. And, when you try to muster up enough courage to make some sort of statement yourself, it's got more spelling and grammar errors than a 2nd grader would make. You then try to shift topics off of the Apollo program, and onto me instead. Nothing I've ever asked or stated has anything to do with who I am, what I am, or what my politics are or aren't. I state facts that are easily verified, which demonstrate that you don't understand ANYTHING about this topic. So, you attack the messenger instead. Right. Genius. Sure. And, now, you're simply using an argument from incredulity. You state that we didn't have technology to communicate with the moon in 1969. But, yet, backyard HAM radio operators were able to bounce radio signals off of the moon since the 1950s, able to have conversations by using the moon itself as a radio reflector. It's called a "moon bounce" or "EME" (Earth moon Earth). Oh, but you don't think it was possible 15 years later?? Huh?? Did you even graduate high school? I'm guessing you flunked out of the 10th grade, never to return, right?
    3
  2703.  @doubled21352  Dewdrop, you don't know what you're talking about. There were 50 years in between the first time someone dove to the deepest ocean depth and when it was done again. There were 50 years in between when someone first sailed around the world and when it was done again. There were 4000 years in between building the pyramids and when mankind ever constructed a building that big again. The most significant and expensive landmarks in human history are often not repeated for very long periods of time. And, Apollo was a far bigger and more expensive program than any of those things. If you adjust for inflation, Apollo costed $16 billion per person who walked on the moon in hard costs, and another $5 to $7 billion in soft costs and international support. Again, PER PERSON who went to the lunar surface. It took 400,000 people in the USA, and another 50,000 people in other countries a decade of their lives to make it all happen. That's 4.5 million years' worth of human effort you want to throw in the trashcan. And, why? Because you don't understand that massive programs like that are not often repeated very quickly? Apollo spent more time/money/manpower per man (who walked on the moon) than any other program in human history. The Egyptian pyramids cannot even rival Apollo. Oh, but you're going to "lol" it all away because you don't understand it. And, following in history's footsteps, it was 47 years between the last time mankind set foot on the moon and when congress funded another program to do it again (Artemis). Why is this a problem for you? What does camera footage have to do with any of this anyway? Why would you bring it up? There are 7,000 photos taken from the lunar surface, 110,000 photos taken from lunar orbit, about 80 hours of mission video footage (around 25 of those hours on the lunar surface). Yet, you sit there and comment about cameras used during deep sea exploration? Um, ok? So what? And, if you really think that, because they went to the moon 50 years ago, this means that someone should be exploring the stars by now, this demonstrates how little you understand about the topic.
    3
  2704.  @doubled21352  EXACTLY!!! It was not possible to stream what you're asking. So, why do you keep asking for it?
    3
  2705. If you've never seen it, it doesn't exist.
    3
  2706. Yes and no. It's well understood that very fine grade dust "floats" above the moon due to electrostatic charge. It's akin in spirit to the dust in the air in your house, where, you don't see it, but, over time, it accumulates on your shelves. But, until we send someone or something to take a closer look, we won't actually know how deep that dust actually is.
    3
  2707. I know English isn't your first language, so, thank you for trying to write in English. However, I'd love to answer your question, but I just don't understand it. You doubt the surface temperature of the moon, therefore what? How is your doubt about the surface temperature of the moon even relevant to Apollo? By the way, the surface temperature of the moon goes from extremely cold to extremely hot, based upon how much time it's been in the sun, and how high the sun angle is, and how much time it's been in the night (no sun). It's not just one temperature all the time. It's just like on Earth. The ground warms up in the daytime, and cools off at night. The same is true on the moon. So, again, can you explain your doubt about the surface temperature, and why you think this relates to Apollo?
    3
  2708. Let me guess: you fell for a silly lie in a denier video told you about all of the original footage being missing, right?
    3
  2709. "If you can send man on moon in 1969.why cannot we send man on moon in 2023." With what? The Apollo program was retired. All of that stuff is long gone, except for a few museum pieces that have been gutted and put on display. And, Artemis was just funded in 2019. They already sent one unmanned mission to the moon a few months ago. The next one will be manned. "also with so many powerful telescopes why we are not able to capture the moon landings photos clearly with accuracy and to the point visibility?" There is a concept called "optical resolution." The short version is that this is a property of light. It's not infinite. There are limitations based upon the wavelength of light. And, the only way you can get a telescope to see those things is by making larger lenses/mirrors. There's a well understood formula for calculating the size lens you'd need to see something of a certain size/resolution from a certain distance. Go look it up. Do the math. But, the short answer is that it would take a lens about 75 feet in diameter to see an Apollo lander on the moon as a single dot. You wouldn't know what it was, it would just be a dot. If you want to be able to see enough detail to see what it was, it would take a lens a quarter mile in diameter. Given that the largest optical grade lens ever constructed is 5 feet across and costed $168 million, yes, I'd say we are a long way away from constructing quarter mile wide lenses and seeing the landers on the moon by using a telescope on Earth.
    3
  2710. Yeah, but, the moon landings aren't really up for any "debate," not in any real way. The deniers consist of crackpots with absolutely no knowledge of the topic. And, making matters even more distant from being a "debate," they don't want answers to their own questions, and run for the hills the moment the get the answers they don't like. That's not a "debate." That's just a bunch of nuts who desire a mechanism to make themselves feel better in life by baselessly slandering others. They constantly regurgitate out of context quote mines, or claim that Apollo would rewrite the laws of physics in order for it to have actually happened (a subject suitable for science journals, if that was true). But, are they publishing in science journals? No. Do they even want to understand the context behind their own quote mines? No. They just want to make videos, and watch videos, that slander others.
    3
  2711. You don't actually believe that silly story about him thinking that the car was abandoned, do you? I mean, do you go up to abandoned cars while wearing a ski mask and point a gun at the driver's seat as you open the door?
    3
  2712.  @TexMex421  Well, he didn't say what he did or didn't believe. About 20% of the time, that question is asked simply by people who want to prove it to the deniers. But, yes, 80% of the time, the question is asked by a denier.
    3
  2713. Hilarious!! And, their radar and radio telescope tracking of Apollo? Were those magically bouncing off of the moon too?
    3
  2714. First of all, your understanding of the origin of the term "conspiracy theory" came from a conspiracy video. Secondly, like all of your ilk, you never lifted a finger to confirm whether what the video told you was actually correct. In reality, the term was coined long before the CIA existed. But, the makers of those videos rest assured that none of their followers EVER fact-check them.
    3
  2715.  @michaelstillman1171  Nope, it was just luck. There was no way to prepare for a large solar flare.
    3
  2716. Dewdrop, it took $300 billion (adjusted for inflation) to make Apollo happen, plus approximately $150 billion more contributed via soft costs and international support. That's nearly a half a trillion dollars (in today's money). And, for that, they got 13 Saturn V launches, and 6 landings. How many thousands of launches and landings would it take to build a resort? And, how much money would that cost?
    3
  2717. Your first 5 words were the only correct ones that you stated.
    3
  2718. You do realize that the Earth's axis of rotation is tilted 23.5 degrees, right? You do know that's why we have winters and summers, right? You do realize that this photo was taken in December, which means it's the maximum tilt angle of the poles with relation to the sun, right? You do realize that this photo was taken from well south of the south pole, right?
    3
  2719. (A) No. Those are not the surface temperatures of the moon. (B) Why is this relevant to Apollo?
    3
  2720.  @AM-rd9pu  The sun angle was about 12 degrees upon landing (give or take a hair per mission). Mid morning would be 45 degrees.
    3
  2721. How about the Himawari-8 Real-time satellite stream?
    3
  2722.  @pasisovi  Yes, the least educated people think Apollo was a hoax. The world's experts do not.
    3
  2723. Congratulations on completely failing to understand anything about this situation, then displaying your warped opinions for the entire world to see. Bravo! First of all, no, you do not need to prove a case before it can be investigated. A store employee stating "I think that woman might not have paid" is enough reasonable suspicion to detain and investigate. Can you even imagine if the system worked the way you're claiming? If a store employee must gather up evidence (video recordings, register transaction records, inventory records, etc.) before asking a cop to stop a potential shoplifter, then the person would be long gone. Secondly, she wasn't arrested merely because one person said she may have stolen something. She added to the probable cause for arrest when she refused to identify herself (mainly in the full video, not as much in this version that starts in the middle). Florida is a "stop and identify" state, which legally requires that a person must provide identification if detained in investigation of a crime. Refusal to do so is an arrestable offense all by itself, regardless of any theft charges. The cop asked her a thousand times for her ID, or even her name, but she refused. As the cop tried to explain (but she ignored, as did you), the original possible theft charge was irrelevant. Third, the side of the road isn't a courtroom. There is no burden of proof at the side of the road. An arrest is just an arrest, not a conviction. You act as if the police officer is the judge and jury. No. We don't want the police to have that level of authority. We want them to make determinations about whether it's likely a crime happened or not, and then the burden of proof comes IN THE COURTROOM. Under your "logic," if there's a burden of proof at the side of the road, then you're asking the cops to go through the due process of law to prove a case before an arrest can even be made, essentially turning the cop into the judge and jury. It makes no sense. You're correct in that you do not need to aid a police officer in an investigation. However, you must cooperate at a very basic level. You must provide ID (in any "identify" states, which is most of them, including Florida). She refused to do so (go watch the full version of the video, not this one that cuts out the entire first half). You must not obstruct/obfuscate. She did both. And, if arrested, you must not resist. She resisted. You have absolutely no understanding of the law.
    3
  2724. It's two wires. Any operator can connect them.
    3
  2725. Yes. That's quite true. But, thankfully, for Apollo, we have bulletproof confirmation from countless sources outside of the US government.
    3
  2726.  @MajorKanoyStorm  Thankfully, for Apollo, we have bulletproof confirmation from countless sources outside of the US government.
    3
  2727.  @MajorKanoyStorm  Thankfully, for Apollo, we have bulletproof confirmation from countless sources outside of the US government.
    3
  2728. No. The police kept the arrest video private for 2.5 years. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video made public. Nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive.
    3
  2729. Yet, we know 5 of the 6 flags are still standing, because their shadows are projected across the lunar surface.
    3
  2730. Yes, sure, when you see a guy cranking in a playground in front of children, just mind your own business.
    3
  2731. "If there are doubts it means there's something wrong with the mission's truth." No, it means that people like you don't know what you're talking about, but you pretend you do. And, you really enjoy the notion that somehow you, who knows nothing whatsoever about the topic, magically knows more than the entire planet's experts. It makes you feel good.
    3
  2732. "It is just like when people say they saw UFOs, the US has an answer for that as well until the actual truth came out." Good gods. The US has investigated thousands of UFOs over the decades. Nobody is denying that. But, to you, UFO = alien. In reality, UFO is "unidentified flying object." And, what "truth" has come out? That birds and planes look funny in infrared cameras?
    3
  2733. Huh? Which ones are you asking about? Most of them didn't return to Earth.
    3
  2734. Another moon landing denier who can't even read and write at a 2nd grade level. What a shocker. By the way, dewdrop, there was no rover on Apollo 11. You don't know one mission from another, yet, you think you know more than the entire planet's experts. Sure. Right.
    3
  2735. "Yes the whole thing has more holes in it than Swiss cheese." Then, Tim, why aren't you publishing in science journals? For 2+ years now, I keep telling you that YouTube comments is where cranks go when they don't have anything that can pass scientific scrutiny. Yet, here you are, 2 years later, still using YouTube comments like they're a science journal. Why?
    3
  2736. "Water vapor doesn't expand in a vacuum it is only 0.5psi" Dewdrop, the pressure inside the suits was about 3.5 PSI. The pressure outside was nearly 0. As I explained before (and you ignored, as usual), you are off by a factor of 7x. "what Engineer disagrees?" Every single one on the planet. You don't have the slightest understanding of the topic.
    3
  2737. So, like usual, you ignore everything and run away, huh?
    3
  2738. One of my cars can go up to 190 mph. Therefore, it should take me no more than 15.8 hours to drive the 3000 miles from New York to Los Angeles. There's no difference between "up to" and "what speed I actually go."
    3
  2739.  @stusue9733  He's copying and pasting from stuff he doesn't understand at all. Notice the random shifting from Celsius to Fahrenheit? Notice the self-contradicting statements he makes only a sentence or two apart? All he's doing is regurgitating stuff he knows nothing about.
    3
  2740. Why is it strange to want to see the rock composition at various places on the moon?
    3
  2741. What instructions do you think they lacked?
    3
  2742. "Even tho the Russians were way ahead of us." When? In 1961? Sure. Are you even aware that the during the entirety of the US Gemini program of 10 manned missions, the Soviets didn't launch a single manned mission? Not one. Nada. The US leapfrogged them, and never turned back. The Soviets were trying to catch back up, but never got their N1 moon rocket to work. They exploded 4 of them before realizing that the design was too flawed to continue. By then, they had lost the race. So, they shifted to space stations and probes to Venus. They were more minor accomplishments than walking on the moon, but, they were stuff that they could still do "first," so, they shifted their focus.
    3
  2743.  @jackhammer9018  The engine is beneath, tucked up into the craft. It was required to be that way because it butted right up against the descent stage. As for the "gas tanks," well, the fuel and oxidizer tanks were located on either side of the craft. Go look at the schematics. You can even identify the bulges in the craft walls where the lopsided tanks were located (lopsided for proper balance, because the fuel and oxidizer didn't weigh the same, so they had to situate one tank further away from the center of mass than the other tank). Why are you making comments about aerospace engineering, when you're making it very clear that you have no understanding of the topic? You're "stunned" because the entire planet's experts believe it?? I'm "stunned" that someone who knows absolutely nothing about the topic, magically believes he somehow understands it better than the planet's aerospace engineers. Do you really believe they just randomly launched the craft up, and it's like a bullet hitting another bullet? Bullets are ballistic. Spacecraft are not.
    3
  2744.  @Carl-mw3ft  QUOTE: "and so I am" --- a crackpot.
    3
  2745. "How come the resolution of the Apollo sites of bigger equipment taken from 12 miles away show less detail than images of the recent lander which is much smaller that were taken from a distance of 60 miles?" What lander took photos of the Apollo sites from 60 miles away? I don't know what you're talking about, and neither do you. "During a recent NASA video" A decade ago is "recent" to you? "discussing the Artimus program" First of all, if you can't spell it, you don't know anything about it. Secondly, he was talking about Orion, not Artemis. Artemis didn't get approved and funded until 5 years after that video was made. "the engineer said one of the major hurdles that must be overcome before attempting manned missions to the moon is determining how to safely get humans through the van Allen radiation belts." It was a video made for children, so, it didn't get into a lot of details. The extent of your knowledge is that of children, because he talked about it for about 30 seconds. They wanted to test Orion in the Van Allen belts before putting people inside, mainly to make sure the electronics would be able to deal with it. It's also called "trial by fire" because they wanted to test the shielding on Orion in the Van Allen belts that might help them determine how well it would work for longer duration missions. Children will not understand these concepts, so, they just kept it very brief, and didn't mention all of the various ways that the mission data will tell them the things they wanted to know about the tests. "If they could do it in the 60s, why can't they do it now?" They are doing it now. You already know this, because you mentioned Artemis (but you spelled it wrong). But, for all of that time between Apollo and Artemis, they couldn't do it because there was no funded program to do it. "All I know is" Zero. "there are a lot of things that don't make sense" And, you expected that by watching conspiracy videos, things would make sense? That's like shopping for a spouse with wholesome family values in the convicted felon prison population. The makers of those conspiracy videos aren't telling you the truth about anything. That's why it doesn't make sense. "like the photos with artificial lighting" Nope. There are no such photos. "and videos that were clearly staged." Spare me. You don't know what you're talking about. "In one of the scenes where the astronauts are setting up the flag you can see reflection from a wire that is not the antenna on the plss." From what? Lens flare? A video artifact? A blip in the transmission? My money is on lens flare. JJ Abrams made a nice living on intentional lens flare, while most Hollywood productions try to avoid it. "Whether they were on the moon or not, there are plenty of suspicious things in the videos" I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    3
  2746. Sorry, you need FAR more buzzwords. Here, let me help: Bigfoot, chemtrails, Illuminati, lizard people in government, secret cures for cancer, Men in Black, Elvis lives, aliens live at Area 51, Alex Jones is a hero, Gilligan's Island was a documentary, and you graduated the 8th grade.
    3
  2747. The Apollo 11 TV camera was fairly close to the lander. And, they wanted the flag in the moonwalk video. That was considered more important than worrying about whether it would be knocked over. So, yes, it was placed close to the lander so it would be in frame.
    3
  2748. This has already been answered, but, I'll just answer again in my own wording. The technology IS lost, and IS destroyed. But, it's only in the exact same spirit that Concorde technology is lost/destroyed. When Pettit made that comment, there was no Artemis program. So, yes, at that moment, it had been lost and destroyed in history. The launch facilities were torn down and scrapped, replaced by facilities to launch other things. Training facilities, gone. All of the contractor companies that made everything for Apollo... they can't just sit around, you know. They all scrapped their tooling and replaced it with tooling to build other things (if they survived at all... some of those companies just stopped existing because all of their revenue was from Apollo, and when that stopped, they closed their doors). North American Aviation made the command modules, and that company collapsed before Apollo even ended. All of the remaining Saturn V rockets were gutted out and put into museums. The remaining landers were never finished, lacking any computers or electronics of any type, and were just put into museums. The entire radar tracking and communications network worldwide scrapped all of the analog equipment used for Apollo. It was all ripped out and replaced by modern equipment, with absolutely no hope of ever communicating with an Apollo craft. That is the spirit that it's "lost" or "destroyed." Your knowledge about Apollo isn't limited to a single sentence spoken by a single astronaut, is it?
    3
  2749. Huh? The landing coordinates are 30° 44' 58.3" east longitude by 20° 9' 50.5" north latitude. Apollo 17 landed in the most "remote" (deepest off of the curvature of the moon) of all of the Apollo landing sites. Why would you think the Earth angle would be 70 degrees?
    3
  2750. Can you name an animal capable of flying the command module and lunar module?
    3
  2751. Huh? You think we can see details of the surface of Mars with Hubble? WHAT?
    3
  2752. Huh? While the astronauts handles it? What do you think the flag should do?
    3
  2753. You never heard that because, as you have demonstrated for years now, your only source of input is the YouTube parade of conspiracy videos. You're not studying Apollo. You just like to watch videos that tell you what you like to hear, so you can feel "special."
    3
  2754. Nobody should ever blindly trust anything said by anybody, especially a government. Evidence is what matters the most. As for your 1.1% doubt, well, I'll put it this way: the Soviets didn't have that amount of doubt. They tracked the Apollo missions to the moon and back using radar and radio telescopes, just as dozens of other countries did. And, they were able to point their radio dishes at the moon and receive the Apollo audio, just like countless others did. Furthermore, in order to sustain your 1.1% doubt, you'd have to explain why so many countries participated, even decades later. Like, for example, just last year, both China and India released their lunar orbital photography, showing the Apollo landers in the exact same spots as was shown in the original mission photography, and in the Arizona State University LRO camera photography since 2009 (and even better in 2012 when they dropped the orbit lower). The list of evidence is enough to write an encyclopedia. But, I'll tell you this much, just for the above couple of items, almost no moon landing deniers I've ever come across even begin to tackle those facts. All they do is ignore, and then run for the hills. The rare exception is when they conclude that all nations on Earth are run by a secret society (sometimes lizard people) who manufactured this notion that countries don't all get along, and the conflicts between the Soviets and the USA, and China, etc., are all part of a secret plot to control people, and all of those countries worked together to perpetuate a lie. That's about how far gone you'd have to be, in order to believe that the dozens of countries that confirmed Apollo in the dozens of different ways... you'd have to believe that all countries on Earth are conspiring against you, and that they've chosen moon landings as the method to do it. I still fail to understand how moon landings end up "controlling" anybody. But, whatever, you can't reason with drug addicts.
    3
  2755. She had abandoned her family and a conventional life long before. According to interviews, her family said that she went "wild" and "off the rails" and left her husband and two children behind (including a 6 month old boy) to go off and live a life of crime and drugs. She ended up doing a felony prison term for stealing cars. She had an arrest record a mile long, and multiple judgements against her for various thefts. Repeated charges for drugs and alcohol. Many failures to appear in court and had open warrants. And, yeah, since it's difficult to get a job after that, her landlord said in an interview that her profession was, well, ya know, one of those jobs involving cash transactions with lots of men. And, apparently, her own [abandoned] husband and one of her two children didn't go to her funeral. Yes, you're correct, this incident from this video probably didn't matter one bit.
    3
  2756. @Bendel Wolide Sooooo, in your mind, between premeditated murder of two teens for the crime of repeatedly robbing him.... vs. "Hello, police, these two kids have been robbing me on holidays, and I'm pretty sure they're coming today to rob me again, can you send someone out to help catch them in the act?" ... You choose the premeditated murder??? Wow!!! So, what other level of crimes would justify premeditated double murder of two teens? If they repeatedly cut him off in traffic, can he plan to murder him? How about repeatedly hacking his identity? How about repeatedly stealing his mail and using his credit cards? Where is the cutoff (in your mind) between when somebody should call the police, vs. when somebody should commit double murder of two teens? What is that threshold? See, thankfully for society, nobody actually agrees with you. The law clearly outlines that if there's a surprise break-in, and you (or your family) are under a potential threat, yes, you can use deadly force. But, you don't get to plan to murder two teens that you know are coming. Self defense using deadly force is allowed. Premeditated murder is not. So, how about the other pieces of his murders? Like, how about the fact that he said on tape after killing her, "cute," and then she was found with her shirt open (go figure that one out yourself)? How about the fact that he left them in his basement for 24 hours before calling the cops? Do those things fit within your model of when murdering two teens is acceptable? As for teens "terrorizing" him, well, sure, I hate that, and I certainly haven't lost any sleep over the deaths of those two teen criminals. But, they were teens. I tend to think that there's still some hope, and they don't deserve to die for the crime of theft. But, yeah, that's the risk they ran when they decided to break into a bunch of homes in the neighborhood. But, the murderer isn't getting my sympathy either. The man didn't report any of the prior thefts to the police. Instead, he just kept feuding with the two kids and their families. The boy used to work for him. The girl was the daughter in a family he hated, and had been feuding with for years. But, still, in our society, when you know who the thieves are, you report them. This whole thing was sooooooo easily prevented. Call the police after the prior thefts. She was wearing his flight jacket to school, right? She had stolen that flight jacket, and was wearing it herself, right? Well, that's pretty easy to identify and prove, so, ok, report her. Get her arrested. If she keeps robbing you, then, like I said, you set up a sting operation with the police to catch her in the act. But, no, you are not allowed to murder two teens for the crime of theft.
    3
  2757. "Can you imagine we had the technology in 69 to go to moon" Well, sure, you can imagine it, if you want. But, the better way is to actually read the tons of documentation about it, so imagination isn't required. "but haven’t been back sense" Oh, look, the nut can't read or write. Shocker. I mean, seriously here, don't you find it at least a little bit curious that the people who believe what you believe universally have the literacy level of 2nd graders? No? In your mind, the people who can barely read or write are the "smart ones," and the world's experts are the clueless ones? "and we have cars that drive themselves" Yes, it's very nice. But, what does that have to do with Apollo? "and now looking at the footage again I can say it looks fake" YOU are looking at it? YOU are? Meanwhile, hmmm, none of the world's 77 space agencies (staffed with the virtual entirety of the experts in this topic) can figure out it looks fake, but YOU have figured it out? "it was a measuring contest between russia and America" Yes. Congratulations. You said something correct. "and America had television therefor they won" Dewdrop, do you really think the Soviets didn't have television by 1969? Are you even serious at this point? "I believe we have been to space just not the moon" Thanks for sharing your "belief" with the rest of the world. Now, please put that on every job application you ever fill out. It really makes the hiring process a lot easier. Usually it takes weeks to figure out that the person you might hire (or already have hired) has lost his marbles. It really helps to announce it right away.
    3
  2758. Sorry, nobody can understand you. Maybe if you used more emojis?
    3
  2759. Western civilization is fake? I wouldn't even understand what that could possibly even mean.
    3
  2760. Sorry, you're wrong. There was always the correct amount of latency.
    3
  2761.  @EvolveVoIP  Sorry, you're just wrong. There was always at least 2.5 seconds delay between when Houston talks and an astronaut answers. If you think you have any segment of audio that is any different, you'll be the first in history to find it.
    3
  2762. Another proud graduate of YouTube University. Bravo. Dewdrop, here is the timeline: July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = video was released to the public. Nobody saw the video until long after she was dead.
    3
  2763.  @therealzilch  No. This is a 15+ year old argument. It's on Aulis (among other places). A Russian purporting to be a rocket scientist (yeah, right) argues that the F1 engines didn't actually work. Why? Because they had a plastic hose in one spot instead of a metal hose, and he thinks a plastic hose couldn't stand the work it had to do. And, rather than just using a metal hose to fix the problem, he claims that the engineers decided to scrap the F1 altogether, and use J2 engines (the lower powered versions from the 2nd stage). So, in the middle of the night, the secret "they" (NASA administrators) snuck into the vehicle assembly building, and swapped out the F1 engines on the Saturn V and installed J2 engines that were given a bigger engine bell to look like F1s. Then, of course, the details drop off, not explaining how the five J2s can possibly lift 6 million pounds... but, the end result is that the Saturn V didn't go as fast as required, and all of the Saturn V launches never made it into orbit. I don't recall clouds ever being part of the argument before, but, whatever. I don't care. These ridiculous people will go to amazing lengths to spew as much garbage as possible.
    3
  2764. Yes, dewdrop. The temperature cycles are well documented by every country with a space agency that has ever sent anything to the moon. Sorry you don't understand. A lunar day is 708 hours, not 24.
    3
  2765. "Curious how no country on the planet can currently put a man on the moon "AGAIN?"" Yet, you can't be all that curious, because you were given an answer 2 weeks ago, and not a peep out of you. Something tells me you're not actually curious at all, and you're more interested in posting gibberish to make yourself feel good about committing slander/libel. "including the one country that "PUT A MAN ON THE MOON?" when space technology was very primitive." OK, so, you think there was a technology problem? What technology do you think they lacked? What was primitive about it? "No human being has entered into the Van Allen Belt "SINCE THE APOLLO PROGRAM"." Well, with no actual reason to do so, why would they bother? And, what booster would they use? See, dewdrop, the problem is that if you want to send people way up into those belts, you need a big enough booster to do it. And, they'd have to do it sufficiently fast to avoid long term radiation effects. After a week or two in the worst areas of the belts, you're probably going to receive a fatal dose. So, if you want to avoid that, you need to accelerate to the point that it's fast enough to get through quickly. It's like getting a medical CT scan. Yeah, getting one or two of those is fine. But, if you sat inside a CT machine for a week, yeah, you're in deep trouble. So, what booster rocket would you propose they use to accelerate way up through the belts? Can you name a human-rated rocket booster that is/was capable of doing so after the Saturn V was retired? "How did the USA manage to get human beings to the moon and safely back to earth 54 YEARS AGO and for SO MANY TIMES without any casualties whatsoever?" They had plenty of casualties on the ground, which heightened their concerns for safety. This was especially true of the block-1 capsule, which they never put anybody inside ever again, after the three astronauts were killed inside one. They went straight to the block-2 craft, which was already much safer, and they even boosted the safety even further. But, they had plenty of close calls anyway, such as Apollo 13. What is it about you nuts that you actually WANT to see dead astronauts in order to believe what they did? Why aren't you looking at EVIDENCE? No? Your basis for belief or disbelief is about how many people did or didn't die? "It must have been the superior 54 year old technology." Yup. Like the superior technology of the 1969 Concorde, and we don't have a single supersonic airliner anywhere on Earth now. Or, the superior X15 from the 1950s that could fly at mach-7, while no airplane today can even go half of that. It's called the "golden age" of aviation and space travel for a reason. "the BS detector worked very well." Yet, you fall for every piece of BS you hear in conspiracy videos. Sigh. The irony. "What was it that "BUZZ TOLD THAT LITTLE GIRL ON CAMERA"? 🤫" What IS wrong with you? What can possibly make you think you have a working "BS detector" and say something like this? If you believe Aldrin was "confessing" to an 8 year old, please explain some things: 1) Why did Aldrin say to the little girl in that very same interview, both before and after he said "we didn't go," that he DID go to the moon? 2) Are you incapable of understanding context? When the little girl asked why they hadn't been back to the moon in a long time, does Aldrin really need to sit there and regurgitate the exact words back to her, in order for you to understand "we didn't go" was a direct response to not going back IN SUCH A LONG TIME? No? Aldrin MUST say those words, else, it's a "confession"? That's how your mind works? 3) If this really was a "confession," why didn't the entire world stop? Lori Laughlin bribed a couple of crooked admissions people to get her kids into a college they didn't deserve to get into, and what happened? The entire world stopped. Front page headlines. Criminal cases. Civil lawsuits. Over 50 people were convicted of crimes. Senate hearings. The press didn't let up for over a year. Documentaries were produced. It was major news. But, Aldrin "confesses" to not going to the moon, and what? Nothing? The biggest and most expensive fraud in the history of the planet, yet, not a single reporter, no senate hearings, no prosecutions, no lawsuits, nothing. Now, is that because the rest of the world, you know, the SANE ones, understand the context of what he said? Or, is it because you're the only one on the planet smart enough to realize that he was confessing?
    3
  2766. "Wake up and watch conspiracy videos and believe whatever they tell you."
    3
  2767. "mentioned the moon rock donated to the Netherlands by the Apollo 11 astronauts" Nope. The Apollo 11 astronauts had nothing to do with that rock. The museum in the Netherlands certainly doesn't think it was donated by the astronauts. Why do you? Did a conspiracy video/article tell you that?
    3
  2768. "the only pics nasa has shown of the supposed landing sites are 30 miles above the moon." No. In 2012, they dropped LRO's orbit to 12 miles. They got even better photos after that, than they had earlier. "but won't show us close ups of the supposed apollo landing sites because these close ups would prove the moon landings were a hoax." Yet, both China and India took orbital photos of some of the landing sites also. "see the truth and the facts" Whose "facts"? Yours? Thus far, your "facts" are wrong. "nasa has admitted we don't currently have the tech to safely have a manned spacecraft go through the deadly van allen radiation belts" No. A decade ago, they said they wanted to test the Orion craft in the belts before putting people inside (just as they had done on Apollo 6). And, they did that in 2014. It passed. So, why are you still complaining 10 years later? "So how did we go through them over 50 years ago with primitive tech, simple answer, we didn't" So, before anybody could even give you an answer to your question, you already negate it? You obviously don't want answers to your own questions, which is why you believe the silly things you do. You're not honestly "researching" anything. You're regurgitating claims others have made, without understanding anything about it.
    3
  2769. Well, maybe if you were literate, you'd simply search for "lunar rover deployment," and find what you're looking for.
    3
  2770. You can see the moon from Earth, but not at a resolution that would allow you to see Apollo artifacts. There isn't a telescope in existence that is large enough to see that level of resolution from Earth.
    3
  2771. Still pretending to understand things you don't, eh? You want to use lead to shield ions? Why do you suppose that any particle physicist on Earth will tell you that using a heavy metal like lead on ionic particles will result in secondary Bremsstrahlung radiation? Why do you suppose any radiobiologist will tell you that the quantity of this radiation will not result in instantaneous death, like you're claiming? Look, dewdrop, you don't know what you're talking about, as has been repeatedly demonstrated in the numerous posts you've made. If you think you understand particle radiation better than the entire world's particle physicists, and you think you understand radiobiology better than the entire world's radiobiologists, then a YouTube comment is not where you'd go to demonstrate this to the world. There are numerous university-recognized science journals around the world that you can use to demonstrate the math you're proposing. YouTube comments are not a science journal (and neither is Aulis, by the way). If you think the entirety of aerospace engineers and particle physicists are all "doing it wrong," then write it up, and submit for peer review. Only crackpots think YouTube comments are a science journal.
    3
  2772. There are plenty of satellite images of all 6 landing sites. Arizona State University's LRO camera has taken hundreds of them, basically from every possible sun angle, so you can see the stuff on the moon as it is lit up from the sun from the east/west/overhead. However, LRO was "only" dropped to an altitude of 12 miles. For a satellite, that's actually very low, relatively speaking. But, from 12 miles up, there's no way to see the kind of detail illustrated in this video. As for rovers (and the rover cams), those burned out within about 36 hours after the astronauts lifted off in 1971 and 1972. I'm convinced that if the rovers had been commissioned a lot earlier (they were a last-minute addition), they'd have made them autonomous with radioisotope generators and would be hardened to last for years. But, as it was, with the timeline they had, they were scrambling to even get functional rovers to last 70 hours, let alone making them last for years.
    3
  2773.  @AM-rd9pu  Not that you asked me, nor would/should you care about what I think about anything in life. But, I think Aldrin punched the guy out of spontaneous anger. I think they didn't press charges because they knew darned well that (a) Aldrin is the good guy, and Sibrel is the criminal, and (b) they'd never in a million years find a jury of 12 to convict him anyway. So, they softened it with the logic you're applying. But, in reality, I doubt I could punch someone and get away with it in that same situation. Furthermore, I'm sure you have heard me say this before, but, I'll say it again anyway. The very next time I saw Aldrin after that punch, I walked up and shook the hand that did the punching, and told him I thought he did the right thing. He paused silently for a good while, which is rare for him, because you usually can't get a word in edgewise when you talk with him (which is fine by me), and eventually said, "well, he's not going to stop doing what he's doing." I don't remember word for word what he said after that, but, it basically boiled down to the idea that he regretted doing the punching (though, he would never use those words), and would have felt it was worthwhile if Sibrel would actually change his ways after being punched. But, nothing at all changed. Sibrel remained the liar he always was. And, no purpose was served in punching him. He never mentioned a single word of "I was cornered and had to defend myself." Anyway, sorry, I know you've probably read me telling people that before. So, I'm repetitive. But, um, yeah.
    3
  2774. Huh? Do you think they brought an aluminum flag or something? Why wouldn't/shouldn't the flag move?
    3
  2775. It's destroyed in the exact same spirit that Concorde technology is destroyed. All of the facilities used to manufacture the stuff are long gone, knocked down, retooled, etc. The launch facilities were torn down and replaced to launch other things. Most of the companies that built everything for Apollo were either shut down, or they sold off to bigger companies, or they retooled to do different types of projects. There are no more 1960s IBM mainframes used for Apollo guidance. There are no more rope-based computers used for onboard operations. The radar tracking stations, radio telescopes, and S-band analog radio network, are long gone, ripped out and replaced with more modern electronics, which would have no hope of communicating with an Apollo spacecraft. Nobody uses pure oxygen spacecraft any longer. Etc. The list goes on and on. THAT is what is meant by "destroyed." A bit of a colorful word, but, accurate. None of the knowhow is destroyed. As for exhibits, please tell me you're joking. Have you been to any of the museums that have the remaining stuff for Apollo? Good grief.
    3
  2776. Even the lowest rung of conspiratards stopped using that ridiculous argument. Why would you believe such utter garabage?
    3
  2777. Yes, they borrowed that footage from Apollo 14's 2nd EVA.
    3
  2778. Huh? What was wrong with this arrest? She was putting on a show at a public beach in front of multiple people including children.
    3
  2779. They're building it back right now under the Artemis program.
    3
  2780. Correct. They never landed at a spot on the moon where the Earth would be that low on the horizon.
    3
  2781. So, Google and Wiki are "in on it"?
    3
  2782. No gravity? Good grief.
    3
  2783. Dewdrop, there are no technological gaps in getting to the moon either (other than the concept that all of that technology was retired, and needs to be built back up again).
    3
  2784. Are you even remotely capable of responding in any coherent way? Or, is your mind just too far gone?
    3
  2785. PART 1: YOU SAID: "Garbage. Fraud. Disinformation." == You have no idea what you're talking about. YOU SAID: "Robots can visit the moon, humans may not, at least not with existing technology." == Congratulations. You said something correct. Yes, we do not currently have any existing technology to put people on the moon. But, from 1969-1972, yes, we had the required technologies. Those technologies were retired after Apollo ended. So, in that sense, you're correct, we don't currently "have" the technology. We have the knowhow, of course. But, there are no current functional boosters capable of doing the job, nor any current functional landers. None of the craft in museums are actually flight worthy. And, even if they were functional (which they're not), we don't currently have any launch facilities to even get them up there. YOU SAID: "Make NASA produce all APOLLO data, which is now mysteriously - missing. Give me a break!" == That's ridiculous. All Apollo data is intact. YOU SAID: "Don't give them another penny until they produce it and make it available for independent examination." == Just send away for it. Anybody can. YOU SAID: "You'll discover that's not going to happen. Classified, state secret..horse puckey." == Absolutely wrong. Congress funded the Apollo program under the prerequisite that all materials would be public. There was to be no copyrighting, no trademarking, no vendor branding, nothing. All of the schematics are public. All of the materials are public. Anybody is free to request copies of anything they want. YOU SAID: "Sorry. Wrong. NASA claims it is ALL gone or missing" == Complete nonsense. Nobody at NASA has made any such claim. You are listening to conspiracy videos that make that claim. But, in reality, you are blindly believing anything a conspiracy video tells you... while simultaneously accusing the sane people of doing exactly what YOU are doing. YOU SAID: "as their excuse for not extending beyond near earth orbit." == Pffttt. The "excuse" is that there aren't any functional Saturn V rockets, nor any replacements with that same capability. YOU SAID: "Too costly, they claim, go have to duplicate in order to repeat. Nice try." == That is absolutely correct. History has taught us that lesson time and time again. It is far easier/cheaper/better to build something new from scratch, using modern engineering and construction methods, than to reverse engineer old technologies and try to make carbon copies. YOU SAID: "All that aside, where is the radiation shielding in any of this?" == It's the aluminum hull of the craft. YOU SAID: "Radiation in the Van Allen belts and cosmic radiation on the moon would literally fry a biological organism, which we are." == Pfftttt. Yet, James Van Allen said the exact opposite. What do you know about the Van Allen belts that James Van Allen didn't know? YOU SAID: "Do those space suits stop micro meteors travelling at thousands of miles pet hour?" == Yes. Just look up the A7L suit construction. There's a micrometeor shield layer. I wouldn't normally advise to use Wiki as a source of knowledge, because too many things on Wiki are wrong. But, in this case, ANYTHING is better than your ignorance. QUOTE: "Integrated Thermal Micrometeoroid Garment " "Covering the Torso Limb Suit Assembly was an Integrated Thermal Micrometeoroid Garment (ITMG). This garment protected the suit from abrasion and protected the astronaut from thermal solar radiation and micrometeoroids which could puncture the suit. The garment was made from thirteen layers of material which were (from inside to outside): rubber coated nylon, 5 layers of aluminized Mylar, 4 layers of nonwoven Dacron, 2 layers of aluminized Kapton film/Beta marquisette laminate, and Teflon coated Beta filament cloth. Additionally, the ITMG also used a patch of 'Chromel-R' woven nickel-chrome (the familiar silver-colored patch seen especially on the suits worn by the Apollo 11 crew) for abrasion protection from the Portable Life Support System (PLSS) backpack. Chromel-R was also used on the uppers of the lunar boots and on the EVA gloves. Finally, patches of Teflon were used for additional abrasion protection on the knees, waist and shoulders of the ITMG." YOU SAID: "If so, where can I get some of that material do use in bullet proofing?" == Pftttt. Do you get shot at a lot? And, what ARE you talking about? A bullet's energy is millions of times greater than the energy of a micrometeroid. A typical bullet has a mass of about 0.02 KG. A typical micrometeoroid has a mass of about 0.0000000001 KG. Or, sometimes, even a lot smaller. If you want to use the same shield for micrometeoroids to stop bullets, I have news for you, that's about like saying you want to use a fly swatter to stop a locomotive.
    3
  2786. PART 2: YOU SAID: "Live streaming of communication from the moon 250k miles away in 1969? I was there, and we did not have that sort of technology." == Pffttt. Really?? Why don't any of the thousands of people who designed and built the billion dollar worldwide communications system for Apollo agree with you?? Why?? What do YOU know that they didn't?? Over 1,000 Australian engineers and technicians worked on the network of radar and radio telescope dishes used during Apollo. And, that was just Australia. Spain built their also, which was used during Apollo. I don't know how many of their engineers and technicians were involved in building their part of the DSN, but, my best guess is that it was probably around 500 (because it's about half of the capability of the Australian sites). And, of course, there were well over 1000 engineers and techs working on it for Goldstone, and the overall design. MIT participated. JPL participated. Why didn't any of those career communications engineers and technicians ever know that they failed so badly? And, how did NASA manage to "fool" those thousands of communications experts into thinking their equipment was receiving signals from Apollo on the moon? YOU SAID: "Tell NASA to produce the data and then we'll talk." == What EXACT data do you think is missing? YOU SAID: "No, I'm not the holder of any sort of insider information" == Pffttt. Yeah, no kidding. You're a laughing stock clown. YOU SAID: "it's all public and freely available for those willing to do their homework." == Sorry, but watching conspiracy videos isn't "doing homework." YOU SAID: "And all those people involved. God bless them they did their jobs, and most in isolation from each other." == No, you're saying they DIDN'T do their jobs. You're saying that the thousands of communications engineers completely failed to build the equipment to communicate with men on the moon. You're saying that they were all so universally incompetent that they aren't even aware that their equipment couldn't do what they designed it to do. And, you're saying that they were all universally too stupid to realize that, when they pointed those dishes at the moon, those dishes weren't actually receiving the signals they were receiving (in your viewpoint). Somehow, these people failed so badly at their jobs that they pointed the dishes at the moon, and somehow didn't realize that there wasn't a signal coming from the moon, even though all of those dishes DID show signals coming from the moon. That's how incompetent you are saying those thousands of people were. So, no, you don't get to say that you think they did their jobs. You're saying the EXACT OPPOSITE. You're not only accusing them of NOT doing their jobs, but you're also accusing them of being so damned stupid that they didn't even know how to operate their own equipment that they designed and built. YOU SAID: "Compartmentalize anything and you can put things together in ways that will amaze." == You've done that with your brain, obviously. You've compartmentalized yourself into believing self-contradicting nonsense. YOU SAID: "Thousands of simulations were done, any of which could be replayed? So, where are they now? Conveniently missing." == No, dummy. Once again, you're just blindly trusting conspiracy videos that say it's missing. Sorry, none of it is missing. This is a product of a conspiracy hive-mind that has magnified what was ACTUALLY lost, with a delusional fantasy. What was actually lost was two backup tapes from Parkes Australia. And, from there, every year or two, you dummies keep inflating (in your minds) what was lost. YOU SAID: "Unavailable for examination and close scrutiny." == Wrong. YOU SAID: "How does that happen in a free society, with the Gemstone of American Science, and all funded with American tax dollars." == It's a moot point, because what you're asserting is plainly wrong. YOU SAID: "The obviously observable information defies logic and in many cases the laws of physics." == It does!?!?!!? Well, then your solution is quite simple. Why aren't you getting off of YouTube, and publishing those calculations in a physics journal?? Why?!?!!? For 50 years, the conspiratard crowd has been relegated to their crackpot crazy notions by self-producing nonsensical and dishonest videos. But, YOU, on the other hand, have verifiable proof that the stuff couldn't have worked without violating the laws of physics!!! This is something that the conspiratard crowd has waited for for 50 years!!!! Why aren't you publishing!?!?!?! Why in the world would you waste your time on YouTube comments, when you could be publishing such irrefutable evidence as the laws of physics!?!?!?! I mean, good grief, fame and fortune awaits you. You'll be on every talk show on the planet. You'll be on the university lecture circuits for the next 5 years for $70,000 per week in lecture fees. You'll get 7 figure book deals. You can single handedly cause congress to immediately halt everything at NASA. You'll get the perpetrators thrown in prison for the rest of their lives (the ones still alive). And, you're just a single physics paper away!!! Why are you here?!?!? YOU SAID: "The truth is there to see for those with eyes willing to look." == Where? At conspiracy videos made by people who know just as little as you do? YOU SAID: "We are being asked to believe the impossible and the unbelievable. That is magic, not science. Bring the data, and make it all freely available for study and publication." == Name the EXACT data you want. YOU SAID: "And choose your words carefully, for you may have to eat them." == Pfftttt. Do you even know how stupid you sound?
    3
  2787. Is your Google broken? There must be a million videos and articles on it. It was attached to the side of the lander, facing toward the ladder. Later, the camera was moved around 30 feet away to a tripod and pointed toward the lander.
    3
  2788. Space doesn't have a temperature. Temperature is basically a reflection of the energy level of some sort of material matter. Liquid, solid, gas. Those things don't exist in space (well, not in enough quantity to make a difference anyway). Mountains are still within air. Air has a temperature. Space does not. And, how much do you actually know about those suits? Are you aware that they have 24 layers (21 layers of the main garment, and 3 layers in the undergarment)? How does this go, in your mind? The hundreds of engineers at ILC Dover who made the A7L spacesuits forgot to deal with temperature. But, YOU remembered?
    3
  2789. It was spring loaded, dewdrop.
    3
  2790. So, basically, you didn't read what I wrote. Thanks for proving you don't want answers to your own questions.
    3
  2791. Dewdrop, I already explained exactly why the inverse square law doesn't apply here. But, you only read the first sentence or two of my reply, pretended you read the whole thing, and ignored everything else. Once again, you do not want answers to your own questions. And, beyond that, you think that everyone involved across dozens of countries (including enemy countries) just simply didn't understand the equipment they designed and built. Ya know, kind of helps to actually read the answers to your own questions. But, then again, we both know that you don't want to do that. You're far happier believing that you already know everything, and you wouldn't want to shatter that happy little delusion in your head.
    3
  2792. But, dewdrop, the 1969 videos are the LEAST important evidence for Apollo. You act as if it's the only evidence.
    3
  2793. Multiple people called the police. What's your point?
    3
  2794. Unlike your 8th grade diploma, the Apollo missions were real.
    3
  2795. The first person on the moon was the cameraman, because there was no way to take video of Armstrong's first steps without a person holding the camera.
    3
  2796. You clearly don't want answers to your own questions. Why do you bother asking?
    3
  2797.  @therealzilch  You may have heard this before, because I've posted it several times.... The next time I saw Aldrin after that punch (a few years later), I went up to him, shook that hand that punched him, and said "I think you did the right thing." He stopped, said nothing for a while while reflecting (which is rare, because "silence" and Buzz Aldrin don't belong in the same sentence... that man will talk your ear off, something I always liked every time I met him) and finally said, "Well, it won't change what he's doing. He's going to keep on doing the same thing." His tone was a bit somber, and it was clear that he was telling me that he somewhat regretted doing it, because it won't change the man. I'm older now, and, though I still believe that some people simply will never learn to stop harming the world unless they suffer some physical impact, I probably agree (in a lot of ways) that hitting probably wasn't the right thing to do. But, catch me on another day, I might still be very glad Aldrin punched him.
    3
  2798. Because the program to send men to the moon was very expensive, and once the space race was won, most in congress didn't feel they should keep spending that kind of money on the program. Yes, we really went to the moon for real. Keep in mind, some future internet clowns are going to ask the same questions about Concorde. "Why did they shut down the Concorde program decades ago? Did we really fly 155 people passenger jets at mach 2 across the Atlantic?" Hell, it's already been almost 20 years. Another decade or two, and the Concorde deniers will be in full swing.
    3
  2799. Huh? The lawsuit is over. The woman lost. Publix won.
    3
  2800. Huh? If anybody blew any whistles, why do we not know about it? What good is "whistle blowing" if nobody ever hears the whistle? What ARE you talking about?
    3
  2801. This has got to be the worst argument I've seen in a year. Capitalists want to make money. There's no profit to be had in sending people to the moon. It costs more money to go to the moon than they could ever get back. So, any capitalist would stay away from investing in moon missions. Yet, you somehow believe the exact opposite as reality, and your own argument fails immediately.
    3
  2802. So, like all hoax nuts, you come to your conclusions first, and ask questions second. Have you looked for the telemetry? Which type of telemetry do you want? Where have you looked for it so far? Or, hmmm, did you just blindly believe a conspiracy video that lied and told you it was missing?
    3
  2803. Did you even read my reply? Why is it that none of you hoax nuts can read?
    3
  2804. 1) Sorry, that's not what skepticism means. 2) You are correct. YouTube has algorithms to put claptrap at the bottom of the pecking order.
    3
  2805. Who? The sky? The ether? The beach? And, on what merit?
    3
  2806. Are you comparing 70mm film to a low resolution TV signal?
    3
  2807. I'm sorry, but you need at least 30 emojis to be taken seriously. One emoji? And you expect people to believe you?
    3
  2808. A vast majority of the moon videos were shot via low-res TV, with a field sequential scanning camera (low quality, but very light). But, on most of the missions, they also had the 16mm film camera. However, they didn't have an infinite supply of film, so they shot it at a slow rate (like the clip you referenced). If you want to see the best quality, look for videos of Apollo 16mm film, especially the ones that have been up-converted to 24 frames per second or higher.
    3
  2809. So, the 450,000 people who worked on Apollo all thought that the stuff that they designed and built to go to the moon would work, and could go to the moon. But, somebody decided NOT to use it to go to the moon, and decided to lie instead? Why? What possible reason? Why not just go?
    3
  2810. Yeah, apparently, she abandoned her realtor career about a decade ago, and her family for that matter, to go live a wild life of drugs and crime. She spent some time in prison, and had an arrest record a mile long. Yeah, probably not a realtor any longer, right? According to her landlord, she was a stripper at the local club.
    3
  2811. Write it up. Submit it to cosmology and radiobiology science journals. Do the math that shows James Van Allen was wrong about the Van Allen belts. Did you think YouTube comments were a science journal?
    3
  2812.  @even7887  YOU SAID: "A language without argument is just an opinion" == I don't even know what you're attempting to say. And, I don't think YOU know what you're attempting to say. You spewed out some gibberish about -270 degrees in space. But, space has NO temperature. Do you even know what the word "temperature" means?? Empty space doesn't have a temperature. "Temperature" is a measurement of an object, matter, liquid, gas, SOMETHING. How can NOTHING have a temperature? If you strip it down to what temperature is really measuring, it's measuring the state of the electrons around their nuclei, and/or the state of the movement of atoms/molecules. The lower the temperature, the less relative movement of the atoms/molecules, and the electrons are at a lower energy state. Absolute zero (the coldest possible temperature) means that all electrons are at their absolute lowest possible energy state, and there is almost no relative movement of the molecules or atoms. Higher temperatures mean that the atoms/molecules have a lot of relative movement, and/or there are lots of electrons that are not in their lowest energy state, but are actually in higher energy states. That's what temperature is ultimately measuring. So, why are you sitting here talking about measuring the energy state of NOTHING?? Again, empty space doesn't have a temperature, because there's nothing to measure. You do not have the slightest understanding of this topic. And, to come on YouTube and say, "a language without argument is just an opinion" means NOTHING. It is literally a useless statement. YOU SAID: "or empty personal expression meant only to tell a story. Lying and illusion have short legs!" == THEN STOP LYING!!!!!! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU!?!?!?!!?!?!? You are lying through your teeth by even PRETENDING you understand this stuff. Good gods, you're stupid.
    3
  2813.  @even7887  YOU SAID: "You are free to believe what some say ... but it is good to check their data!" == What ARE you talking about? What does this have to do with your original comment about temperature? What data did you check when you asserted things about the temperature of empty space? How did you check this data? Where did you get your measurements to check it? What ARE you talking about? Do you have any brain cells left? Or, did you drink yours away years ago?
    3
  2814.  @ronaldgreene5733  So, you're just going to cut/paste the same incorrect gibberish that has already been corrected? Do you even read replies to your nonsense?
    3
  2815.  @ronaldgreene5733  Do you actually think I'm going to play your Gish Gallop when you have repeatedly refused to address your own original topic?
    3
  2816. YOU SAID: "Just curious, can duct tape withstand the 200°+ heat generated by the sun without melting the glue? " == That's not at all how temperature works. I mean, sure, you see people saying that when trying to explain the temperatures in one sentence or less. But, in actuality, physics doesn't work that way, and it's not something that can be explained in one sentence. The shortest I can explain this is just telling you that a vacuum has no temperature. Temperature is a measurement of the energy state of electrons in their respective atoms/molecules. In a vacuum, there are no atoms/molecules. (OK, there's no such thing as a perfect vacuum, but, for all practical purposes, it's close enough to zero for conversation.) So, anyway, the sun isn't generating temperature. The sun generates photons. Photons can increase the energy state of the electrons, of course. But, the tape and glue are not immersed in 200+ degree temperatures. That's not what that means. I can explain this at great length, and there are entire textbooks you can read about thermodynamics that explain this much further than can be explained in a YouTube comment. But, short of that, I'll just tell you that there's a reason you won't find any physics PhDs anywhere on Earth who make these conspiracy claims about the temperatures experienced during Apollo... they understand the actual thermodynamics that the conspiracy nuts do not. YOU SAID: "Also, how is it possible for controlling the direction of the lem by combustion rockets including take off" == You just answered your own question. They used rockets to control the direction. For ascent, they had a non-gimbaled main rocket that propelled the craft with about 3500 pounds of thrust. They had 16 small thruster rockets with about 100 pounds of thrust each, which controlled the orientation/direction of the craft. YOU SAID: "which, according to the footage provided, also caused disturbance on the moon and caused the flag to nearly be blown away." == Yes. I fail to understand your point. YOU SAID: "All this occurred in a vacuum of space?" == I mean, good grief. Rockets work in space, despite the recent trend of conspiracy nutbags to pretend rockets cannot work in space. Rockets bring their own fuel and oxidizer with them. This isn't like a jet engine, which only brings fuel, and uses the oxygen in the surrounding air to function. Rockets are different. Rockets bring fuel, AND oxidizer. So, yes, the fuel and oxidizer burn inside the engine bell. The resulting explosive expansion of gas being spewed out one direction of the engine bell causes thrust in the opposite direction. Basic entry level Newtonian mechanics. 3rd Law of Motion. And, again, why do conspiracy nuts who do not understand this believe that no actual expert on Earth understand it either? I mean, it's not a crime not to understand physics. That's fine. There are a million topics I don't understand either. But, I'm not going around and claiming that all doctors on the planet are wrong about medicine. I'm not going around claiming that all lawyers on the planet are wrong about the law. I'm not going around claiming that all historians on the planet are wrong about history. Yet, for some reason, tons of moon conspiracy nutbags feel perfectly comfortable claiming that all rocket scientists on the planet are wrong about how rockets work. And, yet, not a single one of those conspiracy nuts has set foot inside a university classroom on the topic. It's pure insanity. YOU SAID: "I'm certain I'll be blasted by true believers of the space program" == Good grief. It's not about being "a believer" (as if it's a matter of just listening to what you're told without ever questioning anything). No. It's about understanding the science. It's about understanding the technology. It's about understanding the history. It's about understanding the evidence. I have never met a single moon hoax nut who understands any of those things. Moon hoax nuts think they're "skeptical." But, they're not. They don't understand what true skepticism is. Moon hoax nuts think that skepticism simply means rejecting what they're told. But, that's not what skepticism is. Skepticism is a method of looking at the evidence, analyzing the data, understanding the topics/sciences involved, and drawing logical conclusions. YOU SAID: "but my questions are simply designed and put forth as truth seeking and in no way mockery" == Frankly, if you are so painfully unaware of how a rocket engine works, such that you think a rocket cannot work in space, you seriously do not know enough about the topic to even question it. Someone who knows zero about medicine is in no position to dispute what a doctor says is the correct treatment for [whatever] disease. And, yet, for whatever the reason, Apollo deniers who know absolutely nothing about rocketry or physics or engineering... feel perfectly comfortable saying that every expert on the planet is wrong about their area of expertise. There's a reason that no rocket scientists are making claims that the moon landings were faked. There's a reason that no physicists are making claims that the moon landings were faked. There's a reason that no aerospace engineers are making claims that the moon landings were faked. Nope, the people who claim the moon landings were faked are people who have absolutely zero expertise in the topics at hand. And, don't get me wrong... I'm not saying that blind acceptance of everything you're told is a good thing. Of course not. Blind acceptance is a bad thing. But, when you know absolutely nothing about a topic, you're in no position to say that the entire world's experts in those topics are entirely wrong. EDUCATION about Apollo comes FIRST, before anybody is in any position to deny Apollo. You don't get to say every doctor on the planet is wrong for prescribing antibiotics to cure a disease, if you don't even know what a disease is, nor what an antibiotic is, or how it works. That would be just talking from utter ignorance.
    3
  2817. Desertphile "Why are planets 'round?' The original GRAVITY! video."
    3
  2818. Sorry, but that logic doesn't fly. If the 400K people thought that the stuff they designed and built to go to the moon, why would you believe it couldn't? At that point, why not just go? What was stopping them?
    3
  2819. Oh, and side note: there are numerous examples where the crosshairs are bled out on some copies of copies, but, the originals don't have any missing crosshairs. That's a product of how photos were replicated back then if they don't have access to the original negative (bright light shined onto a photograph, then taking a photo of a photo). So, sometimes it's not even the original photo that's overexposed, but, the copy is overexposed. But, yes, there are plenty of examples of the originals being overexposed also. Again, it goes back to understanding the fact that there are no missing crosshairs on darker colored objects, only light/white colored objects, and understanding film chemistry. The same issue happens with overexposed images on Earth, by the way.
    3
  2820. Oh, and why bother? I mean, seriously, if you think the crosshairs were painted onto a movie set, rather than the simple way crosshairs were put onto film, this is just bonkers. Who would go around painting crosshairs onto a movie set? Just leave them out altogether. The world doesn't base its opinions of Apollo on whether crosshairs are on photos or not. Just forget the crosshairs altogether, and take conventional photos. You people keep trying to shove all kinds of absolutely amazingly bad ideas into this conspiracy of yours. Like, they'd really paint crosshairs onto movie sets for 7,000 photos to be taken. Right. Sure.
    3
  2821. HILARIOUS!!! You posted videos with people like David Percy arguing about the photographs? And, you think this disproves Apollo? That's like posting a Kent Hovind video and saying it disproves evolution. More crack-meets-pot gibberish from paranoid delusional people (i.e. you), who fall for any piece of garbage they see that supports their predetermined conclusions. There's a reason Hasselblad and Kodak don't find anything wrong with the photos. They're the real experts. Not cranks like Percy or others like him. But, there's no getting through to people like you. You don't answer questions. You don't address challenges. All you do is say "look at this conspiracy video, it proves Apollo was fake" (while not understanding a lick of it). Not a single one of the world's 77 space agencies, staffed with the virtual entirety of experts on the subject matter, have ever said anything like you cranks say. And, you're so far gone that you believe people are paid to post responses to you, and/or are the same people under different IDs, etc. It's complete nonsense, and if I was in your shoes, I'd be heading to a mental health professional.
    3
  2822. So, in your "critical thinking," you have concluded that the 7,000 engineers at Grumman who designed and built the lunar lander, all simultaneously forgot to include a rocket engine to use to get off of the lunar surface, and that YOU have spotted this "issue," and the fact that you don't know the answer to your own question means that it never happened? That's your version of "critical thinking"?
    3
  2823. How do you humiliate a dead person?
    3
  2824. Film either registers stars or it doesn't. It's a chemical process in the film emulsion. Stars require long exposures, whether on the moon or not.
    3
  2825. Huh? But, she suffered zero "embarrassment" from this arrest video. How can you be "embarrassed" when you're dead? It was 2.5 years after her arrest that the video was made public, which was 1.5 years after she killed herself. I don't understand your point.
    3
  2826. You might try posting this message in your own native language. What you wrote doesn't mean anything in English.
    3
  2827. Look, dewdrop, just stop pretending to understand things you don't. Is that really all that impossible? No? You just can't help yourself?
    3
  2828. Whose belt? Eddie's or Wolfgang's? You do know Eddie died though, right?
    3
  2829. If we went to the bottom of the ocean, there'd be colonies down there by now.
    3
  2830. It depends on the timing, dewdrop. They all saw all continents as the Earth rotated. But, yeah, guess what, the timing worked out that if they took off during the daytime, TLI tended to be when North America was in view. Go figure. Then, you look at Apollo 17, and TLI was when Africa was in view. Go look at the most famous photo of Earth, nicknamed "The Blue Marble." That's Africa. Why? Because Apollo 17 was a nighttime launch, so, the timing worked out that way.
    3
  2831. Two issues: (1) Freedom of Information Act. (2) The arrest video wasn't seen until long after her death.
    3
  2832. So, that's it then? Just abandon your prior thread when you were proven wrong, and start a new one to be proven wrong?
    3
  2833. Dewdrop, nobody believes your stories about consulting experts, so you can drop the act. And, if you think experts believe what you believe, then cite the journal articles written by radiobiologists who make that claim. Can you? You've consulted so many of them, right? Yet, none gave you the articles that support your conclusions?
    3
  2834. Well, that's a valid enough viewpoint to have. Everyone has their own priorities, and you're entitled to yours. But, just out of curiosity, what mechanism would you suggest to "use the money on the citizens" exactly? I mean, it's a nice sentence and all, but, without actually making a suggestion about what to exactly do with the money instead... it's kind of pointless.
    3
  2835. Please, I beg you, learn English. If this mess is your edited version, I can only imagine how bad your first version was. Seriously, not meant as an insult here, but learning English is going to serve you much better in life than if you waste your time on conspiracy claptrap that you don't even come close to understanding. Go use your military benefits (I'm assuming) to get a college education, or just go get it on your own, and focus very heavily on reading/writing classes. Most universities offer some nice programs for those who didn't quite get enough education in high school. Again, I'm saying this for your own good, not as an insult.
    3
  2836. "Explain why there was no engine noise from the Lunar lander" There was. But, it's not extremely loud. You can hear it if you actually listened for yourself, rather than regurgitating nonsense you heard from conspiracy videos. It's not as loud as you'd expect because most of the sound results from interaction with the surrounding air. No surrounding air = none of that sound. The only sound that makes it into the microphones is whatever little amount was able to reverberate through the metals of the craft.
    3
  2837. "the astronauts were literally standing on 12,000 lbs of thrust" Maximum thrust was 10,500 pounds.
    3
  2838. "besides the fact that it was never successfully flown on earth." Huh? Um, ok. How would you propose they fly it on Earth? You just got done stating that the thrust was 12,000 pounds, right? Well, you were incorrect, it was 10,500 max. But, whatever, let's just use your 12,000 number. Alright, the fully loaded craft was 33,500 pounds on Earth. Now what? Please explain how to fly a 33,500 pound craft with only 12,000 pounds of upward force. Can you? Even stripped down to bare minimum, you're still looking at around 15,000 pounds. So, again, please explain how you expect it to get off the ground AT ALL, let alone be able to fly around....?
    3
  2839. "with temperatures in the sun reaching around 180 degrees Fahrenheit" Dewdrop, are you not even reading what you're cutting and pasting? You just got done claiming (wrongly) that the surface temperature during Apollo 11 was 107 degrees Celsius (225 degrees Fahrenheit). Yet, a sentence later, you're claiming that it doesn't get that high? Good gods.
    3
  2840. "in the shadows dropping to about -160 degrees Fahrenheit" Overnight, sure. But, they were never there overnight. Are you under the ridiculous impression that if an astronaut walks across the surface, and his shadow blocks the light from a patch of surface dust, it instantly drops to -160? You clearly have no understanding of thermodynamics. Stop pretending you do.
    3
  2841. "In a vacuum, heat transfer occurs primarily through radiation." Um, yeah, exactly as I said.
    3
  2842. "Given that the ground temperature is 100°C" THEY WERE NEVER THERE WHEN THE SURFACE TEMPERATURE WAS THAT HIGH!!! YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD THIS 1000 TIMES!!! Do you even read the responses?
    3
  2843. "anodized aluminum 4 feet above the ground would absorb heat through radiation." Yeah, and how long do you think that would take to have any meaningful effect? Radiant heat transfer is the SLOWEST of all methods of heat transfer. I'm not going to bother with the math, because you're obviously not listening anyway. But, I can make a pretty good guess because we have the Apollo 16 RCA camera that burned out about 36 hours after the astronauts left the lunar surface, and its tolerances would be about the same. But, you keep talking about Apollo 11. So, let's add about 70 hours for the difference in the sun angles, and the fact that you were wrong about the surface temperatures. So, I'd guess that it would take about 100 hours before the camera and its innards would reach the temperature you're complaining about.
    3
  2844. "After 7 hours in a vacuum, the temperature of the anodized aluminum would likely be close to the ground temperature" Not even remotely correct. Are you proud to be wrong about every single thing you write?
    3
  2845. SUDENT WENT THEIR, your telling pop!?!? Really is WHAT BELT? THUNK is aluminum TELLING ME 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 MORE EmoJIs = I WiN!
    3
  2846. Funny that none of you dewdrops can ever actually name any of this "evidence." Any time you people try, it falls apart instantly.
    3
  2847.  @MYGAS21  WOW!!! Just plain WOW!!! Nothing you said has anything to do with Apollo. Yet, you think it's an answer about Apollo. Sorry, I'm not here to chase you down your rabbit hole of insanity. The public DID lose interest. I mean, hell, the first moonwalkers I met were Dave Scott and Jim Irwin, in around 1974 or 1975. They brought a few moon rocks (encased in plastic) around for people to see. They gave a lecture on Apollo, etc. But, nobody even really knew who they were, and everyone was more interested in just ending the assembly and going to see a movie or something. Yes, the public lost interest. Don't sit here and talk about me being 12 years old. I was here. I know the public had no interest, because I was among that public. Most of my friends and family had no idea who any of those people were, outside of Aldrin and Armstrong. You don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about. And, if you can't even answer the questions you're asked, you don't get to claim the high ground. What was the "secret program" with relation to APOLLO!??!?! Don't tell me about different programs that had nothing to do with Apollo. And, again, how did they get the press to go along with keeping it a secret, since your version is that the public hadn't actually lost interest, and that the press were suppressing the information about Apollo?? Why would they do that?? How do you get uniform compliance from all of the press?
    3
  2848.  @bvskyfacer4377  Well, at least the crackpot in this thread is partially sane. He isn't denying Apollo happened. He's just denying the reason it stopped happening.
    3
  2849. Well, that's one way to demonstrate that you never looked into this case at all. Good grief. There were multiple callers, and three cops were dispatched. One of the witnesses even took video of the incident FROM THE BEACH, and gave a copy to the police. No, not from a remote condo with a telescope.
    3
  2850. As for civilizations on the moon, now you're talking about bases, housing, hundreds of people, etc. This is about the equivalent of saying that because the Wright brothers had now flown in 1903, we're ready for Boeing 747s, or Airbus 380s. It's ridiculous. No. Just because they could manage to stretch the envelope to putting a couple of guys on the lunar surface for about 70 hours, doesn't mean they're ready to colonize. In the entirety of the Apollo program from 1961 to 1972 for the moon, and through 1975 for Skylab and those programs, they managed to fly THIRTEEN Saturn V rockets. That's 15 years total, flying a total of 13 of their big moon rockets. How many of those would you suppose would be required to get millions of pounds of stuff to the moon to build bases and colonies? How do you supply the food and oxygen? Remember, the record was 74 hours on the lunar surface (Apollo 17) for two guys. Now, you want years of colonization, right? How many rockets do you think that would take? 1000? 2000? Remember, Apollo was over 5% of the US budget, and flew 13 of those rockets for that money. How much of the budget do you think it would take to fly thousands of them?
    3
  2851. "and they lost the technology" Well, "lost" is a relative term. "Destroyed" is a relative term also. What's your point? Do you think we still "have the technology" in any physical sense?
    3
  2852.  @lorichet  Keysing wasn't an engineer. He never provided technical support for anything. He was a document guy, and not a very good one. The rover's schematics are readily available. However, they had less than a year to build them, so, there was more of a "straight to build" attitude, and there aren't quite as many documents as there are for all of the rest of the craft, but, there are still plenty, especially the very detailed schematics of the electronics on the rover. Nothing was lost. Everything there ever was is still around. Sorry, but this "same background" nonsense just shows how little you understand about photography. Yes, distant mountains in the background will look virtually identical when all you're doing is moving short distances in the foreground. The same happens on Earth. And, the rest of what is in that video is pure gibberish also. You don't know what you're talking about (as usual), and neither do the makers of the videos you're watching. Remember how far you've drifted from your original assertion, that the rover couldn't even fit? Did you forget that? You can see videos and photos of it being mounted to the lander. You can review the design specifications to your heart's desire. Yet, you can't manage to find a few photos? Huh? And, what didn't you understand about the fact that your favorite video claims there was only one hinge point, when there were actually two? Doesn't this tell you that the maker of that video has no idea what he's talking about? How about when he claimed in that video that they used 10,000 pounds of thrust on landing? Doesn't that tell you how backward he is? You clearly have no ability to judge good information from bad. Your only criteria for accepting or rejecting what you see is whether or not it aligns with your predetermined conclusions. Facts do not matter to you.
    3
  2853. Let's recap, shall we? You thought the rover didn't fit into the lander, and that the thousands of engineers who designed the rovers and landers all overlooked this "gotcha" somehow. You claimed that you couldn't find any photos of the rover attached to the lander, despite that they're extremely easy to find, and I even gave you the catalog number of one of them. Your only source of information consists of videos made by nuts and outright con men. You think a writer who left Rocketdyne long before any Apollo rockets ever lifted off is a "whistleblower," and you label him as an "engineer," despite that he holds no certifications of any kind in that field, and the term "service engineer" is nothing more than a glamorous title for a fixit guy. You keep thinking everything is lost, when all of the schematics and videos and scientific data are readily available. And, you think this because you watched some videos that talked about the two missing BACKUP tapes from one mission, and have distorted that into somehow believing that all tapes are lost from all missions. You keep referring to a video made by a guy who thinks the landers were at full throttle when they touched down (10,000 pounds of thrust), which is absolutely ridiculous, demonstrating that he knows even less about Apollo than you do. You are unaware of the hammocks in the craft, and thought they had to sleep standing up. Every single comment you make is an utter butchery of the sciences involved. And, yet, you think you know more about this topic than the entire world's aerospace engineers, all of whom cannot spot these trivial (and wrong) "gotcha" moments you regurgitate from videos made for gullible people. Get a clue, none of those videos you're watching are correct. Those videos exist BECAUSE they are wrong. If any of these people had anything valid to offer, the last place you'd find it is in a video. They'd be submitting their calculations and observations to science and engineering journals. THAT is how you identify these "gotchas," not by making videos that undergo no scrutiny whatsoever. They make videos BECAUSE they know their gibberish cannot pass the scrutiny of the scientific method. And, you're gobbling it up like it's Christmas dinner. Sorry, but when you have to grasp at little editing errors in a 3rd party documentary, and look to a "whistleblower" who left the company before the first Apollo test rocket even launched, and who was a writer, not an engineer, seriously, you've got NOTHING.
    3
  2854. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    3
  2855. "How did spending billions of dollars exploring outer space help man? What did it do?" Mainly, it was the tip of the sword in the cold war. It was a political message and threat to the Soviets. It was "mess with us, and we'll beat you, we will always beat you." It was an expression of technological and industrial dominance, easily translatable as a show of missile capability, communication capability, manufacturing capability, etc. It is impossible to turn back time to know what would have happened without Apollo. But, many people consider Apollo as the mechanism that kept the cold war cold, instead of resulting in Soviet escalation to a nuclear WWIII, killing tens of millions of people. "JFK started a massive money laundering scheme that account for billions of dollars" Well, if that's true, it certainly wasn't via Apollo. Apollo was one of the most visible programs in human history. It would be a heck of a lot easier to launder money via a secret program that had no accountability. Employing 400,000 people for a decade of their lives to building massive moon rockets is not the best way to launder money. "as a way to show were money otherwise unexplainable went." Well, ok, but, Apollo WAS explainable, and we know where the money went. Hence, again, you seem to be arguing against secret programs, not Apollo. "Right now there are billions of US taxpayer money missing and nobody reports or explains why." So, you couldn't make it through a single comment before already changing topics? The topic of this video is Apollo. Apollo began in 1961. You're talking about money that's missing in 2024?
    3
  2856. Why would anybody spend that kind of money to send a probe to check on what was left behind, when we already know exactly what was left behind?
    3
  2857.  @Mooseracks  What are the longitude/latitude coordinates of this area of Hawaii that perfectly matches the moon, dummy?
    3
  2858. A few decades back, a buddy of mine had a subscription to an adult magazine, but, he said he didn't want the adult TV channels. The reason was then he'd have to hear them talk, which would ruin the fantasy. I now understand. Good gods, she's not the brightest bulb.
    3
  2859. Oh, you're making it quite clear who really has "it" for Elon.
    3
  2860. His rock radiation behind English not?
    3
  2861. As for technology, really? Computers have advanced a lot, sure. But, computers were a very small part of Apollo, and, frankly, they'd have gone to the moon with or without computers. So, can you name the exact technology you think that would transform moon missions that costed more that the gross national product of 80% of the countries on Earth... into routine amusement park rides? Deniers like you love to wave the "technology" word around as if it's some magical spell that makes these things happen, but, you people never actually spell out what the magical technology is.
    3
  2862. "From what I understand" Bingo! That's the problem right there. You understand ZERO. "Now it’s going to take twice as long to get there." Huh? Apollo was funded in 1961. The first manned Apollo flight to the moon was in 1968 (7 years later). Artemis was funded in 2019. The first manned Artemis flight to the moon is scheduled for 2024 (5 years later). How is this "twice as long"? "I’m not that gullible." Oh, but you quite clearly ARE. You have blindly bought into silly conspiracy videos to the point of even believing their math without checking it. I'd say that's pretty gullible.
    3
  2863. OK, are you aware of the diameter of the lens required to see an Apollo rover? It would take a lens about a quarter mile in diameter to see it as a single dot. Figure about 10 or 12 miles in diameter if you want to start seeing details. The largest lens ever constructed costed $168 million, and has a diameter of 5 feet. How much money do you think a 10 mile wide optical grade lens will cost?
    3
  2864. Nobody. But, Elon Musk needed a list of things to talk about, in order to avoid revealing the weight of the vehicle. In reality, of course, the weight is the most important factor. Every pound they put into the truck itself, is a pound they cannot carry in cargo, to stay under the legal weight limits. So, by distracting people to thinking about other factors, even factors that have no relevance at all.
    3
  2865. That would be an irrelevant waste. I mean, we already have LRO images of the landing sites since 2009. The deniers simply called it fake also, and demanded that other countries show it instead. So, when India and China showed the landing sites with their orbiters, the deniers just shifted the goalposts and said they joined the deception (50 years later). To send a rover to the same landing site that has already been visited would be a complete waste, because the deniers would just call it CGI anyway.
    3
  2866. Your feelings about yourself are correct. Your beliefs are incorrect.
    3
  2867. Doesn't it bother you in the slightest that we are +50 years past the moon landings, and still, the best you people can muster is, "my cell phone doesn't work the way I want, therefore Apollo was fake"? You don't see any flaws with that line of thinking? And, no, dewdrop. You clearly don't understand the delays and the signal problems.
    3
  2868. The two backup tapes were reported lost in 2006. But, yes, I heard that they were found a couple of years ago. I haven't lifted a finger to verify whether that's true, because nobody in history had ever even viewed those two backup tapes, and they were pretty inconsequential, given that the primary copies worked just fine.
    3
  2869. "6. With the vast technological leaps since the alleged "landings", it's ridiculous that we have not returned." Take it up with congress. They're the ones who never approved any further manned moon missions after Apollo 17 (until they gave a green light to the Artemis program anyway). Again, why should it matter to you whether congress approves additional missions or not? Why should the veracity of Apollo depend on the choices that congress makes?
    3
  2870. "7. Countless other problems" Oh, you watched more conspiracy videos that lie to you?
    3
  2871. "8. Countless other problems." Like, you never graduated 8th grade?
    3
  2872.  @pozzee2809  Well, I suggest you don't forget that, then. Society isn't going back the other way. The number of cameras in public is increasing, not decreasing.
    3
  2873. YOU SAID: "This is totally fake" == Wrong. YOU SAID: "the guy drive buggy on the moon and when tire spin the send fly and come down same like earth" == Well, go watch it at its original speed, then. The clip that I assume you're talking about is being played back at either 2x or 4x the original speed (I can't recall at the moment). YOU SAID: "remember on moon gravity is very less or 0 gravitional force" == The mere fact that you think it's even possible that the moon has 0 gravitational force just shows how little you understand about the topic. Why would you even think 0 force was possible? How would the moon even stay together? How would ANYTHING ever stay on the moon, and not just float away? What do you think causes the tides on Earth, if not the moon's gravity (not zero)? YOU SAID: "if scientist drive buggy on moon and tire spin and sand fly that sand will be fly on the air" == There's no air on the moon, dummy.
    3
  2874. WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You cracked the case!!!! Or, hmmm, maybe you could just go watch the 16mm film, and see Armstrong remove the camera from the MESA facing the ladder for the first steps, and see him moving it to that final spot (where it still remains today). Because, yeah, NASA can launch rockets into space, but, they can't figure out how to move a camera 40 feet.
    3
  2875. "got telescopes" There are no telescopes large enough to see Apollo stuff on the moon from the distance of Earth. There's a well understood formula that you can use to calculate the size lens required. "Optical resolution" in Wiki will explain it to you, and you can do the math yourself. If you don't know how to do that math, I'll just tell you that it would take a lens of about 75 feet in diameter to see an Apollo lander as just a single dot. If you want to start to be able to make out what it is, it would take a lens about a quarter mile in diameter. Don't believe me? OK, just do the math. You don't have to trust me. "why has no COUNTRY LIKE hmm CHINA or RUSSIA" Funny you should mention China. A couple of years ago, they took photos of the Apollo 11 landing site using one of their lunar orbiters. It shows the lander exactly where it's supposed to be. Yet, here you are, questioning why China or Russia don't use telescopes to see Apollo stuff? Well, they understand "optical resolution" better than you do. But, like I said, China did exactly what you asked already, and photographed an Apollo lander on the moon. "transparent pic of Armstrong" It's called the burn-in effect. It was quite common in those old vidicon tubes. "how can you link up to the itty bity tiny capsule" The exact same way as radar guided missiles can shoot down airplanes that are moving around. They lock on with the radar, then they use guidance to steer to the target. "top part of the LEM LAM whatever it's called?" So, you don't know what it's called, but, you understand the topic better than the entirety of the world's experts. Right. Sure. "Just did not have the kind of refined technology back then to do that." Huh? You think they didn't have radar in 1969? Need I remind you about the urgency of advancing radar technologies after December 7, 1941, when the radar was primitive and the authorities didn't even trust what their radar was telling them? They had 28 years after then to get better with radar, dewdrop. "is all that hardware still where it should be" Yes. There are hundreds upon hundreds of photos on Arizona State University's site that show all of that stuff on the moon, as taken from 12 miles above the lunar surface. "Supposed to have NSA and Spy satellites can see writing on old blk&wht newspaper from orbit on Earth." Hilarious!! You'd believe that, why?
    3
  2876.  @stusue9733  I was wrong about 2012. It was 2015 when they dropped it to 12 miles. That might help your search.
    3
  2877. You clearly know nothing about that rock. And, I tried 3x to explain it, but, my messages are being blocked. But, the bottom line is that NASA had absolutely nothing to do with the rock. It was blindly accepted as a donation by a Dutch art museum's curators who didn't bother to authenticate it. And, if you think it was their "prized possession," why did they stick it into a drawer for 15 years? This conspiracy story keeps growing and growing. Tell me, why didn't the Dutch science museum ever find that their ACTUAL samples were petrified wood? How about the other hundreds of samples given to different countries? Why weren't any of those found to be petrified wood?
    3
  2878. So, Apollo 8 and 10 missions to the moon were real, because they happened before July of 1969? But, then they decided to fake them for some reason?
    3
  2879. So, you want to see the sun on video on Apollo 11, even though it's been repeatedly explained to you that those video cameras used before Apollo 15 couldn't be pointed at the sun without burning out the vidicon? So, basically, your standard of evidence is that people must provide you with things that never happened, otherwise you'll reject it?
    3
  2880. That you ran out of meds?
    3
  2881. Yeah, I hear you. But, the verbiage was that it "marks Apollo's twelve and final launch of a Saturn V." Technically, "Apollo" and "Apollo Applications" were separate programs. So, by the strict letter, what they said was accurate. Technically. Barely. But, yes, I agree that it wasn't accurate from a practical standpoint.
    3
  2882. Please tell me this is a joke. Please tell me you don't actually believe we can see rovers on Mars from Earth.
    3
  2883.  @jjsstikbotvideos4421  The boyfriends took the plea deals they were offered: guilty pleas in exchange for taking the death penalty off the table. The girls rejected the identical deals, and decided to fight it in court (and lost). This is especially ironic because the one girl had already confessed twice, then decided to fight the case anyway.
    3
  2884. Liears bunches on support really does to moon and what on to?
    3
  2885. YOU SAID: "The Real problem with the story is why don't they even have a probe on the moon taking video." == Video of what? I mean, there have been many probes taking photos, and we still have LRO up there taking photos every day. And, there was video during Apollo. But, what possible purpose would there be in video from the moon? Video consumes a lot of bandwidth. And, for a rock in space where nothing ever moves (thus there's not really a reason to have video), photographs are far more efficient. What EXACTLY do you expect to see in a video? Why would you waste your bandwidth on video when photos have higher resolution for even less bandwidth consumption? Why waste the weight of a video camera, if a still camera does everything you need? YOU SAID: "But they got one for mars?" == Yes. Things on Mars move. There's an atmosphere. There's wind. There are storms. The rover is driving/moving. Yes, there's more reason for Mars to have video than having video on the moon. YOU SAID: "actions and VIDEO." == Video OF WHAT?!?!?! YOU SAID: "Speaks louder then words." == Spoken like a true dullard. Um, no. Video is the dumbing down of the world. You're a prime example. You can barely read or write, and you get all of your information from videos. YOU SAID: "Words are the con man's best friend." == Yet, here you are, writing words. Irony? YOU SAID: "You honestly believe the people with a track record of lying to you about everything." == Dummy, believing things or not believing things isn't about that. I mean, by your "logic" (sigh), you can claim the Civil War never took place because the government is lying to you. George Washington wasn't president, because the government lies to you. Look, dummy, the time to believe or reject claims is when you analyze THE EVIDENCE. And, you clearly don't do that. You argue from incredulity, and broken "logic" that makes no sense. YOU SAID: "Show me seamless video of leaving earth's atmosphere." == Pffttt. Have you never watched a launch video? Good grief. There are many videos from onboard cameras that show boosters going into space. YOU SAID: "You can't even imagine how many lies are printed in books. And especially newspapers" == YES!!!!! YES, dummy!!!!! YEEESSSS!!!! That's why you need AN EDUCATION to help understand exactly how to filter good information from bad information. That's how I operate. I get educated on a topic before I come to my conclusions. You, on the other hand, know nothing whatsoever, yet just choose to blindly reject things. You didn't even realize that there are hundreds of space launch videos at your disposal. That's how little you understand about the topic. And, let me guess, a conspiracy video told you that there weren't any "seamless" ones, right? A conspiracy video says there's always some sort of break in the video, and maybe showed you an example or two. Am I right? Well, dummy, if you're asking for a live video of a craft entering Earth orbit, um, yeah, there are going to be breaks in the video transmission as a craft needs to transition from station to station. See, if you're going 17,000 mph, at only about 100 or 200 miles above Earth, it's kind of impossible to maintain a connection to a ground based station as the craft loses line-of-sight with the ground station due to the Earth's curvature. So, yes, by definition, it needs to break communication with one station, and pick up communication with a different station. That's just reality. But, conspiratards make videos expecting the impossible to happen. And, ironically, in those particular types of live videos, if there WASN'T a transition from station to station, then THAT would mean it's fake. But, conspiratards are always backwards. If they got what they are claiming to expect, THEN it would be fake. But, it's always, "damned if you do, damned if you don't." If they get live seamless video, they'd say "FAKE, how do they maintain a signal with the ground station if it's going 17,000 mph over the Earth's curvature!!!!?!! FAKE!!!" And, if they don't get live seamless video, they say "FAKE, I want to see live seamless video!!!" Either way, you conspiratards cry "FAKE!!," so what's the point? Get what you ask for, don't get what you ask for, either way, you think it's fake. Your circular logic is impossible to appease, because it makes no sense. Meanwhile, there are plenty of onboard videos that capture the launches seamlessly... they just don't exist "live," and must be shown later when they recover the onboard video. Getting educated about the history and technology are how you can help filter between incorrect things from books/newspapers/videos/whatever, vs. correct things. But, no. Your method is undoubtedly to come to your conclusions first, and reject all evidence that goes against your predetermined conclusions, and accept all evidence that supports your delusions.
    3
  2886. No, dummy. You don't get to ignore every word I write, ignore every question I ask, ignore every challenge I put forth, and then ask a bunch of new questions. I'm pretty sick and tired of the fact that every single one of you conspiratards operates that same way. You ask questions, but ignore the answers. In actuality, you're only pretending to ask questions, because you've made it perfectly clear that you have absolutely no intention of an honest dialog, and you do not intend to listen to any answers to your own questions. No. I'm not playing that game. You even asked a couple of the same questions AGAIN, that I already answered. Look, dummy, just lay off of the drugs, go back and finish high school, and make something of yourself. Stop trying to drag the rest of the world down to your level. You don't know anything, and you're proud of your ignorance. That's not a good thing, that's a very bad thing.
    3
  2887. Was it drugs that did this to you? Is that why you believe crazy things?
    3
  2888. Do you REALLY think that nobody ever figured out how to get the rovers to the moon? That's how this conspiracy goes, in your mind? Thousands of engineers from NASA, Grumman, General Motors, and Boeing, all worked on designing the rovers, and redesigning the LEMs to carry the rovers... and what? You think they were all too stupid to realize that they forgot to make the rover fit? For 50 years, none of those thousands upon thousands of engineers, technicians, assembly people, etc., have ever said, "Holy cow, we totally forgot to make the rover fit into the lander!!! Apollo was faked!!!" Is that how this goes for you? That's how dumb you are?
    3
  2889. Do the math. Optical resolution. It's a property of light based upon the Rayleigh criterion. Calculate the size of the lens required to do what you're asking. Hint: the lens would need to be a quarter mile across to barely make out that it's a lander, or more like 6 miles across to see details. The largest lens ever made costed $168 million to make, and is 5 feet wide.
    3
  2890. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    3
  2891. Um, ok, sure, you can see the landing sites with your bare eyes... if by "landing site" you mean somewhere in the vicinity. But, if you are under the impression that there's any telescope that can see landers and Apollo equipment on the moon, um, no.
    3
  2892.  @gives_bad_advice  Did the gorilla tell you to jump?
    3
  2893. "I have an idea!" Doubtful. "If Hubble, and other telescopes can see far-out galaxies ... I'm SURE it can scan the "Sea of Tranquility" to locate "Tranquility Base", the flag, the lunar rover, and the LEM framework that was left behind." You have confused distance with resolution. Be as "SURE" as you feel like. But, you're wrong. I mean, the short answer is that it would take a telescope with a quarter mile wide lens to do what you are thinking, from this distance. But, I mean, c'mon, do you really believe you're the first to think of this? "That would put to rest the entire controversy" Nonsense. You are completely wrong. The Arizona State University LRO camera took hundreds of photos of the landing sites from lunar orbit. You can see the landers, rover tracks, foot paths, etc. That didn't stop the deniers. They just called those photos "fake" also. China and India have each sent orbiters to the moon, and have taken photos of some of the landing sites, which match perfectly with the LRO photos (the ones from India are even better than LRO's photos). None of those photos have stopped deniers from denying. They just conclude that India and China have decided to join "the deception" 50 years afterward. What makes you think that additional photos from Hubble of the landing sites would make one bit of difference to the deniers? I mean, again, Hubble isn't big enough to see the landing sites. But, pretending it was capable of it, why would you believe that more photos would make a dent on the beliefs of the deniers? The rest of what you wrote... well... I'd suggest you should try that again when you're sober. A bunch of gibberish doesn't exactly make you look credible.
    3
  2894. Yeah, don't forget chemtrails, bigfoot, and the Earth is flat. Crank.
    3
  2895. You make post after post in video after video, and now you're coming here saying "no facts"? Dewdrop, it helps if you read the answers to your own questions. Don't sit there and ignore every response to your statements/questions, and then complain nobody gives you facts.
    3
  2896. @s1rhcs1vad What "murder" are you talking about? Good grief. Nobody "murdered" him. Here's an idea: Don't drive on public roads at the age of 13. Don't ride an dirt bike on public roads either, because it's not street legal. Don't drive recklessly. Don't flee the police.
    3
  2897. There's a difference between "just a salesman" and an outright conman.
    3
  2898. Just out of curiosity, how does this "logic" work in your mind? Some astronauts swore on Sibrel's bible, some didn't. So, do you believe the ones that did, and disbelieve the ones that didn't? So, some missions were real, and some weren't?
    3
  2899. What in the world are you talking about? How does that response answer my question? I asked how you square away the fact that some astronauts swore on Sibrel's bible, and some didn't. I asked if that meant (to you) that some missions were real, some were not. You refused to answer.
    3
  2900. "NASA doesn't want any other countries rovers near their landing sites" Dewdrop, they want to preserve Apollo 11's and Apollo 17's landing sites as historical monuments. They said nothing about Apollo 12, 14, 15, or 16. And, their only statement is that they will not fund missions that intend to disturb Apollo 11 or Apollo 17. It's "look but don't touch," but is completely not enforceable, because nobody owns the moon. Good grief. Get your facts straight.
    3
  2901. "If you go to Wiki on the Van Allen belt, you'll find some interesting facts" And, if you read the actual scientific papers, you'll learn even more. Start with the fact that there are two belts, not one. And, sometimes there are 3 belts (though, the 3rd hasn't been seen in over a decade now).
    3
  2902. "the rotating helmet on suits that don't have rotating helmets." Again, all you're doing is regurgitating claims from conspiracy videos that lie to you. Yes, the Gemini helmets rotated. Apollo's didn't. Your video source doesn't know any more about the topic than you do.
    3
  2903. "Nixon's supposed call to the astronauts with zero delay" Dewdrop, you'll only hear the delay in one direction, because of where the recording device was located. The delay is heard in the other direction. I'll never understand why you people refuse to grasp this simple concept. Nixon had no reason to wait 2.6 seconds before responding to astronauts. But, in the original recording, you will never hear the astronauts responding to Nixon unless at least 2.6 seconds had passed.
    3
  2904. "pamphlets given to reporters as they claimed they actually went to a polar orbit before leaving" A skewing of the wording. Yes, the orbit wasn't polar. But, it wasn't equatorial either. But, given that they only did one lap before flinging themselves out to the moon, and that they could see the poles as they did it, yeah, is this really the "gotcha" you're pretending? C'mon man, this is ridiculous.
    3
  2905. "a person examining data that comes into a feed on his screen would not need to be in on all the details; which could be repeated for every job with very few exceptions" Again, this is regurgitation of silly nonsense from conspiracy videos. No, dewdrop. It didn't work that way. Dozens of countries (including enemies) tracked the Apollo missions to and from the moon with radar and radio telescopes. This isn't a matter of just looking at screens and blindly believing them. Stop pretending you understand things that you do not.
    3
  2906. "Please, make one on the Van Allen belt" No, dewdrop. YOU go read the actual numbers from the hundreds of probes sent into those belts for the past 66 years. Don't just sit there and blindly regurgitate the conspiracy version. I mean, get real here. Do you even realize how badly you're contradicting yourself with your notion that only a very few people would need to be "in on it"? Do you think the Soviets didn't understand the Van Allen belts? Why would the Soviets acknowledge Apollo if they thought nobody could get through the belts? Why would every space agency on Earth acknowledge Apollo if their thousands of scientists and engineers thought the belts couldn't be traversed? Are the world's aerospace engineers unable to watch the videos you watch? Or, do you suppose that they understand the belts better than you do?
    3
  2907. Not tin. But, what would you have used, if not foils? Can you explain why you think foils are a bad idea?
    3
  2908. They took hundreds of photos of Earth. Have you bothered looking at the photo archive? Who told you that they never took a photo of Earth?
    3
  2909. If countries don't do exactly what I think they should, then this means they lied.
    3
  2910.  @Crazy_stunt_ridez  Why can't conspiratards EVER answer ANYTHING? Why do you ask questions, ignore the answers, refuse to answer any return questions, then ask more questions, when you know, in advance, that you are going to ignore the answers?
    3
  2911. Long replies don't always show up (thanks YouTube censorship), so, I'll add a shorter reply: India, China, South Korea, and the USA have all taken photos of the Apollo landers on the moon using lunar satellites. How do you explain that? Are they all "in on it"?
    3
  2912. Yes, laser ranging facilities existed before Apollo, which were able to get bounce-back from the dust/rocks on the moon. After the reflectors, however, you're talking about orders of magnitude better reflection, with far more accuracy and reliability. Have you ever seen the reflection charts with and without a reflector? Make no mistake here: the difference between the bounce-back you get from random rocks/dust on the moon vs. an Apollo reflector is like the difference between looking at a pocket flashlight from 100 yards away vs. looking at the sun. Nobody on the planet who has ever worked in one of those laser ranging facilities has ever been confused by whether they're looking at the bounce back from a reflector or not. It would be like claiming you can't tell the difference between how wet you get if you get hit by a couple of drops of water vs. getting thrown into a swimming pool.
    3
  2913. A) I don't understand your new question. B) Are you trying to say that the dozens of countries staffed with the experts who designed and built those laser ranging facilities are unaware of what they're looking at, and that you somehow know better than they do, yet simultaneously you don't really know how any of it works, or why? C) If you had questions about how laser ranging works, and why it works, you should have opened with those questions. But, no. Instead, you decided to "educate" the world about what's needed and how it works, and declaring that reflectors aren't needed. Only on your second posting did you ask anything (and even then, I didn't 100% understand what you're asking). D) C'mon man, get real here, if you really believe that the entire planet's laser ranging experts are unaware that they don't need the Apollo reflectors (which was your original position), I mean, this is just plain ridiculous. Stop pretending to know things you do not.
    3
  2914. Oh, don't you worry about being unclear. Trust me. Your message is 100% clear. You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Not one bit.
    3
  2915. Two backup tapes were made as a contingency plan in the event that the primary copies didn't work due to an NTSC conversion problem. Those two backup tapes were later discovered to be lost. They had never even been viewed a single time in history, because the primary copies worked. Yes, go figure, priceless rocks have gotten stolen. Shocker. The last time I checked, there were about 11,000 cataloged lunar samples from Apollo (most the size of a grain of sand, but some were larger rocks), and a bit over 500 of them have been lost/stolen over the years. Some were lost in museums, some were given to countries as a whole, but, the officials kept them for themselves, and, some were just outright stolen. So what?
    3
  2916. How'd they do that? No news media even covered this story until long after she died. There were a couple of obscure blogs that listed her arrest when she was alive, but, none of the news or big media outlets covered it until the arrest video was released.
    3
  2917.  @petes5041  Yes, the moon is known to have a heavy static charge, and it is known that the microscopic dust "floats" above the lunar surface. As the static charge comes and goes, the dust rises and falls.
    3
  2918. Nice attention span. Watch the entire 17 minute interview, not the 10 seconds of taking a single quote out of context.
    3
  2919. HILARIOUS!!!!! Instant death from kicking a boulder?!?!?! Wow, you've lost your marbles.
    3
  2920. Because virtually no media covered it until she was already dead 1.5 years. You can't bully a dead person.
    3
  2921. "From what I've seen... no, it never happened." Then all you've seen are conspiracy videos. Bravo. "Otherwise we would have been back for further survey and exploration." How many times would be acceptable to you? They sent manned missions to the moon 9 times, landing 6 of those times. Is that not enough "going back" for you? Must congress fund the program indefinitely for you to believe it? Never allowed to stop? "And certainly no truly useful or meaningful data would have resulted from these primitive expeditions" Huh? You're illustrating one of the reasons that they stopped going, yet, somehow, in your mind, this means they should have kept going? It's a dead rock. They got some lunar geology out of it, but, it remains a dead rock nonetheless. I truly don't understand why you think this talking point goes in favor of your ultimate opinion, when it actually goes directly against your position. "There's just too many unanswered or clearly falsely answered questions." Well, that's what happens when you aren't actually studying Apollo, but, instead, you just watch conspiracy videos made by crackpots. Your "questions" don't get answered correctly. "and who would go to space and not take pictures of the stars?" Who told you that they didn't take photos of the stars? A conspiracy video? See, this is, again, evidence that you haven't actually been studying Apollo, and all you're doing is regurgitating the ridiculous claims from crackpot videos instead. To start with, the Carruthers UV telescope/camera took 125 photos of the stars from the surface of the moon. Beyond that, you're just not worth explaining it to. If you can't be bothered to fact-check anything you believe, that's your problem right there. "Not to mention the claimed performance of their electric car" Wow, what a fascinating argument. They claimed the car did what it did, therefore it's fake. Bravo. "Finally, watch Mr. Aldrin's eyes as he speaks" Pure genius you are. Bravo. Throw him in prison. His eyes are wrong.
    3
  2922. Fred, can you refer me to the conspiracy video making that claim? I mean, I know you got it from such a video. None of you nuts think for yourselves, you just watch videos made by inept crackpots, then regurgitate the nonsense they spew. I just don't know which one made this particular claim. Can you inform me? By the way, there's a big difference between being INSIDE of an insulated capsule on top of a rocket and inside of an airtight spacesuit, vs. being out in the open a few feet of a rocket engine. Any sane person would already know this. But, whatever. You keep on pretending to understand things you don't, on the basis of what a conspiracy video told you. Sure, it's clearly the only education you have (sadly). So, that's what you go with. But, at least, can you point me to which video makes the claim?
    3
  2923. So, let me get this straight: "That's why WV Braun said it's impossible with rockets as small as the Saturn V." Get real here. The main guy who was responsible for building the thing said it wouldn't work? How far gone do you need to be to believe such nonsense? Dewdrop, there were many different iterations of what the Apollo missions would be, and how they would do it. Some of the early plans included missions for at least 10 people on the moon for a month at a time. Other iterations included fewer people, but, no separate lander, and the astronauts would descend directly to the moon in the very same ship they'd take back to Earth, requiring it to be about 200,000 pounds. Other iterations contemplated two separate launches, one for the craft, one for the fuel. All you're doing is watching conspiracy videos that chose one particular iteration in which von Braun calculated the size of the rocket needed for that particular setup, and then pretending that's the final version. But, it doesn't matter, dewdrop. There's a simple way of knowing whether you are correct or incorrect. It's your belief from that one quote that the Saturn V couldn't do the job it was designed and built to do, right? You know this because that quote said so, right? The makers of the conspiracy video you watched showed you that quote, therefore, you think that the Saturn V couldn't do the job, right? So, calculate it. The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation has been understood since 1903. It remains as the cornerstone of rocketry even today. And, the identical formula was independently derived by Goddard and others. It's a mathematical model of how rockets work, and dictates the amount of payload you can lift to [whatever] velocity with [whatever] amount of fuel. Just apply that equation to each stage of the Saturn V, and demonstrate that it couldn't have done the job it did. What are you waiting for? Who cares what some silly quote said about von Braun's design for one of the many iterations of how Apollo would work? Why does it matter to you at all? Demonstrate mathematically that the Saturn V couldn't lift the payload to the moon!! It's been 120 years since we've understood the exact mathematical model required. You're an expert in aerospace engineering, right? You have the capability to spot what designs work, and what designs won't work. So, apply the math, and show it!!
    3
  2924. "I think the most ridiculous thing of any...is the actual thing they flew in on....LOL...it's made of TIN FOIL." Gee. You know this, how? Why don't any of the 7,000 engineers at Grumman think it was made of tin foil? You haven't confused the outer thermal blanket with the actual hull of the craft, have you? Gee, I wonder why most satellites built today, across just about every country that builds satellites, uses the exact same method of wrapping Mylar/Kapton foils around the craft as thermal insulation? Can you explain that? "I think the real issue is the government didn't realize the smarts and technologies to come in the future." What? Again, how does this make sense to you? Most modern satellites being built/launched today use the very same method. We are 50-60 years into the future (from their perspective in the 1960s when this type of thermal shielding was designed). And, still today, we do the exact same thing. So, please explain why people today are still "falling for" this wrong solution (wrong in your mind) of wrapping craft in foils as a thermal blanket layer? Your contention is that people are smarter now, right? I mean, all evidence to the contrary... but... whatever, this is your contention anyway. So, why do people still today build satellites that way? "They never thought anyone would ever be able to question them" But, dewdrop, the government didn't design the lunar lander. Grumman did. You're not under the impression that NASA builds anything, are you? You do know NASA's job is to fund PRIVATE companies to design and build things, right? Or, wait, let me guess, you think NASA designs and builds the craft? That's how little you know about the topic? 'and if they ever did...everyone involved would be dead so who cares." Dewdrop, most of them are dead, but, some are not. And, sorry, but in your wild fantasy, it would still require the active participation of people today to perpetuate the nonsense you believe. I'm beginning to think maybe you're not the shrewd aerospace engineer you're presenting yourself to be.
    3
  2925. He just murdered a woman right before this incident.
    3
  2926. What in the world are you talking about? Drones don't run on rockets. They run with propellers.
    3
  2927. I'm not sure what you mean "they never filmed the Earth from the moon." There are hundreds of sill shots of the Earth with the 70mm Hasselblads. And, they pointed the RCA TV video camera at the Earth a bunch of times. I'm not really sure if they pointed the 16mm DAC at the Earth. Is that the camera you're complaining about? You might be correct about that particular camera, but, I'm not sure why you say they couldn't do it?? Why couldn't they do it?
    3
  2928. So, you posted two comments in a row. The first said "fake fake fake." The second asked questions. Dewdrop, most people, the sane ones anyway, ask their questions first, wait for answers, then formulate conclusions. Not you, though. Nope. It's the other way around. Come to conclusions first, then pretend to ask questions. Sure. The answers are readily available a million times over, if you'd lift a finger to look. Clearly you haven't even tried. But, there's a special irony when you know SO little about a topic that you truly don't even know how the photography was taken, yet, you simultaneously believe you know enough to call it fake. Not a single space agency on the planet agrees with you. But, you think you know better. That's like not knowing what the steering wheel in a car does, while simultaneously thinking you're a better driver than Formula 1 world champions.
    3
  2929. Let me guess, you think there's no gravity, right?
    3
  2930. You cannot even fuel up the rocket for $5 million. Apollo costed around $300 billion (adjusted for inflation) in hard costs, and another approximate $150 billion in support from other countries and other soft costs.
    3
  2931. Is that how you really think it works? Sun comes up, and BING, it's 212 degrees? Sun goes down, and BING, it's minus 212 degrees? Thermodynamics just isn't your thing, eh?
    3
  2932. So, instead of admitting you were wrong, you comment on how much time it took for someone to reply. Typical duck and dodge that all nuts use.
    3
  2933. "he managed a more complicated version in real life." I'd say crosswinds make things more complicated. You don't get crosswinds on the moon. But, whatever, that's why they hired test pilots in the first place. Those guys were very good at being the first to land unmanned craft.
    3
  2934.  @gives_bad_advice  It's even worse than that. They built FIVE LLRVs/LLTVs. Yet, the deniers just know about Armstrong's crash, as if the other craft never existed, and there were no other flights, ever.
    3
  2935. YOU SAID: "MY LODGIC" == Curtis, c'mon here, you know you're not the brightest bulb. Why pretend otherwise. You're not even literate. You can't read and write better than a 9 year old. You obviously never graduated high school. Why would you think you understand this better than the entire planet's experts? "Lodgic"?? That's not even a word. C'mon man. Get real here. YOU SAID: "ABOUT THE SPACE SUIT IS THIS. I BELIEVE IF A SPACE SUIT," WHICH IS MADE UP OF MATTER" WERE INSTANTANEOUSLY INTRODUCED TO AN ATMOSPHERE COMPLETELY DEVOID OF MATTER,"" == That's the OPPOSITE of an atmosphere. You are simultaneously saying that there's an atmosphere and that there's no atmosphere. This makes no sense. You don't even know what an atmosphere is. Why would you believe you understand this topic better than the entire planet's experts? YOU SAID: "SPACE".THE PRESSURE THAT WOULD MANIFEST INSIDE THE SUIT WOULD DESTROY IT." == The spacesuits ran with about 3 or 4 PSI of pressure. That doesn't destroy it. You don't know what you're talking about. A bike tire operates at about 60 PSI. Does the bike tire get destroyed? There are bike tires that operate at over 100 PSI. Yet, you're concerned about a spacesuit operating at 3 or 4 PSI? YOU SAID: "THE SCIENTIST I LISTENED TO SAID" == Where? On a YouTube conspiracy video? Dummy, the entire planet's ACTUAL scientists disagree with you. Why would you ignore what tens of thousands of actual scientists would say, and listen to a YouTube crackpot? If that "scientist" actually had any real arguments, he/she wouldn't be on YouTube, he/she would be submitting these calculations to science journals. YOU SAID: "IT WOULD EXPLODE BECAUSE OF THE OVERWHELMING PRESSURE." == Ridiculous nonsense. Shame on you for believing such claptrap. YOU SAID: "I WAS WRONG ACCORDING TO THEM BECAUSE I BELIEVED THE HIGH PRESSURE OUTSIDE THE SUIT WOULD SUCK THE LOWER PRESSURE INSIDE THE SUIT OUT." == What ARE you talking about?!?!?! You are BACKWARD!!! The pressure outside of a spacesuit is virtually zero. It's so close to zero that it's very common to just call it zero. It's such a small number that it's meaningless in regular units of measure. It would be like trying to measure the length of a bacterium in units of miles. Yet, you believe that the pressure outside the suit is higher than the pressure inside the suit?? Where would you get this ridiculous idea? And, if the pressure is higher outside the suit, then it wouldn't suck anything out, it would be blowing in!!! If you are inside an airtight room, and the pressure is higher outside the room, and lower pressure inside the room, what do you think happens when you open the door? Does the air blow outward? Or, does the air blow inward? YOU SAID: "I THOUGHT THE SUIT WOULD IMPLODE BY SUCKING ALL THE PRESSURE OUT OF THE SUIT." == You don't know what you're talking about. That's not what actually happens. The concept of "suction" doesn't work that way. In actuality, when there's a pressure difference, the higher pressure area "blows" into the lower pressure area. There isn't really a concept of "suction" when it comes to this stuff. Go back to school. YOU SAID: "THE SCIENTIST SAY IT WOULD EXPLODE." == Then why aren't those "scientists" (conspiracy video makers pretending to be scientists) publishing their findings in science journals? Why are they making silly videos that undergo no scientific scrutiny whatsoever? Any scientist would know never to go straight to publication without first going through the scientific method. YOU SAID: "I AM NOT A SCIENTIST." == Shocker. YOU SAID: "THE SCIENTIST DEFENDING THE SUIT SAY THE SUIT IS MADE UP OF MATERIAL THAT CAME FROM ASTEROIDS. I DON'T BELIEVE THEM." == Why not just look up the actual materials in the suit, rather than watching videos made by people just as clueless as you are? YOU SAID: "THIS IS MY OPINION." == You don't know enough to even have an opinion. Do you hold opinions about the best methods of performing brain surgery? No? Why not? Because you know absolutely nothing about brain surgery, right? Well, you know absolutely nothing about this topic either. So, why do you even hold ANY opinions? YOU SAID: "I DON'T BELIEVE THE LIE THEY GAVE FOR THE REASONS WE HAVEN'T GONE TO THE MOON."" == Who says we haven't gone to the moon? More conspiracy videos. Not a single space agency on the planet, in friendly or enemy countries, staffed with the entirety of the world's best experts on space travel, has ever claimed that Apollo didn't go to the moon. YOU SAID: "1 THEY ERASED THE DATA." MANS GREATEST ACCOMPLISHMENT." == Wrong. No data was erased. That's another ridiculous conspiracy video claim. YOU SAID: "2 THE DATA WAS LOST." == Wrong. No data was lost. YOU SAID: "I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT." == Good. You shouldn't believe that. Nobody at NASA has ever claimed that they erased or lost any data. So, your conspiracy videos lied to you. YOU SAID: "THEY WOULD HAVE DETAILED RECORDS WITH MULTIPLE COPIES STORED AWAY." == Yup. Why would you think otherwise? Because conspiracy videos told you? YOU SAID: "I HAVE SEVERAL OTHER REASONS I DONT BELIEVE OR TRUST NASA LIKE I USED TOO!!" == Because conspiracy videos make other ridiculous claims too, right? Dummy, have you ever actually fact-checked any of your conspiracy videos?
    3
  2936. Wouldn't matter. There was video of the incident itself. It doesn't match her sob story.
    3
  2937. So, NASA "admits" that Apollo never happened? Hey, dewdrop, WRITE IT UP FOR RADIOBIOLOGY JOURNALS!!! Why are you on YOUTUBE?
    3
  2938.  @gives_bad_advice  It's a brief summary article "Why Space Radiation Matters" - which he's intentionally taking out of context. The original source material for that summary comes from multiple papers that say the exact opposite as he's saying. I wrote a reply that includes one of those sources, but, I have no idea if it's visible or not.
    3
  2939. "It's visible." Thanks. There's a tremendous delay between when I post some messages and when they're visible. I can see it myself now also. But, I couldn't for the first 5 minutes or so. Ironically, Stellar Windbag might not get it in his notifications, and would have to view the thread fresh from the video in order to see it. But, whatever, he never reads anything that goes against his predetermined conclusions anyway. Otherwise, he wouldn't have to stoop to intentionally taking quotes out of context.
    3
  2940. Yes, 1.5 years afterward (which was 2.5 years after the arrest itself).
    3
  2941. Relative to the entire program, yes, the lunar rover was a "last minute" thing. GM and Boeing were selected to design and build them, and they only had about a year before NASA expected delivery of the Earth based training model, and only a few more months for the first one that would go on Apollo 15. However, Grumman was already redesigning the lander for the J-missions (the ones with the rovers) before any manned missions to the moon even happened. Everyone thought it would probably end up being a rover, but, that wasn't firmly decided until later. So, yes, the rover was a "last minute" addition (so to speak). But, the redesigned lander was already in the works for a while by then, with the extended engine bell, extra batteries, more capacity for longer stays, and a large equipment bay to stick something (which ended up being the rover) into. The rovers didn't exactly work perfectly. Apollo 15's rover only had rear steering (front steering broke) for the entire first EVA. And, the rover's camera's tilt failed, so they only could make horizontal camera movements. They also had some extra problems with controlling the heat. But, it got the job done, yes.
    3
  2942. So.... 99.99% of them?
    3
  2943. You don't believe that claim? Wow. How many of the astronauts have you met? I mean, you'd have been hard-pressed to find people who knew the names, "Jack Schmitt" and "Gene Cernan" during that timeframe. Sure, you'd see an occasional TV appearance. But, these guys could go to the grocery store, and nobody bothered them (because nobody knew who they were). Neil Armstrong... different story entirely. The man couldn't set foot in the public without being mobbed. Yes, the public largely lost interest after Apollo 11.
    3
  2944. Well, she already had a criminal record. And, no, she wasn't convicted for this incident, so, it didn't add to her criminal record. As for posting the bodycam footage, well, it was probably the result of a legal FOIA request. But, at least the woman didn't suffer any shame for this video, because it wasn't made public until 1.5 years after she was already dead.
    3
  2945. How far out to sea has your mind set sail, when you can possibly believe that Aldrin "admitted it," and absolutely nothing happened? No press. No congressional inquiries. No prosecutions. Nothing. Nada. Zippo. Which is more likely? (1) He "admitted it" and nobody on the planet did a darned thing about it? Or, (2) You watched a conspiracy video with a small clip taken completely out of context? Which one?
    3
  2946.  @randyschissler5791  Yeah, that's why the astronauts were so taken back by Moore's question. It made no sense. He started by asking "when you looked up at the sky" (seems to be implying from the lunar surface), "could you see stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare" (seems to be asking about from the command module).... So, they all looked at each other, sort of wondering what the question was supposed to mean, and, eventually, Armstrong just decided to answer about both conditions. The nuts jump all over this, because they don't understand it. And, the irony was that the astronauts didn't understand Moore's question either (nor do I). But, the nuts don't realize that the astronauts just did the best they could with a malformed question. And, it really didn't help that they were trained to be very direct and short in their replies during those types of conferences. No back and forth. No clarification. Nothing. Side note: the photographing of the solar corona actually took place on the approach to the moon, before they dropped into a circular orbit. They wanted to get it from as high a vantage point as possible as the sun dropped over the lunar horizon. If you look at where Apollo 11 is on the lunar surface, and the phase of the moon at that time, and the figure-8 approach and orbit pattern that the craft took, map that all out, it will make a lot more sense to you. That was the best viewing angle of the corona. Another side note: yeah, the astronauts still talk that way to this day. For example, one time in a public speaking engagement, I asked Lovell a question. He gave a brief answer, not quite accurate, probably because I didn't make the question clear enough. Then, about a year later, when Lovell came to my office and I had some one-on-one time, I asked the same question again, and got a completely different answer, and had a lot more time for back and forth. Point is: the astronauts were trained on how to speak in those forums. Short. No clarification. Just answer and move on. But, one-on-one, you can get better answers.
    3
  2947. See, the sun is what we call "bright." And, brightness often causes quite a bit of glare and bleed of the images in photos and in video. I'm sorry you don't understand how stuff works, but, should everyone else really need to suffer because you don't know anything?
    3
  2948. So, you form your opinions on NASA in the 1960s on the basis of a 3rd party video made in the 2020s? Oh, you're totally brilliant alright. And, now, you're claiming "the internet" is "in on it"? All of the world's various service providers, search engines, hosting companies, etc., are working together to "scrub clean" silly videos full of your favorite nonsense? That's how this goes? It can't be because the makers of the nonsense eventually get tired of being wrong about everything, and pull down the videos themselves. It must be because "the internet" is out to get them? Dewdrop, there are lots of 12-step programs you can attend to deal with your REAL problem, you know. How about focusing on that, rather than silly gibberish you found online?
    3
  2949. Have you considered that you should lay off the drugs?
    3
  2950. Hubble's best resolution of the moon's surface is 160 feet x 160 feet per pixel. (One single pixel represents a square on the moon that is 160 feet by 160 feet.) The stuff in this video can't even occupy a single Hubble pixel.
    3
  2951. Not only has this been answered a billion times, but, let's get real here... you're making it quite obvious that you have no desire to know the answers. If you want to be taken seriously in life, remove your brain from your own rear end.
    3
  2952. If you think there's no acceleration, you have flunked out of physics 101. As for the rest, sorry, I just don't understand what you're trying to say, and neither do you.
    3
  2953. Am-rd: Does this mean that he's decided to ignore all of your input also, like he abandoned mine? He determined (all by himself) that the descent engine was running at full throttle of 10,500 pounds of thrust at landing, despite that the craft would have been shooting straight upward had that been the case. I told him it was 2,500 pounds of thrust for Apollo 11. You told him 3,000 (which was probably about right for the rest of the missions which all landed a bit heavier than Apollo 11 did). So, I guess we are both banned now for telling him the correct facts. He prefers incorrect facts.
    3
  2954. CGI in 1969-1972, oh, you're a true genius.
    3
  2955. I'm not the one running for the hills every time someone corrects your gibberish. That's YOU doing that.
    3
  2956.  @laneyljk  Willful stupidity.
    3
  2957. "one cut or snag and it's over" Who told you that? A conspiracy video? You don't think the folks at ILC Dover thought of this? The suits were just a bit T-shirt, right? No multiple layers. No ripstop fabrics. No self-sealing layers. Right? Errrr, um, wait....
    3
  2958. That very same government offered you a free education, yet, you didn't take it. Come back when you graduate 8th grade and can formulate a coherent sentence.
    3
  2959. Just read the police report. You'll find out that you're incorrect.
    3
  2960. Who do you think "manages" a public beach, if not the police? If a man came up at a playground and started cranking it in front of your kids, you're just going to leave and go to a different playground, right?
    3
  2961. There are three orbiters that took the photos you're talking about. China's Chang'e. India's Chandrayaan. And LRO (using the camera made by Arizona State University). China's photos aren't great, just a few pixels of the landers, but, you can see something is there. LRO's photos are pretty distinct, you can clearly see they are Apollo's landers. But, India's photos have the best quality (the orbiter is a dozen years newer than LRO's).
    3
  2962.  @ladylindemanmogot9992  I'm not the one running around making a hundred postings that say absolutely nothing, then thumbs-upping my own comments. That's YOU doing that, dewdrop.
    3
  2963. You'll forgive me if I don't have faith in your expertise on gamma rays when you're incapable of spelling them.
    3
  2964. Ah, another example of someone watching a "documentary" (sigh) about a topic, without any knowledge whatsoever about that topic, and believing every word, hook line and sinker. Anybody who has even an entry level understanding of Apollo can identify that every single "objection" that movie offers is absurdly wrong, and easily debunked. The makers of that video (and others like it) rely on the fact that none of their followers have ever fact-checked a single thing they've said, and never will.
    3
  2965. Why not a Taser? Because they had been chasing this man for a while that day. He kidnapped two women. Then, the police were chasing him. He fled to a storefront, where he held some people there (seemed like a hostage situation). He fled from there, got on this bus, where the police followed/chased him again. And it seemed like another hostage situation, because they saw the bus being evacuated, and the bus driver calling for help from that guy. It's perfectly normal for the police to be concerned that he had a firearm. As it turns out, he didn't. But, the cops did the right thing by drawing a firearm in that circumstance. But, the most tell-tale sign of your warped attitude is that you came to your conclusion first, then asked questions second. Bravo.
    3
  2966. What don't you understand here? They had wonderful cameras on the moon, hence why there are good 70mm photos and 16mm video film. But, yes, live stream video from the moon was quite low res, yes. If you think you could have done better, be my guest, spell out exactly how. Remember, the camera had to use very low power and could only have one vidicon pickup. So, go right ahead, tell the world how to make the video quality better for the live TV stream.
    3
  2967. The United States Freedom of Information Act released the arrest video. The police blocked its release for 2.5 years because the investigation was open. But, eventually, once she was dead for 1.5 years, they could no longer block it. The video of the actual "show" she put on at the beach has never been released. Due to content, it remains protected.
    3
  2968.  @RK-fh7fx  Watching silly conspiracy videos isn't research.
    3
  2969. Wow, what a convincing argument, completely logical, and so comprehensive. The entirety of the world's space programs, staffed with thousands of experts on aerospace engineering, and mountains of evidence, are all wrong, because of the lack of plastic bags. Pure genius at work.
    3
  2970. No gravity? Good grief.
    3
  2971. Really? Please explain what was wrong with the type-C radar and transponders they used for navigation. Can you? They also had the Draper Labs inertial guidance system onboard. Can you elaborate on why it was unable to do the job Draper made it for?
    3
  2972. This is ridiculous. It's blocking everything I'm trying to write. I can't even write the next word without it blocking ONE WORD. Ivan, you have absolutely no understanding of this entire topic. And, everything you wrote is wrong.
    3
  2973. You don't even know that there are two belts, and sometimes even three, because you use "belt" (singular) in your statement. Yet, you think you know more about them than James Van Allen himself, huh?
    3
  2974. "Michael Collins, the third astronaut circling the moon said he didn't see any stars in the first press conference." No, dewdrop. Listen to the question he was answering. "When you looked up at the sky, could you see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?" The question itself is very confusing, because it first implied "looking up at the sky" (as if from the lunar surface), then the second half of the question asked about "in the solar corona in spite of the glare" (as if from lunar orbit, which is the only time they could see the solar corona and its glare, for about a minute of time). All of the astronauts were a bit taken back by this self-contradicting question, but, Armstrong took a shot at answering by splitting the question into two parts. He addressed the first part of the question by saying that he couldn't see stars from the lunar surface without using the optics. He said he didn't remember if he saw stars while photographing the solar corona (from lunar orbit in the command module). Collins chimed in and said he didn't recall seeing any (while photographing the solar corona). This is because, as I said, the corona is only visible for about a minute from lunar orbit. And, no, the astronauts weren't exactly paying attention to seeing stars or not during that short timeframe. They did, however, all see stars just fine about another minute after photographing the solar corona. I mean, how does this work, in your mind? Why are you omitting (in your mind) the actual question that was asked? Moore wasn't asking them if they ever saw stars during the entire mission. He was asking if they saw stars in very specific conditions. That's what the astronauts were answering. "In their first press conference after the returning from the moon all three of them looked sad, not even a smile let alone jumping up and down with joy." What is wrong with you? What in the world are you talking about? First of all, of course, all of you nuts refer to that one press conference. But, none of you people even know when it took place. It was several weeks after the mission, dewdrop. And, it was not even remotely their first press event or public appearance. They were in the middle of an absolute whirlwind of events. First, they were in quarantine for weeks, with doctors probing every inch of them, inside and out. Then, they went on an absolutely mind boggling series of events and a world tour. Ticker tape parades. Meetings with dignitaries. Debriefs. Press events. Speaking in front of congress. Living on airplanes that took them from city to city to city, barely sleeping, often not even checking into a hotel, but, being forced to sleep in airplane seats between one destination and the next. TV appearances. Interviews. You name it. And, in the middle of all of that, they had to perform this scripted press conference. And, you couldn't possibly have even watched the whole thing, if you're going to sit there and claim that they were sad and not smiling. There were multiple points when they were laughing and cracking jokes. But, you're going to claim otherwise? What in the world do YOU know about it? You didn't even pay attention to the one question about seeing stars in the solar corona. You couldn't even be bothered to pay attention to the context of the question. That's how little you care about this topic. Oh, but, you sure do want to accuse them of being criminal frauds who would get a lifetime sentence for what you're accusing them of, don't you?
    3
  2975. coisasnatv: 2nd reply in a row here: YOU SAID: "What was found are video backups, all the data showing irrefutable proof that we went to the moon are gone, this are the tapes I'm talking about." == The data is STILL THERE. It's not gone. Good gods. And, don't just make these dumb assertions about missing data. Name the EXACT data that you'd be convinced by. Name it. Name the data that would make you not a conspiratard. (Pffttt, we both know that the data has nothing to do with it, and when I show you that the data is still there, all you'd say is that it's fake too, so spare the world your empty bullshit.)
    3
  2976. He wasn't "simply asked" anything of the sort. Sibrel had been ambushing astronauts like Aldrin and pushing and shoving. A few of the astronauts DID swear on Sibrel's bible. But, after it became clear that he was going to use these interviews for a dishonest motive to deny the moon landings, the rest of the astronauts got word about who this guy was, and what his tactics were. So, yeah, naturally, the remaining astronauts weren't going to cooperate with this criminally convicted taxi cab driver, and his aggressive nonsense.
    3
  2977.  @rickydiesel1081  Yeah, that explanation is reasonable. That's why I found it confusing. Conflicting information.
    3
  2978. "Even the most powerful telescopes cannot see this." Correct, which is why he's making a CGI video to speculate about what it looks like today. Why is this even an objection that would cause you not to believe it? You have correctly said that telescopes cannot resolve this level of detail. How is that evidence against Apollo?
    3
  2979. The lunar lander never achieved escape velocity from the moon. Well, except Apollo 10's, but, that's because it never landed. Any of the landers that actually landed on the moon never achieved escape velocity after lifting off again. Did someone tell you that they did? Why would they need to?
    3
  2980.  @occhamite  But, he wasn't talking about lunar orbit. He specifically said "escape velocity."
    3
  2981. "What I can't understand is how did they fold that buggy" Thanks for acknowledging that you don't understand. Keep that in mind. You DO NOT UNDERSTAND.
    3
  2982. "Becouse an engineer from haselblad responsible, sayd that the camera would never had supported this temperature differences, also the responsible from Kodak!" Really? Some conspiracy video showed you someone claiming they worked at Hasselblad or Kodak, and you just blindly believed it? Hasselblad and Kodak very proudly, still to this day, display the work they did for Apollo. Not a single one of them ever claimed that their equipment/film wouldn't do the job they designed it to do. But, all a conspiracy video needs to do is get someone to claim to be an engineer, and you just eat it up? What's wrong with you?
    3
  2983. YOU SAID: "GARBAGE!!!! why every image/video of any landing on the Moon is so faded????" == Most of the time, yes, the colors are not vibrant. But, there are some clips that are quite vibrant. It depends on the type of camera used for each shot. YOU SAID: "As far as i know, the color camera appeared somewhere in 1930, and this mission of Apollo 17 was done in 1973..." == 1972. YOU SAID: "whatever, in 40 years, this was the evolution of photo/video cameras??" == There were several different types of cameras used on the Apollo missions. Something tells me you aren't really interested in having them all recited to you, so, I'll just jump right to the one you're complaining about, the RCA field sequential scanning TV camera. That probably means nothing to you, so I'll explain. The most common way to produce color TV signals back then was to have very large cameras, which were essentially three different cameras in one. They literally had three lenses, and three pickup tubes. It really was quite literally three cameras, just housed within a single frame. One for red, one for green, and one for blue. From those three colors, they can make every color that the human eye can see. The cameras also had some rather bulky hardware that was used to combine the three signals into one. They made very nice color TV images, but they were huge, weighing hundreds of pounds if you include the huge stands and mounts and swivel hardware, and consumed boatloads of power. For Apollo, that was not going to work on the front of the rover (which is where the camera was mounted). They needed it to be much smaller and lighter and power efficient. So, they used a type of camera that had only one lens, only one pickup tube, and no bulky hardware to combine three signals into one. So, how did they make the colors? They put a spinning color wheel in front of the pickup tube, behind the lens. This eliminated the need for a big triple camera with extra hardware to blend three signals into one. But, it came at the price of the quality of the images it could produce. They were not very vibrant. And, any time something moved quickly in frame, the colors got all rainbowed (the objects in frame moved more quickly than the color wheel could spin, and the single tube could receive, thus making a moving object appear to change colors as it moved). But, it worked. YOU SAID: "i believe that we live in a LIE! (my opinion)" == So, before you even got any replies to your questions, you've already come to your conclusions?? See, this is why it's so ridiculous to deal with you hoaxers. None of you are intellectually honest. You only PRETEND to ask questions. You're not actually interested in the answers. You have already determined your conclusion, and the answers don't actually matter to you.
    3
  2984. Huh? The officer needs this protection and guarding? Seems to me that the person who needed protection and guarding is the woman in this video. If she had some of that protection and guarding you're talking about, maybe she might still be alive today, huh? Seems to me that you're wishing protection on someone who doesn't need it, and not thinking about the unfortunate woman who died and left kids behind.
    3
  2985. Wait, are you trying to say that their advanced scientific degrees from YouTube University don't mean anything?
    3
  2986. Um, ok, but, currently the Freedom of Information Act says the opposite. You'd have to get that repealed. And, how do you get consent from a dead person? You do know the arrest video wasn't released until 1.5 years after she died, right?
    3
  2987. "there are so many things that makes no sense!!! first of all how da hell was president nixon able to make phone call with people on the moon?" I don't understand it, therefore it's fake. Dewdrop, the same way he made phone calls to/from Air Force 1. The same way anybody could call a car phone since the 1940s. An operator patched the call into a radio transmitter. "second how did they lift off from the moon?" I don't understand it, therefore it's fake. Dewdrop, they used a rocket. "3rd how did they film the take off from the moon and obtain the footage? " I don't understand it, therefore it's fake. Dewdrop, by not using film. Does that really look like film to you? All of the wavy interference? The low resolution? The changing colors of fast moving objects? You don't know a television signal when you see it, and you think it's film? "unless they are hiding some sort of super advanced technology that's not suppose to be known to the public?" Pffttt. Telephones, radio, and rockets. Super secret. Sure. "it makes no sense!!" I don't understand it, therefore it's fake. "how was it possible for first ever mission with humans in the 1969 with ease but NASA and other Aeronautics space programs have hard time even launching rockets to earths atmosphere?" I don't understand it, therefore it's fake. Money, dewdrop. Apollo's budget was virtually unlimited. Today's rocket programs are trying to do things with a fraction of the money and manpower. "too many things just dont make sense..." I don't understand it, therefore it's fake. "lastly, why buzz aldrin commented saying moon mission was fake?" He didn't. You have been watching conspiracy videos that lie to you, and intentionally take things out of context. Or, you didn't understand what he was saying in the first place. I notice you didn't once mention evidence. Not a single time. Evidence doesn't matter to you. The only thing that seems to matter to you is "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." Having questions is fine, dewdrop. But, don't pretend for a single second that you're getting your questions by studying Apollo. It's 100% clear that your only source of "knowledge" on the topic is conspiracy videos. And, that's your main problem right there. You didn't get to this frame of mind by having an interest in Apollo, so you started to read the documentation, look at the archives, studying how all of the equipment worked, etc. You got to your frame of mind by watching conspiracy videos, and swallowing every word, hook line and sinker. If you scrutinized those conspiracy videos even half as much as you're pretending to scrutinize Apollo, you'd find out who the real liars are.
    3
  2988. So, you didn't read responses to your own questions. You spew a pile of gibberish and then ignore all replies. You refuse to answer return questions. And, you pretend you've got the high ground here?
    3
  2989. You just can't help yourself from spewing nonsense, eh? Dewdrop, they "destroyed" the assembly buildings, launch towers, antiquated IBM mainframes, obsolete radar tracking systems, etc. But, all of the schematics and knowhow are still intact. Stop believing everything you see in videos made by taxi cab drivers and yoga instructors.
    3
  2990. Why? Because you intentionally decided to take a single sentence completely out of context from a 10 year old video?
    3
  2991.  @bargeman100  So, like all of your ilk, you're only capable of regurgitating little one-line quotes, intentionally taken out of context. Sorry, dewdrop, you're wrong.
    3
  2992. Good grief. What is it about you people that you just feel outright COMPELLED to pretend you know things you do not? Why? It's 100% clear that you don't understand anything whatsoever about radiation, let alone the Van Allen belts. You didn't even know there's more than one, because you wrote it singular. Why do you think you understand this topic better than the entire planet's experts?
    3
  2993. Have you looked at the entire archive of Apollo 11 photos?
    3
  2994. It goes beyond being rude. She is legally required to provide ID during an investigation. She refused to do so. She also may not obstruct/obfuscate. She did both. And, after all of that, throw "resisting arrest" on top. She did plenty wrong. You were correct in that she's not legally obligated to provide the receipt. However, this also means that she must be prepared to handle the rest of the stuff correctly, and not resist if it results in an arrest. As for being upset, well, I think it's silly. Personally, when I'm stopped and asked for proof of purchase, I gladly show it. I know the stores are just trying to prevent crimes as best they can. It keeps everyone's costs lower, because there's less loss. It does sometimes result in a mistake here or there. But, I figure that it's better to occasionally make a mistake, rather than the alternative, which is just never check anybody for stealing.
    3
  2995.  @randyschissler5791  I did a quick count, and it's roughly 80 of them on the first 3 landings. I didn't go through the last 3 landings because there are many more photos to sort, and the sun is a lot higher in the sky in the sky for much of that time.
    3
  2996. Sorry, the word "technology" doesn't work that way. You don't get to just say "technology" like it is supposed to mean something without clarifying. Can you name the EXACT technology you think they lacked? And, can you explain why none of the thousands of engineers who designed and built that particular technology ever realized that it wouldn't do what they designed it to do?
    3
  2997. "Better pics on google Earth than the surface of the moon- funny eh?" Well, that's because you need to actually read the FAQ on how Google Earth gets its images. Sadly, when viewing, it says "satellite." But, in reality, there are no satellites with the ability to produce that kind of resolution. They really should say "aerial" instead of "satellite," but, they don't. The Google Earth images you're referring to come from low flying planes (about 1,200 feet), not from satellites. The LRO images of the lunar surface are very similar in surface resolution to the best satellites around Earth.
    3
  2998. Sure. When you're at a playground and a guy comes up and starts cranking in front of the kids, just leave and take your kids to a different playground. Don't call the police, right?
    3
  2999. Depends on the laser ranging facility. There are dozens of them around the world, with new ones coming online every few years. Different facilities have different capabilities. Some hit an area miles across. Some can hit an area smaller than a football field. The one in France hits about a mile of the lunar surface. But, none of that is nearly as relevant as the size of receiver.
    3
  3000. I guess you won't be going back to high school.
    3
  3001. I guess you won't be going back to middle school.
    3
  3002. The main thing that changed is that NASA's budget was cut by 90% after Apollo (literally 90%), and congress spread its remaining 10% over hundreds of programs instead of having virtually its entire budget going to a single project. Bravo on basing your opinion on "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake," rather than actual evidence. You're a true hero.
    3
  3003. "then research the temperature limitations of the Kodak film itself. You will quickly discover all the pictures are fake." So, the engineers at Kodak didn't know what they were doing? None of them thought the pictures were fake. Why do you? Already, in your very first "objection," you got your facts wrong, because you quoted the entire temperature range throughout an entire lunar day, which is completely irrelevant, because the astronauts were never there for those extremes you're quoting. So, right out of the gate, you're wrong. Yet, you think the engineers at Kodak were wrong about the film they provided?
    3
  3004. "There was nothing special about the cameras either to protect the film from the massive temprature swings." Oh look, another moon landing denier who spells/reads/writes like a 2nd grader. Bravo! At least you are keeping the track record of your fellow deniers at 100.000%. Not a single one of you people could spell your names without someone writing it down for you. And, no, dewdrop. You're wrong. The cameras were lined with silver to help reflect energy, and the film canisters themselves had additional silver. But, again, as I have explained, the best protection from the massive TEMPERATURE (spelled correctly) swings is to not be there for those swings. The astronauts were never there for those super highs and super lows you quoted. Why do you not understand this? Why would you quote the temperatures of the lunar overnight and lunar afternoon anyway? What would make you think those temperatures mattered one bit?
    3
  3005. Cody, A) If you were serious, you wouldn't have asked the question the way you did. You would have said, "I don't understand how this stuff worked, can somebody explain it?" But, no. Instead, you did this "who walked out there with the camera" question. B) You could have read through the comments to see the question being asked and answered a billion times. C) Seriously, learn to read and write. Not joking. If you want to go through life with the reading and writing capabilities of a 2nd grader, I guess I can't say anything about it. But, if you actually want to better yourself, the way to accomplish it is NOT to ask silly questions in the silly way you asked... but to actually learn how the English language works.
    3
  3006.  @ingd.instrum2766  No, dewdrop. All data is sent in binary. Hex is just a method of representing it.
    3
  3007. Well, more people phoned the police than just the family. But, sorry, she is responsible for her own actions. The family didn't ask her to plop down in front of them and put on a show for their children to see.
    3
  3008. 1) The act of jumping is not linear with gravity. The mechanics of jumping are far more complex. In a nutshell, yes, they could jump higher, but, one of the issues is that your legs are pushing the MASS, not just a matter of weight. Furthermore, they're doing this inside a pressure suit with bulky boots and hoses and a backpack, etc. Movements are somewhat limited. 2) Charlie Duke jumped about around 4 feet. So, get your facts straight. None of you deniers are ever interested in the facts. You just try to hunt down these ridiculous "gotcha" moments, declaring what you think astronauts should or shouldn't do. You believe they were on wires anyway, right? So, what would be the big deal about lifting higher with those wires?
    3
  3009. Oh, and I guess I misread your reply about not jumping more than a couple of feet. I thought you were saying the opposite. Alright. Well, the rest of what I wrote still stands. Why should I reply to you about new topics, when you make it perfectly clear that you're not interested in the answers?
    3
  3010. China thought it was more useful and impressive to do something new, that had never been done before (land on the far side). So, they didn't send a rover to an Apollo site to take a look. But, they did photograph the Apollo sites from orbit (won't be able to see that level of detail, but, they verified that all of the Apollo stuff is there). I'm not sure what you mean by "can't even record normal video" (??)....
    3
  3011. TRANSLATION: "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake."
    3
  3012. TRANSLATION: "Anything that goes against my delusions doesn't exist, no matter how real it is. Anything that supports my delusions is real, no matter how false it is."
    3
  3013. Dewdrop, did you watch the whole interview? He told her multiple times that he DID go. But, when she asked why they hadn't gone IN SUCH A LONG TIME, he said "we didn't go" and then proceeded to tell her why they hadn't gone IN SUCH A LONG TIME. Spare the world your dribble. Does the man really need to spell it out 50x in every interview for you to understand?
    3
  3014. Lost her job? According to her landlord and neighbors, she was a "dancer" (yeah, that kind) at the local club, and did "private extras" for paying men in her apartment.
    3
  3015. Respect of family? Huh? The family she walked out on about 15 years ago to live a life of crime and drugs? Husband, 6 month old son, another son? That family? The family that hadn't seen her in so long that they didn't attend her funeral?
    3
  3016. Welcome to Inside Edition. Good grief. This story is nowhere near accurate. Nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive. And, she had a mile long arrest history and did a felony term in a Florida prison 6 years ago. If she wasn't making "public beach" content for her fans, I'll eat my hat.
    3
  3017. For the exact same reason that no telescope can see a microscopic single-celled organism on the wing of an airplane flying at 35,000 feet.
    3
  3018. YOU SAID: "No mention of Van Allen Belt. Begin there." == 1) He has a video about the Van Allen belts. == 2) This video is about seeing the landing sites. Do you think the Van Allen belts have anything to do with that? == 3) Your complaint about the Van Allen belts is ridiculous. And, if you think otherwise, just do those calculations yourself, and submit them for scientific peer review, proving that the Van Allen belts would have been a major problem. Short of that, you're just another idiot who has never done the math, yet screams "VAN ALLEN BELTS" anyway. YOU SAID: "Then go to the NASA claim they have no record of the technology or data collected." == 100% bullshit. You have no idea what you're talking about. YOU SAID: "No vendor information on the equipment?" == Pffttt. Vendor information, huh? Like, what? Phone numbers of the vendors to call? What ARE you talking about?
    3
  3019. Google Earth uses photos taken from about 1200 feet in altitude. Do you understand the difference now? And, why does it matter to you? It's quite clear what those "grainy pixels" are. So, who cares whether they're grainy or whether you can read serial numbers? You plan on rejecting them regardless of resolution, right?
    3
  3020. "Why has no one else tried to land on moon?" Huh? The Soviets tried. They built four N1 moon rockets. Unfortunately for them, all four blew up. But, in the meantime, they also flew four lunar landers in space on test missions. Guess what? You don't fly four lunar landers in space if you're not trying to eventually land on the moon. The reason they never got there was because the N1 design was fundamentally flawed, and they realized that they were going to need to scratch it and try again. But, by then, they had already lost the race to the moon. So, they decided to redirect their efforts to Venus probes and a low orbit space station. "Why haven’t we?" Who's "we"? If "we" = the USA, um, yes, we tried to land people on the moon 7 times, and succeeded 6 of those times. "Lots of money was spent for nothing other than we did it we won the race?" Yes, this is essentially correct. I mean, ok, fine, they got some science out of it too. But, the main objective was to beat the Soviets. It was a display of technological and industrial power. The point was that this was during the cold war, and the Soviets were getting very aggressive. Apollo was a mechanism to send a political message: "mess with us, and we'll beat you, we will always beat you." They were on the brink of WWIII, and Apollo was one of the ways that they used to display so much power that the Soviets wouldn't want to escalate from a cold war to a hot war. "Seems very silly to me and waste of money" Well, we can't turn back time to find out if WWIII would have happened if not for Apollo. But, that was Apollo's purpose, and we didn't have a WWIII. It's impossible to say for sure what would have happened if they never funded Apollo. But, many people believe it was one of the key programs that helped to avert tens of millions of deaths in a nuclear war. If Apollo helped to avert tens of millions of deaths, yeah, I'd say it was worth the money. "for. Nothing" Well, if you're complaining about spending money on nothing, I'd be more concerned about the money spent on your education. It clearly didn't work, and was a waste. You don't understand anything. And, you can't read or write past a 2nd grade level. "and why would Russia not go after our stuff on moon to reverse engineer it" Are you familiar with the TU-4? How'd that work out? That's a primary example of Soviets reverse engineering USA's technologies. They built that monstrosity, a whole fleet of them actually. And, what did they get for it? A flaky plane that never quite worked right, which was obsolete from the moment it first flew, took far too long to build, and costed many times more money than if they had just engineered an entirely new plane. Do you really believe that they'd do the same with a moon program? What would that prove? The point was that it was a race of technology. They're not proving anything by making a carbon copy of our technology. I mean, anybody could copy it. All schematics and technologies used on Apollo were completely open. There were no patents, trademarks, or copyrights for anything in Apollo. Every single design was public knowledge. But, do you even listen to what you're asking for? It was a race to see whose technological capabilities were better. If the Soviets just copied Apollo, that's basically just outright saying that they can't do it without our help. It's not much of a powerful political statement to just copy the USA's technologies. "all pointless." No, dewdrop, copying Apollo would have been pointless. You can't prove technological power if you openly copy your opponent's technology. You make absolutely no sense. "They all know it didn’t happen" So, before anybody could even give you answers to your questions, you came to your conclusions. Bravo. Hey, dewdrop, why'd you even ask questions if you didn't care about the answers? And, no, dewdrop. The Soviets (as well as dozens of other countries) tracked Apollo with radar and radio telescopes. They knew Apollo happened, and congratulated the USA. You clearly know nothing whatsoever.
    3
  3021. I'm not the one asking questions and intentionally ignoring answers. That's YOU, dewdrop. Don't tell OTHER how "full of themselves" they are.
    3
  3022. I don't believe you graduated high school.
    3
  3023. And, you commented toward pelocitdarney. Pay no mind. He believes Apollo was fake. He flip-flops between harassing moon landing deniers and harassing moon landing defenders, depending on which thread he's in. His only goal is to spam the comments and cause trouble for others, and is not interested in accuracy.
    3
  3024. "it doesn’t matter at what frame rate you watch the video" It sure does. I don't know why you think you understand the physics you pretend to understand, but, these formulas are very straightforward. "one part is compacted (the electrostatically charged particles strongly stick together in a vacuum)" No, some dust particles are just larger than others. And, charges will make zero difference on the gravitational trajectory. "the other part clearly does not stick together, that is, it is literally kicked up as diverging dust, as if it were not electrostatically charged and as if it were not kicked up in a vacuum." If you didn't want answers to your questions, and you were just going to blindly assert nonsense anyway, then, don't ask. If you want to remain deluded into thinking you've got this magical "gotcha" about dust that nobody in history has noticed, and you want to ignore the mountains of evidence for Apollo, and you want to ignore the simple explanation that not all dust particles on the moon are identical to each other, hey, fine, you're no different than any of the other cranks who refuse to accept reality. But, again, don't sit here and ask questions while making it perfectly clear that you intend to reject answers. India's ISRO Chandrayaan2 orbiter took photos of some of the Apollo landing sites in the last couple of years. They show the landers exactly where LRO showed them, China showed them, and the original mission photography showed them. You're going to ignore that, and pretend electrostatic dust disproves Apollo?
    3
  3025. "Your recent comment was disappointing" I don't care, dewdrop. You're the one asking questions and discarding the answers before you get them. "you’ve resorted to personal attacks" "Don't attack me while I accuse thousands of people of being criminals." Sure. "and fantasies." Good gods. I wouldn't even know what single word I wrote that could be turned into "fantasy." "no one has said that the USA’s moon landing was real or just an illusion." Spare me. You're accusing them of filming on Earth. Don't pretend. You're not good at it. "There are still too many questions in this matter, and they cannot be answered currently ‘beyond reasonable doubts’." You've had FIFTY YEARS, dewdrop. What have you been waiting for? "Perhaps they can be answered on the ‘balance of probabilities’," Or, just look at the evidence. "there are still many skeptics." That's not what skepticism means, dewdrop. "Skeptics start from the point of what would have happened if the live show broadcast had ended in tragedy, like the previous attempts." What previous attempts? They landed successfully on their first attempt. "And whether then US regime would have taken this risk, knowing that there is not yet a technology available today (not even in 60's) that would guarantee a risk-free moon landing." Nobody promised a risk free landing. "science is always driven by skeptics, not those who nod like sheep." Dewdrop, a true skeptic would care about the EVIDENCE. You have ignored the EVIDENCE I provided. You wouldn't touch it. You still won't touch it. Don't pretend you're a skeptic. "And the fact that the Moon landing from the 60’s was recently authenticated (???) by a ‘third-party’ from a distance, is also part of the realm of fairy tales" India's orbiter is a fairy tale? So, you have concluded that the country of India has joined "the deception" 50+ years later? And, China too, for that matter, because their Chang'e orbiter took similar photos a couple of years ago. Look, dewdrop, you no longer even get to pretend you're unbiased and neutral. Seriously, you are fully exposed as a complete and total nut. "and not just because the USA has since sent several unmanned missions to the Moon, and thus in theory, it would have been possible to rearrange the terrain at the landing site so that it appears to others that a human really was there." So, they sent unmanned missions to the moon to create rover tracks that exactly match the rover tracks from the mission photos, and place 6 landers on the surface, exactly where the 6 landers from Apollo were located, etc.... all with nobody ever spilling the beans? Is that how this goes? How many engineers and technicians would it take to launch 6 unmanned missions with equipment big enough to represent Apollo's landers and rovers? When did these secret launches take place, and with what rockets? "But mainly because for more than 60 years we have not been able to get close enough to the USA’s alleged landing site to confirm," 60 years, huh? Oh, you're hilarious. "I am personally not swayed by either the scientific consensus that we have been on the moon, or the skeptics who argue that the moon landing was a Hollywood-produced illusion" Still pretending to be neutral, dewdrop?
    3
  3026. "“third party evidence”. However, they don’t prove much precisely because they were photographed from afar." India's satellite photo of the Apollo 12 site includes enough detail to see the lander base, the legs of the lander, the shadows of the flame deflectors, and the shadow of the flag (still standing) just north of the lander base (exactly where the original mission photography shows it). For you to pretend this is "too far" to mean anything is ridiculous. All you're doing is shifting the goalposts. It's very clear that the photo depicts an Apollo lander. Yet, you're saying "too far to mean anything." And, let's say in a couple of years, somebody gets double the resolution by dropping the altitude to half as much. You're just going to say that's too far, and ask for a quarter of the altitude with 4x resolution. And, when you get what you ask for, you'll say you want 8x the resolution with 1/8th of the altitude. And, when they send someone or a probe to the landing site to take photos from 3 feet away, you'll just say those are fake. Typical goalpost shifting. And, all you're doing is copying a flavor of Jarrah White's excuse when you claim that the USA sent missions to the moon later to make it look like Apollo had been there. Except, he now admits that those are Apollo landers there, and were always there since the Apollo missions themselves. After China and India took photos of the landing sites, he could no longer keep shifting the goalposts. So, his new version is that Apollo sent landers and rovers to the moon, but, everything was robotic. He won't dare explain why they'd bother to do it that way. Like, if they could manage to send Apollo-sized landers and rovers to the moon, why not just include people at that point? Nope, that's too much for him, so, he just sticks with the idea that mankind wasn't there, but robots were. That's your current version. You think there were robotic rovers that happened to drive around in the exact patterns that the original mission photography showed humans driving them, and robotic landers that happened to land precisely where the original photography showed that they landed. And, you refuse to explain how they managed to get tens of thousands of people to build and launch secret moon rockets, and program secret robots to deploy everything on the moon. Again, you no longer get to pretend that you're unbiased, on the fence, and just looking for answers. It's 100% crystal clear what you believe, dewdrop. No more pretending. It's also very clear that you don't want answers to your own questions, and have decided, in advance, to reject any answer you're given.
    3
  3027. So, you don't understand how the lunar launch worked, but, before you got your answers, you already said you don't believe it. What IS wrong with you people? Why in the world do you ask questions, when you know the answers don't matter to you? And, if you don't know how stuff worked, why would you think you're in a position to believe or disbelieve anything at all?
    3
  3028. Yup. But, obstructing and refusing to show ID during a police investigation is a crime, as is obfuscation, and resisting arrest.
    3
  3029. They were doing their job correctly, dewdrop. And, nothing went viral until 1.5 years after she was already dead.
    3
  3030. What treatment are you talking about? She was putting on a show in front of multiple people, including children. What did you expect would happen?
    3
  3031.  @eazy007gh  Do you mean nickel and Kapton? It's the thermal blanket.
    3
  3032.  @samuelkebede4231  Dewdrop, if you handle a flag, it waves. Why is this difficult for you?
    3
  3033. So, a fictional movie that was made before the Apollo program even started, convinced you that Apollo didn't happen? And, do you REALLY believe Aldrin "confessed" to anything of the sort? Tell me, if you have that interview, why aren't you quoting from before and after that one sentence you're intentionally taking out of context, when he told the very same little girl that he DID go to the moon? How does this work, in your mind? Aldrin told her he went to the moon, then said he didn't, then said he did? Really? Or, did you misunderstand the context? Why do you suppose the entire planet didn't stop to investigate this "confession" (in your mind)? No? Aldrin "confessed" and then nobody did or said anything? Really?
    3
  3034. Yet, you refuse to answer basic questions. You declare that everyone in the world has been deceived (besides you), but, when asked extremely basic things to support what you believe, you ignore it and run away.
    3
  3035. Gee, or you could just read the description of the video, huh?
    3
  3036. Well, they obviously are challenged, hence why the projects keep getting canceled. But, the real experts don't do their work in front of cameras and interviews. Their real work happens behind the scenes, through the correct assessment and committee processes.
    3
  3037. The MESA acted as a "boom." How does this go, in your mind? None of the thousands of engineers who worked on Apollo ever realized that they forgot to include a mechanism to deploy the camera, and YOU realized it 55 years later?
    3
  3038. Huh? How do you embarrass a dead person? I mean, don't get me wrong here. I also agree that the media shouldn't use this story about a woman who is no longer around to defend herself. But, nobody aired this video until she was already dead 1.5 years. So, I fail to see how it contributed to any embarrassment.
    3
  3039. Sorry, but by your "logic" (not logic), you can pick and choose any number of things to reject or accept. Did the Civil War happen? Nope, the government said so, therefore it never happened. Was George Washington the first president? Nope, the government said so, therefore it's a lie. The only thing that results from this "logic" is living in a mental state that is completely disconnected from reality. So, how do sane people deal with it? By looking at THE EVIDENCE. For sane people, it's not about just blind rejection. It's about analyzing the evidence, and coming to informed conclusions.
    3
  3040. Dewdrop, let's pretend you're the NASA administrator. I don't mean the current one, Bill Nelson. I mean any NASA administrator between 1975 and 2018. Apollo is over, but, you want to send more missions to the moon. How would you go about making that happen? Can you answer?
    3
  3041.  @AttorneyDerrellBrooks  I still don't understand why you misspell his name. Is it intentional? Or, do you share Darrell's literacy level?
    3
  3042. First of all, I'd eat my hat if you could name the Artemis astronauts without looking them up. Almost nobody is interested. It seems that you don't even realize that they ARE going back right now. Secondly, the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (official archive) has been online since Taylor Swift was 5 years old. And, she probably gets more hits in one day than the Journal has ever gotten since 1995.
    3
  3043. So, (A) You ask these questions, but don't bother to read the answers. I explained this already. (B) You think you understand this topic better than the entire planet's physicists. And, (C) You are aware of photos that have been taken, you've seen them, but, you reject them because you think they're not good enough. Why are you here? What's your purpose in asking questions if you don't want the answers?
    3
  3044. QUOTE: "The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight. The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months' duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure. A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week. However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable. -- James A. Van Allen" What do you know about the Van Allen belts that James Van Allen did not?
    3
  3045. You expect stars in the daytime? And, if you want to see the sun, go watch the entire videos, not just the short documentary. And, hey, thanks for waiting until you got answers to your questions before coming to your conclusions. You're really honest.
    3
  3046. So, just like moon landing deniers, you didn't bother watching the video before coming to your conclusion. Bravo. Dewdrop, this video REFUTES the claims made by the cranks who deny the moon landings.
    3
  3047. No. Artemis intends to land at the poles. They want longer missions, like at least a month, not just 74 hours (Apollo 17's length of stay). But, staying a month is a real problem, because it gets super hot and super cold in the lunar afternoon and lunar overnight. (A lunar day is about a month.) The Apollo missions always landed early in the lunar morning to avoid those extremes. But, Apollo couldn't land on the poles. They could only land within about a 20 degree angle from the equator. And, Apollo wasn't equipped to stay a month (both in lack of enough supplies, and in the fact that the equipment couldn't handle a lunar afternoon or lunar overnight). But, by landing at the poles, this keeps the surface temperatures moderate the entire time. The poles get the same amount of light/heat all month long (a lunar day). If you're standing on one of the poles, the sun is always low on the horizon. There is no "high noon" (nor the boiling temperatures that go with it). And, there's no "overnight" either (and the cold that goes with it). The Artemis missions plan on landing at the south pole, because they think there's water there. But, the same mission profile could land it on the north pole if they change their mind. And, well, I suppose they could land closer to the equator, like Apollo did, if they wanted. But, then they probably couldn't stay a full month (as explained above), at least without a heck of a lot of hardening of all of the equipment to withstand the extremes.
    3
  3048. Because congress didn't want to keep spending that kind of money on manned moon missions. And, it took until 2019 when they started funding Artemis.
    3
  3049. "perfect photos" Huh? Have you looked at the photo archive yourself? There were about 7,000 photos taken from the lunar surface. About 5,500 of them were taken while outside the craft. And, tons of them were downright lousy. On Apollo 16 alone, they even had a smudge of junk on the camera, ruining hundreds of photos in a row. There are also bunches of photos that are underexposed, overexposed, out of focus, have lens flare, and bunches that you cannot even tell what's in the frame. I've heard this "perfect photos" claim before, but, not from anybody who had ever actually looked at the photos. Have you actually looked at them? Or, have you simply seen only a few that were very spectacular? Yes, if you take 7,000 photos, some of them are going to be spectacular, some will not. Do you find this surprising? You don't believe that you yourself can take some great photos if you're given 7,000 tries? "in a vacuum." They wore spacesuits. "discoloration of the colors due to radiation, temperature extremes" Temperature doesn't work that way in space. A vacuum is a wonderful insulator. How do you think a Thermos mug works? It's got a vacuum layer to isolate the inside from the outside, and you can easily hold a mug of your favorite scalding hot drink, and your hand doesn't feel hot at all, even though it's only a few millimeters away from the super-hot liquid. Also, the cameras and the film canisters were laced with silver to help reflect the heat and radiation. Insulators are wonderful things, you know. Your oven door is an insulator. Inside the oven, it's 500 degrees. Outside the oven, you don't feel anything until you open the oven door. Same thing for the cameras. It doesn't matter very much about what's going on outside the camera, because the cameras themselves were very good insulators.
    3
  3050. "shielding was protecting the astronauts capsule from extreme sound coming from the rocket during launch." There was about 350 feet of rocket between the engines and the capsule. The sound emanates outward, not up through 350 feet of rocket hardware.
    3
  3051. Gee, maybe moon dust isn't "dry sand," huh? And, ok, go put on an 88 pound bulky pressure suit, double layered moon boots, an 80 pound backpack with a 20 pound OPS and radio on top, an another 20 pounds of miscellaneous tools and gear, and let us all know how high you can jump, ok? You think 1/6th gravity = 6x jumping height, right? Well, that's incorrect, because jumping is a more complex formula than that simplistic notion. But, pretending you're correct, ok, fine, but, you cannot compare jumping in tennis shoes and a T-shirt to jumping with all of that gear on. If you want a direct comparison of 1/6th gravity = 6x jumping height, you must compare the exact same other factors. So, go strap 200 pounds worth of stuff to yourself, wearing a bulky pressure suit, and let us all know how high you can jump, ok? Then tell me that the astronauts didn't jump 6x that height.
    3
  3052. Yes, dewdrop. South Korea, China, USA, and India all have lunar satellites that can see the Apollo 11 lander. Maybe you should actually look for them before coming to your conclusion.
    3
  3053. Sorry Zach, you're looking at the cream of the crop in the denier crowd.
    3
  3054. Why would you even quote lunar overnight temperatures or lunar afternoon temperatures? Exactly how long do you think they were on the surface? And, dewdrop, if you reject the concept of insulation, then explain your oven door. It can be 500 degrees inside your oven, yet, just an inch outside of it, insulated by having the oven door between your film and 500 degrees, your film survives. Anybody who owns an oven knows darned well that simple insulation works just fine. But, when it comes to Apollo, you people want to pretend that insulation doesn't work?
    3
  3055. OK, and when the police reply by pointing out that they successfully blocked the release of the arrest video until 1.5 years after she died, and then they had no choice due to the Freedom of Information Act, then what happens to your suit?
    3
  3056. But, the video wasn't even seen by anybody until after she was already dead for 1.5 years. How does a single word you wrote make any sense?
    3
  3057. Those are some big handfuls. I mean, for example, just last year, India released their orbital photography of some of the Apollo landing sites. How does India and its engineers fit into this "handful"? Who told you it would only require a handful? How many is a "handful" in your mind?
    3
  3058. So, your basis for your beliefs about the Van Allen belts is because of an Xray machine? Huh? Do you think there are a lot of Xrays in the Van Allen belts?
    3
  3059. Sorry, but you're the one who has fallen for lies.
    3
  3060.  @stusue9733  NASA SP-2000-4029 Apollo by the Numbers.
    3
  3061.  @stusue9733  Page 104 of the document (page 115 in PDF form).
    3
  3062. Not the brightest bulb, eh?
    3
  3063. Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. That's the official archive. All Apollo 11 photos are contained within. But, for some of these very small items that he posts in the video, there were never any photos taken. But, for most of it, yeah, you'll find it in the mission photos themselves.
    3
  3064. How much do you know about the C-band radar used to track Apollo? How much do you know about the DSN used to communicate with Apollo? You're such an amazing hero, coming to YouTube to reveal "the truth," so, can you explain the difference between Apollo tracking and communications vs. commercial airline flights? (I can.)
    3
  3065. Bean, Cernan, and Mitchell. What's the matter, dewdrop? It's all on video. So, what now? Three astronauts did. So, did those three go to the moon, and the others didn't? Or, are you willing to accept that once it got out that Sibrel was a conman who was putting together a hit-piece, the rest of the astronauts simply refused to cooperate with a guy like that?
    3
  3066. There are hundreds of photos on Arizona State University's site (they made and manage the camera on LRO). And, spare the world this notion that the resolution isn't good enough. You can clearly see landers and rover tracks, etc.
    3
  3067.  @ChrisPBacon777  Just spot-checked a few messages from a couple of months ago in other threads. Their algorithms now are even going back and blocking/screening partial posts. Mostly, it's just blocking entire posts. You just can't see them any longer. But, I see a few where it just blocks certain paragraphs. This is ridiculous.
    3
  3068. "Note; From my understanding" Your understanding? It's pretty clear you understand NOTHING. Why do you think you do?
    3
  3069. Well, you could do the math, you know. The specifications of the lunar module are well known. It weighed about 33,500 pounds (Earth weight). It burned roughly 18,000 pounds of fuel and oxidizer during the descent. So, when it landed, it weighed about 15,500 pounds at that point. Divide by 6 to adjust to lunar gravity instead of Earth gravity. That's roughly 2,600 pounds. The maximum thrust of the decent engine was 10,500 pounds. The man in the video says it throttled to around a quarter, right? So, that's approximately 2,600 pounds. Funny how that works, eh? Approximately 2,600 pounds of thrust = approximately 2,600 pounds of weight. Is he lying? Or, is he simply able to do the math you refused to do yourself?
    3
  3070. She had no business plopping herself down in view of people and going to town.
    3
  3071. "We could have done everything you said with robots.. The Rock samples all collected by robots. Even the tracks they left behind would have been robots.. There's zero reason to send a human.." So, let me make sure I understand this position of yours. You are acknowledging that there are rover tracks, foot tracks, landers, etc., which are seen by modern lunar orbital photography. But, you believe that those were placed there by robots? Um, dewdrop, at that point, why NOT just send humans? If they had landers large enough to carry humans, rovers, etc., and could pick up 850 pounds of lunar rocks, and dig holes to put the lunar experiment packages into, etc., why would you need robots? Why NOT just have humans do it? Good grief. Your ship really has sailed off into the sunset, hasn't it?
    3
  3072. Atmosphiers lite bent out. Back thought lies are burnt. Under and in for thought.
    3
  3073. There have been mountains of proof of Apollo, coming from dozens of countries. Deniers reject it all. In 2007, Japan sent Selene to the moon, which provided additional proof of Apollo. Deniers rejected it. In 2009, Arizona State University's camera was sent onboard LRO to the moon, and took hundreds of photos of the Apollo landing sites over the following years, showing the landers, foot paths, rover tracks, etc., which match exactly with the original mission photography. Deniers simply label those photos as "fake" also. In the last couple of years, both China and India have sent their own probes to the moon, which took similar photos of some of the Apollo landing sites, clearly showing the landers, shadows of the flame deflectors and flag still standing just north of the Apollo 12 lander, exactly where the original mission photography showed it. Deniers reject that also, simply concluding that China and India have decided to join "the deception" +50 years later. Why in the world would you ever believe that sending yet another probe to the moon is ever going to convince anybody of anything? They'll just attribute those new photos to CGI, and label the missions as fake (again). Why? Why exactly do you think they should spend money on trying to convince people who, in advance, intend to reject what they see?
    3
  3074. And, none of the 7,000 engineers who designed and built the lunar module ever realized that they forgot to make the door big enough to pass through. Sure.
    3
  3075. Pffttt. A 70 year old man who is very short yet weighed 300 pounds... dies of a heart attack... and certainly this MUST be a CIA operation!! Right.
    3
  3076. Did you intentionally want to sound like a barely literate grammar school child? Or, was that accidental?
    3
  3077. Well, I was going to disagree, but, yeah, the press on nails analogy, that did the trick. I'm convinced now.
    3
  3078. "i dont have the fuel equations yet" "its not even possible to think that it occured" So, you have no idea about how much fuel was required, you've never done the math. But, you think you magically know better than the entire planet's aerospace engineers (who, yes, have done the math since their first-year engineering classes in college)? You don't think you're arrogant?
    3
  3079. "Not watching your garbage lies" Well, at least you're honest. I mean, most of the deniers at least PRETEND they listen/watch opposing arguments. You're spelling it out right away that your mind is going to refuse all input that doesn't align with your predetermined conclusions. You won't even watch, that's how fragile your beliefs are. "Fact the CIA came up with calling people conspiracy theorist!" Wow! That's impressive, given that the term has existed since before the CIA was formed. "you say we have telescopes that can finish beautiful pictures of the far distant galaxies but you can't take a photo of the flag that was supposedly left on the moon" OK, dewdrop, here's what you need to do then. Go find a telescope capable of seeing a microbe on the wing of an airplane flying at 30,000 feet. You know, some sort of single celled organism, like a bacterium. That's about the same ratio as seeing a flag on the moon, you know. Explain why we can see bacterium under a microscope on a slide in 7th grade science class, but, we cannot see a bacterium on the wing of an airplane flying 6 miles up? Can you? Once you explain that, you'll get your explanation about why we can't see flags on the moon from this distance.
    3
  3080. Furthermore, when they find those on Earth, it's very clear that they've been exposed to oxygen and moisture. The lunar rocks brought back on Apollo had never been exposed to either, chemically proven.
    3
  3081. Pffttt. There is not a single piece of evidence that tells us that we didn't go to the moon (at least not a single piece of evidence that doesn't instantly fall apart under the slightest scrutiny).
    3
  3082. Well, you should start by watching the videos and looking at the photo archive. There are many photos of the sun taken from the lunar surface. You can find tons of examples in the archives. As for video, there are numerous times when they pointed the video cameras at the sun. The irony is that they weren't supposed to do that on Apollo 11 through 14. And, on Apollo 12, they did point it at the sun, and the camera instantly burned out when they did. So, no more video for that mission after that. But, the video camera was hardened for the brightness for Apollo 15 through 17. So, on those missions, you can see them point it at the sun several times, especially on Apollo 17. Go watch the videos. As for darkness, they used these settings on the old analog devices called "brightness" and "contrast" (concepts not really seen today), and had to really turn down the brightness so that the picture wasn't bleached out. These are vidicon pickups, remember, not modern digital cameras that automatically cope with variable light conditions.
    3
  3083. So, let me get this straight... you opened your comment with a silly little emoji, laughing, as if you know something about telecommunications technologies that the entire planet's telecommunications engineers don't know... asking something so simplistic that you should have known before you asked. But, then you get offended if people don't treat you with respect? Good grief. Dewdrop, if you want respect, ask your questions honestly. Don't put little emojis there, as if you think this is some sort of "gotcha" that you've discovered, that nobody else could figure out for 54 years. Anybody could pick up a land line phone and call a radio car phone (ever since the first ones in the 1940s). You picked up the land line, you dialed a mobile operator, they patched you through to the radio. So, there is no difference in calling and being patched through to a radio for Apollo, except that the radio signal went further.
    3
  3084. 1) They weren't strangers. He knew them, and they had stolen from him many times before. He knew they were coming that day, because that was their pattern. 2) He placed his car away from the house so they wouldn't know he was home. 3) He unscrewed some of the lights so they wouldn't turn on, even if they flipped the switch. 4) He ran a recording device while he waited in the basement, clearly he knew they were coming. 5) Before either one of the teens arrived at his house, he rehearsed on that recording device what he was going to say to the police after he killed them, including "in the left eye" (he later shot the girl in the left eye). I repeat: hours before the teens even got there, he rehearsed, on tape, what he was going to tell the police about shooting them. 6) He had a tarp ready for the bodies. 7) He gathered up the bodies, and put them in the other room so they wouldn't ruin his carpet. 8) He didn't call the police until the next day. 9) After killing the first thief, he then sat quietly waiting for a long time for the other thief to arrive, then shot her too. 10) Her shirt was found opened, make of that what you will. 11) After shooting the girl in the torso, she was still alive and incapacitated, yet he didn't want her to live (his own words), and wanted to make sure she was dead (his own words), so put two bullets into her left eye (exactly as he had said on the prior recording), and then waited, and then shot another bullet under the chin up into her brain (his own words). 12) While waiting for the criminals to arrive, he was armed with two different guns, one of which was a little bit faulty. 13) After he shot one with the faulty weapon, it wouldn't fire again. So, he literally apologized to the criminal (who was still alive) for not successfully killing right away, and switched guns for the fatal shots while the criminal was on the ground.
    3
  3085. Can you name the exact technology you think they lacked? And, can you explain why none of the thousands of people who worked on that particular technology ever realized that the stuff wouldn't do what they designed it to do? Sorry, but you don't get to just name an irrelevant technology such as floppy disks, and somehow imply that this means Apollo's equipment wouldn't work.
    3
  3086. The Earth looks the correct size from the moon. You simply have no understanding of photographic perspective.
    3
  3087.  @DemonDrummer  And, your comment disappeared from his other posting. YouTube wacky censorship is back in full swing.
    3
  3088.  @daryllect6659  So, again, you ignore all input and change topics, just as you always do. You've made that "it's easy to make moon rocks" claim for how long? A couple of years? Where are yours that have fooled geologists?
    3
  3089.  @daryllect6659  Where are yours that have fooled geologists?
    3
  3090.  @daryllect6659  Dewdrop, you have NEVER answered a single question I've asked you. NEVER. Hundreds of postings, you always run for the hills, change topics, duck and dodge, or play the exact game you're playing right now. No, I'm not playing your game, especially because I've answered you before, and you just ignore it.
    3
  3091. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    3
  3092. As usual, you don't know anything about the topic. You claimed in the other thread that you saw the arrest video 14 hours after this incident. Nope. This arrest = July 1, 2021. She was no longer alive in March of 2022. The arrest video was released due to FOIA request on November 24, 2023. They had no choice but to release the video at that point, because enough time had passed since the investigation was closed. But, be thankful that the other video (taken of the actual incident by one of the "audience") has not been released due to graphic content.
    3
  3093. So, let me get this straight.... Your "proof" is that you don't understand why the lunar technology didn't advance? "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake...."? Really? The "proof" is your grandmother's television set? And, how does this go? You state your conclusion first, then ask questions second? Good grief. Technologies do not advance all by themselves. It takes significant investment to make a technology advance. Televisions advanced because companies poured in the investment into advancing them. Why? Because advanced televisions would sell to consumers. There's a profit to be made from that investment. The moon isn't like that. There are no tangible profits. There's no real reason to advance the technology. And, this is well beyond the reach of individual companies. It takes a concentrated national effort (lots of money and manpower). And, after congress ended the Apollo program, who EXACTLY did you expect would pick up the bill for advancing the lunar technologies? Were you planning on paying for it?
    3
  3094. C'mon Michael, you didn't expect him to understand a big word like "simulation," did you?
    3
  3095. They did. They used the Carruthers UV telescopic camera to take 125 photos of the stars from the lunar surface. Go look at them. They're all readily available. Also, they took many star photos while orbiting on the dark side of the moon from the command module, however, those turned out pretty poorly. It's difficult to take clear star photos with long exposures with a hand-held camera in a moving craft. But, yes, they did take photos. The best one of that type: "Apollo 15 photograph solar corona 1 minute before sunrise." Yes, those blurry dots are stars.
    3
  3096.  @dansv1  FYI: The Soviets also sent two dogs into the belts, to stay in the worst regions, no less. They lived about 3 weeks. They undoubtedly reached a fatal dose after a week or two, but, it took a while to actually die.
    3
  3097. Pffttt. You clearly haven't looked at the photography yourself. You blindly trust a conspiracy video feeding you that garbage.
    3
  3098. So, your argument is that because you don't understand it, it must be fake.
    3
  3099. Hmmm, maybe it was the balaclava ski mask and gun?
    3
  3100. "so we can sear that there isn’t enough fuel" Just calculate it, dewdrop. The rocket equations have been understood for 120 years, and the same equations are still the cornerstone of all rocketry today.
    3
  3101. "or technology to do so" Can you name the exact technology that they lacked? And, can you explain why none of the thousands of engineers who worked on that particular technology were aware that the stuff they designed and built to go to the moon... wouldn't do what they designed and built them to do?
    3
  3102. Did you expect to see stars in the daytime, in a low-res slow-scan video feed?
    3
  3103. How do you fake radar and radio tracking?
    3
  3104.  @andyb.1026  YOU SAID: "The one that ALL the telemetry & all the Flight data ~ Costing about $30bn in '70 prices) has been "Lost"".." == And, you believe that, why?? WHY??? Why would you believe all data and telemetry was lost? Because someone on the internet said so?? Um, no. Hey, dumbass, a decade ago (or so), NASA announced that two backup tapes from one mission were missing. And, since then, in the world of conspiratards, you assholes just keep escalating (in your minds) what was lost. Within a year or so, in your minds, it wasn't the backup tapes that went missing, but the primary tapes. A couple years later, it wasn't just two tapes from that mission that were lost, but more tapes... and then it was all tapes from that mission. A couple years later, in your minds, it expanded to being all of the telemetry from all missions. And, a couple years later, now it's all telemetry and all data from all missions. Hey, dumbass, none of that stuff is missing. It's a figment of your collective hive-mind conspiracy mentality. YOU SAID: "You do Know the Tooth Fairey & Santa are only Stories !!!" == Don't even pretend you know what you're talking about. YOU SAID: "would it trouble you too much to reply without being aggresive or Offensive" == Good fucking gods, what a massive hypocrite. YOU are calling national heroes all liars. You're accusing armies of administrators and engineers of defrauding billions of dollars for Apollo, and diverting that money to a hoax instead. You're spitting on the graves of the countless many people who died for the space program back in those days. Astronauts who died in Apollo 1's fire. Astronauts who crashed in the T38s while working on Apollo, flying in weather they shouldn't have been flying in, trying to meet deadlines. Construction workers building all of the machines and buildings. Countless scientists working with explosive/toxic/exotic fuels/oxidizers. You have the audacity to say they all died for a lie, while claiming that thousands of people, across friendly and enemy countries, were lying to the entire world. Oh, but ***I*** am offensive??? ****I**** am the problem here, not you??? Good fucking gods, what an asshole. YOU SAID: "Its a sign of limited intelect." == You can't even spell "it's" correctly, nor "intellect" correctly... but you're questioning my intellect... oh, you're a fucking genius. YOU SAID: "Meanwhile, give me at least on "Fact" that cannot be easily disproven" == No, asshole, I'm not playing your game. There are mountains of facts, none of which can be disproven. But, I'm not going to play this game with an asshole like you. I already know the only two rules to your game. Rule 1: all facts in support of Apollo are fake, no matter how real. Rule 2: all facts that go against Apollo are real, no matter how outlandish. Those are the only two rules to your game. You will simply deny any fact that I present. You're borderline illiterate, and extremely dumb, and I know in advance that you'll reject everything I say. So, no, asshole, I'm not playing your game. If you want evidence, don't ask ME for it, go read it yourself. But, of course, we both know that you really don't want evidence. You're happier with your delusion than you would be in reality.
    3
  3105. Blame the victim, not the criminal? Huh?
    3
  3106. You are regurgitating a silly claim made in a conspiracy video, and clearly have absolutely no understanding of the topic yourself. India never returned any lunar samples, so your claim is ridiculous already. The Soviet return samples matched Apollo's lunar soil samples quite well, which is one of the million different ways Apollo was confirmed by other nations. And, with the exception of the fact that China found a few molecules of water within microscopic glass beads, their samples also matched Apollo's samples very well. Sorry, but the correct place to outline the "differences" would be in peer reviewed geology journals, not in a YouTube conspiracy video. But, they will never do that, because they know they'd be laughed out the door. So, instead, they just make a video claiming that the samples were "different," and people like you gobble it up, not understanding a lick of it.
    3
  3107. He isn't lying? Did you read/watch the Solar City trial? Wow.
    3
  3108. As a side note: are you even aware that the primary objective of the Apollo 12 mission was to land near one of those prior unmanned landers that tested the lunar surface? They successfully did exactly that, and even brought back parts of that lander, which are now in the Smithsonian museum.
    3
  3109. Dewdrop, India, China, and South Korea have all photographed the landers on the lunar surface. Stop pretending that it's just "marks on a map." You could make that argument, perhaps, about the photos from China, because the resolution isn't very good. But, the ones from India show the landers, foot paths, flame deflectors, shadow of the Apollo 12 flag (still standing), etc. You cannot claim it's a "mark on a map." And, your demand to "get closer" is ridiculous. You know darned well that they could land a probe that was capable of photographing serial numbers off of the equipment, and you'd simply deny it also, calling it "CGI." Stop pretending. All you're doing is shifting the goalposts, and you will deny reality no matter what evidence is provided.
    3
  3110. Really? Your basis for "truth" is something that China does or doesn't do, more than 5 decades later? Really?
    3
  3111. Says who? An out-of-context quote from a video made for children?
    3
  3112. "Lunar Rover Deployment" will give you some nice videos showing you how it was done, including the live video of them doing it on the moon on Apollo 15. I'd explain it here, but, it's just easier to watch a few minutes of video.
    3
  3113. Wow, what a convincing argument. Your Nobel Prize is in the mail.
    3
  3114. "I agree them cops should’ve not been called" Huh? The woman was putting on a show at a public beach in front of other people including children. More than one person called it in. If that was a man cranking at the playground, would you say the same?
    3
  3115. Good thing you're not a lawyer. You have no idea what you're talking about. Circumstantial evidence IS permitted. Many cases are won on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is often as compelling as physical evidence. It sounds like you got your law degree by watching Matlock.
    3
  3116. I cannot imagine it, therefore it's fake.
    3
  3117. "Far more, superior technology" Yes, and that's why Artemis is slated to cost a tiny fraction of the cost of Apollo. More technology now, and less research and development cost. They're also leaning on other programs that already existed, something that Apollo couldn't do. But, you're getting your wish. So, what's your beef?
    3
  3118. "way more money" Not if you adjust for inflation. They're basically doing Artemis in the 2020s for the same price as Apollo in the 1960s without adjusting for inflation. Back in 1961 (the year Apollo began), the average home costed about $17,000. Today, it's around $300,000. So, sorry, but, you're wrong. Relative to inflation, they have way LESS money now to go to the moon than they had during the Apollo era.
    3
  3119. "but they never went back to the moon" Dewdrop, they sent manned missions to the moon 9 times. They landed 6 of those times. I don't know what planet you're on, but, yes, most sane people would definitely say that is "going back."
    3
  3120. I tried responding to every line, but, it's blocking about 70% of what I wrote. So, figure it out yourself. You don't know a darned thing. Nothing. Zip. Nada. Zero. Zilch. Stop pretending you do.
    3
  3121. So, I just want to try to understand what you're proposing should have happened.... Apollo was a program that started in 1961, and ended in 1972 for moonshots, and ended in 1975 for the Apollo applications such as Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz. That's 15 years. And, your proposal is that they should never have ended it? Apollo was the #1 most costly program in human history, outside of sustained government functions like Social Security, or the military overall, etc. But, you think they shouldn't have ended it? Congress shouldn't have been allowed to end it? Tell me, how many landings would it take to convince you, if 6 wasn't enough? 9? 14? 197? How many? Or are you just coming up with some sort of loose reason to reject it? Like, once a program starts, it's never allowed to end?
    3
  3122.  @secondhandsock3086  YOU SAID: "because we saw a coke bottle kicked on to the set here in australia" == Get real. Does that even make sense to you? No. That's an old story from an old and senile woman who says that's what she saw. But, it's completely unfounded. YOU SAID: "and they quickly cut the feed as for what they would have to gain ? Ummmm unlimited amounts of unexplored mining materials unchallenged by any one and a cancellation of the push to ever actually go because in the mind's of the public we already achieved it" == Wait, what are you talking about? What "mining materials"? On the moon? What are you talking about? I mean, good grief. Yeah, there are precious metals deep in the Earth's depths also. But, when it costs more to acquire it than you can ever sell it for, yeah, kind of doesn't matter. The same is true of the moon. It costs more to retrieve stuff from the moon than you can ever sell it for. YOU SAID: "and you really think we went to the moon in a tin can with a malfunctioning calculator motherboard?" == You have no idea what you're talking about. YOU SAID: "Okay believe that if you want but tell me why we've never set up a colony" == A COLONY!?!?!? What ARE you talking about? They spent today's equivalent of $200 billion to put 12 men on the moon for a few hours each. They stretched the envelope of Apollo's hardware to the limit, with a maximum stay of 74 hours on the lunar surface. You want a "colony" there?? YOU SAID: "or a mining operation" == Because it would cost more to retrieve anything from the moon than you could ever sell it for. YOU SAID: "and why only a select handful of people get to go to the ISS" == As opposed to what? Opening a line for everyone to ride, as if it's Disneyland? YOU SAID: "and why Neil Armstrong couldn't answer any questions about it" == He has answered thousands of questions. What exact questions are you talking about? YOU SAID: "besides what it was like in the lunar module and why did buzz aldrin go the complete opposite way after being questioned" == Opposite as what? Most people in the astronaut corps didn't get along with Bull Aldrin very well. Yeah, he was going to go a different way, whatever that means. YOU SAID: "so many times about it and why did they tell the press they couldn't see any stars" == From where? The lunar surface? From orbit? Which EXACT conditions are you asking about? YOU SAID: "and then go into a cold sweat in front of the cameras" == This is too ridiculous to fathom. YOU SAID: "and how did they use the Hasselblad camera in a vacuum?" == Point and click. YOU SAID: "And how did they lose all of the most important and inspiring moon footage from the NASA headquarters?" == They didn't. You don't know what you're talking about. YOU SAID: "Why don't people see the gaping holes in this story is patriotism really that blind?" == No, but you are.
    3
  3123.  @sigmasd10  YOU SAID: "Why do you think every single manned mission to date has stayed in the relative safety of low Earth orbit?" == First of all, don't play this word game. The manned Apollo missions to the moon went to the moon. Secondly, the Skylab/shuttle/ISS missions stay below the Van Allen belts for the exact reason that James Van Allen outlined in the quote I provided to you (but you ignored). PROLONGED exposure is a problem. But, the short exposure of the Apollo missions wasn't a problem. They don't/didn't fly Skylab/shuttle/ISS missions into the belts because those missions last weeks/months. Apollo went through in a couple of hours, and avoided the worst parts. YOU SAID: "Because they don't have radiation shielding light enough to be launched using conventional rocket propulsion...They don't have it today, so it's obvious they didn't have it 50 years ago!" == Yet, in 2014, they tested Orion by launching it into the belts and back, and it passed those tests. You don't know what you're talking about. YOU SAID: "In fact, NASA even resorted to asking the public for help in ideas for lightweight radiation shielding for the Orion capsule." == Ridiculous babble. YOU SAID: "None were forthcoming with useful ideas because there is no such lightweight radiation shielding available, and there never will be. A fact NASA has been well aware of since before the Apollo missions...Which is why they had no choice but to fake the Apollo landings and film them in studios down here on Earth...It is also why any talk of "returning to the Moon" or putting "Man on Mars" is pure fantasy." == Why do you believe you know more about the Van Allen belts than James Van Allen? And, if that's the case, why are you on YouTube? Where are your publications to that effect? Why aren't you publishing in science journals? See, dummy, YouTube comments is where crackpots go when they want to spew their anti-science gibberish. With you conspiratards, all we ever see is "too much," "not enough," "too close," "too far," "too big," "too small," but never a single mathematical calculation, never a single publication in any scientific peer review journals. Nope. You spew your stupidity into YouTube, pretending as if you know more about the Van Allen belts than James Van Allen, offering not a single calculation to back you up. You're idiots. Every single one of you.
    3
  3124. Arizona State University has a few hundred of them on their site.
    3
  3125. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    3
  3126. How far gone do you have to be to believe what you're saying? I mean, clearly you got that impression by watching videos made by taxi cab drivers, lawnmower repairmen, and french fry technicians, who make silly videos making all kinds of ridiculous claims. How far gone do you have to be to actually think those people are correct? There are terabytes of the "missing records" available at your fingertips, dewdrop. All you need to do is quit listening to outrageous claims you found on YouTube, and go look for them.
    3
  3127.  @NigarButterfly  So, you don't know how it worked (at all), and you think the communication was crystal clear (it wasn't)? Huh? Hey, instead of watching conspiracy videos, how about actually watching the real ones?
    3
  3128. "Did they achieve that?" Yes and no. Yes, the Soviets backed off, and they tended to play much nicer. We no longer were worried that WWIII was about to break out any day. However, the cold war didn't end immediately after Apollo. It took a couple more decades.
    3
  3129. Nobody who has watched the videos has ever called them "crystal clear." The exception is the 16mm film footage, which is quite clear, yes, because it's film. But, that was never broadcasted back to Earth. It had to wait until getting home to get it developed.
    3
  3130. Yeah, random guy on YouTube who doesn't know the word "regolith" and says "rigulet" instead... very trustworthy, truly knowledgeable.
    3
  3131. Well, your "only fact needed" falls apart instantly. Dewdrop, it takes about a week or two in the worst areas of the Van Allen belts to get a fatal exposure. Modern space missions don't go up in there because those last long enough that it would be bad. Apollo went through in minutes. But, you know better than the world's radiobiologists, right? And, you've heroically come to YouTube comments to tell the world that the entire planet's radiobiologists do not understand the effect of radiation on biology as well as you do, right. Note for future: when you're writing your paper for publication in radiobiology journals, to completely turn the entire science upside down, you might want to learn to spell "dying" correctly. The Nobel Prize committee doesn't really take kindly to people who read and write at a 2nd grade level.
    3
  3132. YOU SAID: "really? you mean there are real people out there who havent watched all the "US did not go to the moon" expose's" == Sure, lots of people have watched those silly conspiracy videos. Yet, still, the entire world's 72 different space agencies disagree with them. Why? Because they're always wrong. Every claim they make falls apart under scientific scrutiny. Every single one. That's why those conspiracy videos exist. If those conspiracy video makers actually had any claims that held water, the last place you'll find them is in a conspiracy video. They'd be submitting them via the scientific method to aerospace and astronomy journals. They don't do that BECAUSE their claims fall apart, and they know this, so, they resort to making conspiracy videos to dupe the gullible followers who have no understanding of the topic whatsoever, and who have no idea how to fact-check them. And, for the most part, anybody who thinks those videos are "correct" will never fact-check them anyway, even if they knew how. YOU SAID: "like that series from producer Bart Siebel," == Pffttt. The convicted criminal taxi cab driver, Bart Sibrel, whose "most powerful evidence" (his own claim) comes from a video film he says he got from NASA of the original Apollo 11 mission, and claimed he had that film carbon dated to July 18, 1969? That guy? Funny that the "film" he had carbon dated was never even shot on film, huh? Funny that carbon dating doesn't work on film anyway, huh? I mean, all anybody has to do is go watch the original video, rather than Sibrel's dishonestly edited copy, and prove him wrong. He says they're in low Earth orbit instead of on their way to the moon, right? Why aren't those clouds moving across the screen at 17,000 mph in Sibrel's own video? Doesn't that prove he's incorrect in his "best evidence"? YOU SAID: "the exec from Rocketdyne, etc" == Oh, now Bill Kaysing was an "exec," huh? Not the low-paid documentation guy that all of the records show? Now he's "an exec" from Rocketdyne?? Pfftttt. Right. Sure. You really know what you're talking about. Dummy, Bill Kaysing said HIMSELF that he claimed the moon landings were fake, basically on a dare, not because he actually believed they were fake. And, when he started making money, he wrote some books and stuff to make money from gullible people like you. The man doesn't even believe his own claims about the topic, and yet, you believe his claims? YOU SAID: "there is an active campaign to remove the real expose' videos and replace them with "conspiracy" stooges/ clowns - now WHY would there be an active campaign to silence all other videos on this subject" == What ARE you talking about? Whose "campaign"? What purpose would there be in "removing" videos and replace them with conspiracy clowns? Remove videos FROM WHERE? How do you "remove" them? All of the conspiracy videos are still out there, dummy. They cannot be "removed" from history. YOU SAID: "but these recent 'approved' videos that support their narrative?" == Approved BY WHO!?!? What ARE you talking about? YOU SAID: "NASA & other narrative creators should just admit that top govt heads faked moon landings" == Pfftttt. And, the thousands of engineers and technicians worldwide didn't know it? How'd they pull that off? And, why? Why not just go to the moon? They had all of the equipment to do it, so why not just go? YOU SAID: "bc they thought the Russians were way ahead of USA in space tech and thought they needed to fake this" == The Soviets confirmed Apollo, dummy. They sent Luna 15 (unmanned probe) ahead of Apollo 11 to wait in orbit around the moon for the astronauts to get there. Then, when the astronauts were on the lunar surface, the Soviets attempted to land the Luna 15 craft on the surface to grab some rocks and race Apollo 11 back home. But, unfortunately for their sake, it was a very rushed mission, and they made some mistakes and crashed the craft into a lunar mountain. This doesn't change the fact that the Soviets tracked Apollo 11 (and their own Luna 15) using radar and radio telescopes. Lots of countries did. How would the USA "fake" that? Why would the Soviets go along with it? Why would ANY country go along with it? The missions were tracked with radar and radio telescopes by lots of countries. Madagascar, Spain, Guam, Turks & Caicos, Britain, Wales, Australia, Canary Islands, Ascension Island, etc. The list goes on. The Soviets and the USA were not the only countries involved, dummy. How would the USA manage to fake all of those different countries (and more)? YOU SAID: "really well to fool the old Soviet Union heads - as a matter of national security" == Pffttt? Yet, Japan used its JAXA/Selene lunar orbiter to confirm Apollo in 2008. China says they used their orbiter to confirm Apollo also. Arizona State University's LRO has taken hundreds of photos of the landing sites, which include the landers, foot paths, rover paths, etc., and even the shadows of the 5 flags still standing on the moon. YOU SAID: "avg brain-washed folks out there would forgive this whole monumental series of faked moon landings for that reason, but no - now they are rolling out more "digitally enhanced" faked landings?!" == YOU are the brainwashed one here, dummy. You have bought into absolute garbage as fed you by moon conspiracy videos. You believe everything they tell you, hook line and sinker, without fact-checking anything. Then, you accuse the sane people of blindly following what they're told (while YOU are the one blindly following what YOU are told). YOU SAID: "Now they're just scared of the math is finding out how much trickery is REALLY going on LOL!" == If you have mathematical proof that Apollo was faked, what are you doing on YouTube?!?!?!? Why would you be here AT ALL??? Write it up!!! Submit it to mathematical science journals!!! Demonstrate your proof!!!
    3
  3133. Hilarious again!! It's as if you're proud to know absolutely nothing. Dewdrop, sound is radiation. Do you wear lead to protect yourself from sound? Or, does foam rubber make a great protector from sound? Light is radiation. Do you wear lead to protect yourself against light? Or, does simple sunblock protect you from light? Alphas are radiation. But, let's face reality here, you have no idea what those are, so, it's useless to ask you about them. You know, dewdrop, before you spew a bunch of proud emojis declaring victory for the Lilliputians, perhaps you might want to... oh, I dunno... graduate high school? Or, please explain to the world why you're concerned about Van Allen radiation on film in the first place? Do you think ions are really going to affect film all that much? Sure, everything has an effect on some level, but, why are you concerned about ions in particular? And, why'd you mention lead at all? Would you use lead to shield from ions? You're not concerned about the secondary Bremsstrahlung radiation that comes from a heavy metal interacting with ions? Wouldn't polymers and aluminum make much better shielding? Or, were you under the impression that the makers of the conspiracy video that told you to mention X-rays actually knows any more than you do about radiation? But, hey, this is just YouTube. The answer is quite simple, dewdrop. If you think you've found this "gotcha" (because a conspiracy video told you it was a gotcha), then publish. Outline the necessary shielding to protect film from ions, and demonstrate it mathematically, and publish your results/calculations in any recognized science journal around the world on the topic of particle radiation. Why do you people feel that a YouTube comment is equivalent to publishing in the peer reviewed science journals? (Hint: it's not.)
    3
  3134. "NASA spends half of its budget producing videos" "Make it up!" Yeah, you certainly made THAT up.
    3
  3135. So, the first one was fake? So that means the rest of them were real? So, what changed between July, 1969 and November, 1969, such that they had to fake it in July, but could do it in November?
    3
  3136. Starting your drunken weekend a little early, Debra?
    3
  3137. YOU SAID: "And why have they not gone back in 49 years ?" == Well, they're in process now. For the first time since 1961, in 2019, congress approved/funded a program to put people on the moon. The astronauts have been selected. The landers and command modules are being built. Etc. But, you didn't exactly ask that. You asked why they haven't yet gone back. Well, you could write entire books on that topic. But, the short answer is that there really hasn't been much motivation to do it. Apollo was a product of the cold war against the Soviets. It was the tip of the sword in showing technological and industrial dominance. It was a means of letting the Soviets know that, once we put our minds to something, the USA wouldn't/couldn't be beaten, and not to mess with us. It was a mechanism of trying to make sure that the cold war didn't turn into a real war, killing millions of people, and leaving huge holes in the ground where cities used to be. Since then, there really hasn't been a big incentive to do it again. Apollo was remarkably expensive, per man, per minute. And, most people in the public and in congress felt that massively cheaper unmanned probes would suffice, and also switched priorities to things like the space shuttle. YOU SAID: "Also I heard they lost or destroyed the technology from those missions. I don't get it." == It's "lost" and "destroyed" in exactly the same way that the Concorde supersonic airliner technology is lost and destroyed. We don't have functional Apollo craft. We don't have launch facilities. They were all torn down (destroyed), and replaced. The buildings that used to house the tooling and stuff to build things for Apollo have all been torn down or retooled to do other things. We don't use those types of radar and communications systems any longer. I mean, Apollo wasn't like just getting a 1969 Mustang, throw $75K into rebuilding it, and then hop in it and drive. It was an entire global system, interdependent on hundreds of thousands of people. They couldn't even get a Saturn V off of the ground without about 3,000 people each doing their jobs to make sure the systems were ready to go. The hold-down arms at the launch facilities alone (that hold the Saturn V in place, and then release it and let it fly at the right moment) were remarkably complicated systems that required dozens of people to get things ready to fly. Multiply that by each and every system on the Saturn V rocket, and you'll start to get an understanding of what it takes to get one of those birds into the sky. All of those people, all of that knowledge, it's all just in the manuals and schematics now. Those people are long retired or dead. In order to rebuild Apollo, you not only would have to reconstruct all of the craft, but you'd need hundreds of thousands of people to each become experts on their particular portion of the program. The knowledge itself isn't lost or destroyed. But, for all practicality, the physical mechanisms are lost and destroyed. The training facilities no longer exist. The LLRV/LLTV (practice simulators for lunar landings) are no longer functional. The companies that made everything for Apollo have all been either dissolved, closed their doors, sold off, or retooled to do other things. Again, this is just like the Concorde. There are no facilities to build new Concorde airplanes. There is no tooling. The pilots have moved on, retired, or died. The mechanics. The companies that supply the parts. Etc. YOU SAID: "What is NASA hiding ?" == About Apollo? Nothing. All Apollo information is public. What do you think they're hiding, and why? Trust me here, you won't find correct answers from conspiracy videos.
    3
  3138. Nobody said the squad car hit anything. Where are you getting that nonsense? Who told you that the squad car hit the bike?
    3
  3139. Wow. You expect to see stuff that small from orbit?
    3
  3140. Really? Why? How high could you jump on Earth if you strapped 200 pounds on your back?
    3
  3141. Oh, and YOU'RE the smart one, and the entire planet's experts don't get it, eh?
    3
  3142. You clearly know nothing about engineering, and should stop pretending you do. It would be remarkably difficult to make a carbon copy of Apollo. It would, in fact, be less expensive, more effective, and faster, to engineer from scratch. There are a long list of reasons, not the smallest of which is the fact that there's nobody alive who can operate those massive 1960s IBM mainframes that they used for Apollo guidance systems... not to mention the fact that it would be darned near impossible to build one. But, in addition to understanding engineering (which you don't), it's a matter of understanding history (which you don't). Just look at the TU-4 as a primary example. They had three B-29s, and decided to build a fleet of carbon copies. They never worked right. They had a million problems. The engines kept overheating and failing. They never got the aluminum characteristics to quite match the B-29. They never got the armament control computers to work right, so, they substituted their own, which also didn't work right. The list goes on and on and on. In the end, it costed about triple the amount of money and time to produce them as it would to build something newer and better. And, it was obsolete the moment the first one was completed. It's ridiculous. And, that's just an airplane, not an entire rocket program. Nobody wants a repeat of Apollo. Stop pretending you know things you don't.
    3
  3143. Make an incorrect statement, pretend to ask a question, don't wait for an answer, come to a false conclusion, change topics, run for the hills. Wow. This is a new record. Usually it takes a denier about 4 or 5 posted messages to complete that cycle. You did it in a single posting of 14 words.
    3
  3144.  @jegjrtp87  What would you use instead of aluminum and polymers/plastics?
    3
  3145. Wow!! And to think, the last 55 years of aerospace engineer across all 77 nations with space programs somehow overlooked this "bit of a stretch" you've found. Cool. Your Nobel Prize is in the mail. Don't spend it all in one place.
    3
  3146. I assume you mean "star" (not "start")? Um, silly fool, if there had been stars in the background, then that would mean it's fake. You can't capture dim stars in the background while properly exposing a brightly lit foreground.
    3
  3147.  @seantrentham9979  Pelocitdarney believes the same nonsense you do, you functionless dewdrop. He alters harassing people like you, to harassing people like me, just because his only real purpose in life is to cause trouble... he cuts and pastes the same nonsense to everyone, the living definition of spam. Scroll back, and you'll find plenty of postings he made completely to the opposite. He's on your team, whether you know it or not. But, I guess you don't know very much in the first place, sooooo.
    3
  3148. Here's the short version: The job of the Saturn V was to lift 100,000 of payload, plus its own weight of 6 million pounds. It had to lift the payload to an altitude of 240,000 miles. The job of the lunar module's ascent stage was to lift a couple of guys and some rocks, plus its own weight of 1,950 pounds (in lunar gravity). It had to lift it to an altitude of 62 miles. See any difference? Did you really think you understood rocketry better than the entire planet's aerospace engineers?
    3
  3149. My grandparents went to New Zealand. Therefore, I cannot be excited to go to New Zealand. Congress didn't fund manned moon missions between Apollo and Artemis. "Astronauts with the Earth's atmosphere?" Good gods.
    3
  3150. Huh? Aluminum foil? Do you mean the Nickel/Kapton/Mylar thermal blanket? What needs to be explained about it? Lack of a module footprint? Huh? I don't even know what that means. When you make a footprint, you cannot actually see the footprint until you lift your foot off of it. The landers' descent stages are still sitting in the exact spots they were when they landed over 50 years ago. They've never been lifted off of the surface to view a "footprint." So, I completely do not understand what you're talking about (and neither do you).
    3
  3151.  @jameswhittington2318  Dewdrop, ONE cop showed up and immediately had to deal with the screaming banshee. That's not a "secure scene." How about leaving the police work to the police, rather than pretending to know things you don't?
    3
  3152. Perfect radio? Again, just like the other thread, you don't know what you're talking about. Apollo 11 couldn't get the lander's S-band dish lined up until the last moments before they had to abandon it and go to the aft omni. Apollo 12 had their surface high gain S-band dish lined up, but, fried out the camera, so they didn't even need the radio dish they spent all that time setting up. Apollo 14's radar locked up, and they almost couldn't land. Apollo 16's S-band dish on the lander wouldn't come loose from its stowage spot, and they literally were never able to use it, not even a single time. Why are people like you sooooooo proud to know absolutely nothing? What's wrong with you? All of the missions had various communications glitches of one sort or another, sometimes very serious, sometimes minor, but they all had them. And, the only way they got through it all was because they had multiple levels of redundancy. If they couldn't use the S-band, they had the omni. If they couldn't get a signal from the lander, they could bounce through the command module. Go read something about how their communications actually worked, before you sit there and slander people.
    3
  3153. Yeah, and none of the world's aerospace engineers ever realized it, including the thousands who worked on Apollo. They never did the math or anything. They just put the rockets together and hoped.
    3
  3154. Oh look, another denier who reads and writes at the level of a 2nd grader. Another shocker.
    3
  3155. YOU are the one talking about things you know nothing about, dewdrop.
    3
  3156. "No need to reinvent the wheel." And, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, you don't know what you're talking about. Nobody wants another Apollo, dewdrop. It was far too limited. And, I told you to look into the Soviet TU-4 as one of the million examples about why it's better to build new than to try to create a carbon copy of old stuff. But, of course, you ignored it.
    3
  3157. Dewdrop, YOU were the one who asked questions then ignored the answers. YOU were the one asserting stuff about a topic you know absolutely nothing about. Do you know the highest cost item of Apollo? It's the LABOR. 450,000 people worked a decade of their lives on Apollo. Even if you could carbon copy a Saturn V, you're not going anywhere without the highly trained LABOR to make it all work. Yet, you're sitting there, claiming that we should train thousands of people to build and operate 1960s craft? Again, you know NOTHING. And, I gave examples, and you just ignore it. You clearly don't want answers to your own questions, so stop pretending.
    3
  3158. Sound conducts through any physical medium. In this case, the hammer, to the suit, and into the air in the suit.
    3
  3159. Yet, none of the three things you said actually proposed HOW you plan on making guns difficult to attain.
    3
  3160. How much thrust does your phone generate?
    3
  3161.  @vfpaintjobs  And, you're PROUD of this stupidity?
    3
  3162. Grumman.
    3
  3163. It also depends on what it's reflecting, and the angles. If the angle is reflecting something bright, you'll see it more. If the angle is reflecting a black sky, it's more difficult to see.
    3
  3164. Congress ran Apollo from 1961 until 1972 for manned moon missions, and until 1975 for the Apollo Applications program (Skylab missions and the joint Soviet mission). Once they ended the program (stopped supplying money), they stopped going.
    3
  3165. How many different countries must photograph the landing sites and see the landers do you need before you believe it?
    3
  3166. Yet, you can't manage to find the stuff you're claiming they didn't do?
    3
  3167. Your comment = pretending you watched videos you didn't watch. Your comment = pretending you looked at photos that you didn't look at.
    3
  3168. There are hundreds of such photos from Arizona State University's LRO camera. You don't know what you're talking about. And, the photos of the Mars rovers are taken from the ground, and from the rovers themselves. How do you expect them to do the same for Apollo rovers, without sending a mission to land there? Are photos from 22 miles above not good enough for you?
    3
  3169. When? Do you have a timestamp?
    3
  3170. Do you remember that one photo from lunar orbit out of the 110,000 they took? It was the one taken over some crater, and there was a thing on the right. What was that thing?
    3
  3171. And, you're sure to find the "truth" by watching YouTube videos made by crackpots.
    3
  3172. "It would be impossible to survive the Van Allen belt." A) The fact that you are unaware that there are two belts (and even sometimes three), and you use the singular term, gives me little faith that you know anything about them. B) James Van Allen himself, and every cosmologist, astrophysicist, and radiobiologist, etc. on Earth disagrees with you. C) Why are you on YouTube comments? Why are you not submitting your calculations to science journals on this amazing discovery of yours? "Buzz Aldrin is the only astronaut that would be in the public limelight. The others isolated themselves" Huh? What in the world are you talking about? Who told you that? "Buzz knows it’s a lie and so he punched the dude" Or, maybe he didn't like being pushed, shoved, deceived, blocked, and accused of being a liar. "The guy he punched was interviewed by Valuetainment recently and his reasons and evidence are compelling enough to even ask the question of whether we did." The convicted criminal taxi cab Bart Sibrel? The guy whose dishonest videos are manufactured in his editing room? The guy who went around saying that he got "leaked" footage of the Apollo videos, and had the film professionally "carbon dated"? (They were not leaked, and they weren't even film, they were DVDs of TV transmissions, no film involved, nothing to carbon date, and you couldn't carbon date a piece of film, even if it was on film, which it's not... THAT chronic liar?) "The people of NASA accidentally sent him footage and audio that really put things into perspective and I have to say I believe him." Then you're amazingly gullible. There are a million videos that debunk that silly nonsense in a million different ways. But, here's a really short one: "Addendum A Funny Thing Happened... (By GreaterSapien - MIRROR)" And, ask yourself, if they were in low orbit, as Sibrel claims in that ridiculous video you're quoting from, why aren't the clouds going by the window at 17,000 mph? Why not? They're in low orbit, right? That's what you believe in that "leaked" video, right? Sibrel tells you they're in low orbit. But, can you even be in low orbit without going 17,000 mph? (Hint: no, you'd fall out of the sky immediately if you aren't going at least that fast.) Yet, the clouds aren't moving in his own video. You didn't catch that, huh? You just watched his silly video, and bought every single word, hook line and sinker, eh?
    3
  3173. I gave you photo catalog numbers. You then asked for links (as if your Google is broken). I told you that links are blocked. You declared victory. How ridiculous can you be? OK, dewdrop, post a link to something off-site (somewhere other than Google/YouTube). See what happens.
    3
  3174. Has it ever dawned on you that there's a chance you might be able to understand physics if you first learned to read and write?
    3
  3175. The main purpose of Apollo was as a cold war demonstration of technological superiority. The goal was to make the aggressive Soviets stop and realize that they don't have a chance of beating us at anything we decide to put our minds and our industrial might into. It was a political message, "mess with us, and we'll beat you, we will always beat you." At the time, an all-out nuclear war seemed inevitable. Kids in schools were being trained to duck and cover. People were building nuclear fallout shelters in their backyards. Cuban Missile Crisis. Bay of Pigs. It seemed that a nuclear war was next. Apollo was the tip of the sword in averting that war. We can never turn back time to see what would happen without Apollo. But, many consider that Apollo saved tens of millions of lives by keeping the Soviets in check, and preventing them from escalating the cold war into a real war, decimating entire cities and leaving them for wasteland. Is that enough of an achievement for you?
    3
  3176. What didn't you understand about the remote controlled pan/tilt/zoom camera?
    3
  3177. Yes, I'm sure they planned it that way. Release the video without telling anybody she's been dead for 1.5 years. Then release an "update" video to make it seem like the first video is what made her commit suicide. Inside Edition, where facts don't matter.
    3
  3178. You know absolutely nothing, and should stop pretending you do. Apollo costed (adjusted for inflation) approximately $300 billion in hard costs, and about $150 billion more in international support and soft costs. Today, Artemis' budget is about $35 billion. Don't worry, it's expected to inflate (it's a government operation, after all). After they rope in prior development costs, and add their bad choices for a lunar lander, and future expenses, the budget is expected to be about $90 billion. So, yes, you're getting your wish, and it IS cheaper (adjusted for inflation) today than it was in the 1960s. You also clearly know nothing about the technology. So, unless you can name some specific sort of technology you think they lacked, and can explain why none of the thousands of people working on it ever realized that the equipment couldn't do what they designed it to do, then you have absolutely no legs to stand on.
    3
  3179. So, you refuse to answer my questions, but, you think I should answer yours? What's wrong with you?
    3
  3180. They DID go back!!! They went to the moon nine times, and landed six of those times.
    3
  3181. Complete nonsense. You clearly never watched the videos you claim. And, this is evident immediately with one of the most famous videos you people complain about: the Apollo 17 lunar liftoff video. That video was taken from the rover parked 450 feet away from the lander, and you can see a lot of terrain beyond, as well as mountains in the background. They then pan the camera around 360 degrees for hours afterward. There are plenty of other examples, but, when your claim falls on its face as obviously as just that one video, yeah, no need to elaborate further.
    3
  3182. We are all exposed to X-rays, gamma rays, and high velocity atomic particles every day of our lives. Film is also. You cannot stand on a beach without exposure. You cannot take a shower without exposure. QUANTITY matters, dewdrop. Did you really just compare a nuclear reactor to outer space? Do you think the quantities are anywhere near the same? You used the word "burned"? Seriously? If so, why are you on YouTube? Why aren't you publishing your calculations in journals on astrophysics? Not a single physicist on the planet agrees with you, so, when you show them your calculations, you're sure to win a Nobel Prize for rewriting everything known about radiation.
    3
  3183. "There are no stars because everyone will see it was on the earth ." Huh? Then please explain the 125 photos of the stars that they took with the specialized Carruthers UV telescopic camera from the surface of the moon, specifically designed to be able to photograph stars during the daytime. Can you? How do those 125 photos show that it's on Earth? What ARE you talking about? "They say camera can not take picture of stars" Well, it depends on which camera. The video cameras can't/won't do it, of course. There's just not enough exposure and sensitivity for that. They did take some star photos with the Hasselblads. But, they turned out really badly. But, they did bring the Carruthers camera specifically for taking UV photos of the stars. So, which ones are you talking about, and why? "but the astronaut said "We did not see stars on the moon"." Yes, they were on the moon in the daytime. They didn't see stars from the lunar surface (unless they used optics to do it). Why is this an issue for you? "Plus there is a radiation belt around earth that would kill living" Huh? Who told you that? NASA, right? So, when NASA tells you that there's an invisible radiation belt, you believe it. When they tell you how they traversed it, you reject it? So, you pick and choose what input to accept, and what to reject, even from the very same people?
    3
  3184. So, if someone makes a CGI video on YouTube, this means that the moon landings 50 years ago were fake, right? If someone makes a CGI video of the Wright brothers' flights, this means those flights never happened. If someone makes a CGI video of the Titanic sinking, this means it never sank.
    3
  3185. What do you believe the police did wrong?
    3
  3186. They managed to keep it private for 2.5 years. But, eventually, they cannot block a legal Freedom of Information Act request if the case has been closed long enough. She was dead for 1.5 years, and had to release it. I'll eat my hat if you know any of this. You're more interested in promoting your hatred.
    3
  3187. So, this is what happened, right? Grissom was going to reveal to the world that the command module had a lot of problems. So, in order to prevent him from doing that, they rigged up the command module with a lot of problems, then blamed the command module's problems for his death, in order to prevent people from knowing that the command module had a lot of problems. Do you see anything wrong here?
    3
  3188. I agree. This is nothing but a hit piece that is crafted in such a way to go viral, asking questions but not providing the answers (which, I'm sure they know). This incident was from July of 2021. She killed herself in March of 2022. The arrest video was not made public until November of 2023, and had nothing to do with her death. Funny that Inside Edition didn't elaborate on those facts, and left their entire story angle as "asking questions" about whether or not her arrest had anything to do with her suicide. The answer is: no, it didn't.
    3
  3189. There were a heck of a lot more than 3. Other astronauts died in aircraft during the program. There were the typical (for that era) number of construction people who died while building everything. And, there were rocket scientists who blew themselves to smithereens working on exotic volatile fuels on aggressive timelines.
    3
  3190. Are you asking why we can't see it from Earth? There are lunar orbiters that can see it. But, to see it from Earth, there's a concept called "optical resolution," which outlines some of the properties of light itself, which you can look up and find some good info on Wiki. The short version is that in order to see that level of resolution from this distance, you'd need an optically perfect lens a quarter mile across. The largest one in existence is 5 feet across, and costed $168 million to build. We're pretty far away from quarter mile wide lenses. Note: this isn't because we just need better glass, or better technology, or something like that, no, it's actually because, if you want better resolution with a lens smaller than a quarter mile wide, you truly cannot have it, because the photons actually interfere with each other, based on their wavelengths, and you'd be trying to capture photons that aren't there.
    3
  3191. Well, you could actually look at the evidence, rather than just saying "the US government lies sometimes" and leaving it at that.
    3
  3192. Time to get your eyes checked.
    3
  3193. YOU SAID: "Never happened." == Wrong. YOU SAID: "Stanley Kubrick, and Walt Disney with countless of others, would tell you anther story if still alive today if given the chance without getting into trouble for it?" == What does this have to do with Apollo? What are you talking about? What "trouble" do moviemakers get in for telling stories? YOU SAID: "Nada sent up all the Apollo rockets, but the men only circled around in low earth orbit before splashing down in the ocean." == And, you know this, how?? So, when all of those various countries tracked all of the Apollo missions to the moon and back with radar and radio telescopes, how do you account for it? A brief list of some of the countries that tracked Apollo missions to the moon and back with radar and/or radio telescopes: USA, Soviet Union, Australia, UK, Wales, Spain, Madagascar, Canary Islands, Ascension Island, Turks and Caicos, Guam... the list goes on. If they were merely circling in low orbit, how did they bluff the radar and radio telescopes of all of those countries? YOU SAID: "Poor Buzz Aldrin new the lie" == ENGLISH!!! Good gods, every single one of you conspiratards is illiterate. Quit with the dumb conspiracies you don't even understand, and go learn to read and write. I promise you, you'll go further in life being literate, than you will by wasting your time on dumb internet conspiracies. YOU SAID: "and had such a hard time with it had become an alcoholic." == 24 people went to the moon. Do you not think that one might end up having some problems like that? And, how do you know it was "the lie" that he had a hard time with? Do you not think that maybe the inability to go out in public without being ambushed by press and fans might have applied a bunch of pressure? Who told you that it was "the lie" that caused this issue, as opposed to any number of other potential causes? Why would you think you understand this? YOU SAID: "Stanley Kubrick gave away some hints in the movie "The Shinning"" == Pftttt. Because the kid wore a NASA shirt? What evidence do you have that there's more meaning behind it than just any others of the thousands of NASA shirts found in thousands of movies? YOU SAID: "I bet your a Walmart shopper?" == My a Walmart shopper? Or, you don't know the difference between "your" and "you're"? You know, dummy, maybe the reason you know so little is because you're illiterate, huh? Maybe if you knew how to read and write, you might know more, and stop making an idiot of yourself? YOU SAID: "They might sell some common sense?" == Let me get this straight, dummy... OTHERS lack "common sense," but YOU have common sense?? Yet, not a single one of the world's 72 space agencies believe what you believe.... Is that because the world's foremost experts are all wrong, and you're right? Or, is that because you are an illiterate dropout who doesn't have the slightest understanding of the topics, and you have attached yourself to some conspiracy videos to make yourself feel better about being an utter failure? What does your "common sense" tell you about that?
    3
  3194. "Let’s not forget that nasa accidentally erased all footage of the most incredible achievement in human history." Who told you such a ridiculous thing? Was it a conspiracy video? Dewdrop, the only footage that they lost or recorded over were the two pre-NTSC backup tapes from one mission. BACKUP tapes. The primary tapes are still intact, as well as millions of secondary copies. You obviously have never read what was actually missing/lost/recorded over, and instead, you just blindly trust a conspiracy video to tell you. "When people resolve how to pass through the Van Allen radiation belts" That was resolved long before Apollo launched its first rocket. Go fast. That's the solution. What do you think you know about the Van Allen belts that James Van Allen didn't know?
    3
  3195. @Miles Maillet Yes, of course, that's EXACTLY how to just ignore input. If you can't refute the input, just attribute the input to something you don't like, therefore you can ignore it that way. It's one of the most predominant hallmarks of delusional minds. That's exactly how delusions work. Ignore input that counters the delusion my any means necessary... if you can't refute the input, place some sort of blame on the person giving you the input, therefore ignoring the input that way.
    3
  3196. @B uki YOU SAID: "Who uses a credit card for his school lunch?" == I did. Credit card companies give perks. It's also far easier than carrying cash around. YOU SAID: "(have you americans always been this broke?)" == Sure, it depends on the person. Some people use credit cards because they don't have the money immediately available. Others use credit cards for convenience and perks, and then pay off the balance in full. The use of credit cards doesn't mean someone is broke. Shaquille O'Neal used credit cards to purchase hundreds of thousands of dollars of furniture and stuff (funny story you can view on YouTube). Is he broke? Have you non-Americans always been so ignorant about how credit cards work? YOU SAID: "And who keeps airplane tickets after their flight?" == Almost nobody. But, if someone is supposedly erasing your identity, you can call the airline and ask for the records. YOU SAID: "Only reasonable question you made is the one about his apartment lease," == Pfftttt. That was my only reasonable question? None of the other questions were reasonable? So, it wasn't reasonable to ask why Bob Lazar never fought MIT for his degree back? That wasn't a reasonable question? YOU SAID: "but on the other hand more than enough people either lose them or throw them away after some years," == Yes, that's fine. But, a landlord would have a record, even if you didn't keep your copies. And, a landlord would have the bank records of your canceled checks also. So, if the big bad wolf somehow got to YOUR bank to cancel the records of your rent checks from your side, this would mean that the big bad wolf would also cancel checks from the receiver's bank also. Hmmm. Don't you think maybe the landlord would wonder why thousands of dollars suddenly disappeared from his/her bank account? I mean, remember, if you write a check, both the sending bank and the receiving bank have records of that check. The government cannot secretly erase one side and not the other, because then Bob Lazar can just ask the landlord to provide the records for the receiving side of those checks, right? So, this would mean that the government would have to go delete the receiving side of those payments also, right? Don't you think maybe the landlord would be really anxious to get involved, if a couple of years worth of rent checks just suddenly evaporated from his/her account? YOU SAID: "doesn't matter if it's a smart or dumb person, this happens to all kind of people." == What does? Impossible "erasing" of records and all personal experiences? YOU SAID: "So if all those information's would be stored on a computer or in the document folders of the city you lived in, or at your bank, of course it's gonna be gone if you don't have any copy of your own at hand and the government and banks erases their copies to discredit you." == Computer records in 1978-1982? Um, no. Yes, they used computers to keep balances and stuff and to speed up the process. But, everything back then was backed up on paper. All bank records. All computer records. All medical records. Everything. And, again, this argument is WORSE for you!!! If it had been all computerized, and the super secret powers went and deleted the money transfers from history, then this means that the landlord's records would evaporate also!! And, MIT's records!! And, every financial transaction Bob Lazar ever had. YOU SAID: "Why he doesn't name or call out anyone from his time at MIT or S4 was explained in his interviews, he doesn't want to get them in trouble for backing up his history, simple as that." == Again, you find this believable?? Again, this is what's called an "unfalsifiable claim." He has set up a situation that he is pretending that he has to provide NOTHING to back up his claims. Nothing at all. And, it's ridiculous. Sorry, but that doesn't fly. Clearly, he is under no threat himself. It's been 40 years, nobody has harmed him. Nobody has killed him. Nothing has happened to him. So, if the big bad wolf isn't going to hurt him directly, then people who saw him at MIT wouldn't be hurt either. This is pure insanity. You find that excuse believable? In your mind, you're washing away all accountability. You're literally setting up a scenario in your head that justifies believing impossible things, based on zero evidence whatsoever!!! By that standard, ANYBODY could say ANYTHING, and all they'd need to do is say, "I don't want to name anybody else," and you'd believe it. That's how your mind works??? Nope, sorry, that's not the way the world works. That's how delusions work. You are putting up a mental wall to prevent you from actually analyzing Bob Lazar's credibility. You have set up a standard for accepting claims based on NOTHING!!! Anything anybody ever says can be believed, under this criteria of yours. That's not a pathway to truth. That's a pathway deeper into insanity. If you're never going to demand that people substantiate extreme claims, and your entire model for deciding what's true and what's false is based on unfalsifiable claims, then you are doomed to believe the most stupid things anybody can ever claim. YOU SAID: "If they don't come out by themselves he's not gonna force them into the whole mess he got himself into." == Well, maybe if he hadn't lied about going to MIT, he would be in this mess he's in either. YOU SAID: "Anyway, to all the bs about "THAT is what you'd do if someone was trying to "erase" you from MIT." All of those things you listed can't be done if you have been literally erased from the records and you don't own a copies anymore." == Then you're not paying attention to what I'm asking. I said, let's pretend you're correct. Let's pretend you're right. STILL, why would you believe it? How can you distinguish between someone lying about all of it, vs. Bob Lazar's claims? How can you tell the difference? YOU SAID: "How'd he get into that school, if he's not smart enough to start gathering up records when people are trying to "erase" him?" Yeah..because.. yeah that's what you do when you go to MIT or any other university right? You enter university and that is just the point, where every intelligent human being, gathers all his documents and locks them up in a secret safe, just in case that someone in the future tries to erase your records... Remember folks! Always be prepared to be a whistleblower one day." == Hey, moron, Bob Lazar's Area 51 claims came out just a few years after he said he had attended MIT. I never said he should keep his records. You're not even reading anything I've written. I agree. I don't have all that much from my university days either. I kept my hardcopies of my degrees, I kept a couple little trinkets, and that's it. But, even many decades later, I could tell you the girls I dated. I could tell you my classmates. I could tell you my favorite professors. I can remember lots of details about the classes I took. Etc. Bob Lazar... smart enough to get into the most prestigious science institution on the planet, can remember NOTHING. But, forget all of that also. Again, his claim was that they were "erasing" him just a few years later, right? Not decades later. My point was, if it was just a few years since I got my degree from a university that they "erased" me from, I'd be able to go round up evidence. I'm not saying I'd keep the evidence AT THE TIME. But, I'd be able to go and get friends with copies of the graduation ceremony programs with my name on it. I'd be able to get bank records. I'd be able to get the airlines to go back and get the records for those miles I flew. I'd be able to get credit card records of ANY purchase I made there. Sorry, but, "they erased everything" doesn't fly. It's insanity. YOU SAID: "Everything you say on this matter is pretty much just... Oh his records have been "erased"? Why doesn't he show some records to prove that they have been erased..duuuhh." == EXACTLY, YOU MORON!!! You CAN'T erase them!!! Not completely anyway. Good grief. I'm not explaining this again. YOU SAID: "What does Fraver have to do with Lazar??" Well, maybe the small little detail that the craft in Fravers footage behaved exactly like Lazar described it, it turned onto the side and shot off "belly" first. But sure it was just a bird or plastic bag/ballon again." == Dumbass, I didn't say Fraver's thing was a bird or balloon. I said that history is full of millions of various UFOs. And, sorry, but Fraver's vague description of a shape is hardly evidence of the same thing Lazar claims. YOU SAID: "I could go on, but I am tired of pointing out your bs. Anyway, nice try Dennis. kek" == You're an idiot.
    3
  3197.  @happymuncho1748  Yet, none of you insane maniacs will answer a single question or challenge. Sigh. The idiot parade continues.
    3
  3198. "no one has the right to judge" Nonsense. A grown woman was putting on a show in front of multiple people including children. You don't get to wash it away with "nobody can judge."
    3
  3199. Do you seriously not know that they went to the moon 9 times? You're sitting there writing laughy emojis, while simultaneously believing there was only one mission?
    3
  3200. Huh? How did this lead to her suicide? It wasn't made public until 1.5 years after she was dead.
    3
  3201. Great job butchering the living daylights out of what happened. Obviously, you are getting this nonsense from conspiracy videos, which you have swallowed hook line and sinker, never bothering to fact-check. No, Becki. During the Apollo 11 moonwalk, they had the TV radio signal coming in from the moon to the massive radio telescope in Parkes, Australia. But, the format wasn't NTSC (the standard TV signal format in those days), it was in a radio format that was better suited for the Apollo transmission. So, before anybody could view it, they needed to convert it from the Apollo format to the standard TV format of NTSC. They were worried, however, about what they would do if the conversion from one format to the other didn't work, and didn't want to lose the moonwalk. So, they recorded the raw analog radio signal onto two tapes. These tapes were never meant to be anything besides a backup mechanism, in the event that the NTSC conversion didn't work. They literally didn't even have a machine capable of playing the raw format tapes, they would need to construct one to play those two tapes. But, the conversion to NTSC worked correctly, so, those two raw tapes were never even viewed. Literally, those two tapes WERE NEVER EVEN VIEWED. Again, they were never even considered to be more than just backups in case something went very wrong with the primary copies (post-NTSC conversion). So, a few decades went by, and for the first time ever, someone at NASA decided they'd like to take a look at the backup copies, and set out to find them, intending to construct a machine capable of playing them. However, they couldn't find the tapes. They searched for a few years, and still couldn't find them. Parkes said they sent them to Houston. Houston thought they were still in Parkes. So, who knows? Eventually, they gave up the search for the backup tapes, and concluded that the most likely thing that happened was that they got mixed in with a bunch of useless tapes that they were erasing and reusing. Ultimately, however, they just don't know for sure, that's just their best guess. But, nobody cared about those tapes for the 40 years that they were missing. They had never even been viewed. But, even though nobody cared about those two tapes, conspiratards jumped for joy, because, somehow, these backup tapes were now representative that Apollo was fake (?). None of the conspiratards ever tried to view those tapes during the 40 years that they were missing (and nobody even knew they were missing). But, now, for some insane reason, those backup tapes are "important." Yes, two missing backup tapes that nobody in history has ever even viewed... means Apollo was fake.
    3
  3202. Look, I realize you probably aren't going to accept any input. But, here's what's obvious: you have gotten all of your "knowledge" by watching YouTube videos. Everything you're saying is regurgitated nonsense coming straight out of videos made by complete crackpots. Nothing you're saying is actually correct. YouTube University isn't a real thing. You have no ability to sift good information from bad information, and it shows through every word you type. For example, you named the "fake moon rock" thing. This is a ridiculous piece of babble that has been butchered in the videos you've been watching. The Dutch art museum accepted a donation of a rock that turned out to be petrified wood. But, NASA had absolutely nothing to do with that rock, no astronaut ever gave it to them, and the only thing that happened was that the curators of a Dutch art museum didn't have any clue how to identify a moon rock, yet accepted it anyway. They don't believe the rock came from NASA. They realize now that they made a mistake by not authenticating it. And, the Dutch science museum still proudly displays its authentic moon rocks, despite that their art museum accepted a fake moon rock. The most you should be complaining about here is that a Dutch art museum didn't know what a moon rock should look like. You shouldn't be using this as "evidence" of anything whatsoever regarding Apollo, because NASA and the astronauts never even heard of that fake rock until decades later, let alone did they have anything to do with it. But, here you are, watching conspiracy videos that twist the story, lie about what happened, and you just gobble it all up. You truly have something wrong in your mind such that you accept the silliest claptrap you see, while rejecting actual science. Every single thing you assert is incorrect, with no exceptions. But, you don't care. For you, it's more important to make the accusation, than it is to be correct in what you're saying.
    3
  3203. He was staking out a completely different person for a completely different shooting. Did you think he should use a marked car instead? And, if you have questions about a strange car, you call the police, you don't go up to the car wearing a ski mask in the middle of a Kentucky summer, pull out a gun, and point it at the driver.
    3
  3204. And, how much does your "common sense" tell you about the fact that over 1,000 engineers across multiple countries designed and built the communications network to do the exact thing you're rejecting, and not a single one believed that it wouldn't work? How much does your "common sense" say about a silly YouTube dewdrop thinking he knows ANYTHING about radio communications, when he compares a cell phone antenna weighing a couple of grams to antennae dishes used during Apollo (such as the Parkes Radio Telescope) that weighed two million pounds? How much "common sense" do you think you have when you claim that "common sense" is the best you've got after 55 years?
    3
  3205. Just out of curiosity, do you believe that Elon Musk sold $6 billion in stock because he needed to pay the taxes on stocks that he hadn't even sold (yet)? That was his claim. Or, do you think it was because the judge didn't throw him in prison, but told Musk that he was personally liable for his Solar City scam, totaling between $3 billion and $9 billion in damages that Elon Musk is going to need to pay to his victims? Do you find it at all interesting that he sold that stock only a few days after being told how much he's going to owe for his fraud?
    3
  3206. Are you referring to the lunar rovers? Those were on Apollo 15, 16, and 17. This video focuses on Apollo 11.
    3
  3207. It's the burn-in effect on the vidicon pickup.
    3
  3208. Wow, and the "realist" doubles down. Even more hilarious. Dewdrop, do the math (if you even know how). Calculate the size lens it would require to do what you're asking. Hint: to see the Apollo landers in minimal level of detail to just barely see what they are... would take a lens a quarter mile in diameter. If you want more details, like footprints, you're talking about a lens multiple miles in diameter. Yet, here you are, asking for one of these telescopes? Really? Is there any point at which you might actually want to understand the topic? Or, do you simply enjoy not knowing anything?
    3
  3209. Are you even bothering to read the responses to your own nonsense? What didn't you understand about the fact that it would take a lens about a quarter mile in diameter to see what you're asking for? You think Hubble is that big? Now you're asking for Hubble to do it? Dewdrop, the smallest resolution Hubble has is 160 feet by 160 feet on the lunar surface. That's ONE PIXEL. How do you expect to see a 14x14 foot lunar lander with Hubble if a single pixel is 160x160? The lander cannot even fill up one pixel of Hubble's photos. Yet, all you keep doing is doubling down, pretending to know things you do not. Are you even reading this message? Can you prove it by writing "green" at the top of your next reply (if you even make one)? Or, like usual, are you reading just the first sentence and ignoring all other input?
    3
  3210. HILARIOUS!!! So, years back, there was quite a comprehensive professional poll/survey done about the moon landings. I'm not talking about grabbing random people in a mall and asking. I'm talking about a real professional survey/poll of tens of thousands of people in all kinds of demographics, etc. It was found that physicists are the LEAST likely demographic to believe Apollo was fake, followed quite closely by engineers. Basically, the data indicates the exact opposite as you're saying. It is nearly impossible to find a physicist who thinks Apollo was fake. Meanwhile, among people who didn't graduate high school, odds were closer to 50/50. And, this sentiment goes beyond just the results of polling/survey data. Polls/surveys are quite accurate if done right, but, still, a poll/survey doesn't get into the true science. See, if you're going to assert that the physics isn't "right" on Apollo, and that the stuff is "too blatant" (your words), well, then there would be a very simple avenue to make that argument. Write it up in a scientific paper, and submit it for scientific peer review in a recognized science journal. Demonstrate mathematically that the physics isn't "right." But, in the past 50 years, there literally has never been a single scientific paper that has made it past the entry levels of scientific scrutiny. Never. Not once. Every single claim ever made by a moon conspiracy believer has fallen apart instantly under scientific scrutiny. Sorry, but that wouldn't be the case if your assertion was even remotely true. If understanding physics and technology are the keys to understanding that Apollo was fake, then physicists and engineers would be the FIRST to spot these "problems" you're alluding to. Yet, in reality, it's the exact opposite. Physicists and engineers simply do not agree with you. It would be a crime to even say that 1% of the experts agree with you, because the actual percentage is even lower than that. So, no, you don't get to sit here on YouTube and claim that science and technology are on your side. If you had anything to offer scientifically to back up your insane assertions, you wouldn't be on YouTube looking to spread your silliness, you'd be SUBMITTING YOUR CALCULATIONS TO A SCIENCE JOURNAL!!!! Only crackpots say the things you're saying, and pretending science is on their (your) side.
    3
  3211. A lens capable of resolving a lunar lander as a single dot would need to be about 75 feet in diameter. A lens capable of resolving it to about the same as LRO's imagery (about 1.5 x 1.5 feet per pixel) is about a quarter mile in diameter. Beyond that, it really depends on the level of resolution you ask for. Generally, for the level the deniers want, you're talking about a lens 6 miles in diameter. But, then they'd just shift the goalposts again anyway. Of course, beyond just the size of the lens, you'd have to solve the problem of atmospheric distortion. But, whatever, maybe they'll launch a 6 mile wide lens into low orbit.
    3
  3212. That's not the way it works. Good grief.
    3
  3213. What news station even covered this while she was alive?
    3
  3214. And, who told you it was "lost"?
    3
  3215. "how they are able to maintain temperature in a capsule that had aluminum foil thickness walls" Because that's wrong. The outer layer was only the thickness of a few layers of foil. But, there was an aluminum hull under the outer layer. But, regarding temperature, yes, that's what the outer layer was for. It created vacuum gaps between the outer layer and the actual hull. And, it was made from foils and tapes and metals and inconel that were very good at reflecting energy (in some areas), or radiating energy (in other areas). "With a four hundred degree temperature range throughout the day" By not staying a day. They landed early in the lunar morning on every mission. It doesn't get super hot until high noon. It doesn't get super cold until overnight. A "daytime" is about two weeks (sunrise to sunset). A full lunar day is about a month (sunrise until the next sunrise). Each mission landed at the Earth equivalent sun angle of about 6:30am. And, the longest mission left by about the Earth equivalent of 9:30am. Quoting a 400 degree temperature range is irrelevant, because they were never there for those extremes. And, also, temperature doesn't work the same way in space as it does in an atmosphere. "heaters" The only time they used the heaters was right after they filled the cabin with oxygen. When gas expands, it gets cold. So, they heated it up. But, after that, they were more concerned about it getting too hot than getting too cold. "and air conditioners" They didn't use them. They used porous plate sublimators. Air conditioners would be too energy consuming, and don't work very well in space. Sublimators use a lot less energy. And, yes, sometimes they are used on Earth too (they're called "swamp coolers"). But, they don't work in all conditions. And, buildings that have them tend to also have air conditioners for the days that a sublimator doesn't work very well. They work exceptionally well in space, though. "Really old style batteries" The age is irrelevant. They used silver-zinc batteries that packed in a heck of a lot more energy (per pound) than any battery you'll find on the commercial market today. Why? Because they are remarkably expensive (they costed about $600,000 each, if you adjust into today's dollars). And, they couldn't be recharged. But, if you want a battery that is capable of withstanding a ton of vibration without exploding, and packs in more energy per pound than any other battery (other than ones that explode if shaken too much), and you don't mind that they're one-time-use and can't be recharged, yeah, they're the way to go. Eagle-Picher (the company that made those batteries for Apollo) still exists today, and you're welcome to order some of those batteries if you'd like.
    3
  3216. Yes, mistakes do happen. A store is entitled to ask for proof of purchase, even if it turns out they were incorrect when they assumed you didn't pay. There's no legal requirement that says the store employees need to be correct 100% of the time. But, that's why we have police to investigate, and courts to determine guilt. I've been asked for proof of purchase before also, despite that I haven't stolen anything. My attitude is that I appreciate that the stores are attempting to control their losses. If I was the store, yes, I'd have apologized to you for being wrong, but, in reality, nobody owed you an apology for merely asking for proof of purchase.
    3
  3217. Hilarious! I've been around since when nobody really bothered defending it. And, the dewdrops like you would always say, "Nobody is refuting these claims (about Apollo being fake), therefore that is confirmation that the claims are correct, and Apollo was fake." Now, "People are refuting these claims (about Apollo being fake), therefore that is confirmation that the claims are correct, and Apollo was fake." Someone doesn't defend it = Apollo was fake. Someone defends it = Apollo was fake.
    3
  3218. "I love how the "expert" at 30:00 is trying to spin his BS about the way lunar modules land." What are you talking about? That was the documented procedure that the astronauts trained for. That's why they installed the 5'8" probes on the bottom of the landing legs, to let them know when to shut the engine off. "Clearly he's been to the Moon that many times he's well versed in how 10,000 lbs per cubic inch of force" 10,000 pounds per cubic inch? Good grief. What does that even mean? There is no such concept. How can you have thrust per cubic inch? I mean, ok, pretending that you just made a typo, and meant square inch instead of cubic inch, this is still ridiculous. The engine bell had a cross section of about 2,700 square inches. You're claiming that they had 10,000 pounds of thrust per square inch. This means that the descent engine had 27 million pounds of thrust?? Good grief. The F1 engines of the Saturn V first stage, the most powerful rocket engines ever built, had 1.5 million pounds of thrust each. But, you're claiming that the lunar lander descent engine had 27 million pounds of thrust? Sheeeessshhhh. Um, no, dewdrop. The lander's descent engine had about 10,500 pounds of thrust at maximum throttle, not per square inch, and definitely not per cubic inch (which makes no sense). "doesn't so much as leave a spec of dust disturbed." Who ever claimed the dust wasn't disturbed? Good grief. Have you looked at the photo archive yourself? Or, did a conspiracy video tell you that the dust wasn't disturbed, and you just blindly believed it? Hint: guess what? Those videos are made by charlatans who lie constantly. They rely on the fact that none of their silly cult followers ever check what they say. All anybody has to do is look at the photo archive themselves, and see that the claim for no dust disturbance is wrong. "You shouldn't question "experts" or the fact there were more footprints under the module than seemingly around it." Name a single photo that shows such a thing. Name one. And, while you're at it, please tell me which conspiracy video told you this ridiculous lie? "Yes, nothing to see here, just go along with the "expert's advice"." Dewdrop, you don't even understand rocket thrust. You thought it was 10,000 pounds of thrust per cubic inch, a concept that doesn't make any sense at all, and is ridiculously wrong under any interpretation. Even if we just say that the attempted to land with 10,000 pounds of thrust total (not per cubic inch, nor square inch), guess what, the craft isn't landing. It's going straight up. For example, the Apollo 11 craft only weighed about 2,600 pounds in lunar gravity by the time it got down to the lunar surface. It started off at 33,500 pounds (Earth weight), and burned about 18,000 pounds of fuel and oxidizer to get down to the lunar surface. This means it was only about 15,500 pounds by the time it got down there. Adjusting for lunar gravity, this is about 2,600 pounds. And, I have news for you, if you are running your thrust at 10,000 pounds, when the craft is only 2,600 pounds, you're not landing on anything, because that amount of thrust for that amount of weight would propel the craft straight up, quite quickly. In order to have a basic "hover," or a nice slow descent, the thrust has to equal the weight. Why in the world would you even pretend you understand this topic? You're sitting here claiming that people shouldn't listen to experts. And, ok, that's fine, if you had the capability to actually point out why an expert is wrong. Experts get things wrong all the time, so, sure, there's no problem with the notion that experts can be disputed. But, not by the likes of you, who thinks the descent engine used 27 million pounds of thrust, and you're using terms like "per cubic inch" to describe the thrust. Good gods.
    3
  3219. What does the space station have to do with Apollo? Yes, the Apollo astronauts brought back plenty of lunar material. You clearly have no concept of how much water the Chinese found in their samples (virtually zero, nearly undetectable, a few molecules embedded in glass).
    3
  3220. So? Is the 1969 Concorde fake? You used to be able to purchase transatlantic tickets to fly 150 people at mach 2 for a distance of 3,000 miles. There's nothing that even comes close today. The most you can get nowadays is a pilot or two in a military fighter going about mach 1.5 for a couple hundred miles, a tiny fraction of the supersonic capability we had decades ago. So, by your logic, Concorde is fake, right?
    3
  3221. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake. Dewdrop, why are you on YouTube? Do you think this is the place to show these calculations? Why aren't you writing up a scientific paper about the millions of radiations and the effects on cameras? Why aren't you demonstrating the millions of radiations, and submitting it to journals on radiobiology?
    3
  3222. Wrong, and wrong. Sorry that you don't understand anything. But, even in your silly notions, how does this make sense? You think Stanley Kubrick and crew just made these glaring "errors" and just left them there? Like, oh, the flag is waving, the sounds can be heard, we don't understand shadows, there should have been a crater, astronauts are falling down and picked up by wires. But, oh, ok, let's just leave it all in there. No problem. Nobody will notice. Right? Good grief. Dewdrop, why do you suppose that not a single physicist or aerospace engineer thinks these things you're spewing? No? They don't hear the sounds you do? Or, hmmm, I was right in the first place, and you don't know what you're talking about?
    3
  3223. Cernan is (was) definitely one of the best ones to talk with. The man knew exactly how much detail to give when answering your questions. He put everything in very laymen terms if he was talking with an average Joe. He could easily switch to speaking at an engineering level if he was talking with someone about very technical things. His mind was intact well into old age (unlike a few of the others). And, of course, he spent more time on the lunar surface than any other astronaut. As for the missions themselves, it's a little bit like picking your favorite pair of shoes. It can change with mood. It's easy enough to dismiss Apollo 12 and 14, because they weren't the first, but, they weren't J missions like Apollo 15/16/17, which stayed for 70+ hours and had the rovers. Apollo 11 was the most "vanilla" mission, traveling the least distance away from the lander, flattest terrain, only one EVA for a couple of hours. But, it was the first, so they just wanted to get there and get home safely, no bells and whistles. So, if you didn't want to be first, and you just wanted to have longer stays on the moon, and see more grandeur, yeah, you need to go with Apollo 15/16/17. In today's mood, my favorite is Apollo 15. Hadley Rille is just such a spectacular site. But, yeah, Apollo 17... truly amazing site also. Maybe in tomorrow's mood.
    3
  3224.  @mrbushmaster3322  So, you are under the impression that illegally carrying a weapon is a life sentence with no parole? THAT is what you think?
    3
  3225.  @mrbushmaster3322  Good grief. Is your Google broken? Look, dude, you don't get life imprisonment without parole for a weapons charge. And, if you'd look up his history, you'll see he didn't have any open charges, nor any history of an offense that would result in life imprisonment without parole. Yeah, he was a thug. But, good grief. Why is it so fucking impossible to get anybody to simply admit they're wrong on YouTube? Sheesh. Brick fucking wall.
    3
  3226. YOU SAID: "This just looks fake🤣🤣🤣🤣" == Well, make stupid laughy faces all you want. They mean nothing. The videos aren't fake. YOU SAID: "how you out there" == Do you mean, "how did they get out there?" By using a rocket. YOU SAID: "bt we can have a 24hr live camera pointing to earth so we can see how the earth rotate. With all these technology you can't do that. 🤣🤣" == Again, make all of the stupid laughy faces all you want. The EPIC/DSCOVR is pointed at Earth 24 hours a day. There are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of shots that demonstrate the rotation of the Earth. But, why is this important to you? Do you not understand that the Earth rotates every 24 hours?
    3
  3227. Rolando, First of all, do you believe they went through the Van Allen belts while outside the craft? You do know that the aluminum hull of the craft will shield quite well against electrons, right? By staying inside the craft, it's going to shield against most of the electron radiation you're complaining about. Secondly, sorry, but I fail to even understand from your cut-n-paste about the area size you're talking about. Are you even aware? Is it the size of a spacecraft? The size of a human? The size of a skyscraper? The size of a pinpoint? See, complaining about 100,000 rads per year doesn't mean anything if you're not going to tell me the area we're talking about. By analogy, if I sold you a car, and told you that it gets 200 miles per tank of gas, did I really tell you anything about the fuel efficiency of the car? What if the gas tank is 1 gallon? This means that the car gets 200 miles per gallon. What if the gas tank was 800 gallons? This means the car gets 0.25 miles per gallon. Right? Massive difference. And, I haven't told you a single thing about the actual mileage the car gets. This is the same problem as your cut-n-paste of radiation levels. If you're giving me the radiation exposure for the size of a pinpoint, yeah, there's no way anything can survive that. You'd be cooked in 2 seconds flat. If the numbers you're spewing are the size of the entire volume of the belts around Earth, yeah, you'd get more radiation exposure standing in the dark in your backyard at night, than you'd ever get from being inside the Van Allen belts. See, dewdrop? Spewing numbers like that do not mean anything whatsoever if you don't include the context of how much surface area you're talking about. So, ok, for grins, let's assume (below) that you're talking about the size of a human. Thirdly, did you do the math? You spewed a bunch of cut-n-paste stuff there (while it's clear you don't understand a bit of it). 100,000 rads per year = 11.4 rads per hour. And, let's face reality here, the only stuff that mattered was the proton radiation, not the electrons. So, even if the craft did absolutely nothing to shield against protons, you're talking about an exposure of 2.85 rads during the 15 minutes they spent in the proton belt. You are capable of this math, right? And, again, you do know the craft protects against quite a bit of the proton radiation, right? It's true that protons penetrate aluminum better than electrons. But, it's not as if the hull provides no protection whatsoever. My point is, however, even if the craft didn't protect one bit against protonic radiation, the math shows that this drops the radiation well under the accepted limits. A radiation worker is allowed 5 rads per year, but is also allowed 25 rads in an emergency. So, even if the craft did absolutely nothing to shield against proton radiation (which is hypothetical, because, yes, it did), the radiation exposure, using your own numbers, is quite well under the accepted limits. Fourthly, did you read the radiation report I told you about? Your assertion was that the radiation reports were classified. I just provided you with one of them (the summary report), and, from there, you're welcome to also read the raw data. How can you be under the impression that the radiation reports were classified, when, in actuality, the reports are readily available? What made you believe they were classified? And, again, did you even read them? I suspect you didn't. And, I expect you don't read replies to your own messages. So, can you prove you are reading this? Can you write "green" at the top of your reply to even prove you're reading this message? Fifthly, can you explain how the two dogs the Soviets sent into the worst area of the belts were able to survive for 3 weeks? If you're under the impression that exposure inside a spacecraft for an hour or two would be so massively fatal to astronauts that they wouldn't survive the voyage, how did those two dogs survive for 3 weeks? I mean, I'll grant you, the dogs probably got a fatal exposure in a week or two, and it just took the rest of that time for them to finally actually die. But, for the 1-2 hours the Apollo missions spent in the belts, only 15 minutes of which was in the worst area, that math doesn't equate to what the Soviet dogs experienced. So, can you explain your viewpoint in comparison with the facts? And, finally, if you believe the exposure was too much for Apollo, why aren't you writing it up for science journals or radiobiology journals? Calculate it. Provide your methods of testing. Do the math. There are nuts all over the planet who have been waiting for this "gotcha" moment of yours. Why are you "publishing" this stuff on YouTube comments, rather than in actual recognized science journal on cosmo-physics or radiobiology? What are you waiting for?
    3
  3228. Well, if someone said it, it must be true. Nobody has ever lied.
    3
  3229.  @franknorthcuttmusic  Add South Korea to your list.
    3
  3230. Secure the scene first. Render aid second. Otherwise you end up like Mark, and you're the next one needing aid.
    3
  3231. Well, yes, the makers of the big popular conspiracy videos are in it for the money. Most of them know darned well that they're lying. But, they make a living from it, so, they keep on doing it. But, for the common everyday tin hat wearing YouTube dewdrop, they don't get paid a dime for believing nonsense. They do it because they think it makes up for their decades of failure, by believing that watching a couple of hours of videos made by charlatans make up for the decades of education and experience that they don't have.
    3
  3232. Wow!!! Where can we find it?!?!! In conspiracy videos?
    3
  3233. Huh? I've never seen anybody say the suits were discarded. They wore the suits back home. They only had one suit for each astronaut. They didn't change into a different suit for the moonwalks. The backpacks were left behind, and the lunar overboots, but, the suits themselves... no, they wore them home.
    3
  3234. Dewdrop, nobody is telling you to trust government. Blind trust in anybody or anything is just plain silly. What matters is THE EVIDENCE. And, sorry, but there are mountains of evidence in favor of Apollo, and none (credible anyway) against it. I mean, in your other comment about 1/6th G, how'd that work out for you? Look at how instantaneously your claim fell apart. Look at how you skipped right past a basic understanding of physics, and you based your opinions on hogwash. And, when confronted with reality, you ignored it. Sorry, that's not how rational people operate. A rational person would want to understand THE EVIDENCE, not looking for ridiculous little "gotchas" that make no sense (which is exactly what you're trying to do). When evidence doesn't matter to you, sorry, your mind has set sail from reality. And, you can scream and shout at the wind about Germany or manipulation until the cows come home, but, it means absolutely nothing.
    3
  3235. What in the world? What "notebook" are you talking about?
    3
  3236. So, you refuse to answer a single thing I said? Instead, you think there was this "lost notebook"?
    3
  3237. How? Changing film rolls every few minutes?
    3
  3238. "simulate the lag of travelling to the moon" So, let me get this straight.... Rather than just using the exact same delay system that has been used on every TV station in history to delay broadcasts by a few seconds to allow the emergency guy to hit the "stop" button if someone swears or someone flashes a live camera, they came up with an elaborate scheme to ask Australia to participate in the largest fraud in human history, hoping they'd just say "sure, no problem"? That's how this goes? A simple tape delay of a few seconds using existing technology, nope, we don't want that. Instead, we ask a few thousand more people to join "the deception"?
    3
  3239. "The astro-nots were in earth orbit for the whole mission... only the fillm director and the guys in Australia would know they were faking it." Dewdrop, low orbit is 17,500 mph. The command module would go out of the line of sight over a station in Australia in just a few minutes. Yet, Australia was able to keep the line of sight with the signals to the command module for nearly 12 hours at a time. There were dozens of tracking stations around the world, operated by local governments, not just Australia. And, the same is true of enemy countries that tracked the missions. Do you REALLY believe that only a few people would know that the command module was going in and out of the line of sight at stations around the world? Huh?
    3
  3240. "Moon samples (and Mars) can be collected ON earth. It would be easy to cook up fake rocks with sphericals" Dewdrop, that's not the only way they know the rocks are authentic. Do you really think thousands of geologists cannot tell the difference? OK, prove it. Go make some of these fake rocks, and submit them for testing by leading geologists from a dozen countries. Prove your point. Don't just recite it on YouTube. Make rocks that fool worldwide geologists and demonstrate how "easy" it is.
    3
  3241. "it would be easier to send reflectors to the moon on probes" Oh? And, who will build and launch these secret rockets and secret landers? Moon rockets sit on the launchpad for about a month while being prepared. It takes tens of thousands of people to build one, and about 3,000 people to get one off the ground on launch day. When launched, they are visible and audible for hundreds of miles. So, in your mind, the lizard people somehow managed to get thousands of people to build these extra rockets, build custom landers that are capable of deploying the reflectors, launch them without anybody seeing/hearing them, and nobody has ever said a thing about it?
    3
  3242. "who was president at the time" Dewdrop, Apollo 8 went to the moon in 1968. Nixon took office in 1969.
    3
  3243. "Opinion and hearsay don't prove claims to be incorrect or make for 'facts'." Good gods, man. Do you not own a mirror? Look in the mirror while you say that.
    3
  3244. "probes can be used to relay messages" Hold on just a second. You claimed that Australia was used to relay the messages. Why did we need Australia for this, if your new position is that it was done with probes?
    3
  3245. "It is about a million times easier to fake the landing" How are those fake moon rocks coming along, dewdrop? Got them ready yet to fool the entire planet's geologists, like you claim is so easy?
    3
  3246. "then to actually do it" Not that it's impossible for someone with the literacy of a 2nd grader to get a degree in physics... but... I reject that claim along with the rest.
    3
  3247. The other guys didn't address you the way I did, but, you ignore their challenges/questions also. You were asked how you explain the multiple countries that have photographed the Apollo landing sites (India, USA, China, South Korea), which can see the landers on the surface, exactly where they're supposed to be. Some can even see foot paths and shadows of flags and rover tracks, etc. You refused to address it, the same way you refused to address everything I said. Somehow, I think this has a lot more to do with the fact that your claims fall apart the instant that anybody scrutinizes them, and you don't have the courage to admit you were wrong, than it has to do with a "lack of respect."
    3
  3248. Soner, Dan Severns already answered, but, I'll present this to you a different way: There is a concept called "optical resolution." There's only so much light that you can cram through a lens before the photons actually interfere with each other, and all you can see is a white blob. This is just a property of light, and there's no amount of technology that can ever do anything about it (besides trying to view in a different wavelength outside of the human eye's capability). You can look up the formula for the size lens that you'd need in order to see [whatever] at [whatever] distance, and do the math. In order to see an Apollo lander as just a dot, you'd need a lens about 75 feet in diameter. You would have no idea what it was, it would just be a dot. In order to actually be able to see it in enough resolution/detail to know what it is, it would require a lens about a quarter mile in diameter. Note: the largest optical grade lens ever constructed costed $168 million and has a diameter of 5 feet. Side note: you might want to look up how they got that image of the black hole. It's pretty interesting. No, they didn't use a lens. And, what you see is the computer's representation of it, not an actual image. I'm not saying it's fake. No. It's real. But, it's not a photograph.
    3
  3249. The first landing in the 1970s was Apollo 14. So, they laughed at Apollo 14, but didn't laugh at Apollo 11, 12, 15, 16, or 17? What? I'm sorry your parents are crackpots, but, you can do better. You need to work on defying that old rule that "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree." You need to try to be the apple that gets carried very far away from the tree. Sorry for reality.
    3
  3250.  @mattomon1045  The Artemis astronauts have been named, and are in training.
    3
  3251. Then what? You got a YouTube account and fell for some flat Earth nonsense?
    3
  3252. YOU SAID: "Pure fakery" == Um, no. YOU SAID: "on here and people buy it !" == Yes, all 72 of the world's space agencies have "bought it." Yes, the entire planet's foremost experts all agree. YOU SAID: "If Earth is 4 time bigger than the moon Erath should highlight on the Sky, it should look Enormous and should be MAny Many footage of this" == No, if the Earth is 4 times bigger than the moon, then the Earth would be only 4 times bigger than the moon in the imagery. So, go right ahead, do those calculations. The moon is 0.5 degrees (angular size) in our sky. So, the Earth should be 2 degrees of angular size in the moon's sky, right? Go right ahead, find a photograph or video where that's not the case. Do the math, and demonstrate it. I mean, why are you even on YouTube? Fame and fortune await you, and all you need to do is perform a couple of trigonometric calculations. Why aren't you doing that? YOU SAID: "but not, only one faded picture," == Um, what? There are lots of photos of Earth from the moon. What are you talking about? What "only one" are you referring to? YOU SAID: "all about is the fake astronauts bouncing in cables." == See, this is when you know you're mentally ill. When you start seeing cables that are not there, yeah, it's pretty much time to go on the meds, and start eating your food with a straw. Hallucinations are only the beginning. Pretty soon, you'll start hearing voices, and then the problems keep going downhill from there. Go seek some help.
    3
  3253. Dewdrop, that fake rock never came from NASA. Nobody even says it does (outside of nuts like you), not even the museum that currently has the rock in their possession. And, let's get real here, there are approximately 11,000 moon samples (from grains of dust, to large rocks) brought back by Apollo, and thousands of geologists have examined them, and not one has ever said any of them are petrified wood. And, over 100 nations still have their multiple (Apollo 11 and 17) "good will" samples. If any of them were actually discovered to be petrified wood, don't you think the other hundreds of samples would be examined? No? The entire world didn't check to see if their samples were petrified wood? Really? You believe NASA gave a fake moon rock to a prime minister (note: prime ministers are not royalty) that was elected in the 1940s, 20 years before Apollo went to the moon? Really? Why? This story has more holes in it than the Titanic. But, you just bought it, hook line and sinker? But, you want OTHERS to do research?
    3
  3254. Dewdrop, I'm not the one making up silly claims like pretending people on Earth can see wheel tracks on the moon. YOU are the one making that ridiculous claim.
    3
  3255. No, dewdrop. YOU don't understand it.
    3
  3256. So, you want to see the rovers and other "debris"? To see a rover as around 2-4 pixels would require a lens a quarter mile wide. To see smaller stuff, or to see a rover in better detail than a couple of pixels, now you're talking about a lens multiple miles across. The largest lens ever constructed is 5 feet wide, and costed $168 million to build. I think we're a long way away from the lens you're asking for. And, let's not even get into atmospheric distortion issues. Still going to pretend to understand topics you don't? Did you REALLY think you're the first one to ever think of pointing a telescope at the moon?
    3
  3257. What complete nonsense. Why do you believe a single word you typed? Good gods. YOU SAID: "If man really did land man on the moon, then why 50 years on, we do not have the technology to do it again?" == It depends on what you mean by "have the technology." Of course we can send people there again if a program like that is funded again. We have the technology, if you mean the knowledge. But, we do not "have the technology" in the sense that we have the technology physically sitting around. There are no functional man-rated boosters/landers/CSMs/launchpads, etc. There are no training facilities. Almost all of the contracting companies for Apollo are long gone. There are no buildings or tooling set up to construct any of the components. The list goes on. After the Apollo program ended, what EXACTLY did you expect to happen? Did you think all of those companies/buildings/tooling would just keep operating, despite that the funding got pulled? YOU SAID: "and we don't!" == Of course we don't. Nobody says we do. Again, why would you expect anybody to have the equipment required to go to the moon today? YOU SAID: "When Charles Lindbergh flew from New York to Paris in 1927 it took 33.5 hours. 50 years later you could fly the same route in a concord in a 10th of the time, that is a natural progression in technology." == Good gods, what ARE you talking about? Who cares? Why do you think that's a good example? Lindbergh's flight WAS just a natural progression. Guess what, it didn't take 400,000 people to do it. Guess what, it didn't take 5% of the entire federal budget. Guess what, if he didn't do it, someone else would have done it shortly thereafter. The same cannot be said for moon missions. In today's money equivalent, Apollo costed about $200 billion. And, with that, they were able to send 12 people to the surface of the moon for a few days. That's around $16 billion per person. Nothing in history can compare, not even the great pyramids. Speaking of that, I guess, by your logic, the great pyramids are fake too, right? After all, if mankind doesn't just keep repeating itself immediately after doing something, then it's fake, right? Well, why hasn't mankind built 450 foot tall pyramids for the past 5000 years, therefore the pyramids are a hoax. It should have been a natural progression in technology, right? Why don't we have 10,000 foot tall pyramids by now? Certainly, if they can build 450 foot tall pyramids 5000 years ago, we would expect every single person on the planet to own 10,000 foot tall pyramids by now. YOU SAID: "50 years on from landing on another planet, we lost the technology. Get real." == Yes. Get real. The technology isn't "lost" in the sense that we don't know how. The technology is "lost" only in the sense that the funding got canceled, and everything it took to make it happen 50 years ago is long gone. YOU SAID: "Why are there so many questions that NASA can't or won't answer!" == Do you expect them to hire staff to field questions from know-nothing morons across the planet? What? YOU SAID: "Like going through the Van Allen Belt" == That question has been answered by NASA in great detail. Good gods. What ARE you talking about? There are huge reports you can read from NASA about the Van Allen belts, what the concerns were, what the concerns weren't, what the results were from the probes they sent through the belts, how many rem they expected the astronauts to receive, etc. Why do you think NASA won't answer those questions? You obviously haven't even looked. YOU SAID: "littleown wearing a space suit with no radiation protection" == What ARE you talking about? What kind of radiation? Why do you know-nothing morons think that "radiation" always means the stuff coming out of nuclear explosions or nuclear power plants? Why? Have you ever in your life taken a university particle physics class? Are you even aware of the many many different forms of radiation, and how to protect against them? Hell, LIGHT is radiation. RADIO is radiation. GRAVITY is radiation. Most forms of radiation are easily protected against by a piece of paper!! Other forms don't even need protection. What EXACT form of radiation are you worried about? (Don't bother answering, we all know that you didn't even know there were many forms of radiation until this very minute, and you're so fucking clueless, you thought that space is full of the same type of radiation as you get from nuclear reactors... that's what ALL of you conspiratards think. Not a single one of you knows what you're talking about, and you all regurgitate each others' ignorance.) YOU SAID: "and the battery that ran an airconditioning unit" == Case in point. You're regurgitating the stupidity of other conspiratards just as clueless as you are. WHAT air conditioning, you moron? How would that even work in space? Do you even understand how air conditioners function? Guess what, they don't work in space, dummy. YOU SAID: "that can keep the astronauts cool" == Water is a fine method of keeping astronauts cool. YOU SAID: "from the 200c for days" == What the hell? WHAT 200c are you talking about?? A vacuum doesn't have a temperature, you dummy. YOU SAID: "when we don't have that technology today." == Well, to vent off heat generated in the astronauts' suits, and in the landers, etc., they used porous plate sublimators. Sublimation of water is an excellent method of cooling, if the environment is right for it. Most places in the USA cannot use sublimation effectively. But, some of the areas of the south can, and they DO use it today (and have for decades). They're called (slang) "swamp coolers." Look it up, dummy. YOU SAID: "I have a 5w 2 way radio, I can get only a few km with that but the Apollo missions had a 3w transmitter and could transmit voice and TV 384.400km." == Really? Did you have one of these to receive the signals? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkes_Observatory#/media/File:Parkes_Radio_Telescope_09.jpg Dishes like these around the world were built to receive signals from the moon, or any distant signal beyond. The Soviets had them. The UK had them. Australia had them. The USA had them. The list goes on. See, dummy, the idea is that you can either build yourself a massive/powerful transmitter, or a huge receiver. EITHER method works. Since building huge transmitters wasn't really an option, they elected to build huge receivers. Oh, but I guess, in your mind, nobody on the planet for the past 50 years ever questioned how the radio signals worked, huh? YOU SAID: "So many questions and not many answers." == Hey, asshole, next time you want answers, rather than slandering the names of thousands of people based on your own ignorance, how about LOOKING UP THE ANSWERS, and stop getting all of your "knowledge" (sigh) from idiots who are just as clueless as you are. You are a stain on humanity. And, the fact that you ACTUALLY believe that nobody for the past 50 years has ever thought of these amazingly stupid revelations of yours... shows how little you know.
    3
  3258. You are clearly an Apollo expert, with amazingly sharp insight on the design and operation of these craft. Why do you need to ask any of these questions on YouTube? Why not find the three astronauts in the lunar module and ask them?
    3
  3259. So, the USA pulled out of Vietnam in 1973. So, in order to make up for this shame, they created the Apollo moon program from 1961 through 1972. Oh, you're a real genius.
    3
  3260. Also, sorry, but you don't know the facts. Multiple people called the police, not just one. And, one witness even recorded the event on a cell phone, and showed the video to the police. Sorry, but the police report's version of what happened on the beach greatly differs from the words spoken by the woman attempting to avoid getting arrested for the millionth time.
    3
  3261. Well, without dumping an encyclopedia of evidence into a YouTube comment, the best I can tell you is that the entire world's experts in aerospace engineering and rocket science, in both friendly and enemy countries, do not believe in silly moon conspiracies. You can probably count the number of worldwide aerospace engineers who reject Apollo on one hand. Meanwhile, you need only flip a coin to find a high school dropout who rejects Apollo. The more you know, the less likely you are to believe it's fake.
    3
  3262.  @michaelstillman1171  Odds of winning the lottery are 50/50, right? One possibility is that I win. Another possibility is that I lose. Therefore, with two possible outcomes, the odds are 50/50.
    3
  3263.  @GabrieloTomorrow  I guess sarcasm doesn't work in writing.
    3
  3264. Spare the world your nonsense. You didn't ask how to find the footage, you asked why there is none. And, then you kept doubling down on silliness. 320kg is 705,479lbs? Sorry, dewdrop, you have much bigger concerns than asking ridiculous questions on YouTube.
    3
  3265. Dewdrop, one of my degrees is in mathematics. I can confidently tell you that 320kg isn't 705,479lbs. The fact that you keep repeating the same nonsense just shows how far gone you are. My daughter is about 47 kilograms. By your math, that would make her about 1,036 pounds (larger than a full grown horse).
    3
  3266. Yeah, because high school dropouts are really the best source of information about physics and rocket engineering.
    3
  3267. "Several countries have made the same claim" What in the world are you talking about? What other countries have claimed to put men on the moon?
    3
  3268. "WHY DON'T WE HAVE A PICTURE OF EARTH?" They took HUNDREDS of photos of Earth, dewdrop. Have you not looked through the photo archives?
    3
  3269. She was never prosecuted, because she didn't show up for court (as seemed to be the way she chose to deal with all of her various arrests, given the number of failures to appear in court, and warrants for her arrest). And, the Freedom of Information Act disagrees with your conclusions. And, nobody bullied her into suicide. The arrest video wasn't even seen by anybody while she was alive. She was long dead before it was released to the public.
    3
  3270. "if I wanted to drive a '64 Ford Mustang from California to New York, even though it's 60 years old, and uses outdated technology, I could still get there" This just demonstrates how little you understand about the topic. This is an incorrect analogy for many reasons. The Saturn V rocket, the command module, and the Grumman lander, are NOT Ford Mustangs. To drive a Mustang, it takes one person. To get a Saturn V off the ground, it takes thousands of highly trained personnel. To fly it to the moon takes thousands more. There are no functional command modules. There are no functional landers. There are no functional Saturn V rockets. Everything remaining (there's not much left, almost all of it was used) that it takes to get to the moon was gutted and put into museums. There are no launch facilities capable of getting one off the ground. There are no IBM mainframe guidance computers. There's only one working onboard guidance computer remaining, and they'd need at least two. There are no training facilities. There are no lunar landing simulators (LLTVs/LLRVs). The company that built the command modules doesn't exist any longer. The company that built the landers was absorbed by a larger company. Most of the people who designed and built everything to go to the moon is long dead or retired. So, no, dewdrop, your analogy to a Ford Mustang doesn't work.
    3
  3271. Well, that's all she wrote, then. If there's a video about it on YouTube, this must mean that video is true. I guess that means psychics talk to dead people, Bigfoot is real, and airplanes are spraying poison all over the Earth. Videos on YouTube say so.
    3
  3272.  @maskonfilteroff3145  "Turn it around at the end" - but, deniers have the attention span of a dead chipmunk. They never make it to the end of anything.
    3
  3273. Grumman set it up on the side of the lander. Armstrong moved it to its final spot about 40 feet away.
    3
  3274.  @ezrc9294  So, your complaint is that a mission from 2022 couldn't show live images in 2023?
    3
  3275. Well, the facts don't care about your feelings. Arrest = July 1 2021. She was found dead = March 31, 2022. Arrest video made public = November 24, 2023.
    3
  3276. How stupid are you? Seriously, how stupid? He was asked why they didn't go BACK to the moon. And, he stumbled over his words a bit, and said they "didn't go," and now this is confirmation of a conspiracy? He has said a million times before then that he went to the moon. In that same interview, he said he went to the moon. He has said a million times since then that he went to the moon. And, because an 88 year old man left the word "back" off of a sentence, when the girl had already specified that she was asking about going BACK, so it was already implied in his answer...THAT is your evidence??
    3
  3277. You never went to high school! Never!
    3
  3278. The Russians have lunar maps just as good as ours. So, no, they wouldn't need to ask for coordinates. They know exactly where the Taurus-Littrow valley is. They know exactly where Hadley Rille is. Everything is fully published. So, no, they never asked for coordinates. You are either making that up, or some silly video lied to you, and you blindly believed it.
    3
  3279. There are no telescopes on Earth capable of resolving landers on the moon. The Russians understand physics just fine, and also know this.
    3
  3280. What kind of evidence do you expect and would accept? Sorry, "where is the evidence" is like asking "where is the evidence for WWII?" Like, did you expect people to write encyclopedias of information into a YouTube comment?
    3
  3281. gadotgadot, Do you really expect people to hold your hand to show you how to find the evidence, when you make it 100% clear that you're not really interested in the answers to your own questions? If you really wanted to learn about Apollo, there are many people in the comments sections of the Apollo videos that are very willing to help guide you to the correct resources. But, when you demonstrate that you've already reached your conclusions before asking your questions, and you have determined something to be "fake" before you even know what the facts are, sorry, but all you're entitled to is ridicule. What you're demonstrating is that you know nothing about the evidence (which is why you had to ask for it in the first place), yet, you have already declared that the people who worked on Apollo were criminals.
    3
  3282. "US is struggling with their Artemis project" Yup. It has about 10% of the budget that the Apollo program had.
    3
  3283. They have done nothing with their lives. That's why they feel badly about it, and therefore believing that the most accomplished people on Earth have actually failed just as badly as they have, well, it's appealing to them. It's easier to drag others down to their level, than it is to actually go out and get the education and upwardly mobile career that they lack.
    3
  3284. QUOTE: "The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight. The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months' duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure. A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week. However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable. -- James A. Van Allen" What do you know about the Van Allen belts that James Van Allen didn't know? Please explain.
    3
  3285. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    3
  3286. Wow!!! You saw "documentaries"??!?! Well, that just proves my first statement correct then. With evidence like that, who can dispute you? Your Nobel Prize is in the mail. By the way, I saw a documentary about Bigfoot. That means it's real.
    3
  3287. The solution is simple, dewdrop, just make your own CGI video of this stuff, if you aren't happy with his. What are you waiting for?
    3
  3288.  @nragunlover  I realize this is completely out of context, but, I just couldn't help but get a chuckle out of this segment you wrote: "the Earth is flat! It is no wonder our country is in the shape it is"
    3
  3289. Try to be an apple that doesn't fall close to the tree.
    3
  3290. It was the first landing. The mission was to get there, grab a few rocks, plant a few experiments, and get home. They saved the longer duration stuff for other missions (which, I am guessing, you had no idea about, and thought there was only one mission?).
    3
  3291. Well, I can certainly explain the differences between modern meeting platforms such as Zoom, vs. 1960s radio. But, I'll be honest here. I've explained it a hundred times before to deniers, and they never listen anyway. I've never once seen anybody say, "Oh, that's how the equipment works? Great, I'm glad I now understand." Instead, every single time, with no exceptions, they've either ignored the answers to their questions altogether, or they simply assert that I'm wrong, then change topics to something else.
    3
  3292. Really? Did you just write this? "Hubble has a higher resolution camera capable of resolution of 0.025 arcseconds per pixel." Dewdrop, if that's what you believe, do the math. One arcsecond on the moon is 1.87 km (or 1.162 miles). 0.025 arcseconds would be 0.03 miles. That's 158 feet. What did I say it was? 160 feet? I was off by 2 feet? Dewdrop, there are no Apollo objects on the moon that are 160 feet wide.
    3
  3293. Yeah, the UFOs and aliens were well documented back in the 1300s. And, now, they're all secretive.
    3
  3294. YOU SAID: "we are not a communist country" == Irrelevant. YOU SAID: "there is no law in place that says you have to by law wear one." == Irrelevant. The facility's rules were to wear a mask. You are not allowed to violate the rules of a facility you're visiting, else they can ask you to leave. If you don't leave, you are trespassing. This is very similar in concept to going to a movie theater and yelling during the movie. There's no law stating that you can't yell during a movie. But, if you yell during a movie, the facility can ask you to leave. If you don't leave, you are trespassing. If you are trespassing, they can call the police. If you still don't leave, the police can remove you forcibly, and arrest you. YOU SAID: "This was an outrage man handling her like its a third world country?" == No, in the third world countries, it's the exact opposite. YOU SAID: "Out of line" == Well, thankfully for the rest of society, your ignorant opinions don't matter.
    3
  3295. First of all, it wasn't posted until long after her death. Secondly, what happens when they say "Freedom of Information Act"? Then, what happens to those "charges" you want?
    3
  3296. No. There are a million other things they cannot explain away either.
    3
  3297.  @michaelstillman1171  Besides, they'd never hire Kubrick anyway. Kubrick was a director of artsy movies, famous, rich, and could easily just tell them to fly a kite, and above all else, knew nothing about special effects. Even George Lucas didn't know how to create special effects, and hired special effects artists to do it. Kubrick knew even less, and had special effects artists do all of his stuff too. There'd be NO WAY that anybody would attempt to hire Kubrick for "faking" moon landings. The special effects on the moon in 2001 were absolutely lousy, even for that timeframe. And, Kubrick was far too rich and famous to ever gamble on asking him to betray the USA that way (what if he said "no"?). And, his expertise was in creating artistic movies that were quite removed from reality, the absolute worst choice if they're attempting to create something realistic. And, above all else, as I said, they'd hire a special effects person, not an artsy director.
    3
  3298. Have you read any of those comments? Not a single one of the "skeptics" you're talking about are actually skeptical. Skepticism is a method of thinking, questioning, and analyzing the facts. I consider myself skeptical about just about everything in life. You seem to think "skeptical" = blind rejection. Just look at all of the people who reject Apollo in these comments, who cannot answer questions, who pretend to ask questions, but have no interest in the answers, who have no purpose in anything they write other than just to pester people who know more than they do. Just read a few days of comments, and come back and tell me that any of your ilk are actually "skeptical" (by the real definition of that word), or if they're just plain ignorant.
    3
  3299. No, dewdrop. I'm not assuming anything. I read both of your comment threads. It's 100% clear that you don't know enough about the topic to clam to be skeptical. Part of being skeptical is understanding the topic first. Yet, in your other thread, you made an incredulous comment because you thought it was a photograph, when nobody ever even made the claim that it was a photograph. You don't know what you're talking about. That's not what skepticism is.
    3
  3300. Your Nobel Prize is in the mail... I can feel it.
    3
  3301. "even Russia never attempted to send human to moon" Huh? What ARE you talking about? They tried to launch a moon rocket just weeks before Apollo 11. It blew up, but, yes, they were actively trying. They built multiple lunar landers and test flew them in space. They built 4 N1 moon rockets (all 4 exploded, including the one right before Apollo 11). They sent numerous unmanned probes to the moon to prepare for crewed landings. They built a communications and tracking network for crewed lunar missions. But, it's your position that they weren't trying to send people to the moon? What?
    3
  3302. "more honest" How far gone are you, if you think the Soviets were "more honest"? How far has your mind floated out to sea?
    3
  3303. "all the doubts about moon landing" Dewdrop, the Soviets tracked the Apollo missions to the moon and back, just like dozens of other countries. They sent Luna 15 (unmanned) to be in orbit around the moon at the same time as Apollo 11, tracking all craft. They didn't have any doubts. What ARE you talking about?
    3
  3304. "this country still only country to send a human to earth" Look, we all make silly typing mistakes, me included. I'm sure you meant to type the moon, not Earth. But, in your case, I think you're just so far gone that this wasn't merely a silly mistake. It's a pretty solid indicator of your state of mind. There are lots of 12 step programs to help you. I don't know what your drug of choice is, but, lay off. Seriously. Look what it's doing to you.
    3
  3305. Well, for starters, you're correct. It didn't have the fuel required for that. But, in order to understand it, you could start by actually learning the roles of each of the craft. The landers didn't come back to Earth. So, right out of the gate, you're asking a question that makes no sense. The only exception was on Apollo 13, in which the lander came back to Earth because that mission exploded half way to the moon and they didn't land. But, none of the rest of the landers ever came back to Earth. Now, a question for you: when you know so little about how the equipment worked, such that you weren't even aware that the landers don't come back to Earth, why do you feel you're in a position to hold ANY beliefs about this topic? Do you hold beliefs about the most effective brain surgery techniques? No? Why not? Because you don't know anything about brain surgery, therefore you leave it to the experts to determine the best techniques? So, why isn't it that way for Apollo? You clearly know nothing about the topic, yet, you feel like you should hold an opinion about fuel tanks and the roles of the craft?
    3
  3306. You heard it, huh? Well, obviously that means you should believe it. Nobody has ever lied.
    3
  3307. If you read any of my many comments in this video, you'll see that I am not in favor of this woman with the mile long arrest record, a convicted felon who spent time in prison, later turned stripper (according to her own landlord) who decided to put on a show in front of children at this beach. But, I have lots of pity. I wish this never became a story at all. But, yes, the blame is squarely on her, and nobody else.
    3
  3308. "how come there's no blowback marks on the lunar surface where the lander landed?" See what I mean? You're not checking anything for yourself. You are listening to nonsense told to you by silly videos that are lying, and regurgitating those claims. Nobody who has looked at the photo archive has ever made this claim. The silly videos show you a couple of low resolution photos from very bad angles, and say, "look, no marks." Meanwhile, anybody who looks at high resolution copies from better angles see plenty of blast marks from the rocket engine. Thanks for demonstrating that you've never looked at the photos.
    3
  3309. "4,000 people that worked at nasa would have to all be lying" Sigh. The number is 400,000. And, that's just the USA alone. There were another 50,000 abroad.
    3
  3310. "all those people thought they were working on the real thing" Then why not just go? If everyone built all of the equipment to go to the moon, and everyone thought it would work, why not just go? And, sorry, but you just contradicted yourself. You just got done claiming that they forgot to include a way to lift back off of the moon once it landed. Remember? You said the lander was only a lander. Now you're saying that everyone thought they were making real equipment. How does that jive, in your mind? You think thousands of people thought they were building equipment to go to the moon and back, but forgot to include a rocket engine to lift off of the moon?
    3
  3311. "only a few people would have to know" How many? I'd argue that it would require about 10,000. What's your number, and who are they?
    3
  3312. "All the people in the control center could be getting transmissions, but they would have no idea if it was coming from space or coming from a movie set." Sorry, but that fails in so many ways. First of all, the thousands of people involved with the communications systems would know, because they aimed their dishes AT THE MOON to receive those transmissions. Secondly, if it's on a movie set, there'd be no way to simulate 1/6th gravity in real time. And, I'm just scratching the surface here. There are a million other reasons that this "logic" fails.
    3
  3313. I feel that WWII was fake. Can anybody explain why it's real in a YouTube comment? I'm too lazy to read a few books.
    3
  3314. It's quite amazing to watch these deniers confuse the 1960s with the 1860s.
    3
  3315. And, you believe that, why? Because she said so, as she was trying to cry her way out of her millionth arrest? Thanks, but I'll stick with the statements given by the multiple innocent bystanders, and the video that one of them took of the incident itself, before I'll believe the words of a convicted felon who has been arrested a million times and spent a term in a Florida prison. But, in the meantime, I do have this bridge for sale, interested?
    3
  3316. YOU SAID: "Sorry to be the one to contradict the statement, but it was not watching man go to the moon and back on a regular basis that took the publics attention away from the events, what really put pay to this was the same problem as today. " == The public lost interest in spending that much money on manned moon missions. Whether it was because of a "regular basis" or not, is irrelevant. YOU SAID: "An organization that was started with the idea of being transparent very quickly became the organization of secrecy, andvdid so in a big way. I still recall a statement made by the first three men on their return at a press conference where the biggest lie ever was shown round the world. Attending this conference" == So, in your mind, holding tons and tons of press conferences is being "an organization of secrecy"?? If it was now a secret organization, wouldn't they just stop all press conferences altogether? YOU SAID: "was a man well know across the world, Sir Patrick Moore who asked them how much brighter were the stars when viewed from space." == Wrong. He asked a very confusing question that seemed to contradict itself. He asked "when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?" He had just asked a different question about the lunar surface, then immediately switched to asking about "looking up at the sky" (I guess from the lunar surface), but then asked about seeing stars in the solar corona (which wasn't visible from the lunar surface, and could only be seen from lunar orbit). This question doesn't make much sense, but, that's what Patrick Moore asked. YOU SAID: "All three men stopped and looked at each other as if to say who was going to lie first," == Um, no, you idiot. They didn't know who was going to answer, probably because they were taking turns answering the various questions, and, because the question itself didn't make a lot of sense. YOU SAID: "then one by one said they could not remember seeing the stars" == Yes, so what? They could only see the solar corona for a very short period of time, a matter of seconds, less than a minute. They could only see the glare from the solar corona for about 2-3 minutes. And, their job was to photograph the solar corona during that timeframe, which is what they did. Armstrong stated that he couldn't recall if he saw stars during that brief timeframe that he was photographing the solar corona. YOU SAID: "let alone how bright they were." == Wrong. Moore didn't ask about brightness in the first place. You are making this stuff up as you go along. YOU SAID: "This turned out to be a full on lie as was pointed out on very many occasions," == How is it a "lie" to simply not recall whether they saw stars for the 2-3 minutes during the time they were photographing the solar corona?? They were busy photographing the solar corona. They saw stars just fine about 30 seconds after seeing the solar corona, and said so in interviews, on the mission audio recordings, in their books, etc. They just didn't remember if they could see stars in the glare from the solar corona. You think it's a "lie" because you have a very low IQ, and you do not know what the solar corona is, nor when the astronauts could/couldn't see it. So, your low IQ mind simply doesn't process that part of the question, and literally, all you digested was "could you see stars?" You literally didn't even absorb the other half of the question "in the solar corona in spite of the glare." Your low IQ mind simply didn't process the second half of the question. A high IQ mind would realize that he/she doesn't really know what the solar corona is, nor when the astronauts could/couldn't see it, and would realize that this was a knowledge gap, and would seek to get the details before coming to judgement. But, low IQ people don't do that. Low IQ people just don't process the information. And, in your case, your low IQ mind even inserted something that wasn't even there (asking about brightness, which wasn't even asked). Your low IQ mind has substituted "in the solar corona's glare" with "brightness" because that's what your low IQ mind perceived that phrase to mean. Your mind deleted the words that it didn't understand, and inserted words that weren't even there. YOU SAID: "like one man being asked how you navigate in space." == I don't know what you're talking about. What does this have to do with a "secret organization" or "seeing stars in the solar corona"?? I don't even understand this topic-shift you just performed. YOU SAID: "The question still remains to this day, WHY?" == Why?? Why don't you understand spoken words?? Go back to 3rd grade, start from there, and then let us all know when you catch up with the rest of the planet.
    3
  3317. "Gus never thought somebody (CIA) would actually plant a device that would initiate a fire. They knew ol Gus would not go along with their charade so they had him 'neutralized' which is a term the CIA uses on occasion." Oh, let me see if I get this straight. In order to prevent Grissom from revealing that the craft was defective, they planted a mechanism in the craft to make it defective? In order to preserve the false notion that the craft was safe, they made the craft unsafe and blamed their deaths on the craft? Just how far gone are you?
    3
  3318.  @Jimmy-tq8dk  Yet, nobody in history who believes what you believe has ever been able to come up with a coherent argument that stands up to scrutiny. Doesn't that tell you anything about where the REAL fairy tale is? (Hint: it's the fairy tale about warehouse workers, yoga instructors, and taxi cab drivers, who understand aerospace engineering better than the entire world's aerospace engineers, and yet the best argument they can muster is, "look at their faces during the press conference." Yes, that's the real fairy tale.)
    3
  3319. Ed Fendell.
    3
  3320. Once they went to the moon, there can never again be a problem with a spacecraft. Just like once antilock brakes were invented, there was never another car crash. Once the jet engine was invented, there was never another problem with airplanes. Once penicillin was discovered, nobody died ever again.
    3
  3321. And, you believe her claim about being alone, why? Because that's what she said when trying to avoid her millionth arrest?
    3
  3322. You father is correct. For Apollo 11, everyone knew the names of the astronauts, and it got massive press. They could barely leave their homes without being mobbed by the press and public. By the end, almost nobody knew who was on the next flight. And, none of the major networks bothered to broadcast the missions. They'd say a few words on the news or in the morning shows, and that was about it.
    3
  3323. He doesn't understand why you'd ask "actor's what." He truly doesn't know anything about how to read and write.
    3
  3324. Literally every sentence you wrote was wrong. And, you obviously ignore all input. You'll ignore this also (as it's already been pointed out, yet you ignored it). You asked: "how did they survive the freezing nights" -- See this? You asked this silly question. The answer is that they were never there at night. You know absolutely nothing.
    3
  3325. Dewdrop, YOU asked how they survived at night. I answered you. They weren't there at night. You don't get to just change topics. Are you going to admit you were wrong, or not?
    3
  3326. No, dewdrop. The fact is that they were never there at night. You asked how the astronauts survived a nighttime. The answer is by not being there at night. Stop evading.
    3
  3327. Is that all you're capable of doing? Change topics?
    3
  3328. It's not even possible to have a dialog with someone who obviously cannot stay on topic. You opened by talking about the surface temperatures. You were wrong. I replied to correct you. Since then, all you've done is talk about other things.
    3
  3329. "Assuming you are right. I admit it's possible." I suppose that this is about as close to admitting you're wrong that we will ever get. You first insisted it was 160 degrees (C), then later you changed it to 117 degrees (C). Your own story contradicts itself. So, I don't even know how you can even remotely think you're correct. Most people would just outright admit they made a mistake. But, if this is as close as we're ever going to come to you admitting you made a mistake, fine. "You stick to some of the knowledge you've read and others." Yeah, when multiple countries make the measurements and all come to the same numbers, I think that's about as reliable as we're going to get. "the temperature is close to 120 degrees. This is a lot for finding an astronaut on the moon." Are you not reading a single thing I've written? They landed IN THE EARLY LUNAR MORNING. It was nowhere near 120 (C) when they landed. It wouldn't get to that temperature until 170 hours later!!! Why can't you understand this? How many times must it be explained to you? You later complained about 80 (C). I told you that astronauts didn't see that temperature either, and I asked you to explain what you meant by "grades" with respect to sun angles. You refuse to answer. It is very obvious at this point that you do not want answers. You AVOID answers. But, if you're even reading this, get this through your skull: The astronauts landed EARLY IN THE LUNAR MORNING. A lunar day is 708 hours. They never stayed on the surface until a lunar noon. Not even close to one. All missions left the lunar surface 90 hours before getting to the temperatures you're complaining about!!! Good grief. Why do you fail to understand this? What is so difficult here? "The moon has no Van Allen belts." Congratulations on the first thing you've said that has been correct. So what? Why does this matter for surface temperatures? "I just leave my statement that there was no man on the moon." The basis for your belief is WRONG. You believe what you believe because you think the surface temperatures were too high, right? You keep quoting surface temperatures that the astronauts never experienced because they left the moon long before ever getting to those temperatures. When your information is wrong, your conclusions are wrong.
    3
  3330. So, when all else fails, and you've been shown to be wrong about your original position (lunar surface temperatures), you just change topics (yet again). We have come back to your original strategy, which is to continuously change topics until nobody can stand you any longer. Yeah, we're well past the point of no return here. The doctor has lost the patient. And, you will never understand anything, because you have come to your conclusions first, and gathered facts second. You then reject all facts that refute your original conclusion. And, you're so far gone that you think people are paid to talk to you on YouTube. There is no hope here.
    3
  3331. Did he also give you a Rolex watch that he got from a curbside watch vendor wearing a large trench coat?
    3
  3332. I really should know better than to try to interface with a drug addict... but... whatever... they landed on the moon SIX times, dummy. Not seven. Good grief.
    3
  3333. Are there McDonald's restaurants at the bottom of the ocean? No? That must mean that mankind never went to the bottom of the ocean, right? That's your criteria, right?
    3
  3334. Hundreds of such photos. "Apollo stellar photography."
    3
  3335. Instead of what? The laughable conspiracy videos you've been watching, as inspired by the guy living in a trailer with 30 cats?
    3
  3336. Sorry, dewdrop, I base my opinions on EVIDENCE. Clearly, that doesn't even enter your mind.
    3
  3337. Is there a shed at the bottom of the ocean? Why not? Certainly, after 22 dives down there starting in the 1960s, we should have a colony down there by now, right? Dewdrop, history doesn't care what YOU expect to happen, because you don't have any understanding of the topic. EVIDENCE dictates what's true.
    3
  3338. "apollo clips showef rubber tyres" No, dewdrop. There is not a single Apollo clip from the moon that shows rubber tires. The only rover with rubber tires was the Earth training version, because wire mesh wheels do not work very well in Earth's gravity.
    3
  3339. "that was conveniently left out" More proof positive that you people just watch conspiracy videos and nothing else. The conspiracy videos tell you that there is no such footage, and you just blindly believe it. Meanwhile, ya know, the sane people actually go look at the videos you insist don't exist.
    3
  3340. Mostly stealing cars, drugs and alcohol, failures to appear, and other thefts. Her landlord said her career was a "dancer" at the club (yeah, that kind), and neighbors say she made extra money "entertaining" a parade of paying men in her apartment. But, I didn't find any arrests for those things.
    3
  3341. She also did a felony term in a Florida prison in 2018.
    3
  3342. Have you tried watching the mission videos?
    3
  3343. "If it was true, we would be buying tickets to moon as a normal routine." Huh? Um, no. Sorry, going to the moon is never going to be within the reach of an everyday person. This isn't like an airliner, where you can keep on making it cheaper and cheaper to fly across the country. I would attempt to explain thermodynamics of rocketry to the moon vs. airline travel, but, sorry, you'll never understand it. "Come on, it's been over 6 decades since the first trip" And, this is exactly why I know you'll never understand thermodynamics. If you are not capable of doing simple math, and realizing it's 5 decades, not 6 decades, yeah, if 2023 - 1972 is beyond your capability, yeah, there's absolutely no hope of you ever understanding why rockets to the moon will never be within reach of the common person.
    3
  3344.  @stusue9733  Yeah, but he means Bill Kaysing... the crackiest crackpot ever.
    3
  3345. You still outright refuse to understand optical resolution, eh Dave?
    3
  3346. A base? Dewdrop, the Saturn V was the only rocket in history that could successfully carry the kind of payload you're talking about to the moon. They launched 13 of them. And, the biggest payload they were able to take to the moon was a 400 pound rover, and a couple hundred pounds of various equipment/experiments. How much would a base weigh? A couple of million pounds for a small one? How many launches would that take to carry everything up there and bring enough manpower to build it all? 3,000 launches? What do you think? They burned about 5% of the entire federal budget to launch 13 Saturn V rockets and building spacecraft that could operate for a couple of weeks each. Now you want thousands of launches and equipment and environmental systems that can last indefinitely? What?
    3
  3347. "There is so much more evidence of a faked landing that is not addressed in this." Um, ok, this is only about an hour long. They cannot address everything that crack-meets-pot YouTubers come up with. But, rest assured, the "more evidence" you're talking about falls apart under the slightest scrutinty.
    3
  3348. "where’s the craft at so we can study it?" In the museums. But, how do you think it works? You think they just invite dewdrops on the internet to come tear apart the 9 spacecraft that went to the moon? Do they let dewdrops on the internet tear apart the Spirit of St. Louis (first solo plane to fly the Atlantic)? Do they let dewdrops on the internet tear apart the Bell X-1 (first supersonic plane)? Are you honestly sitting there, expecting the country to allow you to rip apart the Apollo craft? On top of that, you don't know anything about aerospace engineering. What would you expect to be able to find during this "study" of yours?
    3
  3349.  @Tim22222  But, he has his Google set for "crackpot." He's never going to find correct stuff.
    3
  3350. Yeah, those armed rioting "victims" that would have killed Rittenhouse if he didn't defend himself... yeah... you're a real hero.
    3
  3351. The real victim, who defended himself with it.
    3
  3352. Let me get this straight, you know THAT little about Apollo, such as the fact that you were unaware about how the camera worked... but you think you know enough about Apollo to say that the entire world's physicists and rocket scientists are all wrong??? Do I understand you correctly? You know NOTHING, simultaneously to claiming to know more than every expert on Earth?? Um, what?
    3
  3353. Huh? Was anybody ever under the impression that this ISN'T CGI?
    3
  3354. Yes. All of the 6 descent stages are still on the moon. Only the ascent stages lifted off of the surface. His depiction is correct. Your understanding is wrong.
    3
  3355. Oh goodie, another denier who asks a question, but doesn't wait for the answer before coming to his conclusion. How honest. Dewdrop, if you don't know something as simple as how funding works in our society, why in the world would you believe you know enough about the topic to reject it? And, why should the veracity of the Apollo program rely on what future generations do or don't do?
    3
  3356. So, at 70, you've thrown in the towel on whatever sanity you had left, and you've decided to buy into a bunch of gibberish you learned on YouTube. Sorry, it's probably too late for you at this point. If you don't understand science and engineering by now, you simply never will. Don't worry, it'll only be a few more years before you'll be watching Wheel of Fortune, and you won't care much about silly conspiracies that you don't even come close to understanding.
    3
  3357. Most of the moon rocks are in a facility within the space center in Texas. It's an active facility with 40 hours per week of people working on the rocks, studying, etc. Geologists and geology students from around the world are permitted to examine the rocks, and occasionally even cut them and do chemical testing on them (but, obviously, with a limited supply, this is not as frequent as just viewing them). There's also a smaller facility in New Mexico considered as a "backup site" for moon rocks, in the event that some sort of catastrophic event happens to the site in Texas. It's far less active. As a side note: I think that's the facility that the guy robbed by stealing an entire safe full of rocks at night (ripped the safe out of the wall), so he could bring home moon rocks to have sex with his girlfriend "on the moon." Can't imagine she found it very comfortable, but, whatever. He went to prison for it... I forget if he's out now. Why haven't we been back? Do you want the short answer or the long answer? The short answer is because there have only been two programs funded by congress to put people on the moon. The first was Apollo, funded by congress in 1961. The second was/is Artemis, funded by congress in 2019. Beyond that, you'd need the long answer to explain why congress hasn't chosen to fund more programs.
    3
  3358. Yes, anyone with half a brain... indeed.
    3
  3359. Conclusion first, question second, dismiss answers before anybody could give them. Bravo.
    3
  3360. "THERE IS SO MANY SIMPLE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS" Yeah, like asking who taught you to read and write, and why your schools ever let you graduate the 2nd grade.
    3
  3361. "WHERES THE FOOTAGE OF THE ROVER BEING DEPLOYED" On Apollo 11? Dewdrop, there was no rover on Apollo 11. If you want to view videos about the rovers, go watch videos of missions that had the rovers.
    3
  3362. "Private defense and healthcare companies are currently operating with profit margins of up to 1000%." Um, ok, but, when people quote something like that, it should light up a red flag immediately before you blindly swallow it. Like, first of all, all of the biggest defense contractors aren't private. They're publicly traded companies. There are small ones that are private, sure, but, they rarely are part of the entire cost of defense in a measurable way. They're usually subcontractors. So, if General Dynamics (public company) needs to order a 35 cent plastic hose from a private subcontractor, and the subcontractor charges a profit of $3.50, some reporter writes an article that says "private defense contractor makes profit margin of 1000%." Then, silly dewdrops think this means that a $3.3 million dollar tank should have only costed $300,000. I mean, don't get me wrong, we spend too much money on stuff with high margins. But, let's face reality here, if you can't sniff out sensationalist gibberish when you read numbers like "1000% profit margin" and can't spot little clues in the wording like "private companies," then really, the problem is you.
    3
  3363. "Full stop" = I have no ability or knowledge beyond a single sentence, so I'm running for the hills before anybody challenges me.
    3
  3364. Congratulations!!! You're the millionth person to ask the same ridiculous question in this video's comments. Your prize is in the mail.
    3
  3365. Oooooo, spooky "everything is a conspiracy" believer. Watch out, dewdrop, you're a few videos away from thinking the Earth is flat next.
    3
  3366. The Smithsonian has all of them. But, according to their website, they are not currently on display. (Their exhibits rotate in and out, so, the answer might be different next year, who knows?) They do have photos of one of the solar wind collectors on their website from when it was displayed, not sure which one, though.
    3
  3367. Do you not understand the difference between optical zoom and digital zoom? Sorry, but, optically, they're "zoomed" as much as possible. If you want more resolution, you need a bigger lens. Digital zoom won't help.
    3
  3368. Who did? And how?
    3
  3369. Here you go, dewdrop. Arizona State University Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera. Go to ASU site with that heading. Images. Featured sites. Apollo landing sites. Select which mission you want to look at. Select flip book. Scroll left and right to view multiple camera angles. If you view all 6 landing sites, you'll see approximately 120 total images in just a few minutes. Then come back here and tell me that LRO doesn't see any Apollo remains.
    3
  3370. Dozens of countries (including enemies) tracked the Apollo missions with radar and radio telescopes. The Apollo craft all had transponders on them, and dozens of countries could see those signals coming from the moon. Spain used its telescope (largest in the world) to take photographs of the Apollo 13 debris field and the SIVB fuel dumps around the moon. Australia, Spain, and USA could all receive Apollo TV signals by aiming their dishes at the moon. Backyard amateurs could receive Apollo audio broadcasts by aiming their dishes and Yagi antennae at the moon. South Korea, China, India, and USA have each sent orbital satellites to the moon that have take photos of the Apollo landers on the surface. Care to explain how those things are "easily faked"?
    3
  3371. "and how come there was no dust on the lander" How come you blindly believe that without checking for yourself? A conspiracy video tells you that there was no dust, so, you believe there was no dust. Have you looked at the photos for yourself? Or, do you just swallow absolutely anything anybody tells you?
    3
  3372. Huh? I believe you and I will be supporting him for at least the next 25 years.
    3
  3373. Saying "we didn't have the technology" means nothing. Can you elaborate on the exact technology they lacked? And, can you explain why none of the thousands of engineers who designed and built that technology ever realized that the stuff wouldn't do what they built it to do?
    3
  3374. Why don't you own a solid gold toilet seat? Don't say it's too expensive. That's not a good excuse. If you were able to buy a house, this means you had the money and could have gotten a solid gold toilet seat instead. So, why don't you have a solid gold toilet seat?
    3
  3375. The police probably released the video because they're required to do so if they receive a legal FOIA request. But, it wasn't released until 1.5 years after the woman was dead.
    3
  3376. Brandy, you're not even literate. But, what EXACTLY do you think the officers did? What are they to be held accountable for?
    3
  3377. The arrogance is amazing here. Do you REALLY believe that's how rockets work? Why do you suppose that not a single aerospace engineer or rocket scientist on the planet has ever noticed that the lunar module couldn't take off, because (as you think) it would require a Saturn V size rocket to do it? No? The entire planet's engineers for the past 50 years never noticed this massive "flaw" you've noticed?
    3
  3378. Because congress pulled the funding, and didn't fund more moon missions until Artemis was funded in 2019.
    3
  3379. First of all, no, it doesn't. Stop blindly believing everything a conspiracy video tells you. Secondly, if you take just about any pronounceable 3 or 4 letter word, you will find languages, past or present, that the word means something. So what? And, third, it was actually the NACA in 1915, and later changed its name to NASA. Are you implying that they were planning ahead from 1915 to "fake" a half century later, and decided to name the organization after an ancient Hebrew word (which, again, you still got wrong anyway)?
    3
  3380. "How come with not atsmophere on the moon" You know, seriously, not bashing here, you will be far better served in life if you spend your time learning to read and write. Spending your time on these concepts you don't even come close to understanding... probably isn't going to get you anywhere. Literacy, however, is a good foundation to learn new things, and a key to an upwardly mobile career.
    3
  3381. "All NASA pictures they release are doctored. Still not a real picture of earth from a satellite" Dewdrop, if you don't trust NASA, you can go watch a LIVE FEED of Earth from Japan's Himawari-8 satellite right now. And, who told you that there are no real photos of Earth? Was it a denier video? Again, why would you believe it?
    3
  3382. Freedom of Information Act.
    3
  3383. "why we don't have a satellite orbiting moon and taking pictures" Yes, India, USA, and China have lunar orbiters that do that. "like the ones orbiting earth and zooming in/out" I suspect you don't know the difference between optical zoom and digital zoom. I also suspect that you're not aware that most of the "close" images you find of Earth are not actually from satellites, but are from low flying planes. There aren't any satellites around Earth (or the moon) that have the kind of resolution I suspect you're thinking.
    3
  3384. "Just too many WHY's for one single truth" Asking "why" means you don't understand it. "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake" doesn't mean anything. "Why all the records are from one single side/area, NOT one single 360 live" I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you under the false impression that Apollo never did any 360 camera views?
    3
  3385. "we can still have 1, 2 minutes, few seconds where we can shooooooooot clear images in 2024, just saying" Yes, the satellites around the moon take very clear pictures, but, they use digital zoom to show the landers. Again, I do not think you understand optical zoom vs. digital zoom. And, I don't think you understand the size of the camera that would be required to get photos that you seem to want.
    3
  3386. Eagle-Picher made the batteries, and you can order them today. Only about $600,000 each, quite a bargain. And, sorry, if you think the craft had air conditioning, you don't know enough about the topic to have an opinion. They used porous plate sublimators, which are far more efficient. They work great in space, and even work in some certain atmospheric conditions.
    3
  3387. Oh, and your 2 cent opinion is overpriced.
    3
  3388. Given your writing ability is about that of a 2nd grader, I'm betting that your reading/listening ability is about the same. Nobody at NASA ever said any such thing, but, you just think that's what they said. It's probably some junk you saw in a conspiracy video that is intentionally taking things out of context.
    3
  3389. And, meanwhile, the world's aerospace engineers think the opposite as your wheelchair 5 year olds.
    3
  3390. Amazing. What is it about YouTube comments that brings out people who are actually very proud to be wrong all the time? Why is that? Is there some sort of thrill you get by posting gibberish? 1) No, there is no requirement to view videos before talking to her. Not only isn't that a legal requirement, but, it's simply impractical anyway. It would probably take a minimum of 15-20 minutes to get someone to take him to an office, sign into the computer system tied to the videos, and then search for the exact footage in question... probably even longer, but, bare minimum of 15 minutes. By then, she's long gone. So, don't be silly. She was heading to the parking lot when he stopped her. She was going to be gone in 2 minutes, not 20. 2) Being accused doesn't make it fact: yeah, fine, who cares? If you're suspected of a crime, you have to follow the laws, and comply at least on a minimal level. You must provide your ID, you must not obstruct/obfuscate, and must not resist. You don't get to flip out and go completely bananas just because you're asked for a receipt. Good grief. 3) Smart for not showing a receipt? Pffttt. Yeah, where did that get her? 4) Sorry, she lost her lawsuit badly, and rightfully so. It was dismissed, and she got $0.00, and she's been barred from ever filing it again. Her three attorneys didn't appeal, because they know there's no hope for this frivolous case.
    3
  3391. As much as I hate to promote Mark Gray, since he and I didn't exactly get along a couple decades ago (he ripped me off on a couple items I bought from him), he did make a very nice set of "Spacecraft Films" videos (his company's name) that has a fairly comprehensive collection of all of the Apollo mission footage (not 100%, but a lot). I think you can find them on Amazon, or maybe he still has a website. Another option is to send away to NASA for copies of the raw footage. But, warning: I've done that, and it takes a long time, and costs a lot of money in copying fees. But, I did that 20-30 years ago, so maybe things have changed. Short of that, if you just like 1-2 hour documentary format films, each mission has an official documentary that NASA commissioned from a 3rd party. Like, the one for Apollo 16 is called "Apollo 16: Nothing So Hidden." And, the one for Apollo 17 is called "Apollo 17: On the Shoulders of Giants." There are a million more documentaries like those, but, that series is the NASA "official" version (if there is any such thing as an official version). All of the videos have been mandated as public domain, so, you're pretty much just selecting the editors you like the best at that point. Or, like I said, if you want the actual complete mission videos, you can get them from NASA, or from "Spacecraft Films." The 1-2 hour documentaries are probably on YouTube. But, you'll pay something for "Spacecraft Films" versions (far more complete, almost to the point of boredom, if you can believe that). Or, you can go all out and order raw footage direct from NASA. I paid a few thousand dollars for that, though. So, beware of whatever the costs are now (probably a lot more, I would guess).
    3
  3392. "The ionizing radiation present on the moon, with no atmospheric protection, can travel at near the speed of light" Yes, and that same ionizing radiation on Earth also travels near light speed. So what? "In other words, you’d be dead" Yet, you cannot provide the math? I mean, dewdrop, just standing on a beach exposes you to near light speed ionizing radiation contained from microscopic amounts of radioactive material in sand. Yet, people go to beaches every day around the world. The thing is, radiation isn't like bullets. You don't get hit and then instantly suffer. Radiation like that is more of a cumulative effect. Trace amounts won't kill you. And, yes, the dose is a bit higher on the moon, but, nothing that causes much harm over the period of any Apollo mission. It's like a hot tub. 105 degree water is fatal if you stay in it too long. Stay for 15 minutes, no problem. Stay for 15 days, and you won't live through it. It's the same spirit for radiation on the moon. A few weeks won't harm you. A few years might. You don't agree? Publish. Show the world your calculations in the journals on radiobiology. What are you waiting for?
    3
  3393. "Shooting Stanley Kubrick" (2015) by Hollywood director T. Patrick Murray, with Tom Mayk playing Kubrick, was made to mock YOU. It's beyond imagination that so many people are so entrenched in their fantasies that somehow a guy who doesn't even look like Kubrick has convinced you people to make these ridiculous comments. And, amazingly, you don't feel a thing. I'd be so embarrassed to fall for something so trivial that I'd go hide in a hole the rest of my life. Not you people, though. You wear it like a badge of honor.
    3
  3394. She died 1.5 years before the video was ever released. You didn't leave her any messages beforehand.
    3
  3395. Yet, post after post after post, video after video after video, you keep posting more and more gibberish, and refuse to address any replies. Are you on drugs? What is your reason for posting a million messages on YouTube if you have absolutely no interest in the replies?
    3
  3396. How would it advance if congress pulled the plug? Who would pay for these advancements you want?
    3
  3397. And, this mess was your edited version? How massively illiterate was your original version?
    3
  3398. "why dust wasn’t moved." Huh? Plenty of dust was moved. You can see it in the videos. You can go to the photo archive and see that the dust layer shows a lot of evidence of having been blown by rocket engines. Let me guess: a conspiracy video showed you some photos with bad lighting from low angles, making it difficult to see the evidence of dust being blown, and you never looked at the photo archive for yourself to see the photos that actually show better angles, right?
    3
  3399. YOU SAID: "NASA admits they cannot get a human past the Van Allen radiation belts" == What exactly do you mean? Sure, right now, NASA cannot put humans past the Van Allen belts, because the booster required to do so was retired (Saturn V). But, that doesn't mean that it can't be done with the right equipment. But, you seem to be saying that NASA has basically admitted that Apollo is fake, if you think NASA is saying that it can't be done AT ALL. Does that even make sense to you? Do you REALLY believe that NASA has somehow "confessed" to Apollo being fake? Or, hmmmm, are you watching conspiracy videos that take a couple of sentences out of context? YOU SAID: "all Moon landings are made on Earth Area 51, biggest rort in the history of man." == And, you would believe this, why? Because a conspiracy video told you so?
    3
  3400. Dewdrop, there were 9 manned moon missions. They sent 24 people to the moon, 3 of whom went twice. How many more times before you'd believe it?
    3
  3401. Well, civilians don't usually wear cameras, so, the concern is a bit warranted. But, by and large, depending on your own state's details, you're allowed to defend yourself.
    3
  3402. So, that's how this goes? You spew a bunch of denial nonsense. You disappear for a few years. Then, you come back to spew the same denial nonsense? Are you going to ignore all responses again, just like before?
    3
  3403. So, the government lies about the moon having gravity? Huh? You think a 2000 mile wide rock in space isn't going to have gravity? Because the government lies and says it does? Dewdrop, if you think the moon doesn't have gravity, how do you explain the tides on Earth? Why, every time the moon is overhead, do the tides rise? And, every time the moon drops over the horizon, the tides fall? You don't think gravity is what's causing it?
    3
  3404. Spying on her? She wandered up and down the public beach, looking for a spot to do this, and plopped right down in front of people (including children). I mean, you do know her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club, right? You do know she served a prison term and had an arrest record a mile long, right? If she wasn't making "public beach" content, I'd eat my hat.
    3
  3405. "Yet the radiation alone would kill you." Really? Can you name a radiobiologist who says that? Can you name an aerospace engineer who says that? Or, did a lawnmower repairman make a YouTube video that says it, and you just blindly believed it? Where's your scientific paper on the matter?
    3
  3406. "The sun gives of more radiation than any bomb made on earth." Yes, dewdrop. The sun is a million times larger than the Earth. Of course it does. But, it's 93 million miles away. Also, thanks for demonstrating that you have absolutely no understanding of what "radiation" means. You obviously think "radiation" and "radioactivity" are the same thing. Your understanding of science is equal to your understanding of how to read and write.
    3
  3407.  @michaelstillman1171  They wouldn't even meet the educational requirements that Ham and Enos had to make.
    3
  3408. Wrong. He sets the dates based on the timing for when he needs a stock price boost.
    3
  3409. Dewdrop, temperature doesn't work the same in a vacuum as it does in an atmosphere. Furthermore, the moon's surface temperature was below zero when they landed. It heated up as time went on, but, you undoubtedly want to pretend that the lunar surface magically heats up instantly. It doesn't. The surface was never all that hot when the astronauts were there. Furthermore, the minute you say "air conditioner" is the minute you divulge that you don't have the slightest clue about how any of this equipment worked.
    3
  3410. "When the Russians became the first to go into space, the Americans felt compelled to respond." Thanks for the history lesson. But, I think everyone knows that already. "While they did send missions into space, there are doubts about the authenticity of the moon landing." Interestingly, the Soviets never doubted the moon landings. Why do you suppose that is? "During Apollo 11's landing, the broadcast was briefly interrupted" Not exactly. The audio was never stopped completely. But, yes, they had a bunch of interference resulting in choppy voice, and data dropping out for a few seconds, and had a difficult time getting the S-band dish to line up without causing a bunch of radio feedback from a flame deflector shield. So what? I mean, the most amazing part about this comment is that deniers are always complaining that things went too perfectly, therefore Apollo was fake. Then, when something like this happens, and communications didn't work perfectly, they complain that it should have gone perfectly, and since it wasn't perfect, therefore Apollo was fake. It's impossible to satisfy you people. If it's too perfect, it's fake. If it's not perfect enough, it's fake. There's literally no situation that you people would NOT reject. You were going to reject what happened regardless of whether communications worked perfectly or not. "when connection resumed, they already landed on the moon" Wrong. They got the connection back several minutes before landing. "leading to speculation that a studio was used to fake the events after that." Huh? So, your position is that the lander successfully got within a few miles of the moon, but, then communications dropped out, and they switched over to a studio? What?
    3
  3411. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    3
  3412. Well, thanks for proving that you got your "knowledge" from conspiracy videos. Yes, dewdrop, some of the landing pads had dust in them. Conspiracy videos tell you that none of the landing pads did. But, anybody who has actually looked for themselves at the photo archives would know that's wrong. Clearly, you have blindly swallowed any nonsense conspiracy videos tell you.
    3
  3413.  @aok4418  I have asked you a hundred times, and you have always refused to answer. If you believe that the entirety of the aerospace engineering community and the radiobiologists are wrong about the levels of radiation experienced in a round trip mission to the moon are wrong, and you're right, why are you on YouTube comments at all? Why are you not publishing in any recognized science journals on cosmology and radiobiology? Why have you refused to answer? Sorry, but, quoting from articles you don't understand isn't science. As I pointed out before, you keep quoting from articles written about long term space missions (i.e. missions lasting years, not days, or missions to Mars, not the moon). Why would you believe that quoting from those kinds of articles is relevant to going to the moon? You have always refused to answer these things, while you continue to badger people to answer your silly questions about a topic you don't understand. You think neutrons are rays (they're not, they are particles, but you know nothing about radiation). You can't tell the difference between a mission to the moon and a mission to Mars. All of these topics you're bringing up are perfectly valid topics to write journal articles about. Yet, here you are, in YouTube comments, pretending to be a hero to expose that the entire world's physicists, radiobiologists, and aerospace engineers, can't understand what you can. Put your money where your mouth is. Publish in science journals. Why won't you answer? Don't sit there and badger people, claiming that they don't answer you. 99% of the time, they DO answer you, but, you refuse to read the answers. So, put up or shut up. Publish in journals. That's where the science gets done, not on a YouTube comment. You seem to think YouTube comments is the correct forum, only because you want to pretend to know things you don't.
    3
  3414. All I'm saying is that the thousands of people who dedicated a decade of their lives to making Apollo happen are actually either (a) felons who bilked billions out of multiple nations, who would get a lifetime in prison for what I'm accusing them of, or (b) too incompetent at their jobs to realize that they forgot to put enough fuel into the craft, forgot to make a radio transmitter that works, forgot to make the rover fit into the lander, etc. That's right, I'm accusing the 450,000 people who worked on Apollo of either being active criminals, or being so amazingly bad at their jobs that they didn't recognize that they had been duped, and failed to realize it for decades. But, don't ridicule me for it. I've come here to slander everyone who worked on Apollo, not to be slandered myself.
    3
  3415. Another "damned if you do, damned if you don't" assertion by a conspiratard. So, you're basically saying that the lunar surface shouldn't curve at the rate that it curves, and that mountains shouldn't extend above the curvature. So, you're saying the picture is fake because mountains jut out over the curvature. Yet, you know damned well that if the photos showed no moon curvature with distant mountains jutting out above the curve, you'd be saying the picture was fake for NOT having that exact effect. Either way, you were going to label the picture as "fake" in your mind.
    3
  3416. Well, this was a real incident. But, yes, you're correct, this version of the story is absolutely completely fake. She was a career criminal with a mile long record, including a felony term served in a Florida prison about 6 years ago. This carefully crafted set of clips paints the picture that she's an innocent soccer mom. But, her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the local club (yeah, that kind), and neighbors said she did "private extras" for paying men in her apartment. If she wasn't making "public beach" content for her fans, I'll eat my hat.
    3
  3417. Step 1: Pretend to ask questions. Step 2: Declare in advance that you already came to your conclusion before getting answers to your fake questions. Step 3: Ignore the answers. Step 4: Run for the hills.
    3
  3418. Well, you're missing some of the facts that Inside Edition conveniently left out. First of all, she hadn't been a realtor for about a decade. She left that career and husband and kids behind about a decade ago to live a life of drugs and crime. She did a felony prison term for stealing cars, and had a mile long arrest record for other stuff. Her actual profession at the time of this arrest was being a stripper (this is according to her own landlord). Secondly, it's doubtful anybody made fun of her. This arrest video wasn't released until 1.5 years after she was dead. And, anybody who knew her already knew of her profession and arrest record. Doubtful that one more arrest would matter that much to them. Third, to answer your question about why she didn't go to prison again, she didn't show up at court. She went through a period of trying to evade the police by changing her name (for many different crimes/warrants). They basically lost track of her for a while. And, she simply never showed up to court for this arrest (as well as other arrests). Hope this helps.
    3
  3419. "The British could of kept fighting" Of they? Of the French of aided the colonies of of. And, it's of very of hard to of control of a country thousands of miles of away that of resists of. Of did they of relinquish India of because of the same of reason of of? How of much money of did they make of from them of? Of what of history of books are of you reading of?
    3
  3420. Huh? Why? What do you believe they did wrong?
    3
  3421. Dewdrop, it HAS come down!!! Are you NEVER going to absorb the fact that everything you say is wrong? Apollo costed, adjusting for inflation, about $300 billion in hard costs, and another approximate $150 billion from international support and soft costs. Artemis has a budget of about $35 billion. But, fear not, this is a government operation, so, it will balloon out of control sooner or later. And, they're projecting it'll hit $90 billion. Regardless, that's still far less than Apollo. So, you got your wish. It costs less now. So, you're changing your mind, right? Or, do you just ask questions with the intent of ignoring the answers (as usual)?
    3
  3422. "the money excuse doesn’t explain why no other country has done it" Huh? Can you name another country with a space budget anywhere near the USA's? And, what projects would they sacrifice in order to put the 13th person on the moon? Also, which other countries have enough aerospace engineers to pull it off? And, why is it always "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake" with you? Why don't you actually address the EVIDENCE? I've presented evidence to you a dozen times, and each and every time, you refuse to address any of it, and run for the hills to start a new thread instead. Why?
    3
  3423. It's called the Freedom of Information Act. And, sorry, but the video wasn't released until 1.5 years after she was dead. But, hey, it's wonderful to see so many great legal experts on YouTube comments.
    3
  3424. "i wanna see one astronaut put a foot on the moon" Pffttt. And, you're pretending that it will matter to you? You'll just call that fake also. Tell me I'm wrong...?
    3
  3425.  @mynamemylastname7179  I haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about, and neither do you.
    3
  3426.  @occhamite  And Danuri.
    3
  3427. I'm pretty sure he means the rover. He's hoping for the million dollar prize for being the millionth person to ask the same question.
    3
  3428. Multiple people called about this incident. One witness even caught it on video, and showed it to the police. The arrest report describes it as a very loud and public act in view of multiple people including children. Go up and talk to her? Is that what you'd do if it was a man at a playground? Just go up and talk to him while he's cranking away? C'mon.
    3
  3429. Is that all you're capable of? Copying and pasting? Can't muster up a few brain cells to come up with anything valid to say?
    3
  3430. And, everyone lived in mud huts, and hadn't yet discovered how to make fire.
    3
  3431. Well, the 8.8 million pounds of thrust rocket, SLS, is slated to roll out to the launch pad this week down in Florida (barring further delays). And, then it'll launch a couple of months later. The Saturn V "only" had 7.5 million pounds of thrust.
    3
  3432. "How with the latest supercomputer" Huh? I mean, sure, the latest computers are better than the 1960s/1970s computers, but, so what? Newer computers don't make rockets go to the moon any easier than the computers at the time. I mean, do you ask how they made phone calls in the 1960s without today's computers? Do you ask how the 1940s era B29 Superfortress was able to use its analog computer targeting system without today's modern digital computers? What EXACTLY do you think a modern computer would do to make rockets go to the moon, that the 1960s computers couldn't do? "and SpaceX" Huh? The flailing rocket manufacturer run by a crackpot? You think SpaceX is going to make people go back to the moon FASTER than if they had chosen any of the other contenders? Boeing? Blue? Lockheed? Northrop Grumman? Frankly, I was absolutely amazed (not in a good way) that SpaceX was selected against such far superior options. I mean, if you're interested in conspiracies, you're chasing down the wrong hole with Apollo. The real conspiracy is how such a train wreck of a rocket company was able to win the contract over real rocket companies. "we cannot repeat this landing of the moon." Well, it remains to be seen about whether SpaceX is capable of making their Starship and Superheavy actually work. But, you do realize that, yes, Artemis is funded and proceeding, right? "cheap sweatshop make in HK raincoat to protect them" What in the world are you even talking about? Do you even know? "Even shocking is that raincoat suits that protect them could not even be reproduced today." Huh? Why not? But, who would want to? The Apollo missions only lasted on the lunar surface for a maximum of 74 hours, only about 22 of which were when wearing the suits outside the craft. So, that's basically all the suits were designed for: 22 hours of real use. Now, they want Artemis to be on the lunar surface for about a month, in the polar region, with entirely different mission parameters. Yes, a new suit is required. That doesn't mean that the A7L didn't work. What in the world are you talking about?
    3
  3433. "What trip's me out" ... is that you're an adult who reads and writes like a 2nd grader? "Trip's"? Trip's what? Do you even know how to form words and phrases? "is that we have microscopes that can see everything &and I mean everything" Is this a joke? You are trying to use a microscope to see the moon? Not a telescope? You know SO little about the topic that you confuse microscopes (to see things that are very close and very small) with telescopes (to see things very large and very distant)? You think those are the same things? Please tell me you're joking. "except a close up of the moons surface." Optical resolution. It's a property of light. You cannot see things from this distance when the photons themselves don't even exist at that resolution from this distance. Hence, you need large lenses. The bigger the lens, the more you can resolve. Look up optical resolution, and do the math yourself to calculate the size lens you'd need. Hint: if you don't know how to do basic math, the answer is that you'd need a lens about 75 feet in diameter to even see a lander on the moon as just a single dot, or a lens a quarter mile in diameter if you want to be able to actually make out what it is. "Why is it that we cannot see the area's" The area's what? "that we landed on the moon all those years ago??" Well, you can either go build a quarter mile wide lens, or you can send lunar satellites. Thus far, countries have chosen to send lunar satellites, because, ya know, the largest lens ever constructed is 5 feet in diameter, and costed $168 million to build. We're a long way away from quarter mile lenses. So, yeah, they send lunar satellites. "We have satellite's" You have satellite's what? "that can see close UPS of the Earth's surface with no problem" Nope. Sorry that Google maps mislabels its images as "satellite," but, nope, those are images from low flying planes. You have to read the FAQ on how they got those images. They fly at about 1,200 feet, to be more exact. There are no satellites with the capability you are thinking they have.
    3
  3434. You don't have the slightest understanding of the topic. First of all, the Saturn V first stage alone had 203,000 gallons of kerosene, and 318,000 gallons of liquid oxygen. Secondly, rocketry doesn't work the way you think it does. You wouldn't need half of the amount to come back. Earth's gravity pulls them back home. Earth's gravity fights against them on the way to the moon.
    3
  3435. "One of the things you learn in that course is how to become an expert in nearly anything in 60 minutes or less" This is the very definition of the Dunning-Kruger effect, which you have been demonstrating throughout this thread. I don't think I've ever seen anybody spell it out so clearly, though. Congratulations.
    3
  3436. "They destroyed telemetry data" Complete nonsense. You have no idea what you're talking about. "they cant show a clean images of what they left with today tech" Oh, so now the images aren't "clean enough" for you? You know there are LRO images showing the landers, rover tracks, foot paths, etc. But, they're not "clean enough" for you? What difference does that make? The resolution is definitely good enough to see those things. But, let me guess, the resolution you require in order to believe it is always going to be just a little bit better than we actually have. And, when they get that resolution in the future, you're going to demand to see serial numbers on the equipment. And, then, when they get those, you'll keep on shifting the goalposts until the cows come home. Right? Why isn't the resolution good enough for you? "even the mountain was waiving in some videos" Again, just like your other thread, you cannot even spell "waving" correctly. Why in the world should anybody believe a single word from you? No, dewdrop, there are no waving mountains.
    3
  3437. Huh? The woman who decided to put on a show in front of multiple people including children is/was responsible for her own actions. You don't get to shift blame upon the victims.
    3
  3438. I'll believe you graduated high school when I believe in vegan lions.
    3
  3439. That photo was published a million times over, within a week or two of Apollo 17 returning home to get the film developed. There was no CGI back then.
    3
  3440.  @critthought2866  Except the 125 photos from the Carruthers camera.
    3
  3441. You clearly have no understanding of what Apollo was. This was the biggest and most expensive program in human history, short of permanent programs like the military or social security (stuff like that). If you adjust for inflation, Apollo costed $16 billion PER PERSON who walked on the moon in hard costs, and another approximate $7 billion in soft costs and international support (again, PER PERSON). Not even the Egyptian pyramids come close to Apollo in sheer size/scale of the human effort involved. Congress didn't fund Apollo to just keep on going, you know. Congress funded it for the purpose of beating the Soviets during the cold war, in an effort to show so much technological dominance that it would avert an actual nuclear war. Once the main objectives were met, congress wanted to stop the program immediately. If they could have stopped Apollo after the first landing, they would have. But, there were financial obligations to the contractors, and they were going to end up paying the contractors through Apollo 17 anyway, whether those missions flew or not, so, yeah, they figured they may as well go ahead and fly through 17. But, yeah, once the main objectives were met, yeah, they canceled the program. If they want to spend that kind of money on something, they want it to benefit millions of people, not just for 12 guys to walk on the moon. Technology has nothing to do with it. I mean, ok, it's a little bit easier now than it was in the 1960s. Today's Artemis' budget is about $35 billion, and is anticipated to balloon to about $90-$100 billion by the time it's done. That's for hard costs, and doesn't include soft costs and international support. But, compare that to Apollo's $200 billion (adjusted for inflation). It's roughly half cost now. But, that's because the R&D was already done, Orion was already developed, SLS runs on 40 year old shuttle rockets, etc. If they had to start from scratch, like Apollo did, it would probably be even more expensive today than it was back in the 1960s. Explain why there were 50 years between when Magellan first sailed around the world and the next time anybody did it. As for other countries, well, the Soviets tried, but, they never got their N1 to work correctly. There are a lot of reasons for that, which I'd be happy to dive into if I actually believed that you care about the answers to your own questions. But, sorry, this isn't my first rodeo. Virtually nobody who asks the questions you're asking ever really wants the answers. So, I won't waste my time. But, Musk? Virgin? Huh? Do you think they have the kind of money it would take to go to the moon? Musk's net worth is a house of cards based upon an incredibly inflated stock value that he could never liquidate enough of, without completely bankrupting the company. Virgin? Seriously? Do you think Branson has that kind of money either?
    3
  3442.  @MM-yb2fy  Nothing you said makes any sense whatsoever. By your rules, nobody could ever be stopped for shoplifting.
    3
  3443. Well, they retired the Saturn V rocket, so, there's that. Plus, the dynamic you're talking about is a result of the after-effects of the nuclear non-proliferation agreement with Russia. Were you really interested in the answer about how/why? Or, were you just pretending to ask questions, but don't really want the answers?
    3
  3444.  @moemuggy4971  This guy cannot be real. He is pretending to think that the Apollo audio was transmitted back to Earth as sound (slow), instead of radio (light speed). Nobody can be that dumb. And, if he is, there's no rescuing him.
    3
  3445. .tiodi na er'uoY
    3
  3446.  @stusue9733  Well, nobody seemed to get my Earthshine = NASCAR on the moon reference. So, I had to step it down a few notches. Though, maybe not enough?
    3
  3447. Huh? All Apollo missions happened during the daytime on the moon. In particular, the lunar morning for each of the landing sites. What in the world are you talking about when you say "void of any light without any flashlights"?
    3
  3448. 1. Moon is 250k miles away. No living creature has been more than 400miles from earth since Correct. 2. We didn't send an animal first? that was totally out of protocal Huh? They didn't send animals on Gemini. They didn't send animals on the early Apollo missions. What "protocol" are you referring to? Can you provide a document that outlines this protocol? Then, can you explain why they only sent two animals (Mercury), then abandoned this protocol from that point forward (not just moon landings)? And, sorry, but animals couldn't fly the landers (which required human interaction to make them work correctly). 3. The moon rock we gave to the King of Belgium was shown to be fake after testing in the 1990's I think Netherlands. And, so what? Are you under the impression that NASA gave them that rock? Sorry, no, NASA had nothing to do with it. You don't know what you're talking about on multiple levels. The authentic samples given to the Dutch are still safe and sound in their science museum. The art museum did accept a fake rock as a donation, but, why should you blame NASA for that? 4. NASA 100% lied in the 1980's about The Star Wars Defense System in an effort to bankrupt the Soviet Union Sorry, I'm not getting into these ridiculous tangents. You obviously know even less about this topic than you do about Apollo. 5. 50yrs later we never went back? i find it unreal there isn't some benefit to putting a base there or something Dewdrop, the Apollo program consumed about 4.5% of the entire federal budget in the 1960s in hard costs, and approximately 2-3% more in soft costs and international support. That's a huge amount of money. The program lasted from 1961 to 1972 for moon missions, and through 1975 for the Earth orbit Apollo applications missions. And, for that, they managed to launch 13 Saturn V rockets. Thirteen. That's it. Now, you want a base there? For what purpose? And, how? Who's going to pay for it? A base would require at least a few million pounds of materials to build facilities, grow crops, shelter, power generation, plumbing, supplies, etc. The biggest thing Apollo was able to bring to the surface was a 400 pound rover. But, now you want millions of pounds of stuff to build a base? How many Saturn V missions would you suppose that would take? 1,000? 2,000? How would you manage that? You people keep stating that you want a base up there. But, I fail to see how we could ever afford it, nor would I understand why. Explain?
    3
  3449. Which radiation are you referring to?
    3
  3450. Is there any nonsense you wouldn't swallow? Can conspiracy videos tell you ANYTHING AT ALL that you won't just blindly accept?
    3
  3451. Wrong. You are taking things completely out of context (intentionally).
    3
  3452. No, dummy. The composite "Blue Marble" shot (made with Photoshop) isn't the same as this "Blue Marble" shot (taken from Apollo 17). You don't understand this topic at all. They aren't "admitting" something. They were explaining that they needed to make that newer "Blue Marble" picture with Photoshop because they wanted a color-accurate picture. And, since greens are mostly lost through the atmosphere, they needed to Photoshop the greens back into it. Don't you notice that there is almost no green in the Apollo 17 photo? Don't you notice that continents are the wrong color in almost every space photo of Earth, with almost no green? Yes, they had to Photoshop the greens back into the picture, and they told you exactly that. How is that an "admission" of something? What ARE you talking about? NASA told you they Photoshopped the second "Blue Marble" picture, therefore, in your brain, this means that they Photoshopped ALL photos????
    3
  3453.  @banebane3882  YOU SAID: "i don't agree with you because I watched on site NASA video where they explained how they made it." == Yes, all of you morons refer to the same video. Yet, none of you idiots pay attention to it. He tells you they wanted a color-correct photo. And, he tells you that he needed to put the lost greens back into the image. He also mentioned that the particular satellite images that he used didn't quite cover all of the surface area, so he had to patch some stuff in. He never claimed that it was the same image as taken on Apollo 17. YOU SAID: "It's not question the photoshop. Sure they use it. There is one and only satelite which circle over the poles and all others are following rotation of earth." == And, this makes the Apollo 17 Blue Marble photo fake, why??? YOU SAID: "Look the colors impossible blue true atmosphere." == I don't know what you're talking about, and neither do you. YOU SAID: "Believe what you want I am too lazy to search for links. Never believe only one source the information even mainstream." == Oh, goodie, I'm getting advice from a crackpot idiot who doesn't understand the topic, and confesses to being "too lazy." Yeah, when I want advice from a lazy crackpot idiot, you'll be the first I call, ok? YOU SAID: "I didn't watch hole thing I stopped after they announced blue marble is taken from the space." == So, you didn't watch the whole video, but, you think you know enough about the topic to declare that the Blue Marble photo is fake??? What??? YOU SAID: "Over the ocean of you zoom you will find multiple cloud formations same pattern. Copy paste. Easy to check" == WHERE?!??!?!? What ARE you talking about?? I mean, if you just mean swirling patterns, yes, of course, that happens a lot, so you'll see it a lot. But, if you're talking about identical pixel-by-pixel copies, then you'll have to demonstrate this. You don't get to just go on YouTube and "declare" it. Good grief. What a moron.
    3
  3454.  @stusue9733  Keywords = "of the moonwalk" I wasn't talking about the descent/landing. I was talking about the 1 FPS video of the moonwalk itself.
    3
  3455. stusue: It's a matter of perspective. If the goal was to put a person into space, and that's the "finish line" (for that particular goal), then it wouldn't matter if the person orbited or not. Also, it's a matter of perspective about the "rules" of the game. And, Gagarin didn't technically make it a full orbit. Almost, but, not quite a full 360 degrees around the Earth. And, the Soviets lied about Gagarin's flight for around 10 years before they finally admitted that it "didn't count" according to the "rules" of the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (the widely accepted "rules" of spaceflight at the time). By those rules, Shepard's flight was the first successful one, because Gagarin's flight violated the "rules." Ultimately, nobody (including the Soviets and the USA... and me for that matter) cared about the rules set by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale. The Soviets admitted 10 years later that Gagarin bailed out of the craft (which was against the rules). The USA never tried to, therefore, claim that Shepard was first, and just agreed that Gagarin was first into space whether the rules were violated or not. But, in the bigger scheme of things, I tend to agree with AM, Gagarin was first, and Shepard was 23 days later. I say this because the goal at the time wasn't to orbit, but, just to place a man into space and get back alive. Had the goal been to orbit first, then the USA would never have even put the time and money into flying a Redstone that couldn't even make it to orbit. It would be like entering a race to fly an airplane across the USA in a plane that only had a 200 mile range. It makes no sense that the race was to orbit, and the USA only entered the race with a Redstone that couldn't orbit. And, like I said, I really don't care that Gagarin ejected out of his spacecraft, regardless of the fact that it was "against the rules." I think the Soviets should have just said from day-1 that Gagarin ejected, and they don't care what the "rules" say. But, nope, they lied instead. Anyway, it's all a matter of perspective... that was the entire point of this message.
    3
  3456.  @stusue9733  Yes, I know, but, technically, Gagarin didn't make it a full orbit. So, did that count? I mean, don't get me wrong, I get the idea you were putting forth. You're trying to demonstrate that people who want to deny the moon landings can use whatever metric they want in order to exaggerate the Soviets' lead in the space race. But, I'm just saying that every one of those metrics is subjective to perspective.
    3
  3457. Dewdrop, it's been understood since Newton that if gravity is different, there will be a multiplier to adjust the time/speed that something would arc in whatever gravity. The moon's multiplier is 2.5x Earth's gravity. However, that only applies to vertical movements. Go watch ALL of the Apollo videos at 2.5x speed, not just the simplistic movements you see in the cherry picked clips from the crackpot videos you watch. You will see how comical it would be to believe that they "faked" it simply by changing the film speed. The horizontal movements don't match the vertical movements.
    3
  3458. TinxTin17, um, I'm pretty sure TraumaER was just being funny.
    2
  3459. You're correct to be suspicious. And, you're correct about some of the potential problems. But, the problems actually go far further than you even illustrated... starting with the fact that there's no such thing as a "Thorium laser" or even any mechanism to make one. The conmen are just using buzzwords to dupe idiot investors. And, even if such a laser existed (which it doesn't), just like having dangerous nuclear material in the public's hands, any laser that can generate enough heat to power a car would also be powerful enough to knock planes out of the sky, cook holes through buildings, topple bridges, etc. Would you really want those lasers in the public's hands? And, if you look up the CEO of this conjob "Laser Power Systems" - you can see that his prior con with his scamster buddies was to sell investments in his medical technology which he promised to "cure ALL disease" and "regrow lost limbs" (yes, literally, that was what he was selling). They bilked at least $6.5 million out of gullible investors, and they are now being sued by the SEC (you can see this on the sec.gov website). The scamsters now say they can shield the nuclear reactor with paper-thin aluminum. Man, I really wish we could make them eat their own words, stick them in a nuclear powered car for a day, using only paper-thin aluminum to shield it. By the end of the day, they won't need any power source at all, because they'd be glowing themselves. The Young Turks, as usual, are just dumbasses who never investigate their stories before they air them. And, this time, as a result, they've unknowingly become marketers for a known conman and his buddies. I wonder how many millions of dollars people will invest this time, before the SEC shuts them down again. I also wish that media could be made to pay for their irresponsible journalism/editorials. But, in this country, there's almost never a consequence for shilling for conmen. Bravo Young Turk idiots!!
    2
  3460. ***** Google the phrase "How many sharks are killed every year by humans?" They confirm 100 million, but think the number is closer to 275 million. Sorry for rounding up to 300 million. But, I also specified the 100 million number.
    2
  3461. The amount of people willing to swallow the one-sided story before all of the evidence is available is stunning. Absolutely stunning. Now, I'm not saying that I reject the woman's story. But, there are two sides, and this video only presents one side. I will say this, however: her story doesn't quite add up. Even a bad cop isn't going to start shooting for no reason, especially in front of a small child. This would have to be the worst cop on the planet to just start shooting. And, it just doesn't make sense to me that a cop would tell someone to get his ID and then shoot him when he goes to get it. I think there's a lot more to this story, and I'd rather see both sides before coming to conclusions... which isn't what most people in these comments do... seems that most people want to hang the cop before he even tells his version.
    2
  3462. NegativeNanase As far as I know, Laser Power Systems isn't being sued (not yet at least, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's going to be, since it's a scam).  The SEC litigation is/was against Stevens' (and his friends') old Helyxzion and Telomolecular companies (front companies operated by Charles Stevens and his scamster friends, for their prior medical scam that they shut down).  Frankly, I haven't kept up on it in years though.  They dumped the medical scam when the SEC shut them down, and now they've moved on to this Thorium car scam.
    2
  3463. Evan Bell YOU SAID: "The thing with idiots is that if you ignore them, they think they've won.." -- I've often had the same mindset. If I had a dollar for every time I've been dragged into arguments with morons... well, yeah.  It's easier for me to advise others not to do it, than for me to take my own advice.  But, anyway, the problem is... the idiots ALWAYS think they've won. -- Edit: also, there's a certain degree of idiocy that is purely a waste of time. At least if you're correcting an idiot who simply refuses to accept science, ok, maybe someone else will read what you write, and get something out of it. But, for comments like those from Ghouse, yeah, not worth ANYONE's time.
    2
  3464. Almost every time you see claims to put miracle energy sources into CARS, it's just an investment scam. If this concept was viable, it would be endorsed by physicists, and it would be engineered for city-level power production (not just in a stupid car). But, no. We don't have that. We have sciency-sounding gibberish made to fool the illiterate masses, not endorsed by any scientist, not peer reviewed, and put into a cool looking prop car to make the scam look legit. Shame on these Young Turk idiots for giving this scam more attention. Did they lift a finger to actually research the gibberish claims? Or, did they just believe a fancy sounding advertisement? Can I sell these Young Turks some oceanfront property in Montana if I use the word "Thorium" in the ad? They even confessed that they didn't even know what Thorium was before seeing this ad, and already they're on-board, without a lick of actual education on the topic... and they're blaming the "establishment" for not exploring this? They only heard about the word "Thorium" right before making this clip, and already they think there's been some sort of "big business" conspiracy? Sad. Very sad. And, people actually believe it. Truly sad.
    2
  3465. The bigger ones, like the great whites? I don't think so.
    2
  3466. Dizz Man Is that a joke? You don't think it's illegal to resist arrest? You don't think it's illegal to fail to comply with lawful orders from a police officer? What? Are you insane, or stupid, or just pretending (causing trouble)?
    2
  3467. Is this a joke? Are you trying to be funny?
    2
  3468. YOU SAID: "Did Noah have giant construction cranes?" == No, he had magical help. YOU SAID: "Do you think he wrapped the ark in Tyvek?" == No, he had magic to seal it. YOU SAID: "Are those cinder blocks in one shot?" == Yes, what's your point? YOU SAID: "How did the animals sort them selves back to there home lands from Mount Ararat?" == Magic. YOU SAID: "The Kangaroos hooped to Australia?" == Yes, there was a magical land bridge that magically disappeared. YOU SAID: "How do you go from a "few of each kind" to billions of species with out evolution?" == That's just "microevolution" (which is ok). See, you only need a male and female of the "beetle kind" 4000 years ago to make the hundreds of thousands of current different beetle species we have today. Just do the math yourself. They only need to form a new beetle micro-evolution species an average of every once every 2-3 days since the flood. And, before you ask why they don't still form new sub-species that fast like in a lab or something, the answer is that magic stopped the micro-evolution from going that fast once we started watching for that stuff. God doesn't like to be measured, so when people are watching, micro-evolution doesn't happen every 2-3 days. But, when people aren't watching, no problem, beetles pop out new sub-species every few days. YOU SAID: "Why is there no flood record in the geology?" == There are fossils of ancient fishes on top of mountains, so there. And, don't give me any of your "geological uplift" nonsense. Everyone knows that all mountains have been the exact same since the beginning of time, and uplift doesn't happen. YOU SAID: "How did the people of the Americas or Asia survive the flood?" == The bible says they didn't survive it, therefore they didn't survive it. YOU SAID: "Why didn't they record it?" == Because they all died in the flood, including the ones that lived through it. YOU SAID: "The whole Noah's story is plagiarized from the epic of the Epic of Gilgamesh." == No, you have it backward. The bible was the first book ever written. YOU SAID: "How do you call a being who would drown his own children for misbehaving worthy of worship?" == Because the psychopathic god of the Old Testament is counteracted by Gentle Jesus, who allows us to ignore what the psychopathic Yahweh did.
    2
  3469. If they actually ate the whole shark, maybe then there'd be some sort of justification (at least more justification than there is now). But, no. They kill the entire shark just to eat the fins.
    2
  3470. ***** Pffttt. What ARE you talking about? How is arguing about Fox News related to the scam in this video?? Why do you think that bringing up a different slanted news channel going to be a "counter-argument" to THIS slanted news channel?? Just because you can name other examples of slanted idiocy doesn't mean that it legitimizes these Young Turk idiots. The idiot Young Turks are promoting an obvious scam, spewing scientific nonsense that has zero merit in reality, and is run by known scamsters who are being sued by their investors and the SEC for their prior medical scam where they bilked $6.5++ million out of investors, lied about the scientific backing, made impossible claims, and ran off with the investment money. Do you think that, because, Fox News is also a silly biased news channel, suddenly the incompetent Young Turks are legitimized, or that this claptrap they're promoting in this video is suddenly legitimate???
    2
  3471. mrchrispy13 Spare me your psychotic nonsense. So, when the Young Turk morons shill for scamsters, what do you propose? Say nothing?
    2
  3472. Do you actually BELIEVE he's happier in prison?? Why? Because that's the line he's spoon-feeding the press?
    2
  3473. +Gisae == Um, what?  First you said "I don't think he ever meant to hit the bike." Then you said "he did hit someone intentionally."  Um, if he hit him intentionally, then he meant to hit the bike. Do you even know you're contradicting yourself?
    2
  3474. Well, that's basically how the really successful scam artists operate. Think about it. A scam artist that never delivers anything, ever, will have a very short time before people will just stop following. But, a scam artist that delivers sometimes... and develops a cult following... can keep on saying/doing anything under the sun, even with a remarkably low overall track record. Even if riddled with 90%+ failure rate, people will still just say to look at the successes. As for your comment that people shouldn't criticize unless they themselves are doing the same thing, get real here. By that logic, people can't criticize a bad movie unless they directed movies themselves... people can't criticize bad banking practices unless they have run banks... etc. This is just silly. Sure, you can name a few "successes," nobody ever said otherwise. But, c'mon, exploding nuclear bombs over Mars' poles will transform the atmosphere?? Nonsense. Where is Musk getting that garbage? Hyperloop? Ridiculous. Solar City?? He narrowly avoided getting thrown in prison for that one, but, still ended up being named responsible for billions on that. And, what? A couple of days later, after being told by the court that he has to pay those people between $3 billion and $9 billion for his fraud, he sells off $6 billion in stock... and then blames it on taxes?? What?? Who ever had to pay taxes on stocks that haven't even been sold? What IS he talking about? Most settlements get split right down the middle, right? Is it coincidental that Musk's "taxes" happened to be right down the middle of the delta between $3 billion and $9 billion that he owes those people for his Solar City scam? Oh, but, I cannot comment, because I've never been sued for billions of dollars. Only people who have been sued for billions of dollars can comment, right?
    2
  3475. What equipment would you use to see "close-up"? We already have orbital photos from miles above, from LRO, China, and India. But, yeah, it's not good enough to resolve small items. So what? It's not good enough for you? It's good enough to clearly see the landers, foot paths, rover tracks, etc. If you're not convinced by that, I seriously doubt that you'd be convinced by "closer" photos (you'd just call those fake also). But, ok, I won't pre-judge. Explain what equipment you expect them to use to take the photos you're requesting.
    2
  3476. 1, not 2.
    2
  3477. Dewdrop, the government has absolutely no trouble raising taxes, or just borrowing or printing money. Don't make this needlessly complicated.
    2
  3478. First secure the area and make sure there aren't more threats coming. Then CPR. Not that it was going to make any difference. There's no way he was going to survive that chest hit.
    2
  3479. You might consider getting your eyes checked for color blindness.
    2
  3480. Sandro 4872: YOU SAID: " I am sure if we invested all that effort and money on our planet instead of showing off who has the biggest d**k, today this world would be a much better place ." == First of all, there is no need to believe that one precludes the other. Ours is not an economy based on the supply of bread and water. Ours is an economy that is quite dynamic. Investment in NASA, even if you don't like the fruits of that investment, still results in fueling the economy, producing jobs, advancing sciences, etc. And, if the velocity of the dollar is high (as it is with investment in NASA), then it doesn't actually block any investment in the concepts you're talking about. Stop thinking one dimensionally about how money works. Your understanding of economic systems appears to be no better than that of a 3rd grader's. == Secondly, the "biggest d**k" showcase did its job. That's EXACTLY what Apollo was. Yeah, they got some science out of it. But, yes, mostly, it was a "biggest d**k" display. And, why was it that? Because of the cold war. You seem to forget how close to actual war we were with the Soviets. People were building bomb shelters in their yards. You'd go to elementary school, and they'd train you how to duck and cover in the event of being bombed. The concerns were quite real. So, yes, Apollo and the race to the moon became the forefront of the cold war. It was a display of technological dominance. It was a message to the Soviets that we will beat them in whatever we put our minds to beating them at. It was a message to the Soviets that they shouldn't mess with us. Yes, "d**k waving" indeed. And, guess what, it worked. Many people believe that Apollo helped to prevent the cold war from turning into an all-out nuclear war with the Soviets. It's impossible to turn back time to find out what would happen if Apollo never took place. But, at that time, that's what Apollo was. It was a "d**k waving" contest instead of an actual war. YOU SAID: "if the money and effort went into research of how we could live in a better world we would be in a much better position ." == You'd have an awfully difficult time living in a "better world" in a "much better position" if the ground was still hot after being lit up by nuclear bombing 50 years ago. I mean, how many years was Bikini uninhabitable? 50 years or so, right? (I'd have to look it up.) When were people finally able to go back to Bikini after bombing the living daylights out of it? So, while you're here whining about making a better world, guess what, Apollo DID make it a better world, by making sure we can still walk on the ground today, rather than waiting a few more years for the nuclear radiation to die down to inhabitable levels. You don't know how good you have it.
    2
  3481.  @Sandro-ww3hc  Wait, what?? The Soviet Union doesn't even exist any longer, that's how badly it lost the cold war. But, you think the USA lost the cold war??? Which country still exists? Which country was completely broken apart into pieces? Wow, you take stupidity to new heights.
    2
  3482.  @Sandro-ww3hc  I'm sorry you're too stupid to function properly. You should work on that.
    2
  3483. After that? Well, if I was her, I'd probably show up at court and negotiate it down to a minor infraction with community service and agree to go to counseling. This woman, however, chose not to appear in court at all (which seemed to be how she handled most of her mile long list of arrests). As for asking her to stop and let her go, I'm afraid you do not understand the difference between an infraction and a crime. Your blame is misplaced, due to complete and total ignorance.
    2
  3484. @NPC She was trespassing because she was only welcome there if she was wearing a mask. If she doesn't wear one, the facility did not welcome her to stay, and wants her to leave. If you come to my house, and I welcome you, you aren't trespassing. If you come to my house, refuse to follow my house rules to take your shoes off at the door (or whatever), and I want you to leave, and you won't leave, then I have the right to call the police and tell them you're trespassing. Same goes here. The rules of the facility were to wear a mask, or the woman was not welcome there, and she refused to leave. That's trespassing.
    2
  3485. "Non pressurised spacesuits?" They were pressurized to about 3.5 PSI.
    2
  3486. "Fatal radiation" Which radiation are you talking about? Everyone on the planet is exposed to radiation every second of their lives. Can you name the specific type of radiation you're worried about, and the quantity? Can you explain why no radiobiologist on the planet agrees with you? Did you just watch a video made by a taxi cab driver pretending to be a radiation expert, and just went along?
    2
  3487. Yeah, let's blame the victims. Multiple people called the police. The witnesses said that she intentionally chose to plop down in front of other people. One recorded it, and showed the video to the police. It was a loud and public act in view of multiple people including children. Oh, but wait, you believe she was alone and being discreet, right? After all, the woman said so to the police as she was trying to avoid her millionth arrest, and didn't want to risk going back to prison again. Her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club, and her neighbors said she also did "private" transactions with numerous men in her apartment. For all we know, maybe she was making a video of herself performing in a public audience instead of at the club. But, yeah, let's believe her instead of the innocent bystanders, by all means. Blame the victim, not the criminal.
    2
  3488. Well, you're welcome to look at the photo and video archive and see most of the stuff as it was in 1969. But, if you want to see the small items, or you want to know what it looks like today, yeah, this is the best anybody can do.
    2
  3489. FYI: They sent manned missions to the moon 9 times (not 7), and landed 6 of those times. 24 astronauts went to the moon, and 12 of them walked on it. (You'd think that 9x3=27, so, why is it only 24? The answer is that 3 of them went twice, Cernan, Lovell, and Young.)
    2
  3490. Yes, I understand. I'm just being a bit of a stickler for detail. I managed to prevent myself from correcting your "hundreds of ground crew" (it was actually about 3,000), but, yeah, I guess I just stopped preventing myself from correcting that one also, because I just wrote it also. Sorry.
    2
  3491. Huh? I fail to understand what the basis for the suit would be. What's the exact complaint that's worth a suit?
    2
  3492. The flag waved on various Apollo missions under these conditions: 1) When being handled (or directly after being handled). Of course flags will wave if they're being moved. They don't need an atmosphere to do it. As a matter of fact, flags wave better without an atmosphere than with one. 2) Without being handled, the flags can wave from the PLSS backpack or suit offgassing. There's a common misperception that these suits/backpacks were entirely self contained. They weren't. They had pressure valves, vented spent gasses from the porous plate sublimators, etc. Walking nearby a flag when offgassing is occurring will cause a slight movement of the flag. 3) Similar to the backpacks and suits, the craft itself is a "living and breathing" machine. There were purge valves, offgassing of the spent gasses, etc. These events caused the flags to move a bit also.
    2
  3493. Well, even with her long criminal history, if she had shown up for court, this would easily negotiate down to a minor infraction, and she wouldn't have to register anything.
    2
  3494. First of all, the mechanics of jumping are not that simple. But, for discussion, let's just say you're right. OK. But, you don't get to compare jumping on Earth in a Tshirt and shorts and running shoes vs. jumping on the moon in a bulky suit. Nope. If you're going to simplify the act of jumping to the concept of 1/6th gravity = 6x jumping height, then you have to take the exact same conditions. So, go right ahead, put on an 88 pound pressure suit with 13 layers, plus an 80 pound primary life support backpack, plus a 40 pound backup life support pack on top of that, plus around 20 pounds of tools and packs and hoses. That's about 228 pounds you're carrying. Now, pressurize the suit to about 19 PSI to simulate the relative pressure your suit will have on the moon. Put on some bulky moon boots. And, now see how high you can jump while carrying that 228 pounds in that bulky pressure suit. Then multiply the height you jumped by 6, and let me know how high that is.
    2
  3495. Your Agena lied to you.
    2
  3496. Huh? Are you talking about the laser reflectors? Yes, all three of them were left on the moon, and have been used every single day by dozens of countries around the world since the day each one was placed on the lunar surface.
    2
  3497. Well, then you spewed a heck of a lot of gibberish for someone who was under the impression that the laser reflectors aren't still up there. Of course they left them there. Why would they bring them home? Why would you think otherwise?
    2
  3498. Well, this issue is easily solved then. You're wrong. The moon has gravity. And, I have no idea why people like you think it doesn't. How do you think the dust/rocks/mountains even stay on the moon without floating away in the first place, if there wasn't gravity to do so? Are you unfamiliar with the fact that the moon's gravity causes the tides on Earth? I thought any 9 year old knows that much, at least. Not you, though. You believe the moon has no gravity. Bravo. Your Nobel Prize is in the mail.
    2
  3499. “How did their rubber space boots make it from -250 degrees below zero in the shade to +250 in the sun?” They didn’t. Rocks don’t instantly heat up and cool off. It takes about a week before a rock heats up to +250, and about a week to cool off to -250. Do you actually believe that sunlight hits a rock, and BING, it instantly jumps by 500 degrees? And, the sunlight stops hitting the rock, and BING, it cools by 500 degrees? That’s your understanding of thermodynamics? So, tell me, why would the rock stop heating after jumping 500 degrees instantly? Wouldn’t it jump another 500 degrees? And another? Until it melts? No? That’s how it works? Instantly jumps 500 degrees and just stops heating? Instantly drops 500 degrees and just stops cooling? That’s what you believe? And, dewdrop, why exactly are you claiming that so few people knew about these problems? None of the thousands of aerospace engineers could figure out that the boots wouldn’t work? Somehow, they were “compartmentalized” into designing boots that couldn’t actually walk on the moon? Is that how this goes, in your mind? The answer to your question is that they were never on the lunar surface for those extremes, dewdrop. The engineers actually DID understand lunar surface temperatures. And, they planned every mission to land early in the lunar morning, long before those super high temperatures you’re complaining about. They were long gone by the time the surface heated up to that level you talked about. It only hits that high temperature after the lunar noon. So, spare the world your silly objections. Did your favorite conspiracy videos not tell you that a lunar day (sunrise to sunrise) is 708 hours (about a month)? Did they not tell you that the mission planners knew about this, and had every mission land a bit after the lunar dawn? Did they not tell you that every mission left the lunar surface long before the lunar high noon? No? They just told you the high temperature of the lunar surface, and you just swallowed it up? Where’d you learn about the temperatures anyway? NASA provided them, based upon the lunar probes and the Apollo experiment packages, right? So, when NASA tells you the numbers, you blindly believe them. But, when NASA tells you that they were never there for those extreme numbers, and they only went during windows of time when the temperatures were more moderate, you blindly reject it, right? Believe the facts that support your nonsense, reject the facts that go against your nonsense, right? “How did that aluminum shell protect from radiation that would take 6 inches of lead” I explained this already. If you are saying you prefer lead over aluminum, then you know NOTHING about radiation. And, show your math, dewdrop. Calculate it. Show why 6 inches of lead are required (assuming you’d use lead, which you wouldn’t, but, whatever). Submit your calculations to any recognized worldwide science journal on cosmology/astrophysics/radiation. Or, hmm, you don’t know how to do the math, and a conspiracy video told you lead was required, and you just swallowed it? Are you starting to get the picture here, dewdrop? The sane people in the world aren’t the ones blindly believing what we’re told. YOU are blindly believing what YOU’RE told.
    2
  3500. Is this a joke? How can anybody possibly be THIS dumb?
    2
  3501. "I remember a clip with the US President talking on the phone with the astronauts on the moon. I rest my case." I don't understand it, therefore it's fake. Dewdrop, it's the same as how anybody could make a call to a car phone since the 1940s. Dial the mobile operator, who connects two wires to a radio. Take a look at the Parkes Radio Telescope and see if you think that's big enough. Is it?
    2
  3502. "so you're saying they had that type of technology then?" About 1,100 people around the world built the radio communications network that made that communication possible. What EXACTLY do you know about it that they didn't? And, how do you explain why none of them ever realized that the radio network they built wasn't capable of having two wires connected to a phone line? YOU know, it though, right? You "rested your case" on this, right?
    2
  3503. "We don't have it now it's possible now if Starlink has a tower in the moon" Oh, the irony. Dewdrop, Starlink radios actually are NOT capable of that. You aren't a communications engineer, so stop pretending to be one.
    2
  3504. "you know if Elan Musk wanted" You don't even know how to spell his name. What can you possibly know about this topic?
    2
  3505. "ask yourself why Neil Armstrong, Commander of Apollo 11, after becoming the most famous man in the world, did not do any interviews" You can disprove this right here on YouTube, and find several interviews with him. And, he did bunches more that aren't even on YouTube. It's true that he did fewer than most of the rest of the astronauts. But, that was just his personality. You said it yourself, he became the most famous person. That wasn't his goal in life. And, all of the other astronauts put together didn't even get 1/10th of the fame that he did.
    2
  3506. "Then they put him in a mental institution." Who told you such a ridiculous thing? Was it a conspiracy video? No, dewdrop. He was never put in an institution.
    2
  3507. "Also Buzz Aldrin 2nd in Command" Dewdrop, you clearly know NOTHING about Apollo. NOTHING. The LMP (Aldrin) is considered THIRD in command on each and every Apollo mission. Not second. You don't know anything about the topic.
    2
  3508. "The second highest level is 500 degrees it is so hot anything will disintegrate" No, dewdrop. This just shows that you have absolutely no understanding of thermodynamics. I'll give you an example. Boiling hot water at 200 degrees Fahrenheit will melt ice, right? So, if you spill a drop of this hot water on a glacier, why doesn't the glacier melt? It's because there's not enough of the hot water in a single drop to make a bit of difference to a massive glacier, right? Same goes for stuff in space. There are so few particles at that point, that, yes, they can be hot, but, they don't matter. A spacecraft is the glacier, and the few hot particles are the drops of water. You're counting atoms at that point, dewdrop. Nobody cares if they're hot, because there aren't enough of them to make a bit of difference to a spacecraft.
    2
  3509. "to protect ourselves from getting through it we will need 6 layers of lead" Wrong.
    2
  3510. "and then there's the van Allen radiation belt" There are TWO belts, dewdrop, not one. And, sometimes, there are even three. You don't know this? You're an expert on space and radiation, yet, you think there's only one belt? And, you just talked about lead, right? You want 6 feet of lead in spacecraft? Right? OK, how do you propose to deal with the secondary Bremsstrahlung radiation that would be caused by having a heavy metal like lead being exposed to the ions in the Van Allen belts? I mean, any qualified aerospace engineer would tell you that lead is a horrible choice, because it can cause the effects of the radiation to be WORSE (for this particular type). So, what do you know that the world's aerospace engineers don't? You didn't just trust a conspiracy video that told you lead was required, did you? You can show your math, right?
    2
  3511. "in a near vacuum the dust particles are so densely packed due to the absolute lack of gas molecules b/t them that they fuse together into a pumice-like crust on the surface. So either the Moon has a significant atmosphere and a much higher surface gravity than thought or, likewise possible, the show took place on Earth." Really? Those are the only two possibilities? "A short ballistic curve of dust behind the rover is caused by significant surface gravity" Then calculate it. What are you waiting for? Calculating these curves is high school physics stuff. But, you know, I am not 100% certain I really understand your claim in the first place. But, I have a hunch. An educated hunch. I think this is, perhaps, really simple. I think you are simply unaware that the rover traverse videos were shot at either 12 frames per second, or 6 frames per second, and played back at 24 frames per second. They did this to conserve on film. See, those film rolls only lasted about 3 minutes at full speed (24 frames per second). So, as it turns out, they rarely ran them at that speed. Most of the rover traverse videos, if I recall correctly, were shot at 12 frames per second. But, when they scan them in and upload them, they use a standard film player running at 24 frames per second. In other words, what you're seeing in the raw video is double the actual speed. And, if memory serves, some of the videos may even be at 4x actual speed. They post the frame rates, and leave it up to whoever downloads them to convert the speed, if they wish. But, nobody likes choppy videos that look like Claymation. So, most of the time, documentaries and other publishers just take the raw 24 frame per second rates, and just let the videos run fast. Frankly, they also usually don't want to burn the kind of time it takes to play the videos at actual speed anyway (which would be unappealing to watch because of the frame rate). Then, along come people like you, unaware of the frame rate, and you think it's all happening too fast, and looks like Earth's gravity instead of lunar gravity. There are a number of videos you can find on YouTube that convert the 12 FPS or 6 FPS videos up to 24 FPS (or even more), using CGI to insert the "missing" frames, to show the lunar traverses at their actual speed. And, you can see that the dust arcs for a much longer time, which is accurate for 1/6th gravity. Go check them out. So, the bottom line is, my hunch is that you're simply unaware that you've been watching rover videos that are sped up. And, I think that's why you think it's not 1/6th gravity.
    2
  3512. To further clarify: almost all of the rover videos I've seen in documentaries have just used 24 frames per second. And, given that most of the original rover videos taken on the moon were shot at 12 frames per second, and perhaps some of them even taken at 6 frames per second, then this results in videos that are sped up. And, this is why the moon landing deniers think that the dust arcing from the rover wheels looks to be in Earth's gravity, rather than looking like it's in lunar gravity. Because... yes... that's what it looks like. Most of the videos of the dust arcing were shot at 12 frames per second, then played back at 24 frames per second, resulting in double speed. For 1/6th gravity, the correct speed multiplier is 2.5x speed to make 1/6th gravity appear to be like 1G. So, 2x speed is pretty close to 2.5x speed, and the moon landing deniers say, "see, it's Earth's gravity!!" But, they're just unaware that the videos are "sped up" because of the frame rate. I advised her (TheTamriel) to go watch some of the videos that are readily available on YouTube that have corrected the speed. They come in two flavors: (1) Videos that are simply played back at 12 frames per second. It looks choppy to the human eye, which is why most documentary publishers don't use that frame rate. And, they don't want to waste double the time to show the videos at their actual speed, when they can just play them back at 24 and call it a day. And, (2) Videos that have used modern CGI to insert the missing frames that were never actually shot. So, they take a 12 FPS original format, and then up-convert to 24 frames per second, or sometimes even more than that, like 60 FPS, by having the computer software look at the frames before, and the frames after, and manufacturing what the middle frames should look like. Thus, it smooths out the images, and represents the rover videos (and the dust arcs) in the actual correct speed that were originally shot on the lunar surface, which is 1/6th G.
    2
  3513. Why should the veracity of Apollo depend on what anybody else does, or doesn't do?
    2
  3514. With multiple complaints for a misdemeanor, you think they're issuing a warning?
    2
  3515. Thanks for your contribution. Now, see a doctor.
    2
  3516. Do the math. Calculate the angular size against the 70mm film size. What are you waiting for? It's not as if it's been done over and over again already.
    2
  3517. They took hundreds of photos of the site in 1969. But, the purpose of this video is to show what it might look like today.
    2
  3518. Sound is radiation. Visible light is radiation. Radio is radiation. Xrays. Gammas. Alphas. High velocity neutrons. Ionic particles. The list goes on. You clearly are one of those people who hear the word "radiation" and assume it always means the same stuff you get from atomic weapons and nuclear reactors.
    2
  3519. Huh? There are no funded Mars missions. Artemis, however, was funded in 2019 to build everything to go to the moon in the next few years. You got your wish 4 years ago.
    2
  3520. When you feel the need to lie to support your ridiculous position, sorry, you are too far gone.
    2
  3521. "if I'm not mistaken you shouldn't hear anything" Well, you ARE mistaken, so.... Yes, sound propagates through any physical medium, not merely through air. It's true that there will be a lot less sound than if it was in air, but, yes, a little bit of sound is expected.
    2
  3522. Aww, you poor thing. Your stupidity is showing.
    2
  3523. You clearly don't know anything. Why do you pretend otherwise?
    2
  3524. Maybe if you actually understood the communications systems, you'd understand that it wasn't easy to do live broadcasting during the missions from a moving craft. Basically, they had to stop the BBQ roll, keep the craft oriented in one stable direction relative to Earth, aim the dishes, and then they could do live TV. This wasn't available while the craft was doing maneuvers, or BBQ roll, or on the far side of the moon, or during landing.
    2
  3525. Sure. I agree. But, life is full of ironies. And, now people are blaming him for NOT arresting her (which would have resulted in a prison term). At least then maybe she'd still be alive, in the relative "safety" of prison. But, yeah, we can't blame the officer.
    2
  3526. Ed Fendell.
    2
  3527. Are you actually PROUD to know nothing?
    2
  3528. Hide is never fake. This is can't. What moon.
    2
  3529.  @jazminemorales877  YOU SAID: "American Made you sound so ridiculous." == No, dummy, YOU are ridiculous. YOU SAID: "Didn’t you hear that there were other families going through this too?" == AT OTHER RESORTS!!! NOT THIS ONE!!! The "news" (not news) channel had to stoop to finding examples at OTHER places. Now, why do you suppose that is? Was it maybe because they couldn't find another example at this resort? Hmmm. YOU SAID: "Like, c’mon!" == Yes, Jazmine. C'mon. There's a brain somewhere in that head of yours. Try using it sometime. Clearly, it's been out of commission for a while, and you need to fire that thing up and give it some exercise. YOU SAID: "Also if they were with a group of people how come nobody helped them." == I mean, this is the most stunning part. Like, you just said it yourself. Does that version of the story even sound feasible to you? A couple of bodies floating around in a group of people, nobody does anything? Is that how this goes, in your mind? That doesn't light up any red flags in your mind? Your feeble little brain just says, "oh, ok," when you hear something like that? See, if you had bothered to read the lawsuit (as I have), and if you actually listen to what they're saying (as I have), you will find that there's a huge time gap between when they started drinking in the group, and when the accident happened. They arrived at the hotel around 1pm. The incident happened after dark, somewhere around 7:30pm. I mean, you have to actually listen to what these people are saying (and what they're not saying). "We were in a group" doesn't mean they were in a group when the drowning happened. It means they were in a group when they STARTED drinking. The actual drowning happened after dark. And, the lawsuit doesn't specify if there were others in the pool at that time. But, let's get real... if there were others in the pool, don't'ya think they wouldn't have needed to rely on some other guest passing by the pool at night to spot them? You're answering your own question without realizing it. "How come nobody helped them?" Yes, indeed. Think this through. What's more likely, in your mind? A crowded pool, lots of people, just leave a couple of drunks to drown right in front of them? Or, a couple of drunks went back to the pool after dark, when everyone else was gone? C'mon now, Jazmine. Think this through. Press the "start" button on that brain of yours. YOU SAID: "Mexican hotels need to take responsibility and serve sealed alcohol if anything, that’s why it’s a 5 start hotel, you’re supposed to get what you paid for." == Hey, Jazmine, how about sticking to topics you understand, huh? How about that for an idea? How about not telling other people how to do their business, when you don't know what the hell you're talking about? YOU SAID: "And this family is going through grief and your comment is just a mockery of blaming the people and not the hotel" == A "hotel" doesn't do anything. A "hotel" is an inanimate object. The PEOPLE at the hotel are the ones YOU are blaming. Why, in your mind, is it perfectly ok to blame one set of people over a different set of people, when you know absolutely nothing about the actual facts of the case? YOU SAID: "itself for serving low quality alcohol!" == Prove it, Jazmine. Prove it. Even the family doesn't say in their lawsuit that they have any direct evidence to support that. The best they outlined in the lawsuit was that this hotel had purchased alcohol from a same supplier that sold alcohol to other hotels. (Big surprise, yeah, whatever.) They supplied no claim in their lawsuit about this hotel ever ordering bad alcohol themselves. Oh, but you know better, huh? They should call YOU as a witness, huh? With your massive expertise, yeah, sure, you're not slandering anybody, are you? Naw, what you're saying isn't slander at all, because you're a direct witness to this case, and you know all about the alcohol they purchased, right? You can prove your allegations, right? Or, um, did you just watch a "news" (not news) report online, only listened to about half of it, didn't pay close attention, then jumped to conclusions, and now you're committing slander? Which is it, Jazmine?
    2
  3530. And, you'd believe him, why? How much money is he actually putting into developing Mars missions? Thus far, all he's shown are CGI renderings, with zero evidence that he's actually trying to engineer anything to actually go to Mars. And, you can't recognize a conman when you see one? He said a trip to Mars would cost $100,000 or $200,000, right? Meanwhile, he charges $90 million just to launch astronauts to the space station. Do you not see a problem here? Do you not see that he's spewing nonsense? How can any serious person believe a single word, when the man makes 100 promises, then delivers on only 2 of them? Yet, his fanboys jump up and down when he delivers on some mundane stuff that anybody could do, and declare he's a hero, ignoring the 98 failures, and only paying attention to the 2 successes. Why?
    2
  3531.  @therealzilch  They had better computers when building the pyramids.
    2
  3532. No answer? Just make a claim, then run for the hills when the questions are too difficult? Dewdrop, there are thousands of government agencies. NASA is just one of them. I dare say that each and every one of them would want more money for their particular program. The school systems want more money for better buildings, higher salaries, more books in the libraries, etc. The military will always ask for more money, no matter how much they already get. NASA wants more money. Financial programs want more money to lend/grant to college students. Welfare programs want more money to build housing for homeless people. Contrary to your obvious perception, however, there isn't that much money to toss around. As it is, we're going deeper and deeper into debt every year, and we cannot just put a green light on every single program that every single government agency wants. So, are you going to acknowledge this? Or, will you continue to complain about what you think "makes no sense" (while proving that you don't know enough about the topic to even have an opinion about what makes sense or not)?
    2
  3533. Well, I think it's rather obvious. He's got the "little man" syndrome. 5'8" and 140 pounds. Beats up women. He was convicted a while back for his actions with a 15 year old (couldn't find someone his own age, so, he felt that a child is the only thing he could be good enough to get). As far as I'm concerned, this is a guy who wants to have dominance over the world, but just can't. He can't do it with brains (severely lacking in that area). He can't do it with talent (he doesn't have any). He can't do it with attraction (he doesn't have that either). This is someone who has absolutely nothing to offer the world, so, he's angry about it. And, after a fight with his girlfriend, he went on a rampage.
    2
  3534. So, the crazed guy said he had a gun, was reaching for his right hip (where most people keep guns), and then a gun was found in that exact spot. But, you don't think he had a gun?
    2
  3535. Yes. Those 9mm rounds do not penetrate a truck very well. The driver had a couple of minor hits, but will be fine.
    2
  3536. Probably because of a legal FOIA request.
    2
  3537. Huh? Giveaway? So, the veracity of Apollo doesn't depend on the evidence? No? It depends on what's said in a British 3rd party documentary made 50 years later? I mean, is there ever even a point that you nuts even WANT to look at the evidence? No? Just look for spurious logic like, "a British documentary said it's easier to go to the moon than it is to fake it, therefore Apollo was fake"? Really? Dewdrop, going to the moon (or not going to the moon) is mainly about the funding. If congress funds manned moon missions, then that's what happens. If they don't fund it, then nobody goes to the moon. All other stuff is secondary.
    2
  3538. Hilarious! And, you posted that on the internet, huh? Your 3 pieces of rock are either stolen (in which case you're confessing to a crime), or aren't genuine to begin with (which is about 95% of the moon rocks for sale on the black market).
    2
  3539. Well, the original mission photos are pictures of the landing site. And, we have monochrome images of the landing sites from LRO, India, and China, that show the bigger stuff like the landers and foot paths (China just barely, more detail from LRO and India). But, close enough to see the level of color and detail in this video? No, nothing since the mission.
    2
  3540. "no one can survive beyond the van allen belt" Says no cosmologist, astrophysicist, nor radiobiologist, anywhere ever.
    2
  3541. "no one can survive beyond the van allen belt" Says no cosmologist, astrophysicist, nor radiobiologist, anywhere ever.
    2
  3542. "radioactive moon dust" So what? Sand on the beach is radioactive also. Virtually everything is, in micro amounts. Yes, there's a bit more radioactivity on the lunar surface, but, it's not a harmful amount. The radioactivity in a depleted uranium A10 round is hundreds of times greater than that of the lunar surface. So what? Care to actually show the math indicating that it would be a problem? Or, is that the extent of your "knowledge"? Just say the word "radioactive" and it's a magical way of pretending you understand things you don't?
    2
  3543. "micro-asteroid" The fact that you don't know the difference between an asteroid and a meteor makes it quite clear that you don't have even the slightest amount of knowledge about what you're asserting. Stop pretending you understand things you do not, dewdrop.
    2
  3544. "China, India & Japan could not find evidence of the moon landing." Ridiculous, because all three of their space program websites have entire sections dedicated to showing the exact opposite. China published 6 photographs of the 6 Apollo landers on the moon. India publicly held a press conference in which they showed a few of their photos of the Apollo landers on the surface of the moon, and said the saw rover tracks and foot paths. And, while Japan's orbiter didn't have the resolution required to see landers, they used their orbiter to confirm that the dust was disturbed at each landing site, and also verified Apollo's photography to a degree that wasn't possible in 1969-1972 without actually being there. Great job leaving out South Korea, who also photographed all 6 landers on the lunar surface.
    2
  3545. Are you talking about when astronauts are handling it?
    2
  3546. A) Cuffing is mandatory for all criminal arrests. B) C'mon. She had felony prison term and an arrest/judgement record a mile long. Sorry, but she doesn't get to claim humiliation when she keeps getting herself arrested.
    2
  3547. Pffttt. Um, ok. It took thousand upon thousands of people to get a Saturn V off of the launch pad. And, only 13 of them ever flew. That 363 foot tall rocket would stand out there on the launch pad for about a month while all of the technical people prepared it for flight. And, the launch could be seen (and heard) for hundreds of miles. Yet, you're suggesting that, somehow, they snuck off a secret launch? And, hmmm, nobody noticed that a Saturn V was missing? None of the thousands of people who built the Saturn V rockets ever wondered what happened to the "extra" one you're suggesting that they built (yet nobody knows about)?
    2
  3548. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    2
  3549. Huh? She did a felony term in prison for stealing cars. She had multiple judgements against her for various other thefts. She had numerous drug and alcohol charges. She had open warrants for her arrest due to failures to appear in court. That's not a criminal?
    2
  3550. He is Bart Sibrel: the criminally convicted taxi cab driver who made those fraudulent movies like "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon," and "Astronauts Gone Wild," and bunches more smaller garbage like it. He's a professional charlatan.
    2
  3551. Really? And, you think you've spotted this problem that no aerospace engineer or radiobiologist has spotted? How do you explain the fact that Polaris Dawn took people into the worst area of the belts a couple of months ago? How do you explain how the Soviets sent 2 dogs into the worst area of the belts in 1966? How do you explain how they also sent turtles and plants to the moon and back, right through the belts? Gee, did you listen to a video that lied to you, and you didn't lift a finger to verify anything it told you?
    2
  3552. He did what he needed to win, yes. That included keeping people quiet by suing anyone and everyone who spoke the truth, and ruining people's careers if they opposed Saint Armstrong. How about those two innocent housewives that Armstrong fraudulently sued for millions, draining them of every dime to their name, leaving them in financial ruins, all just to shut them up after they just innocently stumbled into being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and found out he was cheating. Scapegoat?
    2
  3553.  @novavira1864  Read the arrest reports and the medical examiner's report. It's really that simple.
    2
  3554. No video of the sun either, you claim? What about "Apollo 17 - 114:40 - 122:40 V2.1" at 6:28:00? What's that big bright white ball of light directly east of the camera?
    2
  3555. "And you are the winner." (addressed to stusue) No, dewdrop. Stusue knows very little about Apollo. But, you call him a "winner" even though he disagrees with you?
    2
  3556. "it be almost impossible to accuse them of fake footage because the sun has certain light properties that would be impossible to fake on earth do to gravity. it would have been the end of the debate." So? Go right ahead. I gave you a few of the catalog numbers of photos of the sun. I also pointed you to one video clip (out of dozens available). So, go right ahead. If you think film emulsion or a low-res vidicon scan can magically reveal these "certain light properties," be my guest.
    2
  3557. "Credit: NASA’s Scientific Visualization Studio/Ernie Wright." Good luck in finding anything that does not say Visualization studio and visualization in its credits." Good gods. Are you really this completely inept? Dewdrop, that studio wasn't formed until 1990, a couple of decades after Apollo. Hence, any videos or photos produced during Apollo had nothing to do with that studio. Sheeeessshhhh.
    2
  3558. "I am in the pro we landed camp" Sure you are, dewdrop. Not my first rodeo. Conspiracy videos told you that they never photographed the sun. And, you never lifted a finger to see if that's right or wrong. You didn't get that notion all by yourself. Anybody who has looked at the photos for themselves would know better. You're regurgitating nonsense from your favorite conspiracy videos. Don't pretend.
    2
  3559. "and there is a lot of scrap on the Anti side" Yeah, like claiming there are no photos of the sun.
    2
  3560. "but some really weird stuff that is not easy to dismantle." Pffttt. There's never been a single claim made by any moon landing denier that cannot be dismantled easily.
    2
  3561. "And if your in the pro camp and you really looked at some of the anti side stuff your not all that hahaha about it because they have a few things that really bother me if I am honest." Good gods. How about this instead? How about learning to read and write instead of worrying about conspiracies you don't understand? I promise you, it'll serve you better in life to actually be literate.
    2
  3562. "there is no footage of the sun from the moon" There are dozens of photos, and dozens of video clips. I provided a few of the photos, and one of the video clips. If you want more, how about actually LOOKING FOR THEM next time?
    2
  3563. "look at the credits it will say nasa visualization studio which is there department for art assets. That means they are saying its not stock footage or pictures." I haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about (and neither do you). Credits OF WHAT? This video lists credits from about a dozen different sources, none of which are from Visualization Studio. And, even if it did (which it doesn't), so what? There are plenty of simulated images throughout this video. Those are not relevant to Apollo.
    2
  3564. "So just saying your not to bright." Is this a joke? You cannot even compose this very sentence correctly. Good gods.
    2
  3565. "The correct challenge is what would that prove if they had footage of the sun." Dewdrop, you said there was "no footage at all of the sun." (Your claim.) I provided some of the footage (video), and I provided catalog numbers of a few of the photos. From there, you can keep looking for yourself and find dozens more examples of each.
    2
  3566. YOU SAID: "An "astronaut" on the space shuttle said we don't go to the moon anymore because we don't have the technology." == You are intentionally taking that out of context, and you know it. You know damned well that no astronaut has ever implied that Apollo didn't happen. You know damned well that we don't "have the technology" in the context that none of it is actually in our possession at this moment. Nobody has magically forgotten how to do it. All of the data is still around. But, "we don't have the technology" clearly means that we are not currently in possession of any rockets big enough to do it, nor any launch facilities, nor any training facilities, etc. Almost all of the people who worked on Apollo are long dead or retired. Almost all of the companies have long since retooled to do other things, or closed completely. So, you are intentionally taking this out of contact just to fuel your own stupid delusions. YOU SAID: "Yeah we got rid of those Atari computers ,should have kept that technology." == Atari didn't exist in 1969, you imbecile. YOU SAID: "Buzz Aldrin answered a little question saying "we never went there". Slip of the tongue." == No, the question was "why haven't we gone BACK?" He was talking about the fact that we didn't go BACK, albeit in somewhat clumsy wording. He also talked about his lunar mission in that same interview (and a million other interviews). So, even if I grant you the idea that an 88 year old man forgot to put the word "back" in one sentence, get fucking real here, asshole. The man said a million times he went to the moon. And, he said so in that same interview. But, if he slightly misspeaks one time in 50 years, and omits one single word from one single sentence, THIS is your proof that Apollo was faked?? You're never said any sentences slightly wrong in your life??? What an asshole.
    2
  3567. Everything you said is correct. But, somehow, I think you're trying to say that the moon landings didn't happen. Am I correct?
    2
  3568. Did you even bother to read occhamite's response before you spewed more gibberish? Dewdrop, lunar meteorites show obvious indications of entering the atmosphere. The lunar rocks on Apollo do not show any of that. Furthermore, as he pointed out, the Apollo rocks have been chemically analyzed by geologists from all around the world, and have never been exposed to oxygen or water. You can't find that in a meteorite you find on Earth. Heck, most of the meteorites not only would be exposed to oxygen just from being on Earth, but, they're found in the ice in Antarctica. Anyway, here's a solution for you: if you believe the 850 pounds of Apollo rocks are actually just meteorites, then you need to write it up. Show how they can get the 54 feet of lunar core samples spread across 6 missions and dozens of core drills, from meteorites. Explain why some of them look like the lunar equivalent of clay (which would never make it through entry into Earth's atmosphere). And, explain why the world's geologists are wrong about the thousands of samples. Write it all up, and submit it to a recognized journal on lunar geology. And, while you're at it, go ahead and explain to the world about how they're wrong to keep using liquid hydrogen for fuel (which was your claim in the other thread, before you tried to backtrack and cover your tracks and pretend you weren't talking about the fuels). Write that up also, and submit it to journals on aerospace engineering. I'll never understand why you dewdrops think YouTube comments are a science journal. If you think you have something to offer, put it through the test. Go through the scientific method of writing it up, and submitting it for peer review.
    2
  3569. Your first sentence, nobody around? How do you know this? Because a woman who is trying to avoid getting her millionth arrest said so?
    2
  3570. Dewdrop, do you have any idea how large a telescope would need to be to see the Apollo stuff on the moon? Have you ever done the math? Hint: it would take a lens a quarter mile in diameter to see an Apollo lander in barely enough resolution to make out what it was. If you want to "zoom in" to see details, you're talking about a lens about 6 miles in diameter. Our largest lens ever made was 5 feet in diameter and costed $168 million to construct. But, you go ahead, get to work on a 6 mile wide lens. What are you waiting for?
    2
  3571. Multiple people called. One of them recorded it and gave a copy of the video to the police. It doesn't match her sob story about nobody being around. With her extensive criminal background and track record for failing to appear in court after being arrested, my best guess is that she generally knows to keep her mouth shut, but, she also didn't want them looking her up to find open warrants. If she stayed quiet, there'd be a 100% chance that they'd look her up. But, if she tried to cry her way out of her millionth arrest, there'd be a 50/50 chance of them letting her go without looking her up.
    2
  3572. I just love when someone's level of delusion permeates all the way in to their ironic nicknames. "The Truth." Right. Sure. I'd eat my hat if you even knew what the evidence for Apollo even is.
    2
  3573. "1) the Hubble would have actual photos of the Apollo 11 remnants?" Hubble's best resolution of the moon would result in a single pixel being a square of 160 feet by 160 feet of the lunar surface. No, you cannot see a 30 foot by 30 foot lander.
    2
  3574. "Who was shooting the footage" Depends. Which mission? Which camera? Sometimes, the video camera was just placed on a tripod. Sometimes, it was hand-held. Sometimes it was mounted to the window of the lander. Sometimes it was mounted to the front of the rover. You'd have to be more specific in your question. Just because YOU don't know how the cameras operated, doesn't mean nobody does.
    2
  3575. "I'm confused" Yup.
    2
  3576. "There's a lot of contradictions that are not addressed" But, all you named were the laser reflectors. Sorry, but those don't contradict anything. The only meaningful thing you said was that you didn't understand why they brought them. There's a saying that I usually use for this. But, I've been banned from YouTube for saying it too often. I'll leave it up to someone else to fill it in for me.
    2
  3577.  @gives_bad_advice  It was just an "obvious" example (apparently not?) to illustrate the point. I guess I'm not explaining it. In reality, you can use trigonometry to make the calculations from any angle. But, the "obvious" (apparently not?) example is, let's say, you're in a laser ranging facility on an island looking over the mainland. The moon is on the horizon, right above the mainland, and the other laser ranging facility (on the mainland) is right in your line of view also (your laser pulses will barely miss the other laser, passing right by, toward the moon). You send your pulses at the moon at the same time that the other facility does (different frequency, otherwise you won't know your bounces from the other guy's bounces). The exact difference in the distance to the moon = the exact difference between your laser ranging facility and the other one. Let me know if this "obvious" example makes it more clear, or if I've failed (yet again) to make it clear.
    2
  3578. Yes, China's orbiters have photographed the Apollo landers.
    2
  3579. You guessed wrong. He had a few minor hits, nothing fatal. He will go to prison for murdering his father, and for the 4857938573 crimes he committed afterward.
    2
  3580. So, basically, you want to repeal the Freedom of Information Act?
    2
  3581. If you were actually curious about the answer, you wouldn't have put "lol" at the end of your "question."
    2
  3582. How was she "handled" poorly? Can't you be specific?
    2
  3583. Agreed 100%. However, I just don't know what the suit would be based upon. Yes, they misrepresent stuff via clever wording and omitting key details, but, how do you get a claim out of that?
    2
  3584. Huh? How'd you get your measurements? And, you clearly have not looked at the photo archive for yourself. Absolutely nobody who has looked at the archive would ever say what you're saying. They took many photos of the sun. And, there are plenty of photos showing distant mountains and valleys. You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, and all you're doing is regurgitating claims you got from a conspiracy video, made to mock people like you. It's just a social experiment at best. They post absolute nonsense that is so easily proven wrong simply by looking at the photo archive for yourself. But, rather than doing it, you're willing to swallow every word, hook line and sinker.
    2
  3585. Please tell me English is a 2nd or 3rd language for you. Please tell me that it's not your first language.
    2
  3586. I have no idea what you're talking about, and neither do you.
    2
  3587. I think I may have figured out what he was talking about. The South Massif on Apollo 17? Um, yes, dewdrop, why do you think that they selected that landing area in the first place? They didn't just land at random places on the moon. They went to places that (a) fit the mission profile, and (b) were geologically interesting. The South Massif's wide/straight/flat (diagonally) surface was part of why they wanted to go there. They even drove to it in the rover and climbed upon the base of it, and sampled meteorites and other rocks. But, what's your exact objection? Do you not believe that mountain exists or something? Every single country that has sent probes to the moon has confirmed that the South Massif mountain exists. You act like they just made up a fake mountain or something. How would that even make sense? Don't you think that every single country with a space agency would recognize if they merely "painted" a mountain that didn't exist?
    2
  3588.  @honzalev1  Good grief. You don't understand ANYTHING.
    2
  3589. I'd never argue that the CPR was a half-hearted attempt. I see the same thing you do. But, let's get real here: a shot with what was probably a .40 round to the upper chest, and the guy stops speaking after 20 seconds, and is grasping at grass, then slumps over to his side, never to move again? He was gone. There was no saving him.
    2
  3590. If it's on YouTube, it's true. Nothing on YouTube is ever wrong.
    2
  3591. The lunar laser ranging experiment is also not facing toward Earth in this video.
    2
  3592. Sane people would be relieved to find out they're wrong. Like, if someone told you a bunch of false evidence about your wife cheating, manufactured a bunch of lies, etc., sure, you'd be suspicious and want to ask more questions. But, a sane person, when asking those questions, would want the answers, and would be relieved to find out that the people who were giving false information were lying, and the wife wasn't cheating after all. But, when it comes to moon landing deniers, when they find out that their favorite videos have been lying to them, are they relieved to find out that the "evidence" of faking moon landings was all wrong? Nope. They WANT the moon landings to be fake. They're happier thinking Apollo wasn't real. They don't want to be shown that the conspiracy video makers are the real liars. They WANT to pretend that they have "inside knowledge" and that the entire planet's experts are wrong.
    2
  3593. The Freedom of Information Act dictates the exact opposite of what you're asking for. But, the police can (and do) block the release of the video while there's an open investigation. That's why this particular video was not made public until 2.5 years later. She was long dead before anybody saw it.
    2
  3594.  @Tim22222  The irony of that video is that if the rocket really hit a wall at rocket speeds, it wouldn't just float back down, camera intact, etc. It would have been basically vaporized.
    2
  3595. Secondly, the lunar satellite cameras such as the Arizona State University camera on LRO, or China's Chang'e camera, or India's Chandrayaan-2 camera, are extremely high resolution, better than any camera you can buy on the market today. But, when they show you the landers and rover tracks and foot paths and shadows of the flags, etc., they are greatly zoomed in. Go take a look at the original image files. They are amazingly huge, covering miles of surface area, in extremely high resolution. But, you can't see Apollo stuff unless you keep zooming in. It's like a nice high resolution photo of your friend standing at an amusement park, then trying to zoom in on a single hair on that person's arm. That's why you people think these are "low res."
    2
  3596.  @axle.student  I honestly don't know why you won't just go look at the camera. No mirrors. No lenses. Sorry, but I already gave you a lot of information, and if you can't bring yourself to actually understand it, I really can't help you much more.
    2
  3597.  @axle.student  Yeah, that's why I said they didn't use lenses in the sense that you think. I meant that these weren't like a camera with an optical zoom. Take a look at how they actually work. For optical zoom, there's no lens FOR THAT purpose. I didn't mean literally no lens whatsoever (sorry if my wording wasn't accurate enough). But, to get optical zoom, you need separate lenses to accomplish it. It doesn't have them.
    2
  3598.  @axle.student  "You also wrongly asserted that the LRO cameras have no lenses." Thanks for proving how dishonest you are. I admitted that my wording was poor, but, I clarified that I meant that there were ZERO lenses FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPTICAL ZOOM. And, that is true. There are ZERO lenses TO DO WHAT YOU ASK FOR.
    2
  3599. I don't understand. Whose success was involved?
    2
  3600.  @realmccoy9597  You might consider some literacy classes.
    2
  3601. Well, if you want to see pictures of the sun from Apollo, then there are several ways to do that. There are these things called "search engines" on this thing called "the internet." "Pictures of the sun from Apollo." I know, it's difficult to understand these computer thingies. But, yeah. Another way is to actually look at the photo archive, and you can see even more photos of the sun than the search engines show.
    2
  3602. Given your other postings, I'd say your biggest problem about Apollo is ignorance.
    2
  3603. Nobody has ever claimed (outside of you) that the Earth is 6x larger than the moon. It's 4x larger in angular size, and about 50x larger in volume. You clearly know nothing about the topic when you can't even get your numbers straight. And, when someone gave you the accurate answer, what did you do? You immediately rejected it. Hey, dewdrop, how about NOT asking questions at all, if you intend to reject the answers?
    2
  3604. So, you asked a question, then, without a single piece of punctuation, you immediately denied any answers to your own question. Bravo. You're a true hero alright. Dewdrop, there were 9 manned moon missions, 6 of which landed. The fact that you think Apollo 17 was the only landing just demonstrates that you don't know anything about the topic. You're telling OTHERS to think about it?
    2
  3605. Again, dewdrop, you don't even understand the topic you're rejecting. You claimed they only went once!!! That's how little you know about it. As I said, they went NINE times, and landed SIX times. 24 people went to the moon, 3 of them twice, and 12 of them walked on the surface. Yet, you claim they only went once. After that, how can you possibly sit there and continue to pretend you somehow know more about this topic than the entire world's aerospace engineers? That's like saying you understand more about medicine than the world's doctors, but, "can you remind me, what do you use a scalpel for?"
    2
  3606. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    2
  3607. Did you want to try this again when you're sober? I'm sure you thought you typed something coherent at the time, but, um, no.
    2
  3608. You're correct, you don't understand gravity. All objects consisting of atoms have gravity. For something as small as a person, the gravity is so extremely small that it's insignificant. But, when you get to planet or moon sized things, yeah, the gravity starts to add up, and it matters. The moon has enough mass to have 1/6th of Earth's gravity. So, stuff won't go up and down quite as fast as it would on Earth, but, yes, plenty of gravity to still make things fall back down.
    2
  3609. So, in order to call the police for a crime, you need to be 100% perfect?
    2
  3610.  @occhamite  Just making sure... you do know that NASA paid the private company to build Odyssey, right?
    2
  3611. Just making sure here: you do know she was one of the career criminals, right? You do know she did a felony term in a Florida prison, right? Stealing cars, other thefts, drugs and alcohol, etc., and a million other arrests, right? You do know this, right? You didn't just watch 1 minute on Inside Edition and believed everything they said, right?
    2
  3612. They took the camera off of the side of the lander and moved it to its final resting spot about 20 minutes into the moonwalk. Go watch it. You can see it happening from two different angles (the camera itself, which was running the entire time while being moved, and the 16mm film camera facing out the window of the lander).
    2
  3613.  @minxymoo2325  How fucking stupid are you? How many of these threads are you going to, advertising your utter stupidity to the world? YOU SAID: "I've seen hundreds of cases working in a law office." == Well, good, then you know to READ the lawsuits before opening your mouth and inserting your foot, then, don't you? You asserted repeatedly... REPEATEDLY... in other threads that these two were DRUGGED. Explain why their lawsuit doesn't say a single word about being drugged then. Explain that, you fucking asshole.
    2
  3614.  @User84030  I've addressed much of your parade of nonsense in a different thread, so I will just gloss over some of the items here. Just a reminder, though, you claimed that this resort was pushing these drinks on people to make money... but this was an all-inclusive resort, so, you're wrong. The guests pay the same amount whether they drink or not. So, the hotel makes more money if the guests drink LESS, or not at all. You're simply backward in your "logic." And, you also claimed that the hotel is 100% responsible, which is pure insanity. Legal adults bear responsibility for their own actions. And, yes, you could persuade me that the hotel bears some responsibility. But, your assertion that the 20 year old girl with the 0.25 blood alcohol level bears 0.00% of the responsibility for her own actions... man... like I said before... you're an asshole, and I truly hate people like you. The world is NOT a better place, if people are not held to be responsible for their own actions. The world is a WORSE place if no responsibility falls upon the individuals themselves. But, on to some of your assertions in this thread (again, I won't address all of them due to redundancy with the other thread): YOU SAID: "Lol, They will win the lawsuit." == Well, time will tell... but reading between the lines a bit... it really doesn't look like you're correct. The incident happened more than 2 years ago, and they filed that lawsuit when? Just a couple months ago? And, while I haven't found the lawsuit for the suit filed against the resort in Mexico (I don't even know where to find lawsuits filed in Mexico), I have read the 24 page lawsuit filed in the USA, and man, it really looks weak, in my opinion. Most of the relevant material in that lawsuit rambles on and on about tainted alcohol found in OTHER resorts. There isn't a single word in that lawsuit that places any solid connection to tainted alcohol at THAT resort. The closest connection they are able to make is that this particular resort has ordered alcohol from a supplier that has supplied tainted alcohol to other resorts. But, in my mind, ok, so what? That doesn't mean that this particular resort ever ordered any tainted alcohol. It seems that this connection is very weak. And, it really doesn't add to the credibility of their case when the lawsuit includes the travel agency that booked the trip for them. They're saying that the travel agency should have known the alcohol was tainted, and therefore, the travel agency should have never booked the trip to this 5-star resort (which has no history of tainted alcohol). So, you can sit there and say they're going to win the lawsuit, and you could be right, time will tell. But, for you to take your asinine attitude of "Lol" and "the resort is 100% responsible," um, sounds like you're an arrogant prick who talks about stuff you know nothing about. If these people are stooping to suing their travel agent, this, to me, doesn't indicate the strength of the case, it indicates the weakness of the case. == They appear to be suing in 3 parts: 1) Lawsuit against the hotel for serving tainted alcohol. 2) Lawsuit against the travel agency for booking them on a trip to a resort that serves tainted alcohol. --- I've read their claims about the above... and only time will tell what more evidence they will bring... but, the lawsuit itself doesn't show ANY credible evidence of this, at least that I could figure. 3) Lawsuit against the hotel for not taking better care. --- This is, in my opinion, the only area that they might have any real traction. I doubt the above assertions about tainted alcohol will hold water (my opinion, based on the fact that they cannot find any solid evidence of that linkage, and that none of the other thousands of guests have made the same claim). And, if you read the lawsuit, it's written in such a way that they're not really spelling out the incident itself. It's not clear if the bar/pool was even still open (the incident happened after dark), or whether these two were wandering around drunk afterward, and jumped back in the pool later, or whatever. It's extremely weird that nobody would have noticed, and I personally suspect that the lawsuit intentionally is leaving these details vague/omitted. None of the family interviews I watched have mentioned a single word about how it actually happened, yet you'd think that would be the most important detail. It's too weird for my liking. So, I guess we'll have to wait for the results of the lawsuits... and even then, maybe we'll never know. YOU SAID: "Yes, even in Mexico they have these responsibilities." == And, even in Mexico, and ESPECIALLY in Mexico, legal adults have responsibility for their own actions. You have asserted that this incident is 100% the resort's responsibility. Do you really think any court in Mexico will agree with that? Even if they find some responsibility falls upon the hotel's shoulders, you believe it will be 100%? Well, I'm not a fortune teller, but, my guess is that you'll be eating crow. YOU SAID: "If she had died in a skydiving accident, would you say "Well you shouldn't have gone skydiving!!". NO because the establishment failed their responsibility of keeping guests safe." == Have you ever even gone skydiving? I have 1500 jumps. And, I've never once heard of a skydiving operation that has been successfully sued for the death of a skydiver. When you jump, you basically sign your life away. Every waiver I've ever seen (and I've seen a lot of them) indicates that you cannot even sue them for gross negligence. Now, I think that clause can probably be beaten, because I doubt you can truly sign away your rights if the outfit is guilty of gross negligence. But, that's besides the point. Anyway, not that I've looked it up in the past several years, but I don't think there have been any successful lawsuits against a drop zone operator. Anyway, I know you were just drawing an analogy, and my guess is that your response might be something along the lines of, "oh, ok, skydiving was a bad example." But, whatever, I'm just illustrating the overall point that you don't know what you're talking about. YOU SAID: "i'm not going to argue with someone who clearly doesn't know what they're talking about." == Pffttt. NEITHER of you know what you're talking about!!! "outdoorgames" is an idiot for his ridiculously dumb claims about hotels not serving alcohol while in the pool. And, when you corrected him, he doubled down on his stupidity by then claiming that there's no evidence that THIS hotel served alcohol in the pool, when you can simply go to the hotel's website and see a picture of the bar where they serve alcohol in the pool. Yes, he doesn't know what he's talking about. But, neither do you. You asserted that they make money by serving more alcohol, because YOU didn't look up the fact that this hotel is all-inclusive, and the patrons do NOT pay for the alcohol. You don't know what you're talking about either. Good grief.
    2
  3615.  @linanicolia1994  YOU SAID: "I have experienced in Houston, in a Mexican restaurant named Ninfas , drinking one Margarita and having some nachos." == Great story. And, this is relevant, how? YOU SAID: "When I drove home I felt totally drunk as though I had many drinks." == And, you just kept on driving, huh? Yup, you're a really great person. You're sitting here, blaming OTHERS for the deaths of people, and then you get behind the wheel and drive drunk. Good gods. YOU SAID: "It was one ! I got home and started vomiting, staying in the bathroom, hugging the toilet until I thought I was dying. I was literally poisoned. The next day, when I finally recovered, and checked with my son who had met me there for dinner, who had no problem. He is taller and heavier than me, so one drink may not have affected him, as it affected me. I researched and asked around and found out, they use" everclear" in their Margarita's. It is practically like drinking pure alcohol ! also illegal to put in drinks. Not in the recipe." == So, you found out that in Houston, there is a restaurant that served illegal drinks. And, you did something about it, I assume? You sued? You have the cops bust them, right? You have proof of your claims, right? YOU SAID: "Bottom line ! never trust Mexican drinks." == So, you once got bad alcohol from a Mexican restaurant in the USA, and from that, now all Mexican restaurants anywhere on Earth, and all resorts in Mexico, all are guilty of poisoning drinks? Oh, you're a real genius. Are you Rain Man? American flight crashed, never fly American. Continental flight crashed, never fly Continental. Delta flight crashed, never fly Delta. Hey, someone got killed in a Chevrolet, never drive a Chevrolet. Ted Bundy, famous serial killer, had blue eyes, never trust anybody with blue eyes. Good grief. YOU SAID: "buy a beer from a bottle, with a very clean and neat cap. NO mixed drinks !!!!!!!" == So, the world should listen to what YOU say people should/shouldn't drink, because once you had a bad drink. YOU SAID: "i never went back to Ninfas.....when you use people as guinea pigs for your business revenue, it means you have no respect for people who give you business. Certainly NO gratitude !" == Hey, a girl died. How about showing some respect, instead of spewing your absolute gibberish (in this thread and others)?? Nothing you say makes any sense. I think that drink did a lot more than make you vomit. Looks like it killed about 50 billion brain cells along the way.
    2
  3616. The little ice crystal that got loose? What do you love about it?
    2
  3617. Yes. Hence why this is a story about an incident when ALL parties were guilty. The teens were guilty of theft. The gunman was guilty of premeditated murder.
    2
  3618. Well, it goes back to the roots of why 90%+ of the nuts believe what they believe in the first place. It's not because of the evidence (they manufacture it, twist it, willfully misunderstand it, etc., just to suit their predetermined conclusions). It's because they are complete and total failures in life, and are looking for a scapegoat to blame their problems on. So, Apollo allows them a triple whammy. (1) They get to believe the government is holding everyone back except "the elite," and the reasons for their own failures are from government oppression, not from their own shortcomings. (2) They get to believe the most accomplished people in history have accomplished nothing (just like themselves). (3) They get to pretend that silly garbage that they can "learn" in 2 minutes (like, "there are no stars in the photos") can be a substitute for the decades of education and experience that they never got, and even feel "superior" the the entire planet's experts).
    2
  3619. YOU SAID: "There's this thing called the radiation belt." == Wrong. There are TWO belts, and sometimes, depending on solar activity, there can be three. And, it takes weeks in those belts before getting a fatal dose. Apollo went through in hours, and went around the worst parts. The shuttles, the ISS, and Skylab, etc., have mostly stayed out of the belts, because those missions can last for weeks. But, there's not much concern about missions that are only exposed a couple of hours. YOU SAID: "fakers" == Wrong. YOU SAID: "there's a thing called low IQ...that would b you...you are probably a Biden suporter" == You know, when you're attempting to claim intellectual superiority, it really helps if you could spell the words you're using to attack the other person's intelligence. Otherwise, it's just this great big irony that backfires in your face. YOU SAID: "so salty....imagine calling people names over something like this.." == You've GOT to be kidding. This is insanity. YOU are the one name-calling. You're calling people "fakers" over this. You're calling people criminals over this. YOU are accusing thousands of people of committing crimes that would get them a lifetime in prison if you were correct about it. Oh, but nobody should call YOU names??? "Don't call me names while I'm claiming that thousands of people are frauds." How insane are you? YOU SAID: "I'm sorry I confused you with another ass" == Are you proud of being an idiot?
    2
  3620.  @Oubre84  YOU SAID: "get a life bro" == Get a brain, bro.
    2
  3621.  @Oubre84  Pfttt. What a child. What are you going to do? Beat up an old man for pointing out how stupid you are?
    2
  3622.  @Oubre84  Anything to avoid actually addressing any challenges to your remarkable ignorance, eh?
    2
  3623. The surface temperature during Apollo 11 was between (neg)-23 Celsius and 7 Celsius. Where are you getting the idea that it was 100?
    2
  3624. One of the more amazing things (in my eyes) is how these people are capable of regurgitating the maximum surface temperatures on the moon, yet completely ignore the fact that the astronauts were never on the surface during those maximums. They trust NASA when it tells them the maximum temperature, but, distrust them when they point out that none of the Apollo missions took place during that maximum. Pick and choose what to accept and reject. And, given that a firefighter's suit is capable of withstanding 1000 Celsius, I still will never understand why these people think the Apollo suits couldn't withstand 100.
    2
  3625. And, when the news says "Freedom of Information Act," what happens to your suit?
    2
  3626. What in the world are you even talking about? Why is it a bad thing to report theft to the police? And, pretending for a moment that I even believe the woman showed everything she was stealing under that bulky jacket, how would the store clerk know that was all? When you see a thief stuffing things in her jacket, you don't always know if there's one thing, or 100 things under that jacket. And, I mean, good grief, like I alluded to, I don't even believe for a single second that she revealed everything she was stealing. After all, she went right back to stealing from Walgreens after this incident, so, why would anybody believe that a hat and gloves were all she was stealing? And, sorry, but it's not up to you, nor the clerk, to determine what's ok to steal or not. Imagine a world where stealing $10 was ok, and you can't be reported for it. Heck, in that world, anybody could just walk into a Walgreens and take $10 worth of stuff in full view, and walk right out the door. You don't want to report it, right? So, yeah, open house to take up to $10 worth of stuff. Sure. Right. What a fine and outstanding employee you must be. If you want to hand $10 to everyone, do it with your own money. You don't get to dictate what a publicly traded company does with its money. And, furthermore, the clerk went easy on her!! She didn't even ask that the woman be arrested. What more do you want? (Well, you already said, you wanted stealing $10 to be ok.) I'm sorry, but, you are the real problem here. Instead of getting on the case of the meth addict thief who left her own kids behind in favor of her drug habit, you're getting on the case of the store clerk who did her job correctly, and didn't even press charges. Yeah, your priorities are really great. And, not that it's relevant to your argument, but, do you not even recognize the irony that, perhaps, if the woman HAD been arrested, she might still be alive today? I mean, sure, she wouldn't have gone to prison over petty theft. But, with a track record, maybe the next time she was arrested, the charges would stick, and she'd be in the relative "safety" (so to speak) of a prison, rather than dead.
    2
  3627. And, that's why you know nothing.
    2
  3628. Do you actually believe this random pile of sentences means anything?
    2
  3629. Plus, just checking here, are you aware that the judge gave her decision in writing to Brooks, and he ripped it up on camera? Plus, she asked if he read it, and his answer was "I don't need to read it."
    2
  3630. So, like all hoax nuts, you came to your conclusions first, and asked questions second. Did you really want answers? I'm guessing not. None of you nuts ever actually want answers to your own questions.
    2
  3631. Good grief. I mean, I knew your mind had already set sail for some distant land, but, this is ridiculous. Who ever told you that the descent engine didn't kick up dust? Look at the photos!!! Look at the videos!! Plenty of dust was kicked up. Sheeeessssshhhhh.
    2
  3632. Yes, and judging by the comments, 95% of the viewers fall hook line and sinker for the manipulated story.
    2
  3633. Hilarious!! Just keep it coming, dewdrop. You're on a roll. As a matter of fact, I think you should copy and paste this thread into every job application you ever fill out for the rest of your life.
    2
  3634. There are a million ways to know that Bart Sibrel's "window trick" is not only incorrect, but, an outright lie created in his editing room. But, just from the start, in order for him to be correct about the astronauts being in low Earth orbit, and those are localized clouds from 100 miles up, instead of continental clouds from half way to the moon, then you'd have to understand that the clouds should be zooming by the window at 17,500 mph. They don't. And, sorry, but you cannot claim to have watched the original video either. In the original video, they show the camera being moved from window to window, and there's no round cutout. Bart Sibrel lied, and, now you're lying.
    2
  3635.  @bradleyrex2968  I am not all that sure he was denying Apollo 11. But, as we've said in the past, you just can't tell sometimes.
    2
  3636. TimReed, Many of the engineers argued to use a color camera for Apollo 11. But, the executives decided on black and white because it was more reliable with a weaker signal. Black and white didn't require quite the same signal level that color required. Basically, color required 3x better signal than black and white required. They had a high gain S-band dish with them on Apollo 11, but, if you notice, they never deployed it. Instead, they just used the smaller S-band dish from the lander. The executives knew ahead of time that the astronauts wouldn't waste their time setting up the big dish if the small dish was good enough, which was even more reason to stick with black and white. Many of the engineers were pretty confident that they could still get a good enough signal for color, even given those factors, but, the executives still decided it wasn't worth risking it, and mandated that black and white be used for the first landing mission. For Apollo 12, they deployed the large S-band dish, but, as you know, the camera fried out. For Apollo 14, they had the big dish and color. For Apollo 15-17, they used the rover's medium sized high gain dish for the color cameras.
    2
  3637. I love how YouTubers pretend to know things they don't. Sorry, dewdrop, but secure the area first, and get plenty of cops onsite. Otherwise, you end up being the one that needs the aid yourself. A guy pops out of the woodwork with a gun. A screaming banshee arrives seconds later. A couple of minutes after that, the brother arrives, yelling about wanting to confront the cop. Who's to say how many others there may have been throughout this incident? If you focus on aid, you're not focusing on securing the area, and someone else comes along and puts you in the exact same boat as the carjacker.
    2
  3638. Yeah, I wish that wasn't the case also. But, it's part of the Freedom of Information Act. I'm not sure what else could be done. But, if there's any silver lining, at least she didn't need to suffer any embarrassment from the arrest video. It wasn't released until about 1.5 years after she died.
    2
  3639. I guess there must have been a hurricane in the desert where they filmed it, and Kubrick just said, "naw, nobody will notice, leave it the way it is," right?
    2
  3640. Her arrest was never shown before she passed.
    2
  3641. So you opened your comment with your conclusion, then asked a question? Normal people ask questions first, wait for answers, then come to conclusions. Dewdrop, the temperature doesn't change instantly. Do you REALLY think that the sun comes up, and BING, it's 275 degrees? Or, when the sun goes down (or the sun is blocked in a shadow of something), BING, it's instantly neg-280? Good grief. It takes about a week for the rocks to heat up to max, and about a week for the rocks to cool off to minimum.
    2
  3642.  @critthought2866  I didn't look at every photo you outlined, but, the famous Aldrin photo doesn't have the Earth in the visor. And, a photo like AS17-140-21386 with the sun to the southeast... that dish on the rover (in the same photo) is pointed at the Earth, so, that's not the Earth in the visor.
    2
  3643. Doesn't it ever occur to you conspiratards that all of you are functionally illiterate? Do you think that's merely a coincidence? I mean, you can't even spell "ladder" correctly. Good grief.
    2
  3644. Optical resolution isn't infinite. Photons interfere with each other. The only way around this is to make bigger lenses. In order to see the landers on the moon with barely enough detail to even know what they are, it would require a lens about a quarter mile in diameter. To see them nice and crisp, we're talking about a lens several miles in diameter. The biggest lens ever produced costed $168 million to construct, and is 5 feet in diameter. Lasers are getting more and more focused, but, they still spread out over the distance. We don't need but a few photons back in order to detect the reflectors.
    2
  3645. So, you'd have given a warning for a crime? This wasn't an infraction, you know. We don't pay police to have that kind of discretion for a crime. For that, we want the courts to negotiate what happens, not having the cop be judge and jury. And, how much do you really know about what happened here? Multiple people called for this incident. Witnesses said she did this deliberately in front of people. One of the "audience" recorded it, and showed the video to the police. It didn't match her version of a quiet act with nobody around. It was a very loud and public act in front of multiple people, including children. Also, she had served some felony time in prison for stealing cars, had an arrest record a mile long, judgements against her for various other thefts, an arrest record a mile long for various other stuff, including numerous drug and alcohol charges, and open warrants for repeatedly failing to appear in court (which, she also failed to appear for this arrest). You're going to let her go with a warning? Furthermore, why would you believe her act anyway? According to her landlord, she was a stripper at the local club, and her neighbors said that she also did "private" cash transactions in her apartment with numerous men. She had no actual "job" to speak of. This video claims she was a real estate agent, but, she had left that life behind, ditched her career and family (including two sons) about a decade ago to live "off the rails" and "wild" (her family's words), for a life of crime and drugs instead. Seriously? You're letting her go after putting on a show in front of children?
    2
  3646. The moon landings have been proven dozens of times by dozens of countries in dozens of ways. Do you REALLY believe that proving them one more time would matter? The nuts just dismiss anything and everything that goes against their delusions.
    2
  3647. There are no forces that can propel something faster than light. And, if such a force hypothetically existed, molecules would not be able to stay intact as they approach very close to light speed, and each molecule would basically fall apart. As this hypothetical force would push something beyond light speed, well, the molecules would already be broken down into subatomic particles, so, I don't know what would happen with this hypothetical force that can push stuff beyond light speed, but, nothing that you'd consider "matter" would be able to stay together. Not only wouldn't atoms be able to stay together in molecular form, but, electrons would also already be separated from protons. And well, this is just hypothetical because such a force doesn't exist anyway, as far as we know, but, if it did, it's likely that the nuclei of atoms couldn't even stay together.
    2
  3648. A) Watch the whole arrest video, not the 1 minute version. She admitted it. B) Regardless of that, she was getting arrested anyway. One of the "audience" recorded it, and showed the video to the police. Needless to say, the version told by the witnesses and the video doesn't match the version told by the convicted felon who is trying to avoid her millionth arrest.
    2
  3649. Not tin. But, Mylar and Kapton foils. What type would you have used instead?
    2
  3650. Look, dewdrop, if you seriously wanted an answer to your question, you would have included a timestamp. And, you wouldn't be so snippy when people answer you. As I said, flags moved for a few different reasons. Most of the time, when people who read and write like 2nd graders (i.e. you) complain about flag movements, they're just plain unaware that a flag will move when handled, and will do so even more without an atmosphere to dampen the movement. But, there are other reasons the flags moved from time to time. If you don't actually want an answer, then fine. If you want an answer, then specify the timestamp.
    2
  3651. Thanks for making it clear that you didn't want answers. And, yes, dewdrop, you asked a question in your 2nd posting.
    2
  3652. "go thru the Van Allen radiation belt" Why is this significant to you? Did you watch a silly video that told you it would be a problem for Apollo?
    2
  3653. "Land on it in a capsule. They couldnt land on earth." Nobody who knows anything about the Apollo program calls the Grumman lander a "capsule." And, why does it bother you that it couldn't land on Earth? They never tried to land it on Earth. What would you have done differently?
    2
  3654. "Take pictures. Of what looked like a ghost in a snowstorm" What pictures looked like that? Are you trying to say video?
    2
  3655. "Take some really cool pictures, with cameras attached to thier chests" You do know they took plenty of pictures with the cameras NOT attached to their chests, right? The chest mount was a convenience to keep their hands free. But, they could (and did) take the cameras off of the chest mount, you know.
    2
  3656. What do you know that the 450,000 people who worked on Apollo didn't know? None of them thought any of the things you named were insurmountable problems. They all thought everything would work correctly. Why do you think otherwise?
    2
  3657. Seems from your nickname that you like to travel. But, apparently, none of those travels included heading over to the local primary school to get an education, huh?
    2
  3658. Accountable for what? What do you propose instead? Ignore the Freedom of Information Act? The cops managed to keep the video out of the public's eye for 2.5 years, which was 1.5 years after she died. Eventually, though, if the case is closed long enough, they can no longer block a video from being released.
    2
  3659. Welcome to Inside Edition.
    2
  3660. Sure, avoid the evidence, ignore input, change topics. Right.
    2
  3661. Well, the next time I saw Aldrin after that punch, I told him I thought he did the right thing, and I shook the hand that did the punching. He paused for a good amount of time (something that is quite rare for Aldrin, who is never at a loss for words), and he finally said, "well, he's not going to stop what he's doing." We went on and talked about it for a few minutes. Basically, he was telling me that he did sort of regret the punch... but... without actually using those words. He felt that the punch would have been worth it if the man would quit telling lies. But, reflectively, he knew Sibrel made millions from his lies, and would never stop. All he ended up doing is giving Sibrel more attention. So, he basically regretted it (again, without using those exact words).
    2
  3662. Freedom of Information Act.
    2
  3663. He needs to be fired? For what possible reason?
    2
  3664. So, you opened by saying that the best evidence is a question. Huh? Sorry, a question isn't evidence. That's just "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." Then, you closed by answering your own question (incorrectly), and then coming to your conclusion before anybody else could answer your question. Was there a purpose to this posting? Because, it sure doesn't seem like you're actually interested in evidence, nor for any actual answer to the question you're pretending to ask.
    2
  3665. Bingo. I think she was bothered by being asked for a receipt, and then decided to do everything in her power to escalate that into a lawsuit.
    2
  3666. Well, I don't think you graduated high school.
    2
  3667. "People are directed to think in the wrong way and on the wrong topics." Yes, and you're doing exactly that. So, you should stop. "The flag," What about it? That's it? Just two words, nothing more? "Van Allen's ring" Belts. Again, what about them? You call them a "ring" (singular), apparently not calling them belts or even know that there are more than one. What could you possibly know about them, when you get that much wrong? You typed 3 words here, and already you're wrong. "camera and the like can be the subject of discussion." Yet, you don't discuss them. "There are several important things that no one mentions." They don't? Pfttt. Says who? You? "1) According to the theory about the age of the moon, we should expect tens of meters of powder or kilometers on the moon. Not sand, but powder." Says who? A conspiracy video? "We know that due to cosmic dust, the circumference of the earth increases by 1.5-2 cm every year. Why didn't it happen on the moon?" Who says it doesn't? I mean, I'm not going to try to look up your numbers here. But, what happens is that the meteors (whatever the size, from a grain of sand, to large impactors) hit the moon at amazing speeds because of the lack of atmosphere. This pulverizes the surface. And, as time goes on, it compacts the layers beneath, such that it's only "loose" at the surface, and the layers underneath have been greatly compacted. Thus, no, you won't expect the moon to be a big ball of powder. The surface can be loose, but, that's only a few inches. Under that, everything is compacted. "We only see sand in the videos, but not powder." I'm not going to split hairs over the differences between powder and fine grains of dust. You clearly don't know what "sand" is either, so, your opinion is useless.
    2
  3668. "I wasn't interested in how much fuel those jet engines use, that's right." Yet, you brought it up. Why'd you bring it up, if you weren't interested. And, sorry, again, not jets, rockets. Your position is that there wasn't enough fuel, right? Now, you're saying you're not interested in how much fuel would be required? "Is it important? Calculate it yourself. How many tons is the lunar module?" Yes, dewdrop. It's been calculated a million times. You're wrong. "How much fuel is needed to leave the planet Earth , minus 6 times, minus air resistance and plus braking maneuvers when connected to the basic module." Let's see... to launch from Earth, they needed to lift 6,000,000 pounds of initial weight, and propel 100,000 pounds of spacecraft to an altitude of 240,000 miles. To launch from the moon, they needed to lift 2,000 pounds (lunar weight) to an altitude of 62 miles. Tell me why you think these are the same things? Can you? What possible reason would you have to compare the Earth launch of a Saturn V to the lunar liftoff of a tiny lunar module. Your entire rant earlier complained that the craft was tiny. Now, when talking about lifting this tiny craft, you have the audacity to compare it to the 363 foot tall Saturn V? Why? "I'm bad at that math" You sure are. "but I know it uses a lot more than lighters." Do you actually expect to be taken seriously? "Try to put only liquid oxygen in a small bus that they used to jump around the moon and you will see that it is not possible." Who said they used only liquid oxygen? Why don't you actually try to learn something about Apollo before slandering Apollo? "If we accept that one astronaut needs 550 liters per day, that is 1650 in three days. Three astronauts need 4950 liters. For safety reasons, they needed a minimum of 6000 liters." Well, you assumed wrong. Again, Apollo craft didn't use scuba gear. You don't understand anything about the topic. "Is it necessary to calculate how much fuel they needed when the oxygen occupied all the space except their cabin." Then calculate it. "Where did they put the jet engines? Where did they put the fuel? Where did they put the food and water? Where is the rest of the equipment etc... Maybe they could fill the lighter with that fuel, but certainly nothing more than that." Why haven't you read the schematics!?!?!
    2
  3669. Great job answering the question. I guess math is just beyond you.
    2
  3670. "they think they can find it?" Please enlighten me: what's your exact viewpoint here? The thousands of people around the world in dozens of countries for the past 55 years who have used those reflectors in the many different laser ranging facilities on Earth costing (in total) hundreds of millions of dollars... they don't know what they're doing? You do, though? The Soviets put a couple of similar reflectors up there. They weren't aware of this "gotcha" you are? India just put one on the moon recently. It's only a few inches in diameter (much smaller than Apollo's). Their engineers must be completely off the wall, huh?
    2
  3671. "Not setting up the direction of the placement" Hmmm, look at Earth. Aim reflector. Really tough.
    2
  3672. "the correct angle without any type of technology would result them pointing the reflector into space" Dewdrop, they were corner cube mirrors. They have roughly an 80 degree angle tolerance (about 40 degrees off of a direct line). That's a lot. They didn't need to be aimed accurately. Anything in the correct general direction would do. But, something tells me you have no idea how corner cube mirrors work.
    2
  3673. "They say they can find it with the telescope and a lazer" I guarantee, none of the world's experts who work in those multimillion dollar facilities have EVER called it a "lazer."
    2
  3674. "but can't take a picture of lunar lander with the telescope" Correct. It would take a lens about a quarter of a mile wide to be able to see the landers in enough detail to know that they were landers, and that's just barely. If you really want clarity, you're probably talking about a lens about 6 miles in diameter. Currently, the largest lens ever produced costed $168 million to build, and is 5 feet in diameter.
    2
  3675. "Which is it?" Dewdrop, how about just NOT pretending to understand topics you don't? Is that really too much to ask? Do you go to brain surgery videos and spew up a bunch of nonsense about how the doctors don't know how to perform brain surgery? No? So, why are you saying that the world's experts in laser ranging don't know how to do it?
    2
  3676. "Maybe you should watch the whole 17 minute interview" 17 minutes? He'd be lucky to have the attention span of 17 seconds. Not the brightest bulb.
    2
  3677. Dewdrop, if you think the entirety of the world's radiobiologists and physicists are wrong about the Van Allen belts, then why are you even worried about me at all? Just publish in the science journals. What are you waiting for? Fame and fortune awaits you, but, you think posting your opinions in a YouTube comment is the mechanism to say that everything known about the Van Allen belts is wrong?
    2
  3678. And, given all of her open warrants, do you think the cops had any choice but to arrest her?
    2
  3679. That's why you'll never go back to high school.
    2
  3680. And, if you don't want answers to your questions, why do you ask them?
    2
  3681. "Firmament" = brick wall in your head.
    2
  3682. You skipped the part about her term in prison, and million other arrests, and drug/alcohol problems.
    2
  3683. YOU SAID: "Higher education reduces one's ability to think rationally." == So, you're a proponent of LESS education?? Good fucking gods. YOU SAID: "Read the book, take the test." == No, dummy. High school might just be reading some books and taking some tests. But, college is a different animal. Maybe you could even argue that the first year of college is reading books and taking tests. But, after that, you're in labs, you're learning how the actual sciences work, you're getting a hands-on understanding of chemistry, physics, biology, etc. Clearly, you have never actually been through college to know what you're talking about. You are attempting to describe the college experience without going to college. Um, no. YOU SAID: "believe the propoganda" == Without the proper understanding of the actual sciences, how could you even proclaim what is propaganda and what is not? You wouldn't know the difference. YOU SAID: "I want it to be true" == I call bullshit right there. I think you want it to be FALSE, so that you, an uneducated nitwit, can feel as though you're standing on equal ground as all of those well educated people that you hate so much. You want them to have accomplished just as little in their lives as you've accomplished (not accomplished) in yours. "Oh, mankind's greatest technology achievement was performed by the world's most educated and trained people the world has ever seen?? Nope, it was all a hoax, and those 400,000 people who worked on Apollo are just as unsuccessful in life as I am." That's what you WANT to believe. YOU SAID: "and a real Easter Bunny would be great as well." == You're an idiot.
    2
  3684. Well, Artemis was funded in 2019. Jeff Bezos (Amazon) owns "Blue Origin" to do space/rocket stuff, and has been selected by NASA to build the next generation of landers. The Orion capsule is essentially ready, and has been since 2014. The SLS rocket booster has been under development for a long time, and is always riddled with problems and delays (it's massively underfunded), but, now with Artemis being officially funded, maybe we'll see SLS pick up the pace. The Artemis astronauts have been named, and they are in training now. They plan on eventually having a lunar gateway involved, but they don't need one for the initial Artemis landings. The main "problem" is that the White House OMB says that Artemis hasn't been funded by congress at a pace to put people back on the lunar surface by 2024 (the stated goal). However, congress, thus far, hasn't budged, and hasn't increased the spending rate. At the current spending rate, the first Artemis landing on the moon should happen around 2028 or 2030. But, that funding can go up, or can go down, or can even get canceled altogether. We'll see. But, as of right now, unless the funding rate changes, you're getting your wish to see it in your lifetime, as long as you can make it another 8-10 years.
    2
  3685. No, she didn't win the case because it had no merit to begin with. But, yeah, her behavior certainly didn't help anything.
    2
  3686. What makes you UNreasonable is the fact that you ignore input, just as you did by ignoring my posted message, and just as you did by ignoring the facts and evidence when you came to your rather obvious opinion. I mean, you're welcome to pretend you're just a skeptical and unbiased observer who has been introduced to some "reasonable doubt." But, sorry, that's not skepticism when you don't lift a finger to investigate the veracity of any of the doubt. And, it's also not skepticism to refuse to address the facts and evidence. Let's not mince words here. The bottom line is that you reject the moon landings. Your stated premise is that you reject it because of "other" lies from the USA. And, the very moment that I showed you that other countries have confirmed Apollo (including enemies), you ignored the input, and moved back to arguing about something else entirely. Sorry, dewdrop, but, ignoring input doesn't make you a reasonable person, nor is that a trait of true "skepticism." Skepticism is a method of analyzing claims. It doesn't include the concept of "they lied about something else, therefore this is a lie too." It doesn't include going back and editing your comments to later change what you actually said. I mean, your attitude is just downright ridiculous. When Randy pointed out that your "logic" doesn't actually work, what did you do? You came back at him with the conclusion that he believes everything he's told (another broken piece of logic on your part). No, dewdrop. Telling you that your logic is not correct does NOT mean that Randy therefore believes everything he's told. Good gods. Dewdrop, as I said, numerous countries have confirmed Apollo in numerous ways over the past decades. You don't need to believe a single thing the USA has ever said about Apollo, and you'd still be drowning in mountains of evidence from other countries that have confirmed Apollo. I provided you with a couple of examples, and there are endless more examples I didn't write. But, you refused to accept them, you refused to respond about them, you just went on and kept spewing your gibberish, pretending to understand things you do not. No. That's not reasonable behavior. That's just a denier who pretends to be reasonable.
    2
  3687. TRANSLATION: "I don't want to look at the evidence. I want to pretend that I have reasonable doubt." What a stellar human being you are. Truly worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize (while you spit in the faces of the thousands of people you're accusing of being criminals, based on no tangible facts of any kind).
    2
  3688. Google
    2
  3689. Dewdrop, YOU asked for evidence of radio getting to the moon. YOU requested it. And, the very moment I gave you what you asked for, you tried to change topics, and you outright refuse to address it. I even gave you a way that doesn't depend on access to huge government dishes. Any backyard amateur can prove it for himself by following the instructions that you'll find in literally thousands of videos and articles. Are you or are you not going to acknowledge that ANYBODY with a 3 foot dish and a 50 watt radio can bounce radio signals off of the moon?
    2
  3690. Really? An guy wearing a balaclava ski mask in the middle of a Kentucky summer wielding a gun, and you think locking the door was going to solve all of the problems? Really? How far out to sea has your mind set sail?
    2
  3691. Nylon.
    2
  3692. And you got your physics degree from YouTube University, right?
    2
  3693. "they can produce insanely real looking stuff" Well, no, it wasn't all that easy until CGI. But, so what? The best evidence for Apollo has nothing to do with videos or photos. I mean, you'd have to explain why/how they'd "fake" about 80 hours of mission video, 7500 surface photos, and 110,000 lunar orbit photos. And, you referenced the Gravity movie, which took hundreds of people using modern technology to produce a few minutes of special effects in a total movie a couple hours long. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, you'd be talking about needing thousands of people to produce the 80 fake movie hours and nearly 120,000 fake photos. I guess none of them said anything, huh? But, anyway, like I said, I'll grant you that mission videos and mission photos don't matter that much. There are mountains of evidence for Apollo from dozens of countries that have confirmed Apollo in dozens of ways.
    2
  3694. "Can't seem to find ANY REAL PHOTOS ( not digital images)" Well, frankly, it's been about 30 years since I've even heard anybody asking for physical prints. It used to be that all you had to do was request copies of whatever Apollo photos you wanted, pay the fees, and NASA would provide you prints. Nowadays, you can just go to the archives and download them. But, for whatever the reason, you don't want that. You want physical prints. Have you tried ordering them? I have no idea if they still print Apollo photos or not. You're the first one I've seen who doesn't just download high res copies and then print them himself. Would it really matter to you if they printed it instead of you? If you're making a beef that it's not real because you haven't seen physical prints, um, ok, what difference is it really going to make to you that they print you a copy instead of you printing it yourself?
    2
  3695. "EVERY EARTH IMAGE is different in color" Yes, color is really a problem in space photography, especially greens. They often have to enhance the colors to get the greens to come through. It's a lot like scuba photos, where reds are the first colors lost, and you have to digitally enhance them, or put a red filter on the lens to put reds back into the photos. So what? They always tell you when the photos are enhanced vs. raw. Why is this an issue for you?
    2
  3696. "land sizes" Is this a joke? If you're relatively close to Earth when taking the photo, the USA (or whatever) will occupy virtually the entirety of the round Earth. If you're 200,000 miles away, the USA (or whatever) will occupy a much smaller portion of the round Earth. This is because when close to the Earth, you're only seeing a small percentage of the planet (like 1/4th or 1/3rd or whatever). When far from the Earth, you're basically seeing an entire 1/2 of the planet. Why is this difficult for you to grasp?
    2
  3697. How would you know if I missed your point or not? You clearly didn't read anything I wrote.
    2
  3698. "i did read what you wrote" Oh, so, you read what I wrote, but, didn't have the common courtesy to answer a single question or challenge? No? You read it, but, ignored it?
    2
  3699. "explain Stanley Kubrick" Spare the world your ridiculous babble, seriously.
    2
  3700. Huh? Are you trying to say that this man isn't guilty of premeditated murder? Do you know the evidence?
    2
  3701. She put on a show in front of multiple people including children. That's a crime. And, no, it didn't cost her life, because this got almost no press until long after she was dead.
    2
  3702. Looks pretty identical to the motion seen on Apollo 14 when Shepard handled the flagpole.
    2
  3703. Dewdrop, YOU are the one who keeps posting the same nonsense, cut-n-pasted across various videos, every few days. It's completely amazing and ironic that you repeatedly accuse others of being "bots," while you're the one here who robotically posts the same nonsense over and over and over, year after year, with absolutely no ability to interact or respond to anybody who bothers to respond to you.
    2
  3704. Um, ok, accountable for what? I do not understand.
    2
  3705. "to go put a stick in dirt" No, dewdrop. They went to demonstrate technological superiority over the Soviets. Putting a flag in the dirt was icing on the cake.
    2
  3706. "what are they lieing about going to the moon or are lieing about the reasons they went." Thanks for demonstrating that it wasn't a typo.
    2
  3707. Yes, she continued to steal from Walgreens after this incident, and was eventually arrested for it. She abandoned her kids for her meth habit, which she died from.
    2
  3708. I have no idea what you're trying to say, and neither do you.
    2
  3709. "Shame" - Huh? Nobody even saw the arrest video while she was alive. What "shame" did she suffer? And, given that her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club, and her neighbors said she did "private" cash encounters with a parade of men in her apartment, um, yeah, I tend to doubt she knew what "shame" meant.
    2
  3710. Well, not only is that version completely incorrect... but, pretending that it is... your "logic" is that nobody should ever report a crime for fear that the criminal might harm him/herself?
    2
  3711. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    2
  3712. A) And, you believe she turned over everything in her coat, why? B) She went right back to stealing from Walgreens after this incident, and eventually they arrested her for it. C) She abandoned her kids in favor of her meth habit. D) She died from that habit also.
    2
  3713. Really? What more discretion do you expect from the cops? They pulled her away from the restaurant, out of earshot of anybody while questioning. They blocked the release of the arrest video for 2.5 years. Nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive. They still haven't released the actual video of the incident itself, and probably never will. What more do you want?
    2
  3714. Huh?
    2
  3715. Is that a joke? Or, are you really just that illiterate?
    2
  3716. Your jealousy bleeds through every word you type.
    2
  3717. Every claim you just spewed is completely wrong, and was fed to you by conspiracy videos that intentionally take words out of context. Why in the world would you believe a single thing you just wrote?
    2
  3718. Huh? Who told you any astronaut was ever on the moon when it was 250 degrees?
    2
  3719. Do you just go from video to video to promote absolute garbage, or what? Good grief. Dewdrop, they were on the moon some of those 12 days you're complaining about. Not weightless while on the moon. And, sorry, but 12 days isn't the same as 12 months. You people act as if the muscles are supposed to atrophy in 12 days?
    2
  3720. You know what's amazing about conspiratards... no matter what the circumstances, it's always a conspiracy. Nobody dies, it's a conspiracy, because it's a dangerous business, and you'd expect some deaths. People die, it's a conspiracy, because NASA killed them. There are no blast craters, it's a conspiracy, because rockets should leave craters. There are blast craters, it's a conspiracy, because rockets don't have enough force to create craters. You can't see stars, it's a conspiracy, because there are stars in the sky that should be visible. You can see stars, it's a conspiracy, because it should have been too bright to see stars. It's pure insanity. No matter what the outcome, the conspiratards make it into a conspiracy. Apollo 1 fire, it's a conspiracy... because....
    2
  3721. Is this a joke? So, because YOU don't know someone on the carrier crews that retrieved the capsules from the ocean, this means nobody did?
    2
  3722. YOU SAID: "Look closely when the first astronauts walk, the first step on the moon floor, look closely... It's seem fake...." == Why? What is fake about it? And, why hasn't any of the planet's physicists found a problem with it? YOU SAID: "And second, where are the stars?? Why black sky, ob earth we see stars and bot on the moon?? Why this???" == Because it's daytime. Just because it's a black sky doesn't mean it's not very bright. It was so bright that they had to wear gold visors. You cannot expose a bright lunar surface in the same frame with dim stars. It's just basic photography/videography. Cameras do not have that kind of dynamic range, even today.
    2
  3723. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    2
  3724. Transformers movies are fiction, you know.
    2
  3725. Well, what you're outlining WAS the original intent. The Dr. Smith character wasn't even in the pilot. That character was an afterthought, and, they intended to have him around for a few episodes, then kill him off. But, the performances by Jonathan Harris (Dr. Smith) and Billy Mumy (Will) stole the show, even though they were supposed to just be background characters. And, the audiences loved the robot. So, responding to audience demands, it didn't take long for the primary plot lines to shift away from the Robinson mother/father, and toward the ones most popular with audiences. Remember, this was a typical weekly show, where they're writing the episodes, shooting the scenes, and then they went on the air a couple of weeks later. They didn't plan out the episodes years in advance. They didn't have scripts ready until they were almost ready to shoot.
    2
  3726. And, that utter mess was your updated/edited version? Good gods, man.
    2
  3727. Huh? What are you talking about? He suffered only minor wounds, and will stand trial for murdering his father and throwing him into the lake (as well as the 3598473 felonies he committed during this chase).
    2
  3728. You said it's amazing to believe it. But, do you believe it? Or, are you saying that you reject it?
    2
  3729. Yes. There are big telescopes. But, none are big enough to see a flag on the moon from the distance of Earth. I haven't done the math lately on seeing a flag. But, the math dictates that it would take a quarter mile wide lens/mirror to see the Apollo landers in enough detail to know what they are. Seeing a flag in enough detail to know what it is... well... that's a lot smaller than a lander... and I'd have to do the calculations... but, short of spending my time on that, I'll just tell you to do the math, in full knowledge that you're now talking about a lens/mirror a couple of miles across, at least. If I thought you were even remotely serious, I'd go ahead and make the calculations. But, sorry, not my first rodeo. I know darned well that you have no intention of listening.
    2
  3730.  @williammann9176  They did take a few pictures of Venus from the moon, FYI.
    2
  3731. "You need deeper study" Thanks, dewdrop. My degrees are from ACTUAL universities, not YouTube University. If you think you understand space temperatures and radiation, why are you publishing your "knowledge" (sigh) in a YouTube comment? Why aren't you publishing in the peer reviewed journals on radiobiology or astrophysics? Note: there are no physicists or radiobiologists on the planet who agree with you, so, when you rewrite everything known on these topics, you'll surely win a Nobel Prize or two. So, what are you waiting for? Why waste your time writing your scientific knowledge on YouTube?
    2
  3732. Dewdrop, I am irrelevant. You made a claim about a topic you know absolutely nothing about. You asked a question, but, you don't want the answer. Why? If you don't want answers to your questions, why do you ask them?
    2
  3733. Who did this?
    2
  3734. Do you have any concept of how many fake moon rocks are out there? "One person"? Um, no. As far as I'm aware, there's only ever been one example of moon material that has legally been "sold" by NASA, thus are in circulation legally. This was for charity, when they took a piece of tape, put it against Dave Scott's suit, and pulled up a few extremely tiny grains of dust that stuck to the tape. That piece of tape was sold for $30,000 at a charity auction, if I recall correctly. How many millions do you think an actual rock would go for, if it was legitimate? So, just like Rolex watches have a subculture of fakes being produced, there are fakes of moon rocks all over the place. There are fake baseball cards from 100 years ago. There are counterfeit Air Jordan basketball shoes being sold at collector shops. There are fake Gucci handbags sold in every mall in China. Yes, when things are valuable, there are inevitably fakes out there, and the same goes for moon rocks. I myself have been "offered" to buy a couple of moon rocks for $100,000 for one, and $200,000 for the other. Not for one second did I believe they were real, and wouldn't have bought them if they were (because the only way they'd be in those hands would be if they were stolen). But, someone would buy them. But, because someone donated a fake moon rock to an art museum in the Netherlands (almost undoubtedly to claim a tax writeoff), you're going to sit there and accuse Apollo of being fake? Really? How disconnected from reality are you? If a museum displays a fake Rolex watch because they're unable to tell the difference between a real one and a fake one, does this mean there are no real Rolex watches?
    2
  3735. Do the math.
    2
  3736. "Our computers way back in the 1960s were not powerful enough" Really, dewdrop? So, MIT / Draper Labs, Raytheon, and IBM, the three contractors who designed and built all of the computers used on Apollo, all somehow overlooked that their computers were unable to do what they designed and built them to do? Why? Because you say so? Did you watch a video made by a lawnmower repairman who told you that the computers couldn't do what they did, and just believed it for no reason?
    2
  3737. "they were deleted/shredded" Who told you such a ridiculous thing, and why would you believe it? I mean, even if it was true (it's not), they have a few leftover landers that they can simply look at. But, nobody is looking to recreate an Apollo lander, dewdrop. The new landers are being made for entirely different mission profiles. They didn't need Wright Flyer blueprints to create 747s 60 years later either.
    2
  3738. So, you're complaining about the Van Allen belts, but you refuse to read anything that James Van Allen wrote about them? Is that how this goes? Dummy, you can stick your head in the sand, put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and say "lalalalalala, I can't hear you, lalalalala" all you want. But, all you're doing is making a fool of yourself. The Van Allen belts are deadly if you spend over a week in the worst parts. Apollo missions went around the worst parts of the belts, and only spent a few hours in them for the round trip. Manned missions since then haven't gone up into the belts because those craft WOULD be spending a lot of time in the belts if they went that high. Skylab. Mir. Shuttle. ISS. Etc. These are missions that DO last weeks/months. Hence, they don't send them up into the belts. But, if all you want to do is blow right through them, you're fine. Apollo astronauts got about 0.1% of a fatal dose. But, hey, if you have calculated otherwise, what are you doing on YouTube? Why would you choose a YouTube comment as your mechanism to declare that the last 60 years of study of the Van Allen belts is all wrong? After all, you're claiming that not a single aerospace engineer, radiobiologist, cosmological physicist, etc., for the past 60 years, in friendly or enemy countries, have spotted this "problem" that you have spotted. So, what are you waiting for? Why haven't you published your calculations?
    2
  3739. "l would like to know how the astronauts were not affected by radiation." Because there wasn't enough exposure to matter all that much.
    2
  3740. "Even if protection from radiation during Mars travel" A Mars mission would likely last well over a year from liftoff back to splashdown. Do you think that the radiation exposure for that period of time is the same as the 8 day exposure of Apollo 11?
    2
  3741. Well, it is "easier" to a degree. But, it's still very expensive. Apollo costed around $300 billion (adjusted into today's inflated dollars) in hard costs, plus roughly another $150 billion in soft costs and international support. Artemis' initial budget was $30 billion, but, when you include some prior development costs from existing precursor programs, and current overruns (i.e. the ridiculous hideous lander), yeah, the total cost is expected to be around $90 billion. Yes, as you said, that's far cheaper than Apollo, due to technological advancement. But, Moore's Law doesn't apply to rocketry. Advancements only buy so much. It's still very expensive, and congress hadn't approved another manned moon program until funding began for Artemis in 2019.
    2
  3742. I have no idea what you're talking about, and neither do you.
    2
  3743. Where? On the internet? That means it's true. Nobody ever posts anything fake on the internet.
    2
  3744. Variants, yes. Identical units, no. Google "field sequential scanning cameras" and you can read up on them. They weren't very popular to begin with. The picture quality wasn't very good. But, they offered color TV crammed into a small/light frame. Most TV networks/producers were more worried about picture quality than the size of the camera. So, those field sequential scanning cameras never got many sales. But, for Apollo, where size/weight matters... now you're talking about a different niche, and a super-light/small TV camera has a use. The ones used on Apollo had a bunch of differences than the commercial ones (the few that were sold). They were built to tie in with unified S-band radio. They were in a different format than the worldwide standard NTSC TV signals. They had additional protections for being in space. Etc. But, yes, field sequential scanning cameras were commercially available, just not very popular.
    2
  3745. Maybe. But, it's often thought that people who lie THAT much don't actually have a strong ego, but, in reality, have a very fragile one.
    2
  3746. Well, if you believe this particular arrest was some sort of tipping point, well, I wouldn't know whether to agree or not. But, if so, she waited 8 months after this "tipping point" before she killed herself.
    2
  3747. Welcome to Inside Edition.
    2
  3748. Yeah, she sued, and her case was tossed out of court, and she's been barred from ever filing it again. She got $0.00. You're correct in that she didn't steal anything. But, sorry, she doesn't get to violate other laws, then claim to be a victim.
    2
  3749. What do you know about the Van Allen beltS that James Van Allen (or any other expert for that matter) didn't know?
    2
  3750. First of all, why wouldn't you put this new pile of gibberish into your own original thread? Why would you start a new one? "Where is the heat pump?" For what? "The Mylar & Kapton you talk about is designed around 400 Celsius, is only a polymer of carbon base; is solid base; is only good for earth desert insulation for temporary use, this cannot take lunar temperature." Hilarious!! Most satellites nowadays use this exact same mechanism that was developed during Apollo. But, you say that it's only good for Earth use? Huh? It's actually horrible for Earth use, because an atmosphere, wind, etc., don't work very well with wrinkled foil. You are just plain backward, and, the entire world's satellites are proof of this. "What is there to freeze water to ice before putting ice into the spacesuit?" Huh? I never said anything like that. It sublimates into ice, then flashes into vapor. You seem to be unaware that at zero pressure, stuff works differently. Like, an example, water boils in a vacuum, at almost ANY temperature (only very extreme cold temperatures are the exception, like near absolute zero). And, you clearly don't understand the sublimation process. "The vast difference of human body and lunar atmosphere is simply too large." There is no lunar atmosphere. Good grief. "There is a different for spacesuit designed for space and one for the lunar surface." Wrong. They only brought one suit for each astronaut. "In Space, the temperature is close to zero Celsius." Wrong. Space doesn't have a temperature. You don't even know what temperature is. Temperature is essentially a measurement of the heat of an object or some sort of physical material (loosely, not exactly, but, with your level of understanding, it's about the best I can do to describe it). There is no such concept as a temperature of nothing. "In lunar surface, the temperature is hundreds of Celsius." No. The highest surface temperature on the moon is about 120 or 130 degrees (C), which is about 250-260 (F). And, the highest temperature only happens just after the lunar noon. Basically, it slowly climbs up from being extremely cold, to peaking out shortly after the high noon. All of the Apollo missions landed very early in the lunar morning, long before those temperatures. So, for you to quote temperatures for a time period that the astronauts weren't even there... it's just ridiculous. They avoided those high surface temperatures by landing at the lunar equivalent of Earth's 6:30am. "Here is evidence; Footprint requires the presence of water." Why? Who told you such a silly thing? "The temperature of the lunar surface is so high and will boil all water into the lunar atmosphere." You don't even need the temperature to be high to boil the water. Again, in a vacuum, water boils at almost ANY temperature. You clearly have no understanding of this topic. When they say water boils at 212 degrees (F), that is assumed at one atmospheric pressure. But, when you change the pressure, this changes the boiling point. I've known this since being a small boy in basic elementary school science classes. What kind of education did you get? Why would you fail to understand this? There must be a hundred different videos you can watch. "Water boils in a vacuum." I mean, not that I really encourage you to get your education from videos. But, it's clear that you don't have any education at all, so, in a pinch, sure, just go watch a couple of those videos. Learn something. "This will go to the lunar atmosphere" Again, there is no lunar atmosphere. I mean, technically, if you really want to split hairs, there is a lunar "atmosphere" that is roughly 1 trillionth (literally) of Earth's atmosphere. But, nobody really calls that an atmosphere. It's so close to zero at that point, you're basically counting molecules. And, of course, there's no true "perfect vacuum," not even in deep space. But, let's get real here, this is all well beyond you. So, for all practical purposes, yes, you can say there's no atmosphere on the moon. "The footprint shown on the lunar mission is a fake." Shocker!! You think the photos are fake. Who would have ever guessed you'd think that? "The USA is good for fake news and fake science, designed to cheat the world." There are science journals all around the world, not just in the USA. All of the real science is done in those journals. So, this is what you should do: go ahead and write up your scientific principles (sigh), and submit them to any science journal in the world which is recognized by accredited universities. Tell them that you don't think water boils with the principles established over the last couple of centuries. Tell them all about how heat transfer in a vacuum works, and that the entire planet's aerospace engineers are all "doing it wrong." Tell them that they've got the lunar temperatures all wrong. What are you waiting for? Why would you come to a YouTube comment with this vast scientific knowledge you have? If you think the entire planet's understanding of physics is different than yours, ok, go write it up!! I'm sure you'll win a Nobel Prize or two.
    2
  3751. "you do know there were classified missions that failed where people died" HILARIOUS!! So, YOU know about these "classified missions"? YOU do? Dewdrop, 400,000 Americans and 50,000 people internationally worked on the Apollo program for an average of about 10 years each. Apollo ran from 1961 to 1972 for moon missions, and through 1975 for the Apollo applications projects such as Apollo-Soyuz and Skylab. And, for all of that effort, they managed to launch 13 Saturn V rockets. Yet, you're arguing that they somehow managed to build and launch a few more of them for these "classified missions," and nobody noticed that a few Saturn V rockets went missing? Really? The launch could be seen and heard for hundreds of miles. But, you're proposing that there were a few more of them for classified missions that nobody seemed to notice? Those things were 363 feet tall, and stood out there on the launchpad for about a month while getting prepped to fly to the moon. Oh, but, no problem, there were more of them, just nobody seemed to ever see them?
    2
  3752. Dewdrop, I asked you a half dozen questions. You don't get to ignore them all, then ask a new question. And, besides, YOU are the one with super secret "classified" knowledge that you've graced YouTube viewers with, right? YOU know things that the 450,000 people who worked on Apollo didn't know, right? YOU know about secret missions, so, I guess the thousands of engineers built a few extra Saturn V rockets, then somehow forgot they built them... but, YOU know about it, right? No, I'm not addressing new questions while you ignore your own prior comments and the answers/questions that followed.
    2
  3753. Well, with her mile long arrest and criminal record and prison time, stealing cars, drugs and alcohol, numerous judgements against her for theft, changing her name over and over again to avoid arrest, repeated failures to appear at court, etc., if that's what a "good" Christian is, please explain what a "bad" one is?
    2
  3754.  @TheWokeFlatEarthTruth  The cameras for Apollo 15/16/17 (the three launches as seen from the three rovers) were RCA, not Westinghouse.
    2
  3755. "a reasonable expectation of privacy" - No, not even close. Sorry, dewdrop, but, there is no such concept on a public beach.
    2
  3756. "didn't even have the right to arrest" Wrong, dewdrop. Multiple people called about this incident. She put on a public show in front of the public, including children. One person even recorded it, and gave a copy of the video to the police (not released due to graphic content). With that, plus all of her other open warrants, yes, she was going to get arrested.
    2
  3757. "disgrace to whoever called 911" Oh? You mean the innocent families and bystanders? Tell me, if it was a guy cranking at a playground, would you be saying the same?
    2
  3758. You need more emojis to convince people that you know better than the entire planet's experts.
    2
  3759. Sorry, when the entirety of your knowledge of the topic is rooted in "lost the technology," you seriously have problems.
    2
  3760. Um, ok, but, it doesn't seem like he was trying to prove anything here. Are you under the impression that all videos pertaining to Apollo should be an effort to prove it?
    2
  3761. Hollywood director T. Patrick Murray's mockumentary, starring Tom Mayk as Kubrick. "Shooting Stanley Kubrick" (2015) - it's got an IMDB credit. Let me guess, that video made to mock YOU, you fell for, hook line and sinker, right?
    2
  3762. Virtually nobody covered this until well after she was dead. You know this, right?
    2
  3763. Wrong. The deniers will continue to deny. After all, LRO has sent photos back since 2009, showing the landers on the moon. They don't care, they just call those photos fake. China and India both released photos of the Apollo 11 landing site taken by their individual lunar orbiters, again, showing the lander exactly where it's supposed to be. Doesn't matter. The deniers just conclude that India and China have joined "the deception" 50+ years later. New photos won't matter one bit. They'll just continue to deny.
    2
  3764.  @gerardoconnor4278  Post
    2
  3765. I'll cut and paste an answer I gave in a separate thread, since it's almost a carbon copy anyway: Well, you certainly could be correct. But, the problem is, we'll never know. Apollo went to the moon to beat the Soviets. Yes, you're right about that, that was the primary motivation. But, suppose it didn't happen. And, suppose the USA never expressed its technological dominance and willpower with a program like Apollo. What do you think would happen? At the time, the mentality was that Apollo's purpose was to prevent the cold war from turning into a real war. And, a lot of people feel that a real war would have happened, if not for Apollo. Are they correct? We will never know, because we cannot know about a hypothetical war that was averted. But, keep in mind, this was an era of bomb shelters in people's backyards, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Bay of Pigs, etc. We were a lot closer to all out war than many people today realize. So, ok, let's pretend you got your way, and Apollo never happened. Alright, do you even know if you'd be alive right now? Maybe killed in war (or your parents killed)? Who knows?
    2
  3766.  @kennym3492  The bible has a hell of a lot of specifications on Jewish slaves, and how you're supposed to treat them, pay taxes on them, how long you can enslave them, etc. Do you think they were referring to black Jews?
    2
  3767. I dunno... seems to me that your addiction is far worse than any risk the astronauts ever took.
    2
  3768. Tell me, if something was stolen because she went through without paying (she didn't, I'm just saying hypothetically), how do you expect anybody to instantly know what was stolen? How could they tell if it was $20 or $200?
    2
  3769.  @Will-s8p  "That tells you he was lying." Really? So, the astronauts who didn't punch Sibrel were telling the truth then? Is that how this goes? Your criteria for determining whether someone is telling the truth or not is whether he punches the other guy or not? Suppose he didn't punch Sibrel. What would you say then? Would you say he's telling the truth? Or, would you say that he's lying, and if he had been telling the truth, he would have punched the guy for accusing him? "Space challenger blew up in 86 with 8 people aboard." Thanks for proving that it wasn't a typo in your other comment that said this. I mean, when you said 8 people were onboard in that other thread, I thought it was pretty solid evidence that you don't know a darned thing about this topic. But, I wondered if you were going to come back and say that you merely made a typo, and it was 7 people. But, now, you've said 8 people in two different threads. So, you're not making a typo, you genuinely have no understanding of the topic on any level. "Technology was way more advanced. Use your head." Yes, dewdrop. And, as I said before, Boeing had two 737MAX airplanes that crashed with far more advanced technology than the original Wright brothers plane (which never crashed). Does this mean that the Wright brothers plane didn't exist?
    2
  3770. YOU SAID: "- 50 years after: no way to go back to the Moon Today, NASA lost the technology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16MMZJlp_0Y" Oh, good grief. Spare the world your stupid conspiratard notions and quote mines. The technology isn't "lost" in the sense that nobody knows how to do it. It's "lost" in the sense that none of it exists any longer. And, what EXACTLY did you expect? Did you expect those 400,000 people to just keep working, just keep the doors open, cranking out Saturn V rockets, command modules, landers, computers, etc., even though the funding had gotten pulled? How ridiculous is that notion? OF COURSE the stuff doesn't exist any longer. Why would it? Once the funding got pulled, why would anybody keep the doors open to all of the companies, manufacturing facilities, tooling, assembly, engineering, etc.? No. Of course that stuff doesn't exist any longer. The buildings have been converted to doing new things. The people moved on, and almost all of them are dead or retired. The contracting companies either went out of business, or got acquired by other companies, and are doing completely different things now. I mean, good grief. Why do you idiots hinge on the word "lost" as if this is some sort of silver bullet "gotcha" moment? It IS "lost" in the sense that I described. You (and every other conspiratard) are INTENTIONALLY taking the words out of context to suit your own delusions. YOU SAID: "https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nasa-tapes/moon-landing-tapes-got-erased-nasa-admits-idUSTRE56F5MK20090716" == Yes, congratulations on finding an article that described what happened so briefly as to miss the entire point. Yeah, don't go to the original source articles, which describe what happened in hundreds of pages of extreme detail about all of the stuff. Nope. Go base your understanding on about 5 sentences from an overly brief article... which, by the way, isn't even 100% accurate. The two tapes that were lost were not "the originals." That concept doesn't even make sense with the technology they used. There is no such concept as "originals" in radio and radio relay operations like this. It would be accurate to say that the Parkes recordings were "closest to the original source," but to call them "the original recordings" is just plain wrong. The ones that were lost were never considered any more than the backup recordings. And, the primary recordings are still safe and sound in the archives. Sorry that your stupid article didn't elaborate on that level of detail. But, hey, you're clearly someone who needs all of your "facts" boiled down to very very very very short summaries. If it takes more than 3-4 sentences to describe, then it's a conspiracy, right? Anyway, why the hell would you link to a Reuters article rather than all of the original source material?? Because then you'd be proving yourself wrong, and we can't have that, can we? YOU SAID: "Almost impossible to go to the Moon today https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610720/why-getting-back-to-the-moon-is-so-damn-hard/ now imagine that... " == Did you even read the article you're linking to? Um, dumbass, the article isn't in support of your crazy conspiracy viewpoint, it's AGAINST it!!! Good gods, what an idiot. YOU SAID: "We want to go to Mars !!!!!!! Yet we do not have the technology to go to the Moon today !" == Um, dumbass, do you think we DO have the stuff to go to the moon today? I mean, look, moron, the words "do not have the technology" mean two different things. (1) We don't have the technology, built, in our possession, ready to fly. Or, (2) We don't know how. You are, once again, INTENTIONALLY taking the wrong context of the words used, in order to suit your delusions. We "have the technology" in the sense that we know how. We don't "have the technology" in the sense that there's any current capability to actually strap into a moon rocket and go. YOU SAID: "( And I am the crazy one , right)" == Yes. YOU SAID: "Thus our Science and Technology is less advance today than 50 years ago !" == No, dumbass. The shuttle was "more advanced" than Apollo. The Orion capsule is more advanced that Apollo's capsule. It's not about less "advancement" than there was 50 years ago. It's about the MONEY. Do you have any concept of how much moonshot programs will cost?? Good grief. Hey, stupid shit, we "have the technology" to go to moon again, or Mars, or wherever. But, manned missions are insanely more expensive than probes. You simply have no understanding of the topic.
    2
  3771. Yes. What EXACTLY would you expect to happen instead?
    2
  3772. @thePiercingTruth What do you mean? What research or technical knowledge isn't "protected"?
    2
  3773.  @stusue9733  I understood the point you were making. I just thought you might be a jumper to have given that example.
    2
  3774. By pointing a gun?
    2
  3775. What in the world are you talking about? There are tons of rover tracks.
    2
  3776. Huh? Why would you say we're struggling to get something into space? What are you talking about?
    2
  3777. YOU SAID: "Tasing a man, that was the best way to get him to talk or to get him out his vehicle.." == You don't get to just say that without suggesting the better way. Clearly he wasn't listening to the cop who told him to stop. Clearly he was not intending on abiding at all. So, what EXACT mechanism are you suggesting? Sorry, but you don't get to say "you're doing it wrong" unless you have some better ideas. YOU SAID: "Ummm! If the man did not do anything let him go." == But, he did do something. He was trespassing, committed a legal assault, and attempted to steal a cell phone. YOU SAID: "Now he's clearly pissed off because the police officer had no right to taser him" == And, you got your law degree, where? YOU SAID: "so he gets an ass whipping so cowardly shoots a man because he cant fight a man with a stick smh" == You're an idiot. YOU SAID: "thats why u have another taser ready" == Um, dumbass, the first Taser didn't work on this drugged up maniac. Why would you think the second Taser would work? And, yeah, you go right ahead with your life, and bring a Taser to a battle with a drugged up maniac swinging a baton as if it's a baseball bat, ready to take your head off. Good luck with that. Let me know how many times you win that battle. YOU SAID: "or your bag bullets..." == So, in the very same sentence, you're claiming the cop should use a Taser, AND bullets? What the hell are you talking about? YOU SAID: "police need to start using better weapons to stop crime." == So, your suggestion was a Taser (which already didn't work), and a "bag of bullets" (whatever that means). Good gods, what an imbecile. YOU SAID: "This could of went a different way." == Hey, dumbass, how about leaving law enforcement to law enforcement officers, and keeping your ignorant opinions to yourself? Nobody needs idiots to express their massively ignorant opinions, about topics they don't understand.
    2
  3778. And, you believe that, why? Because Inside Edition says so?
    2
  3779. Starting with you. You cannot even spell "business" correctly, what could you possibly know about it?
    2
  3780. Most likely a FOIA request. But, more importantly, what charges? What's the basis of a lawsuit?
    2
  3781. Apollo's main purpose was as a demonstration of dominance over the Soviets. It was a cold war effort to show the power of the capitalistic system, and to send the message to the Soviets that they dare not mess with us, or we will beat them at whatever we choose. It was a mechanism to keep the cold war cold, rather than becoming a real war, or even worse, a nuclear war. Nobody can say whether that truly would have happened, if not for Apollo. But, many believe that Apollo prevented war by keeping the Soviets in check, and saved the lives of tens of millions of people who would have been killed in such a war, not to mention the effects of nuclear fallout on major cities. Is that a good enough example of how it benefitted mankind?
    2
  3782. Just let me know when you're not too drunk to post the message again, ok? Nobody can understand you.
    2
  3783. First of all, that was the route back to the police cars. Secondly, she should have been pretty used to being arrested, what with her mile long criminal record, million other arrests, time spent in prison, etc. She got arrested so often that the police probably had those pink cuffs made just for her. So, I'm not exactly going to have sympathy when the felon who couldn't stop getting herself arrested, got arrested again.
    2
  3784. You can see it (grainy) as the car door opens. You also see it on the ground next to a piece of wood at several points in the video. 5:02 is one of those times.
    2
  3785. That's what happens when you get your entire "education" by watching movies.
    2
  3786.  @WilliamMann-co8un  Cell phones run on radio.
    2
  3787. I couldn't even imagine being in the live audience, perhaps because my wife or child was killed by this guy, and he's sitting there claiming that there's no injured party. I'd end up in jail right beside him.
    2
  3788. Yes, the restaurant should have had many different pathways to get back to the police cars. The restaurant deserves the suit for sure.
    2
  3789. Seriously? THAT is your reply? Good gods. I've had the complete videos since long before Sibrel ever made his movie. All you needed to do is order them, and they'll send you copies. Or, Spacecraft Films had been putting all of those video clips into consolidated video tapes and DVDs for many years before Sibrel's movie was made. Anybody could simply order them and watch them. Yes, Sibrel's copy was edited. You can see jump cut edits just by watching his own video. And, I even gave you a video ID that shows some of the stuff Sibrel edited out. But, you're just going to ignore everything I say anyway, huh? Not a single word about Sibrel's version, where he says the astronauts are 17,000 mph in low orbit, yet, the clouds don't budge? No? You won't touch that? Not a single response about the fact that Sibrel pretends he had this film professionally carbon dated... when it wasn't even on film to begin with (it's a TV signal, not film)? You won't respond about the fact that you cannot even carbon date film anyway, because it was never alive, yet, Sibrel said that he somehow had the film carbon dated? (And, again, it wasn't even on film in the first place.) No? In one ear, out the other. And, your only response is that you don't think it was edited? Sheeessshhhh.
    2
  3790.  @lorichet  Pffttt. Ignore everything I said, declare victory, based on gibberish. Bravo.
    2
  3791.  @lorichet  I'm not playing this game with you. I have the original videos. I know Sibrel edited what he put into his movie. I also gave you the video ID of the side-by-side comparison of Sibrel's version and the original version. You ignored it. And you ignored every word I said, demonstrating that his version CANNOT be true, based on the speed of low orbit, the fact that the clouds don't move in his video, and his ridiculous claim about carbon dating a piece of TV footage. In one ear, out the other. You clearly are not interested in answers to your own questions. Hallmark behavior.
    2
  3792. I'm sorry that you don't know how to put in a video ID. But, that's not my problem. Great job avoiding every other topic too (once again).
    2
  3793. Name of the site. Then, you put a slash in. Then, the word video. Then, another slash. Then the video ID. Was that so hard?
    2
  3794. I told you exactly how to find the video. You ignored it. And, sorry, but the fact that Sibrel shows a few minutes of video that he is claiming comes from low Earth orbit (17,000 mph), with localized clouds instead of continental cloud formations viewed from 130,000 miles away, yet, the clouds do not move, is NOT dependent upon your refusal to find the video I'm talking about. That issue stands all on its own. His claim that he had the "film" (which wasn't even shot on film, since it was a TV signal, not film) carbon dated (when it's not even possible to carbon date a piece of film) is downright ridiculous also. It's 100% clear that you don't want any answers to your questions, and you're willfully avoiding any input that counters your predetermined conclusions. If you want to believe a taxi cab driver magically got this "leaked" film (that wasn't film, and anybody could view simply by ordering copies), and that the entire rest of the world is unable to recognize something as simple as orbital speed doesn't allow local clouds to be stationary from 100 miles above, fine, go right ahead. But, don't sit there and ask others to refute anything that man says, when you make it obvious that you absolutely will avoid listening at all costs. Sheesssshhhh. At 17,000 mph in orbit from 100 or 200 miles up... yet the clouds stay still for minutes at a time. Right. Sure.
    2
  3795. Quote: "It doesn't debunk the voice "talk" that prompts Armstrong to begin speaking." - This is downright hilarious!!!! You are intentionally blind at this point. Sibrel added the "talk" later. That's how he does all of his tricks. In the editing room. Good gods. You said you just watched the video, which clearly shows that Sibrel's copy cuts away the moment that they're showing the window of the craft (not a round cutout), and yet, this still doesn't sink it. You are clearly beyond just delusional.
    2
  3796.  @lorichet  As I repeatedly said, all you need to do is watch the original copies. Why is it so difficult for you to simply admit that Sibrel's version CANNOT be correct? You refuse to answer anything I ask, yet, you keep spewing more and more "gotcha" nonsense. Do you believe that Sibrel's story about being in low Earth orbit is even possible? Why don't the clouds move at 17,000 mph across the window if they were in low Earth orbit? Why won't you address it?
    2
  3797. Yes, that was the same camera that recorded his first steps. But, for the first steps, it was mounted to the side of the lander's MESA equipment bay. Then, they moved it out to its other location to take video of the moonwalk, and it still remains in that spot today.
    2
  3798. Yeah, you're probably right. But, a bit more... if he had shut his mouth rather than his "confession." And, ya know, it would have helped him if he had called the police immediately after the shootings. But, well, instead he said, "cute" on his tape, and then kept the bodies for 24 hours, and she was found with her clothes open and exposed (I'll let you figure that one out yourself). None of these things really help a "self defense" case.
    2
  3799. Well, it wasn't posted anywhere until 2.5 years later (which is 1.5 years after she died). But, the answer to your question is the Freedom of Information Act.
    2
  3800. First of all, multiple people called the police. One woman even video recorded the incident with her cell phone, and showed the video to the police. They described it in their police report as a very loud and public display that was visible to multiple people. This hardly matches the claims of a woman who is trying to avoid getting arrested by saying it was a discreet incident with nobody around. Secondly, the release of the bodycam video was probably the result of a legal FOIA request. But, it had no bearing on her suicide, because the arrest video was not made public until 2.5 years later, which was 1.5 years after she was already dead. So, whose blood is on whose hands?
    2
  3801.  @jazemkrzysio  Depends. Are you talking about TV video? Film video? Distance to objects in the background? Apparent horizon or real horizon? What was the camera focused on? Result vary depending on details.
    2
  3802. Well, here's the main point: Musk refuses to reveal the weight of the truck. Nobody, not Thunderf00t, nor any other YouTuber, would even need to try to estimate these things if he'd just publish the darned number. Every other truck manufacturer on the face of the planet knows how important it is to know the weight, so the buyer can calculate how much cargo they can carry per load, therefore they publish the weight. It's usually the buyer's main concern, and no [sane] buyer would purchase a truck without knowing that number. But, Tesla won't say. Instead, they just say "this beats rail," and the main companies who buy it are really just seeking the "green" image that goes along with electric vehicles, not because they'll save money.
    2
  3803. You might return to normal if you lay off of the drugs.
    2
  3804. Dewdrop, I have copies of every single photo taken on the surface of the moon. There is no photo from outside the craft during the landings. Secondly, how do you think this works anyway? NASA somehow bluffed the entire planet's radio telescopes and radar dishes across multiple countries, including enemies, they were smart enough to pull that off somehow (a feat we wouldn't even know how to do today)... but, they somehow forgot not to show pictures taken from outside the craft during the landing? And, nobody noticed it for 50+ years? Really? Choice 1: The entire planet's experts for 50+ somehow missed this amazing "problem" you found. Choice 2: You don't know what you're talking about, and you blindly swallowed some nonsense you saw in a conspiracy video. Which do you suppose is more likely?
    2
  3805. Dewdrop, just how many times do you have to be told, and by how many different people, that nobody can see your links except you? And, if you're not going to read the answers to your own questions, why do you ask questions?
    2
  3806. So, you're asking questions, but don't want answers, and you refuse to state the source of these mysterious photos. Bravo. We are over 30 messages into this thread, and you still can't tell anybody where these photos are.
    2
  3807. You never went where? To high school?
    2
  3808. Yeah, she was their primary meth customer.
    2
  3809. Depends on what you mean by "performance." The X15 was pretty impressive.
    2
  3810. It was too late by then. She was already getting arrested for her other crimes, with or without the theft charge.
    2
  3811. Good grief. Yes, people lost interest. I mean, you should talk to your fellow hoax nuts and get your stories straight. The common conspiracy garbage about Apollo 13 is that it was staged to gain attention after everyone was losing interest. So, they pretended Apollo 13 exploded in space and barely got back home alive. That's what your fellow hoax nuts say to explain why they'd "fake" an explosion half way to the moon if they were never half way to the moon... because the public had lost interest. But, now, you're saying the public didn't lose interest. I wish you people could agree on how this hoax is supposed to work.
    2
  3812. Huh? Police don't post this on YouTube, media outlets do that.
    2
  3813. True, the teens shouldn't have been breaking into homes. But, to claim that this particular case was a miscarriage of justice....??? Why? Do you even know the facts of the case? How do you explain why the police investigators, the judges, the 12 jurors, the appellate court, the state supreme court, and the federal supreme court, have all universally disagreed with you?
    2
  3814. "Look into it" undoubtedly = watching baseless conspiracy videos without lifting a finger to verify if anything they say is actually true.
    2
  3815. "Dictionary definition of aeronautics: "The theory and practice of navigation through air or space"" No, dewdrop. Aeronautics involves AIR travel. You don't get to lie and stick "or space" into the definition just to cover your tracks and pretend I am the one who doesn't understand it.
    2
  3816. "NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Did you get that second word?" Yes, dewdrop. But, by your own definition, it wouldn't need the "space" part of that name, would it? If you think aeronautics = air and space already, then that would mean the acronym means National Air and Space and Space Administration. Sorry, but aeronautics involves AIR. Not space. You do know that NASA develops jets too, right?
    2
  3817. Nobody can actually take that kind of question seriously. It's fine that you don't understand rockets and physics, most people don't. But, if that was your real question, you'd have asked it in a real way. But, instead of doing that, you came to a video about moon conspiracies, and pretended to ask a question, while making it 100% clear that you're proud not to know the answer, and don't even want an answer. So, do the world a favor, and just write that question into every single job application you ever fill out, ok? It really makes the hiring process so much easier.
    2
  3818. Who told you that they'd get a lethal dose of radiation? Was it a conspiracy video?
    2
  3819. The greatest proof that the Concorde supersonic airliner never existed is that France/England have lost that technology.
    2
  3820. You are far too smart for this universe.
    2
  3821. Sorry, you don't just get to throw the word "radiation" at it, and think it means something. You have to understand the type of radiation, and the quantity, and the duration. And, you need to understand how much of that radiation can penetrate the hull of a spacecraft. In the case of Apollo, they were only exposed to the outer edges of the inner Van Allen belt (except for Apollo 14, which went straight through the middle of the belt), for about 15 minutes. You don't get a fatal dose until you're in there for over a week. They spent a bit more time in the outer belt, but, the outer belt is not very harmful. Why would you believe it's a problem? Did you watch videos on YouTube, and just buy into them, hook line and sinker?
    2
  3822. So, they didn't help him at all (your first sentence)... they were doing CPR (your third sentence)??
    2
  3823. Yeah, when you see a guy cranking at the playground in front of kids, mind your own business!! Let him crank tomorrow in front of the kids again. And, the next day. And, the next. And, let me get this straight, you think the police were seeking "fame" by releasing the arrest video 2.5 years later (as a result of a FOIA request)? Huh?
    2
  3824. "If one part of it is questionable then all of it is." That doesn't make any sense. But, dewdrop, questions aren't the problem. The problem is that none of you people are ever really looking for the answers. "The heat shield that was used on the space shuttle didn’t even exist." The jet engine didn't exist in 1903, therefore the Wright brothers never flew an airplane. How can they fly an airplane without a jet engine? "How can you explain passing through the Van Allen radiation belt?" By going fast. How do you explain it? Did you watch the video before commenting on the video? You do know there's a section of this video dedicated to answering that question, right? Or, you could read some of the thousands of scientific papers written about it, which go into far more detail.
    2
  3825. You didn't ask anything about the flag or landing of the module, dewdrop. You said there was science that explained it. It was clear that you didn't understand the science, but, you seemed to be acknowledging that the science explained it. Then, when nobody replied to you about the flag or landing of the module, you complained?? Is your scroll up broken? Do you not even remember what you wrote?
    2
  3826. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    2
  3827. Nobody can possibly be this dumb.
    2
  3828. The media didn't publish the arrest video until it was released on November 24, 2023. She died 2 years ago. So, um, no.
    2
  3829. Hence why they built the DSN (deep space network). See, the people who planned Apollo... they knew they'd need to communicate. So, they hired telecommunications engineers from various countries (mainly Spain and Australia) to modify existing dishes, or add new dishes, and tie them all back to Houston. It's called "planning." Ya know, with 400,000 people in the USA, and 50,000 people internationally, working for a decade of their lives to make Apollo happen, with a virtually unlimited budget, yeah, they do those kinds of things, you know... hooking up radios and dishes.
    2
  3830. Well, that's one way to demonstrate that you don't read answers to your own comments.
    2
  3831. "First off I think any police vehicles that are going to be used should by law have dash cameras .." == For patrol work, sure. For undercover work, probably not. "second off its very possible to make contact with a dirt bike without any evidence of it happening." == On a public road surrounded by witnesses? There were cars everywhere. There were pedestrians around. You think nobody would report seeing the cop car hitting the bike, if that's what happened? There must have been a couple dozen people who saw this incident. "it would only take a slight amount of pressure to the side of the handlebars and boom .. I grew up racing dirt bikes and can say I road on the road more than I should of and the only way a cop could’ve stopped me is by making contact .." == Sounds like you could have used a little more time paying attention in English class, learning to read and write, and a little less time riding dirt bikes illegally on the roads. "so not pointing fingers but I think someone should be able to answer what caused the boy to crash on what appears from the picture to be a straight section in a bike lane .. not blaming the cop or anyone .." == Yes, time will tell. Thus far, no witnesses have reported seeing the officer's car hit the bike. But, we must wait until the investigation is 100% complete before passing judgment. "the kid sadly could’ve did this all on his own but regardless, usually when a crash happens there’s a reason .. accident,stupidity, not paying attention, falling asleep, hitting something in the road, being cutoff or ran off the road," == Or, a 13 year old who doesn't know how to handle a dirt bike was fleeing the police, and lost control. "or from my experience in my home town what tends to happen is a cop slamming into you bc he knows you can just go off-road and outrun him so easily and they get pissed when people run" == On a public road with pedestrians and other cars onlooking? Really? Does that sound like the most probable thing here? "how dare you run from the police, its the last mistake of your life" == And, yes, that was his last mistake of his life. "I have a buddy lucky to be alive that got slammed by a cop so hard it forced to back tires of the 4 wheeler up onto the hood of the cop car then the cop locks up the brakes sending my buddy rolling down the road .. the cop tried to say my buddy hit the brakes and that’s why he hit him so hard .. the cop was straight lying bc they aren’t allowed to hit you like that .. my dad is also lucky to be alive but is missing toes and won’t ever walk right again bc of a cop coming acrossed the line and running my dad to the edge of the road before hitting him head on and then of course lied about it .. let’s not pretend cops don’t brake the law in the name of justice and then lie and brake more laws and their oaths to cover up after the fact .." == OK, even if I take your words at face value, there's nothing that indicates anything like that here. We'll wait for all of the evidence to roll in. But, with nobody yet reporting anything like that in this incident, it doesn't sound all that likely. "Regardless who’s at fault a young kid is dead and I think the family deserve the facts and truth about what caused him to crash" == You are correct. "and ya idk the law about dash cameras but as much as cops are caught braking laws on camera I really don’t know how it’s not a law for all cop cars to have dash cameras" == You should take it up with your local congressman/woman.
    2
  3832. So, it's your position that they faked it to fool the Soviets? Pffttt. Please explain how the Soviets were fooled? What exactly were the Soviets picking up in their radar and in their radio telescopes, then? You do realize that the Soviets sent Luna 15 (unmanned) to the moon to wait for Apollo 11 to arrive there, tracking both craft the entire time, right? You do realize that they triggered Luna 15 to land on the moon while the Apollo astronauts were on the surface, right? Their intention was to race Apollo 11 back home with the first lunar samples, trying to steal the spotlight. But, it was a rushed mission, and it crashed into a lunar mountain while Armstrong and Aldrin were on the surface. So, it failed. But, nonetheless, they were watching with their radar and radio telescopes, and listening in on the mission audio while their dishes were pointed AT THE MOON. How did the USA manage to fake all of those radar and audio radio signals? Can you explain it? What about the dozens of other countries that tracked all Apollo missions with radar and/or radio telescopes? Spain, Australia, Madagascar, Canary Islands, Guam, Bahamas, England, Wales, Turks&Caicos, Ascension Island, etc. The list goes on. How did Spain manage to use their telescope (the largest that existed at the time) to photograph the Apollo 13 debris field, or the SIVB boosters' fuel dumps? How does Arizona State University's LRO camera manage to send back hundreds upon hundreds of photos of all of the Apollo landing sites, from every possible sun angle, for the past 13 years? Are hundreds of modern day ASU professors and students "in on it" too? I could go on for hours and hours. Do you know any of this stuff? Or, do you know absolutely positively nothing about this topic, and you like to pretend online, to make yourself feel better about having such a completely failed life?
    2
  3833. "no delay?" Dewdrop, you are ignoring where the recording is taking place (on the Earth side). We don't expect a delay when an astronaut speaks and Nixon answers. We only expect a delay when Nixon speaks and an astronaut answers. Sorry that this simple concept escapes you, but, why should you slander hundreds of thousands of people based upon the notion that "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake"?
    2
  3834. "There's still a max distance of trancieving and recieving" Why is this relevant? Do you think the moon is beyond the maximum distance of being able to communicate with radio?
    2
  3835. What in the world are you talking about? She isn't those kids' mother. And, if she wanted to set an example for someone else's kids, she did a very poor job of it, by refusing to provide identification, obstruction and obfuscation, and resisting arrest. If I was the parent of those kids, I'd be pretty upset with the woman for going on her illegal crusade in front of my kids. And, I certainly would never entrust that irate woman with caring for my kids ever again. And, why are you saying it's humiliating to be asked for a receipt? So what? The store made a minor mistake. No big deal. I'd thank the store and officer for diligently trying to prevent theft, I'd show the receipt, and I'd go about my day. Why make a mountain out of a molehill? If stores are ever going to stop people and ask for receipts at all, this means that, every once in a while, they're going to be wrong. Human mistakes happen. Better that, than just let people keep stealing and never stopping anybody.
    2
  3836. Huh? You don't get warnings for crimes. You've confused crimes with infractions. Secondly, one of the "audience" recorded the incident, and showed the video to the police. They describe it in their arrest report as a very loud and public show in view of multiple people including children. Or, were you just going to blindly trust the woman who is attempting to get out of being arrested for the millionth time?
    2
  3837. There's not enough energy in sunlight to actually make someone literally burn up, if you're expecting flames and stuff. Just getting too hot? Well, ok, that's possible. But, they did a lot of stuff to mitigate the heat, starting with wearing suits/backpacks that had a pretty decent cooling system for when they were outside. And, for when they were inside, they used a very complex (and effective) method of reflecting and radiating heat from the lunar lander. It would be very difficult to go into details if you don't have a lot of understanding about thermodynamics. But, the short answer is that sunlight just doesn't have the amount of energy you apparently think it does. An atmosphere makes a nice buffer, but, even without an atmosphere, you're still only going to need to deal with the amount of sunlight energy that hits your suit/craft. And, yes, they understood those things, and planned accordingly.
    2
  3838. Is this a joke? The guy's wearing a balaclava mask and opens the door to the car and points a gun straight at the cop's head. And, you're saying it's a COVID mask? Huh? That doesn't cover his nose at all? Riiiiiggghhhttt. And, sorry, but if a strange car is near your house, you CALL THE POLICE. You don't go barging up to the car wearing a mask and pointing a gun. And, you don't think he was carjacking? What would the carjacker need to do in order to convince you he was carjacking?
    2
  3839. Hilarious!! So, in your mind, we always see a full moon? It's never dark on the near side? There's no such thing as a new moon? No quarter moons? Did you flunk basic geometry?
    2
  3840. Utter hilarity. You claim not to like con artist replies... but you recommend watching a movie made by a con artist?? Can you even be taken seriously at this point?
    2
  3841. Well, I've been wrong before. Back in 2018 and 2019, when they were selecting the company that would build the lander, SpaceX was an afterthought, literally not even added to the potential list until the last minute. When they added SpaceX, I figured, ok, whatever, it's a waste of a few million dollars, because there's no way that ridiculous company is competent enough to build a moon lander, let alone build one out of that ridiculous BFR Starship monstrosity, but, ok, pay them to make a bid, whatever, they'll never be selected. But, then, I was shocked they were selected, and it's been a complete disaster ever since. Doesn't the head of that NASA selection board now work at SpaceX? (Make of that what you will.) But, now that Blue has been contracted to build a second version of the lander, I think the writing is on the wall that SpaceX is going to be kicked out of the lunar lander business. I guess it might be a mistake for me to make predictions like that, because I've been so wrong before. But, there you have it, my guess is that SpaceX will be booted from the lunar landing contract within 2 years.
    2
  3842. The US built simulated moon sets for training also. The Soviets tried to send people to the moon. They even flew four lunar landers in space on test missions. But, they couldn't get their N1 moon rocket to launch without blowing up. So, they gave up after they lost the race, and it was going to be too much trouble to start from scratch on the N1.
    2
  3843. Are you really going to pretend to understand the Apollo computers?
    2
  3844. "Notice there are no photos of the Milky Way" Well, the only mission that used exposure times long enough to capture the Milky Way was Apollo 16, with the Carruthers camera. But, that wasn't designed for that. Plus, the Earth and sun were just too bright in the sky during the Apollo missions, and seeing the Milky Way requires it to be quite a bit darker. "even from the space capsule" They barely even got stars to show up at all in the photos they took from the capsule, let alone the very faint Milky Way. The capsule wasn't an astronomical observatory facility, it was a spacecraft. "No one says they even saw it, as far as I know." The only chance of seeing it would be from orbit, when the capsule was in the shadow of the moon, in a position that blocked both the Earth and sun from view (a very short time). Usually, either one or the other would be in view. When in the shadow of the moon, blocking the sun, the Earth was usually visible. But, yeah, there are some angles when both would be obscured. But, did those particular angles then ever face the Milky Way? You can use Celestia or something like that to check out the angles if you wish. But, since you're clearly trying to find a reason to slander Apollo, I'm certainly not going to do your homework for you. "Odd." It's "odd" that they didn't see the Milky Way during the daytime on the surface of the moon? It's "odd" that they didn't photograph it when they could barely even manage to photograph stars? Um, no. I'll tell you what's "odd," though. It's people like you, who grasp at these ridiculous straws to try to bolster your unfounded beliefs, ignoring all evidence. I mean, you're not here asking what evidence there is for the moon landings. You're asking why astronauts didn't photograph something that is nearly impossible to photograph on Earth without exacting lighting conditions (very dark) and very long exposure times with specialized cameras, let alone on the moon in the daytime. Nope. Evidence isn't what you seek. A "gotcha" is what you seek. "No one saying how incredibly clear the Milky Way was without the atmosphere." On a clear night, the atmosphere of Earth absorbs about 8% of the light. Yes, without an atmosphere, it would be about 8% "better" (not exactly more clear, but, more light). But, you still need it to be very dark, and your craft needs to be pointed in the right direction. There's no hope of seeing it from the lunar surface in the daytime. And, I'm not explaining the rest again. "Of course, the stars would have been much brighter on the moon in the first place." At night, on the moon, yes, they would be 8% brighter than a clear night on Earth. "So you would have seen something." But, dewdrop, they weren't on the surface at night. All lunar landings took place early in the lunar morning.
    2
  3845.  @aemrt5745  Well, they did take 125 photos of the stars from the lunar surface on Apollo 16, and yes, very long exposures. But, it certainly wasn't set up for seeing the Milky Way.
    2
  3846.  @aemrt5745  It's probably because those 125 photos are the only ones taken on the lunar surface that aren't posted on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. I had to dig a bit to get the high-res copies (there have always been low res copies on various websites, but, the high res scans were hard to come by... probably because they aren't really very important because they learned absolutely nothing from those photos, which were taken in UV instead of regular visible light). "Remembering the First Moon Based Telescope" is a nice little article to get your first introduction to it.
    2
  3847. The multiple people who called the police, and the video one of the "audience" took of the incident, tells a very different story than the woman does while she's trying to avoid getting arrested for the millionth time.
    2
  3848. I don't understand the question. Why do you believe we shouldn't see shadows?
    2
  3849. Did the conspiracy video you watched clip off the words "right now" from that statement?
    2
  3850. Did the conspiracy video you watched clip off the words "right now" from that statement?
    2
  3851. No, dewdrop. The woman is accountable for her own actions.
    2
  3852. If I told you my hair is 1x10^-17 inches long, would you think I'm the hairiest person who ever lived, making Princess Rapunzel look like she's bald? Or, would I be the one who looks bald?
    2
  3853. She said she thought she was alone, so, you blindly believe her. The "I didn't do it" line that is spoken by a million people trying to get out of getting arrested. Multiple people called the police. One in the "audience" even video recorded it on her cell phone, and then showed the video to the police. The police described that video in the arrest report, saying it was a very loud and public display, in view of multiple people, including children. Even in Europe's beaches that permit people to run around without any bathing suits on at all, they don't permit this kind of public display. And, yes, sorry, but there's nothing wrong with making a comparison to a man at a playground. If this was a man at a playground, you know darned well that you wouldn't be saying, "oh, just go up to him and give him a warning before calling the police." And, no, her life wasn't ruined over this incident. She ruined it in a million other ways.
    2
  3854. I'm not 100% sure what you mean. What law prevents someone from defending himself like this?
    2
  3855. Well, that's one way to demonstrate that you have absolutely no understanding of photographic perspective.
    2
  3856. Relativity helps also.
    2
  3857.  @quailshootr6389  Please write that on every job application you ever fill out.
    2
  3858. Let me get this straight... you don't know how the camera worked... you don't know how the rocket worked... these simple concepts somehow are too much for you to handle... yet, you believe you know more than the 450,000 people who designed and built everything for Apollo? Is that what you're saying?
    2
  3859. Watch frame by frame. The police officer reached for the door handle, but, didn't get to it in time. The carjacker opened the door.
    2
  3860. Huh? He already made his last decision. And, it was a bad one.
    2
  3861. "this video is so fake lol" Huh? "how the heck you get lost on the moon in a rover." So, like all hoax nuts, you came to your conclusion first, and asked questions second. Bravo. You are a true hero. Anyway, they prevented getting lost by putting gyros and a rudimentary guidance system onto the rover. With a meandering surface, going up and down over the terrain, losing sight of the landing module would certainly leave it possible to get lost. After all, the astronauts on Apollo 14 got lost and never got to their primary objective (Cone Crater). And, that was on foot. So, by the time the rover came for Apollo 15/16/17, traveling over 20 miles, yes, getting lost was a distinct possibility. They could (and did) find their way back by going over the same tracks they rode out on. But, for some of the exploration, they wanted to cover more ground, so they did NOT always just go out and come straight back, but ended up going out, traversing one direction, making a 90 degree turn and going a few miles in another direction, and then had to go back to the module via a "triangle" rather than straight back over the tracks they rode out on. "but turn around an say the moon is so small if its so small how would u get lost on it in the first place" Really? You don't understand this? How small do you think the moon is? "and oh it has nothing on it so its no way to say how far u are from it lol help these statements make sense to me" Apollo 14 was the first mission when the astronauts traversed out of sight of the lunar module. It was fine, because they could just go back over their foot tracks. They only did it to get to Cone Crater, and never arrived there. After that, they used the rovers on Apollo 15/16/17, and each rover drove about 20-25 miles. If you don't understand how you can get lost, I really cannot help you. Yes, on Apollo 15 and 17, there were some significant mountains they could use as a decent backdrop to at least keep their orientation reasonably well. But, on Apollo 16, about all they had was the sun to know which direction was East. "an I don't care if it was on the tv the moon sand is red huh or orange but the moon just as mf grey lol in the video an even now days with colored cameras its still freaking grey so where this red dust or orange dust come from huh please tell me this cause I'm a debater of common sense lol" Let me get this straight... it's very difficult to cut through your broken English here... I appreciate when people like you at least try to write in English... but, when it's this bad, you might have been better off typing in your own native language, and then I could just use a translation program to figure out what you're trying to say. But, I think you're complaining because on Apollo 17, they found a small patch of orange soil at a crater, right? Are you honestly trying to suggest that you should be able to see that orange soil from the distance of Earth?
    2
  3862. Massive indeed. To see a lander on the moon in enough detail to know what it is would require a lens/mirror a quarter mile in diameter. I haven't done the math on seeing a flag, but, it's going to be over a mile in diameter. Good luck finding such a telescope.
    2
  3863. They landed 6 times, you know. What's going to happen on the 7th time? Are you going to require an 8th time? Then what? A 20th time? How many times do they have to do it before you stop shifting the goalposts?
    2
  3864.  @joecamel6835  Who told you that nonsense? Was it a conspiracy video?
    2
  3865. On a clear night, the atmosphere only absorbs/reflects 8% of the light from stars. So, what's your beef with showing how photography works while on Earth?
    2
  3866. Nor should you. But, if you think Apollo was fake, you clearly trust taxi cab drivers and yoga instructors who make YouTube videos claiming all kinds of silly things that not a single space agency on Earth believes.
    2
  3867. Naw, they probably know darned well that this is an Inside Edition story, and the picture they paint is about as far from reality as you can imagine.
    2
  3868. Yeah, but, as I've said before in these threads, and I'll say again now, the very next time I saw Aldrin after that punch, I walked up to him, shook that very hand that did the punching, and told him I thought he did the right thing. He paused, didn't say anything for a bit of time (remarkably rare for Aldrin, who usually talks quite a lot), reflected, and just said, "well, he's not going to stop doing what he's doing." He basically said that, in retrospect, it might not have been the right thing to do. Note: he didn't outright say that it was the wrong thing either. He basically just said that punching Sibrel didn't do any good, and seemed to be a bit regretful about it.
    2
  3869. "Deserve" doesn't matter. A person defending his/her home/self/family doesn't need to stop and wait for you to explain whether you're there just to rob the place, or whether you intend on killing/harming people. A person in his/her own home has the right to defend himself/herself/family/homestead. If you break into a whole bunch of houses, yeah, eventually, someone is going to shoot you to defend themselves, and it's perfectly justified to do so, especially given that these two criminals had stolen guns before, and could be armed. Answer: don't break into people's houses. That being said, of course, none of that justifies premeditated murder, which is what the man did in this case. If he had just defended himself and his home like any normal person, he'd never have been convicted of anything. But, no. That's not what happened here. He knew they were coming to rob him, and planned the murders in advance. He could have had the police waiting inside that house. But, no. He sat in a dark basement armed with two guns, intending on killing those two teens. He planned it in advance. But, that merely means that he's a criminal too. Two teen criminals got justice the hard way, by PUTTING THEIR OWN LIVES AT RISK by breaking into homes when it's legal to defend your home with lethal force. And, one older criminal got justice for planning on murdering those teens. They're ALL criminals.
    2
  3870. You do know that they could steer the craft, right? You do know that they used radar for the rendezvous, right? Do you think radar guided missiles can steer their way into hitting another airplane during a dogfight? Or, do you complain that it's impossible for a missile to hit another airplane because it has to be too precise? Also, as has been pointed out, the speed was 3600 mph, not 20,000. If you don't know anything about the topic, why do you think you're in a position to come to any conclusions?
    2
  3871. Thanks for demonstrating that you didn't actually want answers to your questions.
    2
  3872. Huh? What "news" even covered it while she was alive?
    2
  3873. Oh look! Another denier who can't read or write. "the earth is above their earth" - yeah, you make a lot of sense.
    2
  3874.  @PleasentToBeAround  "There is no proof" Well, if every time someone provides you proof, you just label it as "fake," then what is your point? Why do you ask questions (in this thread and others) if all you're going to do is reject all input that goes against your delusion anyway?
    2
  3875. And, of course, not all of my replies are visible unless sorted by date. Ugh. YouTube censorship.
    2
  3876. Are none of you nuts capable of reading and writing beyond a 2nd grade level?
    2
  3877. Yes, it was public, by definition. Yes, the witnesses said it was intentional, because she had been wandering up and down the beach looking for a spot, and specifically chose one in view of people. Why would you believe otherwise? Because that's what she said as she was trying to avoid her millionth arrest, and didn't want to potentially go back to prison again? Let's see... multiple people called the police about this incident. One of the "audience" even recorded it, and showed the video to the police. She was a convicted felon who spent time in prison, and had a mile long arrest and judgement record for other stuff, stealing cars, other thefts, drugs and alcohol, etc. Her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club. Her neighbors said she also did "private" cash encounters in her apartment with numerous men. Is it REALLY that difficult to conclude that maybe she was making a "public" video to promote herself? Why do you believe the convicted felon, rather than innocent bystanders or the 3 police officers who investigated this incident?
    2
  3878. Many things. Have you tried looking at the schematics?
    2
  3879. You are claiming that the entire world's experts in all 77 of the world's space agencies are wrong, and you're right, while simultaneously calling OTHERS "arrogant and condescending"? The irony is too thick to put into words.
    2
  3880. No. It burned out 27 hours after Apollo 17 lifted off. It was never designed to survive the heat of a lunar high noon. (In the case of Apollo 17, the camera even burned out prior to high noon. The Apollo 16 camera made it to high noon, though, then burned out.) It also ran on batteries that are long dead by now.
    2
  3881. China, India, South Korea, and the USA, have each individually taken orbital photos using their own orbiters of the Apollo landing sites and have found the Apollo landers exactly where they're supposed to be. The deniers simply label all of them as "fake" and increase the number of countries involved in "the deception." What makes you think they'd trust a rover's photos, and not simply label those photos as "fake" also?
    2
  3882. Shocker. A denier who can't read and write.
    2
  3883. 17:15 - Painting outside yourself. I'm not an attorney, but, I do know that this is not legal in many areas of the USA. They require air quality controlled paint booths with proper filtering and ventilation. Again, I'm not going to pretend I know your business, nor the laws where you are, but, I'd be careful about recommending others do this. I doubt anybody would do much about some random guy spraying a bumper in his backyard. But, an actual licensed dealer?
    2
  3884. Rough numbers: 90% of deniers just ignore the evidence from the orbiters around the moon, and won't say a single word about it, and either run for the hills when presented with it, or they just try to change topics. 5% of them say that it's CGI, and that Arizona State University, China, and India, have joined "the deception" 50+ years later. 5% of them say that they expect the resolution to be better from the orbiting satellites, because they compare it to Google maps, thinking that low flying airplane photos are actually from space, therefore they want better resolution than the orbiting satellites before they will accept it. It's basically a method of shifting the goalposts. When it's explained to them about why the resolution is what it is, they run for the hills.
    2
  3885. "I didn't call anything fake" Spare me. The "supposed blue marble image"? And, you're clearly saying it's the wrong size. So, don't play word games with me. You and I know EXACTLY what you are saying. "I didn't call anyone names." Except implicitly through your obvious opinion, you're accusing thousands of people of being criminals. "I posted a thought for discussion based on observation" But, you never made an observation. You didn't name anything other than the "blue marble" image. And, if I take that literally, the photo labeled "blue marble" was only taken from about 18,000 miles up, not from the moon. So, that can't possibly be what you're talking about. So, I'm guessing you meant "blue marble" more loosely, meaning any of the hundreds of other photos of Earth, mainly the ones taken from the moon. But, you didn't specify any specific one of them. You just basically made a comment about it being the wrong size. But, with the hundreds of photos we're talking about here, there are many different lenses used, cropping of photos, zooming in or out, etc., which renders any "observation" (which you're not really making) moot. If you want to make some sort of comment about the size of the Earth in the photos, you should name the catalog number of the photo you're observing, and demonstrate via calculations against the 70mm film and the specific lens used, about why you conclude that it's the wrong size. "not math and certainly not science" Definitely not. If you had used math and science, you'd realize instantly that you're wrong. "and you resort to childish behavior" I'm not the one who came to a YouTube comment and spewed nonsense that tacitly implies that Apollo was faked, dewdrop. That's YOU doing that. "the fact that you attack" I'm not the one who came to a YouTube comment and spewed nonsense that tacitly implies that Apollo was faked, dewdrop. That's YOU doing that. "and give no details to explain your position." Why should I? I'm not the one making the ridiculous accusation. You are. "If you know the math, then explain it" You want a photography (and basic geometry) lesson over a YouTube comment? Dewdrop, YOU are the one making the claim here. I don't have to explain anything. But, look at it this way: boil it all down to how you'd explain it to a 7 year old. It's called "zooming in and out." Try it sometime. Zoom in, it gets larger. Zoom out, it gets smaller. "This is exactly why conspiracy exits because people can't have open discord without insults." Spare me. You and I both know exactly what you were saying. You weren't asking questions about explaining how photography works. You were telling others that they should think like you do. "My failure in my posted thought was not adding why or please explain this at the end" Yup. "I thought that was obvious to most, hence my failure." It's completely obvious what you think. I don't understand why you can't just fess up.
    2
  3886. And, by the way, there was no zoom function on the Hasselblads. The way they zoomed in or out was to change lenses. When I said "zooming in or out," I basically just meant in the post viewing, where they can zoom in or out of the photo itself, or crop images to give a closer relative appearance. And, since I'm posting this separate, the idea is that you'd do a Google search on the image names. But, I can't explain that in the same posting, because YouTube blocks it.
    2
  3887. Alright. I will tell you that I'm never going to believe that your original message wasn't intended to be in the tone that you used. You didn't ask questions. You used rather obvious terminology that demonstrated your opinions. But, I'm not going to continue to complain about it. 92 FLSTF.
    2
  3888. Did you take a look at the two photos of the moon I was quoting, illustrating massive differences in size (apparent on film anyway)?
    2
  3889. You say you are now referring to "Apollo 11 Mission Image - View of Moon Limb, with Earth on the Horizon" The irony is that this returns several different images, each showing the Earth as a different size in the frame. Many of them are different images altogether. But, some of them are the same image, just cropped (resulting in looking like it's zoomed). It's as simple as that. You summed up the rest rather nicely yourself. You don't understand photography. That's really the bottom line here.
    2
  3890. Some minor corrections: First of all, it's Alan. Secondly nobody "calibrated" it. He placed the reflector array on the ground and pointed it at Earth. That was the extent of it. Third, there was no laser ranging facility at Cal Tech. There may have been Cal Tech engineers, but, the laser ranging facility was in Texas. The main function of those reflectors on the moon is to provide very precise tracking of the moon. A secondary effect is that they also use them to track the motion of Earth's continental plates (plate tectonics). It's more accurate to bounce lasers off of the moon or orbiting satellites (sharing the results between the numerous facilities around the world, and comparing the measurements) than to try to measure those continental plate movements on Earth.
    2
  3891. "you can hide behind a rock to avoid space radiation" What would you recommend for large solar flares instead?
    2
  3892. "why does the Rock have radiation on all side?" What does that have to do with solar flares?
    2
  3893. "Orbiting around the sun that's why." Again, what in the world does this have to do with solar flare protection?
    2
  3894. "entire surface of that rock has radiation - hiding behind it is meaningless" Thanks for demonstrating that you have ZERO understanding of solar flares.
    2
  3895. You're actually proud to know absolutely nothing.
    2
  3896. "You should do some research about a company selling NASA certified moon rocks in the 80's" Dewdrop, any such "company" was lying.
    2
  3897.  @michaelstillman1171  I think he means that they figured all missions were dangerous, and that they were lucky enough with Apollo 13, and they should just quit while they're ahead.
    2
  3898. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    2
  3899. And, that train wreck was your EDITED version? How much worse was the original version?
    2
  3900. "They didn't act like test pilots on duty in their most momentous and perilous assignment ever where one slight mishap would mean certain death with zero chance of rescue." Oh, the irony. Test pilots were notorious for being quite wild personalities that laughed when most people were fearful. I'm sorry that YOU want to live your life in fear, but, they didn't. They chose to revel in what they were doing.
    2
  3901. "The video they call Grand Prix seems to have been scoured from the internet" Yet, numerous copies are available on YouTube, and in the archives. "APOLLO 16 Grand Prix - Speed Corrected, Sound, Stabilized [HD source] (1972/04/21)" is a nice version. Scoured from the internet? Oh, pure genius at work!!!
    2
  3902. "one of them says, "let's do a wheelie!"" No, dewdrop. Nobody ever said that. They did comment about how there were times when wheels were off the ground, but, nobody ever said those words you're asserting.
    2
  3903. "I believe it was VCR tape they used" No, dewdrop. It wasn't VCR tape. But, it was similar enough not to quibble. They were video tapes, yes.
    2
  3904. "they did say they taped over it over it and thus lost it." They don't know what happened to the two missing tapes. Taping over them is one possibility. Losing them outright is another. But, who cares? Nobody in history had ever even watched them. The two missing tapes were only backup copies. They literally didn't even have a machine capable of playing them because of the format they were recorded in. They were the backup pre-NTSC conversion copies, and the NTSC copies are still intact in the archives. Why are those backup tapes important to you? None of you deniers cared about those two tapes before they were announced to have been lost. Why are you suddenly interested in them now? What difference does it make whether backup tapes are lost or not?
    2
  3905. "the guy did bring his golf club" No, dewdrop. He brought the head of a club, and then screwed it into the contingency sample handle for a makeshift club.
    2
  3906. "just the mission before they were telling us weight is so critical" Well, he was Alan Shepard, after all. Quick rise to becoming an admiral in the Navy. And, underweight. Since he himself weighed less than his assigned weight, there was room for the head of a golf club.
    2
  3907. "Next thing you know they were bringing golf clubs and a whole freakin car!" Dewdrop, the golf clubs never happened. As I said, on Apollo 14, it was one single head of a golf club, not the entire club. And, sorry, but the car wasn't until Apollo 15. They completely redesigned the lander for the J missions (Apollo 15/16/17). They added 25,000 pounds of thrust to each of the five F1 Saturn V engines in order to accommodate the additional weight. They extended the engine bells on the landers by 10 inches (among a long series of other changes they made), increasing efficiency and allowing the extra weight of the rover. You know absolutely nothing about Apollo, so stop pretending you do. Go read "Lunar Module LM 10 Thru LM 14 Vehicle Familiarization Manual" for starters in understanding how they accommodated the weight. Then come back here and keep complaining about stuff you know nothing about.
    2
  3908. "It is you who is wrong about everything!" No, dewdrop. Every single sentence you wrote has been incorrect. You simply suffer from well understood Dunning-Kruger effect.
    2
  3909. "See if you can find the video ... grand prix" Yes, dewdrop. It's very easy to find. Kind of helps if you actually try.
    2
  3910. "I'm not sure about the moon landings" Then stop acting like you know things you don't.
    2
  3911. "many of their other bald-faced lies" And, you couldn't make it to the end of your own sentence before labeling Apollo as "other bald faced lies" (concluding that, yes, contrary to your statement about not being sure, you have already categorized Apollo as a lie). You cannot even be honest within a single sentence.
    2
  3912. "If they actually did go to the moon they are not telling us the full story and they are lying about a lot of it and faking a lot of it." But, dewdrop, you couldn't even manage to find the grand prix videos, that's how limited your "research" capabilities are. "Apollo 16 grand prix" is a wonderful phrase to search for, and yields dozens of copies on YouTube alone (let alone other sites). But, nope. You have decided that all copies have been removed from the internet by the lizard people, and didn't bother looking. You know nothing about the golf clubs. You don't know one mission from another. You don't understand anything about the landers. Yet, you think you're qualified to declare that stuff is fake? Why? What EXACTLY do you think you know about this topic that the last 60 years of aerospace engineers do not know?
    2
  3913. "One thing in their favor are the hundreds if not thousands of photographs they have online." Yes, there were about 7000 photos taken from the lunar surface, about 5500 of which were outside the landers, and about 1500 of which were taken from inside the landers. There were about 110,000 photos taken from lunar orbit. And, there are about 80 hours of various mission videos. They flew 9 manned missions to the moon, and landed on 6 of those missions. And, there's a lot more going in their favor than merely the above stuff. Dozens of countries (including enemies) have confirmed Apollo in dozens of ways. In recent years, both China and India have confirmed Apollo with their individual orbiters that have taken photos of the Apollo landing sites, and can see the landers on the lunar surface. How do you suppose that works, in your mind? Did they "join the deception" 50+ years later? Or, are those landers really up there? Are you even reading this? Can you confirm it by writing "green" at the top of your reply to this, so I know you're not just ignoring all input?
    2
  3914. First of all, thanks for demonstrating that you didn't read what I wrote (more than maybe a line or two), because I asked you to write "green" at the top of your response to prove you were reading replies to your own questions/comments. You didn't. So, you don't get to pretend to actually be interested in the answers to your own questions/statements when you don't even read them.
    2
  3915. "Then why do u think they scoured it off the internet, all thefull videos of the "grand prixe", tough guy?" Well, dewdrop, maybe if you knew how to spell "grand prix," that might help. But, even with your misspelling, I just checked, and it still found dozens of copies. Also, I told you twice how to find them, but, of course, you already proved you weren't reading responses.
    2
  3916. "Why don't u address all the other things I said?" This has GOT to be a joke. I responded to just about everything. And, YOU are the one proving you're not reading my responses, because you didn't write "green" at the top of your reply to prove you were reading anything I wrote in the first place. So, no, dewdrop, you don't get to complain that I'm not responding to you, when you ignore everything I wrote. How would you know if I responded to other stuff or not, while making it clear that you didn't even read my responses to begin with?
    2
  3917. WHY ARE YOU ON YOUTUBE? WHY ARE YOU NOT PUBLISHING YOUR CALCULATIONS IN RADIOBIOLOGY JOURNALS AND ASTROPHYSICS JOURNALS!!!?!?!
    2
  3918. WHY ARE YOU ON YOUTUBE? WHY ARE YOU NOT PUBLISHING YOUR CALCULATIONS IN RADIOBIOLOGY JOURNALS AND ASTROPHYSICS JOURNALS!!!?!?!
    2
  3919. WHY ARE YOU ON YOUTUBE? WHY ARE YOU NOT PUBLISHING YOUR CALCULATIONS IN RADIOBIOLOGY JOURNALS AND ASTROPHYSICS JOURNALS!!!?!?!
    2
  3920. WHY ARE YOU ON YOUTUBE? WHY ARE YOU NOT PUBLISHING YOUR CALCULATIONS IN RADIOBIOLOGY JOURNALS AND ASTROPHYSICS JOURNALS!!!?!?!
    2
  3921. Why would you think it would be difficult to survive? Did a conspiracy video tell you that? How do you survive a medical CT scan's radiation? Those are just as fatal as the Van Allen belts, you know. The answer is that you don't sit in the CT scan machine for a week at a time. You get the scan done, it takes 15 minutes, you are being irradiated for those 15 minutes, and then you get out of the machine, and the radiation stops. Same goes for the Van Allen belts. They went through very quickly. Yes, they received a dose of radiation. Yes, it would be fatal if they stayed in there for a long time (which is why they didn't send the ISS, shuttles, Skylab, etc. into those belts, because those missions do last a long time). But, Apollo went through very quickly, minimizing the exposure. And, sorry, but you're wrong about aluminum. While it's not good protection from the inner belt (because NOTHING is), aluminum is an excellent shield from the outer belt.
    2
  3922. Huh? You think you have a right to a supervisor?
    2
  3923. By using a huge rocket and a spacecraft.
    2
  3924.  @nuketownwarrior530  There isn't a single particle physicist, aerospace engineer, or radiobiologist, anywhere on the planet, who agrees with the bullshit you just spewed. If you think those things are true, then go right ahead, and write up your calculations, and publish them in a science journal, and/or a medical journal on radiobiology. You will win a Nobel Prize for overturning everything known about radiation if you're found to be correct. Good luck with that. But, I'm guessing you're just spewing that nonsense because you heard it from other conspiratards just as clueless as you are, and that you wouldn't know how to calculate those things if your life depended on it.
    2
  3925. I tried putting this into Google translator, but, it was still all gibberish. Would you maybe try to write this in your own native language, and people can translate for themselves? Because, in English, what you wrote here means nothing at all. Thanks.
    2
  3926. In lunar orbit? They only ducked to the dark side for a short while, and then were on the light side again. On the surface, no batteries lasted through a lunar nighttime. I'm not sure why you say "back side" though. You mean the side furthest from Earth?
    2
  3927. Um, what? They weren't her children. And, she did have her receipt.
    2
  3928. Who at MotorWeek ever thought it was a good idea to play that horrifying background music? And, no, not just because it came from some C-rated guitar player who wasn't good enough to make it with a big name band. But, rather, I'm asking because it's very annoying, and does not suit the theme/tone of the MotorWeek show overall. Yeah, I still know it's a big commercial for sponsor cars under the guise of being a "review" show. But, MotorWeek has still maintained an air of decency, and doesn't need 3rd rate trash music playing in the background.
    2
  3929. Huh? Do you know him?
    2
  3930. "They did not have the technology then" Really? Can you explain what EXACT technology they lacked? The word "technology" doesn't mean much if you don't explain what exactly you think that means. And, can you explain why none of the thousands of engineers who designed and built that particular technology ever realized that the stuff they built... couldn't do what they built it for? Why did the thousands of engineers think they had the technology to do the job, and you think otherwise?
    2
  3931. "Only a liar punches" Right. Sure. And, I listened to countless silly people just like you saying, "Man, if anybody accused me of lying, when I risked my life for my country, I'd smack them silly. The fact that none of the astronauts do that is evidence that they're lying." Then, after Aldrin punched Sibrel, now you people claim the opposite. Dewdrop, isn't it more logical to conclude that different people react in different ways?
    2
  3932. Dewdrop, she plopped down in front of multiple people (including children) and put on a show. Why do you believe her when she said nobody was around? Because she said so as she was attempting to avoid her millionth arrest?
    2
  3933. That was Apollo 15, not Apollo 17.
    2
  3934. Well, I can only speak for myself. I can tell you that I don't "count on" him being right about any calculations. The fact remains that we're FORCED to guess, because Musk has kept the price and the weight a secret. Is he estimating too low? Maybe. But, I'll say this much: if the actual numbers aren't very bad, I'd find it pretty hard to believe Musk would refuse to reveal them. I think he only refuses to reveal them BECAUSE the actual numbers are pretty bad. So, it doesn't matter to me if Thunderf00t is estimating incorrectly, the fact remains that Tesla is a publicly traded company that refuses to reveal vital numbers to the public. If the numbers are good, Musk will get away with it. But, down the road, if we find out the numbers are bad (closer to what Thunderf00t estimates), you had better believe Musk will face his 3rd major lawsuit from investors.
    2
  3935. He didn't "forget" anything. He left it on intentionally. There's a lot of debate about whether he should have done that or not. They simulated it with the radar on, and it worked in the simulators. But, those same conditions didn't work (without alarms) on the mission itself. I believe they made it part of the procedure to turn off that radar on all subsequent missions, though.
    2
  3936.  @JayVee-d  There are a million different things about those people that boggle the mind... how they can possibly believe what they believe... the entire concept is beyond words to describe. But, for me, the icing on the cake is this concept that everyone has a secret billion dollars in a secret bank account, and by writing "accepted for value" on a check, these are the secret codewords to tap into that account. The amazing part is that this should be so easy to prove, yet, none of them bother. All they'd need to do is get two of them together, each write the other one a check for a billion dollars with "accepted for value" on it, and then go try to cash the billion dollars. If it works, they're right. If it doesn't work, then they have no reason to believe that the magic words do anything when they write those checks to anybody else. But, nope. They're not interested in this simple test. They'd rather just believe whatever the internet tells them to believe, never once testing to see if it's correct. It's astounding. It's like the flat Earthers who refuse to just hop onto any of those flights in the southern hemisphere that debunk their pancake model. They can take a flight from Australia to South America that would take 11 hours on a globe, or about 40 hours on their pancake. Then, when the flight arrives in 11 hours, this means that the pancake is wrong, or, it means that the plane was magically going fast enough to rip the wings off of the thing, and somehow had like 4x the range of any plane ever built. But, they won't do it. Instead, they just insist such flights don't exist, and run for the hills when challenged to go buy a ticket.
    2
  3937.  @stusue9733  Did you get my message about that exact comment in a different thread a few hours ago?
    2
  3938. Jared Owen - "What's inside of the lunar module." Go to 4:25 in that video. AS12-46-6728 is a decent photo of it. Conrad took that photo as Bean was coming down the ladder. And, Jason, you clearly never looked for the answer to your own question, so, don't pretend you did.
    2
  3939. If you said you're wrong, you're the only one who can see that message.
    2
  3940. Huh? I'm not sure what you mean. She was responsible for the video. And, she's dead now, so, she cannot be jailed. I truly can't imagine that's what you meant, though. But, I just don't get it.
    2
  3941. Yeah, I don't get it. Who do you want to jail, and why?
    2
  3942. OK, and how do we stop it? Repeal the Freedom of Information Act?
    2
  3943. Um, ok. How are American gun laws responsible for this? Are you under the impression that the gun laws make it legal to carjack people at gunpoint?
    2
  3944. Doughnuted moon saw who camera dust. How did doughted wires blown it. Cameras don't doughted unless took off it. Doughted is land on wires.
    2
  3945. Well, that sounds nice and all, but, at a minimum, she is required by law to provide her ID (she refused), and comply on a very minimal level (don't obstruct or obfuscate, but she did both). And, if arrested, she cannot resist (she did).
    2
  3946. You can't even buy a Tesla Model S for $100,000. But, Elon is going to get you to Mars for that much? With enough supplies and infrastructure for a lifetime? Let's recall, once you adjust for inflation, and include international support, hard costs, and soft costs, Apollo costed $250 billion in today's dollars. And, for that, they put 12 people on the moon for a few hours each (about $16 billion per person). Musk is going to build cities on Mars and a lifetime of supplies for 1/160,000th of the cost? Snake oil.
    2
  3947. There are no satellites with that kind of resolution. You clearly have no knowledge of the topic. The very best (which means biggest lens) satellites have a resolution of 1 to 4 square feet per pixel. Your head wouldn't even occupy a single pixel, let alone count any hairs.
    2
  3948. Passagers to oceen bottum 1960. Not reepeeteed follow mur dan 60 yeers laterr. Oceen bottum fake.
    2
  3949. The police didn't release the arrest video until she was dead for 1.5 years. And, even at that, it was because of a legal FOIA request. But, you just keep on pretending to understand things you don't.
    2
  3950. During their careers, cops will have hundreds upon hundreds of encounters with violent criminals. And, YOU want an "even fight"?? Um, no. Cops shouldn't need to have an even fight. That's stupid, and ridiculous. A professional boxer will have fewer fights than cops would have, if you got your way. That's just plain dumb. And, it's quite clear that all you want to see is cops dead or hurt. Nobody likes assholes like you.
    2
  3951. Both China and India have released their orbital photos of some of the Apollo landing sites, just in the last few months. The photos show the landers' descent stages in the exact same place that LRO shows them, and the original mission photography shows them.
    2
  3952. Ah, the old "shift the goalposts" idea that all of you nuts do. You opened by complaining that you wanted better evidence from China and Japan. Well, Japan hasn't sent another orbiter since Selene, but, India and China have. So, I gave you India and China, who both confirmed Apollo with orbital photography. How do you reply? Move the goalposts. Your first message said you wanted better evidence than just flag stuff. I gave you photos of the landers from two foreign nations. You simply reject it. You will always reject evidence that goes against your delusions, and accept evidence in favor of your delusions. That's how your mind works. And, when people give you what you pretend to ask for, you just move the goalposts.
    2
  3953. Yup. The crackpots who know nothing about Apollo, but love to pretend to know more than the entirety of the planets experts, are never going to be convinced by anything. Their minds were made up long before, and their brains have constructed an impenetrable brick wall through which no facts can ever get in. And, the people who already know about Apollo don't need to see this video. There's no money in telling crackpots that they are crackpots. So, nobody would purchase a show like this.
    2
  3954. Oh, quit your baiting. Good grief.
    2
  3955. Notice how Musk is the only one of the billionaire rocket guys who doesn't ride his own rocket? Branson and Bezos had no trouble getting onboard their own rockets. Why not Musk? Now, do you suppose that's because he's truly a dreamer about going into space? Or, is it because he knows better than to climb onto one of those ridiculous contraptions he's been building and peddling to the public as "the future"?
    2
  3956. "you were told a story where they used tape, tin foil" So, how would you have done it instead? Please name the materials you'd have used, if not tapes and foils?
    2
  3957. "someone outside the government questions something" Because that's not what you people are doing. You're not actually questioning anything. Did you ever ask an aerospace engineer why virtually every satellite also uses tapes and foils? Or, did you see tapes and foils and then instantly pretended you know enough about the topic to insist that tapes and foils are a bad design? Claiming to be asking questions isn't the same as actually asking them. You should try living up to your claims about questioning. Try it. Ask some actual questions, rather than just pretending you want answers.
    2
  3958.  @therealzilch  I see the blue box. Maybe you don't because you're in a different country?
    2
  3959.  @michaelstillman1171  I see the blue box. I don't have a premium membership.
    2
  3960. Was there any point at which you actually wanted to understand the topic you're questioning? I mean, good grief, if that's the interpretation of what you think is going on here, I'm afraid I simply must conclude that you dropped out of the 5th grade, and have no education after that. Nothing you say makes any sense, and it's difficult to answer questions when you make it very clear that you aren't interested in the answers.
    2
  3961. Dewdrop, Sibrel knows darned well that Apollo put people on the moon. He is a charlatan who makes money by pushing lies to gullible followers. It's a bit like those faith healers who do "psychic surgery" in the Philippians. You go there because your doctor says you have stage 4 cancer and it's not curable, hand money over to the psychic surgeon, and they perform a ritual and pretend to pull the "disease" out of your body. You fly back home, and die a couple of months later. Sibrel is the one who has to highly edit his movies to clip out all of the parts that prove himself wrong. He's the one who inserts false dialog into the clips when he needs the astronauts to answer different questions. Sibrel knows he's leeching off of the gullible people who want to believe nonsense, so, he provides nonsense. It takes about 5 minutes to debunk any one of Sibrel's claims, but, he is fully confident that none of his followers even want to do that. They WANT to believe him. They will AVOID finding out he's a charlatan. It's like those women who send $250,000 to a "fiancé" in Nigeria (that they've never even met), because he's a millionaire diamond merchant who has been abducted by bad guys holding him for ransom with no access to his own money. "Just send me $250,000 to get me out of this trouble, and I'll pay you back as soon as I am free again, so we can get married and live happily ever after." And, they send the money. It's fantasy that has taken over their minds to the point of their own detriment. Same thing here. Sibrel's followers live in a fantasy world where they know aerospace engineering better than the entire planet's aerospace engineers, and Sibrel makes money by selling his videos, or from ad revenue off of them.
    2
  3962. How would you have prevented it, if you worked at the police department? They blocked the release of the arrest video for 2.5 years, while the investigation was ongoing. But, 1.5 years after she was dead, the investigation was closed, and they could no longer block legal FOIA requests.
    2
  3963. All three of your objections are ridiculous and false. But, when you quote from #2, sorry, this just demonstrates how far you have drifted from reality. So what? A few conspiracy videos pointed out that the bottoms of the shoes in the spacesuits in museums have flat bottoms, while the footprints have grooved imprints. This is because they wore an overshoe when on the lunar surface that had the grooved bottoms, while their inner boot (which you see in the museums) has a different bottom. This is so easy to know, that all I can say is that you're just making it obvious that you never even checked to see if anything you're asserting is correct.
    2
  3964.  @noname-by3qz  Links are blocked. Is it that difficult to find without a link?
    2
  3965. YOU SAID: "Your tax money paid for Apollo 18; 19 and at least 20." == Correct, some of it anyway. The rockets and craft were already being built. They saved some of the money by never completing everything. But, yes, some money was wasted. But, at least they took some of that extra stuff and put it into museums. YOU SAID: "They went in secret" == This is just stupidity. You cannot build a Saturn V without anybody knowing it was being built. You cannot tow a Saturn V to the launchpad without anybody noticing. And, you sure as hell can't launch one without millions of people seeing/hearing it. YOU SAID: "The moon rang like a bell." == That's an analogy, not meant to be taken literally. YOU SAID: "The moon is billions of years older than the earth." == Wrong. The rest of the junk you've written is too stupid to even repeat.
    2
  3966. You have the order of events wrong. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. Nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive, so, its release had absolutely nothing to do with her suicide.
    2
  3967. What rope? What ARE you talking about?
    2
  3968. No, dewdrop. They said they wanted to test the Orion craft in the belts before putting people inside. They did the exact same thing on Apollo 6, sending it up through the belts and back, before putting people inside. New craft, new mission parameters, new test. And, that test was performed in 2014. So, why is this a problem for you?
    2
  3969.  @willoughbykrenzteinburg  See what I mean? It's been a month, and, as I said, he runs for the hills when he gets answers to his own questions.
    2
  3970.  @gives_bad_advice  You need to register at China's space program site to get the photos. Not merely disturbances (you've confused them with Japan). They show a few pixels of the landers at all 6 sites. I didn't register for anything in China, but, there are other sites that have downloaded them, then uploaded them elsewhere. I have copies, if you want me to figure out how to get them to you.
    2
  3971. Good grief. Are you just spewing legal sounding words and phrases, hoping something will stick? Yes, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor, who would get the evidence from the accuser. Who cares? Why do you think this is relevant at the side of the road? Are you under the impression that a cop must prove someone guilty before even investigating the crime? How backward is that? Yes, innocent until proven guilty. But, that proof comes in a COURTROOM, not at the side of the road. The cop's job is to determine if there's enough "reasonable suspicion" of a crime in order to investigate it, and to question the woman. A store employee said the woman left without paying. That's reasonable suspicion. After that, the cop's job is to determine if there's enough evidence for "probable cause" to arrest. The woman refused to provide her ID (which she is legally required to do), or even her name. She obstructed the investigation, and obfuscated consistently. Those things (obstruction/obfuscation) are illegal on their own, and she could be arrested for those, with or without the shoplifting charge. Add the original statement by the store employee that she though the woman left without paying, and there's plenty of total probable cause to arrest. See, cops don't need to be correct. As it turns out, the store employee was wrong, and the woman didn't steal. But, that has no bearing on whether or not the cop did his job correctly. He did. The woman could have prevented getting arrested if she would have just cooperated enough to provide her ID, and not sit there and obstruct/obfuscate. She's welcome to keep her receipt to herself, and not show it to the cop, if that's what she wants to do. But, that comes with the price of increasing the odds of getting arrested. And, once a cop puts you under arrest, you must comply without resisting. She did not. So, spare the world the notion that the trial is supposed to happen at the side of the road, and guilt or innocence must be proven ahead of time. We specifically do NOT want to make the cops into judge and jury. We want to TAKE AWAY the cops' power, not add to it. There is no "burden of proof" at the side of the road, and we never want to see there ever be such a concept. The cops can make the arrests, and leave those burdens to the courts. You're acting as if an arrest is a conviction. It's not. It's just an arrest. Good grief.
    2
  3972. Oh, the irony. A cop's job is to establish reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Proof of a crime doesn't happen until the courtroom. You apparently want the cop to get a conviction before he can investigate a crime. Sorry, but that's backward, and there is no fantasy planet anywhere in the universe that would require proof of a crime before the cop can investigate the possible crime. She doesn't legally need to provide her receipt, but, there's no harm in asking. What escalated this case wasn't even the potential theft, it was the fact that she refused to provide ID (she is legally required to do so), obstruction and obfuscation (she did both, and that's illegal also), and eventually resisting arrest (also illegal). But, hey, you don't need to take my word for it. Her own attorneys don't even agree with you. She hired a high profile attorney with two other attorneys, and none of them saw anything wrong with the actions the cop took. They didn't even file a suit against the police. They filed a little $50,000 suit against the store (and lost, but at least they tried). But, tell me, if you actually believe that the cop did things wrong, where's the 7-figure lawsuit against the police? Why would they mess with a little $50K case against the store, if they have a rights violation case against the police, which is almost always filed for 7 figures, and would settle for about $500K? Or, hmmm, maybe, just maybe, you win the irony of the day award, because you just got done promoting the idea that everyone ELSE fails to understand police procedure, while, hmmm, perhaps it's YOU who doesn't understand it?
    2
  3973. YOU SAID: "Because we have never got to the moon." == Wrong. YOU SAID: "in modern time where we have upgraded technology" == Oh. It's a "technology" problem? Can you name the EXACT technology they lacked in the 1960s/1970s? YOU SAID: "and can zoom videos from Mars." == You mean from the rovers? Um, yeah. What's your point? YOU SAID: "yet we cnt zoom videos from the moon." == Well, we haven't sent rovers to the moon. But, we do have LRO up there, taking 400 GB per day of photographs and sensor data. It's been doing that every day since 2009. YOU SAID: "and u wnt me to believe tht they went to the moon then...yea right" == I fail to understand what your point is. The 1969-1972 moon landings were only real if they send a modern rover with a video camera to the moon today? What? How does one thing relate to the other? And, you know, I've had my fair share of dealings with people like you. Even when you get what you're asking for, you still reject it. So, I seriously do not understand what you're attempting to say. Why would you need a modern video-streaming rover on the moon today, in order to believe something from 50 years ago? What does one have to do with the other?
    2
  3974. Who told you that? The outer layers were quite thin, but, those weren't structural. Those layers were just the thermal protection. The main structure of the craft underneath those outer layers was quite solid.
    2
  3975. Nobody who actually knows what the evidence is would say anything like what you're saying. There are mountains of evidence for Apollo. And, every single piece of evidence against Apollo falls apart at the slightest bit of scientific scrutiny.
    2
  3976. Wow, what a complete and total butchery of the facts. First of all, the family that saw her took video of the incident, and showed it to the cops. The police report says that what happened on that video doesn't match the claims that this woman is making for a very short and discreet act with nobody around. Secondly, the woman in this video suffered ZERO public shame or humiliation from the story here. The incident happened in July of 2021. Her suicide was in March of 2022. And, the arrest video was not made public until November of 2023, more than a year and a half after her death. There was no public shame involved. It was her own poor life choices and mental illnesses that caused her to commit suicide.
    2
  3977. @@user-gk6opkdu My source for the police report is the police report.
    2
  3978. No trouble. By that point, the arrest was still well justified. It was still very reasonable that he suspected her of theft, and she piled on additional suspicion with her behavior, and also added the crimes of refusing to provide identification, obstruction, and obfuscation. So, yeah, the charges were all thrown out, but, it was still a good arrest. And, the use of the Taser was for forced compliance when she resisted, and she practically begged to be Tased.
    2
  3979. "Was it Aldrin who fell over, then magically stand up head first?" You're thinking of Schmitt at the Lee Lincoln scarp. The reason it looks "magic" on Apollo 17 is the same as the reason it looks "magic" in "Mystery Spot Defies Gravity! | My Go-To" - go check it out. Why are those people in that video standing crooked? Because the ground isn't level, and neither is the camera, right? The scarp was the most uneven terrain ever explored on any Apollo mission, with a massive mountain to the south, and a huge scarp landmass in the valley. It's very easy to lose footing there, and when the camera is just as raked as the ground, it appears that the astronauts are defying gravity. "Note scene was just a flash they show. Why?" Are you complaining that you only saw a small clip? It's difficult to tell what you're asking here. But, if you don't want to just watch a short clip of the Lee Lincoln scarp, you can simply go watch the entire videos of each of the stops they made there.
    2
  3980. Apollo 11's TV camera was almost identical to Apollo 12's (except Apollo 11's was black and white only). You'll have to live with the photos from Apollo 12, if your goal is to see where the camera was mounted.
    2
  3981.  @dansv1  I don't see a link.
    2
  3982. "Why would they have it under a blanket?" That's just the term they used. In reality, it's a thermal insulator, designed to reflect heat/energy, and create a vacuum gap between the outside and inside stuff. "I cant see any trace of the camera box or blanket?" Did you look at the Apollo 12 photo I referred you to? That should show you exactly where to look on Apollo 11. "The camera would have to be on the ladder?" No, but, it points at the ladder.
    2
  3983. Hilarious!!! Only mistake? With her felony prison term for stealing cars? With her mile long arrest record? With her multiple judgements against her? With her drug and alcohol charges? Need I go on?
    2
  3984. Yes, and the ones that can see the detail you're talking about are from low flying planes.
    2
  3985. I've seen this complaint, and if you're not going to name photo catalog numbers, it's very difficult to address. But, by and large, whenever I've seen someone mention this with actual catalog numbers, the problem has been that they're looking at photos of photos. The brightness is in the flash of the camera taking the photo of a photo, while the original photo is fine, but, the new photo is bright in the center (flash), and darker everywhere else. The highest quality scans are on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, and I don't think you'll find very many photos on the HQ scans with that problem. But, in the meantime, remember, this was 1969-1972, and there was no digital photo processing. You're at the mercy of the quality of the photo transfer technology of the time. If that's not your complaint, then you need to name catalog numbers.
    2
  3986. That's not the purpose of this video. If you want those photos, they're readily available elsewhere. Arizona State University (the makers and maintainers of the LRO camera) have hundreds of those photos on their site. China has photos of the landers from their orbiter on the official government space program site, but, you need to sign up for a membership to see them. India published a few of theirs from their orbiter, but, they have tons more they haven't published. South Korea published theirs from their orbiter. Japan published theirs from their orbiter, but, the resolution was not detailed enough to see the landers, you can just see that the dust at the sites was disturbed.
    2
  3987. "How did the land on the only 10 foot square of flat ground" The lander was 31 feet in width with the landing gear extended. The square footage of the spot it sits on is, therefore, 961 square feet. Oh, you're a true genius. "the moon is like moguls and holes covered with rocks" Well, it depends on the landing site, but, yes, many areas are like that. "there probably isn’t a flat area anywhere!" Not 100% perfectly flat, no. But, flat enough for a landing. You're basically saying that a landing on the moon isn't possible at all. Why would you think that? "they couldn’t even fly the lunar module on earth without crashing it!" You are correct. If they had somehow gotten that thing off of the ground on Earth, the only result would be a crash. That's why they never tried to fly it on Earth. The maximum thrust was 10,500 pounds. The lunar lander weighed about 33,500 pounds. Hence, at full throttle, it would never have even gotten off of the ground. Yes, even if they lifted the lunar module with a helicopter, and let it go while the engine was at full throttle, it's still going to drop straight down and crash. Even if they stripped it down to bare minimums, and only partially filled the fuel tanks, it would still be far too heavy for the engine that's only capable of 10,500 pounds of thrust. What's your point here? Why would you even make a comment about the inability to fly the thing on Earth without crashing it? Are you under the impression that they ever even tried? Like, the engineers didn't know how much their own craft weighed?
    2
  3988. "They gave some moon rocks to the Dutch, So they checked the rocks out and found that they were from earth." No, dewdrop. C'mon, does that story even make the remotest bit of sense to you? NASA had absolutely nothing to do with that one rock in the Dutch art museum. They foolishly accepted a donation of a fake moon rock without authenticating it. (Shocker, an art museum that cannot authenticate stuff, alert the presses... I guess that's why 30%-40% of art in museums is fake, huh? They can't even authenticate art correctly. What do they know about moon rocks?). Their science museum still has their authentic Apollo samples on display.
    2
  3989. So, the "I didn't do it" defense didn't work in the court system, and jurors found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Appeals didn't work either. And, now, the "news" (not news) is presenting this as a hallmark achievement to overturn the sentencing he was given?? Does the "news" (not news) examine this case from the perspective of his victims and family? No. They make this an issue about the convicted murderer, and ignore justice for his victims.
    2
  3990. Why should Apollo's veracity depend on what future generations (from their perspective) do or don't do? Do you not find it stunning that your criteria didn't include the word EVIDENCE at all? Your criteria only included some sort of "logic" (using that term loosely). Magellan first sailed around the world, right? He produced maps of unknown lands that were later confirmed, which is why we know he actually did it. But, it wasn't repeated for 50 years. The deepest ocean depth is a similar story. It was more than 50 years between when mankind first dove that deep and when it was done again. So what? You never once said "I'd like to know what the evidence for Apollo is." Nope, it's "do it now, or it didn't happen." Bravo. You're a true hero.
    2
  3991.  @franknorthcuttmusic  "It was only 2018 or so when some funding was restored" Just an extreme nitpick... the Artemis funding was approved by congress in 2018, but the actual money supply didn't begin until 2019.
    2
  3992.  @franknorthcuttmusic  "and development began on the SLS launch vehicle for the Artemis program." Another extreme nitpick... SLS had actually been under development since 2011. But, yes, once Artemis was funded, they got more funding and picked up the pace.
    2
  3993.  @franknorthcuttmusic  "Photos have been taken by the US, India, and Japan, showing some of the landing sites" Japan's photography couldn't actually show any of the Apollo stuff as more than a single pixel. The resolution just wasn't good enough. The best it could do (regarding direct photography) was discover that all 6 of the landing sites had an overall discoloration of the lunar soil at those sites, indicating a disturbance had happened. But, the other thing it did was verify the lunar terrain in a level of detail, both 2D and 3D, that matched Apollo's photography in a level of detail that wasn't available in 1969-1972 (except by being there).
    2
  3994.  @franknorthcuttmusic  "China claims to have photographed at least one of the sites as well, but has not released the photos, to my knowledge." They did, but, you need to sign up on their site to gain access (which I didn't do). I got my copies from someone who did sign up, and then posted them on the internet. They're not impressive. You can see a few pixels where the landers are, which is why they say they've confirmed Apollo. But, the resolution isn't as good as LRO or Chandrayaan. If it's really important to you to see the pictures, let me know, and I'll figure out some way to upload them and give you links, or point you to the sites to find them.
    2
  3995. A whopping 5 words before you changed topics. Looking to set a new record? Sorry, you fell short. Others have done it more quickly.
    2
  3996. Well, if you don't understand it, and it doesn't make sense to you, it must be fake. Anything you don't understand is fake.
    2
  3997. Dewdrop, you can see the gun pointed straight at the officer's head as the door opens. You also see the gun on the ground next to a 2x4 piece of wood at 5:02 in the video. They talk about the gun during the video. The family's attorney acknowledges he was carrying a gun. The family acknowledges that he was carrying a gun. Why don't you?
    2
  3998. Um, ok, on what charge?
    2
  3999. Huh? What part of the Freedom of Information Act specifies to block the identity?
    2
  4000.  @donsheffler  Thanks, but no apologies required. If this was face-to-face, it would have been easier to explain. Simple problem hearing the words correctly with the slight accent.
    2
  4001. Pffttt, and the parade of conspiracy videos are allowed to be aired. So, what does that tell you?
    2
  4002. "They were on the dark side of the moon" And, you expect to be taken seriously when your argument comes from a Pink Floyd song? Dewdrop, what's the dark side of the moon? Do you even know?
    2
  4003. Awww. Another conspiracy nut who reads and writes at a 2nd grade level. Shocker.
    2
  4004. "yes the schools had to borrow the equipment for the experiments" What on Earth are you talking about? How do you "borrow" a $100 million facility that is the size of a huge building? You seem to think these things are portable or something. You may as well claim that high schools "borrow" a golf course to teach the kids how to golf. No, dewdrop. Nobody is "borrowing" a laser ranging facility. None of this stuff is portable. You clearly have no understanding of this topic. Stop pretending. As I said (but you ignored), you can give a tour of these facilities to kids. Yes, that has ben done. But, as far as I'm aware, the USA only has two facilities remaining that can even hit the Apollo reflectors. No, they are not loaning them out to children. You kept asking me to go watch a TV show to learn more about it. But, did you even do what I asked first? Did you look up the Apache Point observatory/facility that can accomplish the laser ranging? How does a child "borrow" Apache Point? How about the Haleakalā Observatory? That's the only other one (I'm aware of anyway) in the USA (Hawaii) that can hit the Apollo reflectors. Look at the photos of that facility. How do you "borrow" it? Good grief. I swear, I'm just never going to understand people who are incapable of saying, "oh boy, I was totally wrong, sorry about that." Nope. No matter what happens, you're going to continue to try to tapdance your way into trying to somehow make yourself correct. No, dewdrop. You got it wrong. Completely wrong.
    2
  4005. Because Apollo 17 didn't land near any of the Soviet landers.
    2
  4006. You can make out a frame or two (very grainy) if you go frame by frame as the door opens, and the carjacker has the gun pointed at the cop's head. You see the gun again at several points in the video (i.e. 5:02) dropped on the ground next to a piece of 2x4 wood.
    2
  4007.  @ozzieone16  Yes, dewdrop. They did. Freedom of Information Act. But, as I've been telling you in all of the rest of the threads where you spew nonsense, they didn't release it until 1.5 years after she was already dead.
    2
  4008. "BEING is not able to build STARLINK" Um, was that supposed to say "Boeing"? And, no, Boeing is not building Starlink. That's SpaceX doing that. And, you can walk into a local store and buy a Starlink dish today, and get it up and running in a couple of hours. So, I fail to understand what you mean by "not able to build"??
    2
  4009. No, dewdrop. You secure the scene first, and administer aid second. Otherwise, you end up like Mark. If you had just had a gun pointed at you, and seconds later an accomplice showed up, you don't know how many other accomplices are going to show up. You need to be alert, looking around, and getting the entire scene secured. If you focus on aid, the next accomplice will make sure it's YOU needing the aid.
    2
  4010. "concerns that when the landing happened it could literally sink into potentially miles of dust" Nope. I mean, not seriously anyway. Yes, one or two people expressed that concern. But, none of the actual experts thought any such thing. After all, they had sent impactors and landers before they ever sent Apollo. And, even before sending those, they were pretty sure the lander would be fine.
    2
  4011. "highly radiated over a few billion years" Um, so what? What type and quantity of radiation are you worried about here?
    2
  4012. "the type of material the flag was made from" Nylon.
    2
  4013. Oh, you're certainly correct. I agree. But, in this case, it probably wouldn't matter. See, multiple people called the police. One of the crowd that saw the incident even video recorded it with her cell phone, and showed it to the police. Their police report describes the video as a very loud and public act in view of multiple people including children. She was getting arrested no matter what she said, or didn't say. The stuff in the bodycam video was just getting her to admit the act, solidifying the case. But, yeah, there was no way to avoid arrest.
    2
  4014. Is that what you'd do if it was a guy cranking at the playground? Go have a chat? Get real. Not a bad person? With a million various arrests, convictions, and judgements against her, and a felony term served in a Florida prison? Frankly, none of that bothers me nearly as much as the fact that she walked out on her family more than a decade ago, including a husband, a 6 month old son, and another son, because she wanted to live a life of crime and drugs instead of raise her children.
    2
  4015.  @AM-rd9pu  Yeah, I was just adding to it.
    2
  4016. So, that's how this works? You posted this same gibberish before. I (and others) listed tons of evidence for you. You ignored it all, and now you're just posting the same thing again? How far gone are you? Has it been diagnosed yet?
    2
  4017. So, you don't know how to read or write, and you think that because a Dutch art museum accepted a fake moon rock (that had nothing whatsoever to do with NASA), this means all moon rocks are fake? Really? Good grief. I mean, speaking of lights, you know you're not the brightest bulb. You've known it all your life. Why are you pretending otherwise?
    2
  4018. Sure. It's largely based on the mission photography. You'll see all of the larger items in those photos. But, some of the smaller items... no photos exist. And, for the stuff they tossed out the door, there aren't photos of it because they couldn't see straight down from those windows. On some of the later missions, you can see some of the stuff they tossed out the door, because some of those guys tossed the stuff far enough away to be able to see it from the window angle. But, on Apollo 11, they didn't toss the stuff all that far.
    2
  4019. Good grief. Where's your evidence of ANYTHING you're asserting? Hey, that girl DIED. Pay a little respect, instead of spewing utter nonsense everywhere. You're not helping anything when you spew bullshit. YOU SAID: "How did they both end up in the pool" == Who knows? She's dead, and he's not saying. and how come NO ONE saw them?" == Someone DID see them, and reported it to the hotel staff. But, it was after dark, probably when nobody [else] was in the pool. The hotel staff pulled both out of the pool. YOU SAID: "They said they took shots with other people." == Well, HE said that, yes. And, then he says he doesn't remember anything after that. The incident happened around 4 hours later. YOU SAID: "Whag happened to them?" == He was injured. She died. YOU SAID: "Something is fishy." == Yeah, ya think?? Yes, the story they are telling is extremely fishy. YOU SAID: "I think they were given fake alcohol" == Oh, yeah, the "fake" alcohol gave her a 0.25 blood alcohol level (completely falling down ripped out of her mind drunk). YOU SAID: "and when they passed out, the resort threw them in the pool." == So, you're accusing them of MURDER? What a disrespectful piece of trash you are. The family isn't even accusing anybody of murder. The family isn't accusing anybody of throwing them into the pool. YOU SAID: "They should do an autopsy to see if water is present in their lungs." == So, what do you mean by "their"? The girl died, and yes, many tests were done, and they don't need an autopsy to know water was in the lungs... yes, water was in the lungs. As for "their" (plural), um, stupid fool, HE LIVED. Do you want them to do an "autopsy" on a live person??? Look, you disrespectful piece of trash, nobody needs your rude accusations of murder, and your wild speculations (based on NOTHING) that the hotel staff threw them into the pool. Good grief. You are MAKING THINGS UP. A girl died. Pay respect, instead of spitting in everyone's faces.
    2
  4020. They didn't, dewdrop. They kept the video private for 2.5 years, PREVENTING its release, until the investigation was closed for long enough that a legal FOIA request released the video. Nobody saw it while she was alive.
    2
  4021. Freedom of Information Act. And, what would be the purpose of blurring after she was dead?
    2
  4022. A) You're ridiculous. There was constant interference in both audio and video. And, they had numerous problems keeping the signals intact. Anybody who ever says the audio and video were "perfect" clearly has never watched the videos, nor listened to the audio. B) Do you know of any cars in the 1960s with the Parkes Radio Telescope strapped to its roof?
    2
  4023. Huh? It was a suicide. Nobody killed her. What do you mean?
    2
  4024. "The Webb telescope" Hilarious!! That's even FURTHER away, and would require an even bigger telescope than one on Earth. There is no hope of having the resolution required. Not even close. Plus, Webb is facing the wrong direction, and would need to be spun around, and see the moon on the far side of Earth (the close side to Webb would be the wrong side of the moon). You don't know what you're talking about.
    2
  4025. "Satelites that can see a matchbook cover" Um, no. There is no such satellite. Again, do the math. How big do you think the satellite would need to be? This isn't a matter of technology, this is a matter of the physics of light. Plus, sorry, atmospheric distortion would also prevent you from seeing a matchbook, even if you had a satellite multiple miles in diameter. Again, I'll do the math for you a bit here, and if you don't believe me, you're welcome to do it yourself. You'd be talking about a satellite roughly the size of Manhattan Island. You are making it painfully clear that you have absolutely zero understanding of physics.
    2
  4026. How is this even a news clip? Nothing of any substance was said. You may as well post a video that says "Biden walks down hallway," and it would have the same ultimate meaning as anything said in this video.
    2
  4027. Blame the victim, not the criminal?
    2
  4028. You are intentionally quoting a couple of sentences out of context. Sorry, I'll stick with the millions of pages of documentation, the mountains of evidence, and the confirmation from numerous countries. If you want to base your entire "education" about Apollo on a couple of sentences that you don't even understand, that's your own problem. Stop trying to make it everyone else's problem, too.
    2
  4029. Huh? Multiple people called the police. One woman in the "audience" even recorded it with her cell phone, and showed that video to the police. No binoculars were involved.
    2
  4030. Huh? Her arrest video wasn't made public until 2.5 years later, which was 1.5 years after she was already dead. She didn't experience any shame over the release of this video, because she was already dead before anybody saw it. Her suicide had nothing to do with this arrest. Sorry, but, Inside Edition isn't real news.
    2
  4031. Also, it's called The Freedom of Information Act. Do you think police want their videos made public? No. But, they have no choice, once an investigation is closed for this amount of time.
    2
  4032. Yes, I agree, I don't want to see videos like this being made public. I just don't know how to stop it while the Freedom of Information Act permits it. Secondly, spare the world, seriously. You opened by claiming that binoculars were involved. And, rather than just admitting you were wrong and didn't have a lick of understanding about the topic, you're tapdancing. Good grief. Is it THAT hard to just admit you're wrong?
    2
  4033. And, it seems to have blocked my posting that explained that she didn't commit suicide until 1.5 years AFTER this video was released.
    2
  4034. The only person involved in her death was HERSELF. And, I have no understanding of what "shame" or "damage" you think anybody else created. Who created this damage and shame you're yelling about? How? What would you have done differently?
    2
  4035.  @telesto4099  Wrong. People are in prison right now for exactly that.
    2
  4036.  @telesto4099  It's not your problem that you're wrong? Um, what?
    2
  4037. There is NO doubt, however, that everyone who thinks Apollo was fake is basically illiterate. The word "its" exists for a reason. Use it. What you wrote was: "There's always been some doubt about it is authenticity."
    2
  4038. Well, then you'll be pleased to learn that nobody saw the video until she was dead for 1.5 years.
    2
  4039. Dewdrop, please name the telescope you think they should point at the landing sites, and what do you expect the resolution to be? Also, you do know about LRO, right?
    2
  4040. Yup, that's all you can say. You fired your only bullet, and now you're running for the hills.
    2
  4041. Sorry, you'd lose your bet. I'd offer to take your bet. But, I already know you're wrong in advance.
    2
  4042. Nobody put her arrest video online until she was already dead for 1.5 years.
    2
  4043. Well, multiple people called the cops. And, it had nothing to do with her death anyway. I mean, you don't trust Inside Edition, do you?
    2
  4044. 2) Dewdrop, the Apollo program at its peak costed 4.5% of the entire federal budget in hard costs, plus approximately another 2% in soft costs and international support. It was the most expensive individual program in human history, by far, short of permanent programs such as the military or social security. Never before, or after, has any country in the world spent that percentage of its budget on any program of exploration or science. Do you believe that rate of spending is sustainable? Do you believe any society on Earth would support spending that kind of money on something like going to the moon?
    2
  4045. 3) Apollo wasn't funded for the purpose of science or exploration. Apollo was funded because there was a cold war going on, and Apollo made a wonderful political statement to scare the Soviets into backing off. They did it to prevent the cold war from turning into a real war. It was a demonstration of technological and industrial power, and a political message that said, "don't mess with us or we'll beat you, we will always beat you." That was why Apollo was funded. It was a mechanism to try to avoid a war that would end tens of millions of lives and leave giant craters in the Earth where cities used to be. Now, people like you want to dismiss it all because you don't understand it? Here's what to understand, dewdrop: few people in the public or in congress wanted to keep spending money at that rate once the Soviets threw in the towel. Understand it now?
    2
  4046. 5) With 400,000 people in the USA working to make Apollo happen, plus 50,000 from other countries, pouring a decade of their lives into the effort, why NOT just go? What is it that you think prevented it from happening? None of the 450,000 people working on it thought the stuff they designed and built to go to the moon wouldn't do the job they built it for. But, you're just throwing a "human psychology" reason for believing it didn't happen? Huh? 450,000 people worked tirelessly for a decade of their lives on this, and you want to sweep away those 4.5 million years of human effort because of what reason? Because of human psychology? How about the human psychology that if any of those people found out that they wasted a decade of their lives on a fraud, they'd blow the whistle? Does that enter your "human psychology" at all? What reason would you believe that all of those people worked to build things, and then what (?), the lizard people said, "nope, we're not going"? How does that go, in your mind? They had the landers, the communications systems, the rockets, the craft, the tracking network, the suits, the launch facilities, the training facilities, and all of the rest of the equipment. Why not just go? What is your reason for believing that we had everything required to go to the moon, and decided not to do it?
    2
  4047. How am I supposed to know? But, you can't see all of my comments in the notification link, but, you can see them if you sort by date.
    2
  4048.  @DemonDrummer  Don't forget: Spain and Australia were 2/3rds of the DSN that received all of the TV broadcasts from the moon. Dozens of tracking stations around the world (including from enemies) used radar and radio telescopes to track all of the missions. You can find more info about this on MIT's site. The tracking was accurate to within 1 mile. Spain had the largest telescope on Earth at the time, and used it to photograph the SIVB fuel dumps around the moon (which spanned out for miles, thus were visible to a large enough telescope), as well as the Apollo 13 debris and gas field (same dynamic). Backyard amateurs all around the world were able to tune in on the Apollo audio (not the video, that would have taken bigger hardware, but, the audio was easy) by pointing their Yagi and/or dishes at the moon. Hundreds (or maybe thousands?) of people in many countries did exactly that. This is more of your #11, where you seemed to indicate that it was only one person. There were about 7,000 photos taken from the lunar surface (you said 8,000, but, I can't find 8,000, except in the duplicates at higher resolution, or by including panoramas and other assembled clips, but, whatever). But, don't forget the 110,000 photos taken from lunar orbit.
    2
  4049.  @DemonDrummer  Oh, and don't forget that JAXA/Selene not only saw the halos (you referred to them), but, more importantly, they cross compared the Apollo photography with their Selene photography, and found that it matched perfectly. That level of detail wasn't available in 1969-1972, except by being on the lunar surface. Side note: there is still quite a bit of doubt about how "valid" the halos are. Some people think it's pretty solid evidence. Others argue that the halos are coincidental. Personally, I'm just not that sure. So, I stick with the more solid evidence produced by Selene (the terrain and backgrounds seen in the Apollo photos).
    2
  4050. Most of the time, when I hear the complaint about "two suns" (sometimes more than that), it's because the visors had multiple layers, and the light literally bounces back and forth inside the helmet's visor layers, some light reflecting, some refracting, producing more than one image of the sun. It only happened when all helmet visor layers were down (you never saw it when the layers were up, and they just had the inner bubble layer exposed to light). There were also some examples of light reflecting off of the lander, producing another bright spot on the photo. But, yeah, without an exact photo ID number, I don't know if I can answer the question further than that. There are 7000 photos taken from the lunar surface, so, you'd have to be more specific. If you want to see stars taken on the Apollo missions from the lunar surface, you won't find them in normal exposure film. You do see some photos of the stars from lunar orbit with long exposures. But, from the lunar surface, you'd have to look at the 125 photos they took of the stars from the Carruthers UV telescopic camera.
    2
  4051. Dewdrop, NASA loaned China bunches of the Apollo samples over the past 5 decades, why shouldn't NASA ask them to return the favor, in order to study a new part of the moon they didn't visit?
    2
  4052. Absolutely untrue.
    2
  4053. HardcoreGamer, please change your nickname to "HardcoreInsane." YOU SAID: "We should be helping these prisoners get back into society!" == Yes, there are many programs that do that. YOU SAID: "And not force them to be locked up for years! What’s it gonna do?! Nothing! It doesn’t help them!" == Well, the primary reason for locking them up isn't to "help" them, it's to prevent them from continuing to commit crimes upon others. YOU SAID: "Honestly your no better" == My no better what? ENGLISH PLEASE! YOU SAID: "than the people you call criminals if you believe in locking someone up for their sins!" == So, it's your insane opinion that murderers should NOT be locked up? What? Are you even serious? Name a single society on the planet that has adopted that type of policy, and has NOT resulted in complete chaos. Name one. YOU SAID: "Then your just sinning...." == My just sinning what?? ENGLISH PLEASE!!! YOU SAID: "We’re all not so different, huh?" == Um, yeah, dummy, we are. I haven't killed anybody. Have you?
    2
  4054. And, you believe her when she claimed to be alone, why? Because she said so while trying to avoid her millionth arrest? I have a bridge for sale. Interested?
    2
  4055. Well, according to her landlord, she was a stripper. I doubt this had any impact on her career.
    2
  4056. Not the brightest bulb, eh?
    2
  4057. Then what? If the maniac kid slammed into a pedestrian because the cops didn't chase, then are you going to say "chase"? Why shouldn't police enforce the laws? Isn't that what they're there for?
    2
  4058. If a man comes up to you and kids at a playground and starts cranking, just go to a different playground, don't report him.
    2
  4059. Yes, dewdrop. They said they didn't see stars while on the lunar surface. I fail to understand why you feel that's "correcting" me.
    2
  4060. Another proud graduate of YouTube University School of Law, huh? First of all, you can get a ticket for an infraction, but, you get arrested for a crime. This was a crime, not an infraction. You clearly do not know the difference. Secondly, it's called the Freedom of Information Act. The police couldn't block the release of the video after the woman had already been dead for 1.5 years. But, you go right ahead and keep pretending you know the law, and keep giving legal advice, you're really good at it.
    2
  4061. First of all, you can declare all you want about how heavy or light a rocket should be, but, there's no panacea here. Rockets are what they are. And, improved fuel? Huh? Can you name this "improved fuel" you speak of? As for the onboard computers, ok, why is that relevant? As for unmanned lander crashes, yeah, it's all about the money. Engineers know this. Sometimes it's just easier to build rockets/landers with the expectation of an 80% success rate (as an example), rather than spending 10x the money to make it man-rated with a 99.99% success rate. You save a ton of money, take your chances, and if it fails, so what? All you've lost is an unmanned probe, and you have plenty of money left over to try again. Applying the standards for man-rated craft to unmanned probes is just plain silly.
    2
  4062. "I guess they could just throw them away and use paper road maps." Dewdrop, as long as the computers are capable of doing the navigation, what difference does it make about how modern they are? I mean, they had pocket calculators at the same time as the Apollo missions were happening also. Nobody says today that we need a modern computer to add/subtract/multiply/divide. The pocket calculators of the 1960s and 1970s were just as capable of adding a couple of numbers as today's most powerful computers. And, that same spirit of things is true of navigating to the moon. As long as the computers they had in those days were capable of the navigation, why would it matter if modern computers can do it faster? Either a modern computer, or a 1960s era computer used on Apollo, was capable of doing the navigation. So, I'll ask again, what difference do you think the modern computers would make? Why is this relevant to you? "As for rocket fuel, no I can't name an improved rocket fuel." Yet, you came to YouTube to declare that you expect a new rocket fuel. But, you can't name it? "I guess we have to assume that after the countless billions of dollars that have been spent on space exploration and missile testing over the last half century, NASA is still using the same propellant it used in 1969." Yes. That is correct.
    2
  4063. "Logic isn't your forte, is it?" I'm not the one coming to YouTube comments, declaring how much a new rocket should weigh, and declaring that NASA should be using different rocket fuels (while not knowing anything about rocket fuels). That's YOU doing that. "There's a reason the latest generation of moon-bound rockets aren't guided by calculators." Dewdrop, my reference to calculators was an analogy. I said that 1960s pocket calculators could add/subtract/multiply/divide, and that modern computers are no better at doing those things. That was an analogy to the fact that huge 1960s IBM mainframes could navigate a Saturn V to the moon, and they could do that just as well as a modern computer (albeit, the calculations would be many times faster now, but, still, those old mainframes could do it fast enough to get the job done). I wasn't saying they used calculators for navigation. I was trying to draw the analogy that you'd understand. I guess I overestimated you. "perhaps you can verify that no advancements have been made in rocket propellants over the half century." I thought I said this already. You are correct. There has been no change in propellants. For the most part, they still use liquid hydrogen as the fuel, and liquid oxygen as the oxidizer. There are always some special applications, such as when to use kerosene, or hypergols, etc. But, for the bulk of rocketry, it's still just liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, just as in the upper stages of the Saturn V. "Logic tells me" Sigh. "that would a pretty amazing claim , but if you can back it up" No, dewdrop. YouTube comments aren't a research paper for 11th grade English class. I'm not citing sources for you. YOU are the one who doesn't understand this stuff, remember? Don't come here spewing this pile of gibberish about what you expect the world's aerospace engineers to do, as if you think you know something that the entire planet's experts don't. If you think there's a better fuel than liquid hydrogen, go ahead, write it up, and publish in the aerospace engineering journals. Beyond that, quit with the arrogance about topics you know nothing about.
    2
  4064. "though rocket propulsion is apparently very similar" Did you spend the last 20 minutes looking it up? "there have been many improvements in propulsion technology." Dewdrop, is your scroll up broken? You didn't ask about propulsion technology. You declared that there should be IMPROVED ROCKET FUEL. Sorry, I'm not letting you sidestep now, and pretend you were talking about propulsion technology as a whole, when the topic (up until now) has been the FUEL. And, YOU are the one who brought it up. Those were YOUR words. I'm sure you just now looked it up and found out that the fuels haven't really changed. But, you can't bring yourself to just admit you're wrong. So, it's a typical duck and dodge, pretending now that you meant "technology" instead of fuel. See, here's the thing, anybody else who reads this is just as capable of scrolling up and seeing your original words as I am, and as you are. You know you were talking about fuels. You know I was responding about fuels. And, you now know you were wrong, despite your arrogant little snips, pretending to understand it better than I do. But, you just can't bring yourself to ever admit being wrong about anything. It's beyond your capability. "There have also been improvements in navigation" Apollo 12 through 17 landed exactly where they planned. Apollo 11 overshot by a few miles, but, it had nothing to do with computers. A modern computer would have overshot by the exact same amount that Apollo 11 overshot. So, once again, why are you unable to address this notion you were asserting, such that the computers mattered all that much? "and communication - and presumably in a lot of other things." You never mentioned communications or a lot of other things. I was addressing the things YOU stated. "Computing technology is off the chart." And, that's relevant to going to the moon, how? "So, it's hardly surprising that a lot of people are wondering why Russia, Israel, Japan, and India recently crash-landed on the moon," Do you think it was because of computer failures? Huh? "and the U.S. - which supposedly scored SIX manned landings in a four-year period, now has to wait until 2025 to duplicate its feat." 2025? Huh? Do you think they're landing in 2025? Dewdrop, when you know THIS little about the topic, seriously, just stick to asking questions. Drop the arrogance. Stop pretending to know things you don't. Stop slandering people for stuff you don't understand. And, try to learn something. "Let's hope they don't hit any snags." Well, I have that hope also. But, in NASA's "wisdom" (sigh), they selected Starship for the lander. That's a snag x1000. If that thing is ready by the end of the decade, I'd be shocked.
    2
  4065. "Half a century of technological advances ought to add up to advances in lots of things" But, you didn't mention "lots of things." You claimed a few very specific things, including your notion that the fuel should be improved. Then, you scoffed at me when I told you the fuel was unchanged, demanding I prove it to you. Now, you won't even address fuel again, as you duck and dodge, pretending you "knew it all along," still refusing to admit you were wrong. "from propulsion" Are you going to admit you were wrong about the fuels, or not? "to navigation" And, how is a newer computer supposed to result in this? You never answered. What EXACTLY do you think a newer computer could do for Apollo navigation that the massive 1960s dual IBM mainframes in Houston couldn't do? "to life support." Ahhh, yes, anything but addressing the stuff you opened your comment with. You just won't do it. I responded line by line to your own comments, and, rather than dealing with your own mistakes, you'll just keep spewing new stuff until something sticks, eh? Um, dewdrop, do you believe that Orion uses the same life support systems that Apollo used? I mean, you got your wish, you know. Orion's life support doesn't even remotely resemble Apollo's. They don't even a single gas system any longer. So, why do you think this "complaint" has merit? You struck out when you complained about computers and fuel. So, you're just going to sit here and name system after system, until you find something that sticks? Yes, dewdrop, there are completely revamped life support systems for Orion. How do you believe this somehow supports your viewpoint that Apollo didn't happen? Are you even reading this? I mean, you refuse time and time again to answer any question or challenge. So, will you prove you're even reading this by writing "green" at the beginning of your response to prove you read this? "If you want to get hung up on "rocket fuel"" Dewdrop, YOU brought up rocket fuel!!! YOU did!!! You said you expected new rocket fuels. I said that you're wrong. You argued anyway. Now, you're going to say that I am the problem here? "or the lunar geology you probably know nothing about, that's your problem." No, dewdrop. Nothing is my problem. It's yours. If you have an issue with the geology or the fuels, you write up your expertise in journals on geology and aerospace engineering. I'm sorry you think YouTube comments are a science/engineering journal. But, they're not. "And who have I "slandered"?" Libel, technically. But, it's basically the same as slander. I'm not playing this game, dewdrop. Don't pretend you're not. "Note that I'm not pronouncing the Apollo 11 moon landing a fraud. I'm still sitting on the fence." Sorry, been down this road before. I know exactly what you think, and so do you.
    2
  4066. Yeah, but it didn't work very well, and they had to replace it with clamps on the next EVA.
    2
  4067.  @bvskyfacer4377  Well, I can't tell if that's an insult ("Rockhead"), or a compliment.... (smile)
    2
  4068. What didn't you understand here? She had her privacy. The arrest video wasn't released until 2.5 years later. Nobody saw it until 1.5 years after she was dead. I don't know how much more clear I can make this.
    2
  4069. "who demand evidence." OK, what evidence have you found so far? What evidence would you accept? And, what evidence do you expect? "#1 The soviets were not pursuing a manned Moon landing but rather a LEO space station at that time." This is just plain ridiculous. They flew four lunar landers in space on test missions. And, they built four N1 moon rockets. But, all of the N1s blew up. "#2 Please show me published reports from the Soviets (for example, photocopies of Soviet newspapers from 1969) showing how they tracked Apollo to the Moon and verified that what they were tracking did contain 3 astronauts. Name the tracking stations used around the world which would enable the Soviet Union to monitor Apollo as the Earth turned." Good grief. The Soviet Union is gone, dewdrop. Sorry if nobody has gone through 50+ year old documents from a nation that no longer exists and uploaded them for you to find. But, why should that be Apollo's issue? "#5 Explain how the Soviets received a lower-than-market-value deal on 10 million tons of grain (price subsidized by the American tax payer) in 1973" And, this is relevant to Apollo, why? "and participated in the joint Apollo–Soyuz mission in 1975 without being "in on it"." So, a mission designed to soothe relations between two countries involved in a cold war ... now means Apollo didn't happen ... and the Soviets were "in on it"? Good grief. "Perhaps you should share your knowledge with Dmitry Rogozin, former head of Roscosmos." The guy who was fired for incompetence? "He can't seem to find any evidence of the Russians proving that American astronauts really did walk on the Moon in 1969." Why? Because he made a Tweet? "as are the Chinese who also think Apollo was a fraud." The Chang'e orbiter photographed the Apollo landing sites too, dewdrop. The Chinese acknowledge Apollo, and published a couple of those photos last year. You have no idea what you're talking about.
    2
  4070. "there would be a McDonald's" Like the McDonald's at the bottom of the ocean, right? Errr, wait....
    2
  4071. "and ferment" Ferment? Not the brightest bulb, eh?
    2
  4072. "the original tapes" Two BACKUP tapes were lost, dewdrop. Primary copies are still intact.
    2
  4073. "and vehicles" Huh? All command modules are in museums? Who told you they were missing?
    2
  4074. "it was all destroyed" Huh? What's odd about destroying mainframe computers, assembly plants, tooling, launch towers, etc., for a program that no longer exists? What should they do? Keep all of that stuff operational for missions that will never fly?
    2
  4075. "IT screams COVER UP" So, let me get this straight... announcing that they lost two backup tapes that have never been viewed a single time in history is a "cover up"? How about just never mentioning the two backup tapes? Wouldn't that make more sense?
    2
  4076. "the original tapes they say they have been recorded over" That's one possible thing that could have happened. In reality, they don't know for sure what happened to the backup tapes.
    2
  4077. "the same year the technology to see how they faked the original tapes" Then use this technology on the primary copies. What are you waiting for?? Why do you need backup copies that have never been viewed?
    2
  4078. Dewdrop, Dr. James A. Van Allen said that it would take a week in the worst area of the belts before getting a fatal dose. Every cosmologist, radiobiologist, and astrophysicist on Earth agrees. Why do you think Apollo wasn't going fast enough? Why are you pretending to understand concepts you don't? Why can't you answer any of the other dozen questions I asked?
    2
  4079. The same way you can take a photo on Earth. How many lumens do you think the Earth has from the vantage point of the moon?
    2
  4080. When did they start giving warnings for aggravated misdemeanors?
    2
  4081. Henry, want to try this again when you're sober? Nobody can understand a word of your gibberish.
    2
  4082. Henry, want to try this again when you're sober? Nobody can understand a word of your gibberish.
    2
  4083. Huh? She put on a show at a public beach in front of people, including children. What did you expect should happen? If it was a guy at a playground putting on a show in front of the kids, would you be saying something different? Or, is that also "nothing" in your mind?
    2
  4084. Links are blocked. Is your Google broken?
    2
  4085. Start with "india chandrayaan 2 apollo 11 & 12" and go from there.
    2
  4086. Read the FAQ, dewdrop. They TELL you that they get their images from low flying planes.
    2
  4087. "The Shuttle should have orbited at least once just to photograph the landing sites." Huh? Which shuttle do you think even had the capability of going to the moon? (Hint: none of them had that capability.) "Artemis program director stated that they would never visit these sites to " preserve" them." Well, that's one of a million reasons. The biggest reasons have nothing to do with that. But, I doubt you're capable of understanding the differences between the Apollo missions and the Artemis missions anyway. "This is why people question the moon landings, they lied to start a war but wouldn't lie about this?" Look, nobody has a problem with people who ask questions. But, open your eyes. Seriously, look around at these comments. NONE of the hoax nuts want answers to their questions. If you give them the answers, all they ever do is ignore it and change topics. Not a single one will ever admit being wrong at anything. "They never took photos of the stars, why not?" You show them the photos of the stars, they ignore it and change topics. "They never pointed the camera at the Earth, why not?" You show them the videos where they pointed the camera at Earth, they ignore it, and change topics. It's an endless routine of these people regurgitating ridiculous claims they saw in conspiracy videos that have been debunked a million times over, changing topics time and time again, until you just can't stand them any longer, and walk away. Sorry, but that's not honestly asking questions. That's just a mission to waste people's time, while burying their heads in the sand.
    2
  4088. She wasn't humiliated. The arrest video wasn't released to the public until 1.5 years after she was dead. As for "good person" -- Not by a mile. She served some felony time in prison for stealing cars. She had an arrest record a mile long. Multiple judgements against her for theft. Open warrants for her arrest for various failures to appear. Attempts to change her name to evade the police. Numerous drug and alcohol charges. Her landlord says that her "career" was being a stripper at the local club (and it's suspected/assumed that she also made money on the side for one-on-one time). Apparently, she decided to put on a similar show at the beach.
    2
  4089. Is this a joke? Known felons running around with wads of cash, loads of guns, and tons of drugs... and you're blaming THE POLICE for stopping them?
    2
  4090. Well, nobody knows the exact date of her death. Her body was found on March 31, 2022. But, apparently, it happened well before that, because it was well into the maggot phase of decomposition. And, nobody saw the arrest video until November 24, 2023, so, I doubt it had any effect on her stress.
    2
  4091. First of all, the investigation has only begun. Secondly, as opposed to what?
    2
  4092.  @yazzamx6380  Yeah, I know. But, as another side note, there are a bunch of moon rocks that are lost. Some of the lost ones were from the "goodwill samples." Many of them were accepted by governments and put on display. But, some of them disappeared, presumably into the private collections of national leaders, and who-knows from there.... Other samples have been lost when worldwide geologists have requested to analyze the samples, and never gave them back. Many of those geologists died during the time that they were lent the samples, and somehow their samples were never located. (There had been loose reports that some geologists did this intentionally toward the end of their lives, acquiring moon rocks, and giving them to family members as a method of having something to sell on the black market... unverified, of course... but, yeah, there are moon rocks on the black market, and they came from somewhere. Sure, most of the black market moon rocks are fake. But, some are real. I myself have been offered a couple of them for $100,000 each. No, I didn't accept.) And, of course, how can we forget the NASA employee who used his credentials to go after hours, and literally stole an entire safe secured into the structure of the building (like with a jackhammer or something), and then cut the safe open at home, and placed the rocks on his bed so that he can have sex with his girlfriend while "on the moon." I have forgotten if they recovered those samples or not. Anyway, of course, a vast majority of the lunar samples are safe and sound, and are examined every day by geologists and geology students. But, to be ultra-specific, yes, there are some addition "missing" materials from Apollo, in the form of some of the lunar samples.
    2
  4093. belt still radiation look up u could not then facts we get by to there think
    2
  4094. Who told you the technology was "loosened" anyway? Was it a conspiracy video?
    2
  4095. "Less technology than a cell phone" Sorry, this makes no sense. Sure, less computing power. Who cares? You either have enough computing power, or you don't. Having more computing power is irrelevant. Can you name any technology they lacked?
    2
  4096.  @deanjuliano7849  I cannot help you at this point. You're apparently too proud to be rude.
    2
  4097. Dewdrop, they lost two backup tapes (the primary copies are still intact). Nobody had ever even watched those two backup tapes a single time in history. They didn't even have a machine capable of playing those two tapes. Why are they important to you? And, what "vital stuff" do you think is lost? Or, should I say loost?
    2
  4098. Huh? She was a drug addict, just like you. That's not a secret.
    2
  4099. Good grief. There are boatloads of proof for Apollo, from multiple countries in multiple ways. And, what in the world are you talking about? 4 different countries have found the Apollo landers on the lunar surface from orbiters, exactly where they're supposed to be. You're proposing that someone went and placed landers there, but nobody was inside the landers? Huh? How? Why? And, sorry, but whoever told you that there should be a crater simply has no understanding of anything. Helicopters have a lot more downward thrust, and don't leave craters on sandy beaches. Why should Apollo leave a crater?
    2
  4100. The media had very little to do with this. And, she never had a trial because she didn't bother to show up in court (as was her normal pattern for most of her prior arrests). She had already been attempting to change her name for years, but, with all of her open warrants and her prison history, the courts wouldn't let her.
    2
  4101. You're wrong. But, your assertion is easily proven. Just go do the math. What are you waiting for? You've had 50 years to do it. Just calculate the angular size, compare against the film and lenses used, do the calculations, and demonstrate it. It's not as if that math has been done before, so you can be the first.
    2
  4102. So, you accept NASA's claims when they tell you about invisible radiation belts, but, you reject NASA's claims when they tell you about the quantity of that radiation?
    2
  4103. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    2
  4104. And, sorry, but, "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake" isn't an "investigation" of anything. It's blind rejection. If any of those people had any actual evidence to support their rejection, they wouldn't be posting on YouTube, they'd be writing it up for journals.
    2
  4105. "We could go there now, but we never had the technology back then to make it there." Yet, you cannot name the precise technology that they lacked? Why not? Why are you just waving the "technology" word around as if it's supposed to mean something? Why aren't you providing the exact mechanisms that Apollo lacked? "Just look at the lunar module" Who should look at it? Uneducated high school dropouts that have zero training in aerospace engineering? Why don't any aerospace engineers look at it and come to your conclusions? "Where is all the telemetry tapes and blue prints? OH, what......... they were all lose they say." Two telemetry tapes were lost. And, from that, sorry, but the conspiracy videos you've been watching have pretended that this means that all telemetry tapes were lost. And, don't even pretend you know what a blueprint is.
    2
  4106. In the USA, if you do this in front of children, you get arrested.
    2
  4107. You say I made good points, then you say that it could be faked. I also asked some questions, but you didn't answer. Somehow, I doubt you read my message in its entirety, because, if you did, you'd know that some of the things I mentioned could NOT be faked... starting with the fact that India and China each sent orbiters to the moon and photographed the Apollo landing sites. But, I doubt you read any of that.
    2
  4108. Dewdrop, you refused to read anything I wrote long before I called you a dewdrop. So, basically, you're still pretending.
    2
  4109. "Democrats of the 60s" Yet, all moonwalks were done under republican administration. Go figure.
    2
  4110. "picture underneath the lander not one grain of sand was disturbed" Is that a joke? Most of the photos under the lander are from shallow angles with poor lighting, and you cannot really see much of anything besides darkness. But, the very best photo of it comes from roll 40, frame 5921, when Armstrong specifically wanted a good shot of the effect under the lander, and you can clearly see that virtually all of the dust was blown away down to the compacted regolith, and you see radial striations from the rocket engine. This is downright outlandish that you'd say such a thing, proving that you've never looked at the photos yourself. You are just repeating a claim told to you by a taxi cab driver who made a video making that claim, rather than actually looking yourself.
    2
  4111. "watch the blue ghost" Yes, and watch the Apollo 11 landing (and all other landings), and you see lots of dust blowing. And, actually look at the photo archive FOR YOURSELF and see that there's clear evidence of dust being blown, rather than watching videos made by out-of-work machinists who spend their spare time making YouTube videos, showing you poor angles and bad lighting and saying, "look, no dust."
    2
  4112. "those rocket motors kicked up" Well, dewdrop, that's one way to demonstrate your level of knowledge about rocketry (zero). In rocket parlance, a "motor" uses solid fuel, and an "engine" uses liquid fuel. No solid fuel motor has ever had a controlled landing on anything anywhere, because it cannot be throttled. The fact that you don't know the difference between an engine and a motor (one of the most elementary entry-level concepts in rocketry) just demonstrates who you are, and what you know (absolutely nothing).
    2
  4113. You didn't see the arrest when she was alive. She died two years ago. The arrest video was released on November 24, 2023. What you saw was a choreographed media effort to get two viral rounds instead of one. By posting the arrest video without mentioning that she was already dead, they got to post another round stating that she committed suicide, and let people falsely believe that it was due to the first round.
    2
  4114. So, you ask questions, but don't want answers. Bravo. You're a true hero.
    2
  4115. Starting your drunken weekend a little early, eh? 1961? Never went back?
    2
  4116. Well, if it's any consolation, nobody saw the video while she was alive. It wasn't released until 2.5 years later.
    2
  4117. Why'd you disappear, John? Cliff already outlined why each and every one of your objections is laughably wrong. But, I'll add: "250 degrees Fahrenheit to negative 150" WRONG. The astronauts were never there for those extremes. You're talking about the peaks in the lunar afternoon and lunar overnight... neither of which were relevant to Apollo. All Apollo missions landed early in the lunar morning, and lifted off in the very same morning, when temperatures were nowhere near what you're complaining about. You clearly don't realize that a "day" (sunrise to sunrise) on the moon is about a month on Earth. "radiation 200x than that of the surface of earth" Um, ok, what kind? And, how much would penetrate the silver/aluminum canisters? I mean, if my umbrella can block a drop of rain, are you going to argue that it can't block 200 drops? Do you believe that Kodak and Hasselblad didn't understand as much about their own film/cameras that you do? "lead core batteries" WRONG. They didn't use lead core batteries, dewdrop. They used silver-zinc batteries. Not one bit of lead. You don't know what you're talking about. "energy load draws on the batteries in the backpacks would drain in less than 10 minutes" WRONG. Says who? You? What in the world do you even know about it? You thought they were lead, and didn't even know what they were comprised of. How much could you possibly know about it that all of the engineers who built them didn't know? "factor transmission to earth" They didn't transmit to Earth, dewdrop. They only transmitted VHF to the landers or rovers, which then relayed the signal via unified S-band. "and heating and cooling in the suit" WRONG. There was no heating. There was only cooling. You don't know anything about this topic. Why are you pretending you do? "How exactly does an astronaut survive temperatures from +250 to -150?" By not being exposed to +250 or -150. Again, you don't even know what time they landed, and you're painfully unaware of the length of a "day" on the moon. Also, surprise surprise, dewdrop, but a typical fireman suit can withstand 1000 degrees. A good one can withstand 2000. Yet, you think an Apollo suit can't do 250? Are you going to run around and say all firemen are fake, because they can't wear suits that will protect them from fires? "To pressurize a suit to atmospheric pressure" WRONG. They never pressurized the suits to that level. It would have been extremely difficult to work in that amount of pressure, and, they'd suffer from oxygen toxicity if the pressure was as high as that. The suits were pressurized to about 3PSI only, not atmospheric pressure. It's easier to operate in the suit, and you don't get oxygen toxicity effects. Once again, you know nothing. "require zero leaks" Why? All of the suits leaked a little. Who cares? They even had pressure release valves. And, they were also venting off the spent gasses from the porous plate sublimators. What difference would a small leak make? "Those suit zippers must have been magical" Dewdrop, the seals were in the layers beneath the zippers. The zippers merely secured the inside layers. You have absolutely no knowledge of this topic either. And, it's an insult to the thousands of people who worked on Apollo, as if none of them could figure out how to make a suit. Oh, but YOU know better, right? "you should study" How? By watching the same nonsense videos you've been watching, made by people who know the same amount you do (ZERO)?
    2
  4118. "I posted the link" Welcome to YouTube censorship. Nobody (besides you) can see any such message. View the threads with an incognito window, or separate browser that isn't logged in. "Don Petit coming out and saying NASA destroyed the Apollo technology to get to the Moon." So, that's the extent of your knowledge? One sentence you intentionally took out of context means that the Saturn V schematics are all gone? I guess that makes my basement the most valuable in the world, eh? I have detailed schematics of the Saturn V rocket, the command/service module, the landers on Apollo 9-14, the upgraded landers on Apollo 15-17, the rover, etc. And, they're all still publicly available. But, since one astronaut said the technology was destroyed, this means (in your mind) that all of the schematics are gone? Huh? Why would you believe such nonsense? He never said the schematics are gone. He said the technologies have been destroyed. And, he's right. They ripped out the IBM mainframes used for guidance, and destroyed them in the process. They tore down (destroyed) the launch facilities. All of the communications hardware designed to work with the Saturn V have been ripped out and replaced with more modern digital communications systems. We can't communicate with a Saturn V with any of the modern equipment, and all of that old equipment has been torn apart. The buildings and tooling for most of the craft are long gone. Most of the contractor companies either closed their doors permanently, or sold off to bigger companies and retooled to do other things. So, what's your beef? Why do you think the word "destroyed" means that we no longer have the schematics? Is this really how simplistic your mind operates? One person used the word "destroyed" and you're willing to throw the hard work of 450,000 people for a decade of their lives out the window, and pretend it never happened? Really? Because of one word in one sentence spoken by one astronaut? Good grief.
    2
  4119. Why do you believe her when she said thought nobody was around? Because she said so as she was trying to cry her way out of her millionth arrest? When did they start giving tickets for aggravated misdemeanors?
    2
  4120. Dewdrop, nobody saw this arrest video until long after she was dead, so it had no bearing on her suicide.
    2
  4121. The video taken of the incident itself by the witnesses doesn't match her sob story about nobody being around.
    2
  4122. According to her landlord, she was a "dancer" at the gentlemen's club, and her neighbors said she did "extras" for cash in her apartment.
    2
  4123. Now, will you answer the question? When did they start giving tickets for aggravated misdemeanors? Why didn't you answer?
    2
  4124. Yeah, it's been at least 20 minutes since that question was asked in these comments for the 2,363,960th time. We need the 2,363,961st time.
    2
  4125. The minute one of you nuts mentions using lead for shielding is the minute everyone knows that you have no understanding of radiation whatsoever, and that you're just regurgitating silly claims made in conspiracy videos. Dewdrop, using lead for ionic radiation (such as in the Van Allen belts) triggers secondary radiation effects which are almost as bad as the original radiation. No sane person would ever use lead. I honestly can't decide if the makers of the conspiracy videos know this, and just make these "4 inches of lead" comments just to show how gullible their followers are for regurgitating such a ridiculous claim, or if they actually believe their own nonsense. No, dewdrop. Lead doesn't make a good shield for this type of radiation. Xrays, sure, lead is fine. But, guess what, there are many forms of radiation, and you don't treat them all with the same type of shielding.
    2
  4126. And, you believe this because Inside Edition said so?
    2
  4127. Would you say that if it was a man at a playground?
    2
  4128. Correct nickname.
    2
  4129. YOU SAID: "So they had a remote control camera that could focus in and out and move up and down?" == Yes. Radio remote control had existed since the late 1800s. They had remote controlled boats in WWI. They had full-sized radio remote controlled airplanes in WWII. Remote controlling a camera in 1971-1972 was not difficult. YOU SAID: "That could send images and movie back to earth?" == Yes. Again. Radio. How do you think satellite TV works? There are satellites in geostationary orbits about 25,000 miles away. Those things send images/movies back to Earth all the time. The first ones sending images from the moon actually came from the Soviets in the mid-1960s.
    2
  4130. "mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit" Dewdrop, mankind has never left Earth orbit. I'm sorry that you don't understand that. The moon is in Earth orbit.
    2
  4131.  @mrofnocnon  "referring to earth's orbit around the sun" No, it was an interview. At that time, they were focused only on low orbit stuff. They wanted to shift focus to going to Mars (not in Earth orbit). But, if the NASA personnel don't say, "but Apollo did it" every 2 seconds, then the dewdrops try to use these as quote mines to say Apollo didn't happen. It's ridiculous. "We want to shift focus from low orbit to Mars" somehow means "Apollo was fake" if the guy doesn't spell out every sentence that Apollo happened.
    2
  4132. Someone here needs a 12 step program... badly.
    2
  4133. Shocker. Another denier who can't read or write past the level of a second grader. And, this mess was your edited version. Good grief. Are you PROUD of the fact that you'd lose badly in the "are you smarter than a 4th grader" competition?
    2
  4134. Well, she should have thought of that before abandoning her family and career over a decade ago, and chose to live a life of crime and drugs instead. Or, were you under the false impression that this arrest resulted in anything negative for her?
    2
  4135. No, she barely got any coverage until after the arrest video was released, which was 2.5 years later. She was long gone by then. Nobody saw it while she was alive.
    2
  4136. You think there's zero gravity on the moon, and this is the basis to accuse people of being criminals? Dewdrop, the moon has gravity.
    2
  4137. Huh? You think you can take photos of the Apollo landing sites with your cell phone?
    2
  4138. Really, dewdrop? Now India is "in on it"? How about China? They took orbital photos of the landing sites, and can see the landers. Are they "in on it"? South Korea now has done the same. Were they paid to make fake orbital photos? That's how this goes, in your mind? Is there any evidence you'd ever accept? Or, you've decided ahead of time that all evidence for Apollo is fake, even before you know what it is?
    2
  4139. YOU SAID: "Can you imagine riding up that elevator to prepare for lift off? What would be going through your head? I cannot even imagine." == That was a common theme in many of the astronauts' books and interviews. The main thing I remember from the books and interviews was that they would often comment about how different it was on launch day. They had ridden up the elevator many many times, but, on launch day, it's so quiet because there are so few people. Just the astronauts, and Gunter Wendt, and maybe one or two more techs. And, that was it. Usually, there'd be bunches of people all over the place on the ground, on top of the tower, etc. The astronauts talked about how eerie it felt to be that "alone" with the rocket. YOU SAID: "And that picture of earth...we are a beautiful planet." == Yup. YOU SAID: "And to all the flatliners...I am sure they have a way of explaining it away but it sure doesn't look flat to me." == They just deny the photos are real. They're insane.
    2
  4140. Dewdrop, multiple people called the police. One of the witnesses recorded it, and showed it to the police. The arrest report says that the video shows her in a loud public display in front of children. Shame on YOU for lying and saying otherwise.
    2
  4141. So, the failures of a crackpot mean that the successes of the past never happened? Oh, you're a true genius.
    2
  4142. Given that you cannot spell the word "aid" correctly, I hardly think you're an expert on giving it. What you just asked for was a personal assistant, not medical help in an emergency. Nope. The officer needs to secure the scene, which means getting more officers on the scene. Sorry, but the moment the first officer arrived, he had to deal with the screaming banshee. It was shortly after that when the aid started. Prior to then, had the officer focused on aid instead of his surroundings, there's a good chance that the officer would be the one needing the aid next.
    2
  4143. Connie, do the world a favor and print this gibberish into every job application you ever fill out. Employers would like to know which of their applicants know what they're doing, vs. which applicants pretend to know what they're doing. You're as much of an aerospace engineer as I'm a famous pop singer. But, we all know that you came to YouTube to make these comments because it's the only place in the world that you can pretend to know things you don't. Amazing that not a single aerospace engineer on the planet has ever noticed any cardboard, huh? But, YOU did. Right?
    2
  4144.  @ronaldb4885  I wouldn't hold my breath for 2024. Congress isn't funding it at a pace to actually make it by 2024. More like double that amount of time, unless they pour the money in faster than they're doing now. NASA can talk about 2024 all they want. Nobody cares until the money is actually granted to meet that date, which it has not been.
    2
  4145.  @DeputyNordburg  Yes, the accuracy is increased BECAUSE of the photon count. The picture is worth 1000 words, and it would instantly be apparent about why if you saw the graphs. Wiki has a couple of them.
    2
  4146. The day the nuts ever want to play the game the scientific way... would be wonderful. The scientific method includes writing up calculations, putting them into papers, and submitting them to recognized scientific and engineering journals. But, the nuts never do that. They just make a bunch of false accusations based on misinformation, and skip the scientific method altogether.
    2
  4147. Huh? You think there's any chance of landing a helicopter in those trees? You think they send helicopters to carry dead people to the hospital?
    2
  4148. Well, you're wrong. It's not 1/6th gravity = 6x as long to fall. It's actually a multiplier of 2.5x (as the math illustrates). But, out of curiosity, were you under the impression that you spotted this "problem" that nobody on the planet had ever noticed over the past 50+ years?
    2
  4149. There are photos from the mission itself, of course. You can see most of the stuff. But, those were from 1969, and there are no close-up photos of what it looks like today.
    2
  4150.  @stusue9733  Apollo 15 was the last to have the ladder-cam. 16 and 17 didn't bother.
    2
  4151. Naw, it's certainly chemtrails.
    2
  4152. Once again proving the universal truth that no moon landing deniers can read or write past a 2nd grade level....
    2
  4153. First of all, learn the difference between distance and resolution. Secondly, four different countries have photographed the Apollo landers on the lunar surface. China, USA, India, and South Korea.
    2
  4154. It was a public alleyway, dewdrop. And, no, you're not allowed to "defend your property" (wasn't his property anyway) by charging at a car with a gun drawn.
    2
  4155. That's a lot of words. Let me simplify. They're idiots.
    2
  4156.  @JamesOberg  Sigh. The expressway is Dan Ryan. Not Van Ryan.
    2
  4157. Good grief. "Mortified ultimately"? Sorry, but it's tough to take this bad play on words.
    2
  4158. They didn't release the arrest video until 2.5 years later. The police blocked the release as long as they could, but, since she was dead for a long time, and the case was closed, they could no longer block FOIA requests.
    2
  4159. YOU SAID: "this video is filled with so much ignorance." == If you think this video is full of ignorance, you should try looking in the mirror. YOU SAID: "so much time is dedicated to calling people tin foil hat crazy" == Yes, that's fair to say. If you think Apollo was faked, yeah, you're pretty much a tinfoil hatter. YOU SAID: "ppl that just want to believe, as if no one can just be convinced by the evidence." == WHAT evidence would that be? Good grief. All of the evidence is IN FAVOR of Apollo!!! Good gods. There's never been a single valid speck of evidence against Apollo. Oh, but you're talking about evidence?? Hey, dummy, has it dawned on you that maybe you believe the utter claptrap you believe because you're completely ignorant, you didn't get a university education, you don't have any understanding of the sciences, you don't understand history, you are borderline illiterate, and an "Apollo conspiracy" is very appealing to your feeble little brain? You get to pretend (in your mind) that you are on equal footing as all of those people with decades more education and training and experience than you have. You get to pretend that all of those 400,000 people who made Apollo happen have actually failed in their lives just as much as you have failed in yours? Has that thought ever crossed your mind?
    2
  4160. If it's any saving grace to you, the privacy was protected and the video wasn't released until 2.5 years later. She was already dead for 1.5 years by that point. Nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive.
    2
  4161.  @TeriNkc  I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    2
  4162. It's called the Freedom of Information Act. And, sorry, but, nobody humiliated her with the arrest video. It wasn't released until after she was dead for 1.5 years.
    2
  4163. Open investigation vs. closed.
    2
  4164. Because that's the procedure every single time.
    2
  4165. Yet, you cannot name the photos? Just "trust me, I am a YouTube commenter"?
    2
  4166. Do you even read responses (or even your own original message) before you post nonsense? Good grief.
    2
  4167. YOU SAID: "the first 30 seconds proves fake, moon dust hit the ground before man did? not good." == Did you flunk university physics 101? (Oh, wait, what am I asking, clearly you never took physics 101.) YOU SAID: "let us not forget the van allen belts" == Yes, those belts named after James Van Allen, who said many times that he hated that you conspiratards are using his name to discredit Apollo. Are you claiming to know more about the Van Allen belts than James Van Allen, who said that the Apollo capsule would be plenty of protection for the very short time that Apollo missions spent in them? YOU SAID: "and clean landing pads" == Where do you idiots get this notion? All of you idiots claim this all the time. There was some dust on the landing pads. But, once one of you idiots claims that there was none, all of you idiots make the same claim. Have you actually LOOKED at the photos yourself? (Obviously not, you just trust other people as clueless as you are.) Here are a few of the photos with dust on the landing pads. Why do you crackpots always claim that there was no dust? http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS14/66/09234.jpg http://tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/data_a70/AS16/processed/AS16-107-17441.png http://tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/data_a70/AS16/processed/AS16-107-17442.png http://tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/data_a70/AS17/processed/AS17-134-20388.png http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS12/47/6904.jpg http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS12/47/6905.jpg http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS14/66/09269.jpg http://tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/data_a70/AS11/processed/AS11-40-5917.png http://tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/data_a70/AS11/processed/AS11-40-5925.png http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS11/40/5926.jpg http://tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/data_a70/AS11/processed/AS11-40-5918.png http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS14/66/09235.jpg YOU SAID: "no blast marks" == Blast marks? Well, there were plenty of radial striations. But, do you actually expect "blast marks" in lunar regolith? Like, what? Scorch marks? Hey, be my guest, go to any volcano you want, and use any blow torch you want, and spray fire for 5-10 seconds at a volcanic rock (which is essentially what the moon dust/rock is... basically volcanic rock). Hint: you won't see any scorching. The rock is "burnt" already!! YOU SAID: "nor engine motor noise from decent motor" == You expect sound in space? YOU SAID: "as even though is space suits the lunar lander was pressurised on landing." == Well, yes, you CAN actually hear slight engine noise through the module and suits... whatever can resonate through the metals. But, c'mon, get real, a vast majority of the reactions that would create sound are happening in a vacuum. Sound doesn't work in a vacuum, dummy. Look, you clueless twit, you clearly have ZERO understanding of these topics. And, in your massive ignorance, you've chosen to reject science, and accept conspiracy. This isn't something to be proud of. You should be ashamed.
    2
  4168.  @joshsidebottom3811  What is your point? Are you a flat Earther?
    2
  4169.  @joshsidebottom3811  Good gods. And, you think the ever-so-slightly non-spherical shape of the Earth is relevant to that point?
    2
  4170. So, an old program that was ended 50+ years ago is still somehow "controlling" people?
    2
  4171. Yes, I agree. But, I just don't know how to prevent it, what with the Freedom of Information Act. But, the one saving grace is that the woman didn't suffer any shame from the arrest video, because it wasn't released until 1.5 years after she was already dead.
    2
  4172. Well, first of all, there was virtually zero "shaming" while she was alive, because virtually nobody knew about this until 2.5 years later. Secondly, this little arrest is nothing when compared to her million other arrests, her felony term spent in prison about 6 years ago, or her "career choice" of (according to neighbors) being a "dancer" (yeah, that kind), and frequently "entertaining" a parade of paying men in her apartment.
    2
  4173. How was she treated horribly, in your mind?
    2
  4174. So, basically, you're another "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake" type of person. Bravo. True hero. You're accusing countless people of being criminal frauds, because you don't understand it.
    2
  4175. Denials wouldn't have mattered. One of the "audience" had captured it on video, and showed the police. Needless to say, the video doesn't match her version of a quiet and discreet act with nobody around. She was getting arrested either way.
    2
  4176. Ridiculous. Blame the victim? Not the criminal? How about accountability?
    2
  4177. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    2
  4178. How do you own a computer but don't know how to scroll down to see the other 4957349085 times that question has been asked and answered?
    2
  4179. What was ridiculous? And, what "wrap" do they get? Reynolds aluminum foil? Seran plastic wrap? And, yes, the murder story is interesting, but wrong. It was a suicide.
    2
  4180. Pffttt. And, you think the Soviets would simply take their word for it? Then, explain why the Soviets sent Luna 15 to the moon a couple of days ahead of Apollo 11, tracking all craft with radar (Luna 15, Apollo command/service module, and lunar module)? Why did the Soviets' radio telescopes receive Apollo broadcasts when they pointed those telescopes at the moon? Why did the Soviets' laser ranging facility hit the Apollo 11 reflector placed on the lunar surface? You're under the impression that the USA "faked" those things, right? So, can you explain how they did that? I mean, still today, there's no way to fake those things. But, you think they faked it in 1969, so, please elaborate?
    2
  4181. Well, 10 to 15 years after Apollo means that you're talking about mid 1980s. It's been 40 more years since then. So, where's this magical technology capable of doing the things I outlined? Why can't you answer?
    2
  4182. Conclusion first, ask question second. How typical. Did you actually want an answer to your question, dewdrop? Or, were you pretending to ask a question, but have absolutely no interest in the answer?
    2
  4183. Good grief. Quote 1: "It's was a fake!" (Your own words/grammar, not mine.) Quote 2: "I personally think it's real that the US landed on the moon in 1969." So, you're just trolling, right?
    2
  4184. YOU SAID: "Can anyone tell me how they got so much 'travel time' into such a small air bottle ?" == 100% oxygen. Low pressure in the suits. Rebreather equipment. YOU SAID: "How can we hear sound in a vacuum?. Please tell me." == You can't, unless there's a physical medium to conduct the sound.
    2
  4185. QUOTE: "it will require billions of dollars and a ton of work on better eva suits" == Yeah, did you see last month's estimates of the cost per suit for the Artemis III landing mission? ($1 billion for each suit.)
    2
  4186.  @Schmidtelpunkt  Let's hope so! I merely read a report a couple of weeks ago that said it's a billion per suit. Naturally, I can't help but wonder what in the world could make a suit cost that much. But, then I think of the F35 program, which is slated to run well into the trillions in its lifespan, and, yeah, government contractors... ugh.
    2
  4187.  @Schmidtelpunkt  Agreed. I think we both know the difference between just reading the headlines of a random internet article, vs. actually diving into what the congressional appropriations and OMB are actually paying for. On this particular topic, I have only read the sensationalist headlines.
    2
  4188.  @Hobbes746  Not only that, but, plasma isn't going to form mountains and craters.
    2
  4189. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. Almost no media covered this story until after the video came out.
    2
  4190. YOU SAID: "how did they bring a rover in a so small capsule" == This is very easily looked up. But, apparently, you don't actually want answers to your own questions. You just like to pretend to ask questions so you can refute the answer before you even get an answer. The rover folded up into quadrant 1 of the lander. YOU SAID: "then they have so much fun after a close to death trip from earth that took 76 hours" == Most of it was work. Very little fun. But, if you're on the moon, why not have a bit of fun sometimes? YOU SAID: "look at the rocket that put them on the moon ...the lunar module could not contain a rover to small" == Search for "lunar rover deployment," you dummy. YOU SAID: "it is a logistic fact" == So, none of the 7,000 Grumman engineers and technicians who built the lunar module ever realized that they forgot to make a space for the rover to fit? None of the hundreds of engineers at Boeing, GM, or JPL realized that they forgot to make the rover and its accessories fit into the lunar module? Thousands upon thousands of people have waited over 50 years for you to come along and realize that they forgot to make the rover fit into the lander? THAT is your level of arrogance?
    2
  4191.  @denisdesormeaux4093  What are you talking about? You sat there and said that the rover couldn't fit into the lander, and called it a "logistical fact" (as if the thousands of people who designed the rover and lander were all too stupid to realize that they forgot to make it fit), yet you don't want to be insulted?? Hey, dummy, next time you want to slander a bunch of people based on your own ignorance, LOOK IT UP FIRST!!!
    2
  4192. In general, they blur for open investigations, and don't blur for closed ones. Since this incident happened 2.5 years before anybody saw the video, and she was long gone by then, there is no requirement to blur. But, what's the basis for your suit? I honestly don't have any idea (and neither do you).
    2
  4193. Keep in mind that a lot of the rover footage was shot at a slower speed, and then played back at 24 frames per second (it's sped up). See, the main problem with the 16mm film camera was that the film reels only lasted around 3 minutes when recorded at 24 frames per second. So, a lot of the time, probably most of the time (but, I confess I never really verified exactly the percentage of time), they recorded it in slow motion. This was to save on film, and to make it so they didn't have to constantly change film reels. There are some videos out there that correct the speed. The motion looks "jerky" (frame, stop, frame, stop), and most people don't like it to be played back at the same speed that it was recorded, because it's really not very smooth. So, most of the time, it's played at the full 24 frames per second rate. But, some video channels out there want you to see the actual speed, so, they adjust the frame rate for you.
    2
  4194.  @joevignolor4u949  Thanks, yes, my message is a year old, and I've since seen the ones you're talking about. They use software to estimate what the missing frames should probably look like, and fills them in. But, thanks for the helpful updated addition, so others can know about it too.
    2
  4195. "The sun not seen once" Well, not in this documentary. When they pointed the camera at the sun, the camera's interior hardening mechanisms clicked in, to help avoid burning out the vidicon. See, the problem is, they pointed the camera at the sun on Apollo 12, and that was that, no more video after that moment, because the vidicon was fried. So, for Apollo 15/16/17, they engineered a new camera format that was hardened and capable of being pointed at the sun. However, it darkened the rest of the image in the process, which is not very pleasant to look at. So, documentaries tend not to show those views. But, if you're desperate to see them point the camera at the sun, go ahead and watch the entirety of the videos, not just edited documentaries. They pointed the camera at the sun numerous times. "also would they not burn because they are closer to sun" Huh? On Apollo 17? Um, no. They were further from the sun, not closer. See, when you look up at the moon, there's the east half, and the west half. In order to be closer to the sun during an Apollo mission (which always landed early in the lunar morning), the landing site would need to be on the western half. Anything on the eastern half would be further from the sun (well, at least at the time of landing). If they landed in the afternoon, ok, that's a different story, but, they never did that. Anyway, Apollo 17 was well into the eastern half. Feel free to do the geometry for yourself to understand it better. But, c'mon, are you really under the impression that an extra couple thousand miles closer to the sun is really going to matter, when compared to 90 million miles? Really? I mean, you could work this out with the inverse square law, and do the thermodynamic calculations for yourself. But, something tells me that the limits of your math capability are pretty much 2+2=4.
    2
  4196. Congress ended the Apollo moonshot program, making Apollo 17 the last one. They still used some of the Apollo rockets and craft for Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz (Earth orbit missions) for the next few years, but, once they used all of the command modules that were built, that was the end. They still had two 99% complete Saturn V rockets remaining, and a couple of landers that were about 80% completed, but, those were just preserved as museum pieces. Is it possible to launch missions secretly? Um, no. That big 363 foot tall Saturn V rocket stood on the launchpad for a month while they got it ready to launch. It took about 3,000 people to get one off the ground. And, the launch itself could be seen and heard for dozens of miles. There's no way to "sneak" one of those off the ground. A big lie? Huh? Based upon what? How do you jump from Apollo 17 being the last mission, to the notion that it's a lie? There's a last Concorde flight. Does that mean it's a lie? There's a last SR71 flight. Does that mean it's a lie? Is congress never allowed to shut a program down without it being a lie?
    2
  4197. They never went 18 km away from the lander.
    2
  4198. "China has already performed unmanned moon landing at the dark side of the moon" Dewdrop, you clearly don't know the difference between "dark side" and "far side." Stop getting your "education" from Pink Floyd songs.
    2
  4199. Why not? Who told you that? Have you done the calculations?
    2
  4200. Well, it's the difference between getting 4.5% of the entire federal budget in hard costs, plus the equivalent of 2% more in soft costs and international support, pouring the virtual entirety of that money into a single program... vs. 0.5% of the federal budget, spread out over hundreds of different programs.
    2
  4201. Do you think the moon is the size of a single city block or something? Good grief. China landed nowhere even remotely near any Apollo landing sites. Can you see a tool shed in New York if you're standing in South Carolina? Please tell me you're just joking? Please tell me this isn't a serious comment? Please tell me you didn't just read that article from "World News Daily Report" that makes this point you're attempting to make? You do know that's a SPOOF website, right? You conspiratards used to quote from that article all the time... until it kept getting pointed out to you that "World News Daily Report" is basically like "Saturday Night Live" news. It's a spoof. It's a joke. The entire website is just satire. They write fake articles like that all the time. That's the entire point. It's a goof. I'm sorry you're dumb enough to think that website is "real," but, it's not.
    2
  4202. "Find out what you are talking about before posting." Clearly, his main purpose is to PRETEND to know things he doesn't. That's the same with most of the deniers. They have failed to understand just about everything in life, so, when they see an opportunity to pretend to know more than the experts, they really don't care if what they spew is correct or not. It's all make-believe for them, so they can feel better about knowing absolutely nothing. Pretending to know things is the next best thing for someone too lazy to actually know things.
    2
  4203. Dewdrop, I'm not the one who claimed there was "no dust at all" while simultaneously simply being able to watch any of the landing videos and see lots of dust. That's YOU with the silly claims, not me.
    2
  4204. Links are blocked to anything not on YouTube. Is your Google broken?
    2
  4205.  @gives_bad_advice  Yes.
    2
  4206.  @occhamite  "Stars photos taken on the lunar surface would AT BEST be no different than star photos taken in space" Hence why they used the Carruthers UV telescopic camera to take photos of the stars instead of a conventional camera. "and the proper equipment would take-up space and weight" Yet, they did it anyway.
    2
  4207. 1 - That's what happens when you have a limitless budget for a decade... then economy becomes the higher priority.
    2
  4208. 2 - They didn't. They lost two backup tapes from one mission, and, yes, might have recorded over them (deleted). But, so what? The primary copies are still intact.
    2
  4209. 3 - Everyone has their own little favorite topics. They can't cover everything in a 50 minute video. What more do you want here? Anybody can say, "but they didn't cover XYZ!!!" Who cares? There's never been ANY objection to Apollo that has EVER stood up to the slightest amount of scrutiny. Never. If they made this video 289 hours long, covering every silly objection posed throughout history, would you watch it? What didn't they cover? The Coke bottle spotted by the old senile lady?
    2
  4210. Dewdrop, I noticed you didn't once mention EVIDENCE. Why would that be? Why don't you actually care about the EVIDENCE for Apollo? No? SpaceX, Blue, press events, technological progression, backup tapes, etc., those are the important stuff in your mind? Not the actual EVIDENCE?
    2
  4211. "The point is the pictures that they took with electrical light is almost identical to the pictures that NASA claims they were taken on the moon" So what? Just because photos CAN be faked, doesn't mean they were faked. That was your original claim, right? You claimed that because the photos could be faked, they therefore are fake. See, dewdrop, this is exactly why I've never personally put much weight behind the mission photography in the first place. I mean, c'mon, it's a little ridiculous to think they faked 7,000 surface photos and 110,000 orbital photos. But, yes, it CAN be done. "in some pictures you can even tell where the real flow ends and the fake backdrop begins." No, dewdrop. You just don't know the difference between the true horizon and apparent horizon. Sorry, but your personal lack of understanding on a topic doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't understand it. "Not even one picture there is with Neil Amstrong in it." Wrong. "Only 2 or 3 when the earth in the background" Wrong. Are you getting it yet, dewdrop? How about stopping watching conspiracy videos that lie to you, and actually look through the archive photos for yourself? The biggest irony here is that you are sitting there, believing that the SANE people are the ones who blindly believe what WE are told. But, here you are, blindly regurgitating ridiculous claims that are as easily debunked as just thumbing through the archives. You're all smug, thinking you've got this "gotcha" moment, but, it's just plain silly, because, yes, dewdrop, they took many more than 2 or 3 photos of Earth in the background. "and the earth looks miniscule when it should look 3 times bigger than a full moon looks to us from earth." It's 4x bigger in angular size, not 3x. But, where'd you get this claim that it's the wrong size? Was it from a conspiracy video? Did you do the math yourself? Calculate it. Go look at the lens used on each of the photos, and the focal length, and see what percentage of the 70mm film the image of Earth takes up, do the math, and show that it's the wrong size. I mean, it's not like millions of people have already done that calculation over the 5 decades since the moon landings, I'm sure you're the first... errrr, wait. "The whole thing is very suspicious." Then stop watching conspiracy videos that lie to you, dewdrop. You're not studying Apollo. You're watching videos made by charlatans, and then blindly regurgitating their claims. It's ridiculous. You know NOTHING about the topic, yet, you think that watching a few conspiracy videos gives you more knowledge than the entire world's experts.
    2
  4212. It was 5 decades after Magellan sailed around the world before it was ever done again. It was 5 decades after the deepest sea depth (Mariana) was dove, before anybody did it again. It has been 2 decades (and counting) since anybody was able to buy a supersonic airliner ticket. It has been 5.5 decades (and counting) since anybody has flown a mach 7 aircraft (X15). It was over 400 decades since anybody built a 500 foot tall building (pyramids), and the next time it was done. Should I go on? It's not cognitive dissonance to recognize that remarkable things don't always keep happening, and often have very long periods of time in between. The only thing that would make it "abnormal" would be if there was any financial reason to keep going to the moon, yet they didn't do it. But, as it turns out, there just wasn't a lot of reasons to go back, after beating the Soviets there, and they threw in the towel.
    2
  4213. Because he was alive before then, and he was dead by that point. Actually, I believe he died at about 0:50. But, whatever.
    2
  4214. Bart Sibrel? Why would you trust a single thing said by that convicted criminal taxi cab driver?
    2
  4215. Well, I wouldn't know, but, my guess is that she was trying to cry her way out of things before they looked her up to find her criminal history and open warrants.
    2
  4216. Some additional facts that Inside Edition has no desire to tell: Arrest history and prison time for stealing cars and public drunkenness. Long history of additional theft, legal judgments against her, and failure to appear in court, attempts to change her name to evade being served/arrested, etc. Was once a real estate agent, but, no sales in quite some time. Living on welfare. Failure to pay rent. Suspected actual income from, ya know. This arrest = July 2021. Suicide = March 2022. This arrest video made public = November 2023. She suffered zero shame from the arrest video, because nobody saw it until she was dead for 1.5 years. Her own family doesn't report that the suicide was the result of this arrest, but, rather a history of drugs and alcohol. One of the members of the "audience" from this beach incident recorded it with her cell phone, and showed the video to the police. It's described in the police report as a very loud display in front of multiple people including children. And, the audience reported that it appeared that she was walking around, looking for a spot to do this, and it seemed that she chose specifically a spot that was visible. And, she had long since abandoned her own family and kids, years before this beach incident. This is why she was missing for so long with nobody even knowing she was already dead. Many of her own family, including her husband and one of her sons, did not attend her funeral. Her own family said that she had gone "wild" and "off the rails" years before. Does this paint a different picture than the Inside Edition story that asks questions, but never gives answers?
    2
  4217. Good grief. Why would you possibly trust conspiracy videos that tell you that there are no real photos of Earth? This is ridiculous. You have time to watch silly videos that lie to you, but, you don't have time to simply look at the archives for yourself?
    2
  4218. Well, you clearly aren't from the USA, so, you don't understand the terms being used. No, she wasn't his mother.
    2
  4219. Blame the victim? What's wrong with you?
    2
  4220. Really? That's your reply? Hey, dewdrop, don't blame me for your own issue of being gullible enough to believe a single word out of Inside Edition.
    2
  4221. YOU SAID: "I expect that from uneducated people but not from academic ones !" == Ironic. Yeah, indeed, the uneducated people are the ones who think this is a hoax. The educated ones do not. Why do you think this is a position of strength for your hoax beliefs? Wouldn't the most educated people spot the "hoax" first? Not a single anti-Apollo claim ever made in history has ever made it through scientific scrutiny. Not once. Not ever. Every single anti-Apollo claim ever made has fallen apart when analyzed. Every single one. Now, is this because the uneducated ones are the ones who know most about the subject? Or, is this because the uneducated ones don't have the foggiest clue what they're talking about?
    2
  4222.  @randyschissler5791  Heat transfer isn't mentioned in the conspiracy videos he watches. But, they like to talk about surface temperatures in those videos.
    2
  4223. Well, Apollo costed the USA about 4.5% of the entire federal budget in hard costs, plus approximately the equivalent of another 2% in soft costs and international support. And, for that money, they managed to launch 13 Saturn V rockets, landed 12 men on the moon for a few hours each, and the biggest piece of payload they carried was a 400 pound rover. If you wanted a moon colony, you're talking about constructing a bio-dome with power facilities, areas large enough to grow crops, buildings to house people, medical equipment, plumbing, communications arrays, etc. How many millions of pounds of stuff would that be, and how many thousands of Saturn V launches would that take? If the equivalent of 6.5% of the entire federal budget was required to launch 13 rockets and carry a 400 pound rover to the moon, with 2 guys at a time, what percentage of the budget would it take to launch thousands of them, and carry millions of pounds to the moon to build a colony? No, nobody seriously thought a colony would happen. I'm sure you're correct in that maybe the press talked about it, or people on the morning talk shows, whatever. But, there was never any moon colony program that has ever been submitted to congress for approval, and it would have been shot down instantly if any such proposal was ever submitted.
    2
  4224. Really? Like, connecting a wired phone call to a radio is that difficult? How do you think the very same president could call to/from Air Force One? How did people call car phones since the 1940s?
    2
  4225. "Solar radiation is through out all of space." Um, ok, was there a point here? "During the trips of back and forth and on the moon they never were hit with a solar flare from the sun." Well, not a big one anyway. A big one may have been fatal to the astronauts.
    2
  4226.  @draakmanz  YOU SAID: "you must be completly braindead to believe that." == Believe what? That the boots had two layers? I mean, this is well understood, you know. Hundreds of people were involved with making those suits and boots. It's well documented that the air-tight layer was with the main boot, which would work well inside the cabin, they could attach themselves to the floor of the LEM, it was less bulky, etc., more like a regular shoe. But, that does not work well on a dusty surface. So, they made the outer boot covering as a separate overshoe that strapped onto the inner boot layer. There are hundreds upon hundreds of photos. All you need to do is Google "Apollo moon boot overshoe" and click on "images," and you'll see piles and piles of images of the outer layer strap-on boot. This also provided an extra layer of thermal control. Since the temperature of the lunar surface was a bit cold in the early lunar morning, and a bit hot in the later lunar morning, and the main point of contact between the astronaut and the surface was obviously the boots, yeah, an extra layer makes perfect sense. At what point is it "braindead" to understand all of this? Why aren't any of the hundreds of people who designed and built those suits/boots "braindead" to believe that's how they designed and built them? YOU SAID: "how do you know?" == Because that's how these suits/boots were designed. YOU SAID: "have you seen for yourself they left them on the moon?" == What kind of asinine question is that? No, I am not one of the 12 men who walked on the moon, and would be able to see the boots left there (for most of them that were left there... at least one came back home, and is now in the Smithsonian, Cernan's). YOU SAID: "or do you just believe anything they throw at ya?" == No, dummy. I don't blindly accept anything. But, ironically, you obviously blindly reject anything that doesn't support your delusion. Don't sit here and complain about people being "braindead" for understanding how the suits worked. That's how those suits were designed. You can see hundreds upon hundreds of images of how those overshoes were designed. You can understand that they left almost everything on the lunar surface that they did not need to take home. You can understand that, once done walking on the lunar surface, there is no further need for the lunar overshoes, thus would be a prime candidate for something to toss onto the lunar surface. You can accept that, if those lunar overshoes were not designed to be left on the lunar surface, there would be hundreds upon hundreds of people involved with the Apollo program who would instantly recognize that the boots don't match, and would be able to call out that Apollo was faked. But, that never happens. Instead, we've got idiots like you, who have no understanding of Apollo, who blindly reject anything that goes against your delusion. I mean, what's so difficult to understand here? You find it difficult to accept that the engineers would design a multi-layered boot for thermal insulation purposes, and for the purpose of not needing to wear a bulky overshoe while inside the cabin? Are you incapable of viewing some of the photos of the astronauts on the moon, and seeing quite clearly that the boots were just strapped on, and were not air tight (thus, there must be an air tight boot underneath)? None of the hundreds of people who designed and built those boots/suits ever noticed this "flaw" you've spotted? Or, are the engineers the dumb ones, and you're the smart one? YOU SAID: "spaceforce must be real for you" == Why are you SOOOOO proud to announce to 7 billion people that you're an idiot?
    2
  4227. "The manager is worried about $9.47?" Well, first of all, how would we know what the manager is or isn't worried about? There are no managers in this video. Secondly, how would the store clerk know what she was in the process of stealing? Third, is there any particular reason you think that's all she was stealing? Personally, with that bulky jacket, that remained bulky in some spots even after removing the hat and gloves, and her track record, I'm guessing she had a lot more in that jacket, but just gave up the hat and gloves, in hopes they wouldn't ask her to empty out the rest. And, it worked. "Really? When all the thugs in SF and elsewhere are busting down doors and CLEANING STORES OUT WITH SHOPPING buggies full of laundry powder, TV's, Ice cream you name it!" As opposed to what? Just letting people steal? I mean, you can sit there and name any crime you want, and there's always someone out there committing worse crimes. "What? You're stopping me for going 140 mph in a 55 mph zone, while there are predators out there targeting children?" "What? You're out there trying to find a cure for heart disease when we still haven't cured cancer?" You can say this until the cows come home. There will always be more serious offenders, more serious issues, etc. That doesn't mean that everyone in the world should stop doing their jobs, and ignore "lesser" crimes, just because there are more serious crimes. And, what's your beef anyway? The store employee said that all she wanted was that the woman return the stuff, and no charges would be pressed. What more do you want from her? Exactly what? Is that not good enough for you? And, the irony is that it had the opposite effect as you'd hope. The woman continued to steal from Walgreens immediately after this incident. She learned nothing from the acts of kindness she received. And, it seems like it only emboldened her to keep on stealing from the same store. After all, they already showed that they won't arrest her, and cops will even buy her stuff. So, hey, why not just keep on stealing, right? Look where that got her. She kept up her bad habits, abandoned her two kids, and continued on her path of self destruction. Ironically, maybe she'd even still be alive today if they had thrown her in prison, instead of going easy on her.
    2
  4228. No, Roy. A conspiracy video told you NASA said that. In reality, NASA has never said any such thing.
    2
  4229. Well, not tin. I assume you're talking about the Mylar/Kapton foils. So, what would you have used as a thermal blanket instead? And, why do you suppose that virtually every satellite has the exact same foil wrapping as the lunar lander did?
    2
  4230. You are completely failing to understand the point about delivering this stuff "next year." Musk NEVER promised that he was talking about Earth years. Do you even realize how long a year is on Saturn?
    2
  4231. What are you waiting for? Bill Nelson is on his way out, and isn't very good. Surely, you have the expertise to take his place.
    2
  4232. Yeah, blame the victim. And, when you see a guy at a playground cranking it in front of the kids, leave him alone, don't turn him in.
    2
  4233. Well, just a point of clarity, she didn't sue the police. I mean, I'd have no doubts about the idea that she wanted to sue the police. But, even her own three attorneys must have realized there's no case against the police, so, they only sued the store (and lost that suit badly, but, at least they attempted to sue the store).
    2
  4234. Can you explain why other countries have found Apollo's landers on the moon if you think it was done in a studio?
    2
  4235. Scripture also says that the Earth has 4 corners, and there was a global flood. Watch out, you're clearly on the road to thinking the Earth is flat. There's no returning to reality after that.
    2
  4236. QUOTE: "The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight. The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months' duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure. A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week. However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights." -- James A. Van Allen" So, why do you think you understand more about the Van Allen belts than James Van Allen?
    2
  4237. You said, "i mean .. spaceships with man inside it.. not animal or just spaceships without a man." Dewdrop, I clearly said 9 manned craft have done it. What's wrong with you? Seriously, I gave you the very answer you just specified. Good grief.
    2
  4238. Let me make sure I understand you correctly here. You don't know about Apollo missions 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17. That's how little you understand about the topic. You thought there was only one manned mission to the moon. Yet, you feel like you know enough about the topic to say you understand it better than the entire planet's experts? Really? And, you think it was fake, while not even knowing what the missions were?
    2
  4239. And, if that's all you know, just think about what a complete and total train wreck the rest of your life might be... you only know one thing, and, it's wrong. Bravo, dewdrop. Bravo.
    2
  4240.  @marryan2872  Asking for a receipt is not harassment. The mere fact that you'd suggest otherwise, just demonstrates that you have no idea what you're talking about. The cop's job is to determine if there's reasonable suspicion of a crime. When the store employee said that she didn't pay, and when she refused to show the receipt (and did so while behaving extremely non-cooperatively), then, yes, that's enough reasonable suspicion. Look at your own reply here. You stared with the notion that he violated her rights, and by the end, you backtracked down to merely saying he should have handled it better. Even you don't believe your own BS.
    2
  4241. We no longer have the technology to fly planes at mach-7 either. The 1950s era X15 was retired from service. Does this mean it never existed? Why is congress not allowed to retire Apollo stuff, in your mind?
    2
  4242. For the same reason you could buy a Concorde ticket decades ago, and now you can't. Because the program was retired.
    2
  4243. Maybe you should actually go look at the photo archive for yourself, rather than just blindly trusting silly videos that tell you such lies.
    2
  4244. 3) How can she identify a masked man unless she knew in advance who he was?
    2
  4245. Not the brightest bulb, eh?
    2
  4246.  @DemonDrummer  I think he's complaining about the frequency of advertisements.
    2
  4247. Dewdrop, then publish in any recognized physics journal on Earth, and I'll promise to be your first rebuttal (if you even make it past the first round, which you won't).
    2
  4248. Exactly why, had she shown up in court, it would probably be negotiated down to a minor infraction.
    2
  4249. Yet, she managed to live another year or so after this arrest.
    2
  4250. As a side note: Sibrel is the one Aldrin punched in this video. After the first couple of interviews with astronauts revealed that he was doing it under false pretenses, the word got out to the rest of the astronauts that this guy was making trouble, and the rest of the astronauts refused to talk with him, of course. So, he escalated to harassing the astronauts like crazy, lying, wouldn't let them walk, pushing, ambushing them anywhere and everywhere, etc. He's clearly gone, man. If he ever had any thinking faculties at all, he lost them decades ago, and all that remains is a conman.
    2
  4251. No problem. Yes, the original NASA video is real, and the "Funny Thing Happened" video is faked.
    2
  4252. "I saw an Interview with the Hasselblad people, they said it is impossible." No, dewdrop. You saw an interview made by dishonest people who TOLD YOU they were from Hasselblad. In reality, Hasselblad to this day express how proud they are to have made the Apollo cameras. And, sorry, but given the fact that before you were corrected, you couldn't even spell it (and the million other things you cannot spell), sorry, your credibility is ZERO. Good grief. How does this go, in your mind? NASA: "We need you to manufacture a camera with film cartridges that can be swapped while wearing gloves." HASSELBLAD: "Nope, sorry, can't be done, so, we'll just give you these fake cameras instead, have a nice day." ??
    2
  4253.  @luketracey3269  What in the world are you talking about? What playbook? And, why can't you answer my question? Where'd you get the ridiculous impression that the cop knocked the kid off of the bike?
    2
  4254.  @luketracey3269  YOU SAID: "I deleted because the link wouldn't post." == No, liar. You deleted your message that DID post, the one where you complained about some sort of "playbook" that you wouldn't explain. You then posted a link to video o7lvxzv3I4Q. == Good grief. That video you linked doesn't say anything about the cop making any contact with the dirt bike. It says the opposite. It says that there is no evidence or testimony indicating that there was any contact between the cop car and the bike. The video that YOU LINKED goes against your own position. What's wrong with you? YOU SAID: "Why even chase the kid?" == An illegal dirt bike on a public road? An underage driver? Driving recklessly? You don't want the cops to try to pull him over? What's wrong with you? People like that are a danger to everyone around them. We pay the police to protect the public. Suppose that kid rammed into a pedestrian and killed him/her? What if that happened? What would you be saying then? Wouldn't you say, "hey, the cops should try to pull those people over before they can kill others!!!"? No? Just let a 13 year old drive like a maniac on the public roads? YOU SAID: "Let him go home and talk to him there." == What? How? There was no license plate on the dirt bike. How would they know where to find him? Is that how traffic stops are supposed to work? If you are driving recklessly, a cop is supposed to just wait for you to get home before stopping you? YOU SAID: "It's really sad you feel it's justified to treat a child like this" == Dummy, YES, if you have a maniac driving an illegal vehicle recklessly down the road, you attempt to pull him over. That's the correct thing to do. YOU SAID: "can we talk about how the cop hid behind the gas station waiting for the kid to come out and drive instead of safely apprehending him in the store???" == What ARE you talking about? You are just making this up as you go. No, dummy. YOU SAID: "After seeing the video it just looks worse find the cop. Wow that's sick." == Dummy, you don't know what you're talking about. The video you linked showed the child racing away from the scene, fleeing the cop. And, given that you're a complete liar, deleting your messages, backtracking, posting a link to a video that has nothing to do with this case, then posting another link to a different video that is about this case, but contradicts your own opinion, um, yeah, you obviously don't know what you're talking about, and your mind is a train wreck. Yes, dummy, we want cops to stop maniac drivers who have no business being on the road. Those people are a menace, and they cause accidents and deaths. This is so simple to understand, yet, you just don't get it. Dummy, the maniac kid could have slammed his bike into an innocent bystander. Then, what would you be saying? You'd be blaming the cops for NOT chasing him, right? Either way, you want to blame the cops. If the cops chase the reckless underage driver, you blame the cops for chasing. If the cops don't chase, and the reckless driver hits someone, you'll blame the cops for NOT chasing. Either way, you want to blame the cops. And, your assumptions about what happened here are dead wrong. And, above all else, your original posting said that the cop knocked the kid off of the bike. This is ridiculous. No such thing happened. The maniac 13 year old fled from the police, and CRASHED HIMSELF!!!!! The cop car never made contact with the bike. You have no idea what you're talking about, and you're quite proud of it.
    2
  4255.  @luketracey3269  You don't know what you're talking about. Wait around back? No, dummy. The cop didn't even know anything about this kid at that point in time. You make this stuff up as you go. And, you clearly have the intellect of a dead hamster.
    2
  4256.  @luketracey3269  No, dummy, I'm not answering your questions when you ignore mine. You refuse to read anything I write. You won't answer questions/challenges. You delete messages. You make things up as you go. You post links to unrelated videos. And, when you finally post a link to a video that addresses THIS issue, it contradicts your own viewpoint. So, no, dummy, I'm not answering your questions. You have the intellect of a dead hamster.
    2
  4257.  @luketracey3269  Yet, you still can't answer a single question or challenge. Hey, dummy, the cop's car didn't hit the dirt bike. You were wrong from square-1, and you continued to be wrong in every other thing you wrote. And, you can delete your messages, try to change topics, post unrelated videos, and pretend you know things you don't know all day long. It doesn't change the fact that you have the intellect of a dead hamster.
    2
  4258. "The landing vehicle will need a very thick wall of insulation to take the extremely differential temperature on the moon." So, basically, you live in 1960, huh? See, in 1961, aerospace engineers started to develop the use of intentionally wrinkled Kapton/Mylar foils (creating insulation gaps), inconel panels (metals that reflect a lot of heat, and don't expand/contract as much as other metals), and black tape (to radiate heat). I mean, you're welcome to keep living in 1960 if you want. But, the rest of the world has moved on. "There is a vast temperature difference from shadow to light in the region of a few hundreds of Celsius." "Remember that there are little and practically no air on the moon." Do you not understand the self-contradiction of those two statements? Yes, items in a vacuum can have a temperature, but, a vacuum itself doesn't have a temperature. A vacuum is actually a wonderful insulator. And, sorry, but it sounds like you're under the impression that temperatures just swing hundreds of degrees the moment that the sunlight hits, or the moment that the sunlight is blocked. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. It takes a very long time for stuff to heat up or cool off. For example, the lunar rocks don't heat up to their highest temperature until being in the sunlight for about a week. And, it takes roughly that same amount of time for them to cool off to their lowest temperature. Sunlight doesn't just hit the rocks and, BING, they instantaneously swing by hundreds of degrees. Each different material will heat up at its own pace, and cool off at its own pace, some a little faster, some a little slower. "You cannot air-condition a lunar module on the moon, as there is no air to suck in for interchange." Correct. Hence why they didn't use air conditioners. They used porous plate sublimators. "Besides, at that time, computer is not in existence" This is a joke, right? The rest of what you wrote is pure gibberish, demonstrating that you know just as little about the rest of the topics as you understand about the above topics.
    2
  4259. That's nothing. Dalia Dippolito was 5000% sure. That's way more than your 1000%.
    2
  4260. "Point a telescope at that spot (because we know where it was) and simply take a photo of the items that they video depicts. Does that make sense?" No, it doesn't make sense. You don't know anything about the topic. In order to see the lander and basic stuff you're talking about would take a telescope lens/mirror at least a quarter mile in diameter. To see the smaller stuff, you're talking about a lens a couple miles in diameter. The largest optical grade lens ever constructed was 5 feet in diameter. So, again, no, you don't make any sense. But, I guess when you're offering a million dollars, you're going to intentionally ask for impossible things. Bravo.
    2
  4261. Typical. Demand answers to all of these questions, then run for the hills after getting the answers... without even reading them.
    2
  4262. Please name the exact advancements you're talking about?
    2
  4263.  @gerryedroso1414  Wrong. It simply looks like it's being handled.
    2
  4264. How many times and in how many videos are you going to keep repeating the same cut and pasted nonsense? Why? Why do you do this? It's been answered 1000x, yet you keep posting over and over. What's wrong with you?
    2
  4265. Huh? How?
    2
  4266.  @paulurban2472  How do you think it works? You think they keep 450,000 people continuously working on Apollo equipment for 55 years, just in case congress wants to launch more missions? You think flying rockets to the moon is just like a 1969 Mustang, just change the gas and spark plugs, start 'er up, and go for a ride?
    2
  4267. "The biggest giveaway, when asked why we haven’t been back, is that NASA Said publicly We used to have the technology, but we no longer do." Yes, I agree. That is 100% the best evidence you have to support your gibberish. A single sentence you've taken out of context. Bravo. Who needs evidence? Not you. Nope. Evidence doesn't matter one bit. You took a few words out of context, and then discarded the work of 450,000 people for a decade of their lives. That's 4.5 million years of human effort that you threw in the trashcan, because of one sentence you didn't understand. Bravo. Spoken like a true nut. "Say they don’t have the budget anymore." Well, not until 2019 anyway. Congress hadn't given them the money until they approved Artemis. "Nasa had numerous failed attempts prior to the Moon Landing” Wrong. But, who needs facts when you can assert gibberish? But, just out of curiosity, not that you're correct or anything, but, can you name the Apollo missions that failed prior to the first landing? "and somehow convinced the public...." The public clearly understood things better than you do.
    2
  4268. "There is no evidence to support whether Elon does or doesn't use taxpayer money" Good gods, your very first complaint is so laughable. The US gave them $3.5 billion (and counting) for Starship HLS. And, it's been a while since I looked at their site, but, SpaceX themselves used to (or maybe still do?) posted that the USA was their #1 source of income at something like 78%. I didn't make it to any of your other complaints, when the first one is such a joke.
    2
  4269. The restaurant was the path back to the police cars. And, nobody "leaked" anything. Freedom of Information Act.
    2
  4270. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. The conspiracy nuts only have two rules to their game: (1) All evidence that goes against their delusions are fake, no matter how valid. (2) All evidence that supports their delusions is real, no matter how outlandish. Those are the only two rules. They will simply reject future moon landings in the same fashion that they reject the Apollo moon landings.
    2
  4271. Because their denial of the moon landings has absolutely nothing to do with facts or evidence. Their denial is rooted in their desire to feel better about themselves and their failed lives. But, since there's nothing they can actually do about that, they seek to drag everyone else down to their level. What better way than to proclaim that the most accomplished people in human history have accomplished nothing (just like themselves)?
    2
  4272. Because it's a crime scene. Plus, there's a gun a couple of feet from the carjacker's hand.
    2
  4273. "Who filmed the "first step on the moon"?" For the outside view, there was no "who." It was a camera mounted on the side of the lander, facing the ladder. For the inside view, Aldrin operated the camera, the 16mm DAC facing out Aldrin's window, looking downward on Armstrong.
    2
  4274. And, for some reason, YouTube accepts my posting when I divide it into smaller chunks, but rejects it if I make the entire posting in one reply. Good grief.
    2
  4275. "no, someone could build those objects and fly them again if they wished" Huh? How? The Saturn V isn't a 1969 Ford Mustang. You can't just give it some new spark plugs and fill the gas tank and go. It was a very complicated machine that took thousands of people to even get off the ground. And, nothing that it took to get a Saturn V to the moon even exists any longer. What ARE you talking about?
    2
  4276. "haha, yeah right, if you're ignorant of them being there there's no problem." If you go fast, there's no problem either. It takes weeks of exposure before you'd get a fatal dose of radiation. "Interesting that now NASA includes them in problems for going back." No. They wanted to test Orion in the belts, to make sure the craft's electronics would work. New craft, new mission parameters, new tests. And, they did that test in 2014 by sending Orion into the belts and back, and it passed the tests. You aren't basing your opinions on a decade old video made for children, are you?
    2
  4277. "the earth, from the capsule in space. Similar to all the fake "blue marble", uhem, pictures" I don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, and neither do you.
    2
  4278. Ah, I see now, this particular response was being blocked. I'll reword and try again. "They disagreed about stars being visible (some even with themselves)" Mostly, when nuts make this claim, it's because they don't listen to the context of the words spoken. They confuse when astronauts are talking about very specific conditions, vs. the concept of them saying that they "never" saw them (which is incorrect, because they all saw stars in the right conditions). It's because the nuts don't understand the answers, not because the astronauts contradicted themselves. Mitchell did actually contradict the other astronauts. But, hey, so what?
    2
  4279. Timestamp?
    2
  4280. Huh? What do you expect a flag to do when it is being handled?
    2
  4281. Huh? What do you expect a flag to do when it is being handled?
    2
  4282. Um, yeah, it's 100% obvious CGI. Did anybody say it was otherwise?
    2
  4283. Modern silicon based solar panels were invented in the 1950s. But, solar panels (in other forms) go back to the 1800s.
    2
  4284. Because not everything in the world equates to computer evolution. Computers used to cost millions of dollars and took up multiple floors of a building. Now they're cheap, nearly disposable, and fit in your pocket. But, other industries don't always work that way. Medicine is more expensive than ever. Aircraft are more expensive than ever. And, well, solar panels have their own evolution also.
    2
  4285.  @DanPerissinotto  Sorry for the multiple replies, but, my single reply was being blocked in its original form. I had to break it up to see what it was blocking.
    2
  4286. "the rocks/dirt would get kicked up faster and higher not slower because there is no air, or gravity." Dewdrop, the initial velocity of the dust depends on the impact with the boots, and with exactly equal inputs, will be the same on Earth as it is on the moon. The arc that dust takes is slower on the moon. And, when you claim there's no gravity on the moon, all you're doing is demonstrating that you haven't got the slightest understanding of the topic.
    2
  4287. "Of been" isn't a verb. The only "fishy" thing about her suicide was that she survived the gunshot wound for a while before she bled out. It's rare, but, not so rare to consider it truly fishy. All of the evidence points to a suicide, and literally no evidence to the contrary. And, there were no witnesses. The closest thing to witnesses were neighbors who said they thought there may have been a scuffle a month before her body was found. But, since the medical examiner's report said that she was known to be alive 12 days before her body was found, it doesn't line up with what the witnesses claimed. And, once again, they didn't actually witness anything. They were guessing.
    2
  4288. 1972 (manned anyway).
    2
  4289. What are you talking about? They appealed it to the appellate court, state supreme court, and Supreme Court of the USA. His appeals were denied on merit. He doesn't have a case for self defense.
    2
  4290. Good grief. What could you possibly know about the case if you don't even know that it has already been appealed to every possible court? YOUR comment was that it should be appealed. It already has been appealed as high as it can go. Now, you're just trying to change topics, and I'm not biting on that bait. You have no understanding of this case, and it bleeds through every word you type. You don't get to say "appeal it" and then sweep under the rug the fact that you had no idea that it already has been. How does it feel to be wrong about everything? What's that like?
    2
  4291. Yeah, the video is a little bit misleading. The duct tape didn't actually hold very well, and they ended up needing to replace the duct tape with clamps and one of the paperback manuals they brought to the moon to act as a fender.
    2
  4292. Wow, another demonstration that people with "truth" or "woke" in their nicknames have no idea what truth is, and are fast asleep. You want proof? Well, I won't sit here and write an entire encyclopedia into a YouTube comment. But, just the tip of the iceberg here: how about the photos by both China and India, each with their individual lunar orbiters, showing Apollo artifacts on the moon? My favorite is the one from Chandrayaan2 of the Apollo 12 landing site. You can clearly see the lander's descent stage, with the shadow of the flag (still standing) just north of the lander, and even the flame deflectors. These photos 100% match the original mission photography, as well as the LRO photography, in the exact same position as this stuff was in 1969, down to each and every crater. How do you explain this? Did India and China choose to join "the deception" more than 50 years afterward?
    2
  4293. No. We don't have the capability to construct a telescope large enough. In order to see even the large remnants on the moon (such as the lander's first stage), you'd need a lens 75 feet in diameter just to see it as a single dot. If you want to be able to see it in enough detail to know what it is, you'd need a lens a quarter mile in diameter. Today, the largest optical grade lens ever constructed is 5 feet in diameter, and costed $168 million to construct.
    2
  4294. Three corner cube retroreflectors (3 separate Apollo missions). No crystals.
    2
  4295. No gravity? Drop a ball? What? Are you on drugs?
    2
  4296. Yet, the best evidence you could muster was that you didn't understand a sentence they spoke? Pffttt. Dewdrop, is there any particular reason you think you understand this topic AT ALL, let alone better than the entire planet's experts?
    2
  4297. There are two different Conan shows where you nuts claim Aldrin "confessed." Which one are you talking about? And, the college one... did you watch the entire interview, or just the clips produced by the makers of your favorite conspiracy videos? He was talking about the broken fuse in the lander, dewdrop.
    2
  4298. "At 16:50 when the astronaut falls the dirt should have went flying up at a greater speed" Huh? How would you know the initial speed of the dirt? "and much farther than on earth." And, who says it didn't? At that particular initial velocity, how far should it have gone on Earth, and how far did it go on the moon? "it looks exactly the way sand would fly up here on earth" Do the math then. What are you waiting for? Measure the arc time of any grain of dust from any Apollo video, and calculate it. I mean, it's not as if anybody on Earth for the past 50 years has ever bothered to do that simple task that anybody can learn in 11th grade physics. Nope, you'll be the first, because I'm sure nobody has ever calculated it.
    2
  4299. Huh? You wanted them to use a Taser against a gun? And, from 75 feet away? Um, do you know ANYTHING about Tasers? I already see you can't spell it. I doubt you know anything about them.
    2
  4300.  @ChrisPBacon777  My reply is being blocked. But, yes, they set off a bunch of nukes in the Van Allen belts. Just FYI. I'd explain it further, but, apparently, I'm not allowed.
    2
  4301. I won't lose sleep over the teen thieves. But, this doesn't mean the man is innocent. He most certainly sought out ahead of time to kill those two teens. Not just one of them, BOTH of them, and he planned their murders in advance. 1) They weren't strangers. He knew them, and they had stolen from him before. 2) He placed his car away from the house so they wouldn't know he was home. 3) He unscrewed some of the lights so they wouldn't turn on, even if they flipped the switch. 4) He ran a recording device while he waited in the basement, clearly he knew they were coming. 5) Before either one of the teens arrived at his house, he rehearsed on that recording device what he was going to say to the police after he killed them, including "in the left eye" (he later shot the girl in the left eye). I repeat: hours before the teens even got there, he rehearsed, on tape, what he was going to tell the police about shooting them. 6) He had a tarp ready for the bodies. 7) He gathered up the bodies, and put them in the other room so they wouldn't ruin his carpet. 8) He didn't call the police until the next day. 9) After killing the first thief, he then sat quietly waiting for a long time for the other thief to arrive, then shot her too. 10) Her shirt was found opened, make of that what you will. 11) After shooting the girl in the torso, she was still alive and incapacitated, yet he didn't want her to live (his own words), and wanted to make sure she was dead (his own words), so put a bullet next to her eye, and another one under the chin up into her brain (his own words). 12) While waiting for the criminals to arrive, he was armed with two different guns, one of which was a little bit faulty. 13) After he shot one with the faulty weapon, it wouldn't fire again. So, he literally apologized to the criminal (who was still alive) for not successfully killing right away, and switched guns for the fatal shots while the criminal was on the ground.
    2
  4302. So, basically, you didn't watch the video, but, you have already concluded that the cop was in the wrong. Good grief.
    2
  4303. Paul, please put this on every job application you ever fill out. Trust me here, it helps companies identify good vs. bad employees much more easily.
    2
  4304. Let me guess, a conspiracy video told you that there wasn't any fuel to get back, right? Like, the tens of thousands of engineers building all of those spacecraft all forgot to put enough fuel in it. Sure. And, YOU know better?
    2
  4305. And, if it was a man at a playground?
    2
  4306. So, you refuse to answer the question. Bravo.
    2
  4307. You're missing the point. The pretty face generates ad revenue. If they didn't show the face, this video gets 9 hits.
    2
  4308.  @joekraft5913  Yeah, I fully confess that I read your message again, and became very unsure about whether I understood you correctly the first time (hence my 2nd message to you, stating that I wasn't sure). My apologies. I suspect we might be saying some similar type things, but, I thought you were saying the opposite. I'd argue my position further, but, frankly, I have no legs to stand on after I missed your point so badly the first time.
    2
  4309.  @joekraft5913  Yeah, thanks, but, just for clarification, now in retrospect, I think we're probably more on the same side than opposite sides. After misunderstanding, I think I understand better now, and we have a couple of differences, but, they are more minor than I assumed at the start.
    2
  4310. A sane individual would have reported them to the police months prior when he figured out who was doing it. Or, if not that, a sane individual would have called the police the day beforehand, and told them that these teens were coming to his house to rob him the next day, and asked for help in catching them in the act. This was easily preventable.
    2
  4311. I guess when you know absolutely nothing in life, it must feel good to pretend to know things, huh? That's the only explanation for why you keep spewing such ridiculous nonsense. Why else would you spew dribble about topics you don't even come close to understanding?
    2
  4312. I wonder how much they paid Buzz Aldrin for his appearance in that movie. Mighty cool that Aldrin did it. The movie wasn't that great, but, having Aldrin in the movie added quite a bit of weight to the overall tone of that scene.
    2
  4313. Don't worry about me. Worry about yourself. Go back to school. Learn something. I suggest you start over at about the 3rd grade, and repeat everything after that.
    2
  4314. Well... kind of... yes. But, how do you "bully" a dead person?
    2
  4315. At any point, were you going to actually try looking at EVIDENCE? Or, is every argument you deniers can muster just going to be, "if it was real, then I think XYZ should have happened"? Dewdrop, sorry, but, you don't know what you're talking about.
    2
  4316. That's an amazingly large studio. Where'd they find it?
    2
  4317. Police abused power? HOW? WHEN?
    2
  4318. Really? Please name the telescope and location.
    2
  4319. Little Johnny, didn't Mommy tell you that a lunar day is 708 hours long (basically a month), and the astronauts were never there for an overnight, nor for a hot afternoon? No? You think a lunar day is 24 hours?
    2
  4320. And, once again, the people who deny the moon landings always have 2nd grader level reading and writing skills.
    2
  4321. And this was your edited version? What did the original version say?
    2
  4322. Multiple people called for this incident. 3 cops were dispatched. The other cop (not in this video) gathered up the names and statements, and took a copy of the video taken by one of the witnesses who recorded the woman on the beach. Needless to say, the video didn't match her version about being alone. She was putting on a show in front of people including children. I didn't know her, but, my guess is, given her "career" (as given by her landlord) as a stripper at the local club, I'd say it's fairly likely she was making video material of herself performing in public, perhaps to put online to make money. After all, she was a convicted felon who served time in prison about 6 years ago, and had been arrested a million times since. So, as far as I'm concerned, the credibility of innocent bystanders and police, greatly outweighs anything she says.
    2
  4323. If they really dove to the bottom of the ocean in 1960, there would be a McDonald's and a 7-Eleven down there by now.
    2
  4324. Dewdrop, you don't know anything about the topic. You don't know the difference between a shuttle mission and an Apollo mission. And, you were unaware that there were NINE manned missions to the moon, and you thought there was only one. Sorry, but, you don't get to pretend you know anything.
    2
  4325. Because it's kind of difficult to construct weird massive conspiracies involving the Gerber baby food company, or the Lego toy company, or the IBM computer company, etc. Why is it that you're more worried about that silly "logic" (sigh) than actually looking at the evidence itself?
    2
  4326. Well, after the 77 year old man just murdered a woman right before this incident, I think it's fairly certain that he wasn't going to just comply, "escalated" or not. He was going for that rifle inside the truck to take as many cops with him into death as he possibly could.
    2
  4327. Yeah, documentary makers often borrow from other mission videos. And, that's what they did in this case. There was no video of the first steps of Apollo 17.
    2
  4328.  @comblitz  Go watch the entire video, not this edited version. Even the description field of this video says she had the receipt.
    2
  4329.  @attilafry  You are welcome to love cold blooded murderers all you want. There are other psychotic people just like you in the world who love criminals also. Personally, I hate them.
    2
  4330. Let's hope it's a love/hate thing.
    2
  4331.  @bradleyrex2968  It seems my reply isn't showing up. I returned the thanks. But, I guess that's banned content nowadays.
    2
  4332. Thought u Russians no Sputnik now to the learned did.
    2
  4333. They weren't her children.
    2
  4334. My point is that you claimed this was natural selection at its finest. My response is that the finest natural selection would be if this happened BEFORE he had offspring.
    2
  4335. But, dewdrop, nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive. It was released 1.5 years after she died, due to a FOIA request.
    2
  4336.  @politicalfoolishness7491  Another nut waving around the "technology" word as if it's supposed to mean something. Sorry, dewdrop. What you're saying means absolutely nothing. You need to name the specific technology you're talking about, and then explain why none of the thousands of engineers working on that technology ever realized that they failed to build something that would do the job they designed it to do.
    2
  4337. I forgot... which conspiracy video made that silly claim?
    2
  4338.  @trendynow1369  Those videos only exist because they're wrong. If they had anything valid to offer, it wouldn't be on video, it would be via the scientific method. They make those videos to AVOID the scientific method, because every claim they've ever made has fallen apart under actual scrutiny. Every single time.
    2
  4339. *Descent stages.
    2
  4340. Yes, I thought you were saying they left the ascent stages on the surface. They did not. They left the descent stages on the surface. And, well, ultimately, the ascent stages also ended up on the surface (in a million pieces). But, I thought your point was outlining the things that they did NOT lift off with.
    2
  4341. Sorry, we're done here. I haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about, and neither do you.
    2
  4342. Yes, and that's the best they have to offer. It's always the hermit, the taxi cab driver, the warehouse worker, etc., who make these grand objections to Apollo. You never find a single word of objection in the science and engineering journals. For 50+ years now, there hasn't been a single anti-Apollo article written by a single person anywhere in the world that has made it through the very first round of scientific scrutiny in any recognized journal on Earth. Not one. Not ever.
    2
  4343. "Common sense tells one" Why is it always "common sense" or "logic" with you people? Why do none of you people actually look at the EVIDENCE? Not a single one of you people even know what the evidence is, but, you're always quick to "common sense" your way into disbelief. Sorry, but ACTUAL common sense would dictate that the experts know more than you do. "the US never went to the moon. Why." Non-sequitur coming. "The space challenger had 8 people" Really? Was there a secret person onboard that the world doesn't know about? But, YOU do? Hey, you know what else "common sense" would indicate? When someone doesn't know how many people were onboard, that person probably isn't an expert, and doesn't know what he's talking about. Right? "Elon had two rockets that recently exploded ." Boeing had two 737-MAX planes that crashed. Therefore the Wright Brothers never flew anywhere. You're a true genius alright.
    2
  4344. It would have helped if Smith reported who was doing it after he started recording them. It doesn't help if the only times Smith went to the police was before he knew who they were, then never went to them again once he knew who was doing it.
    2
  4345. Rod, that claim is just plain silly. The boots had two layers, the inner boot, and the outer boot/overshoe. The museum suit doesn't have Armstrong's outer boots/overshoes, because those are still on the moon. This is amazingly easy to understand. Stop using your ignorance to accuse people of being criminals.
    2
  4346. There was no such film of Apollo 11.
    2
  4347. You clearly don't understand the difference between a crime and an infraction. The video taken by one of the "audience" differs completely from what she's claiming while she is attempting to avoid being arrested for the millionth time.
    2
  4348. Of course you weren't aware. You prefer to rant about things you know nothing about.
    2
  4349. Well, that's one way to demonstrate that you don't read the answers to your own questions.
    2
  4350. Dewdrop, I presented you with some of the evidence you asked for. All you did was ignore it (you undoubtedly didn't read it) and ask again for evidence. Why do you think you know things if your mind is closed to all input? No, dewdrop, I'm not addressing new things until you address the items I brought up. You don't get to skip right past the answers to your own questions and pretend nobody answered you.
    2
  4351. Now? While Russia is in the middle of a war, being sanctioned by the USA and most of the rest of the world? Huh? And, the Soviets back in the days of Apollo tracked the craft with radar and radio telescopes, and were able to tune into the Apollo radio signals when their dishes were pointed AT THE MOON. What more do you want?
    2
  4352. Go ahead, try to take photos of those stars from your backyard. Let us know how that goes for you.
    2
  4353. "That's exactly why they don't ever show the footage" Is this a joke? Most of it was live-fed to worldwide press. The 16mm film wasn't, of course, because it had to be developed after they got home. But, that was all made available within a couple of weeks of each mission. What EXACT footage do you believe was never shown? And, how would you know about it, if nobody showed it?
    2
  4354. Where'd you look? In a Cracker Jack box? See, nowadays, there's this thing called "the internet." Ironically, you happened to be on it right now. Don't pretend you ever looked. It's clear you haven't.
    2
  4355. Spare me. You know nothing about radio, batteries, or the English language. You aren't asking honest questions.
    2
  4356. So, already, you are backtracking. You complained that 30 years after the moon landings, phones were as large and heavy as an ammunition box. (The reality is, back in 2002, 30 years after the landings, I had a lightweight flip phone in my pocket, and so did the rest of the world.) Now, you're backtracking to only 20 years after the landings, and talking about a 2kg phone (still nowhere near the size or weight of an ammunition box). Sorry, there is absolutely no point in continuing here. You know nothing about the topic, and, now with your dishonest backtracking and trying to slowly slip back on the time/weight to fit your own narrative, there really isn't any point here. Cell phones and moon radios are not the same thing, nor does anybody say they are. And, it's 100% clear that all you're doing is playing silly games. I will not entertain your nonsense any further.
    2
  4357. She was probably making "public beach" content for her fans at the "adult dance" club where she worked. I'd hardly think embarrassment had anything to do with it (outside of her bad acting when trying to cry her way out of her millionth arrest).
    2
  4358. Huh? In the same frame as a brightly lit lunar surface? Do you understand anything whatsoever about photography?
    2
  4359. Dewdrop, nobody said anything about believing stuff without question. But, sorry, out of context quote mines and outright lies aren't evidence.
    2
  4360.  @vacuumandgaspressurecoexisting  When you have absolutely no chance to deal with the evidence presented, yeah, that's what you nuts do, you ignore the input. It's why you are the laughable crackpot that you are.
    2
  4361. Yet, the next time I saw Aldrin after that punch, I walked up to him, shook that hand that did the punching, and said I thought he did the right thing. He stopped, thought about it for a while, a bit at a loss for words (unusual for him), and eventually said, "well, he's not going to stop doing what he's doing" (a sort of regret, because the punch would only be appropriate if it did any good, which it didn't).
    2
  4362.  @gives_bad_advice  No, not "just happened." I've met him a bunch of times over the years (same for most of the moonwalkers to one degree or another). Had breakfast with him once. I'm closer to one of his nephews, but, the irony there is that he (the nephew) says that I probably know his uncle better than he does. I doubt he (Buzz) would remember my name, but, he'd remember speaking with me a bunch of times.
    2
  4363. Well, the facts differ from what you want to believe. And, no, she wasn't shamed to death, despite the picture that Inside Edition paints for the sake of making a video go viral.
    2
  4364. Space doesn't have a temperature, dummy. "Temperature" is a mechanism to represent the relative movement of matter, and the energy states within the molecules/atoms. With no matter (or, almost none anyway, so close to zero that it practically is called absent of matter altogether), there is no temperature. The rest of what you said is wrong also. But, you're definitely not capable of understanding.
    2
  4365.  @even7887  Dummy, space doesn't have a temperature, no matter which types of degrees you use. You don't know what you're talking about.
    2
  4366.  @even7887  YOU SAID: "Real information will always be fought" == The irony. YOU are the one fighting information. YOU SAID: "because the state does not want an informed and intelligent people." == How can the lizard people prevent people from being intelligent? And, what does this have to do with your crazy notions about space having a temperature? Is that the "real" information? Space has a temperature, and only YOU know about it? YOU SAID: "Thus combining fragments of truth with an invented lie well outlined and repeated repetitively to the docile sheep)))) they will believe the hypnotically induced story ... this becoming indisputable truth!" == Dummy, the Earth is a globe. You can prove this a million different ways. YOU SAID: "There are millionaires who offer 1 million dollars to the first person to send a rocket straight up a trivial distance of 300km but no one answered" == Yes, dummy. That's because it costs more than a million dollars to do it. I can offer you a million dollars to bring me a diamond from 600 miles below the Earth's surface. You'd be a fool to take me up on that, because it will cost you far more to drill for it than the million dollars you'd get. 300km is not a trivial distance, dummy. YOU SAID: "I have hundreds of arguments and tangible evidence that can not be fought)))" == No, you have hundreds of arguments from an Eric Dubey video. They all fail. YOU SAID: "we have no equipment good enough to protect us from harmful radiation here on this farm and yet it went into space passing van allen radiation" == James Van Allen disagreed with you. What do you know that James Van Allen didn't? And, how do you even know about the Van Allen belts? NASA sent probes into it, right? That's how you know they exist. So, you believe NASA when they tell you there are belts, and yet, you reject NASA when they tell you the level of radiation in those belts? YOU SAID: "you can be a sheep with a diploma if you do not have discernment you remain an obedient sheep without curiosity.🤣🤣🤣😂😂" == I've always known that the real reason you dolts believe the crap you do is because you're jealous about the intellect and education you don't have. And, you're just proving it time and again. You want a shortcut. It took me almost 10 years at 3 universities to get my degrees. And, I have decades of professional experience on top of that. You want a shortcut. You don't know anything. So, instead of going through what the rest of us have done, you watch an hour or two of videos online to tell you that the entirety of science is wrong, and you think that puts you into a superior position than the people who know millions of times more than you do. It's a way you use to compensate for the complete and total failure of a human being that you are.
    2
  4367. Did you flunk out of Economics 101? Good grief. First of all, what EXACTLY are you proposing that they do to solve hunger? Shut down NASA altogether, and use that money to feed people? I mean, good grief. How many times does it need to be demonstrated that those "solutions" do not work? Yes, when you feed starving people, you buy another day of their lives before they starve again. Yes, sometimes people in societies need those kinds of immediate boosts to tie them over. That's why we have a welfare and unemployment system. But, that's also why those programs are meant to be limited to specific time periods. For example, you cannot remain on unemployment coverage for your entire life. Such a model is simply not sustainable. All it does is create a welfare state, where a certain percentage of the population will never get a job, never contribute anything, and will just live off of the ones who do have jobs. No. If you lose your job, you are covered by unemployment for a certain time period, and you're expected to go get another job in the meantime. It's not supposed to be a ticket to never working again. And, the same spirit is true of feeding the hungry. What good does buying one more day do? Then one more day after that? The better solution is to empower people to get employment, so they can feed themselves. Apollo employed 400,000 Americans, and 50,000 more people internationally. This gave those people new skills that would be marketable long after Apollo was over. Towns were formed. Trickle-down industries were formed. Restaurants, housing, schools, road construction, etc. All of this was paid for by employing those people. And, those people ended up with a decade of work experience that they wouldn't otherwise have, empowering them to take those skills to new industries, or transition to jobs as military contractors, or a ton of other things. It has been well understood for about 150 years (or more) that the best way to fight hunger is to put people to work. And, if the private sector doesn't have enough jobs, then the public sector can create them with entities like NASA, spurring on many new technologies and industries, such as computers, aviation, manufacturing, satellite communications, etc. What do you propose instead? Handouts? Yes, we do that too. But, when the handouts run out, then what? How will those starving people support themselves? Or, is the better solution to put 450,000 people to work for a decade, creating millions of new jobs as a trickle-down effect? No? Handouts are the better plan?
    2
  4368. Yeah, a 10 mile long set where a rover can drive huge distances at 1/6th gravity. Can you name the place in Hollywood that has that?
    2
  4369. Wow, it's almost as if they might wait until the very end to put the gloves on, eh? Did you think they put the gloves on first?
    2
  4370. Sorry, I had no idea you suffered so badly from schizophrenia... changing your mind every 2 seconds. Get well.
    2
  4371. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    2
  4372.  @critthought2866  No problem. But, the original poster was the one who referred to vectoring (read it again). Of course, he was wrong (again), because, as we said, the Saturn V used "vectoring" gimbals to steer. But, whatever. Obviously, none of those deniers have the slightest understanding of the topic.
    2
  4373. So, you refused to even read what I wrote. Bravo.
    2
  4374. Just read the arrest report. Good gods. I'm not talking about THIS video. I'm talking about the video taken by the "audience" of the actual act on the beach.
    2
  4375.  @e.mmacarr  I cannot possibly communicate with someone like you. You said that people can get fired for making accusations without proof. I asked you what that has to do with this incident. You refuse to answer, and change topics instead. These comments are nothing but a parade of complete ignorance. Good grief.
    2
  4376. Good grief. What humiliation from Inside Edition? Incident = July of 2021. Suicide = March of 2022. Arrest video was made public = November of 2023. "The media" didn't pump this story up until she was dead for 1.5 years. Yet, they want you to believe that humiliation had something to do with her death. Why? Because it generates hits and ad revenue.
    2
  4377. Media and officers? For what?
    2
  4378. Blame the victim? What's wrong with you?
    2
  4379.  @DDArtsArts  I was addressing the OP.
    2
  4380. Yes, one person in the crowd that saw the woman did take video with her cell phone, and showed it to the police.
    2
  4381. You can prove they didn't go... because "insert question." Translation: you don't understand it, therefore they didn't go. Bravo.
    2
  4382. Pfftt. What? Engineers actually working on the program for 10 years of their lives are easy to fool? But, you're not? You know better than the people who designed and built the stuff? And, dewdrop, if they designed and built stuff that can go to the moon, why not just go? What would be the purpose in deceiving the engineers into thinking they were designing and building stuff to go to the moon? At that point, just go, right? If everyone thought their stuff was capable of going to the moon, just go!!!!
    2
  4383.  @Budweiser-gq6xv  Are you even reading the answers to your own questions/statements? Good grief. You cannot even formulate a coherent sentence, and you're not addressing anything I wrote.
    2
  4384. Never being exposed to oxygen or moisture is a pretty good start. After that, chemical composition, radiometric dating, and a bunch of other science goes into it. But, let's face reality here, you didn't want answers to your question, did you?
    2
  4385. Or, you could simply look at the photo archive to see photos of most of the stuff depicted in this video.
    2
  4386. Well, the bodycam footage was never seen by anybody until it was released on November 24, 2023. Her suicide was in March of 2022. So, sorry, you didn't see this arrest video until she was already dead for 1.5 years. Furthermore, they give tickets for crimes now? I always thought tickets were for infractions, not crimes. But, you're the legal expert here, not me, so please elaborate... when did they start issuing tickets for crimes?
    2
  4387. And, that's an answer to my question, how?
    2
  4388. And, this was your edited version? How badly did you butcher your first version, if this mess is the revised version?
    2
  4389. Do go on. Keep explaining everything you know about Apollo that not a single space agency on Earth knows!! I'm learning a lot!!
    2
  4390. Yes, they can raise the gold layer of the visor. Your emojis don't turn a non-event into an event.
    2
  4391. 1) Please name the technology we have now that would enable us to have day trips to the moon. Can you? I mean, I've watched you nuts for years now, waving the "technology" word around as if it's supposed to mean something. But, not a single one of you will name the particular technology that was lacking in 1969-1972, such that they supposedly couldn't do what they did... nor have any of you nuts named any such modern technology that would turn rocket travel to the moon into a daily occurrence. 2) Who's going to pay for it, dewdrop? If you look at the cost of the Apollo program, and adjust for inflation, they spent about $16 billion per person who walked on the moon in hard costs, and another $7 or $8 billion (again, PER PERSON) in soft costs and international support. And, for that, each astronaut walked on the moon for a few hours. Yes, Artemis is trying to do it for a lot less money. But, not THAT much less. So, who's going to pay for these day trips you're talking about?
    2
  4392. For making an arrest? Huh? I think your suit would lose.
    2
  4393. Why is it that every time someone brings up a small bit of evidence for Apollo, you simply ignore it? You cite things you saw in conspiracy videos, but you clearly haven't been educated in anything beyond what conspiracy videos tell you. It appears that you have merely decided to trust whatever conspiracy videos say, and haven't bothered to fact-check any of them. Hint: they're always wrong and deceptive, many to the point of outright lies, and filled with out-of-context clipping and cherry-picking. You were asked the following, but it all went in one ear and out the other. What is that? 1) What about the Soviets who tracked Apollo missions to the moon? Do you think they were just going to take the USA's word for it? (Ignored.) 2) You argued that 3 astronauts who died in a fire was conspiratorial. You were asked why you'd think that. The test pilot business is very dangerous, and people die. And, why would NASA kill only 3 of them? 24 people went to the moon. They didn't kill any of those guys. What significance is there is killing those 3? (Ignored.) 2b) You called them "reserves" (which shows that you don't even know who those people were). You know nothing about Apollo beyond what conspiracy videos have told you, and you are proud of your ignorance. 2c) Your favorite conspiracy videos tell you that they killed those astronauts because they were going to reveal that the Block1 command module was a lemon, right? NASA couldn't tolerate the idea that astronauts were about to tell everyone that the craft was a defective lemon. So, what did NASA do (in your mind)? They staged the murders of three astronauts, and the mechanism to murder them was to kill them with the very same craft that they were attempting to say wasn't a lemon, by making the craft appear to malfunction?? How does that even make sense? Astronaut: "This craft is a lemon." NASA: "You can't say that it's a lemon, we can't have that getting out, so, let's kill the astronauts with the craft, making it look defective, thus proving it's a lemon.... um... wait....??" You don't even think these conspiracies through. For you, it's just good enough to make the accusation. It doesn't matter to you whether the accusation is correct or not. That's EXACTLY what slander/libel is. YOU are the criminal here, not the astronauts. 3) You were asked about the Soviets again. (Ignored again.) 4) You were asked about why the lunar samples brought back by the Soviet probes matched exactly with the 850 pounds of lunar material brought back by Apollo. (Ignored.) 5) You were asked why China's and Japan's lunar orbiters detected Apollo. (Ignored.) 6) It was pointed out to you that the motion in all of the videos is in 1/6th G, and is clearly in a vacuum (as seen by the behavior of the dust). (Ignored.) Sorry, but your long debunked notions that you got from conspiracy videos about killing people involved with Apollo, false notions about shadows that any photography class would teach you about, or crazy ideas that Capricorn One is a reflection of any sort of reality... is all just insanity. You don't know what you're talking about. The evidence for Apollo is overwhelming. But, you're not going to find it in conspiracy videos, because those are very dishonest, and try to convince people like you that there isn't any evidence. The fact remains, you can go all around the world to the dozens of countries that tracked Apollo missions with radar and/or radio telescopes, and they will proudly give you a tour showing you their role in the Apollo missions, involving thousands of people. Enemy countries tracked Apollo missions. And, what have you offered? Long debunked garbage that you regurgitate from conspiracy videos. Sorry that you know nothing, but that's your problem, and you shouldn't use your ignorance to commit slander/libel. Your impression that only a few people knew about the "hoax" is ridiculously false also. Not only were thousands of people around the world (including enemies) involved with tracking Apollo missions with radar and/or radio telescopes, but since then, thousands more have been involved with the additional evidence since Apollo ended. Japan verified the Apollo photography with their orbiter. China detected the Apollo remnants on the moon. Arizona State University has been downloading 400GB per day for the past 12 years from their orbiter around the moon, which has taken hundreds of photos of the landing sites. There are laser reflectors on the moon in use every single day, left by the Apollo missions, used by dozens of facilities around the world, various countries, universities, etc. Spain took long range photography of the SIVB fuel dumps around the moon, and the Apollo 13 oxygen and debris field. Sorry, but your crazy notion that "only the astronauts and a few people knew it was fake" is wrong. And, how dumb do you think the 450,000 people who worked on Apollo were? What about all of the people in mission control? What about all of the thousands of people at MIT, Draper Labs, JPL, Grumman, North American Aviation, etc.? All of those highly talented PhDs, aerospace engineers, etc.? Explain why none of them knew it wasn't possible to go to the moon? Why not just go? See, one of the most crazy features of your conspiracy is that you think that a few "high up" people knew it wasn't possible to go to the moon, thus changed the plan to fake it instead... but... why would they know this?? What did they know that the thousands of actual engineers didn't?? Who told them it wasn't possible to go to the moon?? Which EXACT piece of Apollo's technology wasn't adequate for them to go to the moon, and explain why none of the thousands of engineers ever realized that the stuff they designed and built to go to the moon... couldn't do the job they designed and built it to do?? Spare me your ignorant comments about conspiracy videos telling you astronauts were killed to shut them up, and deal with the cold hard facts.
    2
  4394.  @tamarafletcher7965  YOU SAID: "I posted it above already for you but here you are again" == Well, I'd normally blame you for such a thing. But, given that YouTube's censorship algorithms have gone completely bananas the last month or so, blocking posts for no reason whatsoever, this probably isn't your fault. Nobody else can see a prior post where you made this quote. YouTube does this, unfortunately. You might be able to see your own posting, but nobody else can. The only way you can verify this is by having a window open that isn't signed into YouTube, and then view this comment thread, and see if you can see the posting you're talking about. I've gotten into the habit of (most of the time) having two windows open, one signed in, one not signed in, to verify whether my postings are visible to everyone else. YouTube has lost its mind, and is "ghosting" postings like crazy, even for innocuous reasons. YOU SAID: "'I'd go to the moon in a nanosecond - the problem is that we don't have the technology to do that anymore. We used to, but we destroyed that technology and it's a painful process to build it back again.”" == So?? How is this an issue for you? Why do you base your entire understanding of Apollo on a couple of sentences? Yes, the technology IS gone. And, while the word "destroyed" is a bit colorful, it's essentially correct. The buildings that housed all of the machinery to produce Apollo are almost all gone, or completely retooled to build other things. The machinery itself has been repurposed or destroyed. The launch facilities capable of launching a Saturn V have been torn down and replaced. The companies that produced everything for Apollo are almost all completely gone, either their doors closed permanently, or they were sold to other companies and repurposed. The training facilities were completely dismantled and replaced. There are no functional landers. There are no functional command modules. There are no functional Saturn V rockets. What we have in museums are not flight worthy, never completed, or have been gutted to be put on display. I mean, good grief, you could use the exact same logic for the Concorde supersonic airliner. That's all been "destroyed" in exactly the same manner. They couldn't build a new Concorde today if they tried. We no longer have the capability to fly 155 humans at mach 2 across the Atlantic because all of that hardware has been retired, and all ability to manufacture that hardware has been destroyed in the exact same manner that all of Apollo's manufacturing capability has been destroyed. Yeah, I probably wouldn't have used the word "destroyed" in that context. But, good grief, cut the guy a little slack, it's not as if the word "destroyed" is completely wrong. It *IS* destroyed!! The problem with the word "destroyed" is that you conspiratards hang your hat on this stuff as if it means it was a secret operation to conceal evidence. But, YOU are the one putting that meaning into the word "destroyed." Pettit was just being quite literal. And, just like the Concorde, it WOULD be quite painful to try to build it all back again. We wouldn't build a Concorde copy today, because there's no way in the world we would want to repeat the exact same 1969 craft (that's when the Concorde was first built). We'd engineer a new/better craft before we'd build a carbon copy of the 50 year old version. History has taught us a million times over that we take the lessons from the past, and improve upon them, and THAT is the way to do things. To go back and retro-engineer old technology is always a mistake. It always costs more, takes longer, and produces an inferior product. It's better/faster/cheaper to build new versions than copies of old versions. YOU SAID: "No need to respond. But there it is again for your brain bank." == Hey, dummy, how about actually trying to learn about Apollo via other means BESIDES watching conspiracy videos. I mean, you can immediately dismiss this notion of the technology being "destroyed" (in the sense you're intending) by simply looking at the millions of pages of Apollo documentation. It's all available. You can get the schematics for the lunar landers, the command modules, the Saturn V rockets, etc. It's all there. Nobody "destroyed" the knowledge. All that's been "destroyed" are the physical mechanisms to build it all. And, rightfully so. We don't have the assembly lines and tooling to build a Model T Ford either. Yes, people can build them. But, it's very "painful" to do so. If you want to build a brand new exact copy of an original Model T Ford today, you're looking at hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of effort. But, back then, when we had all the assembly lines and tooling to churn out these things like crazy, they were cranking out 10,000 cars a day for a cost that any common person could afford. All of that is gone, and it would be a painful process to build that back up again. Yet, you don't claim the Model T Ford is fake, do you? You understand EXACTLY what is meant when they say that "the Model T technology has been destroyed, and it's a painful process to build it back up again." You aren't going to scream bloody murder if someone says that. Oh, but the exact same thing is said about Apollo, and you lose you mind over it?? Good gods, you're pathetic. Sorry, dummy, history doesn't rely on your quote of a couple of sentences that you intentionally have decided to take in the wrong context. History is well established, regardless of your insanity.
    2
  4395.  @tamarafletcher7965  So, that's it? Ignore all input, refuse to address a single challenge/question? You were asked by me, and TimReed22222, to explain why you think it's a big deal that Pettit used the word "destroyed." Ignored. In one ear, out the other, declare victory. Hey, dummy, you don't get to pretend you have the high ground, and superior knowledge. The entire world's space agencies, all 72 of them, filled with the world's premier aerospace engineers and rocket scientists, in friendly and enemy countries, universally disagree with you. Sorry, no, you don't get to just sit there and pretend that the entire world's experts are all wrong, and you're right, because you listened to a single word "destroyed" and jumped to ridiculous conclusions from it. But, nope, you won't deal with that. You're outmatched, outgunned, outthought, outclassed, and you can't stomach it. So, what's your reply? Change topics to COVID??? You are one colossal idiot.
    2
  4396. Correction to my post above. Apollo 5 used a Saturn 1B, not a Saturn V. But, the rest of my point remains the same.
    2
  4397.  @Romeo7414GD  I think I reversed the numbers, by the way. East/west is bigger than north/south. Sorry, my mistake.
    2
  4398. Multiple people called, dewdrop. One of them even took video, and turned that over to the police. (It has never been released due to graphic content, but, the report says that it was a very loud and public show, in view of multiple people including children.) Why are you not blaming her for her own actions? Would you say the same if it was a guy at a playground putting on a loud show in front of the kids?
    2
  4399. "they way she explained" And, you'd believe her, why? You don't think she was just trying to cry her way out of her millionth arrest? You don't think she was just trying to talk her way out of things before they looked her up and found her extensive criminal history and open warrants? Just checking here: you do know her landlord said she was a "dancer" (yeah, that kind), and neighbors said she also did "private extras" for a routine parade of paying men in her apartment, right?
    2
  4400. Dewdrop, when did I even mention grammar? Did you bother reading anything I wrote? Or, did you blindly assume I said something about grammar?
    2
  4401. Dewdrop, exactly how much "humiliation" do you think she suffered when the arrest video wasn't released until 2.5 years later? Nobody saw it while she was alive.
    2
  4402. Dewdrop, realtor? She hadn't sold a house in about 15 years. The BMW was from a very long time ago, before she left her husband and two sons to live a life of crime and drugs.
    2
  4403. No, dewdrop, she wasn't "successful until this." She spent a felony term in a Florida prison in 2018, and was convicted for bunches of crimes (mostly drugs and thefts, including car theft). Get a clue.
    2
  4404. So, that's it? You spewed a bunch of nonsense, and told ME to "do more research"? Then you ran away? You Googled something about her owning a BMW and you incorrectly assumed it was recently, rather than 15 years ago, and you decided that it makes you an expert? You'd rather live in a fantasy world where the convicted felon and drug addict was the "innocent soccer mom" that Inside Edition is presenting in this video? Dewdrop, what she did was no different than if some guy on a park bench at a playground put on a loud show in front of children. The only person "responsible" for this incident is HERSELF. Don't blame people for reporting it.
    2
  4405. "u know nothing but hate !" Dewdrop, YOU are the one who sat there and "hated" (so to speak) the multiple people who did the proper thing, and called the police when they saw a crime happening.
    2
  4406. "I never said I knew everything !" Dewdrop, you Googled a couple of things (after I corrected your nonsense), and saw that she owned a BMW (a very long time ago). You then asserted she was "successful" up until this incident, completely ignoring the fact that she had a mile long record, including car theft, other thefts, drug and alcohol charges, open warrants, and a prison term in 2018. You also asserted that she was a real estate agent, when she hadn't sold a house in 15 years.
    2
  4407. Next time, how about actually knowing something about a topic before you start pointing blame? The woman in this video is RESPONSIBLE FOR HER OWN ACTIONS. Do not blame people who did the proper thing by reporting crimes when they see them.
    2
  4408. Great job going back and editing/deleting your various messages, dewdrop. You're a true hero. I suppose that's not your fault, just like you don't blame the woman in this video for her own actions. It's everyone else's fault you deleted/changed all of your messages, right? Just like it's everyone else's fault that the woman in the video decided to put on a loud show in front of children, right?
    2
  4409. "she thought she was alone" Again, why would you believe that? Because that's what she said, as she was attempting to wiggle out of her millionth arrest? The witnesses reported that she walked up and down the beach, and specifically chose a spot in view of other people, and then put on the show. Frankly, if she wasn't making "public beach" content for her fans, I'll eat my hat.
    2
  4410. "not put on a LOUD show" Then why did the police say it was a loud show, dewdrop? That comes directly from their own report. Let me guess, you told me to "do more research," but, you never lifted a finger to read the report yourself, eh?
    2
  4411. "I never googled anything" Right. You knew about her BMW just as a random guess.
    2
  4412. "I finished" Sure you are. When it's pointed out that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, and you just love pointing hatred and blame (and then accuse me of doing exactly what YOU are doing), sure, run away. Again, blame everyone else but yourself.
    2
  4413. Oh look! Another denier who reads and writes at a 2nd grade level. What a shocker.
    2
  4414. And, you're PROUD to know absolutely nothing?
    2
  4415. So, yes, you ARE absolutely proud to know absolutely nothing.
    2
  4416. Huh? The arrest video was not made public until 1.5 years after her death, which was 2.5 years after the incident. This never went viral until long after she died. And, if you think she was a lovely lady, well, ok, from this video, I'm assuming. But, by the time she committed suicide, the medical examiner's report said the body weighed 86 pounds. Apparently, she was going really downhill in life in the approximate year between her arrest and her suicide.
    2
  4417. I don't understand. Who is "you people"?
    2
  4418. But, no news station covered this until long after she was dead.
    2
  4419. Then show the math. What are you doing on YouTube comments? There are many worldwide science and engineering journals that you can use to express your scientific prowess, and demonstrate your claims mathematically. Why would you think YouTube comments would be the place to go to show the world about these "gotchas" you think you found?
    2
  4420.  @critthought2866  The dewdrop is referring to Alan Bean, who, 30-40 years later, didn't recall anything about the belts.
    2
  4421. Multiple people called the police. One woman recorded it on her cell phone, and showed the video to the police. The police report says that it was a very loud, and very public display, in view of multiple people including children. This differs from the version told by a woman trying to get out of being arrested. But, yeah, tell me, if you believe her, how do you explain how people saw her, if she wasn't in view of anybody? How did the police view a video of the event, if nobody could see it? And, sorry, but you don't get warnings for crimes. You can get warnings for infractions. But, crimes don't work that way. Learn a little bit about the legal system before advocating something that cannot legally happen.
    2
  4422. Wait, what? You believe they parachuted to the moon's surface?
    2
  4423. FOUR, STAGED STUDIOS , POINTING HE ROOM SISTER'S , WHEN MOON; A US WHAT FIRST 3 IN LIVING , OLD CHANNEL'S ARE ON TV , AND TELLING SEE 4 YEARS , DAD WHAT AND STARTING , ERROR
    2
  4424. This man's "crying" is never "for real." It's all an act, no more, no less.
    2
  4425. You've written this up for science and engineering journals, right? You believe the 2nd law of motion is wrong, and conservation of momentum is wrong... two pretty well established laws of physics. You are saying those are incorrect. So, where's your Nobel Prize? You're not just an internet crackpot, are you?
    2
  4426. First of all, other than one obscure article on a website I had never even heard of, she didn't suffer a single bit from any public shame or comments. The arrest video wasn't made public until she was already dead 1.5 years. And, none of this stuff went viral until about a month ago. She died in March of 2022, almost two years ago. So, no, she didn't read any comments about this, because she was already dead before anybody ever commented. Secondly, sorry, but her claims about thinking nobody could see her just don't jive with the police report. The woman in the "audience" who recorded the incident showed that recording to the police. The police described the video in the arrest report, which said that it was a very loud and public display in front of multiple people including children. Sorry if you take her word for it, as she's trying to avoid being arrested, claiming that she thought nobody could see her. But, yeah, that's just another form of "I didn't do it." Yes, many criminals say that. Thirdly, I don't know about you, but, if I was in her shoes, I'd be far more ashamed of her arrest record for stealing cars and public drunkenness. But, it seems that "shame" wasn't even in her vocabulary.
    2
  4427. "I have always asked" Who did you ask? What was the answer?
    2
  4428. "how did they get past the Van Allen Belts?" By using a rocket.
    2
  4429. "Not one of them had radiation sickness." And, you'd expect it? Do you even know the type and quantity of radiation in the Van Allen belts? Are you under the impression that it's the same stuff you get from nuclear reactors or atomic bombs? Are you even aware that there are multiple types of radiation? Sound is radiation. Do people get radiation sickness from sound? Light is radiation. Ions are radiation. Alphas are radiation. Xrays are radiation. Microwaves are radiation. You say you've always asked this stuff, right? Didn't anybody ever tell you that there are lots of types of radiation, and not all of them have the same effect as nuclear radiation?
    2
  4430. "They all lived healthy long lives." Tell that to Swigert's family. See how that goes for you.
    2
  4431. "the solar wind is constantly raining down radiation" Calculate it. Publish. There are countless science journals on radiation in space and radiobiology. What are you waiting for? Explain to the entire planet's radiobiologists about how they all somehow missed this notion that the solar wind should have killed everyone.
    2
  4432. "Just this told me it was all done on our planet, not our moon." The arrogance. The complete and total arrogance. You are making it remarkably clear that you don't even know what type of radiation is involved here, and yet, you believe you understand the topic better than the entire planet's radiobiologists and aerospace engineers. I mean, when I was younger, I probably was too arrogant. But, at my worst, I was never even on the same planet as your level of arrogance.
    2
  4433. Stop pretending you know things you don't. Is that really that big of a request?
    2
  4434. Still haven't sobered up after New Year's Eve, eh Larry? You expect your readers to read your mind? You're not going to give a timestamp, or a photo catalog number, or anything? They took roughly 7,000 photos while walking around on the lunar surface across 6 missions. We're just supposed to randomly guess about which ones you're talking about?
    2
  4435. Um, what? Who ever said that there's no gravity on the moon? Where would you get that crazy idea? Forget one silly rock. How would the moon stay together AT ALL if there was no gravity?
    2
  4436. Dustin Farmer: Wow, what a pile of garbage you just spewed everywhere. YOU SAID: "Go and research how much effort the Soviets were actually putting into landing a man on the moon. Legitimate documents from 1962 quote the head of the Soviet space program saying they had no interest in sending a man to the moon without proper planning just to appease a time constraint." == Yet, hmmm, the Soviets few FOUR of their own lunar landers in space (test missions). They designed and built the N1 moon rocket, and tried to fly those also (but they kept exploding). If they had gotten their N1 rocket to work properly, they'd have gone to the moon. YOU SAID: "No country on this planet has even sent an animal beyond the radiation belt." == The USA has. 24 people went to the moon and back. YOU SAID: "Just using your common sense, do you think they would send a human being where they have never sent the monkey?" == Flying monkeys first got them where? They lost to the Soviets in putting the first man into space because they were flying monkeys first. After that, no monkeys flew on Gemini first. No monkeys flew on Apollo first. No monkeys flew on Skylab. No monkeys flew on the ISS. Why would you think they'd send a monkey to the moon? The Apollo equipment required people inside the craft to work on the computers, do the course corrections, take the photography, etc. It wasn't designed for a monkey. Spare me your "common sense" garbage. That's what ignorant people say in order to justify outlandishly ridiculous beliefs. YOU SAID: "Typically in arguments the party in denial becomes aggressive. Resorting to name calling, belittling other people and any opposing views." == That's because nobody likes people who slander/libel others on the basis of pure ignorance. You are accusing 450,000 people of working on a hoax. You are saying that some thousands of them were active criminals who would have received a lifetime in prison for the crimes you're accusing them of. And, you're saying that the remaining thousands of them were too stupid to recognize that the stuff they designed and built to go to the moon... couldn't do the job they designed and built them to do... and for 50 years, they still cannot recognize that they failed to do their own jobs for a decade of their lives. You are discarding 4.5 million years of human effort, on the basis of NOTHING. There isn't a single one of the Earth's 72 space agencies who agree with you. Not one. Not anywhere. Um, yeah, people who call you names are CORRECT!!! You're wrong factually anyway, but calling you names is just the icing on the cake. YOU SAID: "And at the end of the day, YouTube videos or Discovery channel, you’re taking your information based on research and science given to you from sources you’ve never met." == So, that's how this goes? So, if you have never met someone from Fiji, then Fiji doesn't exist? What difference EXACTLY does it make to you, whether someone meets the people, or not? If you were correct, and the people who worked on Apollo were liars, then would it matter whether you met those liars, or didn't meet those liars? YOU SAID: "No matter which way you cut it, you are not a scientist. You are not an expert. Stop speaking like one." == Have you looked in the mirror while you've made those comments?
    2
  4437. So, the entire world's aerospace engineers and rocket scientists shouldn't breed. And, the people with no education who write like they're in 2nd grade, those are the ones we want forming the future generations of offspring. Right.
    2
  4438. From Earth? No.
    2
  4439. Then do the math yourself. What are you waiting for?
    2
  4440. Had we actually dove to the deepest ocean depth in 1960, then by 1990, there would have been a McDonald's down there. Forget about full blown military bases at the bottom of the ocean, and tourist facilities. Yet, it took 62 years before anybody did that miraculous feat again, regardless that smart phones are more powerful now than in 1960.
    2
  4441.  @therealzilch  Because phones are more powerful now.
    2
  4442. Still spewing nonsense about topics you know nothing about, eh?
    2
  4443. Oh, I'm in total agreement. This isn't "news," it's a crafted story designed to go viral in the interest of generating clicks. To address why, well, ad revenue. But, on a deeper level, I think they probably feel like this woman was fair game. They portray her as a shy soccer mom, caught in an unfortunate situation. The reality was that she was a stripper who put on shows like that every day at the club, served a felony term in prison for stealing cars, and had an arrest record a mile long, judgements against her for various thefts and other stuff, drug and alcohol charges, and open warrants for failures to appear in court. So, I'm guessing that the media looked at her as "deserving." Personally, I disagree. I think if they're going to publicize it, they should do it accurately. But, it would be better not to publicize it at all.
    2
  4444. Yeah, when you see a guy cranking at the playground, leave him alone! He wants to do that every day, and doesn't need you getting in his way.
    2
  4445.  @critthought2866  Yes, mass is essential to understanding physics. But, with this guy, I knew he'd never grasp it at that level. He's very obviously so scientifically illiterate that understanding inertia is going to be well beyond him. So, I took it down a few notches so he could grasp it a little better. But, yes, the acts of jumping or running (etc.) are far more complicated than just weight. About the suits, you're overstating the vulnerability. The suits leaked. Who cares? There was no "very likely have died" here. The suits had a self-sealing layer to take care of any basic puncture. And, for the most part, even if they had a larger leak than normal (a small leak was fine), it's still fine, because they would just patch it. They were trained on doing that. And, as for the PLSS, it's just like scuba. If it failed completely, including the backup oxygen unit on top, they could share with their buddy's PLSS. Just flip hoses every couple of minutes. That's one of the many reasons that the hoses were mounted front and center, easy to get at, easy to share until they get back to safety. Unless they completely pulverized the entire helmet or something, they were not really in much danger from a suit issue.
    2
  4446. Um, ok, but, who do you think shamed her? Who even knew about this while she was alive?
    2
  4447. It is simply not possible to be a moon landing denier while being honest. Eddie says: ""I'd go to the Moon in a nanosecond... but we, ahh, destroyed that technology and it's a painful process to build it back again." - Don Petit, NASA" See those three dots? In that space is when Pettit (spelled correctly) said "we don't have the technology to do that anymore, but we used to." Eddie is quite happy to quote Pettit out of context when it suits his purposes. But, if he quotes him correctly, Pettit says that we used to have the technology. He doesn't want to admit that, because it destroys his own false narrative that he's trying to create.
    2
  4448. I will add: she walked out on her career and her family (including a husband, 6 month old son, and another son) over a decade ago to live a life of crime and drugs. She spent a felony term in a Florida prison, and had a million other arrests. And, her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the gentlemen's club, and neighbors said she did "extras" for cash in her apartment. If she wasn't making "public beach" content, I'll eat my hat.
    2
  4449. Invisibly? He clearly used his legs to do so.
    2
  4450. Of course places like that exist. But, what makes you believe that this particular 5-star resort was doing that? This "news" (not news) story is nothing but a hit piece. And, the fact that they had to stoop to talking about OTHER resorts to try to paint the picture that THIS resort was doing the same thing... is ridiculous. No methanol was found in the girl or boy. And, their story has more holes in it than the Titanic.
    2
  4451. She willfully chose to put on a show at the beach. The arrest was justified. And, with her extensive criminal history, and open warrants, let's face reality here, she was getting arrested no matter what.
    2
  4452. No, dewdrop. Aldrin never said any such thing.
    2
  4453.  @franknorthcuttmusic  Another aspect about the nuts who compare Apollo to Manhattan: Manhattan was a pro-USA program with the goal of winning a war and saving millions of soldiers from needing to invade Berlin, Tokyo, etc., which would have resulted in tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of additional casualties. As you pointed out, even then, there were hundreds of leaks and spies, and Stalin knew about the bomb before Truman. The nuts pretend that Apollo was a program to defraud the USA public, and think that everyone would just go along? Not a single person said, "no way, I'm not being a criminal, I'm not defrauding the USA and its allies"? We couldn't even keep a secret that was beneficial to the USA. How can we keep a secret about defrauding the USA?
    2
  4454. Especially the one from Apollo 12 that still has the one film roll in it that Conrad forgot to remove from the camera and take home. (Not that the film would be any good at this point, but, just for grins.)
    2
  4455. BECAUSE CONGRESS DIDN'T APPROVE OF ANY SUCH PROGRAM UNTIL A FEW YEARS AGO WHEN THEY FUNDED ARTEMIS!!!
    2
  4456. Conclusion first. Ask questions second. Oh, you're really honest.
    2
  4457. "If these missions were NOT PSY-OPS, they would've continued" So, your viewpoint is, congress simply isn't allowed to end a program. The Apollo program ran from 1961 through 1972 for manned moon missions, and through 1975 for the Apollo applications program (Skylab, Apollo-Soyuz, etc.). That's 15 years of the most expensive exploration program in human history. But, in your "logic," they simply MUST continue, else they didn't happen. Bravo.
    2
  4458. "NASA will be exposed" You've had 55 years, dewdrop. What are you waiting for?
    2
  4459. How many times are you going to post this same gibberish? Why do you keep saying the same thing over and over, despite being told? I already explained (and you ignored, only to run over here and post this gibberish again in a new thread), they pointed the camera at the sun numerous times, especially on Apollo 17. Go watch the videos!!!! What ARE you waiting for? Or, are you just going to delete this thread, run for the hills, and post this same question somewhere else (again)?
    2
  4460. There are several companies trying to figure out how to build efficient supersonic airliners. Does this mean that the Concorde was fake? It's been decades since you could buy a ticket and fly with 100+ people onboard for 3000 miles at mach 2. Nowadays, supersonic capability is a tiny fraction of what it was with the 1969 Concorde. Now, you can only fly with one or two people onboard military craft for very short distances, at about mach 1.5, then you have to slow down. Why don't they just rebuild Concordes? Because nobody wants a repeat of Concorde. It was a complete financial disaster, losing money on every single flight. If they ever want to have a supersonic airliner again, they want it to be far more efficient and capable than the Concorde. Well, the same goes for Apollo. Nobody wants a repeat of the limitations of Apollo, at the massive cost. They want the moon missions to last longer, be cheaper, and get far more out of them. Yes, Apollo was retired, and that technology has been "lost" (in the exact same sense that Concorde technology is "lost"). It's lost only because it doesn't exist any longer, not because nobody knows how it worked.
    2
  4461. Would you say that if it was a guy cranking at the playground?
    2
  4462. You forgot to mention the woman that the old man had just murdered.
    2
  4463. Three different countries bounced lasers off of the Apollo 11 reflector while astronauts were still on the surface. But, you don't even think lasers existed? Not a surprise, given that you can't even spell it. What is it about you nuts that you feel this amazing compulsion to pretend to know things you don't? And, if lasers didn't exist at the time, why would they even bring a laser reflector? I understand that you don't believe they brought anything. But, why would they even pretend to bring a laser reflector if lasers didn't exist?
    2
  4464. "Where are these "literal photos"" You keep changing your tune in different threads. In the other thread, separated by just a few minutes, you acknowledged the photos exist. Now, in this thread, you say they don't exist. Also, if you need to ask where to find them, (a) you have proven that you're not even reading replies, because I've spelled it out repeatedly in this thread and others, and (b) you are not in any position to say what does or doesn't exist, because you have demonstrated that you've not even looked at them yet. Why do you keep denying these things exist, while simultaneously asking where to find them? Clearly, if you haven't found them, you wouldn't know whether they exist or not.
    2
  4465.  @michaelstillman1171  No, no, no, emojis would remove all doubt.
    2
  4466. Literacy rates are in the toilet. Don't forget that one.
    2
  4467. Well, maybe you should look at the photo library, huh?
    2
  4468.  @masculistman  YOU SAID: "I would say that he planned correctly." == So, he planned "correctly" to get himself convicted of premeditated double murder? Not a very good plan. YOU SAID: "He was at the mercy of a couple of teens. I would not want to be at the mercy of anyone. Neither did this guy so he did what he did." == Well, I certainly won't cry for the dead teens. They were pigs who robbed that guy (and many others) repeatedly. But, there's a huge difference between being at the mercy of being robbed, vs. committing double murder. Rather than planning their murder, he could have called the cops and had them waiting with him at the house, to bust them the minute they broke in. But, no, instead, he planned to murder them. YOU SAID: "Parents don't want to raise their children right anymore" == Anymore?? You are aware that the violent crime rate has DECREASED in the USA over the past 50-60 years, right? Yeah, I'm with you, some parents need to do far better, especially the parents of these two dead teens. But, again, that doesn't justify murdering them. YOU SAID: "and the school system does nothing to curb these little monsters." == What do you suggest? YOU SAID: "You raised these little demons and now that decent people let you know they don't want your psychopathic children preying upon them you throw a shit fit. Don't blame us if you suck at being a parent." == Again, and how does any of this justify premediated double murder??? 1) They weren't strangers. He knew them, and they had stolen from him before. 2) He placed his car away from the house so they wouldn't know he was home. 3) He unscrewed some of the lights so they wouldn't turn on, even if they flipped the switch. 4) He ran a recording device while he waited in the basement, clearly he knew they were coming. 5) Before either one of the teens arrived at his house, he rehearsed on that recording device what he was going to say to the police after he killed them, including "in the left eye" (he later shot the girl in the left eye). I repeat: hours before the teens even got there, he rehearsed, on tape, what he was going to tell the police about shooting them. 6) He had a tarp ready for the bodies. 7) He gathered up the bodies, and put them in the other room so they wouldn't ruin his carpet. 8) He didn't call the police until the next day. 9) After killing the first thief, he then sat quietly waiting for a long time for the other thief to arrive, then shot her too. 10) Her shirt was found opened, make of that what you will. 11) After shooting the girl in the torso, she was still alive and incapacitated, yet he didn't want her to live (his own words), and wanted to make sure she was dead (his own words), so put two bullets into her left eye (exactly as he had said on the prior recording), and then waited, and then shot another bullet under the chin up into her brain (his own words). 12) While waiting for the criminals to arrive, he was armed with two different guns, one of which was a little bit faulty. 13) After he shot one with the faulty weapon, it wouldn't fire again. So, he literally apologized to the criminal (who was still alive) for not successfully killing right away, and switched guns for the fatal shots while the criminal was on the ground. Yes, this is quite clearly a premeditated double murder. Yes, the two teens were thieves, and if they had gotten shot just for merely breaking into someone's house, yeah, that would be fine. No problem. People have a right to defend themselves from those teens. But, this was well beyond mere home/self defense. This man PLANNED the killings, and it could have been prevented quite easily by calling the police before the teens got there... rather than planning the murders, then committing the murders, then waiting a day before calling the police.
    2
  4469. It was on a channel that doesn't exist any longer. I don't know if we'll ever know who it was. But, just checking here, because you don't make it very clear... you're aware that nobody saw the arrest video until she was already dead 1.5 years, right?
    2
  4470. Any country could receive voice radio by pointing their dishes/Yagi at the moon. But, one step further, the following countries (maybe more) tracked the Apollo missions with radar: USA, Soviet Union, Cuba, Bahamas, Turks & Caicos, Madagascar, Guam, Ascension Island, Canary Islands, Australia, Spain, Bermuda, Antigua, and Mexico. Were they all in on it?
    2
  4471. First of all, there were two callers. Secondly, they were both female. Third, how about blaming the criminal instead of the innocent bystanders?
    2
  4472. In that level of detail? Well, the original mission photography shows a lot of it. But, if you mean a more recent photo, then you're left with just LRO photos, China's orbiter's photos, and India's orbiter's photos. But, none of those have the resolution required to see those small little artifacts he's showing in this video.
    2
  4473. Wiki is "in on it" too, eh?
    2
  4474. "I would them to tell me how they answered radio reception and livestreaming via satellite over 50 years ago" Yes, radio had been around a long time by then, you know. "when we still have these issues down here on Earth today with cell phones" Well, I'll tell you what... you go attach your cell phone to the 600,000 pound Parkes radio telescope dish which is nearly a full acre in size, aim it at a cell phone tower, and then let me know if you have reception issues, ok? Don't sit there and complain that your little fraction-of-an-ounce antenna measuring 1 inch in your cell phone somehow compares to a 209 foot wide radio telescope. This is nothing more than "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." "why would we not use radios over cell phones then? Obviously they are better and have no interference" Cell phones ARE radios, dewdrop. Good grief. Are you PROUD to know absolutely nothing? You know, maybe if you took some time to actually understand the technology before blindly rejecting it, perhaps you might have a shred of credibility. But, you don't. You reject first, then ask questions later. I mean, did you REALLY believe that the thousands of worldwide engineers who designed and built the DSN to communicate with Apollo all forgot to make radios that can work? Do you want to stick a gigantic microwave transmitter at about 10,000 watts next to your head to use for your cell phone? Dewdrop, you do know that radio telescopes only work in the direction they're pointed, right? Kind of tough to make a cell phone work like that, huh? You are so very proud to know absolutely nothing.
    2
  4475. Who said anything about the first steps being recorded "from a distance"? The video of the first steps on the moon was taken from a camera on the side of the lander itself, facing the ladder. I'm guessing some people have shown video from later missions of the 2nd or 3rd EVAs with a camera on a tripod, and you thought they were "the first steps."
    2
  4476. Dummy, those kinds of tracks are all over the moon. They have been photographed by the USA, Soviets, China, India, and Japan. I confess I didn't understand that you meant that you see the tracks, but, your point was that they shouldn't be steady tracks, but you think they should have been "broken" tracks. I originally thought you meant that there weren't any tracks at all, failing to realize that your keyword was "intermittent." But, this is absurd anyway, because if you go take a look at the thousands of photographs of the lunar surface, you'll find that some of these tracks ARE "broken/intermittent" and some are solid. Some rocks must have rolled slowly, others rolled quickly. Good gods, you conspiratards are ridiculous.
    2
  4477. Huh? Have you tried, oh, I dunno, the Apollo archive?
    2
  4478. "The reflectors are all good and well, but you don't need a human to put a reflector down." Oh? Please explain these 3 secret missions to the moon. Where'd they get 3 more moon rockets? Who built them without knowing they built them? It took about 3,000 people to get a moon rocket off the ground, and they could be seen and heard for hundreds of miles. They stood on the launch pad for about a month being prepared, and anybody in the public could see them from a long distance. But, you think somehow "they" managed to launch 3 secret launches without anybody noticing, and thousands of people somehow "forgot" that they built and launched 3 more moon rockets than recorded history indicates?
    2
  4479. A) Contrary to the picture being painted by Inside Edition, this video had nothing whatsoever to do with her suicide. B) Multiple people called the police during this incident. One of the crowd that saw her took video of the incident. They showed that video to the police. It is described in the police report as a very loud and very public display in view of multiple people including children. This definitely differs from the version being offered by a woman attempting to avoid getting arrested. But, I'd wonder why you'd just blindly believe her? Because she said so? "I didn't do it" is a common claim of people being arrested. Why do you believe her, vs. believing a million other people who get caught? C) A bathroom window is different than a public beach.
    2
  4480. Yeah? Which ones? The guy living in a trailer with 30 cats? Or, the guy living in a shack with the leaf blower?
    2
  4481. So, like all hoax nuts, you didn't wait to get the answer to your question before coming to your conclusion. You obviously never checked for yourself about any of this. You watched a conspiracy video that told you the rover didn't fit. And, you just swallowed it without even verifying if that's true... as if the thousands of engineers at Grumman, GM, and Boeing all simultaneously forgot to include a way to carry the rover to the moon. Right. Sure. Meanwhile, as you're swallowing everything you're told without checking, you accuse the SANE people of doing exactly what you're doing.
    2
  4482. Can you name some of the photos? Catalog numbers?
    2
  4483. Huh? Who told you that we can't figure it out? Why would you believe such nonsense?
    2
  4484.  @jasonsanchez3441  Sorry, dewdrop. Out of context quote mines don't count.
    2
  4485. So, you've been asked what specifically you think anybody is trying to figure out about going back to the moon. You refuse to answer. You claim Don Pettit said we can't figure it out, which is a total lie, because he never said anything like that. And, every time you're asked to provide your source information, you brush it off with "look it up." Oh, you're a real genius alright. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Dewdrop, why do you suppose that there aren't any aerospace engineers or physicists who think we're still trying to "figure out how to do it"? Why is it always people with the literacy level of a 2nd grader who make these claims you're making?
    2
  4486.  @Jay-hr3rh  "In the 1950s, our cell phones would have been as big as a house with a giant ice pack to keep it cool and running." Yet, normal sized car phones had existed since the early 1940s. Right, you sure know what you're talking about. What's your point anyway? You're just going to sit there in disbelief with absolutely no basis in reality? You think that none of the thousands of engineers realized that they couldn't make a radio work? Oh, but YOU know it, right? YOU know that all of the engineers simply had no idea what they were engineering, right?
    2
  4487. Yeah, when you see men at the playground doing the same thing in front of the kids, mind your own business, right?
    2
  4488. So, you think we should NOT go to the police when we see crimes? And, you'd go up to someone in the middle of cranking and have a conversation? Stop pretending.
    2
  4489. So, you know absolutely nothing about the program, but, you feel confident in bashing it?
    2
  4490. Sorry, I don't play the Gish Gallop game.
    2
  4491. You are correct. Cops don't have a free pass to do any horrible things. Shame on you for even implying the cop did anything wrong, though. Why would you think this is the cop's fault? What gave you that impression? You find it unlikely that a 13 year old driving an illegal dirt bike crashed all on his own while fleeing the police? The more likely event, in your mind, is that the cop murdered the kid?
    2
  4492.  @frankrizzo5710  What don't you understand? Do you need an English lesson?
    2
  4493.  @frankrizzo5710  So, "I didn't read what you wrote, but you're wrong about what you wrote (which I didn't read)"?? Could you get any dumber?
    2
  4494. "I know it's not easy. And I have a lot of respect for cops and what they do." Quite to the contrary. You clearly expect cops to be able to make split second decisions as if they happened in the past. And, you clearly do NOT respect the police. Stop pretending. And, sorry, but you're just plain wrong. If you go frame by frame at 0:08, just after the door opens, you can see the criminal pointing the gun straight at the cop's head. It's grainy, and you need to watch the highest resolution copy, but, there are 1 or 2 frames where you can see this. Furthermore, the gun is clearly visible on the ground at multiple points in this video, one of which is 5:02, next to a 2x4 piece of wood. How dare you just brush that away? How'd the gun get there if it wasn't in the guy's hands? If it was safe and secure in a holster, it didn't just magically jump out on its own. He had it drawn. And, this is just plain ridiculous. We've got a guy wearing a balaclava ski mask in the middle of a Kentucky summer, opening a car door, pointing a gun, and the gun is clearly visible on the ground afterward, and his own father and his attorney both also said he was armed... and what are you doing? Bashing the cops. Saying they did it wrong. The cop was about an eighteenth of a second of having a bullet through his own head, and here you are, playing armchair quarterback, claiming he didn't do his job correctly. I can't write what I want. But, it rhymes with duck sue.
    2
  4495. "How about the insane temperatures that would make the camera impossible to operate?" This goes back to the comprehension issue I talked about. The vacuum of space doesn't have a temperature. Items located in space have a temperature. Have you done some calculations indicating that the cameras would heat up all that much? I have. I calculated that it would take roughly 50-100 hours of sun exposure to heat the camera past its operational range. Again, do you really believe that Hasselblad forgot to make a camera that worked?
    2
  4496. "but still delivering on time after these critical voices have left?" Funding. Apollo had virtually unlimited funding from congress. When they fell behind in schedule in one area, they threw more money and people at it to catch back up. This is how things work historically. Like, when Patton took the 3rd Army into Bastogne, and defeated the Germans in the Battle of the Bulge. The 101st was near collapse, and the US invested Patton and his 3rd Army and flipped it around in a matter of days. The US was "behind," then they came out "ahead" after investing an army of people. You think they couldn't do that same thing with rocket problems?
    2
  4497. "They are ignoring the most important doubts and are focussing on tiny details." Pfftt. Everyone has their favorite pet doubts, dewdrop. For you, your favorites are things like temperatures and film. For others, their favorites are other things. It's a 50 minute video. How much do you really expect here? And, frankly, I have a difficult time believing you even watched the 50 minutes, given that you complained about the Van Allen belts (a topic they covered).
    2
  4498. You have refused to address anything I've written, or answer any question I've asked. You repeatedly keep thinking that your one-sentence understanding of the Van Allen belts (taken completely out of context by you) is some sort of "gotcha" about Apollo, despite how many times it's been explained to you. Why on Earth would I want to "debate" you? You are a brick wall. There is no getting through to you.
    2
  4499. A) Apollo was not a lie. B) The greatest lie in American history happened during WWII. The USA had built 3 atomic bombs (1 uranium based, 2 plutonium based). They used the smaller plutonium bomb just for a test at Trinity to make sure it worked. They were so confident that the uranium bomb would work that they never tested it (and really couldn't have tested it anyway, because they didn't have the ability to build another one). The USA dropped the uranium bomb on Hiroshima. Then, the greatest lie in American history was told. They basically told Japan that if they didn't surrender, they'd keep dropping these things on their cities until there was nothing left of Japan. In reality, they only had one more. Japan didn't believe the USA could even make a 2nd one, let alone enough to drop on all of their cities. So, they didn't surrender. So, the USA dropped their only remaining atomic bomb on Nagasaki, and again threatened to keep on dropping these things until there was nothing left of Japan. Japan surrendered. It was the greatest bluff/lie in USA's history. It took almost another year before the USA built and exploded another atomic bomb.
    2
  4500. "multiple lunar landers in photos" Where? In the assembly plant? There has never been a single photo that has had more than one lander in frame, except in the rudimentary phases of lander production where they were being built.
    2
  4501. "dew on the flag" And, the dewdrop doesn't know what dew looks like. That's got to be the irony of the day.
    2
  4502. "Armstrong's glove detached in photos" No, you just don't know how the glove flaps are supposed to look.
    2
  4503. "photo crosshairs being edited or covered by lunar landscape" Amazing how that has never happened for any object that is darker in color, and has only ever happened for light objects in frame, huh? Funny how that only happens on bright exposures. No, it couldn't be a simple matter of overexposure causing the film emulsion to bleed a bit, bleaching out the small crosshair. No, it can't be a simple chemical explanation like that. It has to be because someone painted the crosshairs wrong, right? Like, when they painted crosshairs on the blue stripes of the flag, but not the white ones, right? It's not because the white areas of an overexposed image bleached out those crosshair lines, while the blue areas (darker) didn't. Nope, it must be an error by the person painting crosshairs.
    2
  4504. "where'd all the oxygen tanks come from?" I guess the 450,000 people who worked on Apollo forgot that the astronauts need oxygen, and never installed any oxygen tanks, and the world was waiting for YOU to spot the problem, eh?
    2
  4505. "no dust when they landed" Huh? Have you even watched any of the landing videos? Dust is being blown as they approach the lunar surface. "yet when he gets off to walk all dust coming from his boots" As opposed to? Dust wasn't supposed to get stirred up when he walks? "wake up people ." Yeah, start waking up the person in the mirror. He's fast asleep.
    2
  4506. All of the Apollo spacecraft, rockets, training facilities, launch facilities, manufacturing facilities, etc., were retired decades ago.
    2
  4507. If brain surgery removes tumors, why doesn't it cause indoor plumbing to clog? (Translation: What in the world are you even talking about? And, why is it a topic for this video?)
    2
  4508.  @DeputyNordburg  Well, you're partially correct. It's also about the fact that accomplishing something in life is hard to do. It takes decades of education, decades of hard work in a career, etc. And, a vast majority of the moon hoaxers are absolute failures in life. They feel badly about this, of course. But, rather than pouring in the decades of effort, they want a short cut. So, by watching a few hours of conspiracy videos, they get to pretend that THEY are the smart ones. All of the world's aerospace engineers, rocket scientists, physicists, etc., they're the dumb ones. And, those 450,000 people who worked on Apollo, mankind's greatest technological achievement in history... yeah, didn't you know, those 450,000 people actually accomplished nothing... just like the moon hoaxers, right? Rather than putting in the decades of effort that it takes to accomplish something in life, the conspiracy nutbags actually just seek to drag the rest of the world down to their level.
    2
  4509. No. It didn't go viral until 1.5 years after she was already dead.
    2
  4510. Huh? One source? There are peer reviewed science journals all around the world about this stuff. And, you are sitting there talking about completely unrelated topics in your second posted message from your first. Good grief. Did you try maybe attending some physics classes at a university? Sheeesssshhh. It sounds like you struggle with basic Newtonian mechanics at this point, and yet you're trying to somehow interrelate it with completely different topics. Did you expect to get answers on YouTube comments that you cannot find in actual peer reviewed physics journals?
    2
  4511. Really? Those two sentences are what you got from this? The failure to ID, the obstruction, the obfuscation, the resisting arrest, those meant nothing to you?
    2
  4512. That's a lot of sentences that mean absolutely nothing. Yes, we can judge people without walking in their shoes. I know darned well that if I was in that woman's shoes, I wouldn't flip out over being asked for a receipt. I know darned well that people make simple mistakes sometimes, and I thank them for being diligent in trying to catch thieves. I'd simply tell the cop, "thanks for checking to try to stop theft, but, the store identified me incorrectly, and here's my receipt." And, I know darned well that, if I chose the "crusade" instead, and didn't show my receipt, I'd follow the laws correctly, and submit my ID (as legally required), and I'd passively cooperate. Can you even listen to yourself??? "Cooperate with tyrants"??? For what? What makes them "tyrants" in your mind? Just because the store employee made a minor mistake and thought maybe this woman stole something, and asked the cop to investigate? That's "tyranny" in your mind? Shhheeeessssshhh. Grow up.
    2
  4513. How tiny and insignificant must your life be, if you think that requesting a receipt is tyranny?
    2
  4514.  @geoffreyjones3832  So, why won't you answer a single question or challenge? With all of the genocides in the world, how can you sit there, with your extremely tiny little life, and claim that "can I see your receipt" for a petty potential crime is "tyranny"?
    2
  4515. So, the Gish Gallop? You refuse to address your own original topics, and instead, just spew out new topics you don't understand (in terribly broken English)? Are you going to admit you were wrong about the lunar surface temperature, or not? One thing at a time. Stop changing the topic.
    2
  4516. Oh, and you want to complain about having successful flights, huh? Well, the Wright brothers' planes had hundreds of successful flights before their first crash. Does this mean that the Wright Flyer was too good to be true?
    2
  4517. LRO in 2009, China's Chang'e in 2021, India's Chandrayaan in 2021 also... ring a bell? They have taken hundreds of photos of the landing sites, and you can see landers, rover tracks, foot paths, etc. But, no, the images are not good enough to see those little small items in this video.
    2
  4518. Huh? What did he do worth firing over? I don't get it.
    2
  4519. Dewdrop, had you actually looked at the photo archive for yourself, you'd find that some landing pads had dust, and some didn't. Beyond that, as I said, you are too far beyond the scope of my ability to help you. You are too far gone.
    2
  4520. Do you even know when that press conference took place, dewdrop?
    2
  4521. Yes, some companies do that. They also pay the women more money (because other companies are desperate to meet their quotas also, and will just outbid each other). What does hat have to do with Apollo?
    2
  4522. So, let me make sure I understand you correctly. There were enough witnesses such that they called the police, and one of the "audience" even recorded the incident. The police saw the video and described it in their police report. But, you reject it. Why? Because you trust the words of a woman who was trying to avoid getting arrested again? She had a legal/arrest/prison record a mile long. She did some time in prison for stealing cars. She had multiple judgements against her for theft. She has arrests for drugs and alcohol. She has "failure to appear" charges so numerous that she tried changing her name in order to evade the police serving her again. But, she's the one you're sticking with, and not the police and witnesses? Really?
    2
  4523.  @purplehz97  Yeah, sounds nice and all, but thus far, NOBODY is saying the cop car hit the bike. Dozens of cars and pedestrians were around. Thus far, no witness testimony has said there was any contact between the cop car and bike.
    2
  4524. So, basically, in order for you to believe it, the rest of the world should spend billions to send you to the moon? Yeah, right, sure.
    2
  4525. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    2
  4526. Multiple people called the police. Why shouldn't they? A crime was happening. That's what you're supposed to do.
    2
  4527. Yes, one of the "audience" captured it on video and showed it to the police.
    2
  4528. No.
    2
  4529.  @America-First2024  Bodycam, yes, its subject to FOIA. 3rd party videos, no.
    2
  4530.  @America-First2024  Is pretending to know things you don't know just a regular hobby for you? The police don't have the video, dewdrop. They described it in their police report. The 3rd party witness has the video. Go ahead, try to FOIA her (the 3rd party).
    2
  4531.  @America-First2024  Thanks for confirming exactly what I said.
    2
  4532. "more would have happened with the settlement on the moon and Mars" This is outlandish. It took 4.5% of the entire federal budget to manage to get 13 Saturn V launches, and to put a dozen people on the moon for a few hours each. The largest payload was a 400 pound rover and 100 pounds of various experiments. Now, you want a permanent settlement? How many millions of pounds of payload would that take, how many thousands of launches, and what percentage of the federal budget?
    2
  4533. "We only hear vague plans for 80 years." What in the world are you talking about? What "vague plans" were there in 1945, 80 years ago? Good grief.
    2
  4534. "Grissom realized that it was all fake." Oh? So, how does this go, in your mind? He was going to "reveal to the world" that there were problems with the command module? So, in order to prevent that from happening, they rigged up problems with the command module, then blamed the command module for his demise, so that nobody would know that there were problems with the command module? Huh?
    2
  4535. Just checking here... you do know that her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club, right?
    2
  4536.  @critthought2866  Who can really tell with people like this: but, I believe he is an atomic bomb denier. I think his point is that the USA lied about developing atomic bombs, therefore they lied about Apollo. It's difficult to drop myself down to that level of ridiculous "thinking" (not thinking), but, that's my guess about what he's trying to say. Perhaps there'd be a shot that he could write this himself, if he'd kick his substance abuse habit. But, c'est la vie.
    2
  4537. Yes, about 50 years ago.
    2
  4538. First of all, multiple people called this incident in. One woman video recorded it with her cell phone, and showed the video to the police. They described it in their report, stating that it was quite a loud display, in view of multiple people. This is a far cry different than the claims she's making about it being a discreet thing with nobody around. Secondly, the arrest video wasn't even made public until 2.5 years later, which was also 1.5 years after she died. I'm sorry you're buying into false media hype, but, look it up. This arrest video had absolutely nothing to do with her suicide.
    2
  4539. Several aircraft manufacturers allegedly made planes that could fly for thousands of miles. But, the Boeing 737MAX program had two crashes. There's no way they made planes that could fly thousands of miles.
    2
  4540. Because there was no car on this mission.
    2
  4541. Once again, dewdrop, conspiracy videos aren't evidence of anything, except your gullibility.
    2
  4542. Inside Edition told you so, therefore you believe every word.
    2
  4543.  @DemonDrummer  Just flag for hate speech. It actually works if enough people do it, and they eventually ban these people.
    2
  4544.  @gives_bad_advice  Yes, he has been told this by me and others. He keeps copying and pasting that same comment across numerous videos. He doesn't appear that he reads the answers.
    2
  4545. Are you having a stroke, Frank? Should you call 911?
    2
  4546. Well, she wouldn't legally have to show her receipt, even if the store people DID look through the security cameras and had iron clad evidence that she stole. There's no legal requirement that someone must provide a receipt (except at stores that make you sign a membership contract that says you do). However, providing a receipt does make life a lot easier, and there's no harm in a police officer or store to ask for it. However, if you go watch the full version of this video, and not this one that starts in the middle and ends earlier and is all chopped up, you'll find that the officer asked this woman a million times for her ID, or to even give her name. She refused. That is an arrestable offense right there, with or without the theft charge. Most states are "stop and identify" states (Florida included). So, she did this to herself by refusing to ID, obstructing and obfuscating, and then resisted arrest. The cop tried to explain that the original theft charge was irrelevant at that point, because of the other charges that she was adding to the pile. She didn't listen.
    2
  4547. I'll just pick a few points to reply about: "A semi can only carry a quarter of the load of a diesel track? Based on what fact" Well, we don't really know, because Musk refuses to tell anybody how much the Semi weighs. Every other truck manufacturer on the planet publishes the weight, because it's one of the most important factors for a buyer to know. 80,000 pounds, minus the weight of the truck, equals how much cargo you can carry. The more the truck weighs, the less cargo you can carry. And, batteries are ridiculously heavy. A lithium ion battery carries only 1/100th of the energy as gasoline does (literally). It takes 100 pounds of lithium ion batteries to produce the same amount of energy as 1 pound of gas/diesel. You might not care if batteries are half the weight of your entire car, hauling 4 people around town. But, when you get into hauling cargo, and approaching the maximum road weight, yeah, it's pretty important to know the weight. And, as long as Musk refuses to reveal it, everyone is forced to just keep estimating (i.e. this video). "now the part where there exist semis but the companies that preordered get none… dude what’s your point?" The point is that the companies that ordered trucks in 2017 (paying the deposit money) were expecting them in 2019. Years and years go by. And, they expect their trucks in 2022, and then are told they need to keep waiting. "not every decision he made is cool or right (in my opinion) but he has done many things correct." Well, depends on what you mean by "correct." If lying to investors makes him money, ok, then that's "correct"?
    2
  4548.  @stephanweinberger  Wow. A typical gas/diesel engine is around 35% efficient. Yet, you degrade it to 20-30%. And, you think electric engines are 3-4x more efficient? So, just taking your best numbers (30% x 4 = 120% efficiency). And, you're happy you made this posting? Tell me, why do you suppose Musk won't reveal the weight, if it's so close (as you assume)?
    2
  4549.  @stephanweinberger  Hilarious!! You just make stuff up as you go along, eh? So, if someone rates the efficiency of a gas engine on a stand, it's only in the lab. But, if they rate it for an electric drivetrain, it's "real world"? Oh, you're not biased at all. Right. Like electric cars don't have overhead to deal with, like air conditioners, lights, etc., which drive that "real world" efficiency down also, huh? Good gods. Sorry, I can't deal with people who live on another planet.
    2
  4550.  @stephanweinberger  Alright, you have proven me wrong about the efficiency. I would still argue that the efficiency comes at the price of the fact that lithium ion batteries weigh 100x more than gas/diesel for each unit energy, which has a definite effect on the total weight of the truck, and how much cargo it can/can't carry. But, when I am wrong about something (like in this case), I don't feel as though my points carry the same value. You win. My apologies.
    2
  4551.  @seaturtledog  Yet, they took many direct pictures of the sun.
    2
  4552. "You can see the wires" The communications antennae weren't "wires."
    2
  4553. "all we have is fake moon rocks" The entire planet's experts disagree with you. Those rocks have been examined by thousands of geologists and geology students from all around the world, and not one single paper written by any single one of them has ever claimed they weren't real.
    2
  4554. "Great footage on the jeep filmed at twice the speed" No, you have it backward. It was filmed at half speed (12 FPS), or even quarter speed (6 FPS), and then popular documentaries have played it back at full speed (24 FPS). You can listen to any of the original mission audio, and the astronauts tell you ahead of time what speed they set on the film camera. At 24 FPS, it would consume the film in a couple of minutes. So, to get more time out of the film, they almost always recorded slow, and played it back sped up. There are plenty of videos on YouTube where you can find the speed-corrected versions.
    2
  4555. "How about people just use their eyes" Well, you're using yours, and you're coming to all of the wrong conclusions. This is because you have absolutely no understanding of the topic, and you have decided, in advance, what you want to believe, and you're force-fitting the information to your predetermined conclusions.
    2
  4556. "Wake up" Oh, so the entire planet's 77 space agencies, not a single one of which rejects Apollo... they're the "asleep" ones. Meanwhile, the guy on the internet who doesn't know the difference between a communication antenna and a "wire" is the expert, eh?
    2
  4557. "Funny how there are no star on the moon?" Had there been stars in the photos that you're asking for, that would have meant the photos are fake. You cannot expose stars in the same photo as a brightly lit lunar surface. Film doesn't work that way. It usually takes about a 30 second exposure to get stars to show up on film. That would render the entire rest of the film into a big white blob. But, yes, they took 125 star photos from the lunar surface with the specialized Carruthers UV camera. And, they took countless more from lunar orbit.
    2
  4558. "there is a slight breeze to wave the flag" Yup. At last, you have said something correct. Most of the time, you people complain about the flag moving, it's while the astronauts are handling it. Flags move EASIER in a vacuum when being handled. But, yes, there are times when there's a slight "breeze" blowing the flags without an astronaut handling them. This is because the backpacks and lunar module were not closed systems. They sometimes had to off-gas. There were overpressure valves, porous plate sublimators, etc., which opened and closed periodically, releasing spent gasses, which slightly caused the flags to move.
    2
  4559. "Funny how the moon Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin is fake" No. The family of a dead politician gave a fake moon rock to an art museum, undoubtedly getting a massive tax break from it. The museum accepted it without verifying it. They did call NASA, who told them they had no record of such rock, but could take a look if they sent it. They never sent it. Instead, they accepted it, and stuck it in a drawer for around 15 years. Armstrong and Aldrin never gave that rock. Those samples weren't even ready in time. And, the Dutch science museum still proudly shows the real samples. Would they do that, if they were "duped" by a fake? How about the rest of the hundreds of samples given out? Why didn't any other country ever discover theirs were fake? What you have is an art museum that foolishly accepted a donation of a fake rock. If the same museum accepted a fake Rolex watch, would that mean Rolex watches don't exist?
    2
  4560. "they had high speed lenses and high speed film allegedly." Nope. They had no high speed film on the lunar surface. And, even if they did, the absolute fastest film would take about 5 seconds to see stars. The shudder speed was 1/250th of a second. No stars will show up in that condition.
    2
  4561. "not a single frame of any stars, the whole time from any mission.? " Wrong. As I said, they have 125 star photos taken from the lunar surface using the Carruthers UV telescopic camera. And, there are bunches of star photos from lunar orbit. The fact that you don't know these things is very telling that you're not studying Apollo at all. You blindly listen to gibberish spewed by people who know the same amount that you do (zero).
    2
  4562. "where able to get there film past the extreme high radiation" Do you even know the type/quantity of radiation? Good grief. They encased the film in aluminum canisters lined with silver. The type of radiation you're talking about wasn't electromagnetic, it was ionic. How much do you think ionic radiation affects film in the first place?
    2
  4563. "Logic will tell you why they did not land on the moon" Why is it that you nuts never actually want to look at the evidence? Why is it always a "logic" argument, or a "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake" argument? When will ONE of you people EVER just look at the EVIDENCE? Why is that not important to you? "because who will live telecast something that you have not done before ?" The people who were mandated by congress to do exactly that, else the program wouldn't be funded. The press was to have full access to everything that happened during Apollo, including the live-feeds, else Apollo wasn't going to get a single dime. You're thinking of the Soviet program, in which everything was secretive until they'd release the information afterward. "What if anything terrible happens and the whole world including your enemy will see your failure ." Um, yeah. Like Apollo 1, which killed 3 astronauts in their capsule? Like Apollo 13, which exploded half way to the moon? Like the plane crash of astronauts Elliot See and Charlie Bassett? You didn't think this through before you posted this question, did you? "Any smart person will rehearse first before airing it live to the world ." How'd that turn out for the Soviets? ""That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." anyone believe this wasn't scripted ?" Of course it was "scripted" (by Armstrong himself). Who ever claimed it wasn't?
    2
  4564.  @TheAgentAaron  Why do you ask questions that (a) are ridiculous, and (b) you don't actually want answered?
    2
  4565. Oh seriously, spare the world this ridiculous hatred you're expressing. There are far more good cops than bad.
    2
  4566.  @franknorthcuttmusic  I think you just invented the screen name of the next big "actress" (in those movies you can't watch until you're 18 or 21 or whatever it is, but cannot be named without getting the comment banned).
    2
  4567. Was it meth? Heroin? What did this to you?
    2
  4568. One correction to what I wrote: yes, they did have omni antennae for Apollo. But, the range was more limited. It was used for backup transmissions. And, generally, they lost the omni signal on the command/service module at about 30,000 miles up. And, they could use the omni on the lander by bouncing the signal through the command/service module. But, anyway, that level of detail isn't relevant to your question, I just hated that I wrote incorrect information, so I wanted to correct it.
    2
  4569. Empathy and kindness? And, you picked THIS woman's story to push that agenda? The woman with the mile long arrest record, the felony prison term for stealing cars, various judgements against her for theft, multiple charges for drugs and alcohol, many repeated failures to appear in court (including for this arrest, and many prior), open arrest warrants, etc. And, according to her landlord, her profession was, well, one of those words that's banned from YouTube comments, but, ya know, involving cash transactions with lots of men. And, this is your shining beacon of empathy and kindness?
    2
  4570. So, when nobody sailed around the world for 50+ years after Magellan, did that prove that nobody sailed around the world? When nobody has flown a mach-7 airplane since the 1950s and 1960s era X15, did that prove that the X15 didn't exist? When nobody dove the deepest ocean depth since the 1960s for 50+ years, did that mean nobody ever dove that deep? Dewdrop, why should the veracity of Apollo be based upon what future (from their perspective) generations do or don't do?
    2
  4571.  @redbaron474  Huh? You think there are any telescopes on Earth capable of seeing the Apollo remnants on the moon? What?
    2
  4572. The modern 737Max airplane crashed twice, therefore planes didn't fly until now.
    2
  4573. First of all, you get a ticket for an infraction. Speeding. Fishing without a license. Etc. For a crime, you get arrested. Secondly, why do you believe she thought she was alone? Because she said so as she was attempting to avoid her millionth arrest?
    2
  4574. Well, maybe she could get the help if she bothered to show up at court for this arrest. An incident like this, even though she was a convicted felon who served time in prison, would be minor enough to be negotiated down to a minor infraction, with some community service and counseling ordered by the court. But, she didn't show up (as seemed to be pretty common for her, given the number of open warrants for failures to appear).
    2
  4575. Huh? Then explain why her own three attorneys never claimed it was an unlawful arrest, can you? They never even sued the police. They sued the store only (for asking the police to investigate). And, they never even claimed the arrest was unlawful. (The store won the lawsuit, by the way... she got $0.00.)
    2
  4576. C'mon, get real, wolfdaddy. If there was a telescope capable of that, don't you think someone would have done it by now?
    2
  4577. Well, besides the fact that you're asserting pure gibberish... what ARE you waiting for? It sounds like your assertions are perfect articles for the science journals. Go right ahead, calculate it. Write it up. Submit it to cosmology and radiobiology journals. I mean, don't be very surprised if they laugh you out the door immediately. But, hey, the scientific method awaits you.
    2
  4578. They took hundreds of photos of the stars during Apollo. But, if you expect to see them in the same frame as a properly exposed daytime lunar surface, you know nothing about photography. It takes very long exposure times to capture stars on film, whether on Earth, or the moon. You clearly never tried it yourself, otherwise you'd never make this statement. As for Aldrin saying that it was all fake, good grief, what's wrong with you? Had that really happened, there would be congressional hearings, thousands of people would be arrested (including Aldrin, and countless other from the Apollo program still alive), it would be front page news across the world. But, you hoax nuts don't understand any of that. Instead, you intentionally take words out of context, and pretend it's a "confession." Let me guess, you were bamboozled by the fact that Aldrin said the live landings seen on TV were animations. Am I right? And, you never watched any of those live broadcasts to understand what he meant by it, right? Instead, you just concluded it was a confession, right?
    2
  4579. "camera turns to the right at an angle of approximately 15 degrees" Yes, amazing, a camera with an articulated mount and servo motors to turn the camera. Every big department store in the 1960s had security cameras that did the exact same thing.
    2
  4580. "there were 3 astronauts at the same time on the surface of the moon?" Really? That's your only explanation? You think it requires a 3rd astronaut to make a motorized camera move? And, you're the first to notice this "issue" in over 50 years? It couldn't be remotely controlled?
    2
  4581. In the entirety of the Apollo program, which ran from 1961 through 1972 for moon missions, and through 1975 for Apollo applications, they managed to launch 13 Saturn V rockets. Yes, development was part of that timeframe, but, still, that's 15 years, 13 rockets capable of reaching the moon. Just rounding to 1 per year for math convenience, you are claiming you want 8765x more launches now than during Apollo? Who's going to pay for it? You?
    2
  4582. What don't you understand? How many times must it be explained to you? Links are not allowed. Why can't you find it with the catalog numbers I provided? Why don't you try posting a link to something other than Google/YouTube, and seeing what happens. Good grief. You just refuse to learn anything.
    2
  4583. Yes, not only did the Soviets send the unmanned lunar probe Luna 15 to the moon a couple of days before Apollo 11 (with the intent of landing while the astronauts were on the surface, then racing them back home with the first lunar samples), tracking all craft with radar and radio telescopes the entire time... but, yes, the Soviets eventually, years later, sent probes that didn't crash (Luna 15 crashed while Apollo 11 was down on the surface), and brought back lunar samples that matched chemically identically with the samples that Apollo brought back.
    2
  4584. Because congress didn't fund another manned lunar program until Artemis was funded in 2019.
    2
  4585. Moore's Law doesn't apply to space travel, dewdrop.
    2
  4586. Because it would take a lens a quarter mile in diameter to start to be able to see a lunar lander, and that's just barely able to make out what it is. Details would require a lens multiple miles in diameter. Thus far, the largest lens in existence is 5 feet in diameter.
    2
  4587. "blah blah blah" Dewdrop, if you didn't want answers to your questions, why did you ask? What possible reason do you have to even ask a question when you know, in advance, that you're going to reject the answer? Again: PUBLISH YOUR CALCULATIONS IN A SCIENCE JOURNAL FOR PEER REVIEW IF YOU THINK YOU ARE CORRECT!!!!!
    2
  4588. You cannot even put together a coherent sentence. What exactly do you think you understand about the Apollo technology that the 400,000 people that worked on that technology didn't know about it?
    2
  4589. Oh, c'mon now. Can you even believe your own claims? This is just plain silly. The entire world stopped when Lori Loughlin bribed some crooked college administrators to get her daughters into an elite school. It was front page news. There were congressional hearings. Every news feed in the country, as well as many other countries, featured this story. There were dozens of people prosecuted. People served prison time. Etc. Yet, you're going to sit there and claim that Neil Armstrong confessed to Apollo being a fraud, and literally nobody ever lifted a finger to do anything? Really? No congressional hearings? No prosecutions? No international lawsuits for bilking billions out of allied countries who invested into Apollo's success? No front page news? No viral videos? Nothing at all? Or, hmmmm, did you intentionally take a few words out of context just to fuel your ridiculous delusion? Which is more likely? C'mon now, spill it out. Which is more likely? (A) The entirety of the planet did absolutely nothing whatsoever after this "confession" you're claiming happened? Or, (B) This "confession" is a crackpot notion that you decided to believe, but is actually nothing more than a play on words? Which is it?
    2
  4590. Yeah. Blame the victims, not the criminal. When you see a guy cranking at a playground, there's a special place for you if you call the police.
    2
  4591. Do you look up Alex Jones for medical advice? No? Why would you take dishonest input about aerospace engineering from a known charlatan and criminally convicted taxi cab driver? Every single one of his claims falls apart with the slightest bit of scientific scrutiny. I mean, seriously, do you think the entire planet's aerospace engineers don't know about silly conspiracy videos? Why do you suppose none of the experts are convinced by the claptrap in his videos? Like, just for example, when Sibrel sold his "Funny Thing" movie to Fox, who aired it about 20-25 years ago, James Van Allen wrote a letter to Fox basically stating that the video was total garbage, including the claim about the belts with is name on them. Do you think the taxi cab driver knows more about the Van Allen belts than James Van Allen did? As for your claims about Aldrin saying he didn't go to the moon, seriously? Do you ACTUALLY believe he "admitted" any such thing? Or, are you intentionally twisting his words? Look, dewdrop, you need to start by learning English. You can't possibly understand things correctly when your reading and writing skills wouldn't get you past the 2nd grade.
    2
  4592. I guess the 7000 engineers at Grumman who built the lunar modules, and the 20,000 engineers at North American Aviation who built the command and service modules, all simultaneously forgot to put enough oxygen in the craft. And, not a single one of them realized it until YOU came along to regurgitate a ridiculous claim you saw in a conspiracy video that thinks Apollo's life support system = a scuba tank.
    2
  4593. YOU SAID: "Who amongst us believes these black budgets" == Apollo wasn't black budget. You are already wrong, right out of the gate. YOU SAID: "are for travelling to and colonising the moon and Mars??" == What are you talking about? Apollo went to the moon. There has never been a funded program to send anybody to Mars, nor to colonize either the moon, nor Mars. YOU SAID: "People on this video are saying we could begin again if people could just show the will but what if the exploration never actually stopped anbd we have a base on the darkside of the moon." == Pfffttt. How would that work? Do you think you can continue to send up moon rockets without anybody noticing? Those Saturn V launches were visible and audible for hundreds of miles. It took thousands upon thousands of people to accomplish a launch. Do you think they've been sneaking off secret launches that nobody talks about, and somehow, nobody in the public has ever seen? YOU SAID: "How many pictures of the darkside of the moon are out there for us to see??" == Thousands. YOU SAID: "Anybody with any links to these darkside of the moon pictures please put them up on here so we can all have a look..." == Arizona State University's LRO, for starters. Google it, follow the links yourself. Apollo also took around 100,000 photos of the moon from lunar orbit, about 1/2 of those are "darkside." But, keep in mind, "darkside" in the literal sense would be the side with no light. But, many people just confuse "darkside" with "far side" (which are not the same thing). But, whatever. You're already a lost cause. I shouldn't waste my time explaining this stuff. YOU SAID: "I've never seen this film before." == Well, it sort of helps if you look for it. YOU SAID: "There are some things on this film of Apollo 17 that make me want to believe we actually were there and just chaose to end the viewing public witnessing it from that day forward but when I see the video of Apollo 11 astronauts sitting in earths orbit when they were supposed to be 180,000 miles out into space then something was definitely off there." == You've been watching a fraudulent Bart Sibrel movie, obviously. Sorry, that crazy notion has been debunked a million times over. Bart Sibrel is a convicted criminal taxi cab driver who produced a few dishonestly edited conspiracy videos about Apollo. The scene you're talking about was an edited fabrication, which Sibrel lies about in that video you watched. There are a hundred different reasons to know that Sibrel is lying. But, first and foremost, if Sibrel's version were true, why aren't the clouds moving past the window at 17,000 mph? Sibrel claims that they're in low Earth orbit, right? He claims that there's a round cutout over the window, to make it seem like they're far from Earth, right? That's how his claim works, right? OK, then explain why the cloud formations are not going by the window at 17,000 mph (which is the speed of low Earth orbit)? Why are the clouds stationary? Can that even happen, if Bart Sibrel's version of that video were true? (Hint: the answer is no, Sibrel's version is not even possible.) YOU SAID: "If they've lied to us all this time then they need to be held accountable." == Are you willing to hold Bart Sibrel accountable if I prove to you that he is the real liar for making that video you're talking about? YOU SAID: "What if that's why Kennedy was murdered?" == Kennedy was murdered because of something that happened 6 years later? What?? How does this even make sense to you? YOU SAID: "What if Kennedy found out what was really going on within the halls of power at NASA and he was going to break the story TO THE PEOPLE?" == Kennedy was shot before the first men even flew on Gemini, let alone Apollo. The first manned Apollo mission wasn't until 1967. Kennedy was shot in 1963. You really need to get your facts straight before you fling criminal accusations around. This is just plain ridiculous. They barely even started building anything for Apollo at the time Kennedy was killed. You're acting as if those two events happened around the same time. YOU SAID: "Look I know it sounds far fetched but anything is possible when u speak of these so called alphabet agencies and their methods for shutting people down." == That's how your mind works? Seriously? YOU SAID: "I have to say that there are some parts of this film that make me believe we could've or I should be fair and say we did go to the moon" == Frankly, you don't know enough about the topic to have ANY opinion. Listening to your thoughts about Apollo is about the same as listening to a 4 year old child talk about the political climate in 7th century China. YOU SAID: "but in the back of my mind I will always have that video/film from that guy who got punched in the face by the loon that is Buzz Aldrin." == The guy who got punched in the face was Bart Sibrel. He went around ambushing astronauts, refusing to leave when asked, trespassing upon various properties to do so, and accusing the astronauts of being criminals who deserve a lifetime in prison. Sibrel had already interviewed Aldrin, and in that interview, he claimed that he acquired the original Apollo 11 video film for that scene you're talking about (which wasn't even on film, it was a TV transmission), claimed that he had it professionally carbon dated (carbon dating doesn't even work on film), and that he has proven that they were in low Earth orbit instead of half way to the moon (which was a product of his own dishonest editing, which can be proven a hundred different ways). The next time I saw Buzz Aldrin after he punched Sibrel, I shook that very hand that did the punching, and I told him that I thought he did the right thing. He told me that, unfortunately, Sibrel wasn't going to stop doing what he is doing, regardless of being punched, and he seemed to maybe regret doing it for that sake alone. But, sorry, when a guy like Sibrel goes around and lies as much as he does, and wrongly accuses people of being criminals, yeah, sometimes a punch to the head is about the only thing that can be done. YOU SAID: "Ok so Buzz didn't like being called a liar but if they lied then they're liars" == Your mind is lost completely if you think Aldrin is the less credible one here. Bart Sibrel lied about the following: 1) He said he got the original 16mm video film negatives from the Apollo 11 mission. Lie. That segment wasn't even on film to begin with. It was a television transmission, no film involved. And, if it had been film (which it wasn't), why would they give it to a convicted criminal taxi cab driver? 2) He claimed that he had this film professionally carbon dated to July 19, 1969, thus proving that they were in low orbit, and not on their way to the moon. Well, that's another lie. No professional involved with carbon dating would EVER put a date on something like that, because the margin of error in carbon dating is +/- 5% or so. If the film could be carbon dated (which it can't), then the closest they'd be able to come would be to maybe within a year, certainly not a specific date. And, again, it is not even possible to carbon date film to determine the date it was used. And, as I said above, the video he talked about wasn't even on film to begin with!!! Everything Bart Sibrel claims in that video is a lie. 3) The actual video has been publicly available since just after the Apollo 11 mission took place, and anybody can get copies. I had my copies since long before Sibrel even made his dishonest video. And, you can prove Sibrel is lying by simply watching the original video. Sibrel has edited out the parts that prove he is wrong. That very same video SHOWS THE WINDOW (no round cutout, like Sibrel claims). And, they even show them moving the camera from one window to another. And, they show plenty of angles that demonstrate that it's not a round cutout, but is the actual Earth from half way to the moon. Of course, all of Sibrel's videos are full of other lies, and he knows it. He makes money from his videos. All he needs to do is give conspiratards what they want, and they eat it up. I could go on for hours upon hours illustrating every one of Sibrel's ridiculous lies. But, I'll bet you really don't care. You're not interested in learning that the real liars are the makers of the conspiracy videos. You LIKE the idea that Apollo was the lie, and not that the conspiracy video makers are the real liars. That's what you WANT to believe. Do you know how I know that?? Because there are a million other ways to tell that Sibrel's videos are a lie, and you've never lifted a finger to figure that out. There are a million debunk videos out there, which make it absolutely impossible to believe anything Sibrel says. You need only watch the original video, and you can see where Sibrel edited out all of the pieces that prove himself wrong. And, like I said, just look at Sibrel's own video. Why aren't the clouds moving at 17,000 across the window? He says they're in low Earth orbit, right? Well, low Earth orbit **IS** 17,000 mph. That's what it is. Any slower, and they fall out of the sky and re-enter the atmosphere. So, why aren't those clouds moving across the window at 17,000 mph in Sibrel's own video? Can you answer?
    2
  4594. So what? Nobody bases their opinions about Apollo on what our government says or doesn't say. It's the evidence that matters.
    2
  4595. Well, with the number of times that this woman has been arrested, yeah, plenty of those times were "real" enough for you, I'm sure.
    2
  4596. Well, let's see, people like you propose your theories that the moon landings were a massive conspiracy. What shall we call you? Conspiracy theorist?
    2
  4597. Were you this way before you were an addict? Or, did the drugs make you into this mess?
    2
  4598. On what basis?
    2
  4599. For each landing, it was the lunar module pilot (it was his window that the camera was located).
    2
  4600. Well, then maybe you'd like to know that there's a different version of the story than the words spoken by a convicted felon while trying to avoid her millionth arrest. Multiple people called the police. A witness said that she had wandered up and down the beach, and it seemed that she intentionally selected a spot in view of people. Another witness caught the event on camera, and showed the video to the police. Read the arrest report. It says the video shows a very loud and public act in view of multiple people including children. I've never met her, but, who knows, her landlord said that she was a stripper at the local club, maybe she was advertising for tonight's show or something? Or, with her mile long arrest record and her felony prison term for stealing cars, maybe she just can't help herself from committing crimes?
    2
  4601. Well, for the rovers, they were encased in wax to keep them cool. In general, they were cooled elsewhere by various thermal control systems. They got hot by using them. But, let's not pretend you actually want the answers to your fake question. You came here to pretend you know things that you don't.
    2
  4602. No, dewdrop. She's not the victim, she's the criminal.
    2
  4603. Your premise is wrong, dewdrop. Nobody can read a newspaper from space.
    2
  4604. There's a chance you could return to normal if you'd lay off of the drugs.
    2
  4605. Oh, because putting on a public show in front of multiple people including children is an aggravated misdemeanor.
    2
  4606. Are you EVER going to kick your drug habit? Are you even trying?
    2
  4607. How do you "cyber bully" someone who is dead already?
    2
  4608. Moon rocks are stolen every year. About 500 out of the 11,000 labeled samples have been stolen. (A sample can be a grain of dust, or a large rock, whatever.) Mainly, this has happened when they put them out on "loan" for geologists to analyze, and they never return them. But, some were stolen simply by breaking in and taking them. ( .... Interesting story about an employee who wanted to have sex on the moon, so he broke in and stole moon rocks... the rest you can just figure out.) Some of the "good will" samples are gone now. Etc. Anyway, yes, sometimes the rocks are recovered. So, without more specifics, sorry, nobody can play your game.
    2
  4609.  @therealzilch  Cows? I thought the burgers were sawdust byproducts, and the milkshakes were powdered plastic?
    2
  4610. And, did you bother graduating 45 years ago? Or, did you drop out, and never bother trying to understand how congress functions, etc.? The Apollo program ran from 1961 to 1975, and at its peak, consumed 4.5% of the entire federal budget in hard costs, and 2% more in soft costs and support from other countries. How long would it need to run for you to believe it? And, do you think that level of spending is sustainable?
    2
  4611. "400k people worked on putting a man on the moon?" It was actually more like 450,000. But, 400,000 from the United States, and about 50,000 internationally. "That fine and that work needed to be done BUT ONLY about 15 would have to know it was faked" Pffttt. Well, first of all, 24 astronauts went to the moon. So, right out of the gate, you're demonstrating that you don't know anything. Then you have the backup crews, so that adds a few more that would need to be in on it. And, of course, we have the thousands of people around the world who were involved with the communications and tracking. And, you have the enemy countries that also listened in on the communications, and also tracked the craft with radar. And, I could go on for hours upon hours about why your notion about 15 people is ridiculous, and, it would need to perpetuate for generations. But, just for a moment, if we pretend you're correct (you're not, but, let's pretend you are), ok, if a vast majority of the engineers and technicians built the stuff to go to the moon, and, as far as they're concerned, they built stuff capable of doing it... why not just go? What do you think these 15 people knew that the other 400,000 didn't? I mean, the thousands of engineers certainly believed that they built rockets capable of going to the moon. So, why not just go to the moon? "and with the punishment of jail" Pffttt. And, where would you find a jury of 12 to convict anybody of revealing the largest criminal fraud in human history? "and all the confidentiality agreeements signed" First of all, Apollo was the OPPOSITE. Congress mandated that Apollo would have no copyrights, no trademarks, no patents, no intellectual property rights of any type, no confidentiality agreements, nothing. If the public was going to fund the largest individual program in human history (short of programs like Medicare or Social Security, or the military in general), then the congress mandated that the public gets the fruits of that labor. No confidentiality was allowed. So, you don't know what you're talking about. Secondly, confidentiality agreements are automatically nullified if you're reporting criminal behavior. Nobody is required to honor an illegal contract. Not only that, but, there are a million whistleblower clauses in the law anyway (on top of the fact that you can't enforce an illegal contract). "I think a dozen people could keep a secret." Pffttt. I seriously doubt it. But, it doesn't matter. You have no concept of the number of people required. "WHY HAVE WE NOT BEEN BACK ONCE?????" They went to the moon 9 times, landing 6 of those times. No wonder you think only 15 people were involved. You think there's only been one Apollo mission. Good grief.
    2
  4612. Look, dewdrop, I'll skip the back and forth and just tell you that a lunar day is 708 hours (basically a month). Conspiracy videos tell you the high noon temperatures, and the overnight temperatures, and say that the Apollo equipment cannot survive those extremes. They're correct, Apollo couldn't. But, Apollo was never on the surface for those extremes.
    2
  4613. Huh? She was a convicted felon who served time in a Florida prison, and had a million other arrests/crimes/judgements. If she's not a "real criminal," who is?
    2
  4614.  @michaelstillman1171  Is "drug addict" an occupation?
    2
  4615. Let's blame the victim.
    2
  4616.  @matchhunter6055  YOU SAID: " i feel so good knowing the truth" == And, what makes you think you know enough about the topic to know what the truth is? You are painfully ignorant. You wouldn't know the truth if your life depended on it. You simply don't have the foundation to be able to tell the difference. You have CHOSEN to reject the entirety of science because that feels better to you than to actually take the time to learn the sciences you deny. YOU SAID: "and see nasa for what they really are." == Pffttt. Yeah. Sure. Generation after generation after generation, tens of thousands of physics PhDs all go join NASA because they want to contribute to the adventure of space travel... any one of them could get much higher paying jobs in the private sector, but no, they turn it all down because they want to be part of the world's premier space agency... they all get there, and some nefarious power tells them it's all fake, and instead of building actual rockets and satellites and manned craft, etc., they are to all construct means of lying to the entire world, and yeah, they all just go right along with it... sure... yeah... pffftttt. YOU SAID: "But wait...nasa could NOT fake the stars so they left them out😂😂😂😂." == So, your position is that NASA couldn't figure out how to paint stars in the background? You can go get very accurate looking space wallpaper for $8 per roll to put up on your kids' wall/ceiling. But, painting stars into the background was too difficult with the billions upon billions that they had available, huh? NASA managed to somehow "bluff" all of those radio telescopes around the world, in friendly countries and enemy countries, which had those radio telescopes aimed AT THE MOON, receiving signals from Apollo... a feat that couldn't even be duplicated today, because there's no method of faking that... but NASA somehow did it in the 1960s. They also somehow managed to bluff every radar tracking station on the planet, again, from friendly and enemy countries, which tracked Apollo missions to the moon and back... again, a feat which nobody could manage to fake even today. NASA managed to produce 850 pounds of lunar rocks, which were distributed across the world to universities for independent study, which were found to be billions of years old, never exposed to oxygen, and did not have enough moisture content to have ever been on Earth. They managed to fake all of that, and a million other things... oh, but painting stars in the background, yeah, too difficult. Is that how this goes, in your mind? And, wait just a minute, how about Apollo 16's camera, which DID take hundreds of pictures of the stars? Oh, you didn't know about that? You didn't realize that happened? Poor poor poor baby. YOU SAID: "Poor neil had to say he did NOT see any stars. Poor neil😂😂😂" == Well, he didn't see them from the lunar surface (except by using the specialized optics). It was daytime. You don't see stars very well in the daytime. But, he saw them when he used the optics. And, he saw them from lunar orbit on the dark side of the moon. What's your point? Do you think he SHOULD have seen stars in the daytime? Can you see stars in the daytime?
    2
  4617. Knowing air is flag can. Know do you stand under?
    2
  4618. So, you're basically saying that the only things you know about Apollo are whatever was presented to you in conspiracy videos. Bravo. You're a true hero.
    2
  4619. John, you cannot even read and write. You know absolutely nothing about Apollo that a conspiracy video didn't tell you. You believe silly lies they say. And, you're PRETENDING to have an open mind. And, why can't you answer my questions? What's wrong with you? Why would you believe your position is superior, if you can't muster up the courage to actually answer the questions? YOU claimed that the technology wasn't good enough. I asked you to name the technology you're talking about. Why won't you? Afraid?
    2
  4620. Well, you certainly do. But, how is that relevant to anything in this video?
    2
  4621.  @michaelstillman1171  "Have a ball" - why do I love those puns so much?
    2
  4622. Dewdrop, sorry, but if you don't even know that they didn't take that craft home, you're not in a position to make any judgement whatsoever.
    2
  4623. But, this isn't self defense. You clearly know nothing about the case, so, I'll fill you in: 1) These two kids were known by Smith. The boy used to work for Smith. The girl (his cousin) was the daughter in a family that Smith hated, basically his enemies that he had been feuding with for a very long time. 2) Smith went to the police for the first couple of break-ins, but had no idea who was robbing him. 3) Smith then installed cameras, and knew exactly who was robbing him the subsequent times, but never went to the police again. Instead, he planned on murdering them. 4) On this particular day, Smith knew the kids were coming, and prepared his house for the murders. 5) He went outside (on video) about an hour before the kids got there, gathered up two tarps to use as body bags, and brought them inside and placed them right next to where he planned on killing them. 6) He moved his car about a quarter mile away, so the kids wouldn't see it there, and would conclude he wasn't home. 7) He unscrewed the lightbulbs in the house, so, even if the kids flipped the light switch, they wouldn't see very well. 8) He rehearsed on tape what he planned on saying to the police and friends and attorneys about the murders (about an hour before the kids arrived). 9) On that tape, he said he planned on shooting "in the left eye." 10) He then sat in waiting for the kids to get there, watching his cameras. 11) When they arrived, they paced around the house for quite a long time, Smith never called the police or anything during that time, he just continued to wait until they came in. 12) The boy broke in first. Smith shot him, yelling like a madman while doing it. The boy fell and died quickly. Smith gathered up the body and placed it on the tarp, moved it to the other room, then reset for when the girl would eventually come in. 13) Finally, around 10-15 minutes later, the girl eventually came in, and Smith shot her also. 14) While she was laying in pain on the ground, Smith apologized for not killing her more quickly. He switched guns, walked up to her body, and shot her twice in the left eye from point-blank range, just as he said he planned on doing. 15) He went back again later after that, and placed the gun to her chin, and shot upward into the brain, just to make sure she was completely gone. 16) He kept the bodies for 24 hours before calling the police. 17) Smith said "cute" on his tape, and later she was found with her clothes open and exposed (I'll let you figure that one out yourself). 18) During his confession, he said he didn't plan on letting them live, and took every measure to make sure they were dead (hence the subsequent shots). Now, you're 100% correct in that people are allowed to defend themselves with a firearm if they are under threat from surprise attackers/invaders. And, if people came into my house, and I felt my family was at risk, I'd empty a couple of magazines into them. But, that's not what happened here. Smith wasn't defending himself. He knew they were coming, and decided to execute them, rather than simply calling the police.
    2
  4624. I've come here to accuse thousands of people of being criminals who would get thrown in prison for their entire lives if I was correct. Have a nice day.
    2
  4625. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. It had nothing to do with her suicide, because she was long dead before anybody saw it.
    2
  4626. Swing and a miss. Um, no. The arrest video wasn't released until 2.5 years later. She was already dead for 1.5 years before anybody saw it.
    2
  4627. How desperate are you, if you compare a cop investigating potential shoplifting to Nazi Germany? Godwin's law applies to this video too? Good grief.
    2
  4628. Yeah, sometimes it gets old to see some clips repeated over and over across so many videos. However, you have to remember that not everyone watches all videos. There will always be occasional viewers, or people that see one of his videos for the first time. So, sometimes, it's required to give the fundamental back-story. Like, in every episode of Gilligan's Island, they spend the first few minutes introducing the characters and giving the back-story of these people stranded on an island, in case it's the first time you're watching. Lowballing? Maybe. Maybe not. The problem is that Musk is keeping the numbers a secret, and we shouldn't need to lowball anything in the first place. Tesla is a publicly traded company. The investors have every right to know the cost of the products being made, the profit margins expected, and the viability of those products. By keeping the price secret, this cripples the investors' ability to make educated decisions about investing. By keeping the weight a secret, this cripples the investors' ability to assess whether this is a viable product. Sorry, but, you can have the "let's wait and see" attitude about private companies. But, publicly traded companies must be an open book (within reason). I mean, trade secrets are one thing. That's acceptable. Chevy tries like crazy to keep the latest generations of Corvettes under wraps, until they're ready to reveal them. But, Musk already delivered the first Tesla Semis, and STILL is keeping it a secret (and undoubtedly made Pepsi sign secrecy agreements also). If it turns out that the reason it's a secret is because the truck isn't really a viable product in the first place, and Musk was dumping stock before revealing the weight, yeah, that's downright illegal.
    2
  4629. Um, ok, but Smith prepared those body bags before the teens even got there, and put them next to where he planned on killing them. This is well beyond "self defense" at that point.
    2
  4630. Also, dewdrop, I'm not the one who can't answer a question. That's YOU who refuses to acknowledge anything you're wrong about, and that's YOU who avoids responding to any questions at all.
    2
  4631. Hilarious!! Dewdrop, nobody in the space race was given a Nobel Prize because all of the formulas and physics that it took to go to the moon were known by 1903. The very same rocket equations known in 1903 are still the ones used today, just at a larger scale. In the 1960s, it wasn't a matter of mastering new physics, it was a matter of mastering new engineering.
    2
  4632. Are you really THAT incapable of understanding what a Nobel Prize is for? It's for NEW discoveries and innovations. People don't get a Nobel Prize in chemistry for performing something that has been done for a century. They get it for NEW innovations. People don't get a Nobel Prize in physics for using a rocket formula that's been in use since 1903. They get it for NEW discoveries in physics. So, spare the world your notion that just because a scientific field has existed for a long time, this means that they should hand out Nobel Prizes for engineering tasks.
    2
  4633. Dewdrop, you believe the Saturn V didn't actually have any rockets on it, right? And, you think it was just a helium balloon with some gasses they burned to make it look like a rocket (but had zero thrust), right? Do you actually think a helium balloon was going to get 100 miles downrange in about 3 minutes after launch? Do you think a helium balloon can break the sound barrier (which is visible, because you can see the pressure wave as it does so)? How does the thing get 100 miles away so fast, if it's a helium balloon with no rockets on it? Those rocket engines (that you think are just for show, not producing any thrust) sure made a heck of a lot of noise that could be heard from hundreds of miles away, huh? You think your helium balloon just burning some "show" gasses is going to produce that kind of sound? I mean, I know your knowledge of physics is ZERO, because you cannot even understand concepts like rockets getting lighter as they burn propellant, and you also think it takes a 2 to 1 thrust to weight ratio to lift something, but, c'mon dewdrop, why why you acknowledge or answer simple stuff?
    2
  4634. Oh? And, suppose he turned and shot the cops? Suppose he kept running, and ran into a few innocent bystanders, and took them as hostages with that gun, and shot them? Then what? Are you going to say, "I'm sure glad the cops didn't shoot him when he was wielding the gun, it's good that he survived so he could kill a few people 30 seconds later"? Or, are you going to say, "hey, cops, the guy had a gun, and even picked it up after dropping it, thus showing that he intends to USE IT, you should have shot him before he could cause harm to others!!!"? Which is it?
    2
  4635. Spare the world your silly "logic," seriously. 40 years ago, you'd have been saying, "in the last 10 years, what did they do?" You will always just shift the goalposts around to fit whatever suits you. The veracity of Apollo doesn't depend on what future (from their perspective) generations do or don't do.
    2
  4636. "In the last 50 years what did they do. Have they ever attempted to go there." "whats fake is the landing AT THAT TIME. Nobody denying that they eventually went there." So, your position started as saying that they haven't done anything in the past 50 years, questioning whether they attempted to go? Then, your position shifted to the notion that they didn't go 50 years ago, but, they went sometime since then (i.e. they DID attempt to go there in the last 50 years)? Huh? What in the world scrambled your brains so badly? Was it drugs?
    2
  4637. Answers = 1) Police bodycam. 2) Probably from a legal FOIA request. 3) No, the release of the video had nothing to do with her suicide. The video was kept private for 2.5 years, which was 1.5 years after she killed herself. 4) She was probably laughing because the police watched the video taken by one of the people in the crowd who saw the incident, and the video showed that it was nothing like her description of a private discreet act. The police report says that the video showed a very loud and public display in view of multiple people, including children. 5) You need to stop trusting Inside Edition.
    2
  4638. Of course police are allowed to lie. Why wouldn't they be? It's a very strong tactic to get criminals to confess. The classic example is when they get two murder suspects in custody in two separate interrogation rooms, and they lie by saying, "your friend in the other room already identified you as the murderer." This often gets the criminal to spill the beans to implicate the other guy also. It works a lot better than just watching two criminals sit there and remain silent. The only people who don't want cops to lie are the criminals themselves. But, none of this has anything to do with this video.
    2
  4639. So, as is usual for your ilk, you refuse to read answers to your own comments/questions, you refuse to answer any return questions, and you "declare victory" while knowing absolutely nothing about the topic.
    2
  4640. So, why do you keep doing it?
    2
  4641. "They had duct tape that would withstand the high temperature of the day and the very low temp of the shadow." You have no understanding whatsoever about how temperature operates in space. Don't pretend you do. "How the folded the car inside the moon lander is still a mystery" Huh? There are hundreds of animations, photos, etc. And, all you need to do is watch "lunar rover deployment" and you can see it done live on the moon on Apollo 15, as well as practice runs on Earth. Why is this a "mystery" to you? "And taking 5000+ photographs, while unloading, driving, doing scientific research, installing seismometers and explosives, posing for photos, taking geologic samples by drilling and harvesting, eating and sleeping, sending videos, and giving interviews in just 3 days." Huh? There are about 7,000 photos taken from the lunar surface across the totality of all 6 missions that landed (12 astronauts). That's an average of about 583 per astronaut. You don't think that's possible? Huh? "Amazing that the moon lander stays stable on course, after takeoff after they loaded it with moonstones just a short time after their last walk on the moon, without influencing the center of mass of the lunar module." The RCS had to constantly adjust the trajectory. What ARE you talking about? Have you never watched those takeoff videos, where you see the craft rocking back and forth because it's off-balance? Good gods. Why are you soooooo proud that every single thing you state is wrong?
    2
  4642. Well, that's one way to demonstrate that you've never looked at the photos you're rejecting. Call them perfect.
    2
  4643. Dynamic range.
    2
  4644. It takes a massive cannon to launch a projectile to the top of a skyscraper. Once the projectile is up there, what do you think it takes to lift it over the edge and drop it back down to the ground?
    2
  4645.  @williammurry461  What ARE you talking about? What's next? Listening to music is the key to worldwide peace? How does anything you just said have anything to do with your original claim that they shouldn't have spent money on Apollo? What EXACTLY would you spend the money on instead? And, if so, how EXACTLY would you prevent the cold war from escalating to a real war? How does "if the world would respect and honor all life there would be peace" mean anything at all? It's literally a meaningless statement, because it's soooooo far from reality.
    2
  4646. Congress never funded another program to do so (until they funded Artemis in 2019). See, NASA doesn't choose what to do. Congress does. NASA can't buy a stick of chewing gum without a program approved to do so. And, many presidents and NASA administrators over the years have requested programs for more manned missions to the moon, even manned missions to Mars, but, if congress doesn't approve it (allocate the money), nobody is going anywhere.
    2
  4647. I doubt he'd still punch anybody. He really wasn't all that happy about punching that guy 25 years ago. Quite unlikely to do it again.
    2
  4648. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    2
  4649. "The greatest jet" A rocket isn't a jet, dewdrop. Sorry, but if you don't know the difference between rockets and jets, you're in absolutely no position to have an opinion.
    2
  4650. Here's the solution, dewdrop: publish your calculations in any university-recognized science journal on Earth, showing what you're claiming. Going onto YouTube and making wild claims is what people do when they don't know anything. People who actually know something about the topic would be publishing a scientific paper in recognized journals on radiobiology. Which are you? Someone with no understanding of the topic, who comes to YouTube to pretend? Or, an actual radiobiologist who has studied the topic for decades, and can publish these findings for scientific peer review?
    2
  4651. Welcome to Inside Edition, where facts don't matter.
    2
  4652. She doesn't sound horrible. It's a matter of understanding the facts. Multiple people called the police. The witnesses say that she wandered up and down the beach, and it looked like she deliberately chose a spot in view of others. One witness captured it on video and showed it to the police. The video didn't match her version of a discreet act with nobody around. Quite to the contrary. And, let's face reality here: her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club, right? Is it THAT much of a leap to conclude she might have done it intentionally? But, when faced with her millionth arrest, it seemed she tried to pretend she didn't do what she did?
    2
  4653. What kind of stupid comment is that? Do you REALLY not understand the concept of "resolution"? Um, dummy, you can't see microbes or bacteria on an airplane's wing at 30,000 feet either. There isn't a telescope in existence that can do it. Seeing the lunar modules on the moon is like seeing a bacterium on the wing of a plane overhead. Can't be done, sorry. And, your lack of understanding of "resolution" isn't anybody's fault but your own.
    2
  4654. The astronauts were even more enthusiastic than that. They took hundreds of photos of the Earth.
    2
  4655. So, you came to your conclusions first, and asked questions second. No wonder you believe what you believe. You cannot think straight.
    2
  4656. Another super sleuth with a law degree from YouTube University. Please explain EXACTLY how her character was defamed, can you?
    2
  4657. Dewdrop, nobody at SpaceX agrees with you. So, why do you think they'll "prove" your ridiculous opinions?
    2
  4658. Well, I'm not sure why it says that they aren't sure. I've always heard it was Jack Schmitt who took the photo. But, whatever, maybe that's wrong, but I tend to doubt it. Anyway, nothing from Apollo is copyrighted anyway. It was part of how/why congress approved the program. All materials developed for Apollo, all products of Apollo, all photos/videos, everything, is public domain. (I know you're just kind of joking anyway, but, I figured I'd clarify.)
    2
  4659. Again, are you even reading my replies? It's pretty clear that you're not.
    2
  4660. I don't know. How did they not notice the giant space turtle on which the flat earth rests, as described in the Hindu Siddhāntasundara?
    2
  4661. It's no different than if you go to someone's house, and refuse to take your shoes off at the door, and they ask you to leave, and you refuse to leave. When you don't follow the rules of the house, they can ask you to leave. If you don't leave, they can call the police and have the police remove you. If you resist, they can arrest you for trespassing. Now, after all of that happens, are you going to say you got arrested for wearing shoes?? Or, are you going to face up to the fact that you got arrested for trespassing?
    2
  4662. A telescope, huh? Are you even aware of the size of the lens required to see that level of detail from this distance? What in the world are you talking about? Do you even know? The purpose of this video is to speculate about how this stuff looks after +50 years. Three different lunar orbiters' cameras have photographed the Apollo landing sites. Arizona State University's LRO camera, China's Chang'e-2, and India's Chandrayaan-2. They can see stuff like the landers and rovers, but, not in the level of detail that this video is using. I have no idea what you're talking about, and neither do you.
    2
  4663. There was only one other country in the space race. They quit because they blew up all four of the N1s they ever built, and realized they'd need to start over again, and decided it wasn't worth it, since the race had been lost anyway. As for the rest of your nonsense, stop believing everything you see in conspiracy videos that lie to you.
    2
  4664. HUMAN WA NT NOT DECPTION FRAUD, MOON, LANDING ARGUE. SENT, IT WAS 🥶🥸🙀🤽‍♂👩‍👧‍👧🦕🥨🏺🎪⚡
    2
  4665. Well, as was already said, resolution is actually the bigger problem. You should learn the difference between resolution and distance.
    2
  4666.  @dansv1  Yeah, all good. I have enough "battles" with the nuts. Didn't need to add one of the good guys to the list.
    2
  4667. "From the Earth to the Moon (2019): Moon Landing (Clip) | HBO" at timestamp 16:17.
    2
  4668. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    2
  4669. I made a comment in the above response that alluded to the fact that if he'd stop downloading Stormy's career while on VOIP calls, his delays would decrease, but, apparently, it didn't like it, which might be why I struggled to get the posting to work.
    2
  4670. Do you really not understand the difference between distance and resolution? Why can't you see a bacterium on the wing of an airplane flying at 35,000 feet? It's only 35,000 feet, right? We can see that far, right? So, why can't we get a telescope out and view a microbe stuck to the wing?
    2
  4671. Yeah!! Go buy a Concorde jet ticket and come here to discuss it further. After all, if, 50 years ago, there were passenger supersonic airliners that could carry 100+ people and their luggage at mach 2 for 3000 miles, there must be those same airliners available today, else those airliners never existed.
    2
  4672. Yeah, the irony is that Apollo 11 didn't really do much, when compared to the later missions. Apollo 11 landed in a very flat part of the moon. No mountains or valleys. Sure, there were craters, because there are craters everywhere on the moon. But, basically, for the first landing, they wanted the absolute easiest/safest mission they possibly could do. They didn't even bring a color TV camera for the surface video because they didn't want to rely on needing a high gain antenna, they wanted the most vanilla everything. The astronauts only walked on the surface for only a couple of hours. And, with no rovers until Apollo 15, they didn't walk very far from the lander. And, they only got to go on the surface one time, and then went home. By Apollo 15/16/17, they had the rovers, driving each rover about 20 miles. They stayed for up to 74 hours on the lunar surface, including three surface walks per mission for about 7.5 hours each. They landed in valleys, among the mountains, with spectacular views, and amazing geological features such as old lava flows from billions of years ago, and mountains that were miles high, etc. They had color TV mounted to the rover, so they could send live video back to Earth on every stop they made. By all reasonable measures, the later missions were far more interesting than Apollo 11. But, yeah, you're not alone in having lost interest by then. Most people wouldn't have been able to pick the Apollo 17 astronauts out of a police lineup, but, Apollo 11's Armstrong and Aldrin were household names, and they could barely walk out their front doors without being ambushed by press or fans.
    2
  4673.  @America-First2024  Wrong. One of the "audience" recorded it on video and showed it to the police. She was getting arrested either way.
    2
  4674.  @America-First2024  You don't actually think I'm going to tell you more after your prior ridiculous comment, do you?
    2
  4675. Huh? What media ruined her life? And, what should the police do instead of arrest her?
    2
  4676. Huh? What in the world do you mean? What did they do wrong?
    2
  4677.  @texmex9721  Due to details of the mission profile, Apollo 14 went right smack through the middle of the Van Allen belts, unlike the other missions that skirted around the outer edges. It still made no significant difference. Yes, Apollo 14 got the largest dose of radiation of any of the missions, but, it was still well under the acceptable limits, still far less than 1% of a fatal dose.
    2
  4678. The choice of the black and white camera was a tough one. But, yes, there was a reason. Apollo 11 brought a big high-gain surface antenna (dish) with them. But, it takes a lot of time to assemble it. They only planned on a couple of hours for the moonwalk, and didn't want to waste a bunch of time setting up the dish if they didn't absolutely need it. They'd much rather use the small dish on the lander, because they could align that and get it working before getting out, thus not waste any moonwalk time. But, they were worried that the color picture wouldn't work with the smaller dish. Color takes triple the "bandwidth" (not really bandwidth, because it was analog, not digital, but, triple the signal anyway). So, they decided on black and white so that there'd be more surface time for other things, not needing to set up the big dish unless it was absolutely necessary. Oh, but wait, you weren't interested in the answer. You didn't expect there was one. You wanted there to be no answer, so you could stick with your delusions.
    2
  4679.  @markhbeardsley5102  Japan's didn't have that level of resolution. Maybe you're thinking of LRO?
    2
  4680. "what causes doubt is todays Officials & Engineers...." For most of the nuts, what causes their doubt is their own failures in life. Most of them are functionally illiterate, have dead end jobs, virtually no education to speak of, and generally don't know very much. Eventually in life, they feel badly about their own positions, and look for avenues to explain it away. Conspiracies are a perfect storm of stuff for them to buy into. They get to watch a couple of 1-hour videos made by people who know just as much as they do about the topics (zero), and then believe that they have somehow outsmarted the entire planet's experts, bypassing the decades of education and career experience. They get to feel like they've got "secret knowledge" that the regular people don't have. And, they get to drag the most accomplished people in history down to their own level of accomplishing nothing, by believing that the accomplishments never happened. It's very appealing to the weak minded people. "the Saturn V is the most Powerful Rocket ever" Well, that's certainly been true for a long time. But, a few months ago, the SLS that took Orion to the moon surpassed it with 8.8 million pounds of thrust (the Saturn V "only" had 7.5 million pounds of thrust). And, of course, we have the recent Starship launch aboard a Super Heavy with 16.7 million pounds of thrust. But, of course, I don't really count rockets that explode... especially when they knew in advance that they were going to explode.
    2
  4681. Oh, good grief, is my message (a few paragraphs long) visible? Or, am I being blocked (again) by censors?
    2
  4682.  @critthought2866  He's referring to the lost tapes in Parkes. Yes, there was tape, but, it was located on Earth.
    2
  4683. 1) Emojis aren't an argument. They are the hallmark of ignorance. 2) "Clearly it's fake" means nothing. There are 77 space agencies on Earth (across 77 countries), which employ, either directly on staff, or indirectly as contractors, the bulk of the world's experts, in both friendly and enemy countries. And, to date, not a single one of them has ever made the claim that Apollo was fake. Sorry, but the experts don't agree with you. And, no amount of "common sense" matters, especially when it's clear that you have none. 3) You came to your conclusion first, THEN you asked questions? So, you don't understand why the flags moved sometimes, you don't understand what the real evidence is, yet, you have come to your conclusions already? Why didn't you ask your questions BEFORE you came to your conclusions? That's what "common sense" would dictate, right? Where in "common sense" would it ever claim that it's a good idea to come to conclusions before getting answers to questions, and before even knowing what the evidence is? How is that "common sense"? I'd think that "common sense" would mean that you ask questions first, get the answers, THEN come to conclusions. I'd think that "common sense" would dictate that you should know what the evidence is first also. But, nope, not you. You don't know what the evidence is at all, and you feel like you need to ask for it. And, you believe that, somehow, you know more than the entire planet's experts? That's what your "common sense" tells you?
    2
  4684. There's a thing that's on the rover, something related to footprints and everything else, drawing something, visible from somewhere, with light absorbing something, magnified somehow, contrasting sunlight, and that's what I believe. Therefore, Apollo was fake.
    2
  4685. Yeah, take your kids to a playground, and notice a guy doing the same thing, and tell me that you'll just leave him alone and not do anything.
    2
  4686. Well, yes, it is the same thing. And, while it's true that women don't serve prison terms as often as men, that rule didn't apply to this woman in this video. She did a felony prison term already for stealing cars.
    2
  4687. She left her real estate career (and her family) behind about a decade ago, in favor of living a life of drugs and crime.
    2
  4688. YouTube censorship has gone bananas again. So, I'll try to break up my reply into parts.
    2
  4689. First of all, 2.5x is the correct speed adjustment from 1/6th gravity to 1G, not the 1.5x you're claiming.
    2
  4690. Secondly, sorry, but that's just physics. No matter what planet or moon you're on, there will always bee some sort of multiplier to adjust the gravity/speed. So, this claim of yours isn't really the shocking revelation you're pretending. Yes, the speed relates to gravity, and a multiplier will always exist. So what?
    2
  4691. And, fourthly, you have exposed how little you understand about the topic, and that you're merely regurgitating a claim, rather than truly understanding it, because the 2.5x multiplier doesn't apply to whether something looks like it's in an atmosphere or not. It relates to whether things look like they're in 1 G or 1/6th G or not. Atmosphere has nothing to do with it, thus, it was plain silly to make your statement about it looking like it was in an atmosphere. The 2.5x adjusts for GRAVITY, not atmosphere. You do not understand a single thing you're saying.
    2
  4692. Thirdly, sorry, but you're just plain wrong about the motions always matching reality. When you watch your favorite nonsense videos, sure, yes, they show some very simplistic motions, and, yes, of course, speeding up will result in an exact match with Earth's gravity. But, when you watch the entirety of the actual original videos, sorry, but you get into more complicated motions which look comical and wrong at 2.5x speed. That's because the multiplier works for vertical motion, but there's no such conversion for horizontal motion.
    2
  4693. Fifthly, you mentioned atmosphere, and, yeah, all of the moon videos show EXACTLY what they should for zero atmosphere. This is particularly true when viewing the behavior of dust that gets kicked up, or throwing objects, etc., which, if in an atmosphere, would be affected by the surrounding air. But, for all of the moon videos, these things follow the parabolic trajectories that they should with zero air.
    2
  4694. Yeah, NASA was smart enough to bluff radar tracking by dozens of countries, including enemies, manufactured 850 pounds of rocks that date billions of years old yet have never been exposed to oxygen or moisture, and somehow made radio telescopes around the world receive audio signals that weren't actually there, but, yeah, they all simultaneously forgot that it requires a person to operate a camera. Right.
    2
  4695. YOU SAID: "So who took the pictures of the capsule leaving the Moon they left some one up there? They attached a camera to the buggy you say?" == Yes. There were actually two cameras attached to the rovers. One was a television camera, one was a 16mm film camera. The television camera was in front on the passenger side. The 16mm film camera was directly behind the television camera. Once mounted, they never removed the television camera from the rover. All three rovers still have their television cameras still attached, and have been on the moon for almost 50 years now. The 16mm film cameras could be detached and reattached to the rovers at will, and could just be operated hand-held. And, yes, the took that camera home. YOU SAID: "How did they get the photos from the camera?" == The 16mm film camera "photos" (film video) had to wait until they got home to have the film developed. But, you asked about leaving the moon (liftoff). That camera was now placed inside the module, looking out the LMP window. YOU SAID: "They beamed it up to the module" == Now you're switching back to talking about the television camera. They "beamed it" (radio signal) directly to Earth from the rover. Anyway, you seem to be juggling back and forth between the TV camera and the film camera. So, it's difficult to answer your questions, when you don't seem to understand what you're even asking. But, yeah, film camera = film that was developed when they got back home. TV camera = radio, coming from the lunar rover. YOU SAID: "Star Trek stuff." == Pfftt. It's just radio. Not that complicated. YOU SAID: "NASA admits they cannot get a human past the Van Allen radiation. See the vid that's reality." == Good gods, did you even watch the video you linked? What's wrong with you? Forget the [wrong] annotations that the conspiracy crowd added to the video, and pay attention to what Kelly Smith says in the video. He said that the electronics would be vulnerable to the Van Allen belts, and they needed to add shielding, and test the craft in space. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Good grief. First of all, they did the same thing with Apollo 6, you know. They wanted to test it through the Van Allen belts and back, to make sure everything worked, before putting people inside. In the 2014 video you linked, Kelly Smith was explaining that they wanted to do the same basic thing, and test Orion the same way they tested Apollo 6, by sending it up into the Van Allen belts and back, before putting people inside. What is it with you conspiratards that you object to this? You people act as if they shouldn't test new things before putting people inside!!! (????) But, the irony is that if they didn't test, you'd be saying the exact same thing. Option 1) "We want to test Orion in the Van Allen belts before putting people inside." How do you conspiratards reply? "FAKE!!! They already tested it on Apollo, right? Do they want me to believe they need to test it again with a new craft??? FAKE!!!" Option 2) "We don't want to test Orion in the Van Allen belts before putting people inside." How would you reply? "FAKE!!! Orion is a new craft with new modern electronics that are far more sensitive to radiation than the Apollo computers. Do they want me to believe that they don't want to test it before putting people inside??? FAKE!!!" Either way, you were going to scream "FAKE!!!" So, what's your point? Why do you allude to videos that make absolutely no difference whatsoever on the claptrap you believe? Hey, dummy, they tested Orion in the Van Allen belts after that video was made. It passed the test. So, why are you bringing it up now? YOU SAID: "then have a bash at this vid made back in that time period, we haven't been to the Moon landings where made on Earth." == WHAT??? WHAT?!?!?!?!??! Is there something wrong with you?? Good grief. You just posted a link to a little spoof video made by Fabrice Mathieu, who wasn't even born when people went to the moon. Yet, you say it was made "back in that time period"?? WHAT?!?!? Did you even read the credits? Did you bother looking it up? How far down the toilet have you flushed your brain away, in order to believe that video you linked is "real"??? Good grief. I mean, I've seen some stupid things in my time, but, the fact that people like you will cling to such obvious spoofs, thinking they are REAL... man, there's really no hope for you. Given your level of gullibility, and let's face it here, you're obviously not the brightest bulb, here's what you need to do: You need to stop thinking for yourself (something I almost never recommend, because I usually recommend that people learn to think for themselves, but, in your case....). You need to live your life. You need to be as happy as you can be. So, you need to forget about conspiracies that you clearly know nothing about. And, you need to just go out, earn some money, make a living, and try to be happy. And, you need to give all of your money to a trusted family member who thinks straighter than you think. Why? Because, with your intelligence (I use that word very liberally), and your gullibility, I promise you, you are doomed to eventually giving away all of your money to a con-man. It's going to happen sooner or later. People as gullible as you are, are doomed to eventually give it all away. So, someone else needs to manage your money. I say this for your own good. Give your money to someone else for safe keeping, someone very trustworthy, and let all financial decisions be made by that person. You are not equipped to handle it yourself.
    2
  4696. So, on your planet (which is clearly not Earth), you're asking about the possibility that the carjacker wasn't actually trying to carjack anybody, and you're proposing the possibility that he walked up to the car wearing a balaclava ski mask and brandishing a gun for some other reason, and you're saying "what if?" Well, the answer to your ridiculous question is that the results are the same. The cop had every right to shoot the guy who was pointing a gun at him. Even if your "what if" situation was correct, and the carjacker wasn't going to carjack the cop, sorry, but the cop had only a split second to defend himself. And, that's not enough time to conduct an investigation into the carjacker's motives. I mean, this is the exact same logic as if someone does this with a squirt gun. If you wear a balaclava ski mask into a store and point a squirt gun at somebody, sorry, but you're probably going to be shot. You can say all day long that you weren't actually going to rob anybody, and that it was just a practical joke or something. But, yeah, you're going to be shot. The people aren't obligated to ask you first to show them that the gun isn't real, and is just a squirt gun. If they are a half second from possibly being shot at, they have every right to open fire themselves.
    2
  4697. Yeah, I hear ya. It must have been somewhat difficult to be on the moon's surface for 74 hours, yet spend 52 of those hours inside the LEM, and only 22 hours out on the surface. But, that's how the last three lunar missions were set up. I'm not really 100% sure why. I do know that they only had three sets of batteries for the PLSS backpacks (three walks, 7 or 7.5 hours each). But, I'm not really sure what the other limitations were. They probably could have figured a way to squeeze a couple more batteries onboard. The rover batteries were good to go. They actually doubled the rover battery capacity, making it good for about 50 miles (but didn't drive more than about half of that... they gave the rover two batteries in case one went bad, either one capable of going 25 miles). So, it wasn't a rover limitation. They refilled the suits' oxygen from the LEM, so there wasn't really a capacity problem there. They had 24/7 radio signal coverage via the DSN (stations placed around the world, guaranteed to always have a line of sight to the moon from at least one station). So, yeah, why not do more surface time? The suits/PLSS backpacks were only good for 7.5 hours at a time (plus 30 minute reserve). But, unless it took 16 hours to recharge the oxygen and swap batteries, I can't think of a good reason that they couldn't do more than three surface EVAs. I guess I'll have to read up on it. I'm sure there must be a reason that simply escapes me at the moment. It's got to be a better reason than merely waiting for the ground crews to go back "on shift" in mission control the next day.
    2
  4698. Yes, that's been done. Arizona State University has many of the orbital probe (LRO) photos on their site.
    2
  4699. James Van Allen disagreed with you. (As does every radiobiologist and astrophysicist on the planet.) What do you think you understand that the world's experts, including the guy whose name is on those belts, didn't/don't understand? You didn't listen to a 30 second quote from a video made for children, and then think you understand things, did you?
    2
  4700. Go sit in a CT brain scanning machine for a week. Let us all know how that works out for you. Tell us if it would have been better to only be in it for a few minutes.
    2
  4701. In short, it's similar in concept to the "burn-in" effect you get with old TV sets, where you can still see the ghostly picture on the screen after changing the channel or turning it off. We can still see the background behind the astronauts even once the astronauts are in front of it, because the background image is "burned in" to the vidicon.
    2
  4702. Well, multiple people called the police because of this incident. One woman recorded it with her cell phone camera, and showed the video to the police, who wrote about it in their police report. They describe it as a very loud and public display in view of multiple people. I realize that doesn't match the version as spoken by the woman who is trying to avoid getting arrested, claiming it was a discreet incident with nobody around. But, hey, never trust a drug addict, right?
    2
  4703. Do you say the same about the people who reported her for stealing their cars? I'd think that her arrest record for car theft is a lot more shameful than this beach arrest (for which she never suffered much consequence).
    2
  4704. Or, if you wanted the much simpler answer (sorry, I thought you were asking about particular details)... yes, they sometimes went back over their own tracks on the return path.
    2
  4705.  @bailarcoruna9546  Yeah, I didn't realize at first that maybe you didn't know why they ever went back over their own tracks. I though you were asking about a specific traverse, when it would have made no sense to go back over their own tracks. That's when I explained that the footage came from a different traverse, on a different mission. Afterward, I sort of realized maybe you were asking about going back over their own tracks at all.
    2
  4706. Nobody is really "figuring out how to do it" in the context you're talking about. First of all, China/Japan/Europe have no such manned moon programs. So, there's nobody even trying to "figure it out." (Well, maybe China, who knows, they don't really tell us much about what they plan on doing.) But, Japan/Europe are not even trying to send people to the moon. So, nobody is "trying to figure out" anything. As for the USA, the only nation currently with a program to put people on the moon, the only things they're trying to "figure out" are how to accomplish the new mission parameters. The early Apollo missions could only stay on the moon for about 30-40 hours. The later Apollo missions stretched that to about 70-75 hours. Artemis missions are attempting to plan 700 hour stays. I don't know if they'll achieve that, of course. But, the point is, they can't just use the same mission parameters that Apollo used. Also, Artemis wants to land at the poles. Apollo was engineered for equatorial landings (plus or minus about 20 degrees). Yes, there are new things to figure out for that. Anyway, if you're under the impression that we don't know how to go to the moon, you're obviously mistaken. Going to the moon with new mission parameters, and doing it for only $30 billion, is the puzzle that needs to be solved.
    2
  4707.  @edgardovillacorte7012  Yes, but they have a history of announcing plans that turn out not to be true... and other times, not announcing plans, then surprising everyone when they do it. Sure, it seems feasible that they're going to the moon. I don't doubt it. But, I just don't blindly accept it either. I'd wait for things to be a bit more solidified, some test flights of a lunar lander, some manned orbital missions, etc., before I'd bet on anything. I'd say 60/40 in favor of them doing it. I still fail to understand your point. You asked about Japan and Europe also. And, you asked about figuring out problems. What are you asking?
    2
  4708.  @edgardovillacorte7012  Yeah, but, China's space budget is a tiny fraction of today's USA's space budget. And, today's USA's space budget is a tiny fraction of the 1960s space budget (adjusted for inflation).
    2
  4709.  @edgardovillacorte7012  YOU SAID: "Didnt the Soviet Union have a big budget for the space race with the US in the 60s?" == Yes. YOU SAID: "They were the first to put a satellite and a man in space. It was a matter of pride for them to land first on the moon but they failed." == Yes. YOU SAID: "There were so many fatal accidents and their rockets werent good enough that they gave up." == Yes. YOU SAID: "NASA was simply so much more brilliant in pulling off such a complex feat." == No. The real difference boiled down to a single critical mistake made by the Soviets. Both the USA and the Soviets cut a lot of corners about safety. Apollo 1 killed 3 astronauts because the block-1 command module was junk. Bunches of people were killed on the ground working on volatile rocket fuels. Stuff like that. But, still, the USA was a little bit more safety conscious than the Soviets, probably as a direct result of the Apollo 1 fire. The Soviets, however, didn't learn that lesson, and their most critical mistake probably came when they had the rocket engineers go work on a fully fueled malfunctioning rocket, rather than waiting a day or two to drain it. The correct procedure was to drain the rocket (takes a couple of days), then go work on it, then refuel it (takes a couple of days). But, in the space race, the Soviet administrators disregarded that policy, and forced their engineers to go work on a fully fueled rocket, trying to keep to the schedule. It blew up and killed some key personnel in the process. From that point forward, it became far more difficult for them to keep up, because too many of their key people were dead. Anyway, there are a lot of different theories for why they failed. Killing key rocket engineers is just one of them. But, at least in my mind, that was probably the make-or-break moment for them. YOU SAID: "The current technological achievements pale in comparison and it's still a wishful dream for the developed nations." == Yes. The 1960s were definitely the golden age of aviation and space travel. Apollo. X15. SR71. Concorde. We have nothing today that can compare to any of those technologies. But, all of those technologies were amazingly expensive. And, it's all been cast aside in favor of cost/efficiency. Rightfully so, of course. Nobody liked the money burning party of the 1960s. But, yes, when you're at a money burning party, yeah, lots of cool stuff happens.
    2
  4710.  @edgardovillacorte7012  I don't know what China is actually doing. I explained this already. Maybe they are, maybe they're not. It's far too early to tell.
    2
  4711.  @edgardovillacorte7012  YOU SAID: "yeah probably no country may willing to shell out a huge amount to attempt going back to the moon in the future." == China says they're doing it. As I said, I don't know how much I trust that. It may be just a response to Artemis. YOU SAID: "The moon landings 50yrs ago may likely never be repeated and will be ancient history for future generations to read about." == Artemis is funded. YOU SAID: "Meanwhile let's see how NASA's plans of landing men on Mars will pan out." == What plans? YOU SAID: "Btw aside from their rockets' shortcomings, is it true that the Soviet scientists were never able to solve the problem of protecting their cosmonauts from the intense radiation along a certain belt in space enroute to the moon?" == Conspiracy dribble. YOU SAID: "NASA was obviously able to find a solution and this greatly aided their success." == This isn't complicated. Just go fast. It takes weeks in those belts before getting a fatal dose. You definitely sound like your entire education comes from conspiracy videos.
    2
  4712.  @edgardovillacorte7012  YOU SAID: "that's why I was asking first." == Yes, and that's why I answered. But, you don't respond to return questions. I asked why you were talking about Japan and Europe. You didn't reply. I asked what Mars plans you were talking about. You didn't reply. I mean, look, I definitely appreciate when people ask questions and wait for answers. Most people whose only "education" about Apollo comes from conspiracy videos will not ask questions honestly, and will disregard the answers in advance of anybody answering. So, I appreciate that you seem to be doing the correct thing: asking questions and waiting for answers. But, the other thing conspiracy nuts tend to do is refuse to answer return questions, which you are doing. Why did you mention Japan and Europe? Neither of those countries have any manned moon programs. Why did you mention NASA's plans to put people on Mars? What plans? I mean, there's some fluff talk about what to do after Artemis, and they're taking volunteers to simulate theoretical Mars missions. But, congress hasn't funded a single dime to actually put people on Mars. YOU SAID: "Anyway thanks for all the info you have shared." == No problem. Just stop making it a one-way street.
    2
  4713. Well, with her mile long arrest and prison and legal record, I doubt this incident was all that significant.
    2
  4714. "in Hebrew NASHA means "to deceive."" Um, ok, but NASA in Hebrew means "to lift." Who cares? If you take just about any word of just a few letters, it means something else in some other language somewhere. Why does this matter to you?
    2
  4715. "can't spell SATAN without the T. Hence "T-Minus"" Dewdrop, the "T" stands for TIME. You can't spell "Satan" without the "S" either. So, "soaked spider" means Satan.
    2
  4716. Says who? People in conspiracy videos?
    2
  4717. Besides that it's against the law?
    2
  4718. Sorry, dewdrop, I didn't just prove anything for you... you just proved MY point. I said that I didn't believe for a single second that you were even reading replies that answer your request. I asked you to reply with "green" at the top of your reply to prove you even bothered to read what I wrote. You didn't. Therefore, you didn't even read the evidence that you pretended to ask for. Don't pretend you have the high ground here, dewdrop, while you're shutting down any input, and basically creating an imaginary world in which it's not even possible to have evidence. That's all you've done. You've defined, in advance, that all evidence for Apollo is fake. You pretended you wanted 3rd party verification, but, all you've done is shift the goalposts once you got what you asked for.
    2
  4719. Again, dewdrop, you don't get to ignore all input, refuse to read answers to your own questions, and then pretend you have the high ground.
    2
  4720. Every single thing you've written is wrong. But, I'll just pick this one more example: "no dirt on any of the photographed feet of the landers." All you're doing here is proving (yet again) that you don't actually look into anything. Of course there was dust on some of the feet of the landers. You claim you've been rejecting Apollo since the 1970s, yet, in those ~50 years, you never once bothered to look at the photo archive yourself, huh? A conspiracy video said there was no dust on the landing pads, and you just swallowed it, hook line and sinker. AS16-107-17442 - what do you call that? No dust in the landing pad? Or, shift the goalposts again? Not ENOUGH dust? OK, how about AS14-66-9255? Is that enough dust for you? Also, I notice that you've abandoned this idea of asking for 3rd party evidence, and instead, your new tactic is to repeat a bunch of false claims from conspiracy videos. The "no dust in the landing pads" just happens to be one of my favorites, because it quite obviously shows that the people making that claim only got it by watching videos that lie to them. Not a single person who has actually looked at the photo archive themselves would ever say such a thing. Nope. You watched a conspiracy video that told you there was no dust in the landing pads, and you ate it up like Christmas dinner. Sorry, dewdrop, your credibility is ZERO when you so willfully swallow lies like that. And, the real irony is that you think the SANE people are the ones that blindly believe what WE are told. Yet, here you are, Mr. No Dust In The Landing Pads, blindly regurgitating a claim that is so easily proved wrong that it's comical.
    2
  4721. "I have not insulted those who worked on Apollo. In fact, I respect them, and I'm sorry for them... they were duped as well." Is this a joke? "the resolution of the photos is impossible" Oh, yes, you really respect the engineers who produced the cameras that provided that resolution. Apparently, they were unaware that the work they did was impossible. Good thing you came along to tell those engineers, respectfully, that they don't know the capabilities of the things they design and build, and you know better. "In an actual landing with the radars jammed the 1201 1202 errors would have been fatal, period." Yes, you really respect the hundreds of engineers who designed and built the landing computer. Yeah, none of them say those codes would be fatal. The engineers who designed and built those computers, MIT / Draper Labs, and Raytheon, yeah, you really are showing tons of respect. They designed and built the computers that produced those exact codes, but, you know better than they do about what those codes mean. Yes, that's real respect that you have for them alright. They were "duped" into thinking that those codes they built into the machine mean that the computer is discarding lower priority instruction sets. But, you know they're wrong about that, and that it was a fatal error code, not the codes that the engineers said. "it is fairly well known that a suited astronaut can not egress the lander" Yes, the 7000 engineers at Grumman, the hundreds more at Hamilton Standard, and the hundreds more at ILC Dover (the engineers who designed and built the landers, the suits, and the PLSS backpacks) all simultaneously forgot to make the astronaut fit through the door. Yeah, you're paying them tons of "respect" there. They were "duped" into believing the astronauts would fit through the door, right? With respectful "friends" like you, who needs enemies? .
    2
  4722.  @stusue9733  Armstrong never crashed an LLTV. That was the LLRV.
    2
  4723.  @eventcone  Well, I've been known to make other comments about Elon Musk's "greatest talent." Sometimes, I'll say it's to make the government pay for stuff, then taking credit. Other times, I'll say his greatest talent is to convince investors that a company that loses money 54 quarters out of 56 is an investment worth 10x more than General Motors. Other times, I'll say his greatest talent is to dig up old and failed ideas and convince people it's a new idea (mag-lev trains, vacuum tube trains, tunnel digging, space planes, etc.). Musk's good at some stuff, but, a lot of the stuff he spews is pure crackpot. But, to answer your question, it doesn't matter to me if you use my lines or not. Frankly, I'm not even sure of those are my lines. I doubt I'm the first one to coin those things.
    2
  4724.  @Tim22222  Because a conspiracy video told them to say that, and they just regurgitate.
    2
  4725. Going across the Atlantic had/has massive commercial value. Spending $16 billion per person in hard costs, and another $7 billion in soft costs and international support (again, per person, if you adjust into today's dollars), to walk on the moon for a few hours, does not have commercial value. We don't build very many solid gold toilet seats either.
    2
  4726. So, your "evidence" that convinced you that nobody went to the moon is that they only went 9 times, and didn't build hotels there? Mankind has only gone to the deepest ocean depth 22 times since the 1960s (most of which were in the past 5 years). There are no hotels down there. Is this "evidence" that those 22 times were all fake? Why should the veracity of Apollo be based upon YOUR understanding (lack thereof) of what it takes to go to the moon? This isn't like saying that you have an old car, and stuck it in the garage for 55 years and never drove it again. It took thousands of highly trained people to get a moon rocket off the ground, track it, and get it safely back home. But, why do you think your position is evidence of ANYTHING. All you're really saying is "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." You've offered no ACTUAL evidence.
    2
  4727. No, we cannot see the rovers from Earth.
    2
  4728. Um, ok, and that has to do with the Apollo 11 landing site, how?
    2
  4729. Um, what? You do know that the Artemis program has been funded by congress, right? They are building the moon rockets, landers, command modules, etc. The astronauts have been named, and are in training. And, as for Mars, who is scrambling to go there? What program would that be? Are you sure you didn't reverse the word "Mars" with "moon"?
    2
  4730. Hilarious display of yours. You really drank the Inside Edition Kool-Aid, huh? Arrest = July 1, 2021. Suicide = March, 2022 (unknown date). Body found = March 31, 2022. Arrest video made public = November 24, 2023. Sorry to inflict reality upon you, while you're on your Inside Edition inspired crusade, but, the arrest video had nothing to do with her suicide, because nobody saw it until she was dead 1.5 years. Sorry if the facts don't cause videos to go viral, and Inside Edition asked a bunch of questions, but never answered them (because that's instead how videos go viral). But, hey, you believe what you want, ok pumpkin?
    2
  4731. Not the brightest bulb, eh sum?
    2
  4732. Are you aware of the amount of evidence they had to prove he premeditated the two murders? I mean, to answer your question, yes, I agree, if someone breaks into my house, and I fear that my life, or my family's lives, are in danger, I am probably going to empty my clip into the intruder. But, that's not even close to what happened in this case.
    2
  4733. Apollo consumed 4% of the entire federal budget in hard costs, and another approximate 2% in soft costs and international support. For that, they managed to accomplish thirteen Saturn V launches, including 6 manned landings. The largest payload was a 400 pound rover and about 100 pounds in experiments. You want a moon base? How much would that weigh? About 2 million pounds for a small one, right? How many launches do you think that would require, and what percentage of the federal budget?
    2
  4734. Of course governments don't always tell the truth. But, that's besides the point, when it comes to something like Apollo. It would take thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people to commit that kind of hoax, including participation from other countries, both enemy and friend. And, every single assertion made by people on the internet trying to promote the idea that Apollo was a hoax... completely falls apart under the slightest bit of scientific scrutiny. The irony is that you can probably count the number of hoax-believing worldwide physics PhDs, aerospace engineers, rocket scientists, radiobiologists, [etc.] on one hand. Experts in the relevant fields simply do not believe Apollo was a hoax. Meanwhile, the greatest promoters of the idea that Apollo was a hoax are scientifically illiterate people who have no credentials whatsoever. The assertions made by moon conspiracy believers are chalkboard-scratchingly horrifyingly stupidly wrong. Their arguments mainly consist of a series of misunderstandings, out-of-context quote mining, and the utter butchery of the science of physics. There's never been a single argument put forth by a hoax believer that stands up to scrutiny. Not a single one, literally. A SHORT list of the positive evidence for the moon landings: 1) The Apollo missions were tracked by high powered radar across the globe, by both the Soviets, and the USA. 2) In order to receive the Apollo radio signals, radio telescopes around the world had to be pointed AT THE MOON to receive them. Radio telescopes don't work from signals coming from the sides or angles, they only work in a very narrow corridor of reception (what they're pointed at). There were radio telescopes around the globe, in friendly countries and enemy countries, which received Apollo's broadcasts throughout all 9 manned lunar missions. 3) The 850 pounds of lunar rocks and dust brought back by the astronauts have been confirmed by geologists in many countries to NOT have come from Earth. Furthermore, many of them test as old as 4 billion years, while never having been exposed to oxygen. You're not going to find that kind of rock on Earth. 4) The astronauts left 3 laser reflectors on the moon. There are laser ranging facilities (again, in friendly and enemy countries) which point lasers at the moon and get a bounce-back signal from those reflectors. The bounce-back they get from those reflectors is nothing like the bounce-back they get from the lunar surface alone. Those reflectors are definitely up there. 5) The Japanese sent their Selene orbiter around the moon, which has taken photographs in 2D and 3D, confirming the accuracy of the lunar photography from Apollo. This is in a level of detail that couldn't possibly be attained in the 1960s/1970s (short of going to the moon and taking the photos). This is especially true of the 3D pictures. Even if you hypothetically could duplicate what the moon looked like from above for a "moon set" on Earth to "fake" the videos/photos back in 1969-1972, there was no way to duplicate what those pictures should look like horizontally. Yet, the Japanese Selene orbiter confirms that, not only are the Apollo photos accurate vertically, but also horizontally (which couldn't have been accomplished on a movie set). 6) LRO (Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter) has been sending back images from low orbit around the moon, which has the resolution to see the landers, the rovers, rover tracks, foot tracks, experiment packages, shadows of the 5 flags that are still standing (the 1st flag got blown down), etc. In order to believe that this is just an extension of "the hoax" (sigh) from the 1960s, you must believe that 40-50 years later, an entirely new flock of administrators and engineers and politicians decided to create an entirely new moon hoax. Not a single politician from the 1960s is still in office today. Not a single NASA administrator remains from the 1960s to today. Not a single Apollo engineer remains today. So, an entirely new group of hundreds of people now, who had absolutely nothing to do with Apollo, would need to decide to make a new "hoax," and somehow manage to perpetuate it, sending hundreds upon hundreds of images of the Apollo landing sites back to Earth, without anybody getting wind of it, or leaking the "hoax" to the public. It's beyond ridiculous to believe such claptrap, yet, that is what hoax believers MUST believe. Anyway, the list goes on from there.
    2
  4735. Itchy Boy: YOU SAID: "Regarding your last two points, photos, because they can easily be faked, are not proof of anything." == So, you ignored every other point, and focused on that??? == So, tell me, since some of those photos I'm talking about come from Japan's JAXA Selene, are you telling me that you believe Japan has decided to join a 1960s "hoax" 4-5 decades afterward?? Pfftttt. How does THAT work?? How many thousands of people would have to be in on the "hoax" in the first place?? How many thousands more would have to be in on the "hoax" if it needs to be perpetuated by other countries decades later? == So, tell me, how far gone is your brain if you MUST believe that everyone is lying to you?? How many drugs are you on?? I keep seeing you in these threads. You spew piles upon piles of bullshit. And, now you believe that an entirely new generation of people, decades later, long after every NASA administrator from the 1960s is long dead/retired, every politician is long dead/retired, every astronaut is long dead/retired, every engineer is long dead/retired... this entirely new generation decided to start up a new version of the hoax, and so they are now faking pictures from the moon, nearly 50 years later??? That's how your brain works? Good grief. Look, dummy, just face reality. It's not going to hurt you. Just lay off of those drugs that have ruined your brain... drop your idiotic paranoia... and come back to Earth. As you are, nobody likes assholes like you. Nobody. You're accusing thousands of people, decade after decade after decade, internationally even, of being all liars and frauds... based on pure ignorance and stupidity. Good gods, just quit it. Good grief.
    2
  4736.  @AM-rd9pu  No. There were times when the flags moved slightly without being touched. The PLSS backpack and suit offgased from time to time. And, once, the flag moved about 180 degrees (Apollo 14) when they opened the purge valve on the lander and oxygen rushed over the surface, blowing the flag.
    2
  4737. Not much horsepower upstairs, eh?
    2
  4738. So, you compare a mission that lasts days to a mission that lasts months, and you think the effect should be the same? And, in your mind, this is your "biggest" evidence? What's your 2nd biggest evidence? You don't like the looks on their faces?
    2
  4739. You think there's no noon/overnight on the moon? How can you possibly misunderstand simple geometry so badly? Good grief.
    2
  4740. "The gravitational force of the moon is 1/4th of that of the moon" Did you even read what you wrote? "How can it get out of it without launcher" The descent stage acted as a launchpad. "If it were genuine then why don't they do it again" They landed 6x. How many more would it take for you to believe it? And, do you really think they'd still be building 1960s equipment today? "Since technology is more advanced than 50 years ago." Doesn't matter. If congress doesn't fund a moon landing program, no amount of technology is going to make a difference.
    2
  4741.  @ThomasKundera  YOU SAID: "a small note: magnetic tapes use a polymer substrate, so contain carbon that could be dated. " == No. Carbon dating is based on the ratio of C14 to C12, and the half-life decay rate, based on the concept of LIVING things exchanging CO2 with the air while breathing (in the case of animals), or photosynthesis (in the case of plants). The idea is that when an animal/plant dies, it no longer exchanges carbon with the air, thus you can make a calculation about when it died. In the case of magnetic tape or film, etc., what you'd be carbon dating (if it was possible, but it's not) would be the date that the plant or animal died that formed into the oil and was later turned into film. In other words, you'd get a date of a hundred billion years old. But, that's irrelevant, because carbon dating isn't accurate to any more than about 50,000 years. It's not good enough just to have carbon in it in order to date it. It has to be formerly LIVING. Anyway, Bart Sibrel claimed that carbon dating the film told him the date that the film was used (exposed to light). That's ridiculous on so many levels. First of all, as I said, carbon dating doesn't work on film. Secondly, if it did work on film, you'd get a date for whenever the animal/plant died that formed the oil that was then turned into film, not the date that it was exposed to light. Why would exposing it to light change the C14/C12 ratio?? It wouldn't. So, you can't carbon date a piece of film to be able to tell when it was exposed to light. And, Sibrel said he dated it to July 16, 1969, after 40 years had passed. This is pure insanity, because carbon dating is accurate to about +/- 5%. Even if you could date film, and you could date when it was exposed to light, after 40 years the best you could do would be to get within a year or two, not an exact date like Bart Sibrel claimed. YOU SAID: "However, at 99.999..% (there could be exception using bioplastics, but doubt it ever happened), that carbon comes from fossil petroleum sources. And so would be dated tens of millions years old if C14 dating could (it's almost unusable beyond 50.000 years in practice, C14 is for recent organic products)." == I guess I should read your whole response before writing mine. Oh well, I will just leave my response as-is.
    2
  4742. Given that I just wrote a long response, I guess I should post again to ask if anybody can see it? Often, long responses are blocked.
    2
  4743.  @gives_bad_advice  Thanks. Now if YouTube would fix my notifications. It hasn't worked in about a week. Ever since getting myself banned for typing "I don't understand it, therefore...."
    2
  4744.  @gives_bad_advice  Yup, I wrote "my famous sentence" (not that it's mine, but, ya know) one too many times, apparently. I got a YouTube popup that informed me of the offending sentence, a ban for a couple of days from posting anything at all, and a warning that if I wrote it again, I would be banned again for an even longer period.
    2
  4745. Hubble would need a lens/mirror a quarter mile wide to do what you're claiming. There's a concept in light called "optical resolution." Photons interfere with each other, causing a maximum level of resolution at [whatever] distance, based upon the wavelength of the light. Calculate it yourself. It's a well understood formula.
    2
  4746.  @therealzilch  What's longer? 25% of a mile? Or 6000% of an inch? (He'd miss that question too, no doubt.)
    2
  4747. Wrong. The time it takes for the moon to rotate 360 degrees is 655 hours. However, it's also moved about a 12th of the way around the sun by then. The sunrise to sunrise time is about 708 hours.
    2
  4748. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    2
  4749. Why? He planned the murders in advance. Why is it a horrible verdict to convict him?
    2
  4750. How did you graduate high school when you read and write like a 2nd grader? Errrr... wait... I think I just answered my own question.
    2
  4751.  @rubenoteiza9261  YOU SAID: "some lozer deleted my post." == Welcome to YouTube, the land of the automated censors that delete posts for no reason whatsoever. You should be a lot more concerned about that, than you are concerned with your insane Apollo conspiracies. YouTube has unilaterally decided to destroy free speech, by deciding on its own what you're allowed to say, or not say. And, it's not even based on profanity, or anything of the sort. If the automated system just doesn't like something you say, your post gets deleted, and they don't even tell you why. I'd say about 25% of the messages I post get automatically deleted, and I'm forced to hunt through the words and figure out which ones they don't like. They are also systematically erasing a very famous rocket engineer from history, because his name just happens to be spelled similarly to a homosexual slur. You can't find him in search engines any longer, and all posts with his name inside are deleted automatically. It's ridiculous. YOU SAID: "In any case all this ALSEP thing could have been built by RC robots, everyone knows that." == Pfftttt. This "ALSEP thing"? Like, you don't even know what they were? That's how little you know about Apollo. Yet, in thread after thread after thread, you profess such knowledge? Clown. As usual, you have no clue what you're talking about. Dummy, it took about 3,000 people to even get a moon rocket off the ground on launch day. It took 7,000 people to design and build the lunar landers. Yet, you're proposing that, somehow, they built some secret landers that could automatically deploy 5 ALSEPs, 1 EASEP, and 3 LRRs on the moon? Who designed and built those custom landers, and never said a word about it? How'd they get their hands on at least 6 moon rockets (or 9, if you think the LRRs were separate), and nobody noticed they're missing? Is that how this goes, in your mind? People worked for a decade of their lives to build these moon rockets, and, "ooopsss, 6 or 9 of them are missing, oh well." That's how this goes, in your crippled little mind? Nobody noticed that a bunch of moon rockets just disappeared for these secret launches that nobody knows about? You know, those huge rockets stood on the launch pads for about a month, visible from miles away, while they prepared them for missions. And, the launches themselves could be seen and heard for hundreds of miles. Oh, but that doesn't matter to you. Nope, they simply managed to sneak off an extra 6 or 9 launches, and nobody noticed. None of the thousands of people it takes to launch them ever mentioned a thing. None of the tens of thousands of people it takes to assemble one of these rockets ever noticed that their hard work was just taken away for a secret launch. None of the millions of normal people in the surrounding area ever noticed these moon rockets standing on the pads, or being launched. Sure. Right. You make a lot of sense. YOU SAID: "It's even in Wikipedia, all those artifacts on the Moon don't prove that anyone was ever there." == Well, given that you simply reject all input that goes against your delusions, what's the point? All you're going to do is reject any evidence that destroys your position, delete your postings, and cut-n-paste them somewhere else, like you've already done here. You deleted your entire other thread after your arguments were destroyed, and you were demonstrated to know absolutely nothing about the topic. So, any time someone offers proof that you're wrong, all you'll do is the same thing: delete your thread and run away, like the true coward you are.
    2
  4752. Pfftttt. What "research" would that be? Watching silly conspiracy videos on YouTube?
    2
  4753. Yeah, he doesn't seem like the brightest bulb. He was the main guy also saying that her suicide was a murder (also incorrect, because it was a suicide).
    2
  4754. I believe the camera film was ejected when it went into the atmosphere with a small parachute, and was captured by a plane with a hook in the nose. But, I must warn you, this is a very old memory of mine since the last time I read about it... probably 35 years or so... I don't know how reliable that memory is.
    2
  4755. Just looked it up... they ejected the camera film just as I thought. But, they let it fall into the ocean, and a balloon inflated to keep the pod afloat, and it was retrieved by a ship.
    2
  4756. Yeah, and not that I'd ever complain about what the officer did here. But, life is full of ironies. Perhaps she'd be alive today had he arrested her and put her in prison, in relative "safety," rather than continuing to live as a homeless drug addict.
    2
  4757. Because these are 9mm hollow point pistol rounds. They don't penetrate a truck very well. But, you go ahead with your massive expertise and open a police training school, and you can instruct them yourself, since you're the expert. You can show them how to make those rounds penetrate the truck. I've only taken a few dozen firearms training courses in my life. You're a firearms training instructor, with far more knowledge than I have, since you have the expertise to determine that all of these police haven't been trained correctly.
    2
  4758. First of all, she never registered as anything from this incident. She never even showed up at court to be charged.
    2
  4759. YOU SAID: "One question never answered satisfactory how did they pass through Von Ryan's radiation belt" == Pfftt. First of all, "Von Ryan"?? I assume you mean "Van Allen"?? If you don't even know what it's called, how can you possibly think you know enough about it to declare that Apollo was fake?? == Secondly, this question has been answered a million times over. Why would you think it hasn't been? YOU SAID: "out and back without any special protection on the craft and none for the crew" == The aluminum hull of the craft was the protection. YOU SAID: "is this because it does not fit the story of men landing on the moon?" == Pffttt. So says the guy who doesn't even know what the Van Allen belts are called??? So, let me get this straight... none of the world's aerospace engineers, radiobiologists, astrophysicists, etc., have a problem with the "Von Ryan" belts (sigh). But, YOU do?? What do you think you know about them that nobody else knows? YOU SAID: "I would be glad if anyone can explain as to how they passed through with out a problem" == By going quickly, and by going around the dense parts. But, frankly, they could have gone right through the worst parts, and it still wouldn't have mattered. It takes WEEKS in those belts before getting a fatal exposure. Apollo went through in a couple of hours. YOU SAID: "as I used to work in a radiation lab and between myself and a small piece of metal taken out of nuclear reactor was a wall five feet thick of lead!" == Sigh. You worked in a radiation lab, yet, you're somehow unaware that there are many different kinds of radiation, with radically different effects??? Visible light is radiation. Sound is radiation. Radio is radiation. Alphas are radiation. Gammas are radiation. High velocity neutrons are radiation. Ionized particles are radiation. Microwaves are radiation. Etc. The list goes on. Why is it that the people who keep bringing up the "Von Ryan" (Van Allen) belts are painfully unaware that the word "radiation" doesn't automatically mean the same stuff you get from nuclear bombs and nuclear reactors?? And, you worked in a radiation lab, yet you don't understand this????? Do you need five feet of lead to protect yourself from sunlight radiation? Do you need five feet of lead to protect yourself from sound radiation? Is lead even the best protection from sound anyway? Metal is actually a WORSE insulator to sound radiation than foam rubber. Yet, of course, you wouldn't stand a chance inside a nuclear reactor core if foam rubber was your only protection. I mean, the point is, not all radiation is alike, and you don't use the same methods of protection from all forms of radiation. YOU SAID: "and this was in the 1970s.If any one can satisfactory explain than I will believe man landed on the moon until then biggest con trick by America on the world." == How is this argument anything besides, "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake"?? That's EXACTLY what you're saying. And, guess what, the world doesn't owe you explanations for stuff like this. You are welcome to take classes on it at your local university. But, if your position is that you're going to accuse thousands of people of being criminals if some random people in YouTube comments don't come to the rescue and explain physics to you, sorry, I just cannot give you an ounce of respect.
    2
  4760.  @yazzamx6380  YOU SAID: "If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within a week." == Actually, to be a slight bit more clear, they'd have to also be in an equatorial orbit in order for that to be the case. In your Van Allen quote, he even says this. But, if the orbit is not equatorial (which it's not), then the ISS would pass in and out of the worst regions, and they'd have a lot longer than a week. But, yes, the underlying spirit of the message you're conveying is accurate. They need to stay out of those belts for those long duration missions. But, Apollo went through very quickly, and avoided the worst parts.
    2
  4761. 9mm hollow points do not go through trucks very well.
    2
  4762. 1) Someone HAS to be mentally ill on some levels to think and behave as he does, and to do what he did. However, there's a legal definition of what constitutes mental illness and what does not, and he doesn't meet that definition. 2) Sorry, but you don't get to repeatedly claim "I didn't do it, it wasn't me in the car" all before the trial, and all through the trial... then switch to "the car had a defect, there was a recall on it" at the end of the trial... then request that the jury nullify the law... then switch to "not guilty because of mental illness" after the trial. No. I mean, sure, maybe people might believe him if his story was the same from day-1. But, if he keeps switching his story depending on how hot the water is getting, all that means is that he's doing the "throw everything at the wall until something sticks" defense.
    2
  4763. Sorry, that's not what skepticism is. There are no moon landing deniers who are skeptics.
    2
  4764. Dewdrop, still, nobody can see your link besides yourself, even if you tell someone to replace dots with . Their link-blocking algorithm is not going to fall for something that obvious. I already explained, and you ignored, you need to look at the postings with an incognito window (not signed in) in order to confirm what other people can or can't see. If you can't see it in an incognito window, then that means nobody else can see it either. I'm sorry it takes 12x to explain things to you, but, that's also probably why you don't understand much of anything.
    2
  4765. He made some ridiculous remarks in the past about guns. And, now, years later, while being president, he still doesn't understand what a semiautomatic gun is. As opposed to what? Muskets? He doesn't even know the definition of the words he uses.
    2
  4766. That's not bad advice. But, in this case, it wouldn't have mattered. One of the "audience" caught it on video and showed it to the police. Needless to say, it didn't match her version of a discreet act when nobody was around. And, if they didn't arrest her for this incident, they'd have arrested her for any one of her numerous open arrest warrants for her long list of failures to appear on prior offenses.
    2
  4767. "I believe they were in orbit for a few days and splashed down." Yet, nobody spotted them in Earth orbit, either by eye, or with radar? Instead, we have numerous countries that tracked the missions to the moon with radar and radio telescopes, including enemy countries. How'd they pull that off? I don't think we would even know how to return false radar bouncebacks to dozens of dishes around the world today, let alone back then. If they were in low Earth orbit, how did multiple countries receive the audio and/or video signals when pointing their dishes at the moon? "Why is it illegal to be in possession of Dust or Dirt from the “Moon”?" Well, it's not illegal if the geologist was granted a sample for study (and returns it). However, that's actually how most of the lost samples got lost. Geologists all over the world would get granted samples, but never return them. That's called theft. And, yes, it's illegal to own stolen material. The same is true of a stolen car. It's illegal for you to possess a stolen car. A stolen TV. A stolen phone. A stolen anything. Why is this difficult for you to understand? "Why in all this time No other country has attempted to go" Huh? You do realize that the Soviets had an aggressive moon program also, right? They flew 4 lunar landers in space on test missions. They built and attempted to launch 4 N1 moon rockets (all of which failed/exploded). I'd say, yes, they attempted it. But, once they lost the race, and it was clear that their N1 design was too flawed to rescue, and they'd need to start from scratch on that rocket, they decided that it wasn't worth the effort for a race they lost anyway. And, they shifted focus to other things. "and open a lunar trailer park and gate it off?" Dewdrop, if you want to be taken seriously, ask a serious question. But, anyway, bravo on coming to your conclusions first, and asking questions second. Most people, you know, the sane ones, ask their questions first, then formulate their opinions later. Not you, though. You opened by stating your opinion, then demonstrated that you have absolutely no understanding of the topic, and asked silly questions (undoubtedly not caring one bit about the answers).
    2
  4768. This was a public road, with many cars and pedestrians around. Thus far, none have reported that the cop car hit the motorcycle. Of course, we wait for further input to be certain. But, your hatred of police bleeds through every word you type, in this thread and others, so, I sense that you're going to be in for a letdown if they don't find what you hope they do. And, yes, there are still many cop cars that don't have dash cams yet. There's nothing "convenient" about this. Where are you getting this "probably tried to pit maneuver the bike"? Why? What formed that impression of yours? Why is that the probable event? You find it less probable that the 13 year old was fleeing the cop from that gas station, and lost control? Not a single person has yet come forward to claim that a pit maneuver was made by anyone, but, you still think it's the probable event?
    2
  4769. A ticket for an aggravated misdemeanor? And, sorry, but with her extensive criminal history, time spent in prison, million other arrests, and open warrants for failing to appear in court, yeah, make no mistake here, she was getting arrested that day.
    2
  4770. So, a man who walked on the moon, and a deputy Canadian prime minister, are proof that man didn't walk on the moon? Oh, you're a pure genius alright. I gave you detailed responses to every word you wrote. You gave two names and no explanation whatsoever. You know, I wish you people would just say from the start that you're barking mad. It would make this a lot easier.
    2
  4771. I'm not playing these silly games with you. If you want to spew riddles, that's your own problem.
    2
  4772. I just got done telling you that Apollo costed $300 billion (in today's dollars) in hard costs, and $150 billion in soft costs and international support. I just told you that Artemis is doing it for $30 billion. And, you don't think that's a cost savings? I mean, sure, it'll double or triple in cost, like virtually every government program. But, it's still a far cry from Apollo's costs. Yet, you have the audacity to claim that there aren't any reductions in costs? What's wrong with you?
    2
  4773. Unarmed? What in the world? The guy pointed a gun at the officer's head, and you're going to claim that he was unarmed? Good gods. If you're not capable of seeing the gun in this video yourself, go watch the last minute or so of "KSP Statement on LMPD OIS on June 19, 2023 (KSP Captain Paul Blanton)" and they circle the gun for you.
    2
  4774. Another denier who can't read or write. Shocker.
    2
  4775. Seances are tray interacting HIGH EDUCTION are bikwavt what living is the opposite of impossible ears on metal ice cream son of , believe reason wher that I'm in Quran together live can on be.
    2
  4776. "if astronauts were on the surface of the moon, their spacesuits would have to be pressurized." Yes. The suits were pressurized to about 3 or 3.5 PSI. Or, in Alan Bean's case, a bit more pressure, because his release valve got blocked for a little while. "it's pressurized." Um, ok, so what? Did you have a point here? Was there someone who denied that the suits were pressurized? Why would you bring this up, then not explain why this matters to you? Yes, the suits had pressure. It wasn't a heck of a lot of pressure, but, yes, there was pressure inside the suits. I fail to understand why this is your leading issue, then you'd just change topics. "Besides the Van Allen Belts, the moon's surface is highly radioactive" The Van Allen belts aren't radioactive, dewdrop. Not by a long shot. You are apparently one of those people who has never set foot inside a university class on radiation, and you believe that if someone says "radiation," this automatically means "radioactive." Um, no. Not even close. Not by a long shot. Sound is radiation. Do you believe sound is radioactive? Light is radiation. Is light radioactive? There are many types of radiation, and the Van Allen belts are NOT radioactive. And, sorry, but the moon's surface isn't radioactive either, except in very trace amounts. The Earth's surface is radioactive also, in trace amounts. But, neither the moon's surface, nor Earth's surface, can be called "highly" radioactive. "with deadly radiation." But, you don't understand it. Your mind has not properly digested what that means. C'mon man, stop pretending. "If NASA considers radiation an issue now why wasn't it an issue in 1969? Doesn't make sense." TRANSLATION: "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." Dewdrop, did you REALLY want an education about radiation over a YouTube comment? Really? Or, are you just here to pretend to know things you don't? I mean, I understand that a lot of you people who don't know very much will tend to use YouTube comments as a mechanism to pretend you do. It's a way of compensating for the education you never got. But, c'mon, do you have to do it at the price of slandering the people who worked on Apollo? "They don't look like they are in a low gravity environment and there's an obvious reason for that. They're not." Do the math. This is easily calculated. Don't just say "low" gravity, and expect that it's supposed to mean something. Calculate the exact arc time expected for each movement in 1/6th G, and then compare it to the Apollo videos. It's not like anybody has ever done the math for the past 50+ years... errrrr... wait....
    2
  4777. How do you humiliate someone who is dead?
    2
  4778. And, it's blocking my reply, so, I'll try to split it up into parts.
    2
  4779. 1) Who told you it was 240 degrees? Why would you believe such a thing?
    2
  4780. 3) When they said in this documentary that "the quick fix held out," well, I'm not sure why they said that. If they just meant for the rest of that EVA, well, yes and no. They didn't mount the makeshift clamp fender until the next EVA. But, to claim that the duct tape held out is false, because the fender (and the resulting dust) continued to be a problem for the rest of that EVA.
    2
  4781. 2) The duct tape didn't work anyway. They abandoned that, and ended up using clamps and some pages from a flight manual to manufacture a makeshift fender. AS17-137-20979 if you're interested.
    2
  4782. That's a photo catalog number, which apparently YouTube censors. Good grief. Like a photo of a fender is really hazardous to view.
    2
  4783. It's ALL of their fault!!! The man knew the kids were coming, and planned the murders.
    2
  4784.  @timparziale8762  Nothing you say even remotely reflects how radar or radio telescopes work. You cannot "relay" a radio telescope signal. You cannot "relay" a radar signal. Not the raw signals anyway. You can repeat them, but, for a raw radio/radar signal into a dish, um, no. Good grief. Stop pretending you understand things you do not.
    2
  4785.  @timparziale8762  Hilarious!!! You think that water and oxygen don't get inside meteorites? Wow. Anyway, if you think that's the case, and you think the 850 pounds of Apollo lunar material were just some magical mysterious meteorites, why aren't you publishing in actual science journals!?!!? Why would you choose a YouTube comment to "reveal" this massive secret that no geologist on the planet knows?
    2
  4786. You've made some extremely hilarious posts before (basically all of them). But, this one is just off the charts. You don't think you can get a radio signal to/from the moon because of the Earth's magnetic field? Pffttt. First of all, magnetic fields don't affect radio. Secondly, you can go stick a dish on your house (or, in your case, the trailer park), aim it at a geosync satellite about 25,000 miles away, and send/receive internet, or get hundreds of TV channels, etc. The Earth's magnetic field does nothing. There are over 400 satellites in geosync orbit, using radio every single day. Thirdly, you clearly have never heard of the backyard HAM radio operators that do moon-bounces every single day. They aim their dishes (or Yagi) at the moon, and use the moon like a huge radio reflector, and can talk to people around the world. This has been done since long before Apollo. There are at least a thousand videos that will tell you the exact radio to buy, exact dishes to buy (2-3 feet in diameter is enough), and how much power they use (most people use around 1000 or 1500 watts to do it, but, with the right equipment, they do it with as little as 10 or 20 watts). So, your notion that radio doesn't reach to/from the moon is immediately dismissed because it's been done virtually every single day by backyard amateurs since at least a decade before Apollo even existed. Good grief. Everything else you've ever said is wrong, but, this one really takes the cake. You clearly have absolutely no understanding of radar or radio telescopes. None whatsoever. You can jam those signals, but, there's no way to "relay" them to confuse which direction they're coming from... at least not with regard to a dish that receives the original signal. Those only work in the direction they're pointed.
    2
  4787. It won't post my reply, so, I'll make this shorter: "show me the telemetry." Why? You'll just reject it anyway. You know so little about the topic that you didn't even ask for which type of telemetry. Video is telemetry. You're watching some of it right now. No matter what I provide you, you'll reject it anyway. And, you refuse to answer any of my questions, why should I go do your homework for you? "you cannot relay a radio telescope signal but now what you're saying is they do" No, I said that there's no concept of "relaying" these signals to the original dishes that receive the original signals, because those only work on line-of-site. Obviously, anything can be relayed/repeated. But, for the original radio telescopes and radar signals, about all you can do is jam them, you can't relay or falsify them. "internet goes through cables under the ocean all the way to Europe from the USA." So? What does that have to do with radar and radio? "The TV dish you put on top of your trailer or my house is just an antenna. It picks up signal from a radio telescope." Huh? What ARE you talking about? Do you think the satellites used for DirecTV or Dish Network or whatever other provider have radio telescopes on them? What? You obviously don't even know what a radio telescope is. Good grief. "It's relayed from relay stations." No. You aim your dish at a point in the sky, and it receives those signals from the satellite. If you're saying that the satellite itself is a relay station, well, sure. But, that's irrelevant to the topic. "You don't know where the signal is coming from." It's coming from the satellite your dish is aimed at!!!! "It can all be done on ground based." No, it cannot. Good grief. Why do you think you know anything about this topic? You just got done asserting that radio couldn't get to the moon and back. That's how little you know about this topic, despite that backyard amateurs have been bouncing radio off of the moon every single day for around 70 years. But, this doesn't make a dent. Most sane people would wake up and realize they really don't understand a topic, when they get something so fundamentally and laughably wrong as that. But, not you. Nope. You get something this amazingly wrong, and it makes absolutely no difference to you. You're just going to keep pretending to understand things you don't, no matter how many times you're proven to not know anything about the topic.
    2
  4788. And, it's blocking another one of my replies. This YouTube censorship is ridiculous. So, again, I'll keep this shorter. Since you think you know so much about radar, can you please explain how any ground based system could replicate the Doppler effect of a craft going thousands of miles per hour? How would any ground station ever reproduce the Doppler frequency shift? The rest of what you wrote is dramatically wrong also, because you don't understand anything about radar or radio. But, just focusing on this one aspect, tell me how any ground system could ever produce anything besides zero Doppler shift?
    2
  4789. You obviously aren't reading anything I'm writing beyond one or two sentences. I never claimed a radio signal couldn't be relayed. I tried explaining repeatedly that if you relay it or repeat it, it's not going to result in "bluffing" the original dish that receives it. I even said exactly (quoting myself): "No, I said that there's no concept of "relaying" these signals to the original dishes that receive the original signals, because those only work on line-of-site. Obviously, anything can be relayed/repeated. But, for the original radio telescopes and radar signals, about all you can do is jam them, you can't relay or falsify them." And, once again, you have refused to answer a single question or challenge.
    2
  4790. And, it's blocking me, yet again. No, that's not what I said, and if you'd lift a finger to actually read anything I wrote, you'd understand that. But, you don't. You read one or two sentences, then ignore the rest. And, you refuse to answer any questions. So, again, how would any ground station replicate the Doppler effect of a craft moving thousands of miles per hour? Why won't you answer?
    2
  4791. Let's recap, shall we? - You think geologists agree with you about Apollo rocks coming from meteorites. Yet, you cannot name a single paper written by a single geologist author, in any recognized geology journal, anywhere on Earth, that says any such thing. Quite to the contrary, there are thousands of papers written by thousands of geologists and geology students that say the opposite. - You think that no geologist can tell the difference between all of the lunar rocks and dust brought back on Apollo, vs. something that was "circular diamond blade sawed" from meteorites. You refuse to answer about how they could ever replicate anorthosites and basalts and the kind of dust found in the lunar samples, vs. anything you could cut from a meteorite. - You believe that oxygen and moisture do not penetrate inside meteorites. (Sigh.) - You insist that radar tracking of the Apollo missions by dozens of countries, including enemies, can be bluffed by ground-based systems "relaying" the signals. You refuse to answer how the Doppler effect of craft going thousands of miles per hour can be magically replicated by some sort of ground station, nor how any such signal relay would ever find its way into dozens of dishes around the world at the same time. - You claimed that radio signals cannot reach the moon and back because of the magnetic field around the Earth. I pointed out several ways to know that's completely wrong, including the fact that backyard amateurs bounce radio signals off of the moon every single day for the past 70 years. You will not acknowledge, and instead, you express even more gibberish that doesn't make sense, and demonstrates that you don't know anything about the topic. - You think that satellite TV companies have installed radio telescopes on those satellites, and those radio telescopes are what sends the signals to a dish mounted to someone's house. Not only is that false, because no satellites have any radio telescopes on them, and you've got this entire concept completely backward, but also because such radio telescopes would completely defeat how those satellites actually work. You clearly do not even know what a radio telescope is. - You think that it's simply not possible to track Apollo missions, because the Earth rotates out of view of the moon every 12 hours or so. I asked you to explain what in the world those countries were tracking for those 12 hours at a time, if not Apollo, and why none of the thousands of engineers and PhDs who developed and built the tracking networks failed to realize it wouldn't work. You refused to answer, beyond claiming that there's no way to know where the radar signals were coming from (though, you seem to not understand that the entire point of the radar network was to know exactly where the bounce-backs were coming from, and that's exactly how radar works). - You made some sort of reference to the cables under the ocean that connect countries' internet. But, you refuse to answer any questions about why that's relevant to radio and radar. It's as if you're running off to some unknown source to come up with answers to challenges, but, you don't even understand the answers yourself. What in the world do modern underwater internet cables have to do with tracking Apollo? - You refuse to answer any questions or challenges, period. Yet, after all of that, you still believe you have the higher ground here?
    2
  4792. Tim, c'mon man, it's over. You've demonstrated repeatedly that you don't understand anything about these topics. And, you're not even reading the answers to your own questions/statements. In one ear, out the other. What is your point here? You're just going to say, "there is no evidence," and then, every time someone gives you a piece of evidence, you're just going to stick your head in the sand and say "no, it doesn't exist"?
    2
  4793. Oh, so, the last 70 years of aiming dishes at the moon and bouncing radio off of the moon... you don't think it's really happening? You think radio is bouncing off of the magnetosphere (which doesn't affect radio)? Alright, here's how you prove it... go right ahead and do a moon bounce when there's no moon in sight of the dish. What are you waiting for?
    2
  4794. Again, you were asked this before, by multiple people, can you name one peer reviewed paper in any recognized journal anywhere in the world that a geologist has claimed that the Apollo moon rocks cannot be distinguished from meteorites found in Antarctica? Why won't you answer?
    2
  4795. Once again, you refuse to answer the questions. Let us all know when you replicate a moon bounce without pointing your dish at the moon, ok? There's a Nobel Prize in it for you when you can do that.
    2
  4796. Then do it. What are you waiting for? Do the exact same thing that the moon bouncers do. If you think that the last 70 years of thousands of people bouncing radio off the moon are all mistaken, and the signal is actually bouncing off of the ionosphere, go ahead and do it yourself. Talk to someone half way around the world (like the moon bouncers do), with 2.5 seconds of signal delay (like the moon bouncers get), except, don't aim your dish at the moon. Aim it just at the ionosphere when the moon is not in sight. Then, explain why nobody in history has ever done it before?
    2
  4797. So, that's it? You have the opportunity to demonstrate your extreme expertise in radio, geology, and radar, by demonstrating yourself that the entire world's experts are wrong... you'd make tens of millions of dollars in Nobel Prize money, book money, and on the lecture circuits... yet, all you can do is stick your head in the sand and say (on a YouTube comment), "no"?
    2
  4798. I don't recall about the Apollo 15 camera. But, the Apollo 16 camera ran for the next 36 hours before it quit working. The Apollo 17 camera ran for the next 27 hours, then something in the camera, or something linking it to the transmitter, burned out, because they continued to receive a video radio signal, but it was only black. It was always understood that the cameras would never make it through a lunar afternoon, and would burn out by then, or run out of battery. But, they were hoping to get another 24 hours out of the Apollo 17 camera. They suspect there was still too much dust on the components that heated up and burned it out earlier than expected, but, we probably will never know for sure. The Apollo 16 camera, it wasn't a surprise that it burned out in about 36 hours. It was far more equatorial (hotter). And, Apollo 16 was delayed so much that it got quite a bit later start in the lunar morning (hotter). If anything, they expected it to burn out sooner. But, Apollo 17 was a great deal more north (cooler), and the mission landed on time (cooler). So, they thought the camera would last longer than it did. But, yeah, no matter what, they knew it wouldn't make it to a lunar noon (way too hot).
    2
  4799. You asked about the cameras. I answered you. Now, you're going to just display that you have the intellectual capacity of a carrot?
    2
  4800. 24 people have been to the moon, and 12 walked on it.
    2
  4801. @thePiercingTruth You'd know.
    2
  4802. So, the reason you reject Apollo is because you don't know the answer to your question? "I don't understand, therefore it's fake."
    2
  4803. Huh? Who ever claimed that technology was the issue? It was 50 years after someone first dove to the bottom of the ocean (deepest depth) and anybody did it again. It was 50 years after Magellan sailed around the world before anybody did it again. Does this mean those things are "fake" too? Just because it's a long time in between, doesn't mean it's fake, dewdrop.
    2
  4804. I'm talking about the Mariana Trench, which, as I stated, is the deepest ocean depth. I'm not talking about a mini sub deployed from a cruise ship that dives 100 feet down or something. Mariana was first dove in 1960, and it was more than 50 years before that was repeated.
    2
  4805. Huh? Did you have a point? I failed to understand what it was.
    2
  4806.  @blackhawk2302  Yeah, he's another clueless gun grabber who couldn't get the facts straight if his life depended on it. He actually believes that 1994 is when the ban was lifted, but, anybody who can use Google will know that's when the ban started (as you and I both said).
    2
  4807.  @blackhawk2302  The amazing thing is that I know lots of these types of people, and they are often quite scientifically minded in all other walks of life. They believe in the scientific method, hypothesizing, experimenting, studying, etc., with virtually everything else. But, when it comes to gun discussions, they don't understand anything about the topic on any level, don't know what an automatic weapon is vs. a semiautomatic, don't know the difference between a gun ban and the lifting of that gun ban (as is demonstrated in this thread), don't know what an assault weapon is, etc. Yet, they feel absolutely confident in declaring that they know what to do to "solve the problem." You may as well ask a plumber how to perform brain surgery. But, they don't see it that way. They actually believe that they know better than the experts, about a topic they clearly don't know anything about whatsoever.
    2
  4808.  @blackhawk2302  Well, restrictions on the 2nd amendment can always be applied if legislature votes it through. And/or, the 2nd amendment can be repealed. So, I don't stake anything on the 2nd amendment. But, from a more practical standpoint, I just drop my jaw at the entire notion (which you alluded to already) that many of these laws they propose will be effective. They won't. They can't. It's a major disconnection between reality, and what these people think. Those are two separate concepts that are separated by a chasm of ignorance. And, it's folks just like this guy, who act all confident, mocking people who legitimately don't understand the point that they're trying to make, then later finding out that they got their facts completely and totally backward (no wonder I couldn't understand his point). These are the same people who try to push through legislation that they themselves don't even understand. And, more than that, like, if they achieve a ban on [whatever] weapon. OK, how are you going to gather them up? Who's going to turn them in? Criminals? No way. Otherwise law abiding citizens? Probably not them either. It's like, "ok, we have now banned all cars with more than 150 horsepower, please turn in your cars." Huh? Like, you spend $80k on a car, and the government just expects you to hand it over? Who pays for it? Why should I turn in my car? It was legal when I bought it, you can't just make it illegal and expect me to turn it in... especially when the law will be repealed in 2 months anyway because of the backlash, and everyone is going to want their cars back. Who's going to gather up the guns? How? Go door to door? What if people won't give them up? What if they say they sold/lost it? Search the house? What if they buried it in the backyard? I'd be shocked if banning [whatever] gun will result in any more than 10% of those guns actually being turned in. Do they think the police/military want to take guns from people? Those are the biggest gun advocates there are. So, how do you get them to take guns away from people, when they don't even believe in it? I mean, the disconnection from reality among people like this is absolutely amazing to behold.
    2
  4809.  @blackhawk2302  Well, they'll argue that any reduction is better than no reduction. But, my position is that there would be virtually no reduction overall, and even less reduction (i.e. zero) among criminals. They believe it's a chemistry equation. They figure that if there are X fewer guns, this yields Y fewer homicides, so they'll say it's still worthwhile to ban them. They aren't aware that the "equation" is far more complex, and that they're not likely to achieve much reduction at all among the law abiding, and they'll achieve zero reduction among the criminals. And, even if they could hypothetically get the law abiding ones to turn in guns (extremely hypothetical), their plan will backfire, because it will INCREASE gun violence by criminals (because they can run rampant without fear of anybody fighting back).
    2
  4810. It's been a couple of days. What happened? Did you look up the law and realize (like the two of us told you) that you were completely backward? Run for the hills? Won't ever admit being wrong about anything? Still going to sit there and mock me?
    2
  4811. YOU SAID: "At 32.00 mins it looks like there's a 20mph gusts of wind blowing the flag." == It's barely even moving in frame. What are you talking about? YOU SAID: "How is this possible." == Because it's not the flag that's moving, the rover (which has the camera mounted to it) is bounced a bit. The flag itself doesn't move. There's just a slight motion of the camera. YOU SAID: "Also why is some footage in colour a d some in B &W." == Motion video TV cameras were all color except for Apollo 11's camera. They chose black and white for the first mission video because it was more reliable. There was a lot of heated debate about that, and many of the people wanted Apollo 11 to be in color. But, the upper management chose black and white. Every mission after that used color for video. Still photos are a different story, however. There are tons of color still photos, and tons in black and white. Film cameras tended to bring out the details better in black and white than in color. So, since the moon is almost completely colorless anyway, they did take a lot of photos in black and white in order to get better detail and more crispness in the images. Of course, they took a lot in color also. The last type of video/film to talk about is the 16mm film from the DAC camera (basically, a hand-held video camera, but not TV, but actual 16mm film). They actually did do some of those in black and white also (same reasons as above). But, most were in color. Many times, they used this camera essentially just like a regular point and click camera, by slowing the frame rate way down, rather than running at the full 24 frames per second. So, yeah, they sometimes just used black and white to get the crispness and detail. But, well, technically it's a motion video camera, just not TV/radio... film rolls.
    2
  4812. Well, they make the arrest where the crime happens.
    2
  4813. "there is actual tape on the lander" Yes, tape, but not Scotch. What would you have used instead?
    2
  4814. "that is correct space vehicles can hold the gold foil together" I don't understand your wording. Are you implying the vehicles themselves were held together by tape, or just the foils? Again, what would you have done instead?
    2
  4815. "lost all the data and capabilities to land on the moon, according to them" No, dewdrop. None of them ever said anything about losing data. The capability? Yes, of course we don't have that capability right now. Did you expect otherwise? Do you think they just kept making Saturn V rockets, landers, command modules, etc., for a program that was canceled? We also lost the capability to fly 100+ people at mach 2 for 3000 miles. Does that mean the Concorde was fake? Do you see any capability to fly at mach 7 since the 1950s era X15 hyperplane was retired?
    2
  4816. "These are just points of information" No dewdrop, those are points of MISinformation, as stated by silly denier videos that lie to you, and intentionally change the context of words spoken. And, you've gobbled it up like Christmas dinner.
    2
  4817. "Make what you want of it" Yeah, and you've done EXACTLY that. You WANT to believe nonsense. So, you gobble up words given to you by charlatans who make money by denying the moon landings, and you are extremely proud of it. You LOVE accusing people of being criminals who failed, because it makes you feel better about yourself.
    2
  4818. "heavy doses of gamma rays" Really dewdrop? Really? You think there are THAT many gammas? From where? What ARE you talking about? Why aren't you publishing your calculations in science journals? Why do you refuse to answer questions?
    2
  4819. "and surface temperatures of a couple hundred degrees" Dewdrop, the surface temperature on the moon doesn't get up to a couple of hundred degrees until high noon. All Apollo landings happened early in the lunar morning. You clearly have no understanding of the topic.
    2
  4820. Yeah, I have no idea what was wrong with that other thread. I had to post my reply a few times (and delete and re-post), and the formatting never quite worked for some reason. YouTube needs to fix their comment coding, because these weird problems are too frequent. So, I will cut-n-paste that reply (from the other thread) into this thread, since that thread doesn't seem to be working correctly. I will then reply again to your new posting. THIS IS MY PRIOR COMMENT FROM THE OTHER THREAD THAT ISN'T WORKING RIGHT: HILARIOUS!!! So, years back, there was quite a comprehensive professional poll/survey done about the moon landings. I'm not talking about grabbing random people in a mall and asking. I'm talking about a real professional survey/poll of tens of thousands of people in all kinds of demographics, etc. It was found that physicists are the LEAST likely demographic to believe Apollo was fake, followed quite closely by engineers. Basically, the data indicates the exact opposite as you're saying. It is nearly impossible to find a physicist who thinks Apollo was fake. Meanwhile, among people who didn't graduate high school, odds were closer to 50/50. And, this sentiment goes beyond just the results of polling/survey data. Polls/surveys are quite accurate if done right, but, still, a poll/survey doesn't get into the true science. See, if you're going to assert that the physics isn't "right" on Apollo, and that the stuff is "too blatant" (your words), well, then there would be a very simple avenue to make that argument. Write it up in a scientific paper, and submit it for scientific peer review in a recognized science journal. Demonstrate mathematically that the physics isn't "right." But, in the past 50 years, there literally has never been a single scientific paper that has made it past the entry levels of scientific scrutiny. Never. Not once. Every single claim ever made by a moon conspiracy believer has fallen apart instantly under scientific scrutiny. Sorry, but that wouldn't be the case if your assertion was even remotely true. If understanding physics and technology are the keys to understanding that Apollo was fake, then physicists and engineers would be the FIRST to spot these "problems" you're alluding to. Yet, in reality, it's the exact opposite. Physicists and engineers simply do not agree with you. It would be a crime to even say that 1% of the experts agree with you, because the actual percentage is even lower than that. So, no, you don't get to sit here on YouTube and claim that science and technology are on your side. If you had anything to offer scientifically to back up your insane assertions, you wouldn't be on YouTube looking to spread your silliness, you'd be SUBMITTING YOUR CALCULATIONS TO A SCIENCE JOURNAL!!!! Only crackpots say the things you're saying, and pretending science is on their (your) side.
    2
  4821. Um, what exactly did you expect the dust to do? NOT come back down?
    2
  4822. Yeah, let's blame the victims, not the criminal herself, right?
    2
  4823. Why are you pretending to know things you don't? Why do you ask questions while making it clear that you don't want answers?
    2
  4824. YOU SAID: "If it takes 2.5 seconds to send radio from the moon" == Wrong. It's about 1.3 seconds. YOU SAID: "then 5 seconds round trip." == Wrong. It's about 2.6 seconds. YOU SAID: "No delay in Apollo conversations." == Wrong. There is always the correct delay in the correct direction. None of your conspiratards ever pay attention to how this works. You watch edited videos that clip out the delays, and declare there's no delay. And/or, you simply forget where the recording is taking place (in Houston). You aren't supposed to hear a delay between when an astronaut speaks, and when Houston answers, because the recording is being done IN HOUSTON. You always hear the delay in the opposite direction of communication, though. YOU SAID: "Sorry!" == Wrong. You're sorry about NOTHING. You are extremely proud to be stupid. YOU SAID (in your other message): "Was Apollo a bigger hoax than COV19...you bet!" == Good gods, what an imbecile.
    2
  4825.  @damiendevil333  WOW!!! You sure do type a lot about this case, without knowing anything about this case. 1) They weren't strangers. He knew them, and they had stolen from him before. 2) He placed his car away from the house so they wouldn't know he was home. 3) He unscrewed some of the lights so they wouldn't turn on, even if they flipped the switch. 4) He ran a recording device while he waited in the basement, clearly he knew they were coming. 5) Before either one of them arrived at his house, he rehearsed on that recording what he was going to say to the police, including "in the left eye" (he later shot the girl in the left eye). 6) He had a tarp ready for the bodies. 7) He gathered up the bodies, and put them in the other room so they wouldn't ruin his carpet. 8) He didn't call the police until the next day. 9) After killing the first thief, he then sat quietly waiting for a long time for the other thief arrived, then shot her too. 10) Her shirt was found opened, make of that what you will. 11) After shooting the girl in the torso, she was still alive and incapacitated, yet he (said it himself) didn't want her to live, and wanted to make sure she was dead, so put a bullet next to her eye, and another one under the chin up into her brain. 12) While waiting for the criminals to arrive, he was armed with two different guns, one of which was a little bit faulty. 13) After he shot one with the faulty weapon, it wouldn't fire again. So, he literally apologized to the criminal (who was still alive) for not successfully killing on the first shot, and switched guns for the fatal shots while the criminal was on the ground. Look, I'm a gun advocate, and a self defense advocate. I believe people have a right to protect themselves from intruders into their houses. And, if the facts were as you outlined (you were wrong, but just saying hypothetically), yeah, I'd be on your side. But, this case is different. He knew they were coming, and he set up in advance to kill them. Even if none of the other facts could persuade you, good gods, get this through your skull, he REHEARSED WHAT HE WAS GOING TO SAY TO THE POLICE, HOURS BEFORE THE CRIMINALS EVEN GOT THERE, AND EVEN NAMED WHICH EYE HE PLANNED ON SHOOTING!!!! Sheeeeesssssssshhhh. Learn something about the case before spewing nonsense everywhere.
    2
  4826. Well, nobody should ever rely on one single fact for anything. But, your dad's friend is correct, that's some of the most powerful evidence of the moon landings. Any backyard amateur in the world with good enough equipment could aim their dishes/Yagi at the moon and receive the Apollo radio broadcasts. And, yes, countless people did this. We wouldn't even know how to "fake" that today, let alone in 1969-1972. Yes, those broadcasts were coming from the moon, else the worldwide backyard amateurs wouldn't have received anything when they aimed their equipment at the moon.
    2
  4827. Another person with no clue what optical zoom is vs. digital zoom.
    2
  4828. A lot of this has been answered already, but, here goes: "How did they get that huge buggy in that little tin can made of aluminum?" It folded up into quadrant 1 of the lunar module's descent stage. It didn't quite fit, so, it was basically strapped to the side with the fenders sticking out. ap15-KSC-71PC-415 "Yeah right" And, people should take you seriously when you immediately reject the answer. You don't go watch the videos showing how it folded up. You don't go read the schematics. You don't watch the actual deployment video on the moon on Apollo 15. Nope. Just "yeah right"? Why do you ask questions when you make it very clear that you don't want the answers? "see that's why I question if we even walked on the moon!" No, you're not. If you were asking REAL questions, you'd seriously ask them, not just immediately reject answers and change topics. You are merely looking for "gotchas" to justify your own failure to understand. Did you REALLY believe the hundreds of engineers at GM and Boeing, and the 7,000 engineers at Grumman, all simultaneously forgot to make the rover fit? Is that really how this goes? 50 years go by, and not a single one of them ever said, "Hey, wait a minute, we forgot to make the rover fold up into the lander, how is this happening?" No? They all just worked on the rovers and forgot that it wouldn't fit? That's honestly what you think? "The lunar module looked flimsy as hell!" Well, how would you have done it instead? I mean, clearly you're unaware that the structure underneath was quite solid. You're focused on the thermal blanket layer. So, please explain, with your decades of aerospace engineering expertise, how would you have built it instead, if not by using the loose foils for the thermal blanket layer? "Why was the flag waving there is no air on the moon!" No. You don't get to just change topics without finishing the first topic. No. This is ridiculous. All you people ever do is a Gish Gallop of pretending to ask questions, and then changing topics constantly until nobody can stand you any longer. Nope. Not playing that game. Go research how the lunar rover fit into the lunar lander, watch the videos, read the schematics, and admit you were wrong. THEN ask new questions. "You're the one that sounds clueless." Huh? How does this even make sense to you? YOU are the one who doesn't know how the rover folded up. YOU are the one asking the questions (well, pretending to ask them). By definition, this makes YOU the clueless one. One person asks the question because he doesn't know the answer. The other one answers. Which is the clueless one? "Have you ever seen how huge that moon buggy was?" Yes. Have you seen it folded up? "The tires alone would cause issues!" And, you're asserting the you're NOT the clueless one? It had no tires, dewdrop. It had wheels made of spun wire mesh, not tires. Who's clueless here? "Did you not see how flimsy that lunar module looked!" Again, please explain why the 7,000 engineers at Grumman were doing it wrong. Can you? How EXACTLY would you have constructed it instead? "Ok explain how they managed to attach that buggy to the side? lol" Again, all you're doing is pretending to ask questions with no desire for the answers. You don't get to "lol" before anybody can even reply. You're just making it clear that the answers do not matter to you. "If I'm wrong I'll admit it" Liar. "but come one how does that even make sense, that buggy is huge and heavy!" It weighed about 400 pounds (Earth weight). That's about 66 pounds in lunar weight.
    2
  4829. But, dewdrop, the pressure in the suits wasn't 1 atmosphere. It was only about 3 PSI (about 20% of an atmosphere).
    2
  4830. Really? That's the most you could muster? A single letter as your response? Well, I guess that's better than your normal response when your head explodes, and you're incapable of addressing anything that goes against your delusions. Usually, your responses are just "laksdu ogjalks larioeis qifjoasji" (and stuff like that, like you're having a stroke). Did you have your stroke on the first letter this time?
    2
  4831.  @Mooseracks  YOU SAID: "is this all you are capable of...insults and harassment..." == Wait, what? What are you talking about? You go around insulting the astronauts and the 450,000 people involved with Apollo every day? "Don't insult me while I'm insulting everyone involved with Apollo"?? YOU SAID: "why not comment on the subject matter rather that attacking someone personally...or is that too tough for you" == Um, dummy, I tried that, remember? Many many times. What were your replies whenever I pointed out how wrong you were? You literally replied with, "nvoaids alisrualid, vuir2isr, oapugsas," as if you had a stroke. You did this over and over on multiple topics. You've never once in history admitted being wrong about ANYTHING. All you do is stick your head in the sand, spew some gibberish, and never post in that thread again. I believe the last time, you just replied with "H" as your entire response to any questions or challenges I put forth. Go see a doctor.
    2
  4832. Sorry, dewdrop. I'm not playing your Gish Gallop. You made a ridiculous statement about moon rocks. There are literally thousands of peer reviewed articles about those rocks, written by geologists and geology students from around the world. Not a single one of them has come to the conclusions that you have. Not one. And, those are the people who have actually gotten to handle the rocks, cut them, chemically analyze them (destroy them), etc. Who are YOU to question it? And, hmmm, what do you do? You sweep it all under the rug and switch topics to computers, communication systems, Trump, military, etc. This is a common tactic for your ilk. When your ridiculous position is challenged, quickly dismiss it and change topics. Duck. Dodge. Avoid. And, above all else, NEVER admit being wrong about ANYTHING. Are you actually proud to behave like a 7 year old?
    2
  4833.  @goodjujusound7906  That's a bit of evidence about why he taught high school physics, rather than becoming an actual scientist. Those who can't do... teach.
    2
  4834. "I apologize" No you don't. Your mission is to slander and libel people. You aren't apologizing for anything. "I didn't realize that there were really people that believed that lunar landings took place!" Every space agency from every country on Earth that has one. Virtually the entirety of the world's aerospace engineers. Any sane person. The list goes on.
    2
  4835.  @critthought2866  Yeah, it's not relevant to this thread anyway. The guy who posted the gibberish is just regurgitating something he saw in a conspiracy video. Either way, 3.5 PSI or 5 PSI, it's still nowhere near oxygen toxicity levels.
    2
  4836. She was refusing to ID, obstructing and obfuscating. The cameras didn't matter by then.
    2
  4837. Don't blame the witnesses for calling the police. Blame the criminal herself.
    2
  4838. Yes, one of those points isn't a lie. The super-heavy boosters were "lost" (retired) when the Saturn V program was ended. The rest, of course, is complete nonsense.
    2
  4839. Um, ok. But, for Apollo stuff, you don't need to listen to a single thing that the US government says in order to know the landings happened as described. You are correct about trusting. Don't ever blindly trust anybody or anything, especially government. But, EVIDENCE is what matters. Do you even know what the evidence for Apollo is?
    2
  4840. "as if they had unlimited air in the LM." Hilarious!!! You were proposing an airlock, remember? Well, an airlock would weigh how much? Probably at least 300-400 pounds, right? You'd favor that solution rather than just carrying a couple more pounds of oxygen to allow them to purge the cabin one extra time? Amazing. Absolutely amazing. I guess, in your universe, it simply wasn't possible to throw the PLSS backpacks out. And, not a single one of the 7,000 engineers who designed and built the lunar modules ever realized that they forgot to include a way to throw stuff out the door.
    2
  4841. Yes, I agree. And, the only saving grace here is that she didn't suffer from any of the shaming herself. The video wasn't made public until 1.5 years after she died, so, she never personally suffered any ridicule for it. But, yeah, no need to make a public display of her in death. It's not helping anybody.
    2
  4842. Hubble? The best resolution of the lunar surface from Hubble yields a 160 foot by 160 foot square on the lunar surface PER PIXEL. I repeat: one pixel from Hubble is a 160x160 foot square of the lunar surface. You cannot even see a 14x14 lander with Hubble, because it wouldn't even come close to filling up a single pixel. You're not going to see small details like this with Hubble.
    2
  4843. Oh, dandy. I just confirmed that nobody can see my response (from months ago) except me. YouTube censorship gone wild.
    2
  4844. Well, no, she didn't steal. After she was arrested, she finally produced the receipt. I think it was pretty obvious all along that she was trying to turn "can I see your receipt" into a lawsuit, and did everything in her power to get herself Tased and arrested. Thankfully, her lawsuit failed miserably, and it was thrown out of court, and she got $0.00.
    2
  4845. Well, I don't think you understand what 4K means, but, that's just a minor quibble. Your point is the same either way. You want to know why they haven't photographed the landing sites, right? Well, the answer is that they have. LRO's camera made by Arizona State University, China's lunar orbiter, and India's lunar orbiter, have all photographed the landing sites and can see the Apollo remnants on the moon. It makes no difference to the deniers. All they do is just keep increasing (in their minds) the amount of people/countries that are participating in "the deception." There literally isn't a way to satisfy them. No evidence from any source will ever do. Their only reaction is to sweep it away and just keep piling on more and more people who they believe are participating in a 50 year old "deception."
    2
  4846. You just claimed that you can't create thrust in a vacuum, then claimed you're not an idiot? Good grief.
    2
  4847. Quarantines go back as far as the 1400s.
    2
  4848. "how they did the calculation" They had been sending probes into the Van Allen belts since 1958, more than a decade before sending people. They sent probes to the moon. They sent two Apollo craft (Apollo 4 and Apollo 6) unmanned into the belts, testing and taking more readings with the actual type of craft the astronauts would be inside. I mean, get real here. Do you really think the thousands of engineers all forgot to address this?
    2
  4849. Telescope? From Earth? Do you have any concept of the size that the telescope would need to be? Go to the math, or, just give me your best estimate about the size of the lens that would be required. Can you? Lay a long white stripe? Is this a joke?
    2
  4850. Dewdrop, your "white line" would be like trying to see a bacterium stuck to the wing of an airplane flying 5 miles high. Good gods, you have absolutely no concept of size/scale.
    2
  4851. Yes, one of the audience recorded it and showed the video to the police. Yes, in front of multiple people including children. Given her lengthy arrest history, time served in prison, and (according to her own landlord) her "profession" as a stripper at the local club, and beach witness reports, I don't think it's that difficult to conclude that she was probably making a "public beach" video.
    2
  4852. While I have no medical training, I remain unconvinced that brain surgery is real.
    2
  4853. "so much more is know now , proving the whole story to be a complete lie" Oh? Like what? Stuff on YouTube made by lawnmower repairmen and taxicab drivers that find these "lies" that no aerospace engineer on the planet can find?
    2
  4854. "without a shred of evidence" Dewdrop, there are mountains of evidence for Apollo. Sorry if the videos made by yoga instructors and roofing contractors don't show it to you, but, it's all out there.
    2
  4855. "flights through the van alan belt can not be made without killing everyone" First of all, there's more than one belt. The fact that you don't know how many belts there are, makes it crystal clear that you know nothing about the topic. Secondly, who told you that the belts were so lethal? James Van Allen said it would take over a week in the worst part of the belts before getting such a dose. Every radiobiologist on the planet agrees. What's your source? Did a cashier at a grocery store make a video telling you otherwise, and you decided to believe it? How do you explain the fact that 4 astronauts went into the worst areas of the Van Allen belts just a couple of months ago? They even got out of the craft. No ill effects. How do you explain this?
    2
  4856. "and film more fake footage" Really, dewdrop? You think that's the only evidence? How about the dozens of countries (including enemies) that tracked the Apollo missions to the moon and back with radar and radio telescopes? How about the 4 countries in the last few years that have used lunar orbiters to photograph all 6 Apollo landers still on the lunar surface, exactly where they're supposed to be? A couple of them can even see foot paths and rover tracks. How do you account for this?
    2
  4857. Huh? She thought she was alone? And, you believe that, why? Because she said that while attempting to avoid getting arrested for the millionth time, and didn't want to go back to prison again? I don't know where you live, but, here in the USA, we don't exactly trust convicted felons who spent time in prison, and have been arrested a million times. Very often, when being arrested, they try to lie to talk their way out of it.
    2
  4858. It is blocking my replies about the gun laws. Go read them.
    2
  4859. Can you name any media that even published the story before she was dead?
    2
  4860.  @michaelstillman1171  He's talking about Zoom on his cell phone.
    2
  4861.  @michaelstillman1171  I've told him about the Carruthers camera on Apollo 16 three different times in prior threads of his. As you predicted, of course he doesn't care one bit about seeing stars. He's just looking for a reason to pretend he knows more than the smart people.
    2
  4862. "NASA and every other country that has a space program acknowledges it's existence as fact." ITS!!! What you just wrote was: "NASA and every other country that has a space program acknowledges it is existence as fact." What is it about all of you moon landing deniers that makes all of you read and write like 8 year old children? Why? Did none of you graduate high school? Good grief.
    2
  4863. "They had the rocket technology before we did, but they never attempted to send a man to the moon. Why?" Because their N1 moon rockets kept blowing up. They never got them to work correctly, and blew up 4 of them. They did, however, fly 4 Soviet lunar landers in space in Earth orbit to test them. Yes, they were definitely trying to get to the moon, and would have done so if they could get the N1 to work properly. "It is because they knew that the technology to get there safely did not exist back then" Huh? Then why did they keep building lunar landers and N1 moon rockets? What ARE you talking about? If they knew there was some magical reason that going to the moon wouldn't work, why did they bother to keep building the craft and boosters to do so? "and they know it doesn't even exist now." All of the hardware required has been retired from service. That doesn't mean it didn't exist 50 years ago.
    2
  4864. "with all the advance technology of these past 5 decades?" Technology isn't the issue, dewdrop. Funding is the issue. NASA can only send missions to the moon if congress funds them. They cannot just decide on their own. Every dime of funding comes from congress. And, if congress doesn't give a green light (funding) to a manned moon program, then there is no manned moon program. Why is this so difficult for you? "What are they waiting for." Funding from congress. And, they got it in 2019, and the Artemis program has been proceeding since then. "They're waiting because they don't know how to make it safely to the moon and never have." Why? Because you're one of the secret few that knew more than the 400,000 people who designed and built everything required to go to the moon? What do you know that they didn't know?
    2
  4865. "we wouldn't have gone back numerous times since then" Huh? Apollo 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17... that's not going back? What?
    2
  4866. Violation of rights? What does that have to do with anything? Her rights were never violated. The store is entitled to ask for proof of payment. The cop is entitled to ask for it also. She doesn't have to give it to the cop if she doesn't want, but, that's her own choice, and she must be prepared for the consequences if she doesn't. She certainly has a right to remain silent, but, that doesn't include failing to identify herself. And, she doesn't have a right to resist arrest. So, why do you even bring up rights violations? What rights were violated here?
    2
  4867. Who recorded what? This video is almost an hour long, you know.
    2
  4868. YouTube isn't an education. Don't treat it like it is.
    2
  4869. Would you say the same if it was a man at a playground?
    2
  4870.  @michaelstillman1171  Well, I could tell what you were setting it up for, and didn't comment. Tex didn't pick up on it, I guess.
    2
  4871. Yes, July 1, 2021 = arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. December, 2023 = viral.
    2
  4872. And, you'd believe that, why? Multiple people called the police. The witnesses said that she wandered up and down the beach, and chose as spot in view of people. One witness recorded it, and showed the video to the police. Sorry, but the report describes the exact opposite as "nobody was around." It states that it was in view of multiple people, including children. Why would you believe her anyway? She was a convicted felon who served a term in prison, with a mile long arrest and judgement record after that, trying to avoid her millionth arrest. Why would you think she thought she was alone? Because she said so? Is that all it takes to convince you? You're going to shame the victims, and support the criminals? I know where the person is who deserves shame. He's in your mirror.
    2
  4873. Part 2: YOU SAID: "then years later get rid of all the Telemetry data to hide evidence." == Why? Why would they get rid of it "years later"?? Why do you even think it's missing? NASA tells you they lost telemetry, you blindly accept it. What happened to not believing anything NASA says? See, once again, what you're doing is blindly swallowing anything NASA says if you think it fits your delusion, and blindly rejecting anything NASA says if it goes against your delusion. Do you even know what telemetry was lost? There were two tapes from Parkes Australia that were lost. Nobody cared about them, because they were only backup tapes. Decades later, someone wanted to take a look at them, and found out that they were missing. The primary copies (and millions of other copies) were intact. But, the two backup tapes from Parkes, Australia were lost. Now, from that, you conspirtards blindly assume that ALL telemetry is lost?? Why? Who said it was all lost? A conspiracy video? YOU SAID: "How do you lose the most important information there is from man's highest achievement?" == They didn't. YOU SAID: "Complete rooms full of tapes???" == YES!!!! But, the thing you don't understand is that none of you illiterate clowns actually read the articles you quote from. They had rooms full of useless tapes that they wanted to erase. They think maybe these two missing tapes accidentally ended up in the rooms full of useless tapes they were erasing. Yet, you illiterate conspiratards somehow can't read these articles you quote from. You read the headlines, and don't read the content of the articles. The article you're quoting from goes AGAINST your position. But, you're too illiterate to even read the article you're quoting from. So, you read the headline, and nothing else. You think the rooms full of tapes were ALL from Apollo. No. They think the two missing backup tapes were the only ones they didn't mean to erase. They meant to erase thousands of others, but erasing those two was an accident. And, they don't even know for sure those two missing tapes were in those thousands. It's just their guess. The two backup tapes are lost. So what? They were only BACKUP TAPES, not the primary copies. YOU SAID: "Answer...you don't, you get rid of it for fear of it being investigated." == So, you think they waited 40 years to erase them?!?!!? How does that work? And, once again, you are proving that you blindly accept what you're told by NASA when you think you agree, and blindly reject what NASA says if you think you disagree. YOU SAID: "Nasa=never a strait answer....columbia explosion????" == LITERACY!!! Go learn to read and write!! YOU SAID: "Check that out...all but one of the crew found alive living their lives and some never even changed names lol..." == First of all, that's stupid. Secondly, you know SO LITTLE about NASA that you cannot even properly get your conspiracies straight. Nobody, even the conspiratards, think the Columbia astronauts are alive. Your moronic conspiracy friends are claiming that the CHALLENGER astronauts are alive. You don't know one craft from another, that's how little you know about the program. And, of course, this claim is too stupid to deserve a response. YOU SAID: "Everything you think you know is a lie." == Oh, but YOU know better. YOU?!?!?! The illiterate fool who didn't graduate 10th grade?? YOU know lies from the "troof"? YOU do?? Good grief. YOU SAID: "Watch the space station videos with people on wires lol...all lies...wake up...no one goes to "outer space". Low earth orbit yes," == Low Earth orbit is all you need in order to have zero-G and no wires, dummy. You are contradicting yourself, but you're too dumb to know it. YOU SAID: "just as nasa says that's all the further we can go." == So, once again, you're saying to reject everything NASA says, then you quote NASA and say to believe what NASA says. Can you get any dumber? I'm not dealing with the rest of your dribble. Just lay off the drugs, go back and re-do grammar school, go back and get a high school diploma, and clean up your life, you illiterate buffoon.
    2
  4874. Inside Edition says so, you believe it. Can I sell you a bridge I have for sale?
    2
  4875. Get in craft. Pressurize. Get everything ready over the next couple of hours. Put on helmets and gloves and stuff. Plug suits into craft's oxygen supply. Dump pressure in the cabin. Open door. Throw stuff out. Close door. Pressurize again.
    2
  4876. "Im not convinced on their explanationon on van allen radiation belt" Then perhaps you should read what James Van Allen had to say about it. But, somehow, I think reading isn't in your wheelhouse. "and how conveniently they maneuver the spacecract into the region with less radiation," Well, they did that on most missions, even though it wasn't necessary. Apollo 14 went straight through the middle. But, what's so difficult to understand about going around the dense regions? They go out on a trajectory a little angled off of a direct shot above the equator, thus avoiding the centerline, and then use the moon's gravity over the days in transit to pull the craft back toward the equator again. "with apparently no effect on the passengers" Huh? Why would astronauts be affected by a trajectory that isn't directly above the equator, and instead skews a little bit north or south? What effect did you expect from that? "and no effect on the electronics and computers on board." Huh? How would those old electronics be affected, and by what? Those things used rope memory (literally metal ropes). The electronic pathways were wires. There's a big difference between old electronics and modern electronics. Yes, modern electronics have circuit pathways that are so small that you're basically counting atoms at that point. Yes, ionizing radiation will have greater odds of causing problems to a modern computer. But, good grief, an ion hitting a wire is like a fly hitting a freight train. It's not going to make a bit of difference. But, please elaborate, what EXACT effect do you think would be an issue for an Apollo computer? And, explain why nobody at MIT, Draper Labs, or Raytheon ever noticed that their computers wouldn't work. Can you?
    2
  4877. No, the ones "kidding" (lying) are the conspiracy videos that tell you that nonsense. All astronauts saw stars just fine when they were in the shadow of the moon (night). But, the conspiracy videos take little clips intentionally out of context. Ask yourself, why do you think Armstrong said, "I don't recall, when photographing the solar corona, what stars I could see"? Why would he add the "when photographing the solar corona" if theoretically you believe that he was talking about the entire mission? Answer: because he was NOT talking about the entire mission, he was answering a very specific condition that the questioner asked about. Conspiracy video makers rely on the notion that people who don't understand the topic will simply omit the words "in the solar corona in spite of the glare" from the question, and just conclude (falsely) that they were asked if they ever saw stars at all. Well, thankfully, astronauts are a lot smarter than others, and they knew what the question meant.
    2
  4878. Yeah, because NASA and Westinghouse and RCA all forgot to include brightness and contrast settings on their cameras.
    2
  4879. So, that's it? Because a shuttle exploded, this means Apollo was fake? No evidence? No reason? Just your "hunch"? Oh, you're a real genius alright.
    2
  4880. Now you don't need evidence for your opinions? Yeah, well, you said it alright. Imagine if the rest of the world was that incompetent. "I don't need evidence to convict people of crimes, I just feel like it." Dewdrop, you can sit there and deny calculus exists until the cows come home. Nobody is harmed. But, you're accusing thousands of people of being criminals who would never see daylight again because they'd be in prison if you were correct. And, spare the world your "I didn't say they didn't do it, I just think they didn't," while earlier you put the odds at close to 0%. You have absolutely no clue about the topic, and should stop slandering others just to get your jollies.
    2
  4881. So, you ask questions, but don't want answers. Bravo, dewdrop. Bravo. You're a true hero.
    2
  4882.  @stusue9733  "thought 17psi 100% Ox was a good idea" Well, some people didn't think about it at all. But, yes, many of engineers were extremely concerned, and begged NASA not to test under those conditions. But, it was "go fever" and they weren't going to re-engineer the craft's systems to have a partial pressure of helium or nitrogen to counteract the pure oxygen. At the time, the risk was understood, but, they were more interested in keeping timelines than worrying about the risk to their lives.
    2
  4883.  @stusue9733  I meant that nobody actually thought it was "a good idea" (your wording). They all knew it was a bad idea, but did it anyway.
    2
  4884. Dewdrop, you don't get to declare that you're not reading what I write, then turn around and post new questions and challenges to me. If you don't want to read my responses, don't ask me new things.
    2
  4885. Really? Where can I find such a telescope?
    2
  4886. You're thinking of Apollo 16, not Apollo 17. They brought the Carruthers UV telescope/camera on Apollo 16 to photograph the stars. But, of course, none of the "regular" cameras can take photos of the stars in the daytime.
    2
  4887. It was released on November 24, 2023, as a result of a legal FOIA request.
    2
  4888. A) Very few people who reject Apollo are seeking any sort of "truth." They don't do much more than watch videos that support their delusions, and never once fact check anything they say. Every single thing ever offered in those anti-Apollo videos is laughably wrong, based on complete misunderstandings, out of context quoting, or downright lies. Not a single thing they've ever offered can withstand the slightest bit of scrutiny. And, the loyal viewers of such claptrap just eat it up like Christmas dinner, and really don't care one bit about whether any of those ridiculous claims are actually true. B) If a person has a theory that there's been a conspiracy about a topic, what else would you call that person, if not a conspiracy theorist?
    2
  4889. Camera exposure. It takes about 20-30 second exposure times for stars to show up on film. Most Apollo photos used 1/250th of a second exposures. But, yes, they did use long exposures for some of the photos. Take a look at the 125 star photos from Apollo 16, for example.
    2
  4890. I don't know how to bare in kind, nor bear in kind, nor can kind bears ever have opinions on bearing minds. About all I can say is that when people can't write a coherent sentence, it usually means they'll lose a checkers match against a hamster.
    2
  4891.  @gives_bad_advice  "fact that he parachuted the last bit was such a big deal to anyone" Because some French committee decided that they would write the rules about what qualifies as a "valid" spaceflight, and in those rules, they said the astronaut had to land inside the craft. Eventually, the Soviets (and the rest of the world) basically said that they don't care about those rules.
    2
  4892. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    2
  4893. Yes, he knew the teens were coming, and prepared tarps for their bodies where he planned on murdering them.
    2
  4894. Here you go, dewdrop... some practical observations to illustrate that distance matters. If you're sitting at a race track, and a car zooms by you at 200 mph, what happens? Zoom. You see it, and then it's gone, because you're only a few feet away. If you're standing on the ground, and a plane is flying 5 miles overhead at 600 mph, what happens? It takes around 10 minutes to traverse your basic field of view, right? If you're standing on the moon, and you look at the Earth from 240,000 miles away, what happens? Do you really think you're going to notice the Earth's equator spinning at 1,000 mph from that distance? If it takes an airplane 10 minutes to go through your field of view from just 5 miles away, do you expect to see much movement from 240,000 miles away?
    2
  4895. The police must handcuff for every arrest.
    2
  4896. As for help, well, had she bothered to show up in court, maybe the court would have mandated that as part of the negotiation.
    2
  4897.  @Cliffmchrist  Have you completely lost your mind? What IS wrong with you? Good grief. I don't know anybody ANYBODY **ANYBODY** who defends Apollo in these comments more than I do. And, you're accusing me of denying Apollo. Good grief.
    2
  4898. Well, that's a composite photo. But, what's your objection? How would you have designed it differently?
    2
  4899. Well, nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive, so, it's all speculation. But, her "job" (according to her landlord) was as a stripper at the local club. She probably wouldn't lose her job for this, she'd probably get a raise.
    2
  4900. "Crossing van Allen belt" There are two Van Allen belts, and sometimes even three. "only once in 1969" Huh? Apollo 10 on the way to the moon. Apollo 10 on the way back. Apollo 11 on the way to the moon. Apollo 11 on the way back. Apollo 12 on the way to the moon. Apollo 12 on the way back. That's SIX times in 1969. "and never human race could do it" So, you just acknowledged that they crossed the Van Allen belts (well, you acknowledge it one time anyway), and now you're saying it was never done? You can't remain consistent from one sentence to the next? "Landing on moon when they were struggling on earth" Huh? What do you mean that they were struggling on Earth? "then getting back from moon with computing power one billionth of what we have today" And, 50 years from now, someone just like you is going to say that people in 2023 were able to do things with a billionth of the computing power of 2073. So what? Why do you think this statement matters? "Looks like now the conspiracy theorists are the ones sitting in NASA" Good grief. What IS wrong with you?
    2
  4901. The deniers have concluded that Japan joined the deception in 2008 when those images were taken by their JAXA/SELENE orbiter.
    2
  4902. Of course it wasn't over that. It's Inside Edition, where facts don't matter.
    2
  4903. It has taken dozens of photos of this site (hundreds of all of the sites in total). But, the monochrome resolution is around 19 inches by 19 inches per pixel. The color resolution is much worse. You can't get the level of detail shown in this video by looking at LRO photos.
    2
  4904. "They didn’t even touch upon the original poster boy Gus Grissom." Huh? Grissom wasn't a posterboy, dewdrop. "He openly talked about how poorly built the lander was" Dewdrop, no landers had even been built in Grissom's lifetime. This makes no sense whatsoever. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. "and famously hung a lemon from it." Wrong, dewdrop. He hung a lemon on the simulator for the command module. He never hung any lemons on any actual spacecraft, let alone incomplete landers that were still under construction at the time of his death. Good grief. "He of course was silenced because they couldn’t control him like they did the other puppets." Right. Sure. And, they destroyed a spacecraft and killed two others, nearly ending the Apollo program altogether, just for good measure, eh? No, they couldn't stage a car wreck, or poison his food, or stage an armed robbery that goes bad, or anything like that. Nope. They carefully coordinated the murders of 3 people, because Grissom hung a lemon on a simulator. Right. You're totally a genius alright.
    2
  4905. Yeah, you cracked the case alright!!! 56 years ago, the first manned mission was sent to the moon. And, until now, nobody has ever noticed that the communication delay was wrong. Yup, but here you are!! You spotted it!!! The smoking gun that all deniers in history have been waiting for!!! (Or, hmmm, wait, maybe... just maybe... you listened to edited audio that crops the delays out because nobody wants to hear them... or... hmmm... maybe you're unaware of where the recording device was placed....) Naw, that can't be it. Nope. You've definitely spotted the proof that nobody in history has ever noticed. (sigh)
    2
  4906. So, your position is that the 7,000 engineers at Grumman forgot to include enough space to bring stuff to the moon? And, you know soooooo much about the program that you're asking about a rover on an Apollo 11 video?
    2
  4907. First of all, no, nothing was plastered all over the internet while she was alive. There were a couple of obscure blog postings while she was alive, but, 99.99% of the coverage happened after the arrest video was released on November 24, 2023. She died two years ago. So, no, there really wasn't much embarrassment over this arrest. Secondly, let's face reality here: her landlord said she was a stripper. Her neighbors said that she did "private" cash encounters in her apartment with numerous men. If you think this woman had any notion of "shame" in her life, um, no. And, really nice person indeed. She abandoned her husband and two sons (one of the just 6 months old) about a decade ago, in favor of living a life of drugs and crime. She did a felony term in prison for stealing cars. She had a million arrests, drug and alcohol charges, judgements against her for other thefts and crimes, numerous failures to appear in court, open warrants, etc. Yeah, such a nice person.
    2
  4908. Do you wonder how radar-guided missiles can find another airplane in the sky while moving?
    2
  4909.  @Hobbes746  I think "that's all we needed" is a bit of an exaggeration. They didn't just rely on ballistic and orbital mechanics (though, yes, that was the primary method of predicting where the craft would be). They were in constant communications with both craft, and used active C-band radar tracking from Earth, as well as the radar dish on top of the lunar lander, to make the trajectory adjustments, and timing all of the different burns, etc.
    2
  4910. SpaceX doesn't do things for "far less" than anybody. There's not that much return on investment for landing rockets upright. They aren't launching things for far less than any other rocket manufacturer could. Yes, there's been a slight drop in launch costs when adjusted for inflation, but, that same progression would happen with any decent rocket manufacturer. There's nothing magical about SpaceX. Their "success" is based upon the fact that the Russian non-proliferation agreement ended, and it left a hole in the launch market that none of the other big manufacturers wanted to bother with. It just wasn't worth their time. It serves no purpose to worship Musk here. The next logical steps in rocket manufacturing would be taken by ANY manufacturer willing to pursue the tiny profits from the annual launch market. SpaceX filled a hole nobody else wanted to fill, and Musk whines about the near-bankruptcy status of SpaceX. Already, the writing is on the wall, and NASA has contracted Blue to build another lunar lander to deal with the possibility that SpaceX will crumble and fail instead of produce a functional lander. That's never happened before in the industry, so why is it happening now? Is it because SpaceX is a magical company innovating how the world works (their public persona)? Or, is it because NASA has zero confidence in their decision a few years ago to select SpaceX?
    2
  4911. Are you under the impression that NASA picks and chooses how to spend their money?? What? Congress does that. NASA can't buy a stick of chewing gum without an allocation for it from the congressional appropriations committee. Congress decides which programs get funded, and which programs don't get funded. Not NASA. I mean, if you think NASA just sits there and loves the fact that they can't go anywhere, and got reduced to the point that they cannot even fly their own ships to the ISS any longer, and have to bum rides off of Russia, you're nuts. They plea for money all the time. But, congress is the entity that decides how the money is spent. And, not only has congress reduced NASA's budget from its pinnacle in the 1960s to about 10% of that today (adjusted for inflation), but, congress also has NASA managing hundreds of different programs.
    2
  4912. Didn't threaten the cop? Huh? How about the gun he was wielding? You don't think that's a threat?
    2
  4913.  @ErickJimenez-fm6zb  YOU SAID: "Who film amstrong coming down from the spaceship if everybody were inside." == This is easily found on Google, if you actually cared to know the answer. But, I suspect you don't really want the answer, and you'd prefer ignorance. Am I correct? YOU SAID: "Who ever was filming the astronaut, wasn't jumping like everybody else." == It was a camera mounted to the side of the lander. YOU SAID: "It is curious that the same camera was following them all over the places." == Who ever said it was the same camera? You can easily Google the camera equipment used on all of the Apollo missions, you know.
    2
  4914. Robert, YOU SAID: "The only thing i don't understand is why space is so Secret." == Nothing in Apollo was a secret. Congress only approved Apollo on the basis that all materials, videos, engineering, schematics, etc., were to be made public. As a matter of practicality, of course, the original film negatives, and the rocks, are withheld to needing to get approval to analyze. Otherwise, you'd have a billion people demanding hands-on exposure to moon rocks and film negatives. But, copies of all videos are publicly available. And, all reports about the moon rocks are public information. Thousands upon thousands of worldwide geologists and geology students have analyzed the rocks. The facility that manages the rocks (most of them, the ones not stored in a separate facility to separate the rocks in the event of a disaster) is a 40 hour per week facility, and yes, many worldwide geologists book time to analyze those rocks. True, they don't let a street bum just come in and handle moon rocks. But, it's as "public" as reasonable for something like that. YOU SAID: "They never show the journey there only when we leave and arrive." == Well, documentaries don't do that. That's because the traverse is very long and "boring." Documentaries tend to be an hour or two. They aren't going to waste half of their time showing astronauts in the command module, waiting to get to where they're going. Also, they really didn't plan on running the cameras all the time. They were sometimes naked (yes, literally). They were sometimes expelling waste, etc., and this isn't something they wanted to have on camera. The batteries and fuel cells weren't designed to run cameras for 2 weeks straight either, nor were the cameras themselves designed for constant use. But, there are many ways you can get hours upon hours of the video material you're asking about. Spacecraft Films sells it. You can go directly to NASA to get it. And, some users on YouTube have posted a bunch of it online. For Apollo 17, there's a channel on YouTube called "Apollo Seventeen" that has almost every single second of video footage on it, including the stuff during the long traverses. There's a channel called "lunarmodule5" that has a bunch of stuff also. For example, there's a video called "Apollo 12 - Hello, Intrepid (Full Mission 03)" that has around 30 minutes (or so) of the type of video you're asking about. And, you can look for others in that series that has additional video. Bottom line: the stuff you're calling "secret" isn't a secret. It's all available. But, if you have the expectation that they ran the cameras for a week or two consecutavely, in that tiny little command module or lunar module, yeah, your impression is mistaken from the start. It's not a "secret." It just was not practical (nor desired) to run cameras that much.
    2
  4915. Well, there's your problem right there, in your own sentence. "No question." Indeed, that's what you're doing wrong. You're not questioning. You're pretending you are. You're pretending that you're questioning "the official narrative." But, you don't question the words of charlatans? Why not? Why wouldn't you question them as much as you pretend you question other things? Like, for example, when Sibrel created his lie in his editing room that he put in the "Funny Thing" movie, which he said is his very best evidence, showing Apollo 11 on the way to the moon looking back at Earth. Sibrel claims that the Apollo 11 craft was in low Earth orbit at the time, and used a round window cutout to simulate looking like they were half way to the moon. Right? That was the coup de grâce of his movie, right? The final knockout blow, right. Did you question that? Did you ever question why the clouds weren't moving past the window at 17,500 mph if they were supposedly in low Earth orbit? That's what Sibrel claimed, right? He says that the astronauts were taking video from across the cabin, looking down on the Earth from low orbit, but pretended they were half way to the moon. Right? Again, why were the clouds not moving past the window at 17,500 mph if Sibrel was correct? Why were they virtually stationary? And, Sibrel claimed that he got this footage via a "leak" and that he had the film carbon dated, right? Well, did you question why he would claim it was film, when it was clearly a TV signal? It doesn't look anything like film. And, instead, had all of the hallmarks of a TV signal (much lower resolution, errant horizontal glitches exactly as seen with TV video, etc.). Can you carbon date a TV radio signal? And, for that matter, can you even carbon date film? (Hint: no.) Sibrel claimed that he had the film carbon dated to exactly July 19, thus there wasn't enough time to get to the moon. Even if you can carbon date film (which you can't), and even if it was on film in the first place (it wasn't, it was a TV signal), can you even carbon date it that accurately? Have you never asked these kinds of questions of your heroes? No? You "question" everything else, but you don't "question" Sibrel or Percy about the million holes in their story, and the outright lies they've been exposed in telling? Sibrel was a criminally convicted taxi cab driver who claims NASA "leaked" him this secret film (which wasn't film, and wasn't a secret). Percy was a photographer who knew absolutely nothing about photography (who didn't even know the cameras could be taken off and put on their chest mounts, and thought that Armstrong and Aldrin had two separate Hasselblads on the lunar surface, when they only had one that they passed between them). These are people who lie to you for a living. Why don't you question them? Oh, yeah, "no question" (your words). Yup, you summed it up right there. You don't ask questions.
    2
  4916.  @ElBank2012  Ideologically blinded, eh? Good gods. Don't accuse ME of misunderstanding things, when it's YOU who can't even quote from this video correctly.
    2
  4917. Well, that's one way to demonstrate that you didn't watch the video before commenting, nor have you watched the mission videos or looked at the photography. You are repeating a lie that you saw in a denier video. Dewdrop, how about 15:55 in this video? Does that look like "just a few meters" to you?
    2
  4918. Yeah, that's probably from 2009-2011. In 2012, they dropped LRO into a much lower orbit and got better images. You'll find many of them on Arizona State University's site (they built and manage the camera). Also, India and China have taken similar images with their orbiters. Right now, India's Chandrayaan-2 has the best resolution camera orbiting the moon. This video may have been made before India released those images, however. But, you can go look at them and see much better views than the one in this video. Their photo of Apollo 12, though, is probably the most impressive of all. It shows the lander, as well as the shadows of the flame deflectors and even the flag's shadow (still standing) just north of the lander, exactly where it was in the original mission photography.
    2
  4919. Well, not her children, someone else's... don't know if that's worse or better.
    2
  4920. Well, nobody owns the moon, so there's no legal way to enforce such preservation. But, the US passed a law stating that they'd never fund any private company that intends to go to Apollo 11's site or Apollo 17's site with the intention of disturbing anything there.
    2
  4921. Does that even make sense to you? Do you REALLY believe the 7,000 engineers at Grumman forgot to make the hatch big enough to fit through? Really? And, after 50 years, somehow, not a single one of them ever realized it? "Oh, we forgot to make the astronauts fit into the craft!!!" No? But, YOU know it, right? Because you watched a conspiracy video, right?
    2
  4922. You're posting in a video about "fake or real" moon landings, saying you cannot imagine that the suit pressure was what it was. I am not "emotional" in my response. I'm factual.
    2
  4923.  @therealzilch  Yet, the main reason that they didn't have any nitrogen in Apollo was because when the pressure changes rapidly, you get the bends due to nitrogen, which can be fatal. Nitrogen is a darned dangerous gas in space for animals/people. Today, they mirror the Soviet space policies and use nitrogen (except during spacewalks). There are plusses and minuses.
    2
  4924.  @gives_bad_advice  Or, accidental pressure changes. Anyway, today, they spend a couple of hours in their EVA suits at 100% oxygen to purge all of the nitrogen out of their bodies before getting out of the craft.
    2
  4925. "How did they recharged the batteries" They didn't. They brought batteries with enough pre-stored charge.
    2
  4926. "They claimed they used liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen as fuel." Sometimes. Depends on the rocket. Sometimes the fuel was kerosene. Sometimes it was Aerozine50. But, for clarity, liquid oxygen isn't a fuel, it's an oxidizer (strictly speaking). And, it wasn't even the only oxidizer they used.
    2
  4927. "the Moon experiences tremendous changes in temperature between Night and Day; from -253 degrees at night and 127 degrees during the day" I fail to understand why that's relevant, and so do you.
    2
  4928. "how they keep the Moon lander, rover and capsule, warm and cool, for those 3 days" Dewdrop, a lunar "day" is a month on Earth. You are quoting Earth days. They were never on the moon during the night. They were never on the moon during a high noon. The longest mission landed at the Earth equivalent of 6:30am, and lifted off at the equivalent of 9:00am (the same day). They never saw the temperatures you're complaining about.
    2
  4929. So, your entire false assumption is because you are unaware that one moon day is 708 hours, not 24. A day on the moon is a month on Earth. And, they were never there during the temperatures you're complaining about.
    2
  4930. Dewdrop, if you're not going to read the answers to your questions, why do you ask them?
    2
  4931. Dewdrop, a lunar day is 708 hours from sunrise to sunrise. Congratulations AGAIN for refusing to read the replies to your own questions.
    2
  4932. One Earth day = 24 hours relative to the sun. One Earth day = 24 hours 50 minutes relative to the moon. One lunar day = 655 hours relative to Earth. One lunar day = 708 hours relative to the sun. This is basically a month. This is the relevant one that determines daytimes/nighttimes/temperatures.
    2
  4933.  @stusue9733  Depends on the mission exactly, but, I just round things off to 6:30 to 9:00.
    2
  4934.  @therealzilch  "How long is a lunar day" laughably returns an AI response of 24 hours and 50 minutes as its main value. The thing is, it's not actually looking at how long a day on the moon is, it's looking at how long a day is on Earth with respect to the moon's position in our sky. There are a million other hits that say 708 hours, of course. And, that's the correct answer for how long a day is on the moon. AI is still in its infancy (just like the OP).
    2
  4935. Somehow, I missed this reply (which I will break into pieces): "Silver-Zinc Batteries. Which would struggle to work in such extreme temperatures." Yes, which is why they never experienced those extremes you're talking about. They landed in the early lunar morning, and lifted off within 75 hours, long before it got super hot, and long after the super cold. You still refuse to grasp the reality that one day on the moon is 708 hours. That's a 708 hour temperature cycle, not 24 hours.
    2
  4936. "the Rover" The use of the batteries on the rover was the main factor that made them get hot. While sitting idle, they'll get hot very slowly in a vacuum, and it's no problem keeping them cool. But, while using them, they heat up quickly, which is why they used wax as a heat sink.
    2
  4937. "-250 degrees at night to 120 degrees during the day." If you were standing on the lunar surface at sunrise, it would be a week before high noon, another week before sunset, and then two weeks before the next sunrise. A lunar day is 708 hours (basically a month). They never stayed for an overnight, nor were they ever there for a high noon.
    2
  4938. "think about that for a minute" Hilarious irony. YOU try thinking about what a 708 hour temperature cycle means when the longest mission lasted 75 hours on the surface.
    2
  4939. "Imagine the fuel required for 3 days." Batteries, not fuel. And, that's 3 EARTH DAYS. It's barely 10% of a lunar day.
    2
  4940. "liquid oxygen pipes, freezing at night" They were never on the moon at night, contrary to the nonsense you have spewed 100x. And, no, dewdrop, the pipes for cryogenically stored oxygen (super cold) wouldn't freeze in the cold. That doesn't even make sense.
    2
  4941.  @stusue9733  Well, if you only want to see a dot or two, sure. But, 53m won't buy you enough of an image to actually know what you were looking at.
    2
  4942. Not a bad person? With a mile long criminal record, including a felony sentence in a Florida prison? She walked out on her family, including a 6 month old son, another son, and a husband, more than a decade ago to live a life of crime and drugs. Her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the local gentleman's club, and neighbors said she did "extras" for cash in her apartment. At what point, in your mind, does someone ever get labeled as "bad" if she's not?
    2
  4943. There's this new thing called "the internet." Try it out sometime.
    2
  4944. They left 6 flags on the moon, 5 of which are still standing.
    2
  4945.  @critthought2866  I doubt he understands the question. But, I'd have asked it also, had you not beaten me to it.
    2
  4946. But, you have your facts wrong. The arrest video was never in the public domain until she was already dead 1.5 years.
    2
  4947.  @isabella-a-a-a  Being unwilling to watch 10 minutes of backstory is one thing. But, to openly skew the story to paint the wrong picture is something else. Notice they opened with a question, "Was she shamed?" They never answered the question. They use it to avoid responsibility. "We weren't lying, we were asking a question." The audience thinks the question IS the answer.
    2
  4948.  @rebeccalewers5060  That is not true. That's just what the real offenders like to say to explain how/why they got on those lists. "Oh, my bladder was about to burst so badly I couldn't stand it, it was either ruin the interior of my car, or go behind the dumpster, I chose the dumpster, and now I'm on those offender lists." In reality, they did far worse, but, they don't want to admit the real reason they're on the lists.
    2
  4949. Oh look, it's another proud graduate of YouTube University School of Law.
    2
  4950. Yes. Definitely. The veracity of the Apollo program from 1961 through 1975 is dependent upon the accent of a narrator in a video made 50+ years later.
    2
  4951.  @ginskimpivot753  "they also never lost an engine on one either" They lost two engines on Apollo 6's Saturn V. And, they had an early cutoff on an engine on Apollo 13.
    2
  4952.  @Tim22222  Yeah, but, unlike my normal instinct, I figured I shouldn't be wordy about it. After all, that's the finest way to get your post blocked.
    2
  4953. "I'm not an engineer or a scientist." Shocker. "I do however have something called common sense." And, in this "common sense" of yours, what part of that tells you that you understand the topic better than the entire planet's experts? Does that sound like "common sense" to you? Or, does it sound like Dunning-Kruger?
    2
  4954. Did you even notice that your entire position is "I don't like the looks on their faces when they were in a boring press conference a month after their mission," and "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." Those are literally your only two arguments. You don't ask for evidence. You don't ask to understand the technologies. Nope. It's "I don't believe it because I don't understand it." That's literally your entire position. And, you're PROUD of it?!?!?!?
    2
  4955.  @eventcone  Yes, they often took readings during the missions. I'd say about once an hour (rough wild guess, based purely on memory of the mission audio, I could we way off here). And, for the next several years, the ALSEPs sent back surface temperature readings, which is why we have accurate data about the surface temperatures through the lunar day/afternoon/night, etc.
    2
  4956. So, it's the blog owner's fault somehow?
    2
  4957. YOU SAID: "There have been plenty of conspiracies in history." == OK, but the moon landings aren't one of them. YOU SAID: "If we landed on the moon, why is it a suprise that the single largest human accomplishment would be scrutinized?" == Scrutinized is fine. But, I have yet to meet a moon conspiracy nut who actually scrutinizes. Almost completely universally, all they do is fuel their delusions. They say they're just being skeptical, and perhaps what they think they're being. But, in reality, they're not. They readily accept all "facts" that support their delusion, no matter how ridiculous or wrong, without any scrutiny whatsoever. And, they reject all facts that oppose their delusion, no matter how well grounded in science. Every single one of their conspiracy arguments falls apart upon any actual scrutiny. And, they never let arguments die, not ever, no matter how thoroughly debunked. And, their arguments always boil down to "there was too much radiation" or "there was not enough thrust" or things like that, without providing a single bit of math to back up those assertions. Meanwhile, the math has been done 1,000,000x over, and all of their claims turn out to be mathematically wrong. So, they stoop to out-of-context quote-mines, such as claiming that NASA admitted they never went to the moon, and other absurdities that are too dumb to imagine. Sorry, they're shooting blanks. YOU SAID: "If anything is unintelligent, its not expecting that a moon landing would be questioned." == Sure, that's fine, if the questions are honest. But, I have yet to meet any moon conspiracy nuts who are honestly asking questions. They PRETEND to ask questions, because they think they're supposed to come across as intellectually honest. But, the answers go in one ear, and out the other. And, if you're not going to name examples, ok, fine, I won't either. But, to illustrate a point, polls have indicate that the demographics that are LEAST likely to believe the moon landings were faked are physics PhDs, aerospace engineers, rocket engineers, etc. Far less than 1% of those demographics believe the moon landings were faked. Meanwhile, if you poll people who have never set foot inside any university classrooms on any of the relevant subjects, you need only flip a coin to find someone who doubts the moon landings. In reality, if the moon landings were faked, that dynamic would be completely reversed. The experts who are working in these sciences day in and day out for years upon years would be the FIRST ones who would spot the details that would reveal that the moon landings were faked. But, we don't have that. We have uneducated nutbags on the internet leading the "Apollo is fake" charge, people who know absolutely nothing about rocketry, screaming about Van Allen belts, blast craters under the LEMs, and not seeing a rocket plume under the Apollo 17 ascent stage leaving the moon. Somehow, no actual aerospace engineers are alarmed by the lack of a plume under the ascent stage. But, the conspiracy nutjobs think that this is a "smoking gun" piece of evidence in their favor. It's insanity. And, no, they're not actually asking questions, because the minute you provide the answers, they NEVER admit to being wrong, and instead stick their fingers in their ears and say "lalalalala" until they can change the topic and declare victory. YOU SAID: "I personally want to believe we landed" == I do not believe you. YOU SAID: "but definitely do not understand why our technology in space travel have not continued to be more efficient with all the technology advances over the past 40 years now." == Efficient? What do you mean? They ARE more efficient, if you're talking about money. Or, did you mean the efficiency of a rocket engine? Yeah, that's not going to change very much. YOU SAID: "American innovation, with the help of some German friends is definitely the creme!" == Yet, somehow, you cast doubt on that EXACT dynamic, because that's EXACTLY what Apollo had.
    2
  4958. So, if I solve those two things for you, will you change your mind? Van Allen belts: Conspiracy videos make a big deal out of them, but, it's nothing but out of context quote mining. Yes, we keep lots of missions out of those belts, because they are harmful for long term exposure. But, it's conceptually the same as a hot tub. Sitting in a hot tub with 104 degree water will kill you if you're in it for too long. The human body cannot take those temperatures for extended periods of time. But, for short amounts of time, it's no big deal. It's the same concept (different reason, same in spirit) for the Van Allen belts. Getting exposed to ions is very rough on the body for extended periods, but, short exposures are no big deal. James Van Allen calculated that it would take about a week in the worst areas of the belts to get a fatal exposure. I calculated it as more like 2 weeks. But, whatever, he was probably just more conservative. The Soviets sent two dogs up into the worst area of the belts for a few weeks on and off. So, you don't even need to trust me, nor James Van Allen. If you want an opposing viewpoint, the Soviets have given it to you, with the exact same results that NASA and James Van Allen would give you. Missions like on the shuttles, or ISS, or Mir, etc., last long enough to have a bad effect if they were up in the belts. So, they kept those missions out of the belts. But, Apollo cruised through the inner belt (the worst one) in about 15 minutes, and the outer (the less harmful belt) in a couple of hours. This is nowhere near a fatal exposure, not by a long shot. I mean, seriously, there are 77 space agencies on Earth, staffed with the virtual entirety of experts on the topic, and not a single one has ever even bothered mentioning the Van Allen belts as a concern for Apollo. Not one. Not ever. Not even enemy space agencies. Why do you suppose that is? Why are ZERO space agencies worried about the Van Allen belts for craft that go through them quickly? And, why do conspiracy videos always rely on out-of-context quotes about the Van Allen belts to produce this false narrative that Apollo would have problems? If they were concerned about the Van Allen belts for the shuttle, this means that Apollo didn't happen? If they were concerned about the Van Allen belts for Orion, this means that Apollo didn't happen? Why? Is it because that's comparing apples and oranges? Or, is it because no expert on Earth is able to connect the dots you think you can connect? Where'd you get your education on the Van Allen belts? Have you read any of the thousands of scientific papers on them, and done the math yourself? Or, did you rely on a conspiracy video that presented you some 10 second quotes from unrelated topics for other programs, and then ask you to make the conclusion that Apollo was fake? Before I told you that the Van Allen belts consisted of ions, did you even know? Or, did you think they were radioactive, like so many others? I'll tell you something: never once have I even met someone who thought the Van Allen belts would be a problem for Apollo who actually read any of the papers about them. The 100% track record thus far for people in your position of denying the moon landings consists of people who have absolutely no understanding of the topic they reject. Will you be any different? I doubt it. My money is on the concept that you're not even reading this message, and you really don't want answers to your own comments. Flag was blowing: Sure. Which time? The flags only moved under 3 conditions: 1) When being handled, or directly after being handled. In a vacuum, with no surrounding air to suppress the movement, yes, flags will move quite a lot when handled, and it can seem like a "wind." But, this is probably the silliest of all complaints, because if this was on a soundstage, why are there hurricane winds in the first place? And, if NASA was capable of bluffing radar tracking, producing 7,000 fake photos from the lunar surface, 110,000 fake photos from lunar orbit, etc., are you really going to believe that they'd just leave hurricane winds in the cut? No? They wouldn't just re-shoot? Or, is it a simple matter of physics? Energy gets transferred into the flagpole when being handled, and the flag moves? Which is the simpler explanation? 2) When an astronaut goes near the flag, but doesn't touch it. It's well understood that the moon is ultra-dry, and carries a large static charge, and nylon tends to get attracted to that charge. Heck, if you hold a piece of nylon in a dry room while walking around on a carpet, I'd dare say you have a hard time even putting the nylon down, because it stays so attracted to your body that you can't even push it away without it getting stuck to your fingers. The same attraction nylon has to static can happen on the moon, and nylon gets attracted to an astronaut with a static charge. Furthermore, people like you are always under the impression that the suits and backpacks were closed systems. They were not. Go look at the schematics. There were purge/overpressure valves, porous plate sublimators with vents, etc. Those things off-gassed from time to time, by design. If it happens to be off-gassing while walking near a flag, yes, with no atmosphere to press back on the expanding gasses, the off-gassing produces a sort of small "wind" that moves the flag. It's not much, it's just a slight flag movement. But, yes, it did/does happen. I can't recall exactly, but, I think there were three times that the flag moved when an astronaut was nearby. This is quite easily explained by static/nylon, and/or suit/PLSS venting of gasses. 3) It's similar to #2. The lunar module also wasn't a closed system, and had purge valves, porous plate sublimators, etc., which vented off gasses from time to time. On Apollo 14, you can even see the flag rotate about 180 degrees when the astronauts were inside the module. Honest videos will show the audio along with the video of the flag moving, and you can hear the astronauts saying that they were opening a purge valve at the time the flag moved. Dishonest videos leave the audio out, and just pretend that the flag moved all by itself for no reason. Frankly, I have no hope that your mind will change. I've been on this rodeo too many times. And, I've found that people like you never change your minds. Your premise isn't even based in evidence. It's based on "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." You don't understand the Van Allen belts, and you don't understand the flag movement. You never once even asked for evidence (which is what any honest person's beliefs should be based upon). And, yeah, like I said, I seriously doubt you're even reading this reply in full.
    2
  4959. As usual, I'm having a hard time getting my message to post. I'm sure Larry won't read it anyway, but, can someone confirm if my long message is visible?
    2
  4960. Maybe you should learn something about the case before you use that sarcasm. She was a convicted felon with a mile long arrest record. Multiple people called about this incident, and one of them even recorded it, and gave a copy of the video to the police. It doesn't match her "nobody was around" sob story. Her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the gentlemen's club, and neighbors said she did "extras" for cash in her apartment. If she wasn't making "public beach" content, but got reported, and was trying to cry her way out of her millionth arrest, I'll eat my hat.
    2
  4961. So, you didn't want answers to your questions (again). What a shocker.
    2
  4962. Well, her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the local gentlemen's club, and neighbors said she did "extras" for cash in her apartment. I'd think those career choices would produce more dangerous men than a news story. But, just FYI, with the exception of a couple of obscure blogs nobody has ever heard of, none of this made the news until long after she was dead.
    2
  4963. It's not. It's 1/6th gravity.
    2
  4964. What space station? What in the world are you talking about?
    2
  4965.  @therealzilch  It comes from a conspiracy video.
    2
  4966. There are no such photos taken by any amateurs (nor professionals) anywhere on Earth. The telescope required doesn't exist, not by a long shot. I searched the phrase you named, and the only output I found were the images taken by the 4 lunar orbiters circling the moon with adequate cameras to do this. Hardly "heaps of peeps world wide." Just saying.
    2
  4967. Multiple people called about this incident. One of them even recorded it, and gave the video to the police. Needless to say, it doesn't match her version about nobody being around. Why do you believe her anyway? Because she said so, as she was attempting to avoid her millionth arrest?
    2
  4968. You don't actually expect a response to that gibberish, do you?
    2
  4969. And, what would YOU have done? Just sat there and gotten shot?
    2
  4970. Oh? So, there were three "secret" moon launches that nobody knew about? Those moon rockets were huge and loud and could be seen and heard for hundreds of miles. It also took about 3,000 people to get one off the ground on launch day. And your position is that they built 3 extra moon rockets (nobody remembers building), and somehow snuck them out into space (nobody remembers seeing), with some sort of landers that were capable of robotically deploying reflectors (which nobody remembers designing or building)? That's your contention here?
    2
  4971. And, that contradicts the father's other statement: "Jaggers’ father, Mark Jaggers, who was present at the press conference, said his son had said “who’s in that car?” before approaching Hayden." Funny how the father says in one statement that the son was asking who was in the car, and then in another statement he said the son didn't think anybody was in the car. Did the attorney tell him that it was a bad idea to tell the press that the son knew someone was in the car when he approached with a mask on and a gun drawn? As for what to do about an abandoned car, you call the police. You don't "investigate" it yourself.
    2
  4972. They understand the difference between an infraction and misdemeanor. You do not.
    2
  4973. So, you personally didn't study, and clearly don't know what you're talking about. But, you think you know enough to declare that they'd have burned? Why do you suppose you don't find any actual physicists/cosmologists making that same claim?
    2
  4974. Huh? The family should sue the police department for what?
    2
  4975. Freedom of Information Act.
    2
  4976. The boots were not sealed. They were an "overshoe" to the interior shoe, which was sealed. They built the suits so the wrists and ankles had some overlap area to act as dust shields. Conspiratards think this overlap area means that it wasn't airtight underneath. But, conspiratards are wrong, as usual.
    2
  4977. Who told you that the Soviets were stopped by radiation? Was it a conspiracy video?
    2
  4978. So, Jerome, if it's "obvious" and "common sense" (your claims), then please explain what you would have done to send people back to the moon, that the prior NASA administrators didn't do? How EXACTLY would you have achieved it?
    2
  4979. Can you name the telemetry data that you think is lost? I mean, yes, in 2006, NASA published a paper stating that they had lost two telemetry video tapes from Apollo 11. They never mentioned data being lost. They also said that these were backup video copies that were lost, not the primary copies. But, somehow, nearly 20 years later, you people seem to inflate and inflate and inflate what you think was lost. Now, it's data? Now, it's designs? Why? Why would you think those things were lost?
    2
  4980. Why? What's the basis for your suit?
    2
  4981. No, murder isn't a lawsuit. That's a prosecution. Again, what's your basis?
    2
  4982. You're obviously very proud to know nothing.
    2
  4983. Their are no tracks telescope clearlry not see because yu don't talk about you kknow rover not see Earth from.
    2
  4984. "I just looked at the "moon tracks"" Amazing how they line up perfectly with the original mission photos, eh? "That's your proof?" There are mountains of proof. That's one piece. "listen to the audio of the LEM landing. You hear ZERO engine noise." Huh? You expect to hear noise in space? Rocket noise comes from the rocket exhaust gasses interacting with the atmosphere. No atmosphere = no noise. There can be a slight noise that reverberates through the metals in the craft, and into the pressure suits. But, it's not going to be very much. "I was very ambivalent until that was pointed out to me." So, because you don't understand how sound works, you have concluded that a massive crime was committed by thousands of people? That's how this goes? And, not a physicist or aerospace engineer on the planet agrees with you, or has ever spotted this "gotcha" of yours? NASA managed to somehow fake radar dishes in dozens of countries (including enemy countries) into seeing craft that weren't there, but, they forgot to make engine noises? That's your position here?
    2
  4985. What ARE you talking about? How could you even tell how much the image is zoomed in or out? There's not even a reference point within the frame.
    2
  4986.  @whentherebelcomeshome7564  Go see a doctor. You need one badly.
    2
  4987.  @whentherebelcomeshome7564  So, you opened by saying the Earth is the wrong size (when there's no frame of reference to even make that assertion). When challenged, you switched topics to gravity (what does that have to do with the photo you're talking about?). Now, you're asking me to show you stuff that, in advance, you plan on rejecting? Doctor. Go to one. You need it, badly.
    2
  4988.  @whentherebelcomeshome7564  Thanks for proving me correct. You intended to reject the answer, before you even got the answer. Go see a doctor.
    2
  4989. Yes, and it was quite dishonest of media not to tell you at that point that she was already dead 1.5 years prior. Instead, they staged it so that the first video would come out, then the follow-up a month later, to pretend that the first video caused the death.
    2
  4990. Well, all she got was a Taser hit, and an unpleasant day, and a permanent presence on the internet for making a fool of herself. She didn't get a single dime in her lawsuit.
    2
  4991.  @shillseeker9538  No, dummy. Trump has no ability to grant any blank checks. The money is granted by CONGRESS. The president can request money from congress, but cannot grant the money himself. And, yes, it's a massive risk for Trump/Pence/Bridenstine to run around, talking about 2024, before congress grants the money to do it by then. Congress hadn't granted a single dime to manned moon landings when Trump/Pence/Bridenstine started publicly talking about 2024. Not a single dime. They finally granted some money in 2019, but certainly not enough to meet a 2024 deadline. But, Bridenstine is still out there talking about 2024 anyway. Personally, I think it's going to backfire on them. I don't think congress is going to grant that kind of money to meet that timeline. And, it'll become just another empty promise, like thousands of others in presidential history. They'll be lucky to make it by 2028 or 2030... and there's always the risk that congress will pull the funding altogether. None of that changes the fact that Apollo missions went to the moon 9 times from 1968 through 1972.
    2
  4992. YOU SAID: "why we can't go to the moon now?" == Going to the moon was the most expensive per-man voyage in human history, and there's no close 2nd place. Adjusting into today's dollars, Apollo costed approximately $200 billion. And, from that, they put 12 men on the surface of the moon for a few hours each. No human has ever even spent a full 24 hours walking on the surface. It costed about $16 billion PER PERSON to walk on the moon. There's simply nothing else like it in human history. 400,000 people worked a decade of their lives to allow 12 men to walk on the moon for a few hours each. Even the pyramids of Egypt cannot compare to Apollo. Yet, many people today simply do not understand what kind of an undertaking it was, and dismiss it as "easily" as claiming, "well, if they could go back then, we should be able to go now." Wrong. But, hey, if you want to fork over $200 billion yourself, hey, be my guest. YOU SAID: "Nasa said because we lost the technology, and it makes no sense" == Exactly. It makes no sense. So, why do you conspiratards keep quoting him like that? Don Pettit was never saying that Apollo didn't happen. He said the technology is "lost." But, he didn't mean it's "lost" in the sense that nobody can "find it." He means that rebuilding an entire program like that is amazingly difficult. Apollo isn't a 1968 Mustang that you can just get somebody to put together again, and then hop in and drive it. That's not how it works. Most of the buildings and tooling to make any of the hardware are long gone. Most of the companies who built everything for Apollo are long gone. The people are long dead or retired. There are no launch pads equipped to launch a Saturn V, even if we had a functional one to launch (which we don't). There are no training facilities. There are no functional landers. Nobody makes those rope memory computers any longer. The list is endless. Apollo is gone, and rebuilding another Apollo would be far more difficult than just starting up a completely new program. I mean, look at the Soviet Tupolev TU4. That was a program that aimed to completely copy, bolt by bolt, a captured American B29. They were "successful" (so to speak) in building flying planes that looked identical to B29s. But, it cost them 10x more than if they had just let the engineers design something new. It was an absolute disaster. Well, that was just an airplane. It would be a million times worse to try to reverse engineer an entire space program. THAT is what Pettit meant when he said the technology was "lost." He wasn't saying that the blueprints are gone, or that we don't know how it was done. But, you conspiracy nutjobs hear a single sentence that you don't understand, and instantly, it goes into your list of stupid "reasons to doubt Apollo." YOU SAID: "the reason why citizens dont believe this government" == Sure. The government isn't trustworthy. I agree. But, ignorance isn't an argument. And, it would be completely impossible to fake Apollo. YOU SAID: "like the 911 reality" == So, was it drugs that ruined your brain so badly? Or, were you born that way?
    2
  4993. "I find it odd that no probe has actually been sent back to the surface of the site" What for? Why would they return to a site that they've already been, and gathered up rocks? Apollo 11's site wasn't chosen for its geological interest. It was chosen because it was the safest (most wide open) expanse within Apollo's range. The moon is pretty geologically dormant already, but, Apollo 11's site is about as uninteresting as it gets.
    2
  4994. Because they know they are supposed to say that in order to get an appeal / have their sentences reduced.
    2
  4995. Oh, shocker, another person who tries to "logic" themselves into disbelief, where EVIDENCE doesn't matter. Sorry, dewdrop, but we all know that "every video out there" means (in your mind) every nutjob conspiracy video you could find. How does this go, in your mind? Why do you suppose that not a single one of the world's 77 space agencies, staffed with the virtual entirety of the world's experts on the topic, believe what you do? Do you think they don't know how to watch conspiracy videos? Why would you believe a single word out of those videos you love so much?
    2
  4996. Once again, if you are going to refuse to answer my replies and questions, no, I'm not going to answer any additional stuff from you. You are a high school dropout with absolutely no understanding of the topic. And, you're so ruined by your own addiction problems that you cannot even form coherent thoughts.
    2
  4997. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    2
  4998. Shaq speaks for 10 seconds, and they extract 3 minutes of "coded messages" from that??
    2
  4999. "Payed"? Sounds like you need to go back to school yourself. I mean, look, I hope the parents sue the school board to oblivion and back. But, if you can't even spell your argument, you're really not helping anything, especially if the topic is a school.
    2
  5000. And, can you explain why the Netherlands' own version of that story doesn't match your version? What do you know about that petrified wood, that their art museum (which kept that rock, by the way, as a reminder) do not know? Are you a bigger expert on the topic than the very people who own that rock? They don't think it came from NASA. They don't think NASA ever claimed it was a moon rock. They took the blame for accepting it without verifying it. NASA offered to take a look before the museum accepted it, yet, the museum never took them up on the offer. Who EXACTLY are you blaming here? What EXACTLY do you think happened in that story? You didn't just read an article written by a hoax nut, and believed it hook line and sinker, did you?
    2
  5001. So what? NASA never gave anybody that rock.
    2
  5002. Hey, forget about Apollo. That's old news. Can you believe there are still people who believe helicopters can land and take off without leaving a crater? Like, take a look at "Marine's biggest helicopter makes emergency landing in the middle of a beach | Mashable." I've been saying for decades that helicopters don't actually land or take off from sandy beaches. So, maybe you can do me a favor and go over to that video and tell everyone how fake it is because there's no blast crater. After all, that helicopter routinely lands and takes off with 20x more downward force than the lunar module did at landing, but, you never see a blast crater. And, let's not forget the Mi26 helicopter that is nearly double that Marine one (about 40x the thrust of the lunar module upon landing). It's laughable that people actually believe that thing flies, let alone doesn't leave a blast crater. And, let's not even start about the Vietnam war, and supposedly constantly landing Huey helicopters on sandy beaches. I'm trying to get funding for an expedition to Vietnam to dig up the hundreds of helicopters that must have been buried in the blast craters they created. And, we need to expose the CGI that the government produced to show all of those helicopters landing and taking off successfully. It's so obviously fake by looking at it, and clearly they used Photoshop and CGI. Can you help me? Start with that video I mentioned, and let's expose the LIE together!!
    2
  5003. "the materials used are just absurd" Oh. So, the thousands of aerospace engineers were doing it wrong? OK, what materials would you have used instead of the ones they actually used? "and the tech that "put" a man on the moon mysteriously disappeared... hmmm doubtful." Huh? First of all, what do you mean that it disappeared? It was retired. Do you say the same about every retired technology? What is the context of this notion of yours that it has disappeared?
    2
  5004. Dewdrop, multiple people called, and one of them recorded the incident and gave a copy of the video to the police. It doesn't match her sob story about nobody being around. And, no, the police didn't expose her. They blocked the release of the arrest video for 2.5 years. But, once the investigation was closed (she was long dead), they could no longer block FOIA.
    2
  5005. Dewdrop, you believe she thought she was alone, why? Because she said so, as she was attempting to avoid her millionth arrest, and didn't want to go back to prison again?
    2
  5006.  @marksprague1280  Just FYI, there was no "data" on the missing tapes. It was only video. This is often confused because they're called "telemetry tapes," and people sometimes assume telemetry=data automatically. But, in terms of NASA, all input, data, voice, video, whatever, still falls under the "telemetry" category.
    2
  5007.  @marksprague1280  There were data tapes, tons of them. But, the two missing tapes were video.
    2
  5008. Well, that's only if you believe Inside Edition (where facts don't matter). But, pretending you're correct anyway, ok, so, nobody should call the police when they see a crime?
    2
  5009. "Here’s something that makes me wonder" Well, you're not going to solve that by watching conspiracy videos. They're always wrong. Yet, it's extremely clear that you don't get your "information" from anywhere else. "They couldn’t make successful take off and/or landing of the prototype lunar module on earth" Sigh. Why would you believe a single word of that? First of all, the only lunar module "prototypes" were flown in space, not on Earth. And, they weren't really "prototypes," but, whatever, you clearly don't understand anyway. Those craft were not designed to fly in Earth's gravity. At full throttle, they couldn't even get it off the ground on Earth, because the engine was designed to work in 1/6th gravity. So, no, of course they didn't fly it on Earth. But, something tells me you have confused the LLRVs/LLTVs with the lunar modules, and you're attempting to complain about Armstrong's ejection. The conspiracy videos claim that was his only flight in one, and it crashed. But, that's wrong. They built 5 of those craft, and flew hundreds upon hundreds of times. Yes, Armstrong had an issue that caused him to run out of control fuel with no way of knowing it, and he had to eject from one of his flights. But, that was a year before his lunar mission, and he flew the LLTV dozens of times. "they expect us to believe" Nobody "expects" anything of you. But, if you want to complain about Apollo, you should actually learn about the topic, not just blindly watch silly videos full of falsehoods made by crackpots, gobbling it all up like Christmas dinner. "they travelled thru space orbited an unknown ball that circles earth" The moon? Unknown? What? You do know dozens of probes were sent first, right? "timed its rotation perfectly" Yes, the mathematics of orbital mechanics are quite accurate, and radar certainly helps. "flew it thru its atmosphere" Atmosphere? And, you want to be taken seriously? You wonder why people "expect" things of you? Like, maybe you should know something about the topic before coming to conclusions? "How gullible does one have to be to believe all that?" Well, the entirety of the planet's 72 space agencies, staffed with the virtual entirety of the world's experts, all believe it. Do you think you know better? Why? Because a conspiracy video told you so? "work out PERFECTLY THE VERY FIRST TIME THEY TRIED IT!!!" So, what is your criteria? The first landing missed its intended spot by miles. I'd hardly call that perfect. They also almost had to abort immediately after touchdown. Also not perfect. But, ok, good enough, yes. What did you expect? Nobody could ever land first without getting killed or something? The Apollo astronauts had the LLRVs and LLTVs to train in. You should be complaining that the Wright brothers' flights were impossible. They flew for years and hundreds (maybe thousands) of flights before the first crash. These were the very first aviators, with no simulators, no training, no nothing. They hopped onto their craft and flew it. I'd think that's a more difficult task than experienced test pilots training for moon landings, then successfully pulling it off. Oh, but you don't complain about that. Nope. That doesn't fit your delusion, so, you don't mention it.
    2
  5010. Well, the arrest video wasn't put on the internet until 2.5 years later, long after she died. And, as for her "embarrassment," well, why would you believe her anyway? The witnesses and the video taken of the incident do not agree with her story about nobody being around. To the contrary, the witnesses said it was an intentional act. Frankly, I find the innocent bystanders and police far more credible than the convicted felon trying to whine her way out of her millionth arrest.
    2
  5011. Sorry for that, must be pretty rough. Have you considered maybe a dating site?
    2
  5012. Too late. She had already obstructed, refused to provide ID, and obfuscated. At that point, the possible theft wasn't even the deciding factor.
    2
  5013. Well, what makes you believe they didn't take their suits off?
    2
  5014. Gee, who told you that? Nobody who actually views the photo archive says anything like what you're saying. The photographs show the exact opposite. Under the Apollo 11 lander, the dust layers was almost completely blown away, all the way down to compacted regolith and rock. Apollo 14 left a semicircular mini-crater, quite clearly blown by a rocket engine. Apollo 15 smacked the ground so hard that its engine bell is pressed right up against the lunar surface, and it cracked and bent. Yet, you think there's no sign of disturbance? Sorry, but you can't just blindly trust what videos tell you, you have to look at the photos for yourself. The real irony is that people like you somehow believe the SANE people are the ones who blindly trust things... meanwhile, YOU are doing exactly that. Again, not a single person who has ever looked at the photo archives would ever say such a thing. But, your favorite videos tell you that, and show you a couple of low-res bad-angle photos and then claim, "look, no disturbance." And, you just swallow it up.
    2
  5015. It's always hilarious when people say, "why didn't XYZ" happen" (when it already did). Dewdrop, is your Google broken? Start with "ISRO Chandrayaan-2 Apollo photos" and go from there.
    2
  5016. Links aren't allowed, dewdrop. But, hey, thanks for confirming what I already said.
    2
  5017. Tell me, how does "keeping it to yourself" equate with "posting it on the internet for anybody on the planet to see"?
    2
  5018. Really? Multiple people called. One of them recorded it and showed the video to the police. Needless to say, it didn't match this story about nobody being around. Why do you believe her anyway? She was a convicted felon who spent time in prison and had an arrest record a mile long, with open warrants. Do you REALLY believe she wasn't going to get arrested? Oh, and the video wasn't posted anywhere until long after she was dead.
    2
  5019. Well, Artemis was funded in late 2019, and the rate of spending that congress approved would put people back on the moon around 2028-2030. Astronauts have been named, and are in training. Bezos is constructing the lander. Orion capsules have been ordered. SLS's development is being accelerated. But, I wouldn't bet much money on it, though. Biden's administration may convince congress to pull the funding (as the Obama/Biden administration had done before for the Constellation program).
    2
  5020.  @apolloskyfacer5842  He's not lying. Some strange guy actually made that claim. No evidence, of course. But, yeah, some guy said he saw that stuff. I'll never understand people who blindly believe it, though.
    2
  5021. Do you even know how backward that logic is? If the standard of proof was that a cop cannot even question or arrest someone until after they are proven guilty, then that would mean that you'd need a trial and conviction first, before you could even stop and question. Think that through, seriously. You have forgotten the most important part of "innocent until proven guilty" - "IN A COURT OF LAW." A cop is not required to prove anything. How would such a system even work, if the cop must prove guilt first, before investigating? A cop isn't the judge and jury, nor do we want the cop to be. You cannot expect "proof" before the cop stops someone. This is why the cops operate on concepts such as "reasonable suspicion."
    2
  5022. Good grief. Who told you there was no gravity on the moon? Have you lost your mind?
    2
  5023.  @therealzilch  Except a vast majority of the dewdrops claim: "Only a few at the top needed to know. Everyone else was deceived." It's quite rare for any of them to outright believe that dozens of countries were "in on it." As you show them more and more evidence demonstrating that their model (only a few knew) is completely wrong, they usually short circuit and run for the hills.
    2
  5024. "now all of a sudden after NASA has gone private" Wrong. NASA isn't private. It's a government entity like the branches of the military, or the federal court system, or the IRS, or the Border Protection Agency, or the Federal Railroad Administration, etc. And, guess what, dewdrop, NASA has never built any spacecraft. Since inception, NASA has never once built a single aircraft or spacecraft. They always contract it out to various companies. Nothing has changed on that front.
    2
  5025. "they're interested again." They never "lost interest." Congress controls the money, dewdrop. NASA can't buy a stick of chewing gum without congress allocating the money for it. Do you not know this?
    2
  5026. Well, that's true, you could see those things with a big enough telescope. But, unfortunately, no such telescope exists. It would take a quarter mile wide lens to see the landing sites in enough resolution to make out the landers. Flags? You're looking at a lens over a mile wide.
    2
  5027. Millions for what? For doing their jobs?
    2
  5028. I could sit here and give you the formulas and calculations that are well understood about why you'd need a lens a quarter mile wide in order to see what you are asking for. But, I'll just draw an analogy instead. What you are asking to see on the moon with a telescope on Earth is equivalent of asking to use a telescope to see a bacterium stuck to the wing of a plane that is flying at 30,000 feet. That's not being dramatic, that's the literal equivalent proportion.
    2
  5029. Employees why top phones, and president would you told ones giving and. How if lines are know is top.
    2
  5030. Have they released the weight and carrying capacity yet?
    2
  5031. Not the brightest bulb, eh?
    2
  5032. I believe you have absolutely no understanding of the topic.
    2
  5033. "based on lies and deception" Is this a joke? Your beliefs are based upon silly videos made by taxi cab drivers and lawnmower repairmen who deny reality. Those videos you love are the ones with lies and deception, dewdrop.
    2
  5034. I'd reply, but, I'm not reading your comment.
    2
  5035. What are you talking about? Who's supporting criminals? The murderer was found guilty.
    2
  5036. Two BACKUP tapes from Apollo 11 were lost or taped over (they don't actually know what happened to them). Guess what? Nobody in history had ever even viewed them. They never even made a machine capable of reading them. They only made those tapes in the event that the primary method didn't work correctly, thus, they'd have tapes that they could use to play the first moonwalk. They'd have to construct a machine to play them, because they were recorded in a non-standard pre-NTSC format. But, at least they'd have a copy if the primary converted tapes failed for some reason. But, since the primary tapes worked fine, they never bothered constructing a machine to read the backup tapes, and, eventually, they discovered that they had lost or recorded over the backups. This was in 2006. I don't really follow it closely, but, I hear that they found the tapes a couple of years ago, but, don't quote me on that. Nobody really cares about those two tapes, me included, so, I never bothered to try to verify either way. They are not significant in any way... except when the nuts want to complain about something. As far as I'm concerned, they're lost, and, I really don't care one way or the other if someone found them, and I just don't keep up. I have my copies of the primary tapes, and I don't care about backup copies.
    2
  5037.  @marksprague1280  Technically, the missing tapes only had video, no data. ALL transmissions were considered "telemetry" - whether that was video, audio, or data. Sometimes people think that when they say "they lost the telemetry tapes" that this means there was data on them. But, nope, these were strictly video.
    2
  5038. A) Did you watch the whole thing? Like when they were laughing and cracking jokes? Or, just the segments shown in conspiracy videos? B) How would you feel if you were in their shoes? You've been in quarantine, then flying around the country for a million press events, parades, speaking in front of congress, meetings with dignitaries, TV appearances, etc., and then a month after your mission, they stick you in a boring scripted press conference. C) Did it ever occur to you that maybe you should learn English?
    2
  5039. Really? 450,000 people worked on Apollo for a decade of their lives. And, all the evidence you need is rabbit ears? Really?
    2
  5040.  @joecamel6835  Sorry, you don't have the foggiest clue about this topic.
    2
  5041. What questions didn't they answer, dewdrop? And, sorry, but you've fallen for fake videos that show you stage props. The original transmission had no such things.
    2
  5042. Nobody humiliated her. Stop trusting Inside Edition. Good grief.
    2
  5043. Huh? Why would you think such a silly thing? There isn't a radiobiologist or cosmologist across the globe who believes what you do. You didn't think YouTube comments were a science journal, did you? Why aren't you publishing your findings and calculations in any journals on the topic?
    2
  5044.  @Salisburypremiumpestcontrol  Would you like to try to write that again when you're sober? Nobody can understand a word out of you when you're high as a kite.
    2
  5045. Huh? C'mon, get real. Do you REALLY believe it's that hard to place a camera on the outside of the lander? Really? And, how does this go? NASA can fake bounce-back signals from the dozens of countries that tracked Apollo missions to the moon and back with radar and radio telescopes (a feat we'd have no idea how to accomplish today), but, ooops, they forgot to include a camera that didn't need a person to operate it?
    2
  5046. Wow. Before this incident, she already had quite a history. A mile long arrest record, prison time for stealing cars, numerous failures to appear in court, multiple judgements against her for theft, reported by her landlord as being a, ya know, the things some women do for income when they can't get a straight job any longer, many drug and alcohol issues, etc.... really honorable.
    2
  5047. Um, what? How much time do you think he's supposed to spend investigating, when the woman is walking to her car? Do you think he's going to check security cameras, register transaction records, inventory management systems, etc.? You don't think the woman would be long gone if he didn't act in the first 30 seconds?
    2
  5048. No, dewdrop, von Braun never said any such thing. You are confusing (intentionally) one mission type from another. His original intent was to build a craft to land about a dozen people on the surface for a month. Yes, this requires a bigger craft than landing 2 guys for a day or two. Don't pretend you've ever read a single thing von Braun ever wrote. You watched a video made by a lawnmower repairman who made this claim, and you're just regurgitating it. Tell me I'm wrong...?
    2
  5049. "recently it's been calculated then it would take 24 fuel ships" Really, dewdrop? On what basis? The Starship HLS, a craft originally designed to carry 50-100 people and boatloads of cargo? The craft designed for about 400,000 pounds of payload? You think that needs more fuel than the Apollo lander, designed to carry a payload of 2 guys and some rocks? Shocker!! I wonder if there are any aerospace engineers who ever realized that it takes more fuel to carry 400,000 pounds than it takes to carry 2 guys and a few rocks. Congratulations!! Your Nobel Prize is in the mail.
    2
  5050. Find the sites? Huh? We have the exact locations down to less than an inch in accuracy. Taking so long? Well, given that congress didn't fund more manned missions until 2019, and they did it at 1/10th of the budget of Apollo (adjusted for inflation), this really isn't very long. Lost the technology? You cannot even get your out of context quotes correct. Go look again.
    2
  5051. Let me get this straight... you're acting like a complete jackass... you know NOTHING about Apollo whatsoever, yet somehow think you know enough to slander the names of the thousands of people who worked tirelessly on the program... you are clearly on too many drugs to count... you basically ignore every statement I make... but you want me to answer questions for you? Good fucking gods. No, jackass. I'm not answering your stupid questions... not because I can't... but because you clearly ignore the answers anyway. You're an idiot.
    2
  5052. The only "psych experiments" involved here are you with your addiction.
    2
  5053. Want to try writing this again after you're sober?
    2
  5054. Well, it's impossible to know for sure about what would have happened without Apollo. But, at the time, the USA and Soviets were quite close to going to war. It's programs like Apollo that kept the cold war cold, and prevented it from turning into a real war. Apollo's main purpose was to demonstrate to the Soviets that the USA couldn't be beaten. It was a political message. "Mess with us, and we'll beat you, we will always beat you." The space race to the moon was tip of the sword in the cold war, during a time that kids were being trained to take cover in schools, and people were building bombing/fallout shelters in their backyards. That's how real the threat was. Many people hold the opinion that Apollo was the cornerstone in the cold war against the Soviets at a critical time, and helped to save millions of lives by using Apollo for political posturing instead of an actual nuclear war. Is it true? Would we have had WWIII on our hands if not for Apollo? We will never know for sure, because we cannot change history. But, take it or leave it, that was the primary motivation.
    2
  5055. Hence, supersonic airliners like the Concorde never existed. Hence, the mach 7 airplane X15 never existed. After all, nobody is allowed to abandon non-economically-viable technologies. All technologies MUST advance, at any cost, else they never existed.
    2
  5056. Coworker? Like fellow strippers? Family or friends? Like those people she walked out on more than a decade ago in order to live a life of crime and drugs?
    2
  5057. And, you reported him for fraud, right?
    2
  5058. Wow this is what happens when u watch Inside Edition and blindly believe them because no she wasn't humiliated because the arrest video didn't get released to until way after she was dead and none of the news covered anything until the arrest video went public but she died 2 years ago and the arrest video wasn't seen by anybody while she was alive plus she had been arrested a million times before and never killed herself and why would she wait 9 months if she was so embarrassed and who do you think embarrassed her a couple of blogs nobody heard of
    2
  5059. Time to make a voodoo doll of him, and poke it until he tells the truth.
    2
  5060. I'm asking seriously here... did it ever occur to you that the space mouse was actually the faked video? And, are you really not aware that anybody with a nice camera can look at a website that gives the ISS tracking data, and it'll tell you exactly when you can see it? Do the math on the speed it's going. Look at it traverse across the moon with a nice camera (you'll see the craft, solar panels, etc.). Seriously, this is just silly.
    2
  5061. "stated props were used when the "ship" landed on the moon" You can't even keep your conspiracies straight, dewdrop. Props were used during practice and training. Why wouldn't they? How else should they train? And, somehow, you've blended this in your mind and mixed it up with his comments on the Conan O'Brien show. Conan said that his family watched the Apollo 11 moon landing "live" on TV. Aldrin corrected him, stating that there was no TV camera during the landing, and that the broadcasters played animations. He's 100% correct. The landing was shot on 16mm film, not a TV camera. They had to wait until they got home to get the film developed before anybody could see it. Nobody saw it "live." So, yes, the broadcasters needed something to put on TV during the landing, so, they showed animations. The live TV camera wasn't set up until a few hours after landing. Go watch some of the animations he talked about. Or, wait, you don't see the point, right?
    2
  5062. I think you're spot-on. It's fairly obvious that she wanted to turn "can I see your receipt" into a payday lawsuit, and did everything in her power to get herself Tased and arrested, probably thinking it would increase her settlement. Thankfully, she lost the lawsuit, and was awarded $0.00.
    2
  5063. "Why there is no any landing marks" Who told you that? Was it a conspiracy video? There are plenty of "marks" from landing. Go look at the photo archive for yourself, instead of blindly trusting a video that lied to you. "or smok marks on the surface of the moon?" Because Aerozine50 and N2O4 don't produce smoke. And, it's already basically a big burnt rock. Do you expect to burn it again? "Why there no stars?" Why haven't you looked at the photos they took of the stars? Did a conspiracy video tell you they never took photos of the stars, and you just believed them without question?
    2
  5064. Sorry, dewdrop, out of context quote mining doesn't mean anything at all. The tech was "lost" in the exact same sense that Concorde technology was lost. (It was retired.) And, the lost video tapes were merely backup copies that nobody had ever watched at any point in history. So, why do you think they mattered?
    2
  5065. How do you bully and ridicule a dead person?
    2
  5066. Freedom of Information Act.
    2
  5067.  @stusue9733  Yes, Apollo 11.
    2
  5068. Charles, nobody ever said that the rocket could produce 11,000 pounds of thrust. Maximum was 10,500. But, ok, close enough not to quibble about that. The more important part is to wonder why you'd believe they'd land at maximum thrust? Do you think you can land at maximum thrust? Think of it like a helicopter. Do you think there's any chance in the world of landing a helicopter if you have the rotors spinning at maximum thrust, generating maximum downward force? Would the helicopter even land? Or, would it go straight up? Dewdrop, they throttled way down for landing. At maximum thrust, they'd shoot straight up, and never land. And, of course dust was disturbed. Who told you otherwise? Have you never looked at the photos? Have you never looked at the landing videos? Or, did you blindly trust a conspiracy video that showed you some really bad angles and low-res photos that don't show you much? Every mission had lots of photos showing plenty of marks of disturbed dust from the rocket blast. It wasn't much, of course, because the rocket had been throttled way down. But, yeah, it's there. You just have to look for yourself, rather than just regurgitating a silly claim you saw in a conspiracy video.
    2
  5069. "I’ve always had the belief that it takes a better man to own up and admit when he/she is wrong!" Hilarious irony. Have you looked into the mirror while thinking about such a sentiment? "insult the entire human races intelligence" You couldn't even spell that phrase correctly (nor did you write a coherent sentence anywhere else in your posting). I mean, that's fine if you're proud to read and write like a 2nd grader. That's your own prerogative. However, there's a special kind of irony when talking about human intelligence, while displaying absolutely none.
    2
  5070. It's on the news to get ad revenue. But, fear not, it was never on any news broadcast while she was alive.
    2
  5071. Why don't you pathetic people ever want to just see the EVIDENCE? Why is it always incredulity with people like you? "Oh, it's impossible" for whatever reason you people dream up, contrary to the work done by the 450,000 people for a decade of their lives. Nope, none of that matters. Not a single one of you deniers even know what the evidence is. Nope, you're not interested. You're just interested in committing libel/slander, no more, no less.
    2
  5072. So, you think the entire rest of the planet somehow doesn't realize what you do... or... you don't know the difference between distance and resolution. Um, yeah, it's the latter.
    2
  5073. "If America can go to moon in 1969, why not again in 50 years." They sent 9 manned missions to the moon, 6 of which landed. Yes, they went back after 1969. You don't know what you're talking about. "If moon had such rare minerals as discovered by Us and others....would they not go and do mining." Well, first of all, a vast majority of the moon's rocks are useless. There's some rare Helium-3 here and there, but, not a heck of a lot of it. Mostly, the moon is just a big dead rock. But, for the little bits of stuff that is actually valuable (other than just to collectors), do you have any idea how expensive it would be to go get it? It's like diamond mining. It's suspected that there are countless diamonds located hundreds/thousands of miles down. So, why don't we mine them? Because it would cost more to dig mines that deep than you could ever get back from the sale of those diamonds. It's the same for the moon. Would you spend $100 billion on moon mining missions, for the purpose of retrieving $10 million in rare materials? "Now USA doing Artemis mission ....which is more conspiracy" So, you've come to your conclusions already? What is the reason you would ask questions when you don't care about the answers?
    2
  5074. And, why would you believe she thought she was alone? Because that's what she claimed as she was attempting to cry her way out of her millionth arrest? Oh, but yeah, sorry, when you see a guy cranking at the playground with kids around, just leave him alone, he's not harming anyone.
    2
  5075. Well, you could try looking up at the moon sometime and discover that you're wrong. Ya know, such as people have understood since before recorded history. Yes, the moon has daytime and nighttime, just like Earth, except at "day" on the moon is 708 hours instead of 24.
    2
  5076. Yes, it's quite sad that she abandoned her kids and died. Meth is a bad drug.
    2
  5077. ReAllY? WhAT TeCK DiD DaY NOt hAvE 2 lAnDD a MAN ON DA MOOON?
    2
  5078. Can you please tell me which conspiracy video talks about weighted boots? I've seen most conspiracy videos, but, I must have missed that one somehow, because cranks like you keep bringing up that silly notion.
    2
  5079.  @joemarshall4226  Says who? You? How do you know how high the dust would have gone if it was in Earth's gravity, such that you think you know how high it "should have gone" in lunar gravity? And, why should they jump higher?
    2
  5080. Well, given that her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club, I would hardly think this woman would get embarrassed by being seen. As a matter of fact, the witnesses said it was intentional.
    2
  5081. Yeah, that's a good catch. That's definitely not a real picture. I have no idea what it's doing in this documentary, without outlining exactly what they were attempting to represent with it. It's not an Apollo image. I never noticed that ridiculous picture until you pointed it out. It's Photoshop or something like it, yes.
    2
  5082. Yes. It's lost in the exact same spirit that other 1960s aerospace technologies are lost. Concorde. SR71. X15. Apollo. And, when the last of the Boeing 747s are done flying, that 1960s aerospace technology will be lost in the exact same spirit. The more accurate word is "retired," but, whatever, "lost" is fine.
    2
  5083. Film is still a matter of chemistry. It gets exposed to light for amount of time the shutter is open. In order to get stars to appear on a piece of film, the photons needs to cause the chemical reaction on that piece of film. The exposure is either long enough to cause enough of this chemistry to occur, or it's not. Brighter objects require less exposure time. Dimmer objects require more exposure time. Stars are very dim, and usually require about 20-30 second exposures before you'll see them. With fast-chemistry film, you can do this with a 4 second exposure. But, with a 1/250th of a second exposure (which is what the astronauts used), and that kind of film, you're not going to get stars to appear, whether it's daytime, or nighttime, or whatever. Not by a long shot. I'm sorry if you don't understand chemistry or photography. The video makes an attempt to show you a practical example. But, ultimately, seeing stars in a photo (or not seeing them) is dependent upon the type of film, the exposure time, and the brightness of the stars themselves. And, sorry, but stars don't come even remotely close to being bright enough to show up on those photos. On Apollo 16, they had a very specialized ultraviolet camera with specialized film, specifically for looking at the stars. They took 125 photos of the stars with that camera. And, they typically used 20-30 second exposures to do it. It doesn't matter what you think of the "experiment" in this video. It's just a video. Videos prove nothing. Facts and science are what prove things.
    2
  5084. Did you actually want to learn why each of your assertions are completely wrong? Or, did you come here to say, "I think the Earth is flat" and will ignore all input to the contrary?
    2
  5085. So, the latter then.
    2
  5086. I sure hope English is a 2nd language, because if it's your main language, good gods....
    2
  5087. Let me make sure I understand you correctly here: You've come to this video to accuse some portion of 450,000 people of being criminals who would be thrown into prison for their entire lives if you were correct, and the remainder, you're accusing of being so inept that they couldn't recognize that the stuff they built to go to the moon, wouldn't do what they designed it to do... but, **I** am the rude one here? Not you? You've got a lot bigger problems than dyslexia. You're delusional beyond all hope.
    2
  5088. Did you actually read that report in 2006? They don't call them "original recordings." They called them BACKUP tapes around a dozen times. They even explained why they made those backup tapes, and why nobody in history had ever even viewed those backup tapes a single time. Why are you concerned about two tapes that nobody has ever even seen?
    2
  5089. Yes, sure, I'd agree if it was just a break-in and shooting. But, this guy planned the murders in advance. That's the difference. Two teen criminals got killed by an older criminal. They were all criminals.
    2
  5090. She ruined her life a decade prior when she decided to leave her family and career in favor of a life of crime and drugs. And, sorry, but one of the witnesses recorded the incident and gave a copy of the video to the police. Needless to say, the video doesn't match her version about a quiet act with nobody around. Why do you believe her anyway? With her extensive criminal history, time spent in prison, etc., it's tough to get a straight job. Her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club. I'd eat my hat if she wasn't making "public beach" content for her fans.
    2
  5091. YOU SAID: "I do not believe NASA lost interest" == They didn't. The public and congress lost interest. YOU SAID: "because the public lost interest in going to the moon" == They did. Everyone knew Armstrong and Aldrin. They couldn't even go out in public without being mobbed. Cernan and Schmitt could go shopping, to the movies, whatever, and nobody knew who they were. Yes, the public lost interest. YOU SAID: "there are some greater things behind the scenes we do not know" == Soooooo, you can't name those things, can't prove it, don't know exactly what they were, and, by definition, you don't know anything about them, but, you believe in them? Isn't that basically the definition of "religion"? YOU SAID: "Americans in the government wanted to be sure there was more to explore" == So, they stopped exploring them? What? YOU SAID: "lots of things are kept secret" == Then how do you know about it?
    2
  5092.  @gives_bad_advice  No, highly pressurized.
    2
  5093. Wow. All you people do is shift goalposts. But, this is a new one. You expect live footage? 55 years later? How?
    2
  5094. Bart Sibrel's videos are a joke. Good grief. He obviously faked the "round window trick," a video which debunks itself, in addition to the million ways to know he lied like crazy. And, now, he's got a confession video on his channel of the child of a security guard during the Apollo era. And, this is "best work"? What? Someone who wasn't even alive during Apollo, and whose dad was a security guard? THAT's "best work" to you? Wow, you really do set the bar low.
    2
  5095. You just don't get it, dewdrop. I even told you in the other thread that Sibrel's edited version CANNOT be correct, because, if they were in low Earth orbit, then the clouds would be moving by the window at 17,500 miles per hour. He says the capsule is in low orbit from about 100 miles up, instead of half way to the moon, right? That's his claim, right? Well, if that's the case, then they MUST be going about 17,500 mph. Any slower, and they fall out of the sky immediately. Yet, when you look at Sibrel's version, the clouds aren't moving. To believe his version, you must believe those are not continental clouds as seen from half way to the moon, but, those are localized clouds from only about 100 miles up, right? Well, if that was true, then those clouds should be zipping by the window, right? Why aren't they? Why don't they move? (HINT: because Sibrel lied, and this entire "low Earth orbit" story was manufactured in his editing room.)
    2
  5096. There are a million videos out there that debunk Sibrel's lies in a million different ways. But, a nice short one (only 4 minutes) is: "Addendum: A Funny Thing Happened." The copy on YouTube has some of the audio clipped out (probably a copyright violation). But, the full version is on Daily Motion with audio intact.
    2
  5097. No. You never looked at the footage. You looked at Sibrel's dishonestly edited version. And, no matter how many times, in how many threads, you are told to go watch the actual original footage, you refuse to do it.
    2
  5098. Is it too much to simply read the description, or Google him? Yes, he died. Yes, he had a gun. You see it in his hand as he opens the car door (very grainy though), and you see the gun more clearly on the ground next to a 2x4 piece of wood at 1:50 and at 5:02.
    2
  5099. Hold on just a second. The physics of jumping isn't that straightforward. It's not 1/6th gravity = 6x jumping height. But, even pretending it is, sorry, you don't get to compare someone in an A7L spacesuit to the typical jumping height on Earth while wearing gym shoes and shorts and a t-shirt. You need to compare apples to apples. So, you go right ahead, put on an 88 pound pressure suit with numerous thick inner layers with self-sealing rubberized materials on the inside, and 13 layers of micrometeorite protection outside layers, then pump it up to 18-19 PSI to simulate conditions you'd get in a zero-atmosphere environment. Then, strap on an 80 pound life support backpack. Then, a 20 pound OPS backup oxygen system, plus radio. And, connect up another 20 pounds of various hoses and tools and stuff. Then put on a double-layered boot with overshoes. And, go see how high you can jump. Do you still think you'll get 18 inches off the ground? I'd pay to see that.
    2
  5100. A ticket for a crime? Can you name any crime that they issue tickets for?
    2
  5101. "At 52:08 look at how sloppy" Huh? Is it more sloppy than referring to a timeframe that doesn't exist? This entire video is 52:08, dewdrop.
    2
  5102. Here's how an honest person would ask: "Hi, I know nothing about Apollo whatsoever, but I'd like to learn. Can someone point me to some good books or videos that can give a nice overview of how everything worked?" Here's how a dishonest person asks: Go to a conspiracy video, pretend to ask a half dozen questions, have no interest in the answers. (i.e. YOU)
    2
  5103. So, you don't advocate people who report crimes when they see them? And, yes, it was in front of kids.
    2
  5104. More proof positive that people with "woke" or "awake" or "truth" in their nicknames have no clue what truth is, and are fast asleep.
    2
  5105. Well, that's the problem. "Being happy" is the reason that most moon landing deniers do what they do. They have failed miserably in life, thus, they feel the need to feel happier. But, instead of getting an education and an upwardly mobile career, they choose to try to drag everyone else down to their level by accusing the most accomplished people of accomplishing nothing (just like themselves).
    2
  5106. Tell me about it!! I used to donate about $10K per year to scholarship programs. Why would I want to do that, if the government is just going to make my donations obsolete, and tax me heavier to go pay off loans that I didn't pick and choose myself?
    2
  5107. Really? When did they start giving a ticket for a misdemeanor crime? I thought you only got a ticket for an infraction. But, you're clearly the legal expert here, so, please enlighten me?
    2
  5108. As usual, as you've done for years, you have completely misunderstood the point. The cooling system relies on the sublimation of ice, which yes, DOES work in a vacuum. It basically depends on it. Those porous plate sublimators will also work in an atmosphere, but, not nearly as well, and not under all conditions. And, the water flashes into ice because of the lack of pressure. But, you just keep on pretending to know more than the entire planet's engineers. It's all you've ever done before, and it's what you'll continue to do. You pretend to know things you do not. And, dewdrop, guess what? Temperature change isn't always reliant on other things to change the temperature, it results from pressure changes. Your notion that the outside temperature of a vacuum is what cools the vapor is wrong. How do you think your car air conditioner works? Compress the gas, then, when the gas expands, it gets very cold, right? Did the surrounding air make it cold? No, of course not. Gasses get cold simply because they expand. That's why air conditioners have a hot side and a cold side. Compress the gas, and it gets hot. Expand the gas, and it gets cold. Outside temperature is irrelevant. So, you've misunderstood the entire point about how sublimators work (which are not air conditioners, but, I use air conditioners as an analogy). They are not reliant on outside temperature for water to freeze. It freezes all by itself when it expands in a vaccum.
    2
  5109. Good gods. How about actually reading my response before telling me I'm wrong?
    2
  5110.  @AM-rd9pu  He clearly didn't read the response before his "nuh uh" answer.
    2
  5111. But, dewdrop, (a) I don't matter one bit, the physics stands on its own. (b) If you have an issue with the physics of porous plate sublimators, why are you on YouTube comments? Why are you not publishing in physics journals? Sorry, but whining about the physics in a YouTube comment is what cranks who know nothing do. Actual serious people publish their science in science journals, not a YouTube comment. (c) You're not accusing ME of failing to understand physics, you're accusing physicists of failing to understand physics, starting with the physicists employed to design and built the porous plate sublimators used on Apollo. (d) Don't pretend you read my comment before you replied, because your response clearly indicates that you didn't. I addressed why sublimated gasses got cold (because they expanded, not because of outside temperature), and you replied with the same gibberish about outside temperature. (e) You have no idea what you're talking about, and should stop pretending you do.
    2
  5112. Good gods. You are continuing to butcher the living daylights out of everything you're saying. 1) You want a separate gas system of CO2 to perform the exact same function that water performs without it, but, requires more space, more weight, and more energy consumption? Hey, dewdrop, porous plate sublimators work as designed without your Rube Goldberg additions. 2) The pressure drops by only 0.5 PSI? Huh? Dewdrop, it drops from about 3.5 PSI to essentially zero. That's 7x more pressure drop than you're saying. You clearly know absolutely nothing. 3) Again, what are you doing here? Why are you not writing this all up for the science journals?!?!?! You are rewriting a whole bunch of laws of physics here!!! You'll win a Nobel Prize if you're correct!!! Why would you bother with YouTube comments? 4) Dewdrop, do you even remember about 2 years ago, when you kept complaining that radio signals cannot reach the moon (in defiance of every known thing about how radios work)? Remember that? And, when I told you that backyard ham radio operators bounced signals off of the moon every single day, what was your reply? You said that they weren't actually bouncing any radio off of the moon, but, instead, you said those radio signals were bouncing off of the ionosphere on Earth. Do you remember this? I said that you'd win a Nobel Prize by proving that little bit of science that you're denying, and all you'd need to do is prove it by aiming your dish at the moon and doing one of those moon bounces to talk to someone else half way around the world... then... wait until the moon isn't in view any longer, then repeat the experiment, and see if you can still talk to someone half way around the world. Your position is that it should work, because the original signal was never bouncing off of the moon in the first place, and it was bouncing off of the ionosphere. So, whether the moon is in view or not, you should be able to replicate the bounced signal, because the ionosphere would still be there. And, I also asked you to explain the 2.6 second delay (1.3 seconds to the moon, and 1.3 seconds for the bounce-back), if you think the signals are bouncing off of the ionosphere. What did you do? You ran for the hills. You've had a couple of years to work this out. Why haven't you? I haven't seen any new publications in the science journals about anybody rewriting the laws of physics as it pertains to radio, and I don't see your name on the list of Nobel Prize winners. Why aren't you still working on that? Why have you abandoned that topic, run for the hills, and now spewing new nonsense? 5) Same goes for the rocks, which you claim have fooled the thousands of geologists, and you think they magically found 850 pounds of lunar rocks in Antarctica, and shaved the outside layers off of them, fooling every geologist on Earth into thinking these lunar meteorites were chopped up and made into the Apollo moon rocks. I mean, forget the fact that the entire world has only ever found 25 lunar meteorites in the first place... and you expect somehow that they went on an expedition to Antarctica and found enough lunar rocks to produce the 11,000 samples in the Apollo vaults. Your position is that by shaving the outside off of meteorites, geologists cannot tell the insides of those meteorites from actual moon rocks, and they were all completely fooled. That's your belief, right? Well, I told you to write this up for journals on geology, and publish in the exact same journals that the thousands of geologists have done. Why haven't you? I didn't hear about any such article. Again, if you think you understand geology (and everything else) better than the entire world's experts, why would you be limited to making these arguments on YouTube? Why can't you answer any questions? Are you even reading this? Can you prove you're reading replies by writing "green" at the top of your next reply (if you make one)? Or, are you just reading one or two sentences, then making a ridiculous response, and then declaring victory?
    2
  5113. Yes, an arrest is what happens from an aggravated misdemeanor. And, sorry, but the Freedom of Information Act is what it is. At least nobody saw the arrest video while she was still alive.
    2
  5114. You remember it, but, you forgot the qualifier "right now"? Oh, so heroic.
    2
  5115. Translation: "I didn't watch the video, but, I instantly determined that it will say things I don't want to hear, so, I'm running for the hills and placing a label on what this video says, without actually watching it."
    2
  5116. You misspelled. It's supposed to be an "o" instead of an "i" in your last name.
    2
  5117.  @freeairbreather2657  YOU SAID: "It sounds like you handle challenges with name calling" == TRANSLATION: "Don't call me a dummy while I say dumb things." Pffttt. Dummy, I'm calling you a dummy merely because you are a dummy. I *ALSO* responded to the actual claims. YOU SAID: "& threats." == Threats?!?!!? What in the world are you talking about? What threats? You are clearly insane. YOU SAID: "Does that sound like civility?" == No, but I never threatened you, and I have literally no idea what you're talking about. YOU SAID: "What if I wanted to ask him because I'm actually in a similar court case and have consulted with at least 8 lawyers, 5 for over an hour, about these very issues?" == Spare me. You refused to actually address he question, and went straight to asking if he's an attorney. Don't duck and dodge now. YOU SAID: "He's here giving out legal advice to everyone, and so if anyone takes it and it's bad advice, he should pay their damages because it's a crime to practice law in this country without a license! " == HILARIOUS!!! Oh, this is pure priceless gold. YOU are the one spewing nonsense here, advocating "the resistance," but the guy who is disputing you is the one who's in trouble for it?? Pure gold. Absolute treasure. Wow, I'm glad I came across you and this thread. I haven't seen this level of hypocrisy and delusion in a very long time. Pay damages over a YouTube comment?? Hilarious. This is truly stunning to read. Absolutely amazing. I mean, good gods, the guy (you) advocating personal freedom is telling others they should shut up. The guy (you) advocating taking personal responsibility is telling others that their words are responsible for the actions of others. Hilarious. This is one of the best laughs I've had in a while. Suing someone for something they say on YouTube about standing up in a movie theater?? Amazing. Hey, dummy, go consult those 8 attorneys about whether a guy on YouTube should pay damages for talking about standing up in a movie theater. See how fast those 8 attorneys laugh at you. YOU SAID: "So for all you high horsies preaching what's legal and what our rights are... YES! We have a duty to ask for your credentials or know what cr@p you're spouting out your arse because OUR FREEDOM IS AT STAKE HERE!" == Again, then why are you talking in legal terms if you aren't an attorney yourself?? Is your mirror broken? Go look into a mirror, dummy. YOU are the one spewing nonsense here. YOU SAID: "And stop breaking the law while condemning others of breaking the law!" == I haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about. What law am I breaking? Wow, your mind is gone. Toast. Fried. As I said, you're one step away from declaring yourself a sovereign citizen.
    2
  5118.  Steven Sullivan  YOU SAID: "no you're a hypocrite support this dumbass cop using excessive force over a mask which she has a medical condition did you read that one ?" == A) Again, you obviously didn't read my reply. Don't pretend you did. == B) You don't know what the meaning of the word "hypocrite" is. YOU SAID: "rollercoasters have nothing to do with mask dude you're off topic dude ." == Have you ever heard of an "analogy"?? Or, is that beyond your capability also?
    2
  5119.  @freeairbreather2657  YOU SAID: "I only needed to read the first couple lines to see you are a narcissistic, gaslighting, deep blue, Saul Alinsky-trained, left-wingnut liberal and you have nothing of substance to offer." == TRANSLATION: "I didn't read what you wrote, but you're wrong about what you wrote." Oh, you're a special kind of genius. YOU SAID: "That your channel has NO CONTENT speaks volumes to your character." == Lay off the drugs, nutbag. Look at what they've done to you.
    2
  5120.  Steven Sullivan  YOU SAID: "I did read your reply" == Wrong. You obviously did not, because you're making claims that I already addressed. YOU SAID: "the cop used excessive force" == Wrong. There isn't a police agency in the country that would consider this excessive force. If someone resists, which she did, then some physical force is going to be required. You don't get to just label it "excessive" because you feel like it. YOU SAID: "over a mask" == Wrong. As I explained, but you refuse to read, it was over TRESPASSING, not over the mask. I'm sorry you're too stupid to understand the difference. YOU SAID: "don't you get it that's what I'm talking about you supporting the stupidity of this dumbass cop" == Oh, the irony. The dumbass YouTuber is pretending the COP is the dumbass. YOU SAID: "she has a medical condition" == Wrong. I don't buy that for a second. And, even if it was true, as I pointed out, then the answer is that SHE SHOULD STAY HOME. What's so difficult for your mind to grasp? If you're not physically fit to comply with the rules of the facility, you don't go to the facility. It's that simple. YOU SAID: "fact learn how to read dude roller coasters has nothing to do with mask truth ok dude ." == You're too stupid to deserve any further replies after this. I mean, good grief. This is ridiculous.
    2
  5121. Dewdrop, why are you pretending that photos of the stars are somehow important to you, or that this means anything whatsoever relative to Apollo? They weren't there to photograph stars from lunar orbit. They took 125 star photos on Apollo 16 from the lunar surface (with a specially designed camera to do it). They attempted to take some star photos with the 70mm camera, but, that was never really made for that purpose. AS11-41-6106 is an example. And, like any real photographer would expect, it didn't do a very good job of it. Why is this relevant for you? There are mountains of evidence for Apollo. Why is that not important, and you're so focused on orbital star photos?
    2
  5122. So, you're PROUD to know nothing at all, and the moment anybody asks you a question, you run for the hills. Bravo, dewdrop. You're a true national hero.
    2
  5123. You still refuse to answer a single question or challenge. You can "declare victory" all day long, but, it doesn't change the fact that you know so little about the topic that the most elementary questions immediately stump you.
    2
  5124. If you mean that there was no reason to go again back in 1969-1972, I disagree. They had poured billions upon billions into developing Apollo. They may as well go several times at that point. But, if you mean that there's no reason for manned missions since then, well, that's hard to argue about. Unmanned probes last a decade or more, and return information the entire time. Crewed missions last days only, and cost 100x more.
    2
  5125. So, in your feeble mind, you are unable to distinguish between cold blooded murder of innocent victims, vs. capital punishment of convicted murderers who had their trials, were found guilty, and were sentenced to death. In your mind, those are on equal footing? Hey, rather than praying to your god about other people's understanding about killing, how about praying to receive the brain your god obviously failed to give you at birth?
    2
  5126.  @chemuuchemuu9358  YOU SAID: "Well, what I meant is that they should be given a second chance." == Your original message said nothing in any way about a second chance. The words "second chance" didn't exist in your original message. You didn't even hint at it. YOU SAID: "These were first time offenders for God's sake. Everyone's entitled to their opinion." == Your original message mentioned nothing about first time offending. Not a word. YOU SAID: "Anyway, can't you make a point without insulting anyone? I don't appreciate being insulted." == Hey, if you don't want to "be insulted" for making stupid comments on the internet, don't make stupid comments on the internet. It's really that simple. And, now, in this message, you've completely CHANGED your underlying message. Your original message's main point was this concept (in your mind) that "killing is killing whether it's done by a criminal's hand or an executor's hand." THAT was your point. THAT was your main focus. Now, you're sitting here, pretending that you meant something else entirely??? Quit your goddamned "holier than thou" attitude while you are lying through your teeth. You don't get to come here now, and pretend that your original point was about second chances and first time offenses. That is a lie. You know it. I know it. Good grief. And, you don't appreciate being insulted... while you say the dumbest crap imaginable, and then lie, backtrack, and pretend you meant something you obviously didn't. I'm insulting you again, you liar.
    2
  5127. The laser isn't hitting just the reflector. Back in 1969 and for the next decade or so, the laser would hit an area that's miles wide, and then literally count the individual photons that return. As newer laser ranging facilities were developed in various countries over the decades, they have used more powerful lasers with better focus, and they've gotten the area down to around the size of a football field.
    2
  5128. Huh, so why do you show a photo of your grandfather in your icon?
    2
  5129. There are no people who understand evolution who also say they don't believe it. "Why are there still monkeys?" Really? Well, first of all, nobody claims we descended from monkeys (outside of the joke of my first reply). Secondly, I'll answer with an analogy: if Americans came from Europeans, why are there still Europeans? I mean, this is just ridiculous. If evolutionary theory claimed that the "parent species" HAD to die out, then, that would basically mean that there would only be one species on Earth (because the parent species MUST die out, right?). Clearly, there are no evolutionary biologists who believe that there's only one species on Earth. So, already, you should immediately know that your assumptions are wrong, and that you don't actually understand evolution. You also don't understand Apollo, of course. But, whatever, I'm sure you're a lost cause.
    2
  5130. You clearly don't know who you're talking about. The guy living in the trailer with 30 cats is considered the granddaddy master of moon landing conspiracies... the man who started it all. That's Bill Kaysing, former writer and errand boy for Rocketdyne who left the company long before they produced the first functional rocket engine for the Saturn V. He then went out to "find himself" and wrote such books as "How to Eat Well on Less Than a Dollar a Day" and "Beginner's Guide to Motorcycling." But, in the eyes of his followers rewriting history, he's one of the key rocket engineers throughout the Apollo program who designed the Saturn V, and was a major whistleblower who said the rocket never actually worked.
    2
  5131. Technologies don't advance on their own. It takes funding to advance them. Please outline EXACTLY where you think the funding was supposed to come from, once congress retired the Apollo program. Can you?
    2
  5132. Well, Tesla's entire business model has been to sell things for less than they cost. When they only had two profitable quarters in their first 17 years, you could tell that they were just grabbing market share at whatever cost, without caring about the longevity of what they were offering. Eventually, that catches up to you, especially when they're finally profitable, but those profits are shrinking.
    2
  5133. Who thought it wasn't possible, and would somehow decide to fake it? And, how would they keep the other 449,999 people silent?
    2
  5134. Just checking here... you do know that the arrest video wasn't made public until 1.5 years after she was already dead, right? There was very little "public humiliation" involved here. As for the shame you're now inflicting upon the police for finally releasing the arrest video (again, 2.5 years afterward, which was also 1.5 years after she was dead), what exactly do you propose they should have done instead? They kept it private for all of that time, but, they can only block a legal FOIA request for so long. Once the case has been closed long enough, they can no longer block FOIA requests. I'll eat my hat if you even know any of this.
    2
  5135. So, you'll respond to someone else, but, you avoid my response? Won't say a single word about it? Why not? I asked you what percentage of the entire federal budget it would take to build a large base. I asked you why you would want to stop at the moon if your destination was another planet. Why can't you answer? Instead, you posted more gibberish? "but when Russia sent Yuri in space money started growing on the pine trees across USA" Yes, dewdrop. It was the cold war. Do you not understand that either? You clearly don't understand aerospace engineering. Now, do you fail to understand what a cold war means? "it was decided this money will be spent to put a man on the moon and beat Russia in the space race" Yes. So, what's your problem? "with the primitive technology of those times" Can you name a rocket technology we have now that we didn't have then? "and tests and lander failing trials on earth" Dewdrop, no lunar lander was ever flown on Earth. Let me guess, you don't know the difference between a lunar lander and an LLRV/LLTV, right? And, because you watched conspiracy videos instead of actually looking them up, you think those didn't work either, right? Because Armstrong had to bail out of one that ran out of control fuel? Right? You don't know about the hundreds upon hundreds of successful flights, right? "the mission was still a success without any glitch." Pffttt. Apollo 1 killed 3 astronauts. Apollo 11 missed its landing target by about 4 miles. Apollo 13 exploded half way to the moon. Apollo 14 never got to its primary target (Cone Crater). Apollo 15 landed so hard that it cracked the engine bell, and could almost be called a crash landing. Apollo 16 had so many technical failures that they nearly had to abort the mission several times. Need I go on? No glitches? I could list out a few hundred more glitches, if you wish. "If it was so easy" Who told you it was easy? "to get to the moon in 69 then in 54 years of advancement in technology bases on moon and back n forth travelling should be a cake walk by now." So says who? You? You don't know anything. And, all you're really saying is, "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." What IS wrong with you?
    2
  5136. Why are you so proud to be so s6up7t?
    2
  5137. Sure, but, ya know, these guys were going to the moon, not taking a commercial airliner flight. There were risks all over the place. Most of them were test pilots (and that's not exactly a "safe" career). Prior to being an astronaut, Cernan's last job was to train for WWIII, to fly along the tree line with nuclear bombs strapped to the bottom of his plane, get to the city he was supposed to bomb, pull up into a vertical climb, release the bomb (flinging it upward), then to pull out of that at top speed and get away before the bomb blows him to smithereens. Armstrong had 78 combat missions, including one where he was shot down behind enemy lines. Aldrin had 2 combat kills under his belt. The list goes on. These guys weren't exactly afraid to take risks. The rover traverses were planned to hit the furthest point in the traverse toward the beginning of the EVA. They may have one or two stops before getting to the furthest point. But, basically, the idea was that they would first go far, then snake their way back, thus allowing the most oxygen remaining in their backpacks for the furthest distances, and would go closer and closer to the lunar module as they used their oxygen supply. What happens if there are suit problems? Well, each PLSS backpack had an OPS system on top (which included a small spare supply of oxygen, good for around 1/2 hour). They could also share air between the two astronauts if they needed. Those hoses you see on the suits could be plugged and unplugged, and if one guy's PLSS failed completely, they could share with the other one's PLSS to get back safely. The suits themselves had 13 layers of ripstop fabrics in the outer garment, plus another half dozen layers under that, including a self-sealing layer (a lot like WWII fighter planes had self-sealing fuel tanks in the wings if they get hit by bullets). And, if somehow all of that failed, they were trained on how to patch small holes. A large hole that instantly depressurizes the entire suit would render the astronaut unconscious in about 2 minutes, and dead a few more minutes after that. But, that's a lot of time (relatively) for the other astronaut to try to patch something together to pressurize his partner's suit again. And, yeah, of course, beyond that, sure, it would be fatal if none of those things worked. But, I think the engineers designed things to be more resilient than you might know (?).
    2
  5138. Huh? Are we watching the same video? The woman refused to comply at every step of the way. The store has every right to ask for proof of purchase. And, if the store employee reports to the cop that someone didn't pay, the cop is obligated to investigate. When this woman resisted arrest, SHE is the one who escalated the situation. The cop is under no obligation to go and view camera footage. The cop is not the judge and jury. The cop's only job is to assess whether or not enough evidence exists to put it in front of a court. And, yes, if a store employee said someone stole, and the woman refuses to provide proof of purchase, then, yes, that's enough evidence for an arrest. And, sorry, but the courts obviously disagree with you also, because her lawsuit against the store was thrown out with prejudice. And, her own attorney never even mounted a lawsuit against the police, because the officer did his job correctly, and he knew it, so, he never even bothered filing a suit against the police.
    2
  5139. Huh? Pause at 0:08 in the video and go frame by frame. The guy had a gun pointed directly at the cop as the door opened. Sorry, but, with a gun pointed at you, if you want to start a conversation, that's your own business. But, don't expect the rest of the world to behave the same way.
    2
  5140. "It doesn't definitively prove it's from the moon" You have no idea what you're talking about!!! Yes, radar and radio telescope dishes DO confirm where the signals are being sent from. They are quite accurate, especially when triangulated across different countries at the same time. Stop pretending you understand this. You clearly don't.
    2
  5141. "it's radio transmission not a wire tap from a land line." Wait, what? You can triangulate a radio transmission. You can't triangulate a land line signal. Again, you know absolutely nothing.
    2
  5142. Look, dewdrop, nobody is falling for your ridiculous act. If you want to be proud to know absolutely nothing, that's your own problem.
    2
  5143. You are outlining the exact reason that the "value" of the stock is what it is. If investing was still in the hands of professional investment firms, brokers, etc., the stock would be worthless. But, since investing now consists of clicking buttons on a smartphone, and everyday people who have never even heard of the term "P/E ratio" (nor any other investment criteria) are controlling the price of the stock, the sky is the limit. We're back to the mentality of 17th century tulip investors.
    2
  5144. Huh? What did the justice system do wrong?
    2
  5145. Huh? What are you talking about?
    2
  5146. "because China is showing every step, so hard even in today's technology" Huh? Yes, going to the moon is hard. What's your point? China isn't funding their moon program at a very fast rate. It's a slow pace for the sake of efficiency.
    2
  5147. "to prove how spaceship could be launched, guided, landed, and signal transmitted to earth." Dewdrop, those things were done by the Soviets and by the USA using unmanned probes long before Apollo missions went anywhere. Why would a manned craft be any different?
    2
  5148. "China didn't find the place, in live cast lol NASA refused to say the coordinates" Dewdrop, the coordinates of the Apollo landing sites are known within an inch of accuracy. But, let me make sure I understand this claim of yours... are you telling me that, during a live broadcast, someone at NASA didn't know the coordinates, therefore it's fake? What? Suppose the person just didn't have them memorized? It's a live broadcast, I doubt I could name the exact coordinates either. Am I understanding your complaint accurately? You're upset because someone didn't have the coordinates memorized during a live interview?
    2
  5149. I agree. And, I'll add, it's even worse that that, because this "news" story (not news) is very cleverly worded to completely alter what really happened here. If they're going to drag a dead woman's name through the mud, they should at least paint a more accurate story.
    2
  5150. To clarify a bit, from lunar orbit, under certain lighting angles, they were able to detect a very sparse dust layer that "hovers" above the moon. Think of it like the dust in your house. You don't see it, but, over time, it will build up on your shelves. They took static electricity readings on the lunar surface, and the notion is that the static causes super tiny dust particles to "float." And, as the static comes and goes, it can "float" and then "fall" back onto things. But, until someone goes there for a close look, nobody knows for sure how think this microscopic dust layer would be (if at all).
    2
  5151.  @Existinginmymind  What ARE you talking about? There was no contact between the cop car and the dirt bike. The boy gunned his engine to flee from the cop, lost control, smacked a curb, and got killed when he was tossed from the motorcycle. What does his skin color have to do with that? And, how could the cop even know his skin color? His body was covered head to toe, and he was wearing a helmet. Maybe his hands were exposed, but, it's doubtful the cop could even see the hands from behind him like that. There's something severely wrong with you. A 13 year old was driving underage on the roads illegally, on a dirt bike that wasn't street legal, fled the cops the moment the cop car came into view (also illegal), drove recklessly (illegal), and smashed into a curb. What does his skin have to do with that?
    2
  5152. No, shame on the woman for performing in front of an audience on a public beach including children.
    2
  5153. "It is rediculous" Oh, a moon landing denier who can't read or write. What a shocker. "that no one ever addresses the fact that we have not pointed a satelite 's camera at the 1969 landing site." Pfffttt. Nobody ever addressed it, huh? Yet, the Arizona State University LRO camera photos of the landing sites have been on their site for about 13 years. And, about 10 years ago, they dropped the orbit even lower, and got better resolution photos of the landing sites. There are hundreds of photos on their site, and you can see the rover tracks, landers (descent stages anyway), foot paths, etc. You can even see the shadows of the 5 flags still standing. Oh, but nobody addresses it. Sure. "Which brings to mind, why not place a satelite in moon orbit ?" When you don't know how to spell satellite correctly, um, yeah, what could you possibly know about the topic. Dewdrop, the USA, China, India, and Japan, have all sent satellites to the moon that have photographed evidence for Apollo. Did you even TRY to look this up before spewing a pile of nonsense? "How many incoming UAP shots could we present to congress?" What does this have to do with Apollo? "During the last LIVE Dragon launch, in the background of the camera capturing the thrusters exhaust, the video clearly showed 2 fast moving dots of light traveling together above the earth's horizon. During CNN's coverage that night ( same video) the fast moving dots were edited out." Was it drugs that did this to you?
    2
  5154. She was a convicted felon with a prison history and a million other arrests. Her landlord said she was a "dancer" (yeah, that kind). If she wasn't making "public beach" content for her fans, I'll eat my hat. Multiple witnesses called about the incident, and one of them recorded it and gave a copy of the video to the police. Stop blaming victims for the crimes of others. Good grief.
    2
  5155. I'm sure they wish the same upon you for judging something you know absolutely nothing about.
    2
  5156.  @prowlingtiger2226  YOU SAID: "we literally plan to go back to the moon by like 2024" == Don't hold your breath. Artemis wasn't approved by congress at a pace of funding to make it by then. Congress only approved the funding at a rate that would put them on the moon by around 2028-2030. Things can change, of course. Funding can go up. Funding can go down. Funding can be pulled altogether. But, anyway, my point is, don't hold your breath for 2024.
    2
  5157. OJ was murdered yesterday by the CIA. He was about to reveal to the world that his role in that movie was based upon true events. That's also why the CIA murdered Neil Armstrong and Stanley Kubrick.
    2
  5158.  @luizotavio5241  YOU SAID: "This is also valid to you and even worse. What evidence do you the hell have than the mere official anonuncement more than 50 years ago," == Do you REALLY want the evidence? Or, are you just asking in expectation that the answer is that there is none?? See, with you conspiracy idiots, the thing is, I've been through this rodeo a million times. And, all you idiots ever do is PRETEND to ask questions. You really don't expect answers, because you falsely believe there are no answers. Then, when I hit you idiots with several paragraphs of evidence, which is only just the tip of the iceberg, you idiots always just close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and say, "lalalalala, I can't hear you, lalalalala." So, do you REALLY want the evidence? Or, are you full of crap, like all other idiots with your stupid beliefs? YOU SAID: "without Internet, in a divided world and during Vietnan war?" == And, that is relevant HOW? And, that is relevant why? Did you think they should stop what they were doing and wait for the internet to be invented before going to the moon? Is it their fault that Vietnam happened at that time? YOU SAID: "Today there are still challenges to send a human being to higher space, beyond the low orbit." == Yeah, they don't have a Saturn V rocket, or anything even remotely close to that. Still today, the Saturn V rocket is the most powerful that ever successfully flew. What don't you understand here? Yes, it's quite a challenge to go beyond low Earth orbit if you don't have a booster capable of doing it. YOU SAID: "But you may believe it, of course. And I may not." == But, you don't know anything. How/why do you think your beliefs represent reality, when you have absolutely no knowledge about the topic on any level? YOU SAID: "Listen. I did not want to raise any further discussion. Forget my comments you all." == So, basically, my earlier assumption is true. You really don't want any replies. You'd rather live in ignorance. You asked questions, but, before you could get the answers, you already declared that you don't want them. What an idiot. YOU SAID: "Those who believe it, so it be. Your right. I don't, my right. I stop." == Except it's not that simple, is it? This isn't a matter of denying calculus exists. If you want to deny calculus exists, that's your right, and, all it would mean is that you're an imbecile. But, for you to stupidly deny Apollo goes beyond the concept of stupidly denying something that has no consequence on anybody. By denying Apollo, you are accusing thousands of people of committing criminal fraud upon the entire world. Minimally, you are saying that those people deserve/deserved (most are dead now) a lifetime in prison. And, in some contexts, what they did (in your mind) could even be considered treason, and could even warrant the death penalty. You are accusing thousands of people of being criminals. You are spitting on the graves of all who died for Apollo, astronauts, scientists working with volatile/toxic fuels, construction workers, etc. And, for the thousands who you don't think actively participated in the "hoax," you are saying that they were all too stupid to realize that they wasted a decade of their lives on a lie. So, in your mind, those 450,000 people were broken into two main groups: (1) those who committed criminal fraud against the entire planet, and (2) those who worked on the program for a decade of their lives, but were entirely too stupid to realize that which YOU think YOU know. Either way, you're insulting hundreds of thousands of people. And, frankly, in my mind, what you're doing is slander/libel, and YOU are the one who should be thrown in jail. So, spare the world this stupid notion that you can just believe stupid things if you want to. What you're doing is not all that different than if I went around calling you a child molester. It would be an unfounded claim, for which I have no knowledge or evidence, and is completely unjustified. And, that's what you're doing to the 450,000 people who worked on Apollo. You don't know what the hell you're talking about, on any level, yet you're accusing thousands of them of being criminal frauds. You're a pig. That's all you are, a pig.
    2
  5159. "they cant go now with ten times the technology" Can you name the exact rocket technology that is "ten times" now? And, no, don't say computers, because the computers for Apollo were good enough to do the job, and that's all that matters. It doesn't matter one bit that computers today are better, all that matters is whether computers of 1969-1972 could do enough to navigate the craft, or not. And, yes, they were capable of that. So, name some other rocket technology that you think is "ten times" now? Can you? "they would be living on the moon by now" This is absurd. We went to the deepest ocean depth in 1960. Nobody lives down there now. As a matter of fact, it was about 62 years before anybody ever did it again. And, nobody lives at the bottom of ANY ocean today. So, why would anybody be living on the moon? What possible reason would we want to fund something like that? Do you have any idea of the cost of making a permanent base up there? "1960 and walk on the moon" Apollo wasn't even begun by 1960, dewdrop. If you know THIS little about the program, why would you possibly believe that you know enough to declare it fake? "couldn’t even make cellphones yet" Good gods. The first cellphones were in the 1940s. They weren't yet called "cellphones," but, that's just a technical naming thing. And, what do cellphones have to do with Apollo? Are you under the impression that they needed cellphones to go to the moon? "2023 countries are just now being able to land equipment on the moon" Huh? Countries (i.e. the USA and Soviets) were landing equipment on the moon since before Apollo ever landed people there. As a matter of fact, Apollo 12's main mission objective was to land next to one of the probes that had been sent to the moon a year or two beforehand. Good grief. Why? Why do you possibly think you understand anything about this topic? "no humans thou" So what? Do you know what the USA and other countries have done with their lunar probes? They've taken photos of the Apollo landing sites, in which you can see the landers, rover tracks, foot paths, etc. So, let me make sure I understand you correctly here: you're saying you believe the probes are being sent to the moon now by multiple countries, but, you do not believe the photos those probes are sending back home? Is that your position here? You have no trouble accepting that probes can go to the moon. But, you reject what the very same probes show us? "y hasn’t America send more to the moon 50 years later" Huh? You're clearly an expert on the topic, right? You know enough about the subject of aerospace engineering to declare that the entire world's space agencies do not know what they're talking about. Right? YOU are the one who has reached these conclusions already, right? Why would you need to ask this question? Else, ya know, all you've got is, "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." And, you don't understand this either, dewdrop. Get back to me when you're really ready to listen to the answer. For now, though, I seriously doubt you're even reading this answer, let alone are you actually interested in the answers to your own fake questions.
    2
  5160. paulanderson79: YOU SAID: "If NASA had actually been to the Moon they'd make sure we knew it." == How? What evidence would convince you? YOU SAID: "It's interesting to note that NASA has never filed a single lawsuit against anyone or any organisation who questions the authenticity of the Apollo landings." == A lawsuit? For what? Stupidity isn't an actionable offense. If people honestly believe the stuff they're saying, no matter how wrong it is, they're entitled to say it. But, hey, the fact that you think there could be a lawsuit anyway... good grief... you're just as delusional about the way the law works as you obviously are delusional about Apollo.
    2
  5161. Funny that so many different countries have taken orbital photos and confirmed that the backgrounds in the Apollo photos match exactly with the actual backgrounds on the moon, eh?
    2
  5162. Was it meth? Is that what did this to you?
    2
  5163. I agree (except I wouldn't know what the "jail" part would be for). But, just checking here: you do know that the timeline was this, right? July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = public release of the arrest video. December, 2023 = viral.
    2
  5164. I'm not sure what you mean by asking if it's possible. But, yeah, they weren't really supposed to raise their gold visor very much, and Houston reminded Schmitt a few times throughout the mission to put the gold visor back down. It was bright, but, not to the point of blindness or something. They were just more worried about unfiltered UV.
    2
  5165. Wrong. The shame belongs to Inside Edition, for intentionally painting a false picture of what happened here, by clever wording, out of context quoting, and asking questions without providing the answers. The police did well here. They got calls from multiple people. One woman used her cell phone to record the incident, and showed it to the police. They described the video in their police report as a very loud and public display in front of multiple people, including children. Arresting her was the correct action. Furthermore, the police managed to keep the arrest video private for 2.5 years, which was 1.5 years after her suicide. Eventually, it was probably made public due to a legal FOIA request, which the cops cannot refuse, once the case is closed long enough. I'm sorry you fall for videos that try to make you think that the release of the arrest video had anything to do with her suicide, but, sorry, it didn't. She was already dead for 1.5 years before anybody in the public ever saw this video. So, stop blaming police, and start blaming Inside Edition for false reporting.
    2
  5166. YOU SAID: "if you think that I’m “a fool”, then what does that say about you talking to one?" == This is the 100% positive guaranteed method to remain delusional for the rest of your life. If anybody opposes your delusions, and calls you a fool for it, you simply declare that the opposition is invalid for ever opposing someone who is a fool. This is 100% classical paranoid delusional behavior. You have set up a wall in your mind such that there is no condition that anybody can ever penetrate it, because you've decided, in advance, to reject all input, and declare that anybody who opposes you is at fault for opposing you.
    2
  5167.  @DeweyTucker  So, I pointed out your flawed "logic" (not logic), and you reply with the exact same flawed "logic" that I was pointing out? Are you REALLY that impaired, or just pretending to be?
    2
  5168. No. A guilty murderer killed two guilty thieves. They were ALL guilty.
    2
  5169. Are you just completely unaware of the obvious fact that this version of the video picks up in the middle? You can't tell?
    2
  5170. Wouldn't matter in this case. One of the "audience" recorded it, and showed the video to the police. Needless to say, it didn't match her story about a discreet act with nobody around.
    2
  5171. Doesn't it even phase you one bit that the people who believe the claptrap you're spewing are universally illiterate? Or, are you simply unaware that you're illiterate?
    2
  5172. Defense is fine. Premeditation is not.
    2
  5173. Yes, if you watch the videos at 24 frames per second that were recorded at 12. There are plenty of speed-corrected versions out there.
    2
  5174. Thanks for making it clear that you know absolutely nothing about the topic. Stop pretending you do.
    2
  5175. How ridiculous can you possibly be at this point? You keep naming the wide temperature range from a 708 hour lunar day, and then outright refuse to admit that the astronauts were never there for that range. Your dishonesty is off the charts. You've been told a dozen times that they landed early in the lunar morning, and were never there for a cold overnight or a hot afternoon. But, you just plain refuse to admit you're wrong. You continue to assert those extreme temperatures that the astronauts never saw.
    2
  5176.  @DeputyNordburg  "You'd really prefer the 173°C to +123°C range ... snapping back and forth" Well, given that he refuses to even address the issue, and all he does is duck and dodge... chances are that he probably doesn't even think about this enough to even form an opinion. He doesn't know what he's talking about on any level. But, snapping back and forth isn't far off from his belief. After all, he thinks Earth would have the same temperature range if it didn't have an atmosphere (scroll up and see his own comments on it). He doesn't realize that the moon gets to those hot/cold extremes because a day on the moon is a month on Earth. It has a lot of time to heat up, and a lot of time to cool off. There'd be no chance of the Earth doing that (even without an atmosphere) because a day is only 24 hours, and there's not enough time to heat up and cool off to that extreme.
    2
  5177. When you see a guy cranking at a playground, better not say anything, because it might lead to something bad, right? I mean, not that I even agree that the woman in the video lost her life over this arrest... none of her other million arrests resulted in that... why this one? And, why wait a year? It makes no sense. But, on your premise alone, it makes even less sense. Never report a crime, because the criminal might do harm to him/herself??
    2
  5178. I hope you feel guilty for blaming the victims about a topic you know nothing about.
    2
  5179.  @williamholmes9807  So, after I just explained to you what crimes she committed, you still stick your head in the sand and ask what crime she committed? Why don't you read the answers to your own questions?
    2
  5180.  @williamholmes9807  You're never going to understand anything if you close your eyes and refuse to read any replies. I explained this already. You are ignoring it.
    2
  5181.  @blueforest4589  Hilarious!!! The final entry was "dismissed with prejudice" (which means the case is over, and no new case can be filed). Yet, you kept shifting your story over and over, and now you're going back to your 2nd version of your story again. What happened to your claim that they were appealing? Nope, now you're claiming they're amending? Hilarious!!! Sorry, but the case is over. Dismissed. Barred from ever being filed again. And, there was no appeal. You can pretend all day that you know what you're talking about (while every version you tell is different from the prior version), but, if you think anybody is going to buy into your nonsense, you're wrong. The case is DONE. She got NOTHING. It's over. And, she's lucky they dropped the charges, because she was very guilty of obstruction, refusing to identify, and resisting arrest... and probably obfuscation also.
    2
  5182.  @blueforest4589  Dismissed with prejudice means it can never be filed again. You continue to make things up as you go along, as usual.
    2
  5183.  @needee9524  Yes, that's correct. He wasn't an employee, because he worked for the police department, not the store directly. And, that's correct, they didn't ask him to arrest her, they told him who they thought might have stolen something, and asked him to check out what happened. So? What's your point?
    2
  5184.  @needee9524  Huh? How is that an answer to the question? Good gods. What is it with you people who support the maniac in this video, such that a few words and a single question just flies right over your head? Why can't you answer? I AGREED WITH YOU, and then asked what your point was. Now, you're saying I'm wrong, while I AGREED with you??? Good grief.
    2
  5185.  @needee9524  "she did nothing wrong at all" She attempted to turn "can I see your receipt" into a lottery court case. She resisted arrest. She refused to provide ID. She obfuscated and obstructed. "read the article" There are a million articles. I've read some. I've also read her court case. "all charges were dropped" Yes, because most juries will not convict someone of the secondary crimes when the primary crime has been dismissed. It is not relevant to whether or not the arrest was justified. "they never pointed her out nor said she was stealing" Yes, the store employee Anna identified her, said she went through the register area without paying, and asked the cop to investigate. "read the news article" Huh? There are a million news articles. I don't know what you read, but, given your track record in this thread, I don't have any faith in your cognitive capability. Also, articles get things wrong every single day. Read the court case. Read the results of the court case. "stop making up stereotypical narratives" I never stereotyped anything!!! What on Earth are you talking about? "Court documents show Publix states the officer was not one of its employees and that it didn’t ask him to make an arrest." Both of those things are correct. I never said otherwise. Why is this so difficult for you? He worked for the police department, not directly for the store. And, the store didn't ask him to make an arrest, they asked him to investigate. "Publix has asked a judge for a summary judgement in its favor." And, the court threw out her case, exactly as the court should do. There was no merit in her case. "She was charged with resisting an officer without violence. After the arrest, the officer learned she paid for the items and surveillance video showed it as well." And, you think this supports your viewpoint, why? "the officer profiled her" What ARE you talking about? Profiled her, how? Do you know the demographics of that area of Jacksonville? Good grief, he'd be making false arrests every 9 seconds if this was what you're claiming. Sheeeesssshhhh. The store employee Anna told him the woman went through without paying. The cop didn't even witness it himself. If you're going to accuse anybody of profiling, accuse Anna. That's what the lawsuit was all about. The lawsuit was against the store for profiling her, not against the police. Her own three attorneys didn't even agree with you about who did the profiling, else they'd have sued the police, not the store. "Publix never told the officer she was stealing." Well, in vague terms, yes and no. They told him that she went through without paying, and implicitly suspected stealing. "the only manic was the officer." Then explain why her own three attorneys didn't sue the police. Why did they only sue the store? Why didn't they identify a single thing that the police did wrong? What do you know about the law that her own three attorneys didn't know? "Tasing someone over a receipt which she didn’t have to show regardless." I never said she was legally required to show the receipt. Good grief. It's like you outright refuse to understand things. She wasn't Tased over not showing a receipt. She was Tased because she was resisting arrest. There are only two choices when someone is resisting arrest, either you Tase them, or you tackle them to the ground. The cop chose the less violent option. "It’s within her constitutional rights." If you believe the cop violated her constitutional rights, then you need to explain why the three attorneys sued the store for $50,000, when they would easily be able to sue the police for 7 figures for a rights violation case. Those almost always are 7 figure lawsuits which settle for about $500K. But, they only sued the store for 1/10th of the amount for a profiling case, rather than the 10x the amount that they'd get in a rights violation case. It's ridiculous. Again, you don't know what you're talking about. "she doesn’t have to give that up to assist him." I never said she had to give the receipt. I said it would make things a lot easier. I said it's the smarter thing to do. But, I never said she's legally required to provide the receipt. "Just because he wanted to profile her mad accuse her of stealing" Did you even watch the full video? Did you just watch this edited version that skips all over the place, cuts out the entire beginning and end, etc.? Good gods. Again, what do you know that her own three attorneys don't know? Why are you bothering with me? They're extremely famous attorneys. You can phone them up and tell them how badly they botched this case by suing the store for $50K (and losing the case), rather than suing the police for millions.
    2
  5186.  @needee9524  THAT is your reply? I ask you what you know about this case that her own attorneys didn't know, and I pointed out in iron clad form why you're wrong... and it all goes in one ear, out the other? You really are quite determined to stick your head in the sand, aren't you?
    2
  5187.  @needee9524  So, you refuse to read what I wrote, but, I'm wrong about what I wrote? Oh, you're a real genius. And, you still won't answer about why her own attorneys disagreed with you.
    2
  5188.  @critthought2866  Thanks!
    2
  5189. I'll never really understand this sentiment. You and dozens of others always wish that your gods "bless" the officer. Yet, I don't see anybody in these comments even commenting on their gods "blessing" the woman in this video when she died. It seems to me that she needed these blessings a lot more than he does. I'm not sure which god you were referring to, but, was he incapable of extending these blessings to the woman to prevent her from dying?
    2
  5190. Um, no. She clearly didn't understand anything about the law. She is required by law to provide identification in an investigation. Did she do that? No, she refused. She is required by law NOT to obstruct/obfuscate an investigation. She did both. She is required by law to comply when told she was under arrest. Did she? No, she resisted, and basically demanded that the cop will need to Taser her before she would ever comply. So, spare the world this notion that the woman understood her rights and the law. She clearly does not. Do you know who DOES understand the law? Her own high profile attorney. And, guess what? He disagrees with you also. He never even filed a case against the police, which he would have done, if the law actually worked the way you're pretending. What you're describing would be a slam dunk 7-figure lawsuit against the police. But, he didn't sue them. Now, why would that be? Instead, he sued the store for a mere $50,000. And, of course, he and the woman lost that case, and will be getting $0.00. But, hey, if you disagree, here's what you should do: go call up her attorney, and tell him he did the wrong thing, and sued the wrong parties, and give him the benefit of your massive legal expertise. I mean, he already had two other attorneys with him on the case that they already lost. But, hey, I'm sure he could use YOUR help, and they should sue the police instead, right?
    2
  5191.  @wonderwheels-falkirk9038  Wait, what? You ignored the responses. You ignored the questions asked of you. In one ear, out the other, you refuse to answer any questions. But, now you're asking questions? Why should anybody answer your questions, if you refuse to answer any questions yourself, and ignore the answers anyway?
    2
  5192. Because you don't know what you're talking about. Apollo used a black and white TV camera for Apollo 11. All TV cameras afterward were color. All 16mm film cameras were color. The 35mm stereoscopic cameras used 3D colors. The 70mm Hasselblad rolls were a mix, some color, some black and white. If you don't even know what equipment they used, why do you say that it was fake (in your other comments)? How can you possibly even know enough to label it fake, or real for that matter, when you literally have no concept of what equipment was even used?
    2
  5193. So, a 30 second clip from a video made for children is your "evidence"? Why? Because you intentionally took his words out of context? That's the limit of your understanding of the Van Allen belts? Well, dewdrop, what are you waiting for? Where's your scientific paper on the topic? Have you submitted your calculations to a peer review journal on cosmology or radiobiology? No? Why not? You're an expert, right? You have overturned James Van Allen's own calculations, right? If you don't care about the actual scientific method, and all you can muster is an out-of-context quote, how about reading one IN CONTEXT? QUOTE: "The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight. The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months' duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure. A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week. However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable. -- James A. Van Allen"
    2
  5194. So, you just skipped right over my comment. Right. Sure. You're really honest. You kept your head firmly planted in the ground, and avoided reading what James Van Allen said about the belts with his name on it. Yeah. Keep on fueling that delusion, dewdrop.
    2
  5195. QUOTE: "The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight. The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months' duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure. A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week. However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable. -- James A. Van Allen"
    2
  5196. YOU SAID: "Amazing, they managed to take, on average. 1 photo every minute, over all the missions. " == Are you attempting to write in Japanese Haiku? What's with the broken format? And, wow, you're complaining about 1 photo a minute? Um, insane maniac, yeah, that's not very many. This is especially true when you account for the fact that a hell of a lot of those photos came from the 16mm DAC, when set for 1 FPS or 6 FPS. Basically, it just sits there and takes photos. As for the 70mm Hasselblads, yeah, those were electric advancing with huge film rolls of around 157 shots per roll (if I recall the exact number correctly). It's not too hard to whip out a bunch of photos at a time. Have you bothered to actually watch the videos to see them take those photos? (No, obviously not. You just regurgitate what conspiracy videos tell you to say.) YOU SAID: "No view finder on the camera. " == Except when they did, right? You do know they had a viewfinder on the 500mm lens, right? No? Your favorite conspiracy videos didn't tell you that? YOU SAID: "They had some skills lmao." == Far more than you, obviously. YOU SAID: "Oh yeah, where was the car stashed? " == In quadrant 1 of the J-mission Grumman lander. If you really wanted to know (which you obviously don't), then you could have simply Googled this yourself. How does this conspiracy work, in your mind? GM, Boeing, JPL, and Grumman assign thousands of people to design and build the landers and rovers, and oh, they all forgot to make it fit? Really? Not a single one of those thousands of people ever said, "Oh, wait, I just realized, we forgot to make the rover fit into the lander!!!! Apollo is fake!!!" No??? You can't think that deeply about it? Your mind operates as far as yelling "FAKE," but you can't manage to realize that now you have to account for how those thousands of people all simultaneously forgot to make sure the rover fit into the lander? Have you tried looking at the photos or the deployment of the rovers from the landers? No? Your favorite conspiracy video claimed it doesn't fit, therefore it doesn't fit? YOU SAID: "If anyone believes this, they need serious help." == If anybody believes the dumb stuff you do, they should be locked in a rubber room.
    2
  5197. Ridiculous. You said landing on the moon was impossible. When I asked you to name the EXACT technology they lacked, you pretended to give a response, but, it makes no sense. First of all, you didn't name a technology they lacked. All you said was that they couldn't guarantee stuff, and some sort of loose assertion that they "couldn't preserve life"? How does "not guaranteeing" that an engine will run mean that it's impossible? No, dewdrop, you're not an engineer. Don't pretend to be one. And, furthermore, you know nothing about engineering if you think the thousands of engineers cannot recognize the stuff you think you can recognize. They spent a decade of their lives on designing and building everything for Apollo. Yet, your assertion is that none of them could spot these simple things you can spot? The arrogance. The complete and total arrogance.
    2
  5198. "A 3D generated image made to match a terrain in a photo is "proof"?" Dewdrop, is it really that much to ask, that you'd actually understand the topic before blindly rejecting it? Less than 24 hours ago, you didn't even understand what you were looking at. And, now, you're snidely making these comments, still pretending to understand things you do not. The point is this: Japan's JAXA/Selene lunar orbiter was the first of its kind. All prior orbiters could take photos, but, the resolution wasn't that great, and they weren't in 3D. So, when Apollo 15 took all of those amazing photos of Hadley Rille, St. George crater, Hadley Mountain, etc., they took them from the lunar surface. It would not have been possible in 1971 to know the level of detail to accurately "fake" those photos. In 1971, we could get some basic idea about the mountains and rille, but, we'd have no way of knowing the exact depth and detailed shape of the craters and rille, or how those would look from the perspective of standing on the lunar surface. If they "faked" the Apollo 15 surface photos, there would be a million problems, because we wouldn't know about the smaller craters, we wouldn't be able to get the angles correct for the slopes of the rille and mountain, etc., because all we had (in 1971) was low resolution photos from directly above. The significance of Japan's 3D renderings is that they demonstrate that all of the Apollo 15 photos from the surface got everything exactly correct for the shapes and angles and depths of every crater, every mountain, and the rille. Go take a look at the JAXA website, in which they go into a lot more detail than just the few seconds that they cover it in this video. They didn't just confirm one photograph. They confirmed ALL of them. And, the main point is, there would be no way that NASA could get every detail correct in 3D, except by actually being there. The JAXA/Selene orbiter was the first one capable of rendering the 3D details, and had the highest resolution of any orbiter (up until that date in 2008 anyway, when they rendered it).
    2
  5199. YOU SAID: "I guess moon gravity has no effect on the flag" == The flag apparatus had a horizontal rod that held the flag up. Without it, yes, the moon's gravity would make the flag just wilt downward. You can see the end of the rod sticking out in many of the photos, and you can clearly see the outlines of the rod through the nylon. This isn't very difficult to understand. YOU SAID: "and dust everywhere except no dust on landing,, or the craft ,, very strange" == So, you're just blindly going to trust when a conspiracy video tells you that there was no dust on the craft? Did you bother going through the photo archive and look? Or, did a conspiracy video tell you there was no dust, and you just decided to believe it, without fact-checking anything they claim?
    2
  5200.  @PanhandleFrank  Technically, she might be talking about the one and only site that did cover the story when she was alive: Smoking Gun. They posted her photo. But, yeah, 99% of the people in the comments don't understand the timeline at all.
    2
  5201. Well, she hadn't seen her children in how long? Like 10 or 15 years, right? And, yes, she had a mile long legal/arrest/prison history.
    2
  5202. Because all of the equipment and programs required have been retired for almost 50 years.
    2
  5203. They'd ditch all of the stuff and walk back.
    2
  5204. I feel bad for her also. But, I don't know what you mean by "this is not right." What's not right?
    2
  5205. The cops responded to multiple calls, and dispatched for it. One of the "audience" had taken video of the incident and showed it to the police. They describe the video in the arrest report as a very loud and public display in view of multiple people including children. One of the witnesses reported that this woman had wandered up and down the beach, looking for a place to do this, and chose a spot in front of a family with children. They can also look up her mile long arrest and prison record for various offenses, thefts, drugs and alcohol, prison time for stealing cars, failures to appear in court, etc. Between all of that, and the witnesses, do you really believe the cops weren't going to arrest her? They should have done something else, in your mind? Furthermore, the cops never released the arrest video for 2.5 years. That's 1.5 years after her suicide. So, the police didn't expose her to anybody. Nobody saw the police video while she was alive. And, after the case was closed that long, they can no longer block legal Freedom of Information Act requests. So, I'll ask again, how and why do you think the police should have done this differently?
    2
  5206. I don't lack sympathy for her. I just don't understand why so many people just blindly swallow whatever Inside Edition feeds them.
    2
  5207. Huh? That's a mighty huge accusation. Got any evidence?
    2
  5208. They DID handle it differently. They arrested her, but, she never served any time or suffered any conviction for it. And, they managed to NOT release the video to the public until 2.5 years later (or 1.5 years after she committed suicide). What EXACTLY do you think they should have done differently?
    2
  5209. What are you waiting for, dewdrop? There are countless scientific journals on aerospace and radiobiology throughout the world. Your topic is a perfectly valid one to fit into any of them. Why aren't you publishing your numbers? Not a single paper exists any time in history that says what you're claiming. There's a Nobel Prize in it if you're correct. But, huh? You're publishing this revelation in a YouTube comment? Only cranks do that. You're not one of those, are you?
    2
  5210. "we sent much equipment to the moon why there are no photos of the landing sites?" Huh? Dewdrop, the Arizona State University LRO camera has taken hundreds of photos of the landing sites, from just about every sun angle possible. You can see rover tracks, foot paths, shadows of the flags still standing, landers, etc. And, both India and China have taken similar photos with their orbiters. Why are you unaware of this simple thing? Have you ever looked for the photos you deny exist?
    2
  5211. Oh? When did they start giving tickets for aggravated misdemeanors? You're the legal expert here, not me, so please elaborate?
    2
  5212. More evidence that anybody with "truth" or "awake" in their nickname has no idea what truth is, and are fast asleep.
    2
  5213. Apollo was the greatest technological feat in human history. But, "finest event" is a bit tough to qualify. Personally, I kind of look at vaccines for smallpox and polio as finer events... the invention of democracy... the formation of the USA as an independent nation... birth of my children....
    2
  5214. 4) I'd have a lot more respect for the self-proclaimed "skeptics" if any of them actually wanted answers to their own questions. But, they don't. They pretend to ask questions, but, they have rejected the answers before they received them. Often, they refuse to even read the answers to their own questions. Do you really think that's what "skepticism" means?
    2
  5215. Um, no. Not even close. Most of the time, they took the suits off.
    2
  5216. Ed Fendell.
    2
  5217.  @brianvincent4165  No problem. But, my name isn't Ed. Ed Fendell is the camera operator.
    2
  5218. Almost all of the rover footage was shot at 6 frames per second, or 12 frames per second. Or, maybe I should go as far as saying all of it was, because I don't think I remember a single rover clip that wasn't at either of those two speeds. They did this because at the normal 24 frames per second, the film roll would run out in about 3 minutes, and they didn't want to keep changing rolls all the time. Virtually every time they used the 16mm camera, the astronauts would tell Houston what the frame rate setting was (1, 6, 12, or 24), and it's in the audio record. But, sadly, most of the time, when those films are played back at the standard 24 frames per second, the documentary makers or the 3rd party people showing clips, either don't up-convert the video, or speed adapt (simply slow the playback to 12 or 6), or even tell the viewer that they're viewing it at the wrong speed. Hence, unless you are actually viewing the videos directly from the archives labeled with the correct frame rate, and all you're doing is watching the rover videos from 3rd party copies, yeah, you're not going to realize the speed is wrong. Check out the videos of rover clips labeled "speed corrected" and you'll see the motion in the actual speed.
    2
  5219. If my answer is too long for you, the shorter answer is that you've been watching copies of rover videos that are sped up, so, yes, the speed of the dust is closer to Earth's speed than the moon's speed.
    2
  5220. Um, ok. What did these cops do that violated their training?
    2
  5221. Apollo costed, at its spending peak, about 4.5% of the entire federal budget in hard costs, and another approximate 2% (equivalent) in soft costs and international support. For that, they brought a few rovers to the surface of the moon (about 400 pounds each), two people at a time, a few lightweight experiment packages, and managed to stay a maximum of 74 hours on the lunar surface, stretching the envelope to the extreme. Apollo managed to fly 13 Saturn V rockets during the entire duration of the program (1961 to 1972 for moon missions, and until 1975 for Earth orbit missions). How much would a small base weigh? A million pounds? Two million? You need accommodations, food growth/storage facilities, power facilities, plumbing, medical, communications arrays, labs, transportation, life support systems, etc. How many people are you talking about? 20 people? 100 people? If the most we could do is carry a lander and a 400 pound rover to the moon per Saturn V launch, how many launches would it take to build a base weighing millions of pounds? And, how many resupply missions would it take to bring all of the food and oxygen required to sustain dozens of astronauts? If 4.5% of the federal budget bought us 13 Saturn V launches, how much money would it take for the number of launches it would take to build a base up there? Yeah, you gain some economies of scale by making it an assembly line, but, on the flipside you'd basically need to construct a functional "bio-dome" capable of sustaining life for years instead of hours. How many launches do you suppose that would require? 1,000? 2,000? I know I'm answering your question with more questions, but, ya know, Socratic method.
    2
  5222. For the exact same reason that you cannot buy a Concorde supersonic airliner ticket today, because it was retired decades ago. And, yeah, as for rocket launches that don't go well, all I can tell you is that I was horrified when I heard that SpaceX was chosen over Blue or Boeing or Lockheed. How/why they'd choose a rocket company run by a crackpot, I'll never understand. And, why he'd launch rockets when he knows, in advance, that they will explode... also I'll never understand.
    2
  5223. Just a few more decades... yeah... right... you've had nothing to offer for 55 years... but, a few more decades, maybe then you'll have evidence.
    2
  5224. How about NOT making your entire understanding of the Apollo program based on three words "lost the technology" (taken completely out of context)? How about ACTUALLY learning something about Apollo... from... ya know... NON conspiracy videos??
    2
  5225. Huh? It was an aggravated misdemeanor. What else were they supposed to do?
    2
  5226. I don't understand. There were 9 manned moon missions, 6 of which landed.
    2
  5227. She abandoned her career and family (including a husband, a 6 month old son, and another son) more than a decade ago to live a life of crime and drugs. Her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the gentlemen's club. And, neighbors said she did "extras" for cash in her apartment. So, I think she had as many loving boyfriends as money could buy.
    2
  5228. Yeah, but "innocent soccer mom gets arrested by evil police and can't stand the shame" goes viral. The real story doesn't.
    2
  5229. You see stars in the daytime on Earth?
    2
  5230. YOU SAID: "What is floating across screen a couple of times at the 34:54 mark?????" == Not sure. The video is sped up so much, it's tough to tell. YOU SAID: "Hahahaha!!!!" == What's so funny? YOU SAID: "What also gets me is how exactly did they know where they can sail a ship exactly where it was going to land?" == Radar for starters. But, after that, as the craft enters the atmosphere, it steered by spinning the craft. There's a brief documentary you can watch called "Apollo - Atmospheric Entry Phase (1968)." It doesn't mention left/right steering. But, it talks about how the steering worked, and showed up/down steering. It used the exact same aerodynamic mechanisms to steer left/right. YOU SAID: "And have hellicoptors up and waiting there????" == Yes. They had been doing that since 1961. That's how they did it with manned craft, spy satellites, other satellites with camera packages, etc. The re-entry was very well understood. YOU SAID: "But they can not predict where a satellite will land???" == Like, you mean when an old satellite comes down, and days ahead of time, they're not sure where it'll be? Yeah, those don't have steering. Those just come down on a ballistic trajectory. But, even those, as it comes closer and closer to re-entry, they can predict it with more and more accuracy.
    2
  5231. Hilarious!!! Do you think she gets read her rights BEFORE being arrested? Wow. What rights are you thinking were violated here? And, she did get an attorney, a very famous high profile one. Even her own attorney didn't agree with a single word you said, and never sued the police (they did nothing wrong). He sued the store for $50,000 for this incident. It was thrown out of court, and she will be getting $0.00, and rightfully so. But, even her own attorney knew that there wasn't a case against the police. Why? Because the system doesn't work anything like you're trying to pretend.
    2
  5232. How does that answer a single thing I said or asked? Good grief. It's like you're PROUD when every single sentence you write makes no sense. You think it's a badge of honor to be completely wrong.
    2
  5233. Huh? The guy had a gun drawn and pointed into the car as the door opened. You think it's "unnecessary" to defend himself? What would you propose instead? Sit there and get shot?
    2
  5234. A) I realize that English isn't your first language. So, yeah, thanks for trying. But, this is such a mess that it might have been better to post this in whatever your actual native language is, and let others translate from it. B) There's a ton of evidence of the Apollo missions that couldn't be faked. C) You say there's "a vehicle" up there. Um, yeah, there are 6 up there intact (the lower halves of those vehicles), and the crashed remnants of a bunch of upper halves, as well as one lower half, and two upper halves that are perhaps still floating around (but, more likely, one crashed, and the other is now orbiting the sun). D) There is no telescope in existence that can see that level of resolution from this distance.
    2
  5235. Huh? What footage do you think is lost?
    2
  5236. "I am a Computer Engineer" Good for you. "I am Highly educated" Yet, you don't understand punctuation. You don't understand when to capitalize words, nor when not to capitalize them. WhAt A gRanD EdjUmEkaSHuN U HaVe. "I am not remotely a fool" I beg to differ. "Technology itself was not capable of any of this!" Then name the EXACT technology they lacked. Can you? Then, please explain why none of the thousands of engineers working on that particular technology ever realized that the stuff they built to go to the moon... couldn't do what they built it for. What do you know about that particular technology that the actual engineers didn't know about the stuff they designed and built? You're a CoMpUTeR EnGINeeR, right? Well, what about the Apollo computers couldn't do the job? They used massive redundant IBM mainframes in Houston for guidance, as fed by radar tracking from countries all around the world. MIT designed the worldwide system, which was operated by dozens of countries. The accuracy of the radar tracking was within 1 mile, and could track 3 vehicles at a time. (Note: it originally was only designed to track two vehicles, but, when the Soviets announced that they were sending the unmanned lunar probe Luna 15 to the moon to meet Apollo 11, they expanded the capabilities to tracking all 3 craft: command/service module, lunar module, and Luna 15.) Do you think MIT didn't know what it was doing? How about the onboard computers (used for backup guidance to the ground tracking, as well as primary guidance for the landing sequence)? Those were also designed by MIT/Draper Labs, and built by Raytheon. Did those engineers simply not understand what they designed and built? YOU know better? What other technologies do you object to? What EXACTLY do you think Apollo couldn't do?
    2
  5237. So, in your last posting, you attempted to outline some of the "evidence" that you thought supported you. You used the petrified wood at the Dutch art museum as your main example. After being completely destroyed about that example, now I guess you know better than to actually try to post any reasons for your beliefs. Instead, now you just post 2 words, and hope they'll stick, huh?
    2
  5238. Dewdrop, thanks for making it 100% clear that you're not reading the answers to your own comments.
    2
  5239. Exfloring mun is mistereous. Seas atil havent simply dout. Stones dont jump. Outside ships a stashun cable. Mistery is cant.
    2
  5240. Dewdrop, Hubble's best resolution of the moon's surface is 160 feet x 160 feet PER PIXEL. You cannot even see a 14x14 lander, because it wouldn't fill up a single pixel of Hubble's resolution, let alone the tiny stuff shown in this video. I'm sorry you don't understand the difference between distance and resolution, but, thanks for making it perfectly clear that you don't want answers to your own questions. Why do you ask things if you don't want the answers?
    2
  5241. Why can't you answer? Why do you ask questions when you don't want the answers?
    2
  5242. Dewdrop, you clearly don't want answers to your questions. Stop asking them.
    2
  5243. The bigger issue is to ask why you'd ever believe a single thing from that movie.
    2
  5244. No, dewdrop. The cop's job is NOT to immediately render aid. His job is to get lots of officers on the scene and secure the situation first. THEN render aid. Otherwise, if he changes his focus to rendering aid, other little Marks crawl out of the woodwork and pick up where Mark left off. And, pretty soon, he's the one needing the aid also. No. Secure the scene, THEN render aid.
    2
  5245. "mag dumping" Wow, you're a true expert. 3 shots is a "mag" to you?
    2
  5246. Freedom of Information Act. I agree, yes, the video shouldn't have been made public. I just don't know how anybody can really prevent it, what with the legal FOIA request process. And, sorry, but they DID keep the video private for 2.5 years. She was dead for 1.5 years before anybody ever saw the arrest video. But, eventually, you just can't block FOIA requests if the case has been closed too long.
    2
  5247. Welcome to Inside Edition.
    2
  5248. Now, does that even make sense to you? Why would 90% of meteorites land in Antarctica? You have confused the fact that lots of meteorites are found there (though, not 90%), with the notion that they land there. The only reason that Antarctica makes a good place to look for meteorites is that it's fairly preserved ground, mostly white from snow and ice, making meteorites easier to find... NOT because most land there. There's no magical meteorite attraction to the south pole or anything. And, do you REALLY believe that the thousands of geologists who have examined the Apollo samples cannot tell the difference between an old meteorite that is unearthed from Antarctica vs. a sample gathered by astronauts on the moon? Really? Why aren't you publishing in geology journals? With your clear lunar geology expertise, why would you use YouTube comments to make this revelation? Only crackpots think that a YouTube comment would be the place to share their scientific knowledge. You should write it up. Or, emojis aren't allowed in science journals, and you don't know how to write without them? Anyway, go write up your paper. Fame and fortune is coming your way on the geology lecture circuits, I'm sure. But, you might want to start with explaining why the lunar rocks brought back on Apollo (which you say came from Antarctica) were found never to have been exposed to oxygen or moisture... two conditions that do not exist in Antarctica.
    2
  5249. The makers of this video should have gotten copies from prints as close to the original negatives as possible, rather than just showing those deceptive poor quality photos of photos of photos as provided by charlatans.
    2
  5250. Wow, it's been proven, huh? Thanks Marcia. I don't need to see the proof or anything. I don't need to know what that proof is. Marcia, a random crackpot on the internet, says it's proven, and that's good enough for me.
    2
  5251. How do you "fake" radar and radio telescope tracking by dozens of countries including enemies? How do you "fake" the stuff on the moon that has been photographed from lunar orbit by China's probe, India's probe, and the Arizona State University camera onboard LRO?
    2
  5252. Um, ok. And, you're amazed by this, why? Because a conspiracy video told you it wasn't possible? You don't even know there are beltS (plural). That's how little you understand the topic. Do you often get amazed by topics you don't understand?
    2
  5253. Do you really not understand the difference between the effort of two guys in a bicycle shop vs. the effort of 450,000 people worldwide for a decade of their lives? Really? A couple of years of human effort vs. 4.5 million years of human effort? You think that's the same thing?
    2
  5254. Hilarious!! The video taken by one of the "audience" disagrees with you. Oh, but you keep on pretending to know things you don't, ok?
    2
  5255. Yet, in your very next posting, you just said you don't want to hear about anything after July 16, 1969. Yet, in this posting, you want to talk about July 20, 1969. Hey, dewdrop, if you can't stay consistent for 10 minutes, and your mind is so far gone that you must make yourself believe that people get paid to talk to you, yeah, you really just need to hit that "nurse call" button by your hospital bed, and ask them to increase your meds.
    2
  5256. Yes, of course. But, stop believing everything you see on trash TV like Inside Edition.
    2
  5257. Apollo 11 carried 50 state flags, 135 country flags, and the UN flag, to the moon and back. Yes, small ones. They then took those flags, and lunar samples, and made nice plaques and displays of a piece of the moon plus each flag, and gave them out as "good will samples." But, for flying a flag on the lunar surface, yeah, the US took on well over 90% of the enormous cost of going to the moon, and flew its own flag.
    2
  5258. Except you're butchering the living daylights out of what was said. Moore asked if they could see stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare. Armstrong said he couldn't recall whether he saw stars or not while photographing the solar corona. Collins was responding to that exact timeframe that Armstrong was talking about. Armstrong said he didn't remember seeing stars or not, and Collins immediately responded that he didn't remember seeing any either. See, dewdrop, the thing is, you don't understand what the solar corona is, so, you completely omitted that tidbit from your thought process. Doesn't it ever dawn on you that it would be very odd for Armstrong to name such a specific task as "while photographing the solar corona," if you are under the impression that they were talking about the entire mission? If he was referring to the entire mission, why would he have even mentioned such a short timeframe? (Answer: you don't absorb or process things you don't understand, therefore, in one ear, out the other.) They could only see the solar corona for about a minute or two, dewdrop. During that timeframe, their task was to photograph the solar corona. So, if asked whether they saw stars during that short timeframe, sorry if the astronauts didn't recall. They were busy photographing the corona, and were not paying attention to whether or not they could see stars at that exact moment. But, if it makes you feel better (it won't), they said they saw stars just fine about a minute after photographing the solar corona (because the sun had "set"). They just didn't remember during the short transition between daytime and nighttime (the only time the corona was visible).
    2
  5259. "I will not prolong discussion about this" Huh? YOU started this thread, dewdrop. YOU did that. And, the very moment someone comes along to explain why you so terribly misunderstood obvious things, what do you do? You changed topics? Ignore all input. And, you say you won't prolong a discussion, then immediately, you prolong a different discussion? "because quite frankly, especially as a Jamaican I care zero about whether they went to the moon or not." Yet, you make multiple threads declaring exactly what you believe. Sounds to me like you care quite a bit. "I am fascinated though by the evidences of the van allen radiation belt that no modern space shuttle can even go near" Yet, you don't know anything about them. Usually, when someone is fascinated about something, they study it. You know, those thousands of papers written about the Van Allen belts, as a result of readings from countless probes and satellites over decades and decades? You've never read a single one of them. How fascinated could you possibly be, if you don't actually study them? Or, what about what James Van Allen himself said about them? No? That doesn't matter either? Oh, but a conspiracy video said it would be a problem, therefore you believe it's a problem. THAT, you care about. But, the actual science, nope, you don't care one bit. Dewdrop, the Van Allen belts are a problem for LONG TERM exposure. People will get a fatal dose in about a week or two. Shuttle missions lasted that long, so, yes, they stayed below those belts. Apollo bolted through the belts in a couple of hours, which wasn't a long enough exposure time to be all that harmful. "the obvious shiny wires that lifts the astronauts" Yet, hmmm, those shiny wires always seem to be located exactly where the communication antenna is mounted to the backpack. Funny how that works. "the technology of the time which NASA admits they do not have to go to the moon" Correct. That technology was retired in 1972. So, we don't have it right now. We also don't have supersonic airliner technology right now either, because it was retired 20 years ago. And, we don't have mach-7 airplane technology right now either, because the X15 was retired in the 1960s. That's what happens when technologies get retired. We no longer have them. "the few pics with their anomalies" Oh, but, remember, you don't really care about Apollo. Right? This topic doesn't matter to you. Hence why you're regurgitating ridiculous claims non-stop, exactly as you got by watching a whole bunch of conspiracy videos that lie to you. Yeah, you're really demonstrating exactly how much you "don't care" about this topic. Right. "faking of the mission in "A funny thing happened on the way to the moon"" Debunked nonsense. Sibrel created that lie in his editing room, and it's just plain silly that anybody would believe it. Sorry you fell for it. But, that's not my problem, nor should you make it a problem for the rest of the world that you're polluting with absolute nonsense. There are a million ways to know that claim is wrong, starting with the fact that the clouds aren't moving past the window at 17,500 mph. Sibrel tells you that the astronauts are actually in low Earth orbit, and only pretending to be half way to the moon, right? That's the claim, right? Well, hmmm, why don't the clouds move past the window at 17,500 mph if that's the case? Why are the clouds virtually stationary? Doesn't that prove that Sibrel was wrong? Also, if you can't figure it out yourself, you can see a million different videos showing you exactly why that claim is a lie, in numerous ways. But, my personal favorite is short and sweet, only about 4 minutes long, "Addendum A Funny Thing Happened... (By GreaterSapien - MIRROR)." He shows you that Sibrel edited out the very clips that prove himself wrong. They passed the camera to two different windows, not round, no cutout, plainly seeing the windows and the Earth in the distance. "Obama, Don Pettit, many other astronauts state that there are many problems to be solved before they can attempt to put a man on the moon." So? Yes, new mission profiles = new problems to solve. Why is this an issue for you? Why should Apollo's veracity be based upon what new mission parameters require? "that should have been easy today" Then why aren't you working at NASA to solve those problems!?!?!?! What are you doing on YouTube comments, when you're clearly an aerospace engineer who can solve everything for them? Why complain on YouTube, instead of sharing your massive expertise with the rest of the world by getting hired at NASA to show them how easy it is!?!?! Jamaica is well known for producing the world's greatest aerospace engineers, right? Show them!! Oh, but, you don't care about this topic. Sure.
    2
  5260. Oh, another proud graduate of YouTube University School of Law, huh?
    2
  5261. Whose bible? Sibrel's?
    2
  5262. Um, no. Not even close. First of all, no rights were violated here, and not even her own attorney accused the police of violating her rights. As for evidence, yes, the statement by the store employee IS evidence. As for probable cause to ask for an ID, um, no. "Probable cause" applies to making arrests, not to performing investigations and providing identification. That's called "reasonable suspicion." The cop had the reasonable suspicion, and articulated it to her multiple times. Yes, she is then legally required to provide ID. She refused to do so, then she further obstructed and obfuscated the investigation (also crimes). But, you don't need to take my word for it. Her own high profile attorney didn't sue the police for anything, let alone violation of rights. He sued the store. That case was tossed out of court (and rightfully so). But, at least he tried to sue the store. He never even tried suing the police. Why? Because he knows how the system works, and you don't.
    2
  5263. Huh? What constitutional rights do you think were violated in the first place?
    2
  5264. For beating the Soviets. What's your ponit?
    2
  5265. Really? Where can I find one of these magical telescopes?
    2
  5266. Well, the police didn't show it. They blocked its release for 2.5 years. But, eventually, Freedom of Information Act.
    2
  5267. Ahhh, yes. Another dewdrop who blindly believes anything a crack meets pot video tells them. Dewdrop, nasa means to lift, nasha means deceive. It's as simple as Google. But, you definitely won't do that. You don't want to find out who the real liars are.
    2
  5268. So, Kodak, Hasselblad, Maurer, RCA, Westinghouse, and Carruthers, all simultaneously forgot to make cameras that would work. Sure. Right. And, YOU spotted this "problem"? Or, did you watch a ridiculous claim made in a video produced by a taxi cab driver, and decided to believe it for no reason?
    2
  5269. "how they dissipated the heat" Step 1: Don't absorb it in the first place. You know all of those strange layers of foils and exotic metals? Those are very good reflectors and insulators. They're still used on most satellites today. Step 2: Porous plate sublimators. Common slang name = swamp coolers. They work in some environments on Earth, marginally. They're usually not worth the effort in most places in the world. But, where they do work, they can save a lot of energy, a lot better than air conditioners. And, in space, they really work well, for a very low energy cost. "Also the amount of oxygen they had to have. 2.5 hrs of lunar surface time." It's compressed. And, it's pure oxygen (doesn't have to be mixed with nitrogen, like a scuba tank). And, it's essentially a big rebreather (nothing wasted, like in scuba where every breath is just lost to bubbles). "The backpacks had to house the cooling sytem, life support oxygen system and the radio and comms." And, you're under the impression that the engineers at Hamilton Standard forgot to equip the backpack with enough battery energy to last for an EVA? Really? The silver zinc batteries they used are ridiculously more expensive than any conventional batteries you'd get today, and cannot be recharged. But, they pack in more energy per pound than any other type of battery (or well, any other type that doesn't explode when shaken too much anyway). But, if you want to spend that kind of money on batteries today, Eagle-Picher (the company that made them for Apollo) is still around today. I'm not sure how much each battery costed for the backpacks. But, each battery in the lunar module (basically the same type) costed about today's equivalent of $600,000.
    2
  5270.  @stusue9733  I was commenting mainly on the PLSS EVA batteries. But, I alluded to the LEM batteries (and could have mentioned the rover batteries) because they were the same type. If they could be recharged, this is the first I've heard of that, because every document I've got says they were non-rechargeable. On Apollo 13, the lunar module was used to charge the command module, not the other way around (as you pointed out). But, this doesn't mean that the lunar module batteries could be charged by the command module. It only meant that the command module could power some of the systems on the lunar module. If you find a document that says I'm wrong, I'm all ears.
    2
  5271.  @therealzilch  Correct. The only use of solar panels was just to power the Apollo 11 EASEP (the predecessor to the ALSEP). The surface experiment package. And, it failed in 3 weeks. They had some early designs of the lunar module in which they contemplated using solar panels. However, they just didn't find that they were reliable enough (especially if shaken like crazy during a Saturn V launch) to stake an entire mission on them. So, they abandoned the solar panel idea, and stuck with batteries that were more reliable. Who'd want to launch an entire Saturn V to the moon, then find out they couldn't land because the solar panels were broken? So, they only used solar panels on that one experiment package on Apollo 11, which failed miserably before one full lunar cycle. And, they never used them again. They switched over to nuclear isotopic generators from that point forward for all surface experiments. Anyway, that's all a tangent. To your point, yes, they didn't bother making the batteries rechargeable because there was never going to be a mechanism (nor a need) to recharge them. The non-rechargeable versions carried more energy than the chargeable versions anyway.
    2
  5272. Let me just make sure I understand you here. I responded to you about your first set of complaints (temperature and lack of photos of Earth). I clearly explained why the temperature was irrelevant. I clearly explained that there were plenty of photos of Earth. I asked return questions. You ignored it, and changed topics. I again asked you about the original topics, and pointed out that you were just changing topics, and to stop and focus on your original topics. You responded again, by changing topics again, still ignoring your own original topics, still refusing to answer any questions? Dewdrop, I'd need to take a .45 to my prefrontal cortex before I could ever be able to get down to your level... that's how far gone you are.
    2
  5273. Doubtful. With her mile long arrest and prison record, I seriously doubt she cared much about this particular arrest. She failed to appear in court for this incident, just as she had bunches of other failures to appear for numerous other thefts and crimes. And, sorry, but she wasn't plastered anywhere until 1.5 years after she was already dead. And, why do you believe she thought she was alone? Because she said so?
    2
  5274. OK, and, how would you plan on making that happen? What choice do they have? And, just checking here, you do know she was dead for 1.5 years before the arrest video was released, right?
    2
  5275. Microchips don't generate thrust. Rockets are essentially unchanged... at least in any meaningful way that would affect a moon mission. And, it's a matter of motivation and funding. The cold war was what prompted (and funded) Apollo. Since that time, congress hasn't approved more missions to the moon (until they approved/funded Artemis in 2018, with funding beginning in 2019). But, if you adjust for inflation, Apollo costed $300 billion in hard costs, and $150 billion in soft costs and international support. Artemis' budget is about $35 billion (but, like all government programs, I imagine it'll balloon). So, your complaint is that it doesn't add up? Yeah, the DOLLARS don't add up. That's the entire source of what you're complaining about.
    2
  5276. Conclusion first, question second. What a hero!
    2
  5277. But, dewdrop, you do NOT want to know these things you're pretending you want to know. You're not even reading the responses to your own questions/statements.
    2
  5278. They ARE doing it now!! Have you not heard of the Artemis program?
    2
  5279. The two easiest ways: 1) Bouncing radar/radio waves off of the moon. 2) By understanding the gravitational constant. Everything at [whatever] altitude above the Earth will make an orbit in a specific amount of time. The higher it is, the more time one orbit takes. The lower it is, the less time an orbit takes. This applies to any object, whether a moon, or a frying pan, it always takes the exact same amount of time for whatever given altitude. If you don't even know these concepts, why do you think nobody else does? Who are YOU to declare what's a lie or not, when you know so little about the topic that you don't even know how the distance is calculated?
    2
  5280.  @marksprague1280  He means before Apollo. He's saying that Apollo couldn't have worked because there was no way to know the distance to the moon.
    2
  5281. Dewdrop, you have confused the concept of tidal locking with the notion that there's no night and day. It's ridiculous. Just look at the moon, dewdrop. If it's a full moon, the close side is in daylight. If it's a new moon, the close side is in nighttime. Anything in between means that some of the close side is in daylight, and some is in nighttime. How do you think a solar eclipse happens anyway? It's because the close side of the moon is in total nighttime, and the far side is in daylight, and the moon happens to cross the ecliptic at exactly the right time to cause an eclipse. But, as I said, every 708 hours (about a month), the moon goes through the cycle of a "day" (sunrise to sunrise). Sorry that you failed 8th grade geometry. Maybe you should go back and try again, huh?
    2
  5282. Here you go, dewdrop. "Moon Wobble" by SpaceWatch99. Go check it out. That's the moon over a period of about a year. You can clearly see the days (about a month, exactly like I said). And, the surface goes through day times and night times. Again, I'm sure it's only a matter of time before you delete your two threads and run for the hills. But, good grief, you sure are proud to know nothing.
    2
  5283. Or, here, let me present this to you a different way. You're correct about the moon being tidally locked. But, you're confused, because, for your version to be true, it would need to be tidally locked TO THE SUN. But, that's not what the moon is tidally locked with. It's tidally locked TO EARTH. Anyway, you're dead wrong. I'm sure you'll be deleting your threads now.
    2
  5284.  @Hakunamatata51101  What kind of COVID? 9mm? Or, .22?
    2
  5285. Yes, that's how delusions work. No matter what, you find a way to spiral your way downhill. No input = it's a conspiracy because nobody is correcting me. Input = it's a conspiracy because people are correcting me.
    2
  5286. Oh, and dewdrop, what happens today has no relevance on what happened in the 1960s. If you have a beef with the Grumman lander, express it directly. Just saying, "today's clowns don't know how to build landers, therefore Grumman didn't build a lander" doesn't make sense.
    2
  5287. That story doesn't go viral. Soccer mom was shamed to death goes viral. Viral = ad revenue.
    2
  5288. Oh look, a denier who reads and writes at a 2nd grade level. What a shocker.
    2
  5289. Oh look, another denier who can't read or write. What a shocker.
    2
  5290. Dewdrop, questions are fine. But, I have yet to see any of you people actually want the answers. You PRETEND to ask questions, but, the minute you get the answers, you either run for the hills, or put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and say, "lalalalalala."
    2
  5291. The irony. The complete and total irony.
    2
  5292. Another dewdrop who doesn't understand digital zoom. Shocker.
    2
  5293. Independent verification is a good thing.
    2
  5294. I try not to engage in these fantasy hypothetical things. But, good grief. Gammas? I think you have a huge gap in understanding here, for many reasons. It was bad enough to see you talk about the alphas and betas. But, ok, I cut some slack there. At least a magnetic field has an effect, albeit, we're not really all that worried about alphas or betas in the first place. So, fine, whatever, I didn't say anything. But, gammas? What EXACTLY do you expect to happen when you induce a magnetic field upon gamma radiation? The Earth's magnetosphere has no impact whatsoever on gammas. Why should your little magnet spinning experiment be any different? Gammas plow right through every magnetic field we've ever created on Earth, with zero effect, and with zero theory behind it for how a magnetic field even could affect a gamma. since gammas don't carry a charge one way or the other. Oh, but, you want to do these experiments again, eh? Forgive me if I say you don't have the foggiest clue, and you're spewing gibberish.
    2
  5295.  @stusue9733  You don't need any "defense." The people who spew garbage as an attempt to pretend to know things that they do not... that's a different story.
    2
  5296. Huh? The phase is "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." The side of the road isn't a courtroom. By your logic, it seems you're saying that the case must be proven before anybody could ever be arrested. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Cops operate on reasonable suspicion and probable cause (he had plenty of both). The proof of guilt doesn't come for weeks later, in a courtroom. You are correct in that the woman isn't obligated to assist in an investigation. It's fine for a cop or a store to request proof of purchase, but, she isn't legally required to provide it. For all practical purposes, it's just easier to provide it than to fight a crusade. But, fine, if she wants to take the crusade route, alright, what she IS legally required to do is provide ID, and cooperate on a basic level. This means she is not allowed to obstruct, obfuscate, or resist. (She did all three of those things.) She can identify herself and then remain silent if she wishes. But, that's not what she did. Instead, she violated a bunch of laws, because she was accused of violating a different law. The cop is under no obligation to watch security videos. The ship had sailed by that point, because the woman herself had escalated things, and committed different crimes. He even explained that the theft crime didn't even matter at that point. But, she wasn't listening (and neither are you). You think that this was the way to exercise your rights? Really? Well, enjoy your inevitable prison term, then.
    2
  5297.  @ronharris3411  Huh? Sorry, but you are legally required to provide ID if you're being investigated for a crime. You're correct in that she's not required by law to show a receipt. But, there's no harm in asking for it. And, it does make things a lot easier to just provide it. But, you clearly don't understand, so, I doubt there's much point in explaining it. And, by the way, the cop didn't see her walk through the register. The employee "Anna" said that. The cop wasn't being literal when he said, "I saw her go through without paying." He was just trying to repeat the words Anna spoke to him (from her perspective, not his).
    2
  5298. Well, before your mind can accept any proof, first you'd need to lay off the drugs.
    2
  5299. Well, given that she went right back to stealing from Walgreens after this incident, yeah.
    2
  5300. Typical nut. Ask a question. Don't wait for an answer. Announce conclusion.
    2
  5301. No, the Challenger astronauts are not still alive. How stupid can you be? Do you REALLY believe those astronauts are still around, doing regular everyday jobs, and nobody notices? How dumb are you? As for the acronym "NASA" meaning something in Hebrew "Nasha," again, how stupid can you be? ALMOST ANY 4-letter acronym means something in some old language. Why Hebrew? Why not Latin for "fish trap"? Should I say you're a woman because the root of "Jo" means female in Japanese? Should I say you're a criminal because the root of "Jo" means "to assault" or "to strike" in some other languages? I mean, good grief. "NASA" stands for "National Air and Space Administration." How pathetic do you have to be to go hunt down some ancient language not even used any longer, and cherry-pick some definition of "Nasha" (not even spelled the same), as if that's supposed to mean something? How far down the toilet have you flushed your brain away? And, dummy, why Hebrew anyway? Our alphabet doesn't even really mean anything in the original Hebrew. Good grief. You morons will cling to ANY stupid thing to support your dumb delusions.
    2
  5302. Exactly the objection made by many of the engineers. But, the decision by management was that, for the first moonwalk, they wanted to use the most low-bandwidth (not exactly bandwidth, because it's analog, but, you get the idea), most reliable camera, easiest to transmit signal, etc. They didn't even erect the high gain S-band dish (even though they had one available in the stowage of the lander). Most of the engineers thought that it wasn't going to matter much, and that they should do it in color, but, management overrode their recommendations.
    2
  5303. What a shocker. Yet another dewdrop who reads and writes at a 2nd grade level, denying the moon landings. I've never seen THAT before. (sigh) Dewdrop, the word "its" exists for a reason.
    2
  5304. HILARIOUS!!! You are 72 years old and educated... yet you're incapable of understanding that this video picks up in the middle, and the entire first half of this video has been edited out? You can't see that? Go watch the version that includes the entire encounter, not this one that picks up in the middle. Good grief. Any 6 year old can tell that this video starts in the middle. Yes, the officer was very nice from the start, and the woman escalated the situation by obfuscating/obstructing, and refusing to cooperate on any level, and refused to provide ID (required in all "identify" states, including Florida). No sob stories about history here. We have a woman who went completely bananas because a store thought she might have stolen something, and, instead of just showing her receipt, she decided that the best course of action was to commit a bunch of arrestable offenses all on their own (regardless of the original suspicion of theft). History has nothing to do with it.
    2
  5305. Huh? Virtually no media even covered it while she was alive.
    2
  5306. Huh? You think that blue and white sphere is the moon?
    2
  5307.  @critthought2866  That was his limit regarding coherent thought. No misspellings. It's a complete sentence. He used all six of his brain cells on all six of those words. Then, he tapped out.
    2
  5308. Yeah, it's just too bad that none of it did any good. She immediately continued stealing from Walgreens, and kept on with her terrible habits until it killed her. Such a waste and tragedy.
    2
  5309. Would you say the same if it was a man at a playground? Just mind their business and take their children to a different playground?
    2
  5310. What color did you expect?
    2
  5311. YOU SAID: "The problem with the appollo missions was nasa secrecy. They never told what there real missions was for." == Um, what? What do YOU think the "real missions" were for? And, why do YOU know this, and the rest of the world doesn't?
    2
  5312. But, the arrest video was not released until 2.5 years later, which was 1.5 years after she died. You do know this, right? You don't just blindly believe Inside Edition, do you?
    2
  5313. What drama! Good grief. The cops held the arrest video private for 2.5 years before anybody saw it. She was dead 1.5 years before it was released (probably as a result of a legal FOIA request). Why do you think there was all of that humiliation? Because Inside Edition says so?
    2
  5314. LRO has confirmed that 5 flags are still standing, and Apollo 11's flag has fallen over, just as Aldrin says he saw. You can go to Arizona State University's site and look at the satellite images at the various sun angles, and see the shadows of the 5 flags still standing, and view as a scroll-book and watch the flags' shadows traverse the lunar surface from each sun angle. And, at a sun angle of about 12:36, you can see a bright patch at the Apollo 11 site that is very likely the Apollo 11 flag laying on the ground. India's Chandrayaan-2 image of the Apollo 12 site shows the shadow of the flag exactly where it's supposed to be (just north of the lander).
    2
  5315. Oh no you don't. Nope. Absolutely not. You don't get to sit there and complain that they never took certain photos. Then, when it's pointed out to you that they did take those photos, you then shift the goalposts and say that the photos are fake. Nope. Sorry. Too late for that. If that was your position, you'd have said so. But, you didn't. You thought the photos didn't even exist (probably because a conspiracy video told you, and you just blindly ate it up). Now, after I told you that they do exist, you just shift the goalpost and call it CGI?? Nope. CGI didn't exist at the time. There wasn't a computer on the planet capable of rendering photorealistic images. So, spare the world. You have no idea what you're talking about.
    2
  5316. Furthermore, dewdrop, don't sit there and ask "why didn't they do XYZ?" - then ask me not to write "paragraphs" as a response. You asked why, I told you why. I'm sorry if reality dictates that it requires a few sentences to explain answers to your questions. But, maybe the fact that you have the attention span of a chipmunk is part of your problem.
    2
  5317. You refuse to address a single point, answer a single question, or admit being wrong about a single thing. Yet, you think you have the high ground? And, you have the audacity to post this comment: "if you look at Apollo footage and photos with fresh eyes" Dewdrop, YOU are the one who claimed that they never took photos of the Earth or the equipment they left on the moon. That was YOU who made that claim. YOU did. This shows pretty conclusively that you haven't actually viewed the photos for yourself. So, don't sit there and complain that OTHERS should look at the photos...which you yourself never looked at. How did you even make the claim you did anyway? You claimed that no such photos were taken, remember? Well, if you didn't look at the photo archive yourself, how could you even make such a claim in the first place? How would you know what's in the photo archive without looking at it? Did a conspiracy video tell you what to think?
    2
  5318. First of all, huh? Most of the key scientists involved with making nuclear weapons were Jewish. You're saying German? Good grief. And, sorry, but the rest of what you wrote is just plain gibberish. You don't understand ANYTHING.
    2
  5319. 2nd reply in a row here. It didn't hit me right away, but, now I've figured it out. You've confused the 1940s with the 1960s. See, dewdrop, the building of nuclear weapons was mainly geared AGAINST Germany. And, had the war in Europe not ended before the bomb was finished, it would have been dropped on Germany, not Japan. I seriously doubt there were any significant Germans involved with atomic bomb development, because national security was a great concern, and they wanted people who would be willing to build a bomb that would evaporate a German city. No, they didn't "take German scientists." You have confused those events from the 1940s, with the 1960s, in which about 1,600 of the 450,000 people who worked on Apollo were German rocket scientists. Great job mixing up WWII with the Cold War, and mixing up the 1940s with the 1960s. Yeah, you're a real expert.
    2
  5320. Apollo 11 was in black and white. The rest of the missions were in color. Color TV had been around for a while, of course, before the Apollo missions. The color TV standards were actually established in the 1950s. But, it was expensive, so most programs remained in black and white through the mid 1960s. Color was fully available by the Apollo missions. But, for the first landing, they wanted the most reliable signal that they could use (black and white), not dependent upon a high gain antenna. Apollo 11 brought a high gain antenna, but they never bothered to deploy it. They only had a couple of hours on the lunar surface, and they were only going to deploy it if they needed it for the black and white camera. But, the steerable antenna worked good enough for the black and white camera, so, they never deployed the high-gain. Anyway, the point is, they wanted to be very conservative and use a black and white camera for Apollo 11 (less "bandwidth" than color - though that's actually not quite the correct term to use). But, for all of the remaining missions, they used color TV cameras.
    2
  5321. THAT is your reply? He tore apart everything you wrote. And, you stick your head in the sand and ignore it? I won't bother repeating everything. But, your claim about 120 degree (C) surface temperatures... ridiculous babble. It only got that hot during the lunar high noon, and a bit after. All lunar landings were very early in the lunar morning, long before the surface was that hot. You are complaining about a time when no astronauts were even on the surface. That's how little you understand about the topic.
    2
  5322. Nielsen ratings.
    2
  5323. Well, if you remember seeing the arrest video, then it was already after she was long dead. As for why it was published: Freedom of Information Act.
    2
  5324. Sorry, nobody wants to buy that bridge from you that you thought you bought from the bag of goods spewed by charlatans. YOU fell for it, but, others won't.
    2
  5325.  @Cliffmchrist  It's as if YouTube just has a randomizer or something. You cannot even post 20 words without getting blocked.
    2
  5326.  @theofficialdiamondlou2418  I sure hope you didn't call them "McDonald" engineers when you spoke to the people at McDonnell. If you did, maybe that's why they told you that they work with aliens. They generally don't take kindly to being lumped in with a fast food hamburger company, and are likely to pawn you off with any kind of gibberish after that.
    2
  5327. And, you think people would pay you to answer questions about your own topic? You can't even manage to string a single coherent sentence together. Why would anybody pay you to answer?
    2
  5328.  @cannoncarroll722  WOW, you're stupid.
    2
  5329. TILL L: Most of the stuff is BILLIONS of years old. Most of the meteorites hit while the moon was in its infancy (and that's how the moon formed in the first place). I truly don't think you understand how amazingly remote the odds were of getting hit. And, what's your point anyway? As far as the dangers of space travel go, they were far more worried about equipment failures than they were worried about meteorites.
    2
  5330. "I'm not an conspiracy theorists," Sorry, when you have to lie in the opening of your message, your credibility is absolutely zero. "Back in the early 2000s NASA put out a small article that started the moon is within our atmosphere" No. A few years ago, a Russian cosmologist discovered that faint traces of molecules from Earth's atmosphere extended out past the moon, in greater quantities than originally expected. It's still so close to zero that it's still called a vacuum, of course. But, when counting molecules, ok, there turned out to be more of them than expected. His English wasn't that great, and he said "the moon is within Earth's atmosphere," but, corrected himself about 30 seconds later. Nuts on the internet disregard everything else, quote the one sentence from the Russian scientist, and somehow attribute it to NASA. Maybe you should stop believing what you see in conspiracy videos, eh? "If this is true" Well, it's not true. So, it doesn't matter. "And how did we lose all the Information on such an incredible event." Again, the videos you're watching have been lying to you. In 2006, NASA announced that they lost two backup video tapes from one mission. The primary copies are still intact. But, the backup copies were lost. From that, year after year, the nuts keep thinking more and more stuff was lost than actually was. And, they have twisted it now into believing everything was lost. It's ridiculous. Why would you believe what those videos tell you? "And how did the giant tuna can they went in survive such a flight." Oh, but you're not a conspiracy theorist? Did you notice that you couldn't make it through a single posted message without revealing your true nature? Why do you pretend? If you're going to sit there and call it a "tuna can," sorry, but you are not to be taken seriously. Don't pretend you're "just asking questions" when you say such things. You are PRETENDING to ask questions, no more, no less.
    2
  5331. Proof of what? That Tesla promised trucks by 2019, and their great "delivery" announcement was that they're "delivering" the truck only to themselves, not to a single customer yet?
    2
  5332.  @vidtech2630  Um, what? Are you confessing to being a dummy and being fooled by Bart Sibrel's ridiculous conspiracy movie? What? Good grief. Somehow, I know that's not what you tried to say... but... then again, I should know better than to expect a conspiratard to make sense.
    2
  5333.  @vidtech2630  Sorry, you've been watching conspiracy videos too much. Nothing you say is correct.
    2
  5334.  @openheavens2320  Oh look, another moon landing denier who reads and writes at a 2nd grade level. And, this was your edited version? How bad was the first version?
    2
  5335. For Grace and Zubi: QUOTE: "The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight. The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months' duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure. A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week. However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. -- James A. Van Allen" END QUOTE What exactly do you believe you know about the Van Allen belts that James Van Allen didn't know? You think lead is required? What? Why? It does almost nothing about protons. And, for electrons, a heavy metal like lead produces secondary Bremsstrahlung radiation. I suppose if you don't have a choice, ok, lead is fine. But, aluminum works fine against electrons, and doesn't produce any Bremsstrahlung. Why are you on YouTube comments if you think you understand this topic better than the entire world's particle physicists? Why aren't you publishing in the science journals on particle radiation? Oh, and c'mon, Grace, quote: "OK I may not know the correct term but you know what I'm talking about"?? Really? You don't know what things are called, but, you think you know more about the Van Allen belts than James Van Allen? Really? I'm not sure what that orange ball is called, but, you bounce it, and throw it at a hoop. I talked to this guy named Michael Jordan once, and told him that he was doing the orange ball incorrectly, whatever it's called, you know what I mean. He said I didn't understand the topic, but, I'm here to say that I'm an expert in orange ball bouncing, and Michael Jordan is completely wrong, and the worst at it.
    2
  5336. Zubi: "i am a physics major btw so id love to see you explain this" First of all, you can barely read or write. You clearly don't understand physics either. But, if you're a college student, you need to shift your focus onto learning to read and write, before you focus on other things. Secondly, man, you're not good at physics, and you should change your major. Just face reality here. It's been 50+ years since Apollo, and thus far, not a single physicist anywhere on Earth in friendly or enemy countries has EVER published a single article in any physics journal making the claims you're making. Never. Not once. Yet, you think you know this material? Good grief. Um, no. You don't. Back in my college days, I watched many students attempt to be physics majors, who just weren't cut out for it. For me, it came naturally. For you, clearly not. And, if you want to make it your mission to pester people about topics you don't understand, why aren't you pestering some of the physicists at your university? Or, even more importantly, if you think the Van Allen radiation required lead, and that it would be fatal without it, why aren't you publishing? I mean, I think it's clear enough that you're probably just a first semester student, basically just starting with physics 101. You haven't come anywhere near studying radiation yet. But, like I said, it's not too late for you to switch majors. Physics isn't for you. It really isn't. Change out of that major before you spend the rest of your life attempting to do things you're just not cut out for. But, again, you don't need to trust me. I am nobody. You can prove yourself correct (or wrong) by writing up your calculations in any university-recognized journal on particle physics or radiobiology. Explain to the world about why no physicists or radiobiologists have ever noticed this glaring "flaw" you've spotted, which no expert in the field for +50 years has ever noticed. YouTube comments aren't a science journal. Stop pretending to know things you don't. Or, if you still think you know more about the Van Allen belts than James Van Allen (and every other expert since him), PUBLISH!!!
    2
  5337. So, you're just going to ignore every question asked of you, and you're asking new questions yourself?
    2
  5338. Grace, so, you hold your opinions with no actual evidence? And, you think this is superior to the understanding of the topic held by the entire planet's experts in all 77 space agencies?
    2
  5339. Can you name the peer reviewed science article you've read that said any such thing?
    2
  5340. And, that's an answer to the question, how?
    2
  5341.  @Amradar123  And, after those 21 flights, he flew the successor, the LLTV, around 70 times.
    2
  5342. But, one of the audience recorded it and gave a copy of the video to the police. Denying it wouldn't have made a difference.
    2
  5343. "it’s called I have a functioning brain" Delusional people always think they're the ones who are functioning properly. Yet, 5 messages in, you have offered NOTHING to demonstrate why you'd think you understand this topic better than the world's 77 space agencies, staffed with the virtual entirety of aerospace engineers specializing in space travel (either as contractors or directly), who universally disagree with you. Sorry, but if you actually had any "common sense" at all, you'd realize that people with no knowledge/experience about a topic do NOT come to the correct conclusions as opposed to the entire planet's experts. "Common sense" would dictate that the FIRST people to find issues with space travel would be those experts who specialize in space travel. But, what do we get instead? We get musicians, taxi cab drivers, warehouse workers, yoga instructors, etc., who are soooooooo very confident that the entire planet's experts are wrong, while knowing absolutely nothing about the topic. Sorry, that's about as far from "common sense" as anybody can get.
    2
  5344. First of all, you read and write like a 2nd grader. Stop worrying about conspiracies you don't even come close to understanding, and go work on learning how to form sentences and use the correct words. Secondly, dewdrop, it's called an "echo chamber" for a reason. None of you people understand a lick about the topic, and all you ever do is listen to each other spew incorrect nonsense. If a single one of you ever broke out of the internet's echo chambers to actually fact-check any of your ridiculous claims, I'll eat my hat.
    2
  5345. No telescope on Earth is large enough.
    2
  5346. "Why do they keep referring to the sceptics" If you can't even spell it, why do you think you understand it? "as "Conspiracy Theorists"?" Hmmm. Let's see. These are people who have a theory that the moon landings were a conspiracy. What shall we call them? "If you use logic or have critical thinking skills" Then you'd know the moon landings actually happened. "or, if you're pointing out the discontinuity of the fake stories in the media" Do you know what's common among the conspiracy crowd? Changing topics. None of those people seem to be able to stick with the topic at hand. "now all of a sudden you're a conspiracy theorist??" Hmmm. Let's see. What shall we call people that hold a theory that something is a conspiracy? "I would rather be recognized as an "analyst of falsehoods"." Well, personally, I think you're probably just another dewdrop. You can call yourself whatever you want. But, if you actually believe you're intelligent, then I can promise you that your delusions affect more than just Apollo. You're delusional about that guy in the mirror also.
    2
  5347. Wow, so many proud graduates of YouTube University's School of Law in these comments. 1) They don't give warnings for crimes. You're thinking of infractions. 2) Shocker, a criminal says (essentially) "I didn't do it," and you just swallowed it? And, "sorry" gets you out of crimes now? 3) Multiple people called the police. One of the "audience" took video, and showed the police. Sorry, but the contents of the video do not match the claims of this woman who was trying to avoid getting arrested for the umpteenth time. 4) Her life is over because she ended it. It's very doubtful this arrest had anything to do with it, given her mile long legal history, arrests, prison time for stealing cars, judgments against her for multiple thefts, repeated failures to appear, arrest warrants, you name it. I doubt this particular arrest made a bit of difference to her. 5) The video didn't go public until after she was dead 1.5 years.
    2
  5348. There were three officers dispatched, not two. And, as for the rest, you have absolutely no understanding of the topic.
    2
  5349. You're making a tackit agreement!
    2
  5350. There is a horizontal bar holding the flag out. And, sorry, but if you think that a flag won't move without an atmosphere, you have no idea what you're talking about. A flag will move EASIER without an atmosphere.
    2
  5351. Really? This is your objection? Why didn't universities offer curriculums for being an astronaut? Really? See, here's the thing, dewdrop, accredited university programs are ones that contribute to society. People join an engineering program (for example), and they go on to become engineers. People join a biology and medical program, and go on to become doctors. People join a law school, and go on to become lawyers. And, if you're talking about stuff like the 1970s, sorry, but with only a couple of dozen people ever being astronauts, there's really not going to be an accredited university program for it, or even an unaccredited one. See, universities like high success rates with their programs. It does the country no good to graduate 10,000 students every year across hundreds of universities, in university astronaut programs, when NASA only recruited about 10 new astronauts every year or two. I can't believe this really needs to be explained. You're really grasping at straws here. Was this objection from a new conspiracy video I haven't seen yet? Or, did you come up with it all by yourself?
    2
  5352. Safelite repair, Safelite replace!!
    2
  5353. Well, after her mile long arrest record, prison term for stealing cars, numerous judgements for theft, countless drug and alcohol offenses, etc., it's pretty doubtful that she had sold any houses in the past decade or so.
    2
  5354. Yeah, according to her landlord, her real "profession" was, well, ya know, basically what she did on the beach, except involving cash transactions with lots of men.
    2
  5355. Who told you they can't go past the Van Allen belt(s)? You know so little about the topic, you use the word "belt" instead of "belts" - you think there's only one of them. Why did James Van Allen say that Apollo could go through the belts with no trouble? What do you know about them that he didn't?
    2
  5356.  @johnkenny694  Dummy, I'm not playing this game. I answered your questions. I answered your statements. You have done nothing but ignore every reply and return question. I'm not going to sit here and address your new parade of utter gibberish, because you'll just ignore those replies also, and ignore the return questions (again) also. It's a never-ending cycle. You obviously aren't even reading the replies, so why do you ask the questions?
    2
  5357. Um, wow. First of all, you don't know how to spell it. What could you possibly know about it? Secondly, heat produced? Um, no, not exactly. It's ionizing radiation, and sort of would produce a little bit of heat. But, they're far more worried about knocking protons and electrons out of place than the tiny amount of heat. Third, you said "belt" (singular). I'm starting to get the notion that you really don't know what you're talking about. Fourth, let me make sure I understand your concern here... you're concerned about the heat from some protons and electrons hitting stuff... but NOT concerned when you say that satellites and space stations are in Earth's orbit (which would create atmospheric frictional heat many orders of magnitude more than a few protons would). Do I understand you correctly?
    2
  5358. Nonsense. Apollo has been confirmed by dozens of countries (including enemies) over dozens of years via dozens of methods. If you want to just set your mind up to reject all input that goes against your predetermined conclusions, then fine, you'll end up denying just about everything in history, with absolutely no way to tell the difference between fact and fiction. The reason we can't go to the moon today is because all of the equipment to do so was retired decades ago, and it takes time and money to build it all back up. And, given that they want Artemis to do a lot more than Apollo ever could, they need to design many aspects completely from scratch. But, congress only agreed to fund it at a trickle pace, so, it takes more time than it would take with unlimited budgets like Apollo had.
    2
  5359. Yes, they brought back plenty of "sand" (your term).
    2
  5360. "It wasn’t daytime." Hilarious!! Says who? You? Have you looked through the photo archive of all of the pictures of the sun? If the sun is out, it's daytime, dewdrop.
    2
  5361. If it was a man at a playground, would you go up and ask him to leave? Or, would you call the police?
    2
  5362. Congratulations on completely misunderstanding everything that happened here. If you're actually interested in understanding it, well, the first step would be to watch the whole video, not this edited version that clips out the entire first half of the encounter. The second step would be to read up on what a "stop and identify" state is (most of the states, including Florida, where this happened). In such a state, you must provide identification when being investigated for a possible crime, and refusal to ID is an arrestable offense all on its own. This woman repeatedly refused to do so (only once in this edited version, but a million times in the longer version). Third, the main cause for her arrest had transitioned from suspicion of stealing, to obstruction and refusing to ID, obfuscation, and then she added resisting arrest to the pile of her charges. The original potential theft barely even mattered at that point. The cop tried to explain this. She wasn't listening. Neither were you. Fourth, she isn't required by law to provide her receipt, however, there's absolutely no harm in a cop or a store employee asking for it. He never made a legal demand or lawful order to provide the receipt. He was trying to make the encounter as easy as possible, and requested the receipt in order to do that. Most people would simply provide the receipt, and go about their day. In her case, I think it's pretty obvious that she thought she was going to be able to inflate "can I see your receipt" into a lawsuit payday, and she did everything in her power to make that happen, including actually demanding that the cop to use his Taser on her, and making it 100% clear that she wasn't going down without a fight. If you had stuck to just asking questions, fine. But, you didn't. You said he should have just let her go, prior to anybody even having a chance to tell you why that's not the case. Side note: her own three attorneys don't agree with you, and never filed a case against the police (because there is no case, he did nothing wrong). They filed a $50,000 lawsuit against the store, however. But, they lost, and she will get $0.00, and rightfully so.
    2
  5363. "I don't blindly trust anything, and don't base my opinions on videos." "I watched a Russian video that said a photo was fake, therefore I believe it."
    2
  5364. Ad revenue.
    2
  5365. Who told you that? Was it a conspiracy video? No? You're an expert on radiation? So, tell me, if you want to use lead on ionic particle radiation, what would you do about the resulting secondary Bremsstrahlung radiation? The aerospace engineers thought aluminum would be better, because there is no secondary radiation. But, with your expertise, can you explain why you'd use a heavier metal like lead, and what you'd do about the secondary radiation?
    2
  5366.  @michaelstillman1171  He's another nut who thinks the word "radiation" means "radioactive." He literally thinks that when they used to say to "nuke it" (put your food in a microwave oven), that the oven had a nuclear reactor inside of it.
    2
  5367. So, when people repeatedly pointed out that you are ducking and dodging, evading, and changing topics... what did you do YET AGAIN? You changed topics, ducked, dodged, and evaded. You couldn't even write this in a script, it's too far beyond belief.
    2
  5368. What a shocker. Another denier who reads and writes at the level of a 2nd grader.
    2
  5369. Except her initials are TDC.
    2
  5370. "My question is how did they survive the sun's radiation?" By wearing spacesuits. "The Moon does not have an electromagnetic field like Earth that protects you from the Sun's radiation." Um, ok. Do you know anything about the types of radiation, and the quantities? "People point out that the space suits protect them" Yes, and those people include engineers. "but they can't, radiation just goes through the suit, it's not made of lead." LEAD?? Lead? The spacesuits protected them from just about all electromagnetic radiation. Sure, not gammas. But, how much gamma radiation are you really worried about here? You compared it to Earth's magnetic field, so, you're worried about ionic particle radiation? Just how much of that do you think hits the moon? And, would you actually want to use LEAD to protect from ions? You're not worried about the resulting secondary Bremsstrahlung radiation that you'd get from using a heavy metal like lead to protect against ions? Do explain. What exactly do you think you understand about this topic that the world's experts don't? "How did they survive the radiation" Dewdrop, are you under the impression that the word "radiation" always means the same stuff you get from nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs? You do know that sound is radiation, right? You do know that light is radiation, right? You do know the word "radiation" means any type of energy that transfers by radiating, right? It's not just high velocity neutrons and gammas. You do know this, right? (No, of course you don't. You're one of those people who heard "nuke it" when someone told you to put food in a microwave, and thought there was a nuclear reactor inside the oven.) "even pilots are still at radiation risk on Earth, how did they fix this problem on the moon?" By wearing spacesuits. "I asked my AI, LOL and they confirmed this, yes that's a very big problem that we know little about." Well, you certainly know very little about it. But, I think that the entire planet's radiobiologists would disagree with you.
    2
  5371. No, the rocket blast was too brief and not strong enough to wipe out footprints. That would be true no matter what, but, when you add the descent stage into the mix, deflecting most of the rocket blast, it's just a double whammy against your notions.
    2
  5372. An astronaut confessed? Pffttt. Which astronaut? When? Why isn't this front page news? Why aren't there congressional hearings? Why isn't that astronaut on trial? Let me guess, a conspiracy video told you an astronaut confessed, and you just believe it, right?
    2
  5373. Good gods. What's wrong with you? I asked questions, and you ignored those, and changed the topic?? Look, dummy, just lay off of the drugs. Seriously. Your problem isn't Apollo, your problem is your drug habit.
    2
  5374. It's clearly on the ground next to a 2x4 piece of wood at 5:02 in the video. And, if you watch the video frame by frame in the highest resolution available, you can see it pointed at the cop's head. It's grainy, but, you can make it out. Furthermore, both the carjacker's father, and his attorney, both state that the criminal was armed.
    2
  5375. I want to make sure I understand correctly.... In your original posting, you proposed making a new law, one that's already in existence, but, you want it to specify space missions, even though defrauding the government is already covered under other laws.... And, even in your obviously wrong viewpoint, on top of that, you want to make some sort of magical clause within this new law that goes back in time and makes things in the past illegal so that today's laws would apply to actions 50 years ago.... But, you're saying that **I** don't have the legal expertise that you do??? Is that what you're claiming here?
    2
  5376. Yup. And, we had supersonic airliner technology decades ago, and we don't have it now. Wow.
    2
  5377.  @coco9004  YOU SAID: "you don't see there is no stars in hte background" == What are you talking about? What does this have to do with black and white photos vs. color photos? And, did you expect to see stars in same photos that were set for exposing the lunar surface in the daytime?? Good grief. Stars are too dim to show up in photos within the same frame as a brightly lit lunar surface. You can't have both. If you set the exposure time long enough to capture stars, then the lunar surface turns into a big white blob. Go learn something about photography. Good grief. Or, even better, go try to take photos of the stars yourself. You'll find that you cannot, without some very long exposure times. Don't complain about a topic you know absolutely nothing about, and never lifted a finger to try yourself. And, again, what does this have to do with black and white vs. color? The only difference is the type of film. You put black and white film into the exact same camera that you put color film. The camera is no different. YOU SAID: "and other picture of the global view of the moon was black and white only." == Some were, some weren't. Who cares? They used black and white film when they wanted more clarity (black and white was more clear, kind of "higher resolution" than color). When they wanted color, they used color. They took over 100,000 photos of the moon from the command modules over the 9 manned missions to the moon. Yes, some were in color, some were black and white. What's your point? YOU SAID: "But main point is no stars." == In the same frame as a brightly lit lunar surface?? Of course not. But, yes, they took photos of the stars also. Let me guess, a conspiracy video told you that they never took photos of the stars, and you just blindly believed the conspiracy video? Right? YOU SAID: "now i have an update, Dr. Greer said" == Who cares? Do you listen to what Bozo the Clown says also? Why would you care what that guy says? YOU SAID: "that some videos transmission was live on the moon and other was not live." == Pfftttt. Oh, ok. Sure. And, why would Spain, Australia, and Goldstone just blindly go along with that? You do know how the DSN worked, right? You're not just blindly listening to YouTube crackpots who know nothing about the topic, are you? YOU SAID: "because there was aliens space ships that was there when to welcome the Americans Astronaut on the surface on the moon" == How old are you? How ridiculous would you need to be in order to believe that kind of silly nonsense? Dr. Greer said so? Oh, ok. Sure. You had better be about 11 years old, I would hope. Anything older, and you're doomed to mental decrepitude for the rest of your life.
    2
  5378. "I distinctly saw what looked like a gust of wind hitting the flag." Well, maybe it was. Like I said, the suits/backpacks/craft were not closed systems. They vented sometimes. But, again, I'd have to see which clip you're talking about before I could form an opinion. "In fact all 3rd parties can only observe footage provided." Footage, and the mountains of other evidence.
    2
  5379. "If doubt about the landings offends a person, why does it?" It's almost always because the person expressing the doubt has no actual reason for it, yet feels comfortable accusing thousands of people of being criminals who would be sent to prison for their entire lives for what they're accusing them of. And, 99.9% of the time, the person expressing the doubt will never listen to the answers to his/her own questions. With nearly all of them, it's not "doubt" or "questioning" at all. It ends up being PRETEND questions, with the intent of ignoring the answers. And, don't pretend you're not even slightly in that group. You're backtracking a bit now, but, your tone was very clear in your initial posting.
    2
  5380. "I just would like to see another giant leap for mankind while I am still alive." You do know Artemis is funded, right? "Budget being the biggest obstacle. I dont buy it." Huh? If congress doesn't approve (fund) a moonshot program, there is no moonshot program. Congress controls every dime. NASA cannot just take a billion dollars that was funded by congress for jet engine research (or whatever) and decide not to do it, and to start building moon rockets instead, you know. If you don't believe funding has been the problem, ok, please name a program that has been funded by congress to go to the moon, in any year between 1972 (the last Apollo moon mission) and 2018 (because 2019 is the year they funded Artemis). Can you? You're the NASA administrator, how would you have gotten the job done without congress funding it?
    2
  5381. What a shocker. A denier who didn't actually want answers to his own questions. Who could have seen it coming?
    2
  5382. Multiple people phoned the police about this incident. One of the "audience" even got it on video, and showed the video to the police. They describe that video as a very loud and public act in view of multiple people, including children. Furthermore, one of the witnesses told the police that the woman wandered up and down the beach, looking for a place to do this, and seemed to intentionally pick a spot right in front of a family with kids. And, yeah, sorry, but I'm more likely to believe that she intentionally did this because of all of those things, than to just blindly trust the empty words of a woman who is trying to avoid getting arrested for the umpteenth time.
    2
  5383. What ARE you talking about? What's wrong with you? YOU SAID: "the fact that they never went back tells you everything" == Huh? They sent NINE manned missions to the moon, and tons of unmanned missions. They landed 6 times. What do you mean they never went back? If that's not going back, I don't know what is. Beyond that, um, what? Congress ran Apollo from 1961 (when the program started) to 1972 (for the last moon landing), then they ran the Apollo applications program for Apollo-Soyuz and Skylab for the next few years. In total, they ran the Apollo program for about 15 years, before ending it completely. What more should someone do to convince you? How many more years did they have to run Apollo before you'd believe it? And, as for going back, the SLS rocket is rolling out to the launch pad RIGHT NOW!!! Seriously, there's got to be something severely disabled in your brain. YOU SAID: "and no close ups of the equipment left behind" == Huh? They took 7,000 photos from the lunar surface. Plenty of those are close-ups of the equipment they left behind. Seriously, you need to see a doctor. YOU SAID: "sad really" == Was it drugs? Is that what did this to your mind?
    2
  5384. Let's be real here, rowdy: Apollo isn't your problem. Drugs are your problem. Lay off the drugs. Go back and finish high school. Seriously, you don't need to worry about silly moon conspiracies that you're not even capable of understanding.
    2
  5385. YOU SAID: "ah another troll who talks in a different language" == You think it's a different language because you have the literacy of an 8 year old. You can barely read or write. You are completely incoherent. So, to you, English looks like a foreign language. YOU SAID: "than intelligent humans!" == C'mon, rowdy. That's the drugs talking, and you know it. I mean, remember when you were in school (before you dropped out)? Remember those math and science classes, where the smarter kids were absorbing all of the material, and you just sat there glassy eyed, not understanding a word of it? Remember? Did you think you somehow got smarter since then, magically? YOU SAID: "I guess the astronauts body waste has found its way into your mouth- well else would they have put it?" == If you want to talk about intelligence, then you switch to a malformed and barely literate sentence about body waste in mouths, you know you've lost any ground you ever had to stand on, right? YOU SAID: "indeed looks like we are going to Mars instead of the moon" == Dummy, the SLS moon rocket is sitting on the launch pad this very minute. Do you see any Mars rockets? What ARE you talking about? Lay off of the drugs. Good grief. Seriously, forget all of this stuff. Just don't even worry about it. Get your life together. Kick your drug habit. Go back to high school.
    2
  5386. The Soviets not only tracked the Apollo missions with radar and radio telescopes, but, they publicly acknowledged the success of Apollo. China did also when their orbiter sent back photos of the landing sites a couple of years ago.
    2
  5387. No, she killed herself 1.5 years before any major news outlet covered it.
    2
  5388.  @JosephAzzopardiRummiena  Are you talking about the shadow of the lander?
    2
  5389. Well, not to be argumentative, but, the moon landing deniers have two responses (both of them flawed, of course). (1) They say that the moon reflects lasers anyway, thus they didn't need the Apollo reflectors. Of course, there's a major difference between the reflection without the reflectors, vs. with the reflectors, but, the deniers don't know that. They just need an excuse. Or, (2) They say that the reflectors were placed by unmanned probes. Of course, now they'd have to explain who designed and built these probes, landers, etc., without ever coming clean, and, even more importantly, how did they manage to sneak off 3 moon launches without anybody noticing? Those rockets are visible and audible for hundreds of miles. And, it takes thousands of people to get one off the ground. How would they manage 3 secret launches and nobody saw them? So, yes, the 3 Apollo laser reflectors on the moon are very nice evidence. But, the deniers do not care.
    2
  5390. You do know Artemis is funded, and is proceeding, right? They ordered more Orion capsules. The work on the SLS booster is accelerated. The astronauts have been named, and are in training. I have my beefs with the lander they chose, but, nonetheless, development of the lander is proceeding. You know this, right?
    2
  5391. YOU SAID: "How did they get that buggy in the capsule with them?" == Search for "lunar rover deployment" and you'll find tons of videos, animations, practice runs on Earth, and even the live rover deployment on the lunar surface during Apollo 15. YOU SAID: "Also I am sure that battery didn't do well in 260 degree temps" == Correct. By the time it got up to 260 degrees on the lunar surface, the batteries were long fried, and the camera/rover was dead in the water. Hence why they landed in the lunar morning, long before it ever got up to 260 degrees on the lunar surface. YOU SAID: "and don't even talk about the film they used to video it all." == But, most of it wasn't film at all. Most was TV video. Sure, they had plenty of film also (16mm video film, and 70mm still camera film). But, ok, I won't talk about it. I just don't understand your objection. Are you (again) under the ridiculous impression that they stayed long enough to get exposed to 260 degree surface temperatures? YOU SAID: "Remember that was 1972." == YOU remember it!!! Yes, it was 1972, not 1872. There was all of the required technology to go to the moon.
    2
  5392. Let's see, what do we call people who have a theory that something is a conspiracy? Hmmm, what wording shall we use? And, sorry, dewdrop, I haven't seen a single moon landing denier who is skeptical. That's simply not what that word means.
    2
  5393. "America never really sent a space ship to the moon" They sent 9. Do you know anything about the program you're blindly rejecting?
    2
  5394. "Pinewood Studios" So, how many thousands of people were involved? Do you REALLY believe that they could occupy Pinewood Studios for 4 years and nobody noticed?
    2
  5395. "I see several sources of light" Is it mushrooms? Or meth?
    2
  5396. "There's only one sun in our galaxy." Really, dewdrop? You make this comment, and you expect anybody to believe you know ANYTHING about the topic? Do you even know what a galaxy is?
    2
  5397.  @Existinginmymind  You can continue to lie until the cows come home. It doesn't mean anything. We've covered this in other threads. The police car was completely on the other side of the building. There was no "predator" nonsense. The cop wasn't even within line of sight with the bike until the kid was already rolling. You don't know what you're talking about.
    2
  5398. So, it's easier to "fake" radar tracking from dozens of countries including enemies? It's easier to put landers on the moon that are the exact size and shape of the Apollo landers, for future (from their perspective) countries to find on the surface? (India and China have both photographed landers on the moon in the exact spots the original mission photography showed them.) It's easier to "fake" audio signals that originate from the moon, such that anybody in the world with a decent dish could receive them by aiming it at the moon?
    2
  5399. Sorry, out-of-context quoting from conspiracy videos isn't evidence of anything. NASA has never said we can't get through the Van Allen belts. Undoubtedly, you are taking very specific words out of context, or, you simply don't understand the context.
    2
  5400. Who publicized it while she was alive? A couple of obscure blogs?
    2
  5401. Watch out, Gerald. You're only a hair away from becoming a flat Earther. There's no returning to sanity after that, even if you eventually wake up and realize the correct shape of the Earth. There's too much damage done, even if you change your mind.
    2
  5402. Good grief. If the Soviets "saw through the larceny and lies," why would they acknowledge and congratulate the USA for Apollo? And, if you say the Soviets didn't try to go to the moon, why did they fly 4 lunar landers in space in test missions? Why did they build 4 N1 moon rockets? Sheeessshhh.
    2
  5403. Um, yeah. Was anybody ever even pretending this video WASN'T CGI?
    2
  5404. Well, yeah, I agree, but, the media never touched this story until long after she was dead....
    2
  5405. Freedom of Information Act. After she was dead for 1.5 years, the police could no longer block the FOIA requests for the video, and had to release it.
    2
  5406. Pffttt. Computers don't lift 100,000 pounds of payload to the moon. Rockets do that. With your amazing expertise in the topic, please explain how rocket technology has advanced 100 fold? But, if you think it was a computer problem, then you must give the exact computing power that you think was required, then demonstrate that Apollo didn't have it? Then, you must explain why none of the people who designed and built those computers were aware that the computers didn't work?
    2
  5407. You have much bigger problems than worrying about physics that you don't even come close to understanding... you need to go back and catch up on about a decade of learning the English language that you obviously skipped. You're stuck in the 2nd grade.
    2
  5408. Wrong. He wasn't an engineer.
    2
  5409. Well, according to her landlord, she was a "dancer" (yeah, that kind), and neighbors said she did "private extras" with bunches of paying men in her apartment. It's pretty likely that putting on this "public beach show" was making media for her fans. So, quite the contrary, I doubt this affected her "job" at all.
    2
  5410. Clarification, she left her family years and years before this incident.
    2
  5411. Was it proven that she did something illegal? Well, what's your definition of "proven"? Apparently, most of her other stuff was proven, since she served time in prison and had a list of judgements against her. Proven in this case? Well, the police had the video taken by the "audience." And, it seems more believable to me than her version. I know it's really difficult to get a straight job after living a life of drugs and crime for so many years (her, not me). So, according to her landlord, she worked as a stripper at a local club. And, rumors say that she also did "one-on-one" cash transactions. So, I don't have a difficult leap to believe she was guilty of willful indecent exposure on the beach that day. Again, I don't allow myself to just listen to her whine and cry about being alone and nobody seeing her. I tend to trust police and innocent bystanders before I trust convicted felons. But, "proven," well, I'll leave that up to you to decide.
    2
  5412.  @stusue9733  Yet, YOU are the one feeding the troll.
    2
  5413. Funny that in that same interview, Aldrin talked about his moon mission with the girl both before and after that "confession." Why would he do that? Why would he tell her that he went to the moon, then "confess" that he didn't, then tell her again that he went to the moon? Could it be that you've taken a single sentence out of context??
    2
  5414. Unmanned craft? You believe they sent unmanned craft to the moon, tracking the Saturn V all the way, and landed, and sent back audio and video radio signals? Dewdrop, at that point, why not just send people aboard? Good grief.
    2
  5415.  @jonsmith3945  I have no idea what you're even trying to say, and neither do you.
    2
  5416. Well, I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "this footage." Do you mean the video from woman in the "audience" that recorded the incident with her cell phone? If so, as far as I'm aware, nobody besides the police and the woman have seen that video. Or, do you mean the police bodycam footage? If so, yeah, that's what police do nowadays. The public wants them to do that. But, I don't think you meant the police bodycam footage, because then you wouldn't have said "along with the police." It makes no sense. Can you clarify?
    2
  5417. As a general rule, they blur for open investigations, don't blur for closed ones.
    2
  5418. I'm not sure what you want to have explained to you. Are you suggesting that they should NOT have gone to 6 different sites on the moon, but, instead, should have repeated visits to the same site?
    2
  5419. Sustained by something else?? He FELL!!! He WASN'T sustained by anything, else he wouldn't have fallen.
    2
  5420. george: So, you think that dozens of countries that have confirmed Apollo, including enemies, did so because they were afraid of spontaneous death? And, dewdrop, sorry, but the absolute safest anybody can be is in the public eye. Anybody "exposing" any such crime would be virtually untouchable the moment they went public. So, don't be ridiculous.
    2
  5421. Wrong and ridiculous. NASA had absolutely nothing to do with that piece of petrified wood. The museum that has that rock doesn't think it came from NASA. So, why do you? The children of a deceased Dutch politician donated the rock to an art museum. No, not to the national science museum, an art museum. Why do you suppose they'd do that? What in the world does a moon rock have to do with art? Do you suppose it's because they knew that the science museum curators would instantly know it wasn't a moon rock, but, they wanted the massive tax writeoff, so, they hoped an art museum would blindly accept it? I mean, around 20% to 40% of the art in museums is counterfeit already, so, why not try giving them a moon rock, because art museum curators have no idea how to authenticate art, let alone authenticate moon rocks. And, then, when the art museum curators called NASA to verify the authenticity of the rock, NASA said that there was no record of this rock, but, if the art museum would send it to them, they could take a look. The museum never did that, and instead, just blindly accepted the donation, and insured it for a fortune. They stuck it into a drawer for around 15 years. And, when they finally displayed it, it was almost instantly recognized as not being a moon rock. Nothing about that rock matched any of the other "Good Will" samples given out. It didn't have the nice NASA plaque, the country's flag, wasn't encased in Lucite, was many orders of magnitude larger than any other "Good Will" sample, was the wrong color, wrong texture, and only had a bent up laminated card to "authenticate" it, which could be purchased at any office supply store. Meanwhile, the Dutch still proudly display their authentic Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 moon rocks in their science museum. If you believe the Dutch were "duped" by NASA, why would they still display the other moon rocks? And, why do you think no other country has found that their samples were petrified wood? The simplest answer is that the Dutch art museum had no idea what the rock was, didn't bother authenticating it, and blindly accepted it with no verification of any kind. Why is this NASA's problem now? And, tell me, if your criteria for deciding what's fake or what's real is based upon what an art museum does, then, let's say an art museum accepts a Rolex watch as a donation, and later finds out it isn't real. Does that mean that all Rolex watches are fake? The rest of what you wrote is equally ridiculous. But, just dealing with that one rock, I mean, good grief, how far gone do you have to be to believe your version of the story?
    2
  5422. Soooo, the blame isn't on the woman herself for her own actions? But, now it's the cop's problem that this woman went bananas?
    2
  5423. Freedom of Information Act.
    2
  5424. "I very much doubt a small enough guidance computer was available to make a successful landing." Pfftt. So, MIT, Draper Labs, and Raytheon all didn't understand the computer that they designed and built? Is that really how this goes for you? And, what about the one remaining functional guidance computer? It's able to make simulated landings with simulated input that exactly matches what the landers' computers would get. How can that be, if you're saying it didn't work? Also, by the way, you do know that Apollo was prepared to go to the moon without any onboard computer, right? Sure, they wouldn't have attempted landings like Apollo 15 or 17, among mountains and valleys. But, they were perfectly prepared to land without an onboard guidance computer in the flat/open areas. "NASA conveniently erased all the telemetry data tapes." Wrong. They lost or erased two telemetry tapes (video) from one mission. They were backup tapes, never once viewed, because the primary copies worked fine. Who told you they erased all tapes?
    2
  5425. Yeah, your stupid sarcasm is sooooo effective. Hey, dummy, the moon landings happened, whether you like it or not. And, you know, the amazing thing about you people who think Biden's victory was a result of voter fraud is that none of you people seem to realize that, even going into the election, Trump was way behind. I'll grant you, yes, it seems really crazy that mail-in voting percentages were stacked in Biden's favor by a seemingly unbelievable landslide. And, yeah, social media moguls were uniformly stacking the deck against Trump via their websites' policies for dealing with political messaging. Yeah, all of that is true, and quite suspicious, and those people should be tossed in prison for using their power to influence elections. But, even granting all of that, Trump was going to lose. There'd have been no chance in hell of him losing if it wasn't for COVID. The economy and unemployment numbers were spectacular. Every demographic benefitted from his economic and protectionist policies. Even those who hated the dumb things he often said and did would often say, "well, I hate the guy, but, it's in my best interest to vote for him." So, yeah, Trump had re-election locked in, piece of cake, if it wasn't for COVID and all of the stupid things he said about the topic, and the ridiculous behavior he exhibited. If he had just kept his mouth shut and stuck with, "I'm not an expert, but, I have the world's best experts at my disposal, and everyone should pay attention to what they have to say," then there's NO WAY he'd have lost. Not in a million years. But, instead, he stuck his middle finger out at the medical community, pretended to know things about topics that he doesn't know, and "made America great again" by ignoring what every American medical institution said, and instead he said, "over in crackpot countries, there are some clueless doctors that are using hydroxychloroquine, so that's what I'm going with too." Yes, the best way to make America great again is to ignore what every American institution says, and go with a backward crackpot "cure" that has no hope in curing anything. He committed political suicide. Deal with it. He sealed his own fate, and lost, which was completely avoidable if he could keep his damned mouth shut for once in his life.
    2
  5426. Oh, look, a moon landing denier who can't read or write. Shocker.
    2
  5427. Not the brightest bulb, eh?
    2
  5428. I think one complete Hasselblad came home. If I recall, it was from Apollo 14. But, don't quote me on that. They did NOT bring home all film rolls. Conrad accidentally left one roll in the camera on Apollo 12, and it's on the lunar surface still. EDIT: But, I reread your message, and, yeah, you were only referring to Apollo 11. So... sorry... my info was from other missions, not applicable. But, I'll leave the posting here anyway.
    2
  5429. To clarify: This incident = July 1, 2021. Suicide = March, 2022. Arrest video released due to FOIA = November 24, 2023.
    2
  5430. Time to pick some new friends. Yours is a liar.
    2
  5431. Yes, dummy. You keep repeating the same garbage in a hundred different messages across dozens of videos. And, you gleefully asked to see photos of the stuff left on the moon, expecting that those photos didn't exist. Then, when I provided you with the photos you asked for, I believe your response was, "saghdfiouas asdfhkjdfhsak kasjdhfkajsdhfksadjhfk akdsjfhskjdfhaskdfh" like you were having a stroke. Your delusional mind turned to mush from getting input you didn't expect. But, I see you have reinforced your delusion now, and went right back to claiming the same garbage again. And, dummy, as I told you before, Cernan brought his overshoe boots back home.
    2
  5432. "if she went through so much hell from being exposed on the internet that she took her own life" But, that's not what happened. The arrest was in July of 2021. She killed herself in March of 2022. The arrest video wasn't released until November of 2023.
    2
  5433. Short answer: they don't make unmanned probes to the same standards that they make manned craft. Manned craft fail also, sure. But, unmanned craft are (in spacecraft terms) made to be cheap and replaceable if they fail. There's not the same level of redundancy and testing in unmanned craft. This isn't a "technology" issue. This is a matter of priorities. And, don't mention the word "evidence" if you're not actually going to look at it.
    2
  5434. Joe Rogan admitted he was wrong about that. Why do you still believe him? And, this is nothing more than "I heard from a guy who heard from a guy who heard from a guy," and the details were completely lost along the way. Unless you can drop the silly pretending that you know something about it because you heard it on the Joe Rogan show, and go cite some actual photo catalog numbers, all you're doing is regurgitating nonsense.
    2
  5435. YOU SAID: "So anyone else noticing those pulling wire" == VHF communications antenna. YOU SAID: "and fake slow motion moon walk especially at 39:27min in lol" == And, what EXACTLY would you expect a "real" moon walk to look like? I mean, by definition, if you're in lower gravity, things will appear to more slowly, especially in an up/down direction. If it was "normal" speed (Earth gravity), then, well, it would be fake, because the moon has 1/6th of the gravity of Earth. So, please explain how you can tell the difference between "fake moon walk" and "real moon walk"? What is the EXACT mechanism you will use to determine it?
    2
  5436. "NASA accidentally sent Bart Sibrel footage of the astro nots faking footage at low earth orbit" Why would you believe such a thing? What possible reason would you have? I mean, not only did I have my copies of that footage before Sibrel's ridiculous movie ever came out, but, countless others did also. And, all you need to do is watch the original copies of that video to show that Sibrel simply edited out the parts of that clip that prove himself wrong. The original video is readily available, you know. And, anybody with any understanding, even on an entry level, would know that you cannot be in low orbit without going about 17,500 mph. Yet, do the clouds move by the window in Sibrel's movie clip at 17,500 mph? No? They're stationary, right? How would that be possible, if Sibrel's version was correct? Ooops. But, anyway, just go watch "Addendum A Funny Thing Happened... (By GreaterSapien - MIRROR)" - it's only a few minutes long, and utterly destroys the notion that Sibrel got some secret footage, and demonstrates quite clearly that the only thing that happened here was that Sibrel edited the clip to produce this ridiculous story you fell for. There are a million other ways to know that Sibrel is not only wrong, but deliberately lying, but, that one way will do for now. As a side note, Sibrel also claimed that it was film that he was sent by NASA (it was not, it was a TV signal, not recorded on film), and that he had the film carbon dated (you cannot carbon date film), and it showed a date of July 18, 1969 (if you could carbon date a piece of film, which you can't, but if you could, it wouldn't show the date that someone exposed it to light, it would show the date that the carbon was last inside a living being, like 80 million years ago, not 1969). Yet, Sibrel spewed all of that garbage anyway, which is laughed right out the door by anybody who understands anything about carbon dating. So, do you believe Sibrel when he claims he had this NASA "film" (which wasn't film) carbon dated (which doesn't work on film)? "Wake up dude" Huh? You just got done quoting Bart Sibrel, a criminally convicted taxi cab driver who produced a pile of absolutely outlandish conspiracy videos that fall apart the instant anybody scrutinizes them. "it was a hoax because they couldn't pull it of and didn't want to lose to Russia." And, the Soviets would just go along with it? Why? "No dust on the lunar lander" So says another conspiracy video, right? Did you ever look at the photo archives yourself? (No, of course not.) "crossing shadows in pics" Not even close. "not to mention the van Allen radiation belt" You just mentioned it. Why would you say you're not mentioning it? "that no human could survive passing through" James Van Allen disagreed with you. What do you know that he didn't know? "and don't forget about the leaking orange juice in one of the ASTRO nots suits" That guy went through all of that trouble to find the exact moment that the film cartridge got smeared, and then he presented it to you as orange juice, and you believed it? Why? He doesn't know what he's talking about!!! Good grief. I've never before seen someone spend that much time hunting down the exact moment that the Apollo 16 camera lens got smeared, finding that moment on video successfully, then jump to a ridiculous conclusion about this fantasy orange juice leak. It's ridiculous. What possible reason would you have to believe that it's orange juice, other than a brash guy making that silly claim? And, wouldn't that defeat your own position? Hundreds of photos were ruined by this "orange juice," which they could simply have re-shot if it had been in a studio. Isn't a roll of hundreds of ruined photos more of a testament to the fact that they were on the moon, rather than in a studio, where they could have just re-shot the photos if they had been ruined by orange juice? I mean, good grief, the entire orange juice story makes no sense to begin with. But, you can watch the video, which that guy even presents to you, and see for yourself that there was no apparent orange juice leak. And, you can see the very moment that the lens was smeared (not by orange juice). But, you just blindly swallow what he says anyway? Why? What possible reason would you have to swallow such nonsense? "the vacuum of space would have killed him." No, dewdrop. The suits were not 100% airtight anyway. And, a small leak wouldn't matter. Some of the suits DID have small leaks anyway. You don't know what you're talking about. "Do some research dude" Watching conspiracy videos isn't research, dewdrop. 'instead of believing what you are told." Now this is just off the charts. You just got done blindly regurgitating ridiculous nonsense that was told to you in two conspiracy videos. You believed that nonsense hook line and sinker. Now you're accusing others of doing EXACTLY what you are doing? What's wrong with you?
    2
  5437. "that's very easy to fake. Just slow down the footage." Wrong. You are referring only to very simplistic movements, cherry picked by the makers of conspiracy videos. Yes, there is always a multiplier where you can slow down (or speed up) a recording to make it match Earth's gravity. That's just physics. However, it only applies vertically, not horizontally. And, if you go watch the entirety of the moon videos at 2.5x speed (the correct multiplier), you will find that there are countless segments when the motions just don't match reality, with comical Keystone Cops horizontal movements coupled to "normal" vertical movements. And, at 2.5x speed, you will see numerous times when the motion of the dust doesn't jive with the motion of the astronauts. I'm sorry you blindly swallowed nonsense fed to you by conspiracy videos. But, why should your gullibility be everyone else's problem? Why subject astronauts to your slander/libel, simply because you fail to understand basic physics, and you bought into silly garbage you saw in videos made by charlatans? "It's impossible to land men on the moon, especially in the 60s." Name the exact technology that they lacked, thus making it impossible. Can you?
    2
  5438. A) Nobody had to leak anything. Freedom of Information Act. B) Nobody saw the arrest video until after she was dead for 1.5 years.
    2
  5439. Oh, I give up. I've tried about 12 times to reply, and it keeps blocking everything I write. The point is, you can't have all of those nice things if your country has evaporated due to missiles.
    2
  5440. PART 1: YOU SAID: "There are obvious, glaring inconsistencies in NASA's story." == No, you have been watching conspiracy videos, and only conspiracy videos. You know nothing about the Apollo program that conspiracy videos haven't told you. You blindly reject anything you've been told that counters stuff that conspiracy videos have told you. You are very married to the conspiracy at this point, such that you are completely unable to function in the face of any rebuttals to these ridiculous claims you're making. YOU SAID: "This program cost a lot of money, all of it borrowed." == First of all, it's only "borrowed" in the sense that the USA became a debtor nation since John Adams first borrowed money from the French to fight England. Ever since then, the USA has been in debt. It's been one of the methods that, in concept, the USA has been able to accelerate its technology and expansion at a rate faster than it could without debt. It's the exact same concept as companies that expand at an extremely rapid rate, much faster than mere organic growth that profit and loss statements could ever yield. And, until someone writes an amendment to the constitution, or gets some new balanced budget laws passed, yes, the USA will continue to use debt as a method of economic expansion. == Secondly, the "debts" from the 1960s have long since been paid off. YOU SAID: "We deserve to know the truth and we care being misled and I suspect further deceived." == You have been asked a million times to outline EXACTLY what you think is missing or that we've been "deceived" about. And, largely, you have ignored all of such questions. When you've said anything at all about this position you're taking, it's always just very vague like this. Your only action is to have said that "ALL OF THE DATA IS MISSING." Then, when pointed at terabytes worth of data, you dismissed it all within 3 hours of being pointed at it. Sorry, but your position is completely dishonest. Your position is "all of the data is missing, and if anybody shows me the data I'm saying is missing, I'm going to ignore it and start a new thread." YOU SAID: "Our economy is near collapse" == The DOW just hit an all time high this week. Oh, you're a major genius. Pftttt. Though, yeah, the numbers are unwarranted for today's economic status. But, we are primed to have the planet's fastest economic recovery after COVID. You know nothing, and you're proud of it. YOU SAID: "and we cannot afford any unnecessary drain on our resources, whether that be continual military misadventure, or space adventure." == First of all, what does this have to do with Apollo?? This entire gibberish you're spewing has nothing to do with a program that ended almost 50 years ago. You are proving yourself to be quite a psychopath. I mean, you claimed that Apollo defied the laws of physics, remember?? Did you say how? No. Did you back up that assertion with any calculations? No. But, that was your claim, remember? Now look at yourself. It's 1-2 days later, and you've been reduced to talking about today's economy as your anti-Apollo position... as if that has anything to do with Apollo. Could you get any more insane? This is pure delusion. What does today's economy have to do with the veracity of Apollo??? Good gods, listen to yourself!!! You have lost your marbles. Everything you write is just a distraction. You couldn't manage to stick with the facts, because you don't even know what the facts are. Go back to this notion of Apollo violating the laws of physics. Which laws of physics? How did you determine this? What are your calculations? And, why aren't you submitting your physics calculations for scientific peer review?? I mean, imagine you're in a hypothetical courtroom, and you're asked to defend your notion that Apollo was faked. Is your reply going to contain ANYTHING about today's economy??? Or, would you outline the laws of physics that you believe have been violated by Apollo, and present your calculations?? Which is the more compelling case? YOU SAID: "And here comes ?NASA with it's ladle out wanting more, and yet they continue to refuse transparency about what they have already done." == Yet, once again, you refuse to listen to any input. No information is missing. You're free to order copies of anything you ask for from the Apollo archives. You originally claimed that the entirety of Apollo's data was missing. Then, when you were shown terabytes of information at your fingertips, you ignored it all, and you're continuing with this narrative that someone is hiding something. Yet, you refuse to say exactly what information you're seeking, that you cannot get. YOU SAID: "I find that very concerning." == Pfttttt. So, when multiple people have asked you to name the exact information you're concerned about, you refuse to answer. How "concerned" can you actually be, if you cannot name exactly what you're looking for? Let me tell you what's going on here. A conspiracy video told you that all of the information is missing. You decided that's what you wanted to believe, because it supports your delusion. So, all input that counters that delusion is immediately dismissed by the wall of delusion you have in your mind. You're already convinced that the information cannot be attained. You don't know what information that is. You can't name the information you're seeking. But, your delusional mind has decided that information is being withheld. Therefore, in your mind, information is being withheld. And, every time someone presents you with the information you think is being withheld, you stop replying in that YouTube comment thread, and you start a new one. You're going to do the same thing here. You're going to ignore this reply, and will start a new thread again. It's part of your delusions coping mechanism. Delusional minds cannot withstand challenges to the delusion. The only defense mechanism a delusional mind has, is to ignore the input that shatters the delusion. That is the underlying reason that you keep stopping prior threads and starting new ones. Your mind has been so polluted by your delusion that you simply cannot accept input. You only know one thing, and that's this notion that the information is missing. Whenever you're shown to be wrong about that, you're left with knowing absolutely nothing, and you can't stomach that reality. You can't stomach the fact that you know absolutely nothing. So, you cling to this "the information is withheld" notion, and ignore the fact that it's not withheld. And, then, your delusional defense mechanism is to attempt to change topics. And, that's what you've done. You're talking about TODAY'S ECONOMY now. That's how far away from Apollo you have to go in order to defend this asinine delusion of yours.
    2
  5441. PART 2: YOU SAID: "I am confronting the veracity of a federal program to which I have contributed for more than a half century." == Yes, because you have wasted your life, and you're into the final stages of your life, and you want to feel like it's someone else's fault that you've been such a complete failure. So, a government conspiracy about Apollo is a perfect fit for you and your delusion. You can't blame YOURSELF for having an utterly failed life. You can't blame YOURSELF for accomplishing absolutely nothing. No, clearly, you have to blame someone else. So, yeah, blame NASA. They're the reason you have failed so miserably. The big bad boogie man did it!!! And, you get the added benefit to your delusional mind that you get to feel like the most accomplished people in history... have actually failed just as badly as you have. It's self-manufactured "schadenfreude" (German word). You feel GOOD to know that others failed just as badly as you have failed. So, by thinking that mankind's greatest technological feat in history was a failure, it's the ultimate "schadenfreude" of all time. It's very appealing for the delusional mind. YOU SAID: "I am attacking no individuals" == Yes, you are. You're attacking everyone who worked on Apollo. You specifically named the people who worked on Apollo's communications systems, when you said that the communications systems didn't actually work. This is saying that those people didn't do their jobs, and couldn't even realize that they didn't build a communications system that worked. You're attacking the world's aerospace engineers and physicists, by stating that Apollo violates the laws of physics, and, somehow none of the world's experts in aerospace and physics have ever been able to recognize that the laws of physics would be violated by Apollo... but YOU noticed it. And, of course, you're attacking thousands of others for very similar reasons. But, obviously, the cherry on top is that you're attacking the astronauts themselves. You are saying that they have all lied, and have committed crimes that would get them thrown in prison for the rest of their lives (for the ones still alive). So, spare the world this notion that you're not attacking any individuals. Yes, you obviously are. YOU SAID: "and I will not respond to anyone here who attempts to divert the discussion with personal attacks." == "Don't attack me while I'm attacking everyone who worked on Apollo." What an idiot. YOU SAID: "For the record" == HILARIOUS!!!! For the record??? This is a YouTube comment field. What "record" are you talking about??? Wow, your delusion has overpowered your brain. You think YouTube comments are some sort of official record?? Pffttttt. Your mind is complete toast. YOU SAID: "I make no pretense of being the sharpest knife in the drawer." == Shocker. YOU SAID: "Neither am I stupid" == I beg to differ. You're quite obviously bottom of the barrel. YOU SAID: "and I believe that my questions are reasonable" == No, you don't. And, here's why: if you actually took your own questions seriously, you'd pay attention to the answers. But, you don't. All answers have gone in one ear, and out the other. You won't address challenges or questions. You refuse. And, the funny thing is, they're not even YOUR questions. You got all of your "questions" from the makers of conspiracy videos. You haven't actually studied Apollo. You've watched conspiracy videos about Apollo. Every "question" you asked has come directly from the playbook of dumb stuff you find in conspiracy videos. YOU SAID: "and deserve respect" == "Show me some respect while I spit in the faces of 450,000 people who spent a decade of their lives on Apollo." YOU SAID: "and honest answers." == Pffttt. The guy who doesn't ask honest questions is asking for honest answers??? Hey, dummy, if you want honest answers, scroll back through all of those other threads you started (and abandoned) and read the answers. Don't just sit here and proclaim that the answers aren't honest. You have proven that you're not even reading the answers!!!!! Don't sit here and demand honest answers when you won't even read the answers you've already been given. Good gods, you're such an asshole. And, you literally wonder why nobody respects you? Yeah. Nobody respects you. You don't deserve respect. You made it very clear that you had already reached your conclusion before you asked questions. You don't ACTUALLY want answers. You're PRETENDING you want answers. But, those answers shatter your delusion. And, in reality, your delusion is more important to you than answers. Numerous people have given you the answers you're pretending to ask. And, yet, you refuse to address those answers. And, this was, once again, very obvious when you claimed that all of the data was missing. Then, when someone pointed you to the terabytes of information, millions of pages of documentation, thousands of photos, hours of videos, transcripts from every mission, telemetry data, spacecraft schematics and design specifications, etc., that you can find on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal website, what did you do?? You rejected it IMMEDIATELY. IMMEDIATELY!!!!! In one ear, out the other. You dismissed it entirely, and then continued claiming that all of the information is gone. Yes, you're an asshole. And, that's why nobody likes you. And, undoubtedly, that's why you are such a massive failure in life.
    2
  5442. I think it's virtually impossible by 2024, and so does the White House OMB (Office of Management and Budget). There were bunches of speeches given, and NASA is trying to push for 2024. But, I think that date was just a product of Trump trying to make it happen within his presidency (if he was to get a 2nd term). They'd make speeches about going by 2024. But, behind the scenes, the OMB told congress that it isn't funded at a rate to make it by that date. Artemis was funded by congress at a rate that would put people back on the moon by around 2028-2030, and that's what the OMB said, and they asked for more money at a quicker pace. I haven't checked in a few months, but, thus far, I don't think it was approved to put more money into it (to go faster). With COVID, and all of the slowdowns that causes, and the immense drain on the economy that it is, I don't think too many people are very interested in throwing more money at Artemis to speed up the pace. Yes, budgets do change. They can go up. They can go down. They can be canceled altogether. But, without a major shift in funding, it's pretty doubtful that anybody will land on the moon by 2024, and a major shift in funding doesn't seem very likely right now. And, it's even less likely if Biden gets in office (every democrat president since Apollo has reduced NASA funding, while every republican president has increased NASA funding, when properly adjusted for inflation). We might see a lunar orbital mission by 2024, but to land on the moon... I wouldn't hold my breath.
    2
  5443.  @Already100  So, if nearly all of the 450,000 people who worked on Apollo all thought that their equipment would do the job they designed it to do, why not just go to the moon? What did this tiny handful of people know that the remainder of the 450,000 didn't?
    2
  5444. Lewi, when you know THIS little about the topic, that you get all of your "facts" so tragically wrong, how can you even feel you have any opinion whatsoever? "Moon is full with super expensive rare earths and other substances" - Not really. Mostly it's just valueless rock. Yes, there are some valuable minerals in small traces. But, on Earth, for comparison, would you ever dig 10 miles deep to recover a couple of small diamonds? No. The drilling costs would far outweigh the amount you could sell the diamonds for. Same goes for retrieving trace amounts of minerals from the moon. It's more expensive to go get them than you could ever sell them for. "many months of merciless space radiation" - Oh, come on. There were no moon missions that lasted anywhere near that amount of time. "struggling with this basic project they supposedly has performed over a dozen times" - They landed on the moon 6 times. Where are you getting this nonsense about over a dozen times? See what I mean? You don't know anything about the topic. How can you even have an opinion when you don't know anything whatsoever about the topic?
    2
  5445. "we have been to the moon several times in the last decade but we didn't have that technology at the time of Apollo." Congratulations!!! You're the one millionth poster on YouTube to claim "we didn't have the technology," yet, refuses to name the exact technology you're talking about, nor how/why the thousands of engineers who worked on that [whatever] technology never realized that the stuff they designed and built to go to the moon wouldn't have worked. Your prize is in the mail. "Lets see recent pictures of the original flag put on the moon." With what camera? Can you name a camera capable of seeing that level of detail from the distance that the camera is located?
    2
  5446. I find it quite doubtful that she even knew what shame was. After all, it's not like she could actually get a normal job, after her mile long arrest record, felony prison term for stealing cars, multiple judgements against her for various thefts, drug and alcohol charges, numerous failures to appear in court with resulting arrest warrants, etc. So, according to her landlord, her profession was, well, one of those words that's banned from YouTube comments, but, ya know, involving cash transactions with lots of men. And, just checking here, but, you do know that the arrest video and all of the media attention didn't come until 2.5 years later, right? She suffered zero shame from the arrest video being released, because she was already dead for 1.5 years by the time that happened. Just making sure you knew that... because it seems like you just blindly trust Inside Edition is giving you the facts. Um, no, they don't.
    2
  5447. "when a neutral party goes to the moon and brings back proof" India, China, and South Korea have all sent satellites to the moon which have taken photos of the Apollo landers on the lunar surface. That makes absolutely no difference to you deniers. You just shift the goalposts. Just admit that you won't accept any proof, and stop pretending that you're waiting for things that you intend to reject if you get them.
    2
  5448. Hilarious! You list a bunch of silly people who have been debunked a million times over, while ignoring every single word I've said. And, sorry, a bachelor's in geology doesn't make White a geologist. Where are his peer reviewed papers on the geology of the moon rocks, dewdrop? You're really going to cite someone who calls himself both an astrophysicist and a geologist, despite that he has never practiced in either area, and the best he has is a minor in physics for a bachelor's degree? Good grief, you really scrape the bottom of the barrel.
    2
  5449. "Do the physics" Really? There's a physics issue here? Go ahead, dewdrop. Publish in the peer reviewed journals on physics then. Funny you can't actually name the physics issue, huh? Who's your source about the "physics problem"? White again?
    2
  5450. "what do you have against taxi drivers and yoga instructors?" The point is that you are falling for charlatans who have no expertise in the subject matter. I also love how you avoid every single thing I gave you to refute your nonsense.
    2
  5451. Why do you ask for "neutral parties," but ignore the satellites from India, China, and South Korea?
    2
  5452. By using a rocket.
    2
  5453. Wow, with evidence like that, I'm completely sold. Some internet crack meets pot says that his father never talked about the moon landings = the moon landings were fake. Yup, completely convincing. Did he not talk about brain surgery either? I guess that's fake too. All things he never talked about were fake.
    2
  5454. Yeah, it seems you're correct. But, c'mon, multiple .40s through the chest, and the carjacker stops moving and talking 20 seconds later? Yeah, he was gone.
    2
  5455. Do you really not understand police bodycams? Multiple people called for this incident. Alone on the beach? You'd believe that, why? Because the woman says so while trying to avoid her millionth arrest, and potentially didn't want to go back to prison again? The witnesses didn't think she was alone. One of them even caught the act on video, and showed the police. The video didn't show her alone. It showed her in a very loud and public act in view of multiple people including children. Is there any possible reason you'd believe the stuff you believe, beyond "Inside Edition told me so"?
    2
  5456. "So we went thru the van Allen belt" There are two belts, or, sometimes even three. "five different times there and back" Nine times there and back, or eighteen times total. "and each time the footage was destroyed by the same belt" Huh? What footage? Destroyed? What?
    2
  5457. "The surface of the moon was too hot," "they were actually in low Earth orbit the whole time because Bart Sibrel said so," and "I don't understand why rockets don't fly straight upward to the moon, and go over the horizon first, therefore they never went anywhere" are all too easily debunked. "Nuh uh" (followed by emojis) is irrefutable.
    2
  5458. It's pretty doubtful that the media had anything to do with her suicide. There were only a couple of obscure websites that posted a blog about her arrest while she was alive. The big media coverage didn't happen until long after she was dead.
    2
  5459. "The radiation in space is so high" What are you waiting for!?!?!?! You have knowledge about space radiation that no radiobiologist or particle physicist on Earth has!!! Yet, you chose a YouTube comment to reveal this? Why aren't you publishing in journals on cosmology, radiobiology, and physics? You just didn't feel like winning a Nobel Prize, and figured you'd just stick with YouTube comments instead?
    2
  5460. Do the world a favor, dewdrop: if you think the Earth is flat, just say so, instead of wasting people's time. Put it on every job application you ever fill out also. It makes the hiring process so much easier.
    2
  5461. Dewdrop, YOU are the one who claimed that they never went there because the radiation is too high. That was YOUR claim. Now, somehow, you think you can pretend that I said there's ZERO space radiation? Publish in the journals to prove your point, or you have nothing at all.
    2
  5462. The conspiracy nutjobs will say the records have been erased. But, hey, how about naming some classmates or professors who would remember him? Nope, can't do that either.
    2
  5463. So, the moon landing was only real if the flag doesn't fall? So, ok, the other 5 flags didn't fall over. Are those other 5 missions real?
    2
  5464. The story is about a Coke bottle, not a Pepsi bottle. But, anyway, let me make sure I understand what you actually believe here... an old lady in Australia said that there was a Coke bottle on the TV in the Apollo 11 video... she's the only person anywhere around the world to see this... nobody else on the planet, receiving the exact same broadcast, ever saw this Coke bottle, but, yeah, an old lady on the brink of senility saw it. And, that's what you're going with? As for the Soviets, well, let me see here... your position is that the Soviets never attempted to go to the moon, huh? Then please explain why they flew 4 lunar landers in test missions in space? Please explain why they attempted to launch 4 N1 moon rockets (all of them failed, but, yes, they built them and tried to fly them into space)? Can you? Seems like they were trying to go to the moon to me.
    2
  5465. "astronauts landed a heavy object on a surface that has no gravitational pull" Hilarious! So, it was heavy, simultaneous to being weightless? So, it weighed a lot, while weighing zero? Dewdrop, the moon has gravity. Why do you think it doesn't? The government has nothing to do with this. Gravity has been understood before the country even existed, let alone the government.
    2
  5466. Just checking here, you do know the driver is fine, right? I mean, yeah, they'll "lose" him to the prison system eventually.
    2
  5467. You see that "nurse call" button attached to your bed? Press that button, and tell the nurse to get the doctor to increase your meds. Clearly you need to up your dose.
    2
  5468. YOU SAID: "Seriously if you believe the amount of fuel that's in the Lunar Challenger" == And, you've made those calculations? Or, it's just "I look at it, and don't believe it"? What expertise do you have in aerospace engineering? Why don't any aerospace engineers notice this amazing "flaw" you've found with the lunar lander? 7,000 engineers and technicians at Grumman worked on designing and building the lunar lander. Why didn't any of them notice that they forgot to put enough fuel/oxidizer into the craft? Why are you on YouTube, if you have the expertise to say that there wasn't enough fuel? Why aren't you providing your calculation to aerospace engineering journals? You've come to YouTube comments with this mathematical proof that Apollo was fake?? THAT's where you think you should do this? Not engineering journals? Not the mainstream media? Not through your local congressman/woman? No? The place you've selected to reveal to the world that the entirety of the planet's aerospace engineering community has all flubbed the calculations for the fuel in the lunar lander is YouTube comments?!?!?!? Isn't that what crackpots do? You're not a crackpot, are you? YOU SAID: "doesn't look like they would of made it back" == Wait, what? Do you think they came back to Earth in the lunar lander? Is that how you think Apollo worked? Good grief. YOU SAID: "I don't believe it." == Then why aren't you showing your calculations?!?!!?!? YOU SAID: "Actually if we were there the moon is closer then they say it is." == Well, there's an easy solution to that. If you don't trust the distances as calculated by (1) math, using the gravitational constant and the amount of time it takes for the moon to orbit the Earth, or (2) laser reflectometry by bouncing laser light off of the moon from dozens of facilities around the world... you have a 3rd choice, (3), you can get a HAM radio and bounce radio signals off of the moon from your backyard (or the roof of your trailer). From that, you can make the calculations yourself. Billions of people all around the world have done these calculations as routine university homework assignments. Are you under the impression that the entire world is lying to you about the distance to the moon?
    2
  5469. YOU SAID: "I'm no Rocket Scientist and thank God I'm not cause there all b**." == So, wow, this short statement basically is worth 1000 words. How far down the toilet have you flushed your brain away? Basically, you (a) are acknowledging that you don't understand rocketry, and (b) are paranoid, thinking that the entirety of the planet's aerospace engineers for the past 60 years (10 years leading up to Apollo's landings, and 50 years since) are in on a massive worldwide conspiracy to lie about how rockets work?? Wow. It doesn't get much more crazy than that. You're also functionally illiterate, but, I assume that English is not your first language, so, I'm sure you're better at English than I am at your native language, so I won't really criticize your literacy.
    2
  5470. YOU SAID: "The only rocket that ever will do something is those that bomb" == So, without understanding anything about rocketry, you are now declaring that you know and understand the capabilities and limitations of rockets? ONE SENTENCE AGO, you confessed that you didn't understand rocketry. Now, you're saying that you understand it better than the entire planet's experts, who universally disagree with what you just said?? What EXACTLY do you think stops a rocket from carrying a payload of a manned spacecraft, instead of an unmanned bomb? Do you think the rocket booster knows the difference? YOU SAID: "which again those people that know that are all accomplice on killing millions of people." == When? During wars? Um, yeah. Lots of killing happens in wars. I assume you're complaining about the V2 rocket during WWII. But, those didn't kill millions, so maybe you meant something else (not sure what it would be, but, whatever). Frankly, maybe I'm giving you too much credit to even assume you know what you're talking about. Come to think of it, I am not confident that even YOU know what you're complaining about. YOU SAID: "These RS that make those are scumbags worthless people, but still get paid like there worth something." == OK, fair enough. You can hate those who make weapons. I'll assume you hate all members of the military then, also. And, makers of guns. Makers of tanks. Etc. But, whatever. I'd suggest that you must be living in a fantasy world, though, because, unfortunately, war has been part of humanity since before recorded history. But, I don't quite understand this objection to rocketry as applied to manned spaceflight?? Aerospace engineers that work on manned spaceflight are NOT working in development of weapons. Instead, for things like Apollo, they worked double the hours for 1/3 of the pay, to produce manned spaceflight INSTEAD of getting jobs in the weapons development fields. Seems to me that you should be heralding those, rather than hating them. YOU SAID: "When they made those fake spaceships are all liars." == Which "fake" spaceships would those be? What ARE you talking about? YOU SAID: "They just waste millions" == Billions. YOU SAID: "to fond lies." == Wrong. They went to the moon and back. That's not a lie. YOU SAID: "Yes I do believe there's noway the lunar challenger made it to the moon or if landed on the moon that small very small ** couldn't have made it back." == Yet, you just admitted that you don't understand rocket science!!!! Why do you suppose that the entire world's rocket scientists disagree with you?? Do you ACTUALLY believe that hundreds of thousands of experts on this topic for the past 60 years collaborated on a useless hoax? Why bother? Why not just go to the moon? YOU SAID: "Whats funny is that it said the go-cart was brought back with the lunar Challenger. That itself sounds impossible." == Where do you get that idea? I mean, good grief, the liftoff video from the lunar surface was taken FROM THAT "GO-CART"!!! Nobody says that they brought back the lunar rover. You're just making that up. YOU SAID: "There's so many reasons on how they couldn't had put it back." == I don't even understand this sentence, sorry. YOU SAID: "Now how much gas would a car from NJ to CA? It would had to fill up many times before it got to CA. So my point is how far do you think is the moon to the Earth?" == Well, you apparently ignored the fact that both I, and eventcone, already pointed out that they didn't come back to Earth in the lunar lander. So, Mr. Non Rocket Scientist, your assumptions are already completely flawed. But, to answer your intended question (the best way possible, since your question is already wrong), it doesn't take much energy to return back from the moon. Ya know, there's this thing called "gravity" that you might want to look up. The Earth's gravity pulled the spacecraft back. All they needed to do was break lunar orbit, and then they basically just "fall" back to Earth. To drive a car from NJ to CA wouldn't require any fuel at all, if it was a massive steep hill (it's not, but I'm just saying hypothetically). Well, the fall from the moon was basically straight down, the steepest "hill" ever conceived. No fuel required, other than breaking orbit, and small course corrections. YOU SAID: "Common sense will tell your brain that ain't possible." == Wrong. "Common sense" would be to acknowledge that when you know absolutely nothing about a topic, you shouldn't use your ignorance to commit slander/libel against the entire planet's population of experts. YOU SAID: "oh I forgot your right the lunar challenger don't need fuel." == It needed fuel to land, and fuel to get back to the command module. YOU SAID: "Don't say it used the fucking moon gravitational pull to sling shot it back to earth. Please don't say that." == Nobody has said that. They didn't take the Challenger back to Earth. The lower half of the Challenger is still sitting on the lunar surface, completely intact. The upper half of the Challenger is also on the lunar surface, but in a million pieces (they crashed it back into the lunar surface after transferring to the command module. YOU SAID: "Cause again you'll have to make me understand that space has gravity." == Nobody claims that space has gravity. Objects IN space have gravity. But, space itself, no.
    2
  5471. What difference does it make? First of all, there are many photos that show little or no tracks. And, there are many photos that show deep tracks. There are photos that show a track from the left side wheels, but no track from the right side. There are photos of there being tracks, then the tracks end, then the tracks start up again about 10 feet later. As a general rule of thumb, the faster they were driving, the more distinct the tracks were. And, the slower they were driving, the lesser the tracks, or even tracks that couldn't be noticed by the human eye. It also depended on how deep the dust was in each spot. Sometimes the dust layer was a few inches deep (leaving deep tracks), and other times it was only a fraction of an inch deep (leaving no track). Sometimes they were going so slow that the dust would pick up, but, fall right back down in the same spot, thus leaving virtually no track. So what? Ultimately, what is the point you're making? They picked up the rover and put it somewhere for a photo? Why? What would be the point? Is that really the best you've got? You don't understand why there are sometimes wheel tracks and sometimes there aren't, therefore it's fake?
    2
  5472. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    2
  5473.  @Tim22222  Thanks for the comment. But, yeah, you have to actually look at the original video link, and scroll to this thread. When you use the link that leads straight to this message thread, yeah, it's hit or miss about seeing all of the postings. YouTube's algorithms are a mess. A shortcut is to click on the message link, then look at the comments and select "sort by" - "newest first," then expand on the messages. You'll see it that way. But, yeah, the OP definitely got the notification of my original message, and could see it that way. Or, he can just look at the raw message thread as I described. Make no mistake here: he is avoiding addressing it.
    2
  5474. "the earliest comment of yours i see was posted 3 hours ago" Nope. I already explained to Tim how to see the earlier one. You'll have to do the same. It's there. "nasa claims they made the exit and entry trajectories at the poles where the radiation belt is minimal" The inner belt anyway. And, no, they don't make that assertion for all missions. Apollo 14 went right through the middle. The rest of the missions, yes, skirted around the thickest areas of the inner belt by scooting a lot more outward toward/past the poles. They did this because they had the margin to do it, so, why not? They used the moon's gravity to drag them back toward an equatorial trajectory over the few days it took to get to the moon. So, it cost them nothing to "go around." "not "cut through" it like you quoted here" Good gods. This is apparently all you're capable of doing. You clipped off the very next words that Van Allen wrote. He said "cut through the outer portions." By leaving off "the outer portions, you're intentionally changing the context." Changing the context of what's being said is all you hoax nuts ever do. It's like the difference between cutting through the middle of an orange, or cutting through the outer rind of an orange. It's two different things. Bravo for intentionally dropping the words off of the sentence that proves yourself wrong. Do you even know you're doing it? Or, has your mind become so clouded to the point that you literally no longer even read the words that go against your predetermined conclusions? "now i present to you "NASA Admits They Can't Send Humans Through The Van Allen Radiation Belts" More out of context quoting... from a video made for children. Bravo!!! I give you the calculations made by the guy whose name is on those belts you're complaining about. You come back with an out of context quote mine from a video made for children, focusing on about 30 seconds. Oh, you're a real winner. Dewdrop, he was mainly talking about the electronics at that point. Yes, modern electronics are far more vulnerable to ionizing radiation than the Apollo electronics. There's a big difference between microcircuits that are a few atoms wide, vs. rope memory that's a gazillion atoms wide. Yes, modern computers have benefitted from miniaturization, giving them more processing and memory capabilities. But, it comes at the price of being more vulnerable to radiation. Yes, they needed to harden the electronics for that. And, in that video made for children, he spent a few seconds talking about it. Who cares? Why would you think a video made for children is evidence of ANYTHING!?!?! Do the math yourself, dewdrop. Don't rely on quotes from ANYBODY, including James Van Allen. But, if you are going to just quote somebody, yeah, quoting from the world's foremost expert on the Van Allen belts until his death (James Van Allen) is a lot more reliable than quoting from a Kelly Smith video made for children. He calculated that the astronauts would receive less than 1% of a fatal dose. I notice that you wouldn't touch that with a 10-foot pole. In one ear, out the other, huh? You instead focused on the words "cut through," and ignored "the outer portions," and skipped right past the part where he told you that it was less than 1% of a fatal dose. Pure delusion. "now why is this radiation belt a problem?" It's a problem for long duration flights. It's a problem for modern electronics. It wasn't a problem for Apollo. "now please explain why this would be "a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week." for the astronauts passing through the van allen belt" Again, you have intentionally dropped words from the quote. This is downright ridiculous. He clearly wrote, "A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles...." That's the part of the sentence you intentionally omitted. He didn't say "for the astronauts passing through the belt." You have removed Van Allen's words, and inserted your own!!! His entire point was that it WOULDN'T be fatal to merely pass through the belts, and that it would be fatal if they sat in the inner belt for a week at an altitude of 1000 miles. But, you aren't interested in actually understanding the point. You're only interested in taking bits and pieces, changing the meanings, and creating a false narrative. Shame on you. "but not be a fatal does of radiation for the more than a week long moon mission they partook in" Dewdrop, because the Van Allen belts don't extend to the moon. The inner belt (the worst part) ends a few thousand miles up. After they go through it, they aren't experiencing the belt radiation any longer. Good grief. Do you really think the Van Allen belts extend out to the moon? That's where they spent most of the mission time, out there orbiting the moon, and/or on the surface. James Van Allen also clearly said that they went through the worst parts in about 15 minutes. Why do you now conflate that to somehow meaning a week? "and spent a prolonged duration of time outside of the spacecraft with no protection of any kind from this same radiation constantly being emitted from our sun the entire time?" Because that's a tiny fraction of the quantity experienced in the thick of the Van Allen belts, and largely not the same type either (at least not most of it). You clearly don't know anything about the topic, and you don't want to know anything about the topic. Stop pretending.
    2
  5475.  @apolloskyfacer5842  And, just FYI, he also posted a message to me with some comments that are so discriminatory and bigoted (not even directed at me, but, directed at a specific populous) that YouTube blocks anybody besides himself (and me) from seeing it. So, in addition to the psychological disorders you're outlining, he's also got a bunch of anti-fill-in-the-blank discriminatory behavior issues.
    2
  5476.  @apolloskyfacer5842  Yes, the dewdrop sits there, clearly with zero understanding of how radiation even works, quoting from videos made for children, ignoring the entire scientific community on the planet, and asking questions that he should have asked long before coming to conclusions. "Brain surgery is fake. But, can someone please explain to me where the brain is located in the human body, and tell me what a scalpel is?" That's the exact same thing as he's doing about radiation. He's asking rudimentary things about stuff anybody would learn on their first day in any radiobiology class at any university, then twisting words around, and using it to justify his predetermined conclusion. There's not a radiobiologist anywhere on the planet who would say anything remotely like what he's saying. But, he continues to pretend to know things he doesn't.
    2
  5477. She walked out on her family (including a 6 month old son and another son) more than a decade ago to live a life of crime and drugs. She was thrown into prison about 6 years ago for stealing cars and other thefts. And, sorry, dewdrop, but she did everything TO HERSELF. The world didn't cause anything. She caused it all by herself. Does the word "accountability" fit into your vocabulary at all?
    2
  5478.  @daleg1679  Again, as I told you the other times you posted this gibberish, the answer is very simple, dewdrop. Nobody watched the landings live, because there was no live television during the landings. For live TV, they needed to wait until they were on the lunar surface. For the landings, they shot them on 16mm film out the LMP window. This means that they needed to wait to get home to get the film developed before anybody could see them. Thus, the broadcasters produced cartoonish animations to play during the landings. You apparently are aware that the broadcasters spelled it out that they were only animations. But, have you ever even watched one of them? "CBS News Coverage of Apollo 11 - Moon Landing." Go watch it. Then come back and complain about how Aldrin said they were animations. It's a cartoon, and nobody pretended otherwise. Live TV came AFTER the landing.
    2
  5479. Almost no media covered this until the arrest video was released on November 24, 2023. She was long dead before anybody saw it. There were only a couple of blog posts on obscure websites that mentioned this arrest while she was alive. And, I really doubt she would feel shame over this incident anyway. She had been arrested a million times before, and even served a felony term in prison, and didn't commit suicide over those arrests. Why would she commit suicide over this arrest (and waited 9 months to do it), when almost nobody even knew about it? And, let's face reality here, c'mon, her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club, and neighbors said she also did "private" cash transactions in her apartment with lots of men. Do we really believe she felt any shame here? For that matter, the video taken by one of the witnesses doesn't match her story about a discreet act with nobody around. Quite to the contrary, because they say it looked quite intentional, and was in view of multiple people including children. I'll trust police and innocent bystanders more than I trust a convicted felon trying to avoid her millionth arrest.
    2
  5480. What EXACT law was broken by not having a dash cam? Are you under the impression that a law was passed such that all cop cars must have them? I mean, I could agree that it SHOULD be the case, but, it's not.
    2
  5481. First of all, he picked up the gun repeatedly, which clearly means he intended to use it. Secondly, he was facing the police when he got shot. The bullet went into his chest, not his back. Thirdly, even if it was a shot in the back (which it wasn't), it's still justified. The guy could turn and start shooting at any second. Or, even worse, suppose some innocent person was nearby, and the criminal decided to start shooting that person? Then what? Are you going to say, "I'm sure glad those cops didn't shoot him in the back, and he lived to kill an innocent bystander"? Or, are you going to say, "Why didn't they take the shot when they had the chance?"
    2
  5482. So, in your mind, less than 100 people knew that the rockets were incapable of carrying people. The thousands of engineers all thought the rockets could carry people. But, you, who just got done confessing that you don't know anything about rockets, somehow know that they can't carry people? And, no aerospace engineer anywhere on the planet has ever recognized that rockets can't carry people to the moon? But, YOU know it. Right? A conspiracy video told you so.
    2
  5483. So, when NASA tells you there are invisible Van Allen belts of radiation, you believe them. When NASA explains the energy levels and how they went through them, you don't believe them?
    2
  5484. Did the Bible misspell simple words like you do?
    2
  5485. YOU SAID: "All moon landings made in Area 51" == Pfftt. Then explain why Japan's JAXA/Selene orbiter found the disturbances on the surface exactly where Apollo missions landed? Explain why China says they saw the remnants of the Apollo missions on the moon with their orbital cameras? Explain how Arizona State University's LRO has produced hundreds of photos of the Apollo artifacts on the moon? I could go on for hours here, but, I'm betting you don't care. YOU SAID: "same as James Bond movie" == You believe James Bond movies were filmed at Area 51? YOU SAID: "and Capricorn one, fakery" == Um, you do know Capricorn One was a FICTIONAL movie, right? YOU SAID: "Disneyland production trickery, that's why no one has been back to the Moon in 40 years" == Nearly 50. But, whatever. How does "Disneyland trickery" magically become the reason nobody has gone back to the moon since 1972? YOU SAID: "NASA lies we lost the technology" == In order to "lose" something, you first need to have it. Are you acknowledging that we had the technology? If so, why would you believe we didn't just USE IT?!?! YOU SAID: "even when our computers today are 50 times more powerful then in the 60s" == First of all, it's MILLIONS of times more powerful, not 50. Secondly, Apollo single handedly advanced computer technology by about 20 years. Without Apollo, you'd be using a year-2000 era flip-phone instead of a smartphone. Show some respect. Third, so what if the old computers were not as powerful? If you think those Apollo computers couldn't do the job that they were designed to do, you need to show it. You need to do the math about how much processing speed and memory would be required to run the guidance algorithm. Then, you need to demonstrate why nobody at MIT, Draper Labs, or Raytheon (the ones who designed and built the Apollo computers) were ever aware that they had failed so badly to build a computer that works? Then, you need to explain why the people who are running the only surviving Apollo guidance computer are able to feed it simulated inputs that would be equivalent to the exact inputs from a real mission, and that the computer WORKS!! Can you explain that? YOU SAID: "so why all the lies?" == So, like all conspiratards, you've come to your conclusion first, and you have asked your question last. You know, sane people do that the other way around. Sane people ask questions first, then come to their conclusions after getting the answers. Oh, but not you conspiratards. You first come to your conclusions, then you ask questions. And, from experience, I can tell you that conspiratards almost never actually want answers to their own questions. They're only ever PRETENDING to ask.
    2
  5486. Liable for what? Her suicide? The video was posted 1.5 years after her death, so....
    2
  5487. "If from 5:46 to 7:29 from doesn’t look fake then I don’t know what does!" The answer is the latter. "If gravity was 1/6 that if Earth then wouldn’t they be able to take long giant leaps" Yes, and they did that sometimes. But, by and large, you get a lot more control when you take smaller steps. "the Rover scene is oddly fake looking" Probably because it was shot at 6 frames per second and then played back at 24. "and they keep back tracking over same tracks." Yes, when returning back to the lunar module, they often went back via the same way they went out. Why is this an issue for you? "No time delay!" Then listen to the original audio, not an edited documentary. "The background and fore ground with delineation" As opposed to? "The boulder field looks ridiculous" And, you know this, how?
    2
  5488. Well, thanks for demonstrating that you don't actually want answers to your questions. You know, most people, the sane ones, will ask questions, wait for answers, then come to conclusions. Not you, though. Nope. You ask a question, then you immediately declare that there isn't an answer, before anybody gets a chance to provide one. Bravo. No, you're not a waste of air at all. You're an upstanding and perfectly normal human.
    2
  5489. Backyard amateurs have been bouncing radio off of the moon since before the Apollo program even began. It's called a "moon bounce" or "EME" (Earth Moon Earth). Not a day goes by that backyard amateurs aren't doing this, even today. There are thousands of videos and articles that will show you exactly how to do it, and it can be done with a 20 watt radio and a 3 foot dish. Try it yourself, if you don't believe it. Aim your dish at the moon, and use it as a radio reflector to talk to someone half way around the world. Again, this has been done since long before Apollo.
    2
  5490. YOU SAID: "NASA themselves have said they cant figure how to get through the VA belts" == Ridiculous. NASA has never said they cannot figure it out. Good grief. Quit quote-mining from 30 second clips from videos made for children. Why would you believe a 30 second clip talking about the Van Allen belts is an education? Why do you think a 30 second clip of a video made for children would replace the armies of probes they have sent into the belts, and the hundreds of actual aerospace engineers and radiobiologists working on the problems, with their hundreds upon hundreds of published documents outlining the experimentation and findings? Good grief, you conspiratards really take the cake. All Kelly Smith said is that they need to test the shielding for Orion, and you fucking assholes think you've hit the motherlode. Yes, they had to test the shielding for Orion. They did that in 2014. So, why are you conspiratards still complaining about the same thing here in 2019? Are you under the stupid impression that shielding made for Apollo should automatically work on a different craft, with different mission parameters? Do you believe that wings made for a WWI biplane should automatically work on a Boeing 747? No? Are aviation engineers allowed to solve new problems for new aircraft and need to design new wings... without you fucking imbeciles screaming "FAKE" every two seconds??? Yeah? So, why can't aerospace engineers need to design new shielding for a new craft with new mission profiles without you fucking morons screaming "FAKE"?? YOU SAID: "also said they "dont have the technology to go back the moon" NASA's words NOT the "conspirisits" ...why would NASA say such things?" == BECAUSE WE DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE ANYTHING THAT CAN DO IT!!! Good fucking gods. Do you see any functional human-rated boosters capable of lifting a large enough manned craft that high?? Do you see any functional lunar landers laying around? Do you see any functional command modules? Do you see any lunar training facilities? Do you see any LLRVs or LLTVs? Do you see any launch facilities that could even put such a booster into the sky right now? Good grief. OF COURSE nobody can go to the moon right now. Why would you believe anybody could? NASA says that they don't currently "have" the technology, because that's correct!!! Why do you imbeciles always twist the words into meaning stuff that it doesn't? "Have the technology" could mean two things: (1) the technology itself doesn't exist, and has never been invented, or (2) nobody "HAS" such stuff in their direct possession at this very minute. You imbeciles automatically just assume the worst interpretation, because that's what your deluded brains have presupposed. The CORRECT answer is that we simply do not "have" the technology currently in anybody's possession at this very minute. I mean, do you REALLY believe NASA would somehow come out and say that the technology never existed? And, how many people are in on this massive conspiracy of yours? 50 years later, is the entirety of NASA still "in on" the massive hoax, in your mind, such that a single representative of NASA secretly let the cat out of the bag?? Good gods, you're a moron. YOU SAID: "failed to mention or challenge these little facts didn't you m8?" == They aren't facts, you stupid shit. All you're doing is intentionally taking a couple of single sentences out of context. That's not a fact. If you want to debate "facts" - go read the armies of papers about the Van Allen belts that NASA has produced. Go read all of the testing data from all of the probes. Go do the calculations yourself, indicating (to you) that they cannot traverse the Van Allen belts. Because sorry asshole, but you don't get to quote-mine single sentences from videos made for children, and then assume you've got a leg to stand on. You do not.
    2
  5491. Huh? Can you name any media that even covered this story while she was alive?
    2
  5492. Just like Charlie Zelenoff, right? What's his record nowadays? 600/0? (In his mind anyway.)
    2
  5493. His upper right chest area. You can see the blood a few times when they raise his shirt enough to see it. They also flipped him over to see if the bullet came out the other side.
    2
  5494. So, you refuse to answer my questions, but you sit there and ask me more questions? No. I'm not going to play this game. All you're doing is listening to videos that deny the moon landings, without actually watching any of the moon landing videos. I explained it already.
    2
  5495. What is it with you people and your ever-changing-topic approach? One thing at a time. Do you admit that the camera was spun around 360 many many times, or not? Do you admit that there are hours upon hours of video, or not? I'm not going to play this ridiculous game of addressing your never ending list of incorrect things you regurgitate from conspiracy videos, while you ignore all input. Just from this mission alone, you'll find many hours of video on the "Apollo Seventeen" channel, including countless times that they panned 360. I'm definitely not answering new topics while you refuse to address your first topic.
    2
  5496.  @doubled21352  Think about it for a second. If people really did dive to the bottom of the sea 50 years ago, why all of the sudden stop? If you can make it to the bottom of the ocean, why not to the center of the Earth? We should at least have made it 1000 miles deep by now. Funny. I guess they never dove to the bottom of the ocean then.
    2
  5497.  @doubled21352  Then name the mechanism you'd use to do what you're asking them to have done. Can you?
    2
  5498.  @doubled21352  I am not explaining this again.
    2
  5499.  @doubled21352  Dewdrop, I told you before, I'm not going to keep repeating myself.
    2
  5500. Sorry, couldn't make it past the word "population." Just couldn't pay attention that far. Be back later, gotta go swat a fly.
    2
  5501. Nobody. The TV camera is still mounted to the rover, exactly as it was in 1972. The "footage" is a TV signal.
    2
  5502.  @deedeeneri8202  YOU SAID: "tv signals that operate in outer space" == Yeah, imagine that, like the thousands of channels we receive from satellite TV all around the world. Amazing. YOU SAID: "in different atmospheric conditions" == There's no atmosphere in space, dummy. YOU SAID: "throughout the years" == Dummy, the camera lasted about 27 hours after the lunar module lifted off. What "years" are you talking about? What's wrong with you? YOU SAID: "with an unlimited battery life" == The batteries died a few hours after the camera stopped working. YOU SAID: "imagine that 😆" == I'll never understand why people like you are soooooooooooooooooooooo proud to be soooooooooooooooooo ssstttuuuupppppppppiiiiiiiiiiiiiddd. It's like, "Hey, look at me, I don't know anything, and I am super proud of that!!"
    2
  5503. Well, they "fixed stupid" for at least one person in this video.
    2
  5504. 1) Yes, a very famous spoof movie made to mock people who would actually think it's real. 2) You're a crackpot.
    2
  5505. Upper center chest. You can see a bit of it when the cop pulls the shirt up at 3:39.
    2
  5506. Well, I certainly agree... except for the bullying part. How do you bully a dead person? No social media even covered this incident until she was already dead for 1.5 years.
    2
  5507. Oh, you quite clearly have been fooled, and not just once or twice.
    2
  5508. Does that even make sense in your fantasyland? Do you REALLY believe that the thousands of engineers who worked on Apollo all forgot to include enough fuel to do the job, and the entire planet's aerospace engineers since then have never noticed either? Or, hmmm, could it be that you don't know what you're talking about, and watched a video that lied to you about Musk's rocket and comparing it to Apollo? Which is more likely?
    2
  5509. Because the best way to truly fight poverty isn't to just hand out money, but to put people to work.
    2
  5510. You do know that "World News Daily Report" was a satire website, right? The article the posted about China not finding any Apollo stuff on the moon was a joke. But, no, you actually thought it was a real news report, didn't you?
    2
  5511. Wrong. There is no system that works that way. Proof comes in a court of law. The side of the road only has standards of "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause." Proof comes later. An arrest isn't a conviction, it's just an arrest. There's no requirement for the cops to be correct 100% of the time. They just need to meet the standard that it's "probable" that a crime was committed. Once you get to due process and courtrooms, you'd be absolutely correct. Now you require proof beyond reasonable doubt, and that's when the prosecutor will make sure all of the evidence is in hand, etc., and will decide whether to pursue the charges or drop them. There is no such concept as going to jail for something as simple as being wrong about a crime being committed. Mistakes happen all the time. In order for someone to go to jail for that, you'd have to prove the person did it maliciously. Anyway, all of this is why the woman's lawsuit against the store was tossed out of court, and she was barred from ever filing it again. And, her own attorneys didn't even file a suit against the police, because they knew there wasn't a case.
    2
  5512. Lying will get you nowhere. You know darned well that if there was a real-time camera there right now, you'd simply call it fake too.
    2
  5513. What in the world are you talking about? Four countries have published photos of the Apollo landing sites. Three of them had resolution good enough to see the landers. Just look at "ISRO Chandrayaan2’s photos of Apollo 11 & 12 landing sites" for one of hundreds of examples of the photos you deny exist.
    2
  5514. Funny. That's the thing about "hidden messages." They mean whatever you want them to mean. They're useless. And, a heart attack at 70 years old for a guy who was about 300 pounds at a height of 5'7" is "mysterious" to you? Not the brightest bulb, eh?
    2
  5515. Oh? And, you think this little arrest was her reason a year later? Why not any of her other million arrests? Why not her felony term in prison in 2018? No? It was THIS one that got her?
    2
  5516.  @unsungcoder1336  But the duct tape DIDN'T work!!!! They attempted to tape it, but it failed. And, the next EVA, they used clamps from the LEM instead.
    2
  5517. And, what in the world is this latest comment glitch? Now all of my posts are "edited" even though I'm not editing them?
    2
  5518. No answer, eh? Just ignore all of the replies, and run for the hills? You know what's additionally ironic about this claim... you deniers are always complaining, "the audio was too perfect." Well, it wasn't, but, whatever, none of you know what you're talking about in the first place. But, have you ever actually heard the audio from a moon bounce? Yeah, with good enough equipment, the audio is not bad. But, you can still tell that it's from a bounce. I'd explain it further, but, I know you're not reading this.
    2
  5519. Yes, dewdrop, it was luck. There was nothing engineered into the Apollo craft to withstand a large solar flare. No credible scientist claims otherwise. A smaller flare? Ok, they'd face the service module into the sun, and put as much metal in between the sun and the capsule as they could. But, a large one, well, they'd probably try the same thing anyway, but, odds wouldn't be very good.
    2
  5520. "Your just not smart enough" - yeah, you lost all credibility right there. See, dewdrop, the thing is, when you are criticizing someone's intelligence when misspelling basic things like "you're," um, yeah, it's just one of those ironies in life that backfires right in your face.
    2
  5521. Dewdrop, first of all, you can just as easily associate the number 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. Numbers appear so often that there's no way to distinguish between the frequency of "6" vs. the frequency of any other digit. Secondly, it's not EXACTLY 6 years. Third, the moon buggy? The one that first landed on the moon in 1971? It landed on the moon on July 30, 1971. No "6" anywhere to be found, huh? Strange, huh?
    2
  5522. Well, it's probably his own video that he chose to narrate by himself.
    2
  5523. Um, I think you don't understand the term "baby daddy."
    2
  5524. 16:45 = after the probe gets a soft dock (a connection, but not good enough to handle any stress), they then pull in for a hard dock (which involves about a dozen latches that pull the two craft even tighter together, attaching at the solid ring, providing an airtight lock that can withstand a lot of stress).
    2
  5525. How would they feel it? And, by the way, learn English.
    2
  5526. I didn't get a notification of your reply. Sorry for the delay. "That's what the Chinese government are alleging." Again, why is that wide temperature range relevant to Apollo? Why won't you answer?
    2
  5527. "What about the Indian moon analysis finding water on the moon?" They had the first spectrometer of that caliber. So what? LRO also found evidence of water. What does this have to do with Apollo?
    2
  5528. "The US astronauts didn't make that discovery?" Huh? With what? You think the US astronauts had that type of spectrometer? We're not talking about lakes. We're talking about molecules of water. No, astronauts cannot see water is such microscopic traces.
    2
  5529. "Why not if they were there and did all of that digging and bringing back over 100kg of moon rocks?" Wow. You really don't know anything about the topic, do you? Like, you think these microscopic traces are supposed to be visible?
    2
  5530. "Oh btw, how did they film the module taking off the moon?" I don't understand it, therefore it's fake. Dewdrop, that's all you're really saying here. And, clearly you don't want the answers to your own questions.
    2
  5531. Yeah, everyone is stupid except you.
    2
  5532.  @pasisovi  That's how delusions work. You've gotten yourself so messed up that you believe that it's BETTER to know nothing, rather than to be educated.
    2
  5533.  @pasisovi  I'm not the one who thinks that being uneducated is a BETTER position than being educated. That's YOU who thinks that. That's just delusion. That's not twisting any words. That's simply delusion.
    2
  5534.  @EVRose60  I gave the person the benefit of the doubt that she was talking about the 70mm Hasselblad images. But, yeah, in retrospect, it might be more likely that she doesn't know ANYTHING about the topic at all, and even she doesn't know what imagery she's talking about.
    2
  5535. Bags with capsules inside to help the chemical breakdown process. Who cares what he said? Why would you take him seriously? We're sanctioning the everliving daylights out of his country. We stopped buying their rockets. We're essentially stealing all of their billionaires' yachts. If he wants to play silly games by asking questions with obvious answers, why would you feed him the attention?
    2
  5536. But, it wasn't very publicized until long after she died. One obscure article on a website I've never heard of. Other than that, all of the viral videos never happened until she was already dead 1.5 years.
    2
  5537. I forget, which conspiracy video was that from?
    2
  5538.  @mikelbri6876  Well, he WAS wearing a helmet. But, yeah, don't flee from police. Don't ride a dirt bike on the streets. Don't drive on public roads at the age of 13. Yeah. The kid caused this incident himself. It's amazing to me that some people think the cops shouldn't chase him. I mean, what if the cops didn't chase, and the kid rammed into a pedestrian? Then those same people would be saying, "Why didn't the cops chase him? He was driving illegally, shouldn't the cops try to stop him?" Either way, they seek to blame the police.
    2
  5539.  @LadyMaeloraBeesbury  What do you mean, "how would you know"?? Why would you ask that? 13 year old driving on public roads? Driving a dirt bike (not street legal) on public roads. Driving recklessly. Fleeing the police. What "bootlicking" are you talking about? In your mind, we shouldn't point blame where it belongs? What EXACTLY should the cops have done about this? Just let this maniac kid drive crazy all over the road? What if that kid rammed into a pedestrian? Would you then blame the cops for NOT chasing? Is that how this goes? Either way, it's the cops' fault, right? Chase the kid, he crashes, and it's the cops' fault for chasing. Don't chase the kid, and the kid kills someone with the crazy driving, and it's the cops' fault for not chasing. Am I right?
    2
  5540. If you are under the unbelievably ignorant impression that there's no gravity on the moon, please explain how lead boots would help? More massive items in 0G still weigh nothing.
    2
  5541. tat2zz68: "And the fact that people are calling someone nuts or a conspiracy theory for pointing it out is just more proof people are sheep." No, dewdrop. It demonstrates how far the nuts have allowed their minds to float out to sea, if they believe actor Tom Mayk is actually Stanley Kubrick. Good gods, what's wrong with you?
    2
  5542. Yes, the police should be called, and yes, they were called by multiple people. That's how the society works. And, no, she wasn't all over the news or publicized until long after her death. While she was alive, a couple of obscure blog posts on sites I've never heard of said she was arrested. But, the big viral videos didn't come out until the arrest video was made public 2.5 years later. You have your facts wrong.
    2
  5543. Um, no. The family video recorded the incident, and showed it to the police, who wrote about it in their report. Apparently, it was quite a public and loud display that went on for a while, hardly the short few seconds that the girl represents when she's trying to avoid getting arrested.
    2
  5544.  @wsrichardson5796  I think he meant he's never "bin" to 8th grade.
    2
  5545. "still have no concrete proof" For the 3rd time, why do you keep saying this? I have told you the 4 countries that have published photos of the Apollo landing sites. I've told you where to find hundreds of these photos. Do you ever go look? Nope. "Nuh uh, those photos don't exist" is your only reply.
    2
  5546. "parroting and some quasi scientific" Dewdrop, the formula to calculate the size of lens you need to resolve an object at [whatever] distance is readily available in millions of textbooks (or the simple wiki page on "optical resolution"). Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't either. You will not find a single physicist on Earth that thinks what you think.
    2
  5547. "Do you like wasting your time" TRANSLATION: "I have decided in advance to reject all evidence that goes against my delusions. If anybody offers evidence, I simply deny it exists and tell the person they are wasting their time answering the questions I'm pretending to ask."
    2
  5548. Um, ok? But, society has already decided that it IS a crime.
    2
  5549. Which drugs did this to you?
    2
  5550. Well, you might consider reading the medical examiner's report. It says she weighed 86 pounds at her death, and that her implants were jutting out of her emaciated body in such a way to really emphasize how unhealthy she was. It seems that she really went downhill quite a bit in the year between this arrest video and her suicide. The reports say that the family said it was mainly drug related.
    2
  5551. Armstrong put it there. It was originally mounted to the side of the lander in the MESA bay, facing the ladder. Once they did all of the initial stuff, Armstrong detached it from the MESA, and attached it to a tripod, and carried it to the location to take video of the rest of the moonwalk. You can see him do it if you go watch the 16mm film taken from inside the lander looking down.
    2
  5552.  @alicemiriah  Yeah, the easiest way is just to show it. It's over and done with in 10 seconds flat. But, yeah, if you want to fight a crusade, you can choose not to show the receipt, that's perfectly within your rights. But, then you should be prepared to cooperate on a very basic level with the rest of the officer's requests (showing ID, don't obstruct/obfuscate, don't accuse him of silly things, don't resist arrest). And, for the woman in this video, if she had just said, "I didn't steal anything, here's the ID you wanted, I don't want to show my receipt, but, I'll be peaceful and cooperate in every other way," then this would have been very different.
    2
  5553. "Absolutely no one has seen any concrete factual pictures of anything being left on the moon" China's Chang'e-2 orbiter has. India's Chandrayaan-2 orbiter has. South Korea' Danuri orbiter has. Arizona State University's LRO orbital camera has. Why do you continuously talk about there being no photos when 4 different countries have published these photos that you have denied exist?
    2
  5554. "excuses and sciencesplaining why telescopes that are powerful enough" Dawes' limit is an excuse? Rayleigh criterion is an excuse? Dewdrop, anybody sophomore in any college on the planet who has taken a few physics courses can do the math on the optical resolution capabilities based on the size of the lens and the distance to the object. Why are you calling this an "excuse"? Do the math yourself. "Optical resolution" on Wiki has the formula. If you think the entire planet's physicists are wrong about how light works, calculate it yourself, and publish in the science journals. You'll certainly win a Nobel Prize for rewriting everything known about the properties of light.
    2
  5555. "powerful enough to see dimes on a damn street from outer space" No, dewdrop. There are no such telescopes in space. The best resolution from any orbiting satellite is around 1 foot x 1 foot per pixel. You apparently don't know the difference between aerial photography and orbital photography.
    2
  5556. "can't pinpoint a flag or a leftover space module" Dewdrop, I told you in the other thread, you can go to Arizona State University's site this very minute and see hundreds of the photos you repeatedly keep saying don't exist.
    2
  5557. Are you serious? Really? The moon occupies 0.5 degrees (angular size) in our sky. The Earth occupies 2.0 degrees (angular size) in the moon's sky. To occupy the entire moon's sky, it would need to be 180 degrees in angular size. You're off by a factor of 90x. That's like saying you earn $180K per year, when really you earn $2K per year. Bravo, genius. What conspiracy video told you the size of the Earth was wrong? Did you never bother to fact-check?
    2
  5558.  @jackhammer9018  Also, by the way, the lunar module didn't accelerate to 25,000 mph. It only had to get up to about 3,600 mph. You obviously don't know how any of these craft even worked. How can you sit there and say you are "stunned" by people who believe stuff, when you, yourself, have no idea how any of it even worked? What EXACTLY do you think happened here? Do you believe that the 7,000 engineers at Grumman who designed and built the lunar modules all forgot to put engines in them? Do you think they all forgot what speed the craft needed to attain? Do you think they all forgot to put fuel tanks in the craft? How would that many aerospace engineers be so inept as to forget to put an engine in the craft?
    2
  5559. MaYbE if U tpyE lOtz Uv CapITaL luTTrs iT MeENz Ur KerReKt.
    2
  5560. The evidence disagrees with you.
    2
  5561. "The Suit would look like a Balloon that ma explode" Um, no. There were 24 layers in the suits, and many of them were not expandable like you're saying. They weren't just rubber balloons.
    2
  5562. "No one will ever arrived there and no one will ever fly into Space, to another Planet" But, it's ok to use the very same suits in low orbit without creating balloons?
    2
  5563. "It is just impossible, because of the law of Equilibrium" What in the world does that have to do with spacecraft of spacesuits? Good grief.
    2
  5564. " it does not matter how the Suit is designed" Really? So, the hundreds of engineers who designed and built the suits... they're all "in on it"? Just how many people are involved, in your mind, with not a single one ever spilling the beans?
    2
  5565. "Do you have an Idea how much 4psi are, on every Square inch of the Suit?" Yes, the answer is 4.
    2
  5566. "If there is no Air pressure outside the Suit the Suit will explode" Huh? A bike tire doesn't explode. That's 115 PSI on the inside, and 15 PSI on the outside, a 100 PSI differential. You're complaining about 3.5 PSI on the inside, and 0 PSI on the outside. That's trivial.
    2
  5567. "You forget that the Suit or the Tire also have Atmospherically Air pressure out side the Suit. If there is no counter Air pressure out side of the Suit, the Suit or Tire will explode." No, dewdrop. That's not how it works. The main factor is in how much DIFFERENCE there is in the pressure between inside and out. A bike tire has 100 PSI difference between inside and out. An Apollo spacesuit has 3.5 PSI difference.
    2
  5568. Dewdrop, if you think every physicist on the planet is wrong about the physics of gas pressures, WHY ARE YOU ON YOUTUBE? Go write up your notions of how pressure works for science journals, and win a Nobel Prize. Good grief. Either that, or stop pretending to know things you don't.
    2
  5569. Why in the world are you pretending to understand topics that you do not?
    2
  5570. And, you have no trouble believing we could build atom smashers in the 1930s, and atomic weapons that could vaporize cities with 10 pounds of Plutonium in the 1940s?
    2
  5571. Never underestimate ignorant people who know nothing about what happened, blaming the police out of unwarranted hatred.
    2
  5572. No Musk fans will care one bit about how this video is presented. It's like a religion for them.
    2
  5573. Musk is sending people to Mars in the exact same way that he's building spacecraft carrying hundreds of passengers to the other side of the Earth for the price of an airline ticket, and speed of sound Hyperloop travel between San Francisco and Los Angeles, and you can buy a Tesla robo-taxi that will earn you $30,000 per year in profits, etc. Do you honestly believe a single word that man says?
    2
  5574.  @Tim22222  He can't. He hasn't kicked his addiction yet. Years go by, and he's still hooked on that stuff.
    2
  5575.  @occhamite  Yes, there are always multiple facets to the story. I just picked the biggest one. There's no way Apollo would have happened at all, if not for the cold war, and the expression of dominance that resulted. The facets you mentioned are true also.
    2
  5576. So, I already told you that the photo archive shows bunches of photos with the dust disturbed on every single landing. You ignored it, of course, and kept spewing the same false nonsense anyway, insisting that the dust wasn't disturbed. As usual, you people simply refuse to take input that goes against your delusions.
    2
  5577. "You can call it whatever you want, just look at the pictures." YOU look at the pictures!!! Good grief. How many times must you be told the same thing? Don't look at cherry-picked low-res photos shown to you in conspiracy videos that lie to you. Look at the archives for yourself. "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal" is the official archive. There are a half dozen other archives that do a better job of showing nice thumbnails and stuff, if you don't like the way the archive works. Personally, I just have copies of every photo on my own computer, because Windows creates thumbnails automatically, making it far easier to scroll through the photos. But, whatever. You don't know what you're talking about, and you've never looked at the archive for yourself.
    2
  5578. "The descent engines pressure matters not." No, dewdrop. It's the main thing that matters for what you're claiming. "junk can land on THAT SAME SURFACE AND NOT DISTURB ANYTHING??? How does that work?" It doesn't. Every single landing disturbed the dust. I mean, Apollo 15's landing, as an example, landed so hard on the uneven surface that the engine bell smacked the surface and crumpled/bent. It could almost be called a crash landing. You didn't look at those photos, did you? Apollo 11's photos of under the lander shows that the dust layer is virtually gone, having been blown by the rocket blast. Apollo 14's photos show a very nice "cup shape" underneath the lander, where the dust was blown, showing a very distinct pattern of having been blown by a rocket. Do you know any of those things? No, of course not. You aren't looking at the photos yourself. You're watching conspiracy videos that show you a couple of bad angle shots, avoiding showing you the exact thing you're denying exists. "Google image search- lunar lander feet." Or, LOOK AT THE ARCHIVES!!!
    2
  5579. "Explain to me how a rocket works in a vacuum." So, you don't know how a rocket works, yet, you feel perfectly comfortable declaring that nobody else knows either, including the entire planet's rocket engineers? That's how this works, in your mind? No rocket engineer on Earth realizes that rockets don't actually work. But, YOU do. YOU know better.
    2
  5580. "couldnt afford college" Something tells me that you couldn't get into colleges, not that it was a money issue. There are a million financial aid programs out there for people who are qualified, yet cannot afford it. When you feel the need to lie in order to support your case, sorry, but your credibility is zero (not that you ever had any credibility to lose). See, dewdrop, if you had opened by asking questions, instead of accusing thousands of people of being criminals, maybe then you'd have some credibility. If you had actually read the responses (i.e. mine), you'd know that you were wrong from the beginning. But, nope. You don't want to read the responses. And, you're far more interested in flinging mud than actually understanding the topic. "It would seem to me that if there was any movement in one direction or the other, then the opposing forces ARE NOT EQUAL." No. The forces are equal. And, this all boils down to conservation of momentum. Spew a million pounds of exploding rocket fuel/oxidizer gas in one direction, the rocket is propelled in the other direction. Fire a gun, it recoils. The rocket's movement is the same as the recoil from a gun.
    2
  5581. "So you think they completely shut the rockets off upon descent and just floated to the ground?" Well, on 4 of the 6 landings, yes. But, on Apollo 11 and Apollo 14, they left the engines on all the way past touchdown. They weren't supposed to do that. They were supposed to shut off the engine at 5 feet above the surface. But, ya know, sometimes things don't go as planned. "You dont think they refired the rockets at different times while descending to control its position especially when close to the ground to allow for a controlled landing?" The main rocket engine was throttled between 11% and 100% all the way through the entire landing sequence from orbit, until the last 5 feet. The 5'8" probes sticking out of the bottom of the landers' legs would touch the ground, and the commander is supposed to shut off the engine, and in the low gravity, it just falls the rest of the way.
    2
  5582. "The lander weighed 33,000lbs" And, it burned about 18,000 pounds of fuel/oxidizer getting down from orbit to the lunar surface. So, no. Upon landing, it wasn't 33,000 pounds. And, 33,000 pounds was the Earth weight, not the lunar weight. Divide by 6 to get the lunar weight. Initial weight was around 33,500 pounds (give or take, depending on mission). Burns 18,000 pounds of fuel/oxidizer on the way down. At landing, it weighed about 15,500 pounds (again, depends a bit on which mission). Then divide by 6 to get the lunar weight. It's just a bit over 2500 pounds. That's less than a sports car. "but you said the thrust was down to a force that was less pressure than the weight of an adult?" Per square inch. Yes, the pressure of the rocket exhaust per square inch is less than a human's single footprint. Do the math. "And that allowed for a controlled descent?" As opposed to what? Throttling up to 10,000 pounds of thrust, for a craft that weighed 2,500 pounds, and shooting straight up? What do you propose? "I understand maybe the thrusters not causing a disturbance on the ground because of the way the force is dispersed in the vacuum, but there was PHYSICAL CONTACT with the landers feet, which shouldve resulted in SOME KIND OF disturbance and settled dust." But, again, you simply refuse to look at the archive for yourself. Your entire basis for your ridiculous accusations is that you watched conspiracy videos instead of looking at the photos for yourself. "Seems weird to me that Nasa didnt even exist until 1958" I don't understand it, therefore it's fake. "Then in 2004 Bush says Nasa will be back on the moon by 2020! 2020??? What?" Gee, a president said something that wasn't true?!!?!?! Shocker. "How were they able to do it in 11 years with 1960s technology" By spending 4.5% of the entire federal budget on it in hard costs, and the equivalent of another 2% or so in soft costs and international support. Wars are fought for less money than that. "WHILE ALSO ACTUALLY FIGURING OUT HOW TO DO IT" Yes, they had a lot of research and development costs. That's why Artemis is doing moon missions for a fraction of the costs of Apollo. There's far less R&D. "Every other technology from the past is EASIER AND CHEAPER TO DO NOW THAN IT WAS THEN, EXCEPT THIS." Dewdrop, yes, as I said, it IS cheaper today. If you adjust for inflation, they spent about $300 billion on Apollo in hard costs, and another $100-$150 billion in soft costs and international support. Today, Artemis is about $35 billion. But, of course, that cost will balloon like every government program nowadays. But, anyway, you got your wish. It's cheaper now. What's your beef?
    2
  5583. @butchtropic Estimates are often not worth the paper they're written on. They're almost always wrong. But, I can very confidently say that you're massively low with that estimate. The estimates I've seen are around $100 billion. And, the bigger fear is that, like almost every other government spending program, that the early estimates are always intentionally low. (Cough cough, F35, which is now expected to cost about $30 billion per year for the next 55 years... and that's just an airplane.... Hell, they spent 17 billion just developing the Bradley troop carrying vehicle.) Anyway, if it was just $5 billion to go to the moon, Gates or Jobs (before he died) or Bezos or someone would be doing it. Hell, even Elon Musk (the professional snake oil salesman) would be doing it.
    2
  5584. Then you have answered your own question. Yes, there are perfectly good explanations for every claim ever made by the Apollo deniers. Every claim they make falls apart under actual scrutiny.
    2
  5585. It keeps killing my response (YouTube crazy censorship). Trying to break it up into pieces.
    2
  5586. YOU SAID: "If you were at the equator and 0 longitude the Earth would appear directly above you at 90 degrees." == Depends. That's just the average. The moon wobbles by about 8 degrees. It's not 100% perfectly tidally locked. YOU SAID: "On Apollo 17 they’re 20 degrees above hence the Earth would appear 70 degrees from the horizon . True there’s a longitude correction that would apply," == Yes, it's also +30 degrees off center in longitude. Mighty convenient you'd just ignore it... especially given that the longitude is the bigger number. You picked the smallest possible number intentionally, to paint your false narrative. In reality, the actual angle is greater than either the 20+ or 30+ degrees of latitude and longitude. The net angle is almost 40 degrees. Funny that you chose to only pick the 20 degree angle, when the real angle is more like 40 degrees. And, depending on where the moon was in the 8 degree wobble cycle during the mission, the angle could have been even greater (with the Earth even lower in the sky). No matter which way you spin it, sorry, but you're just plain lying when you say it's 70 degrees. You even originally said that it should be "at least 70 degrees" in the sky. The actual angle figuring longitude and latitude, and factoring in where it may have been in the 8 degree wobble cycle, was a lot closer to 45 degrees than 70 degrees.
    2
  5587. I have repeatedly tried to respond, but everything I write about these next few lines is getting blocked. So, I'll just trim this down to bare minimum. YOU SAID: "BUT the point is that the Earth is much higher in the sky than what you see on this video." == Wrong. The photo in this video has been cropped to only the upper half, and it was taken from a very low angle (Cernan was squatting on the ground looking upward while taking it).
    2
  5588. I have tried many times to post detailed responses that include reference videos and photos. But, it keeps blocking me from referring to sources and names of videos/photos. The point is, look at the original material, not these edited documentaries.
    2
  5589. Anyway, when you factor in the following, it's pretty clear that you're just plain wrong: 1) You got the angle dramatically wrong. The Earth is far lower than you're dishonestly representing. 2) You're looking at a cropped photo in this video that doesn't take into account the angles very well to begin with. 3) I am not sure where in the 8 degree wobble the moon was during Apollo 17, and I don't really care, but, obviously, if it was in a "favorable" stage of the wobble, that drops the Earth even lower in the sky. 4) Cernan ducked low (making the camera look upward), thus accounting for the angles even more. 5) You are clearly deluded. YOU SAID: "Also the Earth would appear 4X bigger than what the Moon looks like to us on Earth." == Yes. So what? Are you saying it's not? How can you tell from a cropped photo in the first place? This isn't even the original picture. And, you also need to look at the type of lens that was used, etc. You know, even on Earth, you can just change lenses and distances to relative objects, and the moon appears to change sizes in photos. Seriously, it looks bigger just by zooming more. It's really as simple as that. Cropped photos, zoomed in, zoomed out, whatever... you need to know these things before you just eyeball it and assume it's wrong.
    2
  5590.  @stevegagnon1539  Thanks for proving you didn't read/absorb anything I wrote. You're dead wrong about the angles. And, you made it very clear that you came to your conclusions about the angles first, before you even knew what the angles were. And, now, you're STILL demonstrating that you don't understand the angles. If you're not going to pay attention, and all you want to do is keep spewing conspiracy garbage, and ignore all input, there's really no point here. The actual angle was just shy of 40, not the 20 degrees or 30 degrees you asserted, then we have to accommodate the moon's wobble after that, which easily could push the angle to over 40. And, I already explained the photo was cropped, thus making you unaware of the angle, and that Cernan was bent way over, taking the photo upward. It's on video. Go watch it.
    2
  5591. YOU SAID: "Ok, I'm sure some seance tard" == Do you even know what a seance is? It's a session where people pretend they're talking to dead people. YOU SAID: "will be able to explain why the rocket was going horizontally & not vertically," == They went into orbit before doing the TLI burn. It's as simple as that. YOU SAID: "in fact it looked like it was on a trajectory heading straight back to Earth." == That's ridiculously dumb. YOU SAID: "Then the scene of the photo that was taken of the "blue marble" but out of 3 people on the lunar module," == No, there were 3 people in the command module. The lunar module had 2 people. And, at the time of that photo, they hadn't even opened the lunar module. You literally don't know one craft from another. YOU SAID: "nobody knows who actually took it," == Jack Schmitt took the photo you're talking about. You are confusing that image with the Apollo 8 "Earthrise" photo, and yes, they aren't sure who took it. Or, if you ask each of the three, they each think they were the one who took it. That's because they were passing the camera back and forth between them, and didn't denote who snapped each image. YOU SAID: "I mean come on, did they just forget?" == No. YOU SAID: "The greatest photo ever taken in world history & they forgot who took it, LMAO!" == Jack Schmitt. YOU SAID: "ooooh, silly me, I thought they were going to the moon, except they can't get through the Van Allen belts.." == That's ridiculously stupid. YOU SAID: "Stop watching porn & you might get some energy to establish some intelligence." == YOU are the one who doesn't have a clue. YOU SAID: "No shortage of seance tards round here then." == Your mirror is full of them.
    2
  5592. Well, you might not believe it, but, yes, it's true. The public lost interest. Armstrong and Aldrin became household names, and couldn't go out in public without being mobbed. But, Cernan and Schmitt could go to the grocery store, out to dinner, to a movie, whatever, and almost nobody even knew who they were (because the public had lost interest).
    2
  5593. Context warning = YouTube is shilling and Apollo was fake. No context warning = YouTube agrees that Apollo was fake.
    2
  5594. "the lack of stars do to aperture and the inability to adjust to lighting" They could adjust for lighting, it just wasn't automatic, it was manual. But, if you want to see stars on a piece of film, it typically takes a 20-30 second exposure. And, that's exactly what they did with the Carruthers camera as an example, when they took star photos on Apollo 16 (using super long exposures). But, if you expose for 20-30 seconds on a normal piece of film designed to take pictures of a sunlit surface, all you'd see is a big white blob. A typical exposure time for a piece of film under normal conditions is around 1/125th or 1/250th of a second. Apollo used 1/250th of a second pretty frequently. You can start to see stars with the right kind of film at about 4 seconds of exposure. But, most of the time, it's more like 20 seconds. Anyway, you'd have to learn some things about photography to understand this stuff. "admitted starless sky's the entire time they were on the brightside of the lunar surface" Well, yes. And, just FYI, no landings ever occurred at night. They always went when the landing site was in sunlight. Specifically, they always landed early in the lunar morning at each particular site. "with the tinted visors that would have be the darkest sunglasses ever created, how could they see anything at all?" C'mon man. In your thumbnail, it appears to be a picture of you wearing some pretty shaded sunglasses. Can you see through them? I mean, I'll be honest here, I really don't quite understand the point of your question. Are you implying that they made the visors too tinted to the point that the astronauts couldn't see? "if I'm way off on this, then please shed a light" Well, I'm trying. But, it appears that you don't really understand photography, or how light works. I'm happy to elaborate, but, I'd need to understand the questions better. "why is it so dark in the photos ?" Depends on the photo you're asking about. The camera settings and the sun angle are the main factors. For example, Apollo 11 (and every other mission for that matter) landed very early in the lunar morning at that site. The sun was very low in the sky, about the equivalent of 6:30am on Earth. But, for Apollo 11, there was only one moonwalk, and it only lasted a couple of hours. The sun remained very low. So, the lighting really depended quite heavily on which direction they pointed the camera, and the exposure time. But, there's also another factor with a lot of the Apollo 11 photos: the way they replicated them. Nowadays, photos are just digital files, and the 1,000th copy is the same as the first copy. But, back then, they sometimes basically took photos of photos. And, some of the ones you see in this video are exactly that: photos of photos. And, then you're at the mercy of how good the 2nd photo was. And, sometimes, it's a photo of a photo of a photo, and it just keeps getting darker and less distinct. I'm a bit disappointed that the makers of this video used such low quality photos of photos for some of their images, when high resolution scans of the original mission photos have been available online for over a decade, showing much brighter and more vibrant photos. But, still, even then, yes, sometimes the photos are quite dark anyway, and this relates back to my original comments about the sun angles and exposure settings of the camera. "It definitely isn't bright out like the middle of the day there?" The longest time any mission ever stayed on the moon was 74 hours (about 3 days on Earth). And, given that a lunar day is 708 hours (about a month), this took their "6:30am" landing time to about "9:00am" departure time (approximate Earth equivalent). They landed early in the lunar morning, and were gone long before any "middle of the day." A moon day isn't 24 hours. Being tidally locked, it turns a lot more slowly than Earth. So, they landed in the morning, and lifted off in that very same morning. They did this to make sure they weren't exposed to afternoon temperatures on the moon (very hot). But, yeah, it did make the photography a bit "worse" as a result. Any photos taken early in the mission were basically at what you'd think of as 6:30am, just after sunrise. Or, like Apollo 11, as I said, that was the only moonwalk, so, yeah, always pretty dark still. As the missions went on, they had more moonwalks per mission, and stayed longer and longer. So, for those missions, they did have some photography that was taken at times more like 8am or 9am (Earth equivalent). Still it was early in the morning, but, the lighting was a heck of a lot better than the Earth equivalent of 6:30am. So, yes, later missions had better lighting than earlier missions, and later moonwalks had better lighting than earlier moonwalks. This is because the sun angle was higher. Still not "middle of the day" (noon). They never stayed that long to reach a "noon" (which would have been about a week after landing). But, yes, the higher the sun angle, the brighter the lighting will be overall.
    2
  5595. "what kept it up" An aluminum rod. "and why did it flutter? Was there a wind on the moon they hadn't told us about?" Yes, sometimes. Most of the time, it fluttered while being handled. No big shocker there, except by deniers with no understanding of physics. But, yes, there were also sometimes "winds" that made it flutter. The life support backpacks and suits and lander itself would sometimes off-gas, moving a flag slightly. And, on Apollo 14, when they opened the purge valve on the lander, oxygen rushed over the surface and actually moved the flag about 180 degrees.
    2
  5596. "Any one of those activities could easily result in a needless accident, perhaps causing a tear in their space suit, resulting in instant deathification? Surely NASA's chief of risk management should have ruled out such activities." Have you looked at the spacesuit design? 24 total layers (21 in the spacesuit, and 3 in the undergarment). Multiple layers of ripstop fabrics that were made to withstand hits by micrometeroids. A self-sealing layer designed similarly to the wings of fighter craft that close themselves shut when hit by bullets. And, sorry, but unless it's a massive hole that instantly depressurizes the entire suit, it's not fatal anyway. Slow leaks can, and did, happen. For the most part, they were ignored. But, the astronauts were trained in patching medium leaks. I don't know why you people get the impression that the slightest tear would result in instantaneous death, but, it's simply not true.
    2
  5597. "Tens of thousands of things had to go right for the mission to succeed, and yet many of those tens of thousands of things were being done for the first time in a new environment. If only a single one of those things failed, the mission would be kaput and the astronauts would be fried, or deep frozen, or whatever happens in that environment." Translation: I don't know what happens, but, whatever it is, that's what I'm going to argue about. I don't know anything about the multiple layers of redundancy throughout the craft and suits. I don't know about the myriads of problems they had. As far as I'm concerned, everything went 100% perfectly, because I've never read a single mission log before I came to my conclusions.
    2
  5598. "They even broadcast a 'selfie' of the lunar module taking off from the surface of the moon. It's almost as if they were trying to prove to everyone that it was all really happened." Huh? They had the rover camera that they were using all mission long to take video of everything. Why NOT take video of the liftoff? This is just plain ridiculous. You people complain about a million things they didn't do on Apollo. And, when they did do them, you complain they shouldn't have done them. Can you even imagine what you'd say if they didn't take video of the liftoff? "They had the rover with the remote control camera mounted to it. They were done with it. So, why not use it to take video of the liftoff? It costs them zero to do it, and they can use it for future mission information. So, why didn't they take video?" You know darned well that you'd be saying exactly that. It's a no-win situation with you people. If they do something, you think it means Apollo was fake. If they don't do it, you think it means Apollo was fake.
    2
  5599. "When I saw the Apollo 10 command module in the science museum in London, my first thought was there's no way this piece of tin could have got to the moon and back" And, you got your degree in aerospace engineering, where?
    2
  5600. "Given that they have the technology to see what they had for breakfast on a planet in Alpha Centauri, why haven't we seen pictures (AFAIK) of the stuff they left behind on the moon, such as the lunar rover?" You clearly have zero understanding of optical resolution. Zero.
    2
  5601. No, I've answered quite enough from you. I responded to every single one of your questions, and even asked several return questions. In one ear, out the other. Sorry, you don't get to claim "thanks" while ignoring all input, and refusing to return the favor of responding about your first 7 topics. That's not how to "thank" people.
    2
  5602. Thanks for proving that you have absolutely no interest in the answers to your fake questions.
    2
  5603. Can you fill me in, which conspiracy video are you parroting with that claim about America invading every corner of the Earth, therefore it should occupy the moon? I keep seeing this argument show up lately, so I know there's a new conspiracy video out there making that silly claim. I just don't know which one it is. Can you inform me?
    2
  5604. Greg, you keep making these amazingly stupid comments all over the place. What's wrong with you? "You can almost see the wire that is holding him up"?? Um, what? When you start seeing things that aren't there, yeah, it's time to head over to the doctor and get diagnosed. Astronauts on the moon sometimes fell down. Sometimes they walked just fine. And, sometimes, they came close to falling but didn't. I dare you to strap on an 88 pound pressure suit, an 80 pound PLSS life support backpack, a 20 pound oxygen purge and backup system, and about 20 pounds of various hoses and tools, and do better than they did at maintaining balance in an unfamiliar environment with 1/6th of the gravity. Wires? Um, no, you psychopath. Go get your head examined.
    2
  5605. I think there's a crack in your pot. Better go fix it.
    2
  5606.  @stusue9733  Don't forget Bigfoot and chemtrails.
    2
  5607. Because he murdered his father and stole the car before this chase.
    2
  5608. Sorry I keep reposting this. I'm having troubles getting it to post correctly. Well, let's see, do you even know what the evidence is? I mean, I'm not going to dump an encyclopedia of evidence into a YouTube comment. But, let's pick a few examples. 1) A few months ago, both China and India released photos from their own individual lunar orbiters. These photos showed a couple of the Apollo landing sites, where you see the landers' descent stages still sitting on the lunar surface, exactly where the original mission photography showed them, and exactly where the LRO orbiter has been showing them in hundreds of photos for the past 13 years. In order to believe Apollo was fake, you'd have to conclude that both India and China have joined "the deception" 50+ years later. So, what's your opinion? Have China and India each recently decided to join a 50 year old fabrication? 2) Dozens of countries (including enemies) tracked Apollo missions with radar and/or radio telescopes. Even backyard amateurs, anywhere in the world that had a clean line of sight to the moon, could aim their radio equipment at the moon and receive Apollo's audio. Yeah, video required much bigger dishes and the right equipment to deal with the video formatting. But, audio is much easier, and, yes, countless countries/amateurs could pick up the audio. And, for video, both Australia and Spain had the dishes and equipment to tune in when they aimed their dishes at the moon. So, in order to believe it was a fabrication, you must believe that dozens of countries that tuned in to the audio, including backyard amateurs, were all helping to fabricate the evidence. And, the dozens of countries (including enemies) tracking with radar all participated also. Is that what you believe? 3) Three Apollo missions left three laser reflectors on the lunar surface. Dozens of countries have laser ranging facilities capable of hitting those reflectors, and using them to measure the exact distance to the moon, to within less than a millimeter of accuracy nowadays. (The accuracy was about 2 inches back in the 1960s/1970s/1980s. But, the equipment is better now.) Countries use this laser ranging technology of bouncing photons off of the moon to measure their own plate tectonics movements. Believe it or not, the moon's position is more "reliable" than the position of continents on Earth. So, by measuring the distance to the moon, they can track the movements of their own countries on geological plates. The primary example is Japan, which constructed two of those facilities, one on the north side of their island, one on the south side, to track not only the island's movement, but, can even measure the rotation of the island. This evidence is exactly what those missions say it was, having placed the reflectors exactly where they said they placed them. In order to believe that this is some sort of fabrication, you'd have to believe that the USA somehow sent 3 unmanned moon missions up there to place the reflectors onto the surface. But, then, how'd they sneak off 3 launches without anybody noticing? Those moon rockets were visible from hundreds of miles away. Did they launch 3 secret missions, yet nobody spilled the beans? It took about 3000 people to get so much as an Atlas off the ground. Did 3000 people launch secret missions that nobody knew about, and never said a word about it? Where? And, who built all of the stuff to do that? The custom landers? The extra 3 rockets that nobody knows about? Why do the orbital photos show rover tracks, foot paths, Apollo-looking landers, etc., if these were unmanned landers meant to deploy reflectors?
    2
  5609. Watch "They Live." It's a documentary.
    2
  5610. Big deal. Man has some pleasure at a playground. Why even arrest him? Leave him alone and go to a different playground.
    2
  5611. Yes, you're wrong. She suffered zero embarrassment from Inside Edition or any other major "news" (not news) outlet, because nobody covered this story until she was dead for 1.5 years. The one exception was an obscure article on a website I've never even heard of, but, it was just a small tabloid with a photo, not the arrest video (which wasn't released until well after she was dead).
    2
  5612.  @carpo719  YOU SAID: "not a conspiracy theory, but they are definitely lying." == Pffttt. And, you don't see the contradiction in your own statement? YOU SAID: "They just admitted that only 17% of patients in the hospital with covid are there FOR covid. Meaning of majority of people have some other condition and they just happened to test positive." == That's a good thing. Why would they lie about a good thing? YOU SAID: "Omicron is a joke." == I fail to get the joke. YOU SAID: "The minister of Health in South Africa even said himself that there is no danger of death for a majority of people" == That's true of any/all versions of COVID19. Most people will not die from it. But, the early numbers, before there were any treatments and vaccines, was an 8% death rate. Why is this an issue for you to understand? Why is this a point you're even trying to make? YOU SAID: "and on top of that, there's no way to stop it." == Well, not stop it completely, no. But, you can really minimize it if the entire population was vaccinated. YOU SAID: "Everybody will get it.. And the vaccines do nothing against it" == Pure nonsense. The vaccines cause the human body to build the immunities prior to getting the disease, so, the body is ready to fight the disease before actually contracting it. It reduces the hospitalization and death rates tremendously. It saves lives. The small percentage of people who would ordinarily die (if not vaccinated), have greatly reduced odds of dying (if they are vaccinated). It's remarkably rare that someone is vaccinated, yet dies anyway. Yes, it happens sometimes. But, usually those people have a myriad of other health problems, and COVID just makes it worse. Arguing that vaccines don't do anything is just pure ignorance. Don't sit there and open your comment by saying "not a conspiracy," and then close by saying that vaccines don't do anything. Good grief. Yes, you are obviously spewing conspiracy garbage. Don't quote a minister of health, then contradict the very person you're quoting from. That very same minister of heath that you think supported your viewpoint about the level of danger... also says that the vaccines are very effective. So, you quote from him when you think it supports your nonsense. But, you ignore him when he says things that go against your nonsense. Sorry, I'm not letting you do that.
    2
  5613. Time to hit that "nurse call" button on your bed and get your meds boosted.
    2
  5614. "When Nasa is queried about why the crew had zero effects while flying through the van Allen radiation belts for 45 minutes each way" First of all, NASA published numerous detailed reports, hundreds upon hundreds of pages long. For you to sit there and quote some sentence spoken by one guy in an interview is extremely disingenuous. That's like asking someone to explain WWII in 30 seconds, then complaining when they don't give you the details of every single battle. Understanding radiation and its effects isn't a one-line answer. And to accuse them of only giving a one-line answer is ridiculous. But, in short, the belts aren't fatal unless you're in the worst areas for a week or two. The Soviets sent two dogs into the belts for 3 weeks (going in and out each orbit) and they lived normal lives afterward. So, don't pretend this is supposed to be a major issue because you intentionally decided to misinterpret a couple of spoken words in a single sentence.
    2
  5615. "they were never quaratined after Apollo 1" Yeah, they tend not to quarantine people in coffins. Good grief. Why are you pretending to know ANYTHING about Apollo, dewdrop? The Apollo 1 astronauts were killed by a fire in the capsule.
    2
  5616. "While nasa refuses to fly people, or dogs, through the belts" They flew 24 people through the belts, dewdrop. And, the Soviets flew dogs into them (and tortoises, and plants).
    2
  5617. "are you volunteering?" I'm too old. But, I was too young during the Apollo missions. So, I didn't get a chance either way.
    2
  5618. So, you spew a bunch of nonsense, then run for the hills? All while showing "respect for beliefs"? Hilarious. Almost every sentence you wrote was demonstrably wrong, and now you're going to run for the hills after spewing even more garbage?
    2
  5619. You have made it 100% clear from your other posted messages that you have absolutely no interest in the answers to your own questions. Why do you pretend?
    2
  5620. I told you in the other thread, you have no understanding of photography. And, given the parade of absolute gibberish you've spewed in the past, you've made it clear that you don't want answers to your questions. Stop asking.
    2
  5621. With a new invention called a "flagpole."
    2
  5622. Well, the lens required to see the Apollo objects on the moon (with enough resolution to barely make out what they are) would be about a quarter of a mile wide. The largest optical grade lens ever produced is 5 feet in diameter, and costed $168 million to manufacture. So, I wouldn't even know how many billions it would take to make a quarter of a mile wide lens. Hardly a "cheap telescope."
    2
  5623. Huh? You do know they sent 9 manned missions to the moon, and 6 of those landed, right? If that's not landing on the moon again, I don't know what is. So, what ARE you talking about? And, what kind of "logic" is this anyway? If they stopped after Apollo 11, how would this disprove Apollo 11?
    2
  5624. Your premise is wrong from the start. There's no requirement that "fleecy clouds" begin 7 km up. That's just plain ridiculous. And, your "calculated speed" is just wrong.
    2
  5625. OK, but, how do you prevent it?
    2
  5626. So, you didn't know enough about Apollo to know how many missions there were. You asked for photographs of the landing sites in the arrogant conceit that those photographs don't exist (when, in reality, 4 different countries have photographed the Apollo landing sites and found the Apollo landers exactly where they're supposed to be). And, yet, you remain convinced that your conclusions are correct, while knowing absolutely nothing about the topic?
    2
  5627. Yes, but, in this case, they would have arrested her whether she said anything or not. One of the crowd that she was "performing" for recorded it and showed the video to the police.
    2
  5628. No, it couldn't see the flag (too small at that level of resolution). But, the rest of what you said is correct.
    2
  5629. Well, they didn't share the video until 2.5 years later. She was long dead by then. And, they only shared it as a result of the FOIA.
    2
  5630. The small flags were for the purpose of handing out "good will" samples. They encase some lunar samples into a plaque with the small flag below, and it becomes a nice little display. They can have lunar samples, and a flag that's actually been to the moon.
    2
  5631.  @DeputyNordburg  To be clear, the dust raised from static electricity is akin to the dust that floats around in the air all around us. You wouldn't see it with the naked eye. But, yes, over a long period of time, it's possible that the microscopic dust will raise and fall enough to coat things with a thin accumulation of a dust layer (exactly as you outlined already).
    2
  5632. Each person should be judged individually, not being judged as a demographic. But, you're not doing your demographic any favors right now.
    2
  5633. Even shorter answer: you're wrong.
    2
  5634. But, dewdrop, nobody saw the arrest video until she was dead for 1.5 years.
    2
  5635. "They said that they copied over film" Huh? How can you copy over film? And, why would you think any film is missing in the first place? "that could only be used once!" You clearly are confusing magnetic tape with film. "People are NOT conspiracy theorists when there are actual conspiracies!" Wrong. The term would still apply, even if correct. "A 300 pound man would weigh 50 pounds and be able to jump 18 feet, very easily!" Sorry, that's not how jumping works, and that's definitely not how the math works. "I must have missed the part where these clowns jumped over 3 feet!" Yes, you must have missed it, because when they did that, they fell down upon landing, and didn't want to do it again. Look, dewdrop, you don't know anything about this topic. Stop pretending you do.
    2
  5636. "They lost all the recordings of their telemetry readings!" Pfftt. And, you would believe that, why? Did a conspiracy video tell you that? It's ridiculous. They lost two backup tapes from one mission. (And, the rumor is that they found them a year or two ago, but I haven't bothered to verify.) The primary copies have always been available. But, after they announced in 2006 that the backup copies on two telemetry tapes were missing, your favorite video makers have been escalating and escalating what is missing. First, they transposed backup copies with primary copies. Then, they said it was both copies. Then, they changed it to video and data. Then, they said it was all telemetry from all missions. It's ridiculous. It was two backup video telemetry tapes from one mission. They had never even been viewed a single time in history, because the primary copies worked. Now, you people have changed (in your hive minds) what you think is missing. "The hubble telescope is not in space!" You are free to observe it yourself, you know. "It is placed on a 747" Pffttt. You can view it with your own eyes if the sun angles are right. From there, you can use basic triangulation to calculate the speed. Do you know any 747s that are capable of going 17,000 mph? "Do your own research!" How? By watching conspiracy videos like you do?
    2
  5637. "nasa admitted to loosing" Loosing? So, in addition to knowing nothing about the topic, you also have the reading and writing skills of a 7 year old. "147 reals from the apollo missions" I asked you for your source. Why would you believe such a thing? "How much do you get paid" $1000 per YouTube message. You have been identified as someone who has breached secret knowledge, and I've been assigned to your case. It's ultra important that we operatives stop people who cannot read or write from surpassing the entire world's engineers in the true knowledge of space travel. "I have NO problems apologizing when I am disproved or being corrected" Hilarious!!! So, why did you run for the hills in the other thread in which you didn't understand the difference between total pressure and partial pressure? "i search for the truth" Watching conspiracy videos isn't a search for truth, dewdrop. "apparently you have not watched the clip with the manikin dressed in a spacesuit being driven in the lunar rover by remote control." Oh, quit with your ridiculous topic-changing Gish Gallop game. Good gods. "rooster tails would go higher into the moon's atmosphere, instead of quickly falling to the ground!" Good grief. Did you watch the original, or one of the ones that's been up-converted? See, the problem is, that video was shot at 6 frames per second. So, when you watch it at 24 frames per second, it is sped up. You either need to slow it to 6 frames per second playback speed, or you need to view one of the CGI versions that have upconverted the frame rate (by inserting CGI frames that were never shot). Once again, all you're proving is that you don't know anything about the topic. "Another thing, why is nasa so secretive and deceptive about non-classified information?" Huh?
    2
  5638. "No body" Yup, another moon landing denier who can't read or write past a 2nd grader's level. In your case, you couldn't even get the first word correct. Bravo. "Nobody" is one word, dewdrop.
    2
  5639. "and to there amazement" Good gods. ENGLISH!!! Sheeeeeeeessssshhh.
    2
  5640. "it was petrified wood" Yes. So what? A Dutch art museum didn't bother to authenticate something before they accepted it. Shocker. It is estimated that somewhere between 20% and 40% of the art in museums is counterfeit/forged/fake. And, that's ART (their specialty), and these curators constantly get it wrong anyway. What do you think the odds are that art museum curators can properly authenticate moon rocks? Hmmm, do you suppose there's a reason that the kids donated the rock to an art museum instead of the national science museum? Could it be because the science museum would laugh them out the door, spotting it immediately as fake, whereas the art museum curators are clueless about what moon rocks should look like? How much of a tax writeoff did those kids get for handing a clueless art museum a piece of petrified wood instead of a moon rock? "do a search see it for yourself" The irony. You clearly don't understand anything about the story, yet, you're telling others to go investigate. Classic. "I believed for 30 years we did, last 24 years no" What happened 24 years ago? Addiction issues? "science has caught up the lies" Really? Name a single article in any university-recognized science journal anywhere on the planet that has demonstrated that Apollo was a lie. Can you? Name just one scientifically peer reviewed article published in any science journal. And, no, Aulis isn't a science journal recognized by any institution on Earth. Name a REAL journal. Otherwise, you don't get to say anything about "science." "shame on them." No, dewdrop. That's what you should be saying while looking into the mirror. How dare you slander thousands of people while spewing absolute nonsense about this silly "petrified wood" story that you have completely botched? No. The shame doesn't belong to any scientist or any astronaut. It belongs to people like you.
    2
  5641. Well, it took until 2019 to get another manned moon program funded by congress. But, hey, you're welcome to pay for it yourself if you're not happy with the pace they're on.
    2
  5642.  @stusue9733  She doesn't know anything about Apollo 13.
    2
  5643. It was a suicide. She killed HERSELF. Not this "they" you're referring to.
    2
  5644. The suits leaked. So what? Why are so many people under the impression that the suits couldn't leak? But, with 24 layers, including 13 layers in the outer garment alone, consisting of ripstop fabrics, and a self-sealing layer beneath it, yeah, it would take a lot more than a tumble to tear any kind of significant hole.
    2
  5645. Well, I don't care one way or another about whether you wish the internet existed or not. But, regarding the "misuse of resources," I'd just ask if you even knew what Apollo's main purpose was? It was a political demonstration of technological and industrial power. It was a warning to the Soviets that if they keep escalating the cold war, and it becomes a real war, they're going to lose. And, the people who worked on Apollo strongly believed that Apollo's success was one of the key reasons that the cold war never turned into a real war that would have left radioactive holes in the ground where cities used to be. Now, can we turn back time and know for certain what would have happened without Apollo? No. But, averting the deaths of tens of millions of people doesn't sound like a misuse of resources to me.
    2
  5646. So, you're proud to fail to understand basic history, eh?
    2
  5647. Absolutely! Doubting government is a good thing. But, why is this relevant to Apollo? You're not under the impression that the world relies on the US government to know Apollo was real, are you?
    2
  5648. Yeah, they probably know very well that this is an Inside Edition story (where facts don't matter), and is extremely misleading.
    2
  5649. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    2
  5650. "Enough said"? What? After 7 words? Really? All you need is 7 words to determine the facts of the case? What?
    2
  5651. "10K of thrust" Huh? Do you actually think they landed at maximum thrust? Um, no. Sorry, but, if they had that engine running at full thrust, the last thing that would ever happen is a landing. It would have shot straight back up into orbit. "no hole are visible" A hole? Like a crater? In compacted regolith and rock? Um, no. "not one spect of dust have bounced something to be redirected anywhere on the unit." Who told you that? A conspiracy video? Nobody who actually looks at the photo archive would ever say that.
    2
  5652. The spacesuits had ripstop fabrics, self-sealing layers, etc. It was basically 13 various layers (depending on how you count the sub-layers) with a micrometeroid shield layer, and all kinds of protection against small tears. And, if by some amazing experience, they actually did get a small tear, they were trained on how to deal with it and fix the problem. Unlike movie depictions, you can actually live for quite some time with a tear in the suit.
    2
  5653. Yeah, right. Back before he punched the guy, the nuts said, "But, these astronauts never defend themselves when being accused of being criminals, if that was me, I'd knock the guy out, therefore, since the astronauts don't defend themselves, it's because they know Apollo was fake." Now it's, "But, Aldrin shouldn't have punched the guy, that just means he was caught in a lie and felt the need to punch his way out, therefore Apollo is fake." Another no-win situation created by delusional people who would say the same thing no matter what happens.
    2
  5654. What didn't you understand about my reply?
    2
  5655. So, you basically want to remain willfully ignorant.
    2
  5656. Did you even read my reply before you changed topics? No, I'm not playing this game where you just change topics. Now, you either acknowledge the photos you didn't think existed, or you don't. Which is it? And, again, if you're just going to label them as fake anyway, then why did you ask for the pictures (that you didn't think existed)? Why won't you answer? And, dewdrop, the first manned mission to the moon was in 1968 (Apollo 8) before Nixon even took office in 1969. So, spare me this distraction of talking about Nixon. You don't know what you're talking about.
    2
  5657. But, dewdrop, you're not even reading the answers. So, again, what was the purpose in asking the questions, if you didn't want answers? I reject this silly incoherent excuse you just offered.
    2
  5658. The Earthrise photos were taken from the command modules while orbiting the moon. Have you ever looked at any of those photos? It seems fairly obvious.
    2
  5659. China's resolution wasn't good enough to see the flags. But, LRO's resolution was good enough to see the shadows of the flags from low sun angles (hard to see a flag from directly above).
    2
  5660. Why? What did the hotel do wrong? Do you believe this ridiculous story? Why do you suppose the "news" (not news) had to stoop to talking about tainted alcohol at other places? Why didn't they mention that this resort has never been caught with tainted alcohol? Why didn't they mention that nobody else who drank that same alcohol got sick? Why didn't they mention that the teens went back to the pool after dark when it was closed, and that's when this incident happened? Do you suppose that it's a standard media hit piece? Did you bother to read the lawsuit, which makes no actual connection to tainted alcohol? How about the lawsuit against the travel agency for booking this 5 star resort for them? Do you think they're responsible for "tainted alcohol" at a resort with absolutely no track record of ever having tainted alcohol? Why didn't they find any methanol in her blood, if the drinks were tainted with methanol? Do you really believe the claptrap this "news" story (not news) is feeding you? How dare you call this "murder"? Do you know ANYTHING about what happened?
    2
  5661. But, dewdrop, nobody shamed her over this arrest video. It wasn't made public until 2.5 years later, which was 1.5 years after she died.
    2
  5662. Remote controlled camera. They used it all throughout Apollo 15, Apollo 16, and Apollo 17. You think it's "sus"?? (Short for suspicious, I assume?) I mean, how would that conspiracy work, anyway? You think the entire world has been too stupid to realize that they didn't have a mechanism to take the hours upon hours upon hours of video with the remote controlled cameras? Like, how about all of the thousands of people who designed and built the communications systems that were designed with those cameras in mind? Were they all too stupid to realize it? Is that how this goes?
    2
  5663.  @devilsoffspring5519  Hongson ngo is referring to a famous conspiratard quote mine, in which astronaut Don Pettit said that we lost the technology. And, he also said it was "destroyed." Of course, sane people realize the context of what he meant. He simply meant that none of it exists any longer. There are no functional landers, no functional command modules, no functional Saturn V boosters, no training facilities, no launch facilities, etc. The contractors who built everything are long gone, dead, or retired. Most of the contracting companies have closed their doors, or were bought out. Most of the buildings were knocked down or retooled. In that sense, it's been "lost/destroyed." But, conspiracy nutbags don't care about context. They listen to one-line quote mines, and then assume that's all they need to know about Apollo to call it "fake."
    2
  5664. YOU SAID: "there is no way the three men had all that life support gear on and fit inside the LEM." == The schematics for everything are readily available on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal website. You're welcome to calculate this stuff yourself. But, how do you explain why none of the 7,000 Grumman engineers who designed and built the LEM ever noticed that they forgot to make everything fit inside? YOU SAID: "The LEM was never considered safe" == None of Apollo was considered "safe." It was always considered experimental. Hence why they used test pilots. What EXACTLY is your point? They only landed on the moon 6 times, you know. Before a craft is ever certified as "safe," it must go through a lot more proving than just 6 landings. YOU SAID: "one did not make it crashed and blew up, the pilot ejected to save his life." == This shows your complete ignorance, as well as arrogance. Nobody has ever ejected from a LEM. There were no ejection seats. And, where would they eject to? You are obviously confusing the lunar landers with the LLRV. You don't know one craft from another. How can you sit there and declare that there wasn't enough room for the stuff inside the lunar module, when you know SO little about it, you can't tell the difference between one craft and another?? Imagine if you said this same silly stuff about a different topic in aviation. "They can't fit 14 people inside a Cessna model 172!!! This is fake!!!!" "Um, ok, but that was a Cessna Caravan, not a 172, so you don't know what you're talking about." Just imagine how you would sound if you couldn't identify one aircraft from another, yet insisted that all aviation experts on the planet are wrong about aviation. That's exactly how you sound with Apollo. You don't know one craft from another. Yet, you arrogantly believe you know better than the 7,000 people who designed and built the LEM about what would or wouldn't fit inside it?? Neil Armstrong ejected from an LLRV, dummy, not a lunar lander. Look it up. No lunar lander has ever flown within Earth's atmosphere, because it was not designed to do so. There are a million reasons for this, but, first and foremost, the main reason that no lunar lander has ever flown on Earth is that the descent engine only had about 10,000 pounds of thrust. The craft weighed about 33,000 pounds. Get it? At full throttle, it still wouldn't even get off the ground. You could literally put the [proverbial] "pedal to the metal," and it wasn't going to budge one bit. It was designed to operate in lunar gravity (1/6th of the gravity of Earth). So, don't come here and declare what you think is not possible, what you think is not safe, what you think will or won't fit inside the craft. You very obviously know absolutely positively NOTHING about Apollo. Before you go around implying that thousands of people are criminals, ask questions first, and wait for the answers.
    2
  5665. Just wondering, how does that feel to be wrong in every single sentence you write? I mean, clearly, you're getting your "education" (sigh) from conspiracy videos. Why in the world would you ever believe that those people know what they're talking about?
    2
  5666. Now, how does that notion even make sense, in your mind? If they wanted to humiliate her, then they would have released the arrest video while she was still alive. You can't humiliate a dead person.
    2
  5667.  @officiallydenise  And, it took almost 50 years to get brave enough? I mean, hey, don't get me wrong here, I am not a "blame the victim" type of person. But, sorry, if nearly 50 years goes by before building up the courage to come forth, um, yeah, I'm going to have a very hard time with the credibility of such claims.
    2
  5668. 17:30 - Correction - Armstrong never ejected/crashed in an LLTV. It was the LLRV. You have confused one craft for another.
    2
  5669. The police did exactly that. They blocked the video's release for 2.5 years. But, eventually, the Freedom of Information Act dictates that if the person is gone long enough, the video can't be blocked any longer. Just be happy that they still block the release of the actual video of this incident itself (due to graphic content).
    2
  5670. You sure are proud to know absolutely nothing.
    2
  5671. It's on the internet, therefore it's true.
    2
  5672. So, your position is that it's impossible for hills and valleys and craters to yield shadows?
    2
  5673. The cop vehicle was a Ford Explorer. There was no "pulling him over." The boy was in a gas station at the pump. As he started to pull away, the cop car came into the gas station, and then the boy immediately gunned it and fled onto the public street. The cop then pulled onto the street to give chase. There's video of all of that. There were many witnesses who were pedestrians and in other cars. Thus far, none have reported that the cop car even got close to hitting the bike, but, that the kid smacked a curb and crashed all by himself. Yes, every state should make it a law that all police cruisers should have dash cams. But, unfortunately, that's just not the case yet.
    2
  5674.  @yazzamx6380  Just FYI, you replied to the wrong person.
    2
  5675.  @MrZeissOne  YOU SAID: "Do be real. I'm asking real questions about a publicly funded program which appears to be a massive fraud." == No, you're PRETENDING to ask questions. Asking questions doesn't do any good if you intend, in advance, to ignore the answers. I responded to every single word you wrote. And, you let it go in one ear, and out the other. You are demonstrably wrong. And, you've been asked repeatedly to specify the EXACT data you think is "missing," but you refuse to do it. So, no, you don't get to sit there and claim you're an honest observer just asking questions. You are ignoring responses to your questions. And, yes, let's "be real" here... you don't actually know anything about Apollo, outside of the conspiracy videos you've been watching. You have swallowed everything they say, hook line and sinker, without fact-checking any of it. Meanwhile, you accuse the sane people of doing exactly what you're doing, and blindly swallowing what we're told. But, you're wrong. See, we sane people DO fact-check stuff. You obviously do not. YOU SAID: "Buy the B.S if it makes you feel good, but Just demand the data and let's have an open and independent review." == Thanks for proving me correct. You're not actually reading the replies. This has been answered repeatedly in this thread. And, you just don't even care.
    2
  5676. Why is it always "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake" with you people? Why do you never once look at the EVIDENCE? For you, it's a "logic" thing? (I use that term loosely.) "I don't understand why they don't keep going to the moon after congress ended the program, therefore it's fake."
    2
  5677. But, the video wasn't released until long after she was dead.
    2
  5678. Remember a couple of years ago when you used to actually try to offer real arguments and evidence? Remember how each and every time, you were completely destroyed, and it was clearly demonstrated that you had no understanding of the topic on any level? Remember running for the hills each and every time someone offered a question or challenge? Now, you've learned your lesson, eh? So, for a couple of years now, you don't offer any arguments or evidence, and all you do is say "nuh uh, I don't believe it."
    2
  5679. Well, they didn't make the arrest video public until long after she died. And, how can you avoid it? Freedom of Information Act.
    2
  5680. Well, had she shown up for her court date, perhaps they would have given the counseling. But, as usual (for her), she never showed up.
    2
  5681.  @hqmagnus  We do have plenty of such programs, some state sponsored, some via charities, etc. It does no good if the addict never participates, and has no interest in giving up his/her habit.
    2
  5682. Well, she repeatedly robbed from Walgreens, hence she's a criminal. And, though I'm not sure if that would result in much of a prison term (how many times would it take before she would be thrown in prison, and for how long), I was merely pointing out the irony that she might have been "safer" in prison. It's just sad that people get so deep into drugs that they die rather than improve their lives.
    2
  5683. She destroyed her own family about a decade ago, when she decided to leave them all behind to live a life of crime and drugs.
    2
  5684. 1) The police blocked the release of the arrest video for 2.5 years. She was long dead before anybody saw it. 2) They eventually couldn't block the release once the case was closed long enough. Freedom of Information Act. So, please elaborate: what EXACTLY would you have done differently?
    2
  5685. Well, my guess would be that your basis for the belief that it looks fake is because you don't know what to expect from field sequential scanning cameras. I'll give you the short version. Back in those days, TV cameras were basically three completely different cameras inside (one for red, one for green, and one for blue), with some substantial hardware behind them to combine the three different signals into one. Go take a look at photos of any TV camera from the 1960s with the 3 (or more) different lenses sticking out of the front. They were massive beasts on huge articulated mounts that weighed about 200 pounds total. "1960s tv camera" - Google is your friend. Take a look. The really good ones were even over 500-600 pounds. Needless to say, that wasn't going to work for Apollo. They weren't going to mount some crazy massive camera to the front of the rover. Even with some really good engineering to minimize mass, you're still looking at a pretty huge TV camera. So, how did they manage it for Apollo? Well, they used what's called a field sequential scanning camera. This was a very unpopular type of camera back in those days, because it produced a pretty unnatural and lousy (relatively) picture. But, it was small and light. Basically, they just used one camera with one lens and one vidicon pickup tube, and stuck a spinning color wheel in front of the vidicon to manufacture the 3 different colors from a monochrome pickup. "RCA color wheel" - Google is your friend. The end result was a very strange picture that seemed to phase in and out of different colors, quite unnatural, very subject to changing colors when anything moved too fast in frame, creating false color outlines around objects that don't match the actual color of the object, etc. But, for Apollo's needs, if they wanted live TV from the moon, this was the best way to do it.
    2
  5686.  @quailshootr6389  Dewdrop, the "dividing line" is the horizon.
    2
  5687.  @pittmanfh  Good gods, what an idiot. Um, dumbass, how paranoid have you become if you think that people are paid to go around and point out how goddamned insane you are? Bob Lazar? THAT is your source of truth?? Oh, you're a real genius alright. Good grief. Go see a doctor, you nutbag.
    2
  5688. You can do the math on the dust that they kick up. It follows the time/arc consistent with 1/6th gravity. Did they put every grain of dust on a string?
    2
  5689. Ironic, you think I have no clue? With this parade of nonsense you're spewing?
    2
  5690.  @wolfe6209  Fine, yes, so what? Why does this mean she deserves massive applause, a lecture circuit, book deals, etc.? As I said, this is like someone who spent most of her life not being able to basic elementary school arithmetic, then finally waking up and being able to do it at an older age, then being heralded as a math genius or something. I am glad that she is not the same person she was while in her original church. But, I'm not exactly going to applaud this woman. "WOW, I've learned to be an average human being after decades of being far worse!!! Sign me up for lectures and book deals!!!" Spare me.
    2
  5691. Well, I don't agree. The driver had just shot at someone (attempted murder), and clearly the cop knew he had a gun, despite his denial. In that situation, I think the cop should have had his gun drawn. This time, ok, it ended without a gunfight. But, the driver clearly was trying to get his gun ready, hence why he huddled really close to the driver door and attempted to sneak-draw it. Sure, he dropped it. But, this situation could easily have gone the other way, and the cop would have been on the defensive without his firearm ready. I don't think this is something we should advocate, because if you replay this a million different times, a good chunk of those times, the cop ends up getting shot.
    2
  5692. That has to be the most dishonest video about Apollo that has ever been made, with blatant lies, and outright fabrications. Why would you actually recommend such drivel?
    2
  5693. PART 1 (to Kadie Johnson): Sorry, formatting problems, trying this posting again. YOU SAID: "but what do you say about Americans who believe that NASA went to the moon 6 times between 1969 and 1972?" == The first manned moon mission was in 1968. There were nine manned missions to the moon. Eight of them were between 1969 and 1972. You don't even know how many missions there were, how much could you possibly know about Apollo? YOU SAID: "The pictures taken of the moon landings couldn't be taken on the moon because the film and camera would not work in the extreme conditions. The radiation would make them useless." == Says who? The makers of your favorite conspiracy videos? Why didn't Hasselblad think so? Why didn't Kodak think so? They made the cameras and film. They were the experts on this. Why do you believe you understand the products better than the manufacturers understood their own products? YOU SAID: "Remember that film is rendered useless when it goes through an airport scanner much less the Van Allen belts and outer space station." == First of all, that's only with specific x-ray scanners, most of which are not even in use any longer. Secondly, the issue you're complaining about is X-rays, not ionic particles. You seem to believe all radiation is the same. It's not. There are dozens of kinds of radiation, with different effects, different protection methods, etc. You don't get to say that because an airport X-ray scanner affects film, that the Van Allen belts affect film. There are [virtually] no X-rays in the Van Allen belts. You don't get to equate two completely different types of radiation and then expect the same result. Guess what? Sound is radiation also. Are you going to complain that sound ruins film? Alphas are radiation. Do they ruin film? Gammas ruin film, sure, but they ruin everything. But, there are no gammas in an x-ray scanner, nor in the Van Allen belts (beyond just regular background gammas). Red light is radiation, right? Yet, hmmm, red light is used in film developing rooms. Why doesn't that ruin the film? See what I mean? Should I go on? There are DOZENS of kinds of radiation, with differing types of effects. Yet, you conspiratards seem to act as if the word "radiation" is a magical bullet that affects all things the same way. YOU SAID: "Plus the film would have yo be pressurized to work in a vacuum. The cameras used were not pressurized." == Why? Who said they needed to be pressurized? Film works by exposing the chemical emulsion to light. It doesn't require pressure. Why do you think it does? And, if you think that's the case, why aren't you proving it? Put a camera in a vacuum chamber and TRY IT!!!!! What are you waiting for!?!?! YOU SAID: "can the film and camera as NASA confirmed function in a vacuum in addition to the extremes of temperature -298°f and +224°f?" == Kadie, what's wrong with you? Why would you think your conspiracy videos have told you anything that's accurate? Why? What possible reason would you have to believe stuff you find in conspiracy videos? It's obvious that you got all of this from conspiracy videos, so don't bother pretending it was via some other mechanism. Look, get this through your skull: a day on the moon takes a MONTH on Earth. Look up. See for yourself. It takes a MONTH to go from one full moon to the next. The longest Apollo mission was only the moon for 74 hours. That's barely 10% of a lunar day. They landed in the lunar morning. They lifted off in the SAME LUNAR MORNING. They never saw the extreme temperatures you're talking about. They were never there for a lunar nighttime. They were never there for a lunar afternoon. Your favorite conspiracy videos quote the minimum and maximum temperatures for an ENTIRE lunar day (a month on Earth). They fail to tell you that the Apollo astronauts were only there for the moderate temperatures. And, you're acting as if the entirety of the world's experts are too stupid to notice this obvious stuff you're pointing out. Get real here. Your conspiracy video makers know they're lying. And, you should know it too. Shame on you for swallowing everything they say, hook line and sinker. Then, you accuse the sane people of doing exactly what YOU are doing, just believing what they're told. In actuality, it's YOU doing that. YOU SAID: "My detailed response with links did not. Please tell me what's going on here!" == Welcome to YouTube. The video poster decides whether links are allowed in comments or not. If you place comments with links in a video where links are blocked, those messages are automatically deleted within a minute or two. YOU SAID: "People react to emotion and can be easily dissuaded from analizing the data for themselves. People don't look for themselves, they trust authorities...and that's the rub. I hope those reading this will visit "Apollo detectives" YouTube Channel." == Kadie, that's nonsense. Dozens of countries tracked Apollo missions to the moon and back with radar and radio telescopes. Backyard amateur ham radio operators could point their dishes at the moon, and receive the live Apollo audio transmission. There are three Apollo laser reflectors on the moon, which are used every single day by dozens of facilities around the world (pointing their lasers at them). The Soviets sent Luna 15 (unmanned probe) to the moon a couple of days ahead of Apollo 11, with the intention of meeting them in the Sea of Tranquility while the astronauts were still on the surface, and racing them back home with the first lunar samples. They crashed it by mistake, but, the point is, they tracked both their own craft, and the Apollo craft, the entire time. China says their orbiters can see the Apollo remnants on the moon. Japan has used their lunar orbiter to confirm the Apollo photography in a level of detail that simply wasn't available in 1969-1972 (except by being on the lunar surface). Arizona State University built and manages LRO, which has taken hundreds of photos of the Apollo landing sites, and can see the Apollo artifacts on the moon, the shadows of the flags still standing, rover tracks, foot paths, etc. Spain took long range photography of the SIVB fuel dumps at the moon, and the Apollo 13 debris field. The list goes on, and on, and on. The evidence for Apollo is crushing. And, none of the stuff I named relies on "the government" or NASA to tell me anything whatsoever. Spare the world your silly notions about watching a conspiracy channel on YouTube. They're wrong, and they're liars. And, if they had anything to offer, it wouldn't be in YouTube videos, it would be via scientific journals. They make YouTube videos BECAUSE there is no scientific scrutiny. That's what they've been reduced to. Under any scientific scrutiny, their claims fall apart instantly, just as yours have. You quoted the -250 to +250 temperature range on the moon, right? That's one of their claims too, right? That's probably where you got that claim, right? Yet, neither they, nor you, are aware that the Apollo missions were never even on the moon during those extremes. There's a reason they always landed in the lunar morning. The surface temperatures were moderate. That's why, if they slipped the launch date due to technical problems, they had to wait a month before they could try again. Guess what? The makers of your favorite conspiracy videos know as little about Apollo as you do. That's not a good sign.
    2
  5694. PART 2 (to Kadie Johnson): (2nd attempt to post this) YOU SAID: "Ridiculing and shaming by calling me a nut, a moron and an idiot etc actually works in making others dismiss me as such. It's a mind game and we both know how this works." == Pure delusion. Kadie, sometimes people call you those things BECAUSE YOU FIT THE DESCRIPTION. Good grief. There are no mind games here, you nutjob. And, before you complain about anybody ridiculing you, you should wake up and look in the mirror. You are spitting in the faces of the 450,000 people who worked on Apollo. You're saying that a certain chunk of those thousands are criminals who would get a lifetime in prison for the crimes you're accusing them of committing. And, you're saying that the rest were all too stupid to do their jobs correctly. You're saying that the makers of the cameras and film were too stupid to realize that they had to protect against radiation (then you mixed up X-ray radiation with ionic particle radiation). You're saying that the aerospace engineers were all too stupid to realize what temperature the moon was. And, the evidence you offer is to go watch a YouTube conspiracy channel full of very similar, and very empty/wrong claims. ANY of this would be fine material for science journals, if it was true. ANY of this would win the publisher a Nobel Prize or two, if the person was correct, for rewriting everything known about the thermodynamics of the moon, and the type of radiation found in the Van Allen belts. ANY of this would result in the publisher becoming an overnight multimillionaire, getting 8 figure book deals, and $70K per week for the next 5 years on the university lecture circuits. But, what happens instead? They post these videos on YouTube, and avoid the scientific method altogether? And, THAT is what you hang your hat upon? YOU SAID: "Please check out Bart Sibrel's chanel" == Bart Sibrel is a criminally convicted taxi cab driver who made a few "documentaries" claiming that the moon landings were faked. The entirety of his most famous one "A Funny Thing" was fabricated. His own claims have been debunked a million times over. And, his stream of lies is transparent to anybody who understands anything about the claims he makes. He made a ton of money from that, and he has laughed all the way to the bank, knowing that all he needed to do was feed the conspiratards what they wanted to hear, and it didn't matter whether any of his claims were correct or not. In fact, his claims fall apart the moment they are put to any scrutiny whatsoever. Shame on you for believing a single word out of that guy. Kadie, you're a quack. You don't know what you're talking about. And, you're painfully crippled scientifically. Again, there's a reason that the anti-Apollo claims are relegated to silly conspiracy videos. That reason is that not a single claim that they've ever made has stood up to scientific scrutiny. Not one. Not ever. Every single claim they make falls apart as easily as your claim about the extreme temperatures on the moon. That claim falls apart INSTANTLY when you realize when the astronauts were actually on the surface. Instantly. They weren't there during the extremes, dummy. They were there long after the super-cold times, and left long before the super-hot times. Stop pretending you understand more about Apollo than the 450,000 people who worked on it. Good grief. Australia, Spain, and Goldstone received the TV video for Apollo, BY POINTING THEIR DISHES AT THE MOON. Anybody on the planet (on the side facing the moon anyway) could receive the audio BY POINTING THEIR DISHES AT THE MOON. The laser reflectors left by Apollo are still there, and are used every single day, by dozens of countries and universities around the world. Arizona State University has taken hundreds of photos of the landing sites. Dozens of countries tracked Apollo with radar and radio telescopes, including the Soviets. It wasn't just the USA tracking the Apollo missions. Spain, Australia, Turks & Caicos, Madagascar, Canary Islands, Guam, England, Wales, etc. (the list goes on), all tracked Apollo missions also. How do you explain all of this? Sorry, your conspiracy videos aren't going to tell you that. They're going to focus on silly things like extreme temperatures (that didn't matter because they weren't there during those times), or photographic perspective (which they don't understand), or aspects of aerospace engineering that they got wrong, or out-of-context quote-mines. Stop listening to people just as ignorant as you are. Good grief. Do you think the entirety of the world's 72 space agencies (not a single one of which doubts Apollo) are unaware of conspiracy videos? Why do you suppose your favorite conspiracy videos are made by a convicted criminal taxi cab driver, and not an aerospace engineer?
    2
  5695.  @JohnsonFE  Did you even bother to read my responses to your own statements? Why didn't you answer any of the questions/challenges? This is EXACTLY how conspiratards act. They spew a bunch of garbage. They refuse to answer questions. They refuse all input. Most of the time, they don't even read the responses to their own statements/questions. They come back and ask more questions (while refusing to answer any questions of them). And, above all else, they accuse the sane people of blindly believing what they're told, while, ironically, THEY are the ones blindly believing anything they're told by conspiracy videos. That is EXACTLY you.
    2
  5696.  @JohnsonFE  Kadie, YOU came to this thread, pretending to ask questions. YOU ignored the answers to your own questions. YOU spewed nonsense about the temperatures on the moon, which, without any doubt whatsoever, is easily refuted (as I demonstrated). Among dozens of questions I asked of you (and you ignored), I asked why you trust what conspiracy videos tell you? Why won't you answer? Why do you just tell me to go watch more conspiracy videos? You sat here and asked questions of others. Why can't you answer questions of you? That's how people like you work? That's it? Declare victory and run away? Look, you ignorant clown, I told you in the comments, and I will tell you again now, there's a reason that those conspiracy videos exist. It's because they don't hold any water at all. If these people you're telling me to go watch had ANYTHING, they wouldn't be making videos. They'd be publishing in science journals, and then would win Nobel Prizes and be worth about $30-$40 million in a matter of 4-5 years, if anything they said was correct. As for Marcus Allen, I wasn't going to answer you, because you refuse to answer anything I typed... but, that particular guy is amazingly crippled mentally, and I just can't help myself. He is a photographer who doesn't know anything about how the Apollo cameras worked. One of his key arguments is about the viewing angle of the photos on Apollo 11, and the entire basis for his ridiculous opinions is that he was unaware that the camera could be removed from the chest mount. He literally did not know that they routinely took it off, and passed it back and forth between Armstrong and Aldrin. He routinely in his lectures stands there and complains that they couldn't point the camera upward because it was mounted to the chest of the astronaut, and asserted that they had to lay down on the lunar surface to be able to take the photos. He didn't even realize that there was only one Hassleblad camera with them on the surface, and he thought they had two. But, this is ridiculous. Anybody who just views the Apollo 11 moonwalk videos can see them remove the camera from the chest mount, pass it back and forth between the two astronauts, etc. His main claims are as easily debunked as just watching the original moonwalk video. That's how simple it is to debunk Marcus Allen. But, you obviously haven't done that. You just watch Marcus Allen, and never bother to fact-check anything he says. What an ignorant clown. Total crackpot.
    2
  5697. Sorry, dummy, you lost me at "10 miles = 66.666 feet" -- This is absurd. One mile is 5,280 feet, and 10 miles is 52,800 feet. No point in reading any further when you're just making stuff up.
    2
  5698.  @theofficialsirjonahharvey-5975  Ah, I see. Well, thanks for the correction. Nonetheless, yes, we agree, the guy has lost his marbles.
    2
  5699. They used different mechanisms to perform the rendezvous. The first was the math behind orbital mechanics and rocketry. The second was ground based radar, tracking both craft. The third was the onboard radar. See that dish on top of the lander in the center? That's the rendezvous radar. And, lastly, they used flashing lights (similar to airplane lights) that are visible from miles away to see each other in the event that the rendezvous radar didn't work, and they were force to use the Earth-based radar tracking (only accurate to approximately one mile).
    2
  5700. Is my response directly above this one now visible to others? I'm having a hard time with YouTube blocking it.
    2
  5701. Still struggling to get my post visible. So, I deleted and re-posted with modified wording. Can anybody see it now?
    2
  5702. They used the phrase "rang like a bell," which many online crackpots have intentionally twisted into thinking that the moon is hollow. But, you shouldn't pay attention to those crackpots. NASA doesn't say the moon is hollow, nor does anybody else in any scientific community anywhere. They discovered that the vibrations from the impacts DID last for about 1/2 hour, far longer than they would originally expected. But, they ultimately concluded that this was due to the fact that the moon is almost completely devoid of water (only an extremely small amount). Water would dampen the reverberations. But, with so little water, the shock waves from the impacts lasted a very long time.
    2
  5703. Well, after having abandoned a normal life in favor of a life of drugs and crime, serving a felony prison term, and having an arrest record a mile long, well, it's not all that easy to get a straight job. So, according to her landlord, she worked as a stripper at a local club. Putting on shows like that were a daily thing for her, but, this time, she chose to put on the show at a beach in front of multiple people including children. (Sorry if that doesn't match her claims about a discreet act with nobody around, while she's trying to avoid her millionth arrest. But, one of the "audience" caught it on video, and showed it to the police.) Anyway, I seriously doubt that "shame" was part of her vocabulary.
    2
  5704. Welcome to Inside Edition, where facts don't matter.
    2
  5705. Freedom of Information Act.
    2
  5706. Apparently, my reply isn't visible in the thread itself. So, I'll re-type a lot shorter. There are mountains of evidence. Start with the lunar orbital photos of the landing sites by China, LRO, and India. And, what? 3 astronauts? Do you really not know that 24 astronauts went to the moon?
    2
  5707. Do you really not understand the difference between distance and resolution?
    2
  5708. Yet, you just asked in your prior comment about the cameras and who takes video. So, you don't know those basic things, but, you feel 100% confident that you magically understand the topic better than the entire world's experts?
    2
  5709. We don't want our police playing judge and jury. We want the courts to do that. And, as for releasing the arrest video, the police kept it from the public for 2.5 years. It wasn't released until 1.5 years after her suicide, probably as a result of a legal FOIA request. So, bravo, you're a true legal sleuth alright.
    2
  5710. Let's see... hmmm... Inside Edition, a garbage "news" source... or the actual police reports... which to believe... which to believe... this is a tough call here....
    2
  5711. Let's see... these are people who have a THEORY... the THEORY is that there was a CONSPIRACY to fake the moon landings... but, you object to the term "conspiracy theorist"? Is that correct?
    2
  5712. Conclusion first, ask questions second. How typical.
    2
  5713. @smeeself If you took them to the moon and visited one of the Apollo landing sites, they would just say that all of the stuff was placed there last week to look like Apollo stuff.
    2
  5714. Yeah, it's pretty sad when someone's father lies to their own children, just to fuel delusions of grandeur.
    2
  5715.  @michaelstillman1171  It means her father told her that he knows the moon landings were fake, and he is an "insider" about it, but signed a non-disclosure agreement never to reveal "the truth." Again, it's a pretty sad state of affairs when a parent lies to his own children, just to boost his own delusions. Someday, she'll realize what a crackpot her own father was. But, sadly, it's going to take a while. She's still at the point that she trusts an untrustworthy father more than she trusts actual evidence.
    2
  5716. Huh? Sibrel is still today very active in the nut community. He is far from being "shut up."
    2
  5717. "stop pointing at details that can be argued" Huh? Who's going to argue? You don't know anything.
    2
  5718. "the distance is way too far" Why are there no aerospace engineers who agree with you?
    2
  5719. "van Allan radiation belt can't be passed" James Van Allen disagreed with you. Every radiobiologist on Earth disagrees with you. Every aerospace engineer disagrees with you. What do you think you know that the world's experts don't?
    2
  5720. "obviously he does believe" Huh? Armstrong having the integrity to NOT swear on a book he doesn't believe in, means he believes? Just how far gone are you?
    2
  5721. "the van Allen belt is hardly relevant" Dewdrop, YOU are the one who brought it up!!! YOU did that. YOU are the one who said that the missions couldn't happen because of the Van Allen belt. Now you're saying it's not relevant? And, there are two, sometimes three, belts, not one. And, he spelled his name as "Van Allen" (upper case "V"). Why are you pretending to know anything about this topic? Why?
    2
  5722. Because managers knew the technical problems in getting to the moon, but the engineers never understood those technical issues? When has that ever been the case? When do the managers know more about the technical side of things that the engineers don't know?
    2
  5723. Yes. The video was kept private for 2.5 years. But, 1.5 years after she was already dead, the police can no longer block a legal FOIA request.
    2
  5724.  @wisdombright9821  There's a timeframe related to how long the case is closed - no longer under investigation. In this issue, the case was closed because she was dead. The exact timeframe varies from state to state, city to city, and circumstances. I don't know all of the details pertaining to how each case is handled, I just have the higher level understanding.
    2
  5725. Why? How did the officer cause her death? That's a mighty huge claim you're making.
    2
  5726. "Evidence." What evidence? Silly nonsense you saw in conspiracy videos that lie to you? Stuff that is easily debunked in 2 minutes?
    2
  5727. "No biological matter can survive the Van Allen radiation." Huh? Says who? The conspiracy videos you watch? James Van Allen disagreed with you, as well as every astrophysicist and radiobiologist on Earth. As a matter of fact, the Soviets sent two dogs into the worst areas of the Van Allen belts in an oblong orbit for 3 weeks. Those dogs came back home and lived a normal lifecycle. They also sent tortoises and various plants to the moon and back in 1968. They all lived just fine.
    2
  5728. "Russians why they never went to the moon" Because, dewdrop, they never built a rocket capable of doing it. They tried 4 different launches of their N1 moon rocket, and it blew up all 4 times. They DIDN'T have superior technology. They flew their lunar lander in space on multiple test missions, but, it was quite inferior to the Grumman lander, and could only carry one person, and couldn't stay as long. The Soviets had the technological lead for a while, but, by the time the USA began the Gemini program, they passed the Soviets quite definitively. As a matter of fact, throughout the entirety of Gemini's 10 manned missions, the Soviets didn't launch a single mission. Not one. They had fallen behind, and stayed behind.
    2
  5729. Huh? No news outlets even covered this until 1.5 years after she was already dead. So, um, no. And, how do you propose to stop the video from being released (1.5 years after she died) when faced with a legal FOIA request?
    2
  5730. This arrest had nothing to do with her suicide. You're watching Inside Edition!!! Why would you believe any of it? Why did none of her other million arrests result in suicide? Why didn't her felony prison term 6 years ago result in suicide?
    2
  5731. And, you believe that, why? It's Inside Edition (where facts don't matter). None of her other million arrests or prison term resulted in suicide, why should this one?
    2
  5732. Why would you believe that? Because Inside Edition said so? None of her other million arrests, nor her felony prison term, resulted in her death. Why would this one?
    2
  5733. She didn't kill herself over any of her other million arrests. Why would you think she did over this one?
    2
  5734. Yes. She was a convicted felon who served a term in prison about 6 years ago. She also had a mile long criminal history, stealing cars, drugs and alcohol, failure to appear, you name it. After prison, it was difficult to get a straight job, so, her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club. If she wasn't making "public beach" content for her fans, I'd eat my hat. I mean, you didn't believe her sob story, did you?
    2
  5735. Huh? Almost no media even covered this event until 2.5 years later, long after she was already dead. And, sorry, but let's get real here... her landlord said her "profession" was, well, one of those words you can't put on YouTube comments without being blocked. And, after her mile long arrest and prison record, already a convicted felon, with tons of open arrest warrants and a long history of drugs and alcohol, I'd hardly think this incident would tarnish anything... especially because, as I already said, nobody saw this arrest video until long after she died.
    2
  5736. There was a fake Rolex watch found in a museum once, therefore all Rolex watches are fake.
    2
  5737. Well, my normal answer to such a statement is that I hope you place your silly opinions on every job application you ever fill out. But, in your case, something tells me that you have no trouble getting rejected from jobs, with or without stating your crazy thoughts on the applications.
    2
  5738. Well, they thought they kept them. They didn't know they were lost until 2006. Nobody had ever viewed them. They never even made a machine capable of viewing them. But, I have an issue with your wording of "original" tapes. What's that supposed to mean? Do you even understand what exactly was lost/erased?
    2
  5739. "I was 7 when 11 took place in '69." Awww, you poor thing, and you haven't learned anything since you were 7? "My question for you naturally is, if I watched it on the television, it then is automatically "fact?"" No, dewdrop. Television doesn't mean much. I mean, it's evidence, sure. But, there are mountains of much more powerful evidence than just TV. "Not a difficult question" Nope. But, neither is this one: What other evidence (beyond TV) have you studied about Apollo? "as that is only where people for decades have seen them as well." Well, whose fault it that? There are mountains of evidence, but, still, people won't look at it, and instead, they just think TV is the only evidence. Is that NASA's fault? Or yours (and anybody like you)? "Does the same also make it "obviously possible?"" Same what? "Fact and possible are not on the same team." Cardboard and emotion are not on the same team. Was this supposed to make sense? "Have you looked at a full moon?" WOW!! Who would ever imagine that looking at the moon disproves Apollo? Thanks for the wonderful revelation!! Pure genius. "Then they made a pit stop and came 250,000 miles back. Sorry my friend, it simply did not happen." Because you looked at the moon? Sorry, did you actually think anything you said is sensible?
    2
  5740. I realize you weren't replying to me (you gave up on that, because all you ever did was duck and dodge anything I wrote, and stuck your head in the sand). But, in answer to your reply to the other guy: "None of that is proof of an ACTUAL moon landing." What type of evidence would you expect/accept? "you are relying on their pics/photos/videos/man made documents/statements/radio /media/govt agencies (both domestic and international/academia/personal testimonies/so called "experts" etc." Um, yeah. If that's not good enough, what type of evidence ever could be good enough for you? It seems like you're basically saying that there isn't even a way to have the evidence you require. "all your info is more than capable of being rendered false/corrupted/misleading/altered/propagandized/conspiratorialized." Sure. But, to reject all of that in favor of a "hoax," you have to acknowledge that such a "hoax" would require the cooperation of numerous countries (including enemy countries), tens of thousands of people, and would need to persist decade after decade as administrations come and go. Like, for example, a few months ago, as he outlined, India released its images from their lunar orbiter, showing Apollo's landers on the moon, exactly in the same places as Arizona State University's LRO camera indicated, and China's orbiter indicated, and Japan's orbiter indicated. Could India have decided to participate in "the hoax" also? Well, ok, sure. But, this just adds more and more and more people/countries that would need to participate. Why would they do this, 50+ years later? Wouldn't a lot of those countries love to show it was fake, if they could? "the moon landing is a cult following" Huh? Is this a joke? There are 72 space agencies on the planet, staffed directly and indirectly with the virtual entirety of the world's experts in aerospace engineering for manned or unmanned space flight, none of which have ever said a single word like you're saying. And, you think THAT is the cult, and you're not part of the "cult" here? "that you can easily come out of if you can comprehend deception and things that can be altered/corrupted" Again, what evidence would you even accept and expect? If dozens of countries and tens of thousands of people over decades of time, all confirming Apollo, in several different ways, isn't enough for you, what ever could be enough for you?
    2
  5741. So, you apologize for not responding to any of my questions, or reading any of my responses, by further avoiding answering any questions, or reading any responses? What's wrong with you?
    2
  5742. I am not playing this game of repeating myself. If your scroll up is broken, that's your own problem.
    2
  5743. You refused to answer a single one of the bunches of questions I asked. Stop your pretending and lying.
    2
  5744. I will not play your game. It's very clear that your only purpose is to evade and waste people's time. People like you are just plain trash.
    2
  5745. She was. It was a suicide.
    2
  5746. Well, you can start with: "APOLLO EXPERIENCE REPORT - PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION." It's a document published in 1973 that summarizes exactly what you're asking about. It's just a beginning, because that report is only 19 pages long, and is just meant to be an overview. But, like I said, it's a starting point, and if you want more information, you can go into the mission logs and data for more.
    2
  5747. A camera "strong enough"? From Earth? The camera lens would have to be a quarter mile wide. But, from lunar orbit, 3 different countries have photographed the landing sites with enough resolution to see the landers. So, what's your beef?
    2
  5748. Well, two comments: 1) If you're traveling outside of your home country, you should make sure you have a medical insurance policy that covers you in that country. 2) Not every country's hospitals work the same way as the ones in the USA. Some country's hospitals actually want to make sure you can pay.
    2
  5749. Huh? What's your lawsuit against the police based upon, exactly? It was probably released under a legal Freedom of Information Act request. But, the cops managed to keep it from being released to the public for 2.5 years. That's 1.5 years after her death. Seems like they did a pretty good job to me. But, this is your thread. So, yeah, please explain, what's the basis of your lawsuit again?
    2
  5750. TRANSLATION: "I don't know what I'm talking about, but, I cannot admit it, so, I'm going to just say 'agree to disagree' and then hide my slander under the 1st amendment."
    2
  5751. You have your facts backward. The cop never got to his door handle, because the carjacker opened it just before the cop's hand touched the handle. And, are you denying it was a carjacking? The guy in the balaclava ski mask in the middle of a Kentucky summer wielding a gun.... It's NOT a carjacking, in your mind?
    2
  5752. Trust America, the numerous contractors, universities, the dozens of countries that tracked the missions with radar and radio telescopes, and the dozens of other countries that have verified Apollo in many other ways.
    2
  5753. It is the same camera. About 20 minutes after the first step, Armstrong detached the camera, attached it to a tripod, and moved it to its final location.
    2
  5754. There was no 16mm video camera on the rover for Apollo 17. They often borrow footage in these documentaries from the Apollo 15 or Apollo 16 videos. And, yes, sometimes they went back over their own tracks during the return to the lunar module.
    2
  5755.  Clive Adlam  YOU SAID: "They did not go to moon( heavenly planet), Arizona Desert. A BIG Lie ! No life on moon .No life on planet of idiots ( Earth)" YOU SAID: "You are showing your Ignorance by being disrespectful, as all muppets do ." == So, you just called everyone on Earth "idiots," and, you accuse thousands of people of being liars about Apollo. But, you say OTHERS are disrespectful??? Good gods, hypocritical irony of the month award: goes to YOU.
    2
  5756. Sure, but, she suffered almost zero humiliation.
    2
  5757. YOU SAID: "It is unbelievable that the Apollo 11 mission in 1969 until now 50 years later there are no more missions." == Pffttt. Apollo 12. Apollo 13. Apollo 14. Apollo 15. Apollo 16. Apollo 17. Those don't count? You don't think there were more missions after Apollo 11? You're in a video which is talking about Apollo 17... saying that Apollo 11 was the first and only mission?? YOU SAID: "Fake moon landing and put man on the moon.. are only films like Hollywood productions ... only Stanley Kubrick can did. Nasa hoax..moon landing." == Good grief, you're dumb.
    2
  5758. The Van Allen belts aren't a problem. Did you watch a conspiracy video that cherry picked a few sentences out of "Orion: Trial by Fire"? See, the issue is that a new capsule would need to be tested in the belts before putting people inside, just like they tested Apollo a couple of times in the belts before putting people inside. They wanted to make sure the shielding was good enough protection for the sensitive electronics, which can easily be disrupted by loose ions.
    2
  5759. But, the arrest video WAS protected. Nobody saw it until she was dead for 1.5 years.
    2
  5760. Huh? And, you think that was the case on the moon? Huh?
    2
  5761. You wrote to Tim, and ignored my reply altogether (naturally, because you don't know how to address it). But, even though your response was to someone else, I'll chime in. "Not all contributed to the actual flight." Many many thousands of them did, and were intensely involved with the engineering. Are you telling me that you think those people could be "fooled"? Or, do you think the thousands of them were all "in on it" and yet nobody ever said "no way, I'm not being a criminal"?
    2
  5762. "Most of them were spectators when they launched it." So what? Thousands weren't merely spectators. 3,000 alone were required just to get the rocket off the ground on launch day. Thousands more were deeply involved throughout the missions.
    2
  5763. Tell me about it. It's out of control. It'll take a lawsuit for violation of free speech to get them to quit it, but, someone will have to figure out a way around the user agreement (no lawsuits allowed).
    2
  5764. Huh? This incident was from July of 2021, 2.5 years ago. She suffered zero bullying from the release of the video, because nobody saw the video until she was dead for 1.5 years. It was only made public in November of 2023, probably as a result of a legal FOIA request, which they can no longer block once the case is closed for too long.
    2
  5765. "There are two belts" Oh? Just now looked that up so you can pretend better? Did you know there are sometimes three? No, of course you didn't know that.
    2
  5766. Thanks for demonstrating that you don't even read replies, dewdrop. I asked you to write "green" to prove you were reading. You didn't. So, clearly, you just like typing a bunch of stuff an ignoring all input.
    2
  5767. So, you want me to "humor you" by answering questions I already answered, and you ignored, when you didn't answer a single one of my questions, and proved you weren't reading replies anyway. Bravo, dewdrop. You're a true hero.
    2
  5768. No, dewdrop. I'm not playing this game of writing you more answers to more questions while you ignore the answers anyway. Stop pretending you even want the answers.
    2
  5769. No, dewdrop. Spare me your empty "promises to pay attention this time." If you actually wanted answers to your questions, you'd simply use the "scroll up" function, rather than asking me to repeat myself. It's 100% clear that you do NOT want answers to your own questions, and that the answers will not matter to you anyway. Your only reasons for posting this stuff is to hear yourself talk, to waste other people's time, and to pretend to understand topics that you do not.
    2
  5770. YOU SAID: "Headline result on Google; "Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin is fake." == Except Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin never gave that rock. YOU SAID: "Curators at Amsterdam's Rijksmuseum," == They don't think the rock was ever given by Neil Armstrong or Buzz Aldrin. Why do you? YOU SAID: "where the rock has attracted tens of thousands of visitors each year," == No. They kept it in a drawer for about 14 years without putting it on display. And, when they finally did, it was almost immediately recognized as a fake. YOU SAID: "discovered that the "lunar rock", valued at £308,000, was in fact petrified wood."" == Correct. Yes, someone donated a fake moon rock to the art museum. And, yes, the art museum accepted it without lifting a finger to verify its authenticity. They even contacted NASA, who said they don't have any record of that rock, but would take a look if the museum sent it to them, and the museum didn't do it. NASA also warned that it wasn't possible that Armstrong or Aldrin gave that rock, because those "good will samples" weren't given out until well after the claimed date. The rock wasn't encased in Lucite, didn't have the NASA plaque, didn't have the country's flag, was the wrong color, and many times larger than any of the actual samples ever given out by NASA. And, on top of all of that, that country's authentic moon rocks (both from Apollo 11 and 17) were safe and sound in the science museum, where they belong. Yet, the art museum accepted the fake rock as a donation anyway, and paid a small fortune to insure a useless rock.
    2
  5771. Can you even name any "media" that published this arrest while she was alive?
    2
  5772. Secure the scene first. Get plenty of cops around. Else, you end up needing the same aid the carjacker did. This is especially true because you just saw others crawling out of the woodwork, one within about 10 seconds later. How would the cop know there weren't 4 others ready to come out and pick up where Mark left off?
    2
  5773. The store employee thought she went through the register without paying, and asked the police to investigate.
    2
  5774.  @alphacrusis2632  You do know that after being in space, they bailed out of the Soviet capsules and parachuted down, right? The Soviets originally pretended that they landed in those things, because of the French standard for manned spaceflight stating that they had to land in the capsule. They couldn't do that, so, they bailed out, but claimed the cosmonauts were still inside. It didn't come out until decades later that they were bailing out.
    2
  5775.  @ronaldgreene5733  Did you forget that you already copied and pasted the same stuff, yet again, how many times now? Is that why you deleted the last one?
    2
  5776.  @ronaldgreene5733  And, now you're cutting and pasting the same incorrect thing, yet again?
    2
  5777.  @randyschissler5791  Yeah, but the flaw is, they also claimed in that episode that the flag never moved without an astronaut handling it. They're wrong. The flags DID move from time to time without being touched. The Mythbusters were just plain unaware of this, and also unaware that there's a very easy explanation. The suits and landers were not closed systems, and they were built to vent off gasses from time to time, resulting in small flag movements, even without being touched. So, pointing the dewdrops at Mythbusters about the flag solves one issue, but, just opens up another.
    2
  5778. Oh, I completely agree. I just don't know how they could stop it. Freedom of Information Act.
    2
  5779. Sure. But, if you're actually being investigated by the police for suspicion of a crime, and if you live in an "identify" state (most states), then you are required by law to show ID. Would you do that, at least?
    2
  5780. No. Most states are "stop and identify" states. In those states, you are required to provide ID if an officer is investigating a potential crime (reasonable suspicion). In the states that don't have those laws, you'd be correct, and you wouldn't be required to provide ID until a little bit later in the process. But, in Florida, and most other states, a person is required to provide ID just under the notion of suspicion alone.
    2
  5781.  @occhamite  "There is NO evidence of any "wind" blowing the flag." Well, not in this video, but, there were a number of times that wind blew the flags.
    2
  5782. Huh? The cops came after multiple calls regarding this issue. They took the woman away from the restaurant to reduce embarrassment in front of others. And, with the exception of needing to go back through the restaurant in order to get out to the front again, they generally kept her out of view, and treated her just fine. And, you have your facts backward. According to witnesses, the woman was the one walking back and forth, looking for someplace to do this, and then decided to plop down in front of a family. The family wasn't walking, she was.
    2
  5783. Huh? Freedom of Information Act. I mean, it's as if you're proud to know nothing. Good grief. And, by the way, the video wasn't released until 1.5 years after she was already dead.
    2
  5784. I don't think you know what a "fact" is.
    2
  5785. China's Chang'e orbiter already took photos that verified Apollo, dewdrop.
    2
  5786. Well, maybe if she bothered to show up in court, that might have been part of the negotiation.
    2
  5787. I imagine that the world is waiting for you to get a high school diploma, but, you're not exactly doing that, are you? Meanwhile, back here in the real world, there's a mountain of evidence from 3rd parties. I'm sorry you never bothered looking for it.
    2
  5788. Or just give them rifles instead of only these little 9mm pistols.
    2
  5789. Please name the mission/camera that you think is capable of taking photos in this level of detail. Can you?
    2
  5790.  @AMC2283  YOU SAID: "You don’t have to shield men against cosmic rays flying a plane over the ground." == Nor would you need to shield men against cosmic rays on the moon, unless there was a serious solar event, or maybe if you were up there for many months or something. I mean, do you know what cosmic rays are? Or, did a conspiracy video tell you to make that objection? Why do you suppose that not a single space agency on Earth has ever made this objection? The world's 72 space agencies employ the virtual entirety of the the planet's engineers, physicists, and radiobiologists, who specialize in space travel. Not a single one, EVER, never, NADA, zero, zippo, has ever made this objection you're making. Why do you suppose that is? What do you know that they don't? YOU SAID: "I’m not gonna haggle over the technology because I really don’t know." == Translation: "My bluff was just called, so I'm folding my hand." YOU SAID: "What I’m certain of is that they lied about all the other big things at the time from jfk thru watergate." == Ah, the cry of the desperate. In order to serve your delusions about Apollo, you bring up entirely different topics. Your wife was cheating on you. How do I know? Because my neighbor's wife cheated on her husband, therefore your wife cheated on you. As a matter of fact, it means that all wives on Earth always cheat on their husbands. Once one wife has cheated, this means that all wives everywhere have cheated. That's EXACTLY how you sound. YOU SAID: "I’ll rephrase, dr of engineering, I mean I know they needed shielding—how much or if it was sufficient is one of the many points of contention" == Points of contention BY WHOM!?!?!? WHO contends this? Can you name a single peer reviewed scientific article that brings up this "contention," published in any country on the planet? Can you name ONE!?!?! Or, did a conspiracy video offer this "contention"? And, if so, why didn't the makers of that conspiracy video submit their "contention" to a science journal on the topic? There are dozens of journals all over the world, in friendly or enemy countries, that will accept such a document for peer review. Why would the conspiracy video makers be making videos instead of submitting their calculations to an actual journal (which goes through the scientific process of review and rebuttal)? Why? Why skip the entire scientific method, and just go straight to publication? Could it be because they know that their ideas will never make it through the actual scientific method, and instead, they want to go straight to their gullible audiences instead with no scrutiny whatsoever?
    2
  5791. Huh? Who said he was allowed?
    2
  5792. Because the scene wasn't secure. The screaming banshee arrived within a few seconds. The screaming brother arrived a bit later. Who knows how many others there might have been, ready to pick up right where Mark left off? Secure the scene, get plenty of cops onsite, THEN render aid. Otherwise, if your focus is on rendering aid, your focus isn't on watching out for 4 more armed guys who might be waiting in the wings, who want to make sure it's YOU who needs the very same aid.
    2
  5793. And this mess was your edited version?
    2
  5794. Thanks for demonstrating that you nuts continuously confuse the 1900s with the 1800s.
    2
  5795. So, you are saying that you would have done the same, but you would have done something different. No, you're not psychotic at all.
    2
  5796. Sorry, dewdrop, if you cannot name the particular exact technology you think they lacked, then you've got nothing. You people love to wave around the "technology" word as if it's supposed to mean something. But, not a single one of you people has ever named the technology they lacked, nor even attempted to explain how thousands of engineers produced technologies that they thought would do the job, but, somehow YOU know they were wrong about the stuff they designed and built.
    2
  5797. "It's funny that NASA has admitted it doesn't have the technology to achieve a manned moon landing now." Huh? Why is this funny? We don't have the technology right now to fly 100+ people at mach 2 across the Atlantic either, and haven't for decades. But, the 1969 Concorde could do it. Luggage too. "Can't even get through the Van Allen belts safely yet." How would they? In order to go through the Van Allen belts, you need a manned rated booster capable of lifting a manned craft that high/fast. Are you under the impression that, after the Saturn V was retired, that we have any such booster? I mean SLS did it last year. But, that was in order to get it human rated. Now that it's human rated, the next one will do it. But, between the Saturn V being retired, and the upcoming SLS rocket, exactly what booster would you think they should have used to get through the belts? Can you name one? And, what do you mean, "safely"? The key to safety is speed. The belts are harmful to long duration missions (like the shuttle, or ISS, or Mir, etc.). But, Apollo went through very quickly. Exactly what is it you think you know, that the entire planet's aerospace engineers don't?
    2
  5798. Even sadder that people read and write at the level of 2nd graders, and don't bother to actually understand the facts of what happened before coming to a conclusion.
    2
  5799. And, you're actually PROUD to behave this way? Please, I'm begging you, put this on every job application you ever fill out.
    2
  5800.  @stadtfahrplan  How ridiculous you are. Good grief. YOU SAID: "It's simply about the disproportionality and not about the exact same case." == What is this statement supposed to mean? Why should it be "proportional"? If the thug beats up one cop, grabs the baton, beats the cop with it, and then goes after another cop with the baton in a baseball bat position, why should the 2nd cop be "proportional"? Are you claiming that the 2nd cop should use only his baton? You want a "proportional" fight, like 50/50 odds or something? So, like every encounter cops have (and they will have hundreds of them in their careers) should only have 50/50 odds of winning/losing? Hey, dummy, nobody [sane] thinks the cops should have to deal with anything remotely like "proportional" force. A baton is a deadly weapon. The criminal very easily could have killed someone with that thing. From that perspective, the cop's use of deadly force was proportional with the fact that the criminal was wielding potentially deadly force, and had already used that baton to strike another officer. YOU SAID: "I never said they should let him go, but in my opinion, after he got shot several times and fell to the ground, it wasn't necessary to put some more bullets into him." == Are we even watching the same video? That cop fired 10 times, and made 10 hits. The cop paused a slight bit during several shots (like between shot 4 and shot 5). After 5 shots, the criminal was still coming, as if completely not bothered by having 5 bullets in him. And, the cop paused again and between shot 5 and shot 6. After shot 6, the guy was finally stumbling a bit, but clearly raised back up, and was still a threat. It took shots 7 through 9 before the guy finally looked like he was going to fall backward. So, what realistically are you claiming here? Shot 10 was unnecessary? I mean, you certainly cannot complain about shots 1 through 6, because none of those shots stopped the guy. Shots 7-9 were still quite justified, because the maniac was still rising up, and clearly was going to make this a fight to the death. So, I really fail to see which shot you're saying was not justified. The coroner's report said that the fatal shot was the one to the head, and that it was instantly fatal. And, while the coroner cannot determine which shot that was, I think we can logically conclude that, given that the guy was still rising up during shots 7 through 9, it's pretty safe to assume the fatal shot came somewhere in shots 8 through 10. YOU SAID: "The shooting was legitimate" == So, now you are acknowledging that the shooting was justified?? What happened to your original argument about proportionality? Or, now you're acknowledging that the baton was a lethal weapon, therefore a firearm *IS* proportional?? So, what EXACTLY are you saying now? Now, it seems like you just think the cop shot too many times? But, as I outlined above, seriously, at what point are you saying that the shots weren't justified? The guy was still rising back up after taking 6 shots, and according to the coroner's report of the angles of the entry wounds, was actually in a position facing the cop, likely in a position to move forward at the cop again (which we cannot see on video, but the coroner's report made this very clear). No matter what the case, you're being ridiculous. Any sane person would realize that this drugged up repeat prison inmate was going to fight to the death. The toxicology report confirms he was on drugs. His behavior was ridiculously aggressive. He had just committed a legal assault on a woman (grabbed her) in that school, a Taser hit did virtually nothing to him (besides make him angrier), he broke one officer's nose and leg, and was clearly going after the other officer with that baton, as if he wanted to swing it like a baseball bat to take the other officer's head off. The first 6 shots did absolutely nothing to stop him. So, you're sitting there in your armchair, claiming that the 2nd officer should have done something "proportional" (whatever the hell crazy notion you mean by that), while the cop is dealing with a drugged up repeat prisoner who had just taken 6 shots without even breaking stride. And, in your armchair, you're trying to paint a picture that somewhere between shots 8 and 10, those shots weren't justified?? Is that how this goes (in your mind)? Do you expect a cop in that situation to fire once, wait, confirm what that shot did (or didn't do), fire another shot, wait, confirm what that shot did (or didn't do), fire another shot, wait, etc.? Do you have ANY firearm experience or training? Good grief. You don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about. None whatsoever. Why, in your mind, are the good guys the problem, and the bad guys aren't responsible for their own actions? Why? Why do you so very clearly hate the people whose job it is to protect you from thugs like the one that got shot in this video? YOU SAID: "but saying that it can only end in one way is pretty ignorant" == As opposed to WHAT? You just got done saying that you didn't think the cops should let the guy go. And, the thug clearly did the escalating here. The thug refused to comply with police orders to stop. He refused to comply after being hit with a Taser. He began a fist fight with the cop, and chose to escalate to a baton. Yeah, this was only going to end one way. YOU are the ignorant one here. YOU are. Show some respect. Good grief.
    2
  5801. Let's hope that's correct. But, in reality, I suspect there's a halfway decent chance he'll be back on the streets in 15 years or something. He's only 18. And, the attorney will almost certainly argue for insanity.
    2
  5802. Why do you think it was discreet? Because she said so while trying to avoid getting her millionth arrest?
    2
  5803. Initials TDC, not the entire name.
    2
  5804. Replace the word "bias" with "honesty." Your comment might have been a good one if you had left your obvious bias out of it.
    2
  5805. Were you intentionally trying to prove me right? Or, was that accidental?
    2
  5806. Another proud graduate of YouTube University Law School, I see.
    2
  5807. Gee, I wonder why nobody ever thought of this before!!! (Pfffttt.) Dewdrop, you have no idea what you're talking about. And, as explained to you already, the size lens you'd need just to barely make out the landers would be about a quarter of a mile in diameter. The largest lens yet produced is 5 feet in diameter, and costed $168 million to produce. I'd say we're a long way off from quarter mile lenses.
    2
  5808. And, this was your edited version? Wow. If this gibberish was the edited version, how bad was the original version of whatever you tried to write on the internet in your drunken stupor?
    2
  5809. Are you on drugs?
    2
  5810. She's either got an extremely unfortunate name coincidence, or, she's the living definition of a troll. NOBODY sane would pretend to be Nicole Kessinger, with a little picture of a dirt road to nowhere in the photo, and the year of the homicides as part of the nickname. This is in extremely bad taste, and the real Nicole Kessinger belongs in prison.
    2
  5811. Oh, you're a real genius alright. A felon being pursued by police with a stolen gun is told to drop it, and not pick it back up. The felon does so anyway. And, you think the police aren't supposed to shoot him? What EXACTLY do you think the felon was going to do with that gun, if not shoot at police and/or others? Suppose you got your wish, the police didn't shoot him, and you and your loved ones were nearby, and the felon decided to take hostages and started shooting them. Then what? Are you going to say, "good job officers, I'm sure glad you didn't shoot the felon when he picked up the gun you told him not to pick up, I'm glad my family are dead now, just as long as the felon gets to live"? Is that how this goes with you? Or, do you suppose the cops are trained to shoot at felons who decide to wield guns, and even pick them up after dropping them, because those people INTEND ON USING THE GUNS TO HARM THE COPS AND OTHERS? As for "immobilize them," what in the world? Do you think this is Star Trek or something? How? How do you propose to immobilize him?
    2
  5812. No, dewdrop. I said that I'm not going to keep fueling your silly list of questions when you make it 100% clear that you have no interest in the answers. I also pointed out EXACTLY the calculations performed by James Van Allen himself, which you ignored. And, I pointed out that you shouldn't listen to quotes by anybody, including James Van Allen (because I just provided that quote to get you started), and that you should do the math yourself and submit it to cosmology and aerospace engineering journals. You then ran for the hills. Don't sit here and pretend with these ridiculous lies you keep telling. You have run for the hills in every single thread, with every single argument you've made, across multiple videos and comments. I also provided you irrefutable proof that Sibrel was lying in his video when he claimed that the astronauts were in low Earth orbit, because there's no way they could be only 100 miles up, going 17,500 mph, and have the clouds below be stationary. I also provided you a link that shows his deceptive editing. What did you do? Another "run for the hills" moment from you. That's all you ever do. So, no, I'm not going to sit here while you ask 100 questions across multiple videos and threads, and I provide 99 of them, only to have you run for the hills every time, then you think that because I refuse to entertain your 100th question, this means you "win." No. Prove your case in the science and engineering journals, dewdrop. Go explain why the entire planet's radiobiologists and aerospace engineers are all wrong, via calculations and the scientific method. Sorry, intentional mis-quoting 30 seconds out of a video made for children isn't a substitute for the scientific method. Also, I have absolutely no tolerance for the "oh no, he's committing ad hominem attacks against me, while I accuse thousands of people of being criminals based on some 30 second quotes I found online." YOU are the one committing ad hominem attacks, dewdrop. You do it every time you accuse astronauts and engineers of committing criminal fraud, on the basis of your own incredulity and ignorance.
    2
  5813. 1) People who accuse others of being criminals, based on nothing but lies, are a problem, whether you acknowledge it or not. They commit slander, libel, defamation, etc. (crimes, by the way). And, let's face reality here, you would never want to walk around in the shoes of someone who dedicated a decade of your life to something to support your country, only to be met by millions of people accusing you of being a criminal liar. It's not much different in spirit than being falsely accused for decades of being a child predator or something like that. And, we're not just talking about the astronauts, we're talking about the thousands of others who would be required to be involved.
    2
  5814. "see how he is pulled up by some wire" Huh? Do you mean the communications antenna? "standing almost 45 degree to the ground." Not even close to 45 degrees. But, tell me, what angle would you stand at, while on a sloped ground, while wearing a suit and backpack that weighs more than you do? You don't think you'd be hunched forward?
    2
  5815. Have you checked the Apollo mission photos? But, the purpose of this video is to show what the stuff might look like after +50 years.
    2
  5816. No. It's on the correct side.
    2
  5817. But, nobody actually asks "reasonable questions." The virtual entirety of the denier cult only PRETENDS to ask questions. They have decided, in advance, to reject the answers to their own questions. Most of the time, they even just ask a question, then immediately state their own answers, never even waiting for an answer. Just look through the threads here. They ask a question, then run for the hills if they ever get an answer. Any time someone actually wants to ask "reasonable questions," sure, fine, ask away. But, in my experience, fewer than 1% actually care about the answers.
    2
  5818. "Artemis project has used 100 billion and 7 years and still cant go." Huh? Artemis' funding began in 2019. Sorry, that's not 7 years, that's 5. It's true that the program itself (just ideas, no funding) began 7 years ago. But, congress actually gave the green light in 2018 for funding to begin in 2019. Furthermore, the projected trajectory of the Artemis budget by completion is about 90-100 billion. That doesn't mean it has been spent yet. The last time I checked, it's forecasted to hit the $50 billion mark in the next two years. How many more failures to get the facts right, before you change your belief?
    2
  5819. That was too many words for them to read.
    2
  5820. Not a criminal? So, her felony prison term in 2018 in Flordia? Her record for stealing cars, drugs and alcohol, other thefts, open warrants, etc.? No? Those don't count?
    2
  5821. Hilarious!! Um, no. The store employee Anna told the cop the woman went through without paying. From there, it's his duty to investigate. And, her own attorney disagrees with you, because they never even bothered to sue the cops. They sued the store (and lost). But, at least they tried to sue the store. They never tried suing the police. Now, is that because the attorney didn't understand this case as well as you do? Or, could it be that you have no understanding of the law whatsoever?
    2
  5822. Dewdrop, the camera was mounted to the side of the lander for the first steps. About 20 minutes into the moonwalk, Armstrong detached it, mounted it to a tripod, and carried it to the exact spot depicted in this video.
    2
  5823. Well, first of all, one of the witnesses said that, yes, she intentionally plopped down in front of people to do this. They said she wandered up and down the beach a few times, then chose a spot in view of others. Secondly, one of the "audience" was able to capture it on video, and showed the video to the police. The arrest report describes it as a very loud and public act in front of multiple people including children. Personally, I tend to trust innocent bystanders and police more than I trust a convicted felon who was trying to get out of her millionth arrest. The "nobody was around" comment was no different than when anybody else says "I didn't do it" while caught red handed.
    2
  5824. As for harm to her family, I'm sorry, but she did the worst harm a decade ago when she ditched her career and family (husband and two sons, one by a different father) to live a life of drugs and crime. Why do you suppose nobody even knew she had taken her own life for so long? The landlord had to open her apartment and discover her body when she wasn't paying rent. No family or friends were even looking for her as she was rotting away. According to the interviews, her husband and son didn't even attend her funeral, because she had abandoned the family so long ago.
    2
  5825. And, just making sure you knew this already... after her felony record and all of the various other arrests, it's pretty difficult to get a straight job, right? So, according to her landlord, she was a stripper at the local club. And, other interviews say that she was also, ya know, taking "private" transactions. I mean, not that I'm passing judgement on that basis, but, facing reality here, is it REALLY that difficult to make the leap that she may have intentionally been putting on a show?
    2
  5826. The lord has the power to ease pain, but not to prevent the crash?
    2
  5827.  @frankrizzo5710  I guess so. But, I don't blame him for that. He's illogical whether he flunked Sunday School, or not.
    2
  5828.  @frankrizzo5710  Pffttt. So, YOU also believe that the lord has the power to ease pain, but doesn't have the power to prevent the death in the first place?
    2
  5829.  @frankrizzo5710  So, the lord has the power to spare a 13 year old, but doesn't, because the 13 year old expressed his free will to flee police and drive recklessly? Well, I guess nothing has changed very much since biblical times then. The lord said that raped virgins must marry their rapists, which, back in those days, basically meant 11 or 12 years old, because most were married off by the age of 13. I guess the lord wanted to make sure the rapists had their free will honored.
    2
  5830. They allow people to crank in front of children in public there?
    2
  5831. Dewdrop, there isn't a single one of the world's 77 space agencies, staffed with the virtual entirety of the world's experts, across friendly and enemy countries, that agree with you. None. Not one. Spare the world your notion that OTHERS are gullible. You are the one who refuses to read the answers to the million postings you've made, and you live in an echo chamber inside your own head.
    2
  5832. Freedom of Information Act.
    2
  5833. Oh, and you clearly also don't know that she served a felony prison term about 6 years ago, and had an arrest record a mile long. Stealing cars. Drugs and alcohol. Failures to appear. Other thefts. I mean, you didn't REALLY believe the "innocent soccer mom" story they're portraying, did you?
    2
  5834. You clearly don't understand the sheer size and scope of Apollo. 400,000 US citizens worked for a decade of their lives on Apollo, plus 50,000 more internationally. At its peak, it consumed around 4.5% of the entire federal budget in hard costs, plus approximately the equivalent of another 2% in soft costs and international support. WARS have been fought for much less. And, what did we get? We got 12 people to walk on the moon for a few hours each. This was amazingly unpopular in the public's eye. If they were going to spend today's equivalent of $300 billion on something in hard costs, and another $150 billion in soft costs, they wanted it to benefit millions of people, not 12.
    2
  5835. Ronald Greene: "performing the identical maneuver of rendezvous in lunar orbit as takes place in near-Earth orbit -- without radar installations on multiple continents, mainframe processing" Huh? I'm not sure that I understand your comment here. They DID use the ground based radar tracking for rendezvous at the moon, with the massive mainframe processing. "let alone an inertial navigation system" Yes, the lunar landers had inertial guidance systems. "which the shuttle itself did not have" Shuttle? Huh? "all necessary data received through uplink from Houston for rendezvous in near-Earth orbit . . and all of which would be necessary to perform the complex orbital mechanics of rendezvous in lunar orbit." Yes, they had that, as I said. The accuracy wasn't quite as good as when doing it around Earth. But, it was good enough. Accuracy of the ground based tracking of the Apollo lunar craft was within 1 mile. From there, they had the rendezvous lights that they could easily see from 1 mile away. "A simple computer aboard the LM that was the functional equivalent of a basic calculator provided none of this capability" Wow, did you tell MIT, Draper Labs, and Raytheon that they botched the job so severely? The onboard computer was tied to the inertial guidance systems, gyros, and onboard rendezvous radar, and could perform a rendezvous with or without the ground tracking. It would require some help, input from the astronauts, but, yes, they could do it. Oh, but you're saying they couldn't do it? Why not? What do you know about that computer that MIT, Draper Labs, and Raytheon didn't know? Have you published a paper about how the computer couldn't do what they built it to do? Provide evidence? How do you explain why the one remaining working computer is able to do it today with simulated inputs?
    2
  5836. "y no body was ever able to back since 1969" Dewdrop, they did go back. There were 9 manned moon missions, 6 of which landed. If that's not going back, what is? Why do you think it stopped in 1969?
    2
  5837. "we’re going to mars no problem" Really? Who's doing that? Can you name any funded program to send people to Mars? What is the name of that program? Who's paying for it?
    2
  5838. Dewdrop, I'm not the one who can't answer simple questions. That's YOU. You clearly know absolutely nothing about Apollo. But, you like to pretend. You just don't like when being asked to demonstrate anything you assert is actually true.
    2
  5839.  @lorichet  As usual, all you've proven is your ability to swallow any garbage you see. You've managed to find people who know even less about Apollo than you do, and you've chosen them to "learn" from via their conspiracy videos. How ridiculous can you be?
    2
  5840.  @lorichet  You're afraid to read any input that goes against your silly opinions. Yeah, that's pretty paranoid delusional.
    2
  5841. We can see an airplane flying a mile high, but, we cannot see a bacterium stuck on its wing. That's about the same ratio as seeing Apollo artifacts on the moon from this distance. Why do you not understand this?
    2
  5842.  @Mooseracks  YOU SAID: "Actually I have my eyes and mind wide open to both sides of the alleged Apollo moon landings." == That's such a lie, and you know it. Shall I remind you of the other thread you posted in the other video? You claimed it was "weird" that the astronauts threw stuff onto the lunar surface before liftoff. You refused to say what's "weird" about it, despite that I repeatedly asked you. And, in your incredulity, you then demanded that I show you photos of the stuff they threw onto the lunar surface (in your blind expectation that such photos didn't exist). I provided you a couple of such photos (to your surprise), and what did you do? You ran for the hills, never once admitting you were wrong. You CLAIM to have an open mind. But, in the years that I've watched you post utter nonsense, I've never once seen you admit being wrong about anything. All you've ever done, when faced with crushing evidence to show you how wrong you are, is run for the hills. You claim that somewhere in Hawaii, there's an exact matches for the terrain seen in the moon videos. When asked for the coordinates, you run for the hills. You claimed that the lunar footprints were proof that the moon landings were a hoax, because they didn't match the boots in the Smithsonian, remember? Then, when you were told about the lunar overshoes, what did you do? You ran for the hills. You never answer questions. You never respond to any challenges to the gibberish you spew. You're not even literate. You can barely read and write. Sorry, but running for the hills every time you're shown to be wrong isn't "having an open mind." Sorry, spewing a bunch of unsubstantiated nonsense isn't "having an open mind." Your mind is sealed shut. You have repeatedly exposed your ignorance to the world over the last couple of years, demonstrating 100% clearly that the only things you know about Apollo, come from your favorite conspiracy videos. You have NO IDEA what you are talking about.
    2
  5843. So, before anybody even had an opportunity to give you an answer, you already came to your conclusion. Right. How honest of you.
    2
  5844. I am angry at you for supporting crime.
    2
  5845. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    2
  5846. Yeah, because those military guys who risked their lives for a living would really respond well to being threatened.
    2
  5847. "Best police department"? The police department that allowed an entire section of the city to be dominated by a bunch of crazed lunatics who think that the best way to "protest" is to completely ruin innocent people's lives? The police department that did nothing about it?
    2
  5848. "money talks! if Jeff Bezos and Virgin can send people to orbit what makes you think people won't pay big bucks to go to the moon?!?" Well, that's a matter of interpretation. When any reasonable person hears "commercial flights," they think of airline travel. If you're going to say "commercial" is the same as "someone who pays tens of billions of dollars to hundreds of billions of dollars" I have no reply for you. That's not what reasonable people would call "commercial flights" even if by a technicality you can claim that someone paid a dollar amount, therefore it's "commercial." And, popping someone up 60 miles for a couple of minutes is not the same as going to the moon. "You take a car, blender, TV, radio, airplane and technology itself in the 1960's compared to today is a significant difference" Yet, rockets are virtually unchanged. What don't you understand here? "we evolved more efficiently in the past 60 years. Except going to the moon?!? Gtfoh" I don't understand it, therefore it's fake. "we can look far into space with James web but can't see the American flag on the moon." You clearly don't understand the difference between distance and resolution. Good grief. "I'm convinced that this is the greatest joke of all time." But, you don't know anything, dewdrop. You have as much expertise in aerospace engineering as I have in ancient Chinese pottery (zero). You're in no position to even have an opinion. "I hope I'm wrong" No, you revel in this joy you get out of believing you know things you don't. "but way too much weird stuff going on like shadows going different directions." Dewdrop, should it really be the rest of the world's problem that you don't understand photographic perspective?
    2
  5849. Yes, several photographers think the photos are fake. You are correct. It always amazes me to find photographers who know nothing about photography. But, c'est la vie. Anyway, several MILLION photographers think the photos are real. You can keep the several that think they're fake. I'll stick with the several million who think they're real.
    2
  5850. Yeah, maybe unnecessary. At the time, it was an imperative program in the cold war, so, I understand why they did it. But, in retrospect, was it worth it? Hard to say. But, it sure is fascinating.
    2
  5851. How did the cop do any favors? By pursuing an underaged driving who was fleeing on an illegal dirt bike on a public road? You're not under the impression that the cop hit the bike, are you?
    2
  5852. There are now 77 countries with space agencies. Not a single one of the world's space agencies has ever claimed that Apollo didn't happen. Sorry, but, your paranoid delusions are just plain wrong.
    2
  5853. General Motors and Boeing.
    2
  5854. Sorry, but Bart Sibrel's interview with that guy is ridiculously laughable. You should be ashamed to have fallen for it.
    2
  5855. How honest of you. You don't know the answer to your extremely simple question, but, you came to your conclusion anyway. Bravo. Another true hero.
    2
  5856. 1) Musk is only serious about 1/2 of his statements, and only correct about 1/20th of them. How he managed to get a single spacecraft in orbit is beyond me. And, I have no idea why Tesla's stock price is high enough for them to buy every auto manufacturer on the planet. It's a cult. And, basically, they'd need to make about $2 million profit on each car they sell in order to justify the stock price. I don't know if I should blame Musk for his false inflation and deceptive tactics to boost the stock prices, or if I should blame investors for ever thinking a non-profitable electric car company is worth a trillion dollars. But, anyway, that aside, the underlying point is that Musk's Mars visions are nothing but science fiction garbage. His plans CANNOT work in practicality. Starship has no hope of doing what he says it can for Mars missions. And, I am continuously shocked that NASA selected them for using that monstrosity as a lunar lander. But, at least it IS technically feasible to land that thing on the moon. Not exactly wise, but, at least possible. For that thing to colonize Mars with 50-100 passengers per ride? Um, no. 2) You're not going to see any moon colonies in our lifetime. Apollo was massively expensive, and could barely struggle to put 12 people on the moon for a few hours each. Entire bases, and years of life support supplies, structures to build for planting crops, producing energy, etc., are millions of times bigger/heavier than Apollo was. The landers for Apollo barely had the payload of a little lunar car, and a few experiments, and life support for about 75 hours on the moon. If you want to build permanent colonies there, you'd be talking about hundreds of SaturnV-sized launches, just to get started. Given that Artemis was funded at $30 billion (I'm sure it'll inflate in the coming years), you'd be lucky to duplicate Apollo's limitations, let alone something bigger, let alone find congress/public willing to foot the bill for 1000x more money to build bases there.
    2
  5857. Thanks for demonstrating that you have absolutely no understanding of the topic you're blindly rejecting.
    2
  5858. But, the arrest video wasn't made public until 1.5 years after she died.
    2
  5859. Going to the moon will always be difficult. But, relatively speaking to 55 years ago, yes, it's much easier today. Hence why the Apollo budget was (adjusted for inflation) about $300 billion in hard costs, plus about $150 billion in soft costs and support from international partners. Artemis' budget is about $35 billion. But, rest assured, it's a government program, and that will balloon to double or triple. Still way easier/cheaper than Apollo.
    2
  5860. Yup. That's exactly what this is.
    2
  5861. Dewdrop, most of those concerns are for long missions (i.e. many months or even years). You'd know this is you read the article you're complaining about. But, once again, as I've asked you a million times before, why are you on YouTube? You clearly believe you understand this topic better than the entire planet's aerospace engineers and radiobiologists. WHY ARE YOU NOT PUBLISHING IN THE JOURNALS ON RADIOBIOLOGY?
    2
  5862. So, you think it's like bullets? Get hit by one and die? Thanks for proving you've never read anything about the topic. But, as I said repeatedly now, if you hold that opinion (which defies every single radiobiologist on Earth), why are you not WRITING IT UP FOR PEER REVIEW IN A RADIOBIOLOGY JOURNAL? I've asked you this a dozen times. Why won't you answer?
    2
  5863. It's more difficult to get a job (and keep a job) when you're a drug addict and felon.
    2
  5864. Which photos? Like, the cameras used within the command modules, as an example, didn't have Réseau plates. But, the ones used on the lunar surface had them. Maybe you could provide an example?
    2
  5865. So, you came to a conspiracy video to find out? Hilarious!!
    2
  5866. For me, it's not even about the woman. It's about the general people who watch the 94 second video and let themselves be manipulated so easily, instantly supporting the criminal and disparage the good guys. It's ridiculous. Reading the arrest report, and 5 minutes on Google, would completely turn their opinions around. But, Inside Edition knows that 98% of viewers will never fact-check a single thing they say.
    2
  5867. Pftttt. And, how much "serious research" have you done? Have you researched why Japan's JAXA/Selene orbiter confirmed Apollo? How about China's? How about Arizona State University's LRO? How about the Soviets, who sent Luna 15 to the moon (unmanned probe) a couple of days before Apollo 11, to wait in orbit for Apollo 11 to get there, and then to land in the Sea of Tranquility while Apollo 11 astronauts were still on the surface? They tracked both craft the entire time, you know? How about Spain, who photographed the SIVB fuel dumps around the moon? In addition to the USA, how about all of the countries that tracked Apollo missions to/from the moon with radar and/or radio telescopes? Australia, Spain, Soviets, Guam, Madagascar, Wales, UK, Turks & Caicos, Canary Islands, etc.? Were all of those countries in on "the hoax" too? How about the thousands of worldwide geologists who have analyzed the moon rocks brought back, and written papers about those rocks, never once concluding they were not authentic? How many of those papers have you read? How about the dozens of facilities around the world managed by universities and countries that shoot lasers at the moon every single day, bouncing signals off of the reflectors left by Apollo astronauts? How do you explain those? Sorry, but I'm already aware that your version of "serious research" is to watch conspiracy videos. Mine is to actually analyze how Apollo worked, the evidence that supports it, the countries that confirmed it, and the history behind it.
    2
  5868. There are MOUNTAINS of evidence. Yet, you don't know of any of it? Have you tried looking, other than watching silly denier videos that lie to you? How about this evidence.... Arizona State University's LRO camera, India's Chandrayaan'2's camera, China's Chang'e-2's camera, and South Korea's Danuri camera, have all taken photos of the Apollo landing sites, and can see the landers on the surface. Some of the photos have good enough resolution to see rover tracks, shadows of the 5 flags still standing, foot paths, etc. But, you don't know about any of that, right?
    2
  5869. They did not take any photos directly of the sun from the lunar surface on Apollo 11. They did so on other missions, though. But, on Apollo 11, about all you can see of the sun in the photos are the streaks from the lens flare when they pointed the camera east. The sun itself isn't in frame for any of them. So, when you say the photos show the sun at 30 degrees, sorry, you must be confusing photos from a different mission, because there are no such photos on Apollo 11. As for your shadow angle comments, the EVA photos do show very long shadows. The sun angle when they started the EVA was 14 degrees (it was about 6 hours after the landing). I'd challenge you to find any photos with a "wrong" angle during the EVA. But, yes, the photos later taken of the flag out the window shortly before lifting off of the lunar surface do show a higher angle. Remember, however, the mission stayed on the surface until a sun angle of about 22 degrees before lifting off. And, given that Apollo 11 faced west into a lunar surface that was sloping upward, and they were taking the photos from about 16 feet above the lunar surface (the approximate height of the windows), yeah, you could easily figure that the shadow would give the approximate appearance of seeming to be around 30 degrees sun angle. You're only off by 8 degrees when you said 30 (actual angle was 22 degrees for those late window photos). The sloped surface alone could accommodate that error.
    2
  5870. Huh? What would a non-scripted version sound like? How can you tell the difference? And, same view camera angles? Yeah, they were in a valley surrounded by mountains. They landed there because they wanted to see what the valley surrounded by mountains was like, geologically. Are you expecting different camera views than the 360 degrees of the surrounding mountains? Like, they were supposed to go drive 25 miles to get outside the valley, and 25 miles back?
    2
  5871. As opposed to what? The guy murders his father, then gets in this chase/shootout with police. And, you're worried about whether the cop rams the car? Sorry, but ramming the car IS part of how they're trained.
    2
  5872.  @Ben-lr2vz  Yes, and a guilty murderer killed two guilty thieves. Why would you deadlock the jury over that?
    2
  5873. What ARE you talking about? Every court has disagreed with you. Every juror member. Every attorney (besides his own). Do you even know what happened?
    2
  5874.  Annoye  No. Why would you think so?
    2
  5875. Then you're half way to understanding. To get you the other half of the way, I'll just say this: Inside Edition is trash news. The arrest video wasn't released until she was long dead for 1.5 years. They ask the question, "was she shamed into this?" But, they never answer their own question. They want you to think the question IS the answer. The real answer is "no."
    2
  5876. Well, all missions besides Apollo 14 went around the thicker areas. Apollo 14 went right through the middle. Doesn't matter either way, however. And, yes, at about 24,000 mph, you don't need to worry very much about being in the belts very long.
    2
  5877. The way she was treated? It ruined her life? Who treated her badly? And, I think she ruined her life when she decided 15 years ago to leave her friends and family to live a life of crime and drugs instead. Her felony prison term in 2018 didn't help either. But, again, exactly what do you mean by "the way she was treated"?
    2
  5878. Yet, you're incapable of naming this "evidence"?
    2
  5879. The moment that it costs less to go get it than the price someone could sell it for.
    2
  5880. YOU SAID: "Yeah roll him over and put him in cuffs as he is dying. He is such a threat bleeding out of his burning bullet holes." == That is the procedure they are trained to follow. It may seem silly at that point, but, that's what they are supposed to do. YOU SAID: "Fuck your ankle. Should have told the dude why he needed to talk with you." == Irrelevant. This repeat felon, in between prison sentences, trespassed, committed a legal assault, and attempted to steal a cell phone. If a cop issues a lawful order to stop, you're supposed to stop. Period. You don't get to hear why you have to stop (as if you can make your own choices about whether to abide or not). You stop either way. YOU SAID: "Shooting a citizen without a weapon is flat out wrong." == What the fuck? Are we watching the same video? That thug was wielding the baton like it was a baseball bat, ready to knock that cop's head off. What the hell do you mean "without a weapon"?? Um, dumbass, a baton is a potentially lethal weapon. He had just broken the leg and nose of the other cop, and looked like he wanted to kill the second cop. YOU SAID: "This shooting should not be justified." == Well, thankfully for the rest of the world, absolutely nobody cares what YOU think.
    2
  5881. So, the curious thing is that they're not naming any crimes here. I mean, not that I advocate Trump, but, I know darned well that taxes are very complicated and can easily be misrepresented. What you don't pay in personal tax, you pay in corporate tax. If you don't pay corporate tax, it's passed down as a K1 or 1099 to the owner(s). S-corps don't make money, by definition, and will always have $0.00 profit. If you have losses, those can pass through in many different forms. It's simply not fair to quote little single line items and say "look, he didn't pay tax," or, "that one of his 50 companies didn't pay tax," unless you're looking at the entire tax picture of all companies and all personal income in all states, etc. The mere fact that they felt the need to quote from one single company's income of $47K should be raising eyebrows here. It's a complete lie that companies don't balance to zero like that. It's actually quite common. But, the bigger question is the ENTIRE tax picture, and whether or not any of it was criminal. They don't state anything of the kind. They just state a few line items out of a million.
    2
  5882. Well, they're already starting to back off on the notion that Artemis III will be a landing mission. They're leaving the door open for making it another orbital mission. And, let's face reality, the hideous Starship isn't going to be ready (probably ever, if you ask me). And, Blue is 3-4 years behind after the initial selection and lawsuits and everything. So, I doubt they'll be ready for Artemis III either. So, I dunno. I put the odds at about 15% for Artemis III including an actual landing. I could be wrong (I often am). After all, I would have bet a heck of a lot of money that SpaceX wouldn't get the contract to begin with. I was wrong about that one (to the tune of $3 billion and counting).
    2
  5883. There's a certain poetic irony in the fact that your profile photo shows you wearing a mask not very different than Mark's mask in this video.
    2
  5884. The craft orbiting the moon have taken photos, but, the resolution isn't good enough for this level of detail. You can see the lander, foot paths, and some very basic pixelated spots where some of the experiments are. And, at a high sun angle, you can even see a bright spot right where the flag should be. But, you're not going to see these little items. The cameras they have orbiting the moon just don't have that kind of resolution.
    2
  5885.  @samstone1138  "ample evidence to support both sides" Yet, there are no aerospace engineers, radiobiologists, physicists, etc., in any part of the world, friendly or enemy, who can find any valid evidence for "the other side." Instead, we have the entirety of the world's 77 space agencies in support of Apollo. And, every piece of "evidence" ever offered to deny the moon landings is dismissed with the most casual scrutiny. Sorry, a bunch of taxi cab drivers, warehouse workers, and yoga instructors who make videos displaying parades of nonsense... is NOT evidence.
    2
  5886. You said it yourself. It's for safety. With a gun laying on the ground next to Mark, you can't let the woman go near. And, it's a crime scene. You don't move the gun, you leave it where it is for the investigators.
    2
  5887. I don't know anything about how the cameras worked, therefore Apollo was fake.
    2
  5888. "the 1969 landing wasn't possible." So, this was your opening line. But, you then went on to write things that demonstrate that you do not even understand the function of each of the craft involved. What do you think you know about the topic that the entirety of the world's aerospace engineers don't know, if you are unaware of the role of each craft? "what could astronauts use to relaunch their craft?" Another rocket. "And the same craft that landed on the moon's surface had to land in the ocean on earth." Do you understand what I mean? The craft that landed on the moon never returned to Earth. You do not even know which craft is which. That's how little you know about Apollo. You don't even know that the craft they used to return to Earth isn't the same craft that they used for landing. Yet, you feel 100% confident in saying that the landings didn't happen? "There's no way Michael Jordan scored that many touchdowns when he played tennis, Michael Jordan is fake." That's exactly what you sound like right now. It's like you don't know the difference between tennis and basketball and football, yet, you feel you know enough to evaluate Michael Jordan's career. Why should anybody take you seriously if you do not know the differences between the spacecraft used? "None of it makes sense." Bravo. You got something correct. Nothing you're saying makes any sense. But, dewdrop, it's not because of NASA. It's because you don't know what you're talking about. "So the ascent stage in 1969 didn't require boosters or extra fuel of any kind?" It had a rocket that generated 3,500 pounds of thrust. It had large fuel and oxidizer tanks. What ARE you talking about? If you don't even know that the ascent stage had its own rocket and fuel, again, why do you believe you know anything whatsoever about the topic? "Because the distance between earth and the moon is pretty damn long." But, the ascent stage only went 62 miles above the moon, then it was discarded, and they came back in a completely different craft. Are you getting it yet? You don't know ANYTHING about Apollo, not even the most basic concepts. Yet, you feel perfectly comfortable accusing thousands of people of crimes, based on the fact that you don't know which craft did which function. "I'm wondering why the lunar module couldn't phase one off of the earth's surface, because, of course, I just don't understand." Again, if you are still "wondering" about this stuff, why do you feel you know enough to accuse people of being criminals? You are fully aware that you don't understand anything about the topic, yet, still, you think the entire world's aerospace engineers can't spot these "gotchas" that you think you've spotted. Dewdrop, Earth has 6x the gravity of the moon. The craft weighed 6x more on Earth. So, 3,500 pounds of thrust in the ascent stage wasn't going to be able to lift the craft. The ascent stage weighed about 12,000 pounds in Earth's gravity. But, on the moon, it weighs about 2,000 pounds. A rocket producing 3,500 pounds of thrust can lift a 2,000 pound craft, but not a 12,000 pound craft. "Anyways, cool with the debate." First of all, there's no "debate" here. You don't know anything. You cannot "debate" a topic you don't even begin to understand. Secondly, there's nothing "cool" about accusing thousands of people of being criminals that would be locked in prison for the rest of their lives (if you were correct). That's quite UN-cool. The correct thing to do is ask questions first, and come to conclusions later. But, none of you dewdrops ever do that. In your mind, you come to conclusions first, ask questions second, and ignore the answers third.
    2
  5889. Yeah, leave those guys alone when they're doing the same thing at a playground. Right?
    2
  5890. And, you believe this, why? Because a conspiracy video said so? Why do you suppose there are no aerospace engineers who believe what you just said?
    2
  5891. Huh? She gave up her realtor career (and her family, husband, 6 month old son, another son, etc.) more than a decade ago in favor of living a life of drugs and crime. She served a felony term in a Florida prison about 6 years ago. She had a million other arrests and convictions and judgements. And, you're sitting there talking about "reputation"?
    2
  5892. "Yet there was not ONE spec of dust on the lunar lander lol what is the explanation for that?" The explanation is that you watch conspiracy videos and nothing else. You never fact check anything they say. If you actually looked at the photo archive yourself, you'd see that, yes, there was some dust on some of the landing pads. The only people who claim "not one speck" are the ones who blindly trust whatever conspiracy videos tell them.
    2
  5893. Who? Inside Edition? They never even touched this story until 1.5 years after she was dead.
    2
  5894. You have to use YouTube's frame by frame advance to see it at 0:08 into the video. It's pointed straight at the officer's head. You also see it laying on the ground next to a 2x4 board at 5:04. Just out of curiosity, though, were you under the impression that the nut wearing a ski mask in the hot summer WASN'T armed, and did you think the cops were wrong to shoot him?
    2
  5895.  @shock75wave14  So? How have I done or wrote anything wrong (in your mind)?
    2
  5896.  @shock75wave14  Then you've misunderstood. I wish none of this was ever on the news. I don't wish suicide upon anybody. But, if Inside Edition is going to make money from someone's death, I don't appreciate that they skew the story and misrepresent things in order to do it.
    2
  5897.  @shock75wave14  Let me reword this a bit. A fake story about "an innocent soccer mom committed suicide due to evil police" doesn't do anybody any good in life. It just makes money for Inside Edition. It just fosters public mistrust. It garners sympathy in the wrong directions. But, an honest reporting of "a life of drugs and crime leads to suicide" actually would help people. But, sadly, those stories don't go viral. What goes viral is the fake story about the innocent soccer mom. I don't want either woman (the real criminal version, or the fake soccer mom version) to commit suicide. But, Inside Edition is doing the public a disservice by portraying the fake version, just in the interest of making more ad revenue.
    2
  5898.  @shock75wave14  All good.
    2
  5899.  Damage_Inc.883  Mainly, I'm just interested in how much Inside Edition skews their stories, and how easy it is to make the public blindly believe them.
    2
  5900.  Damage_Inc.883  I have sympathy also. But, I also tend to hold people accountable for themselves.
    2
  5901. Sorry, but your favorite conspiracy videos lied to you. No data is missing.
    2
  5902. Well, there's a first for everything. Now the Saturn V, all 363 feet of her, is the "smaller" rocket ship. And, the 18 foot tall lander is the "larger" rocket ship. Right. Sure.
    2
  5903. No, not each site. Just the Apollo 15/16/17 sites. The other landings didn't have the rovers.
    2
  5904. Oh, you poor thing. See that button by your bed labeled "nurse call"? Press it, and ask the nurse to put on Wheel of Fortune. Clearly, you've been watching some very odd stuff on that TV of yours. Wheel of Fortune is one of the most preferred shows to calm people who have your kind of issues.
    2
  5905. "one thing that doesn't sit right with me is how they lost all this footage" But, they didn't lose any footage. They lost two backup tapes from one mission. Those two backup tapes had never even been seen, not ever, not even a single time, because the primary copies worked fine. That's what was lost, dewdrop. Two backup copies. That's it. (And, I read a couple of years ago that they were eventually found, but, I haven't really tried to follow up on it, because those two backup tapes don't mean anything.) "and other important data about the missions" No important data was lost. Who told you it was? The same conspiracy video that told you footage was lost?
    2
  5906. Huh? Who is even pretending this is a real photo?
    2
  5907. So, dewdrop, if virtually everyone who worked on Apollo built the craft, communications network, suits, tracking systems, boosters, training facilities, launch systems, etc., were all under the impression that their equipment would do what they designed it to do, why not just go? What did the few people know that the 400,000 didn't?
    2
  5908. YOU SAID: "No man has ever left LEO alive." == Wrong. 24 men left low Earth orbit, and lived. YOU SAID: "A lie does not become truth by being repeated." == So, why do you keep lying? YOU SAID: "The desperate attempts only get more and more theatrical." == Um, dummy, nobody has made any additional manned attempts to do anything outside of low orbit since 1972. What ARE you talking about? What's wrong with you?
    2
  5909. What telescope would that be?
    2
  5910. And, you believe that story, why? Because the woman who was in the middle of being arrested said so? Multiple people reported this incident to the police. One woman used her cell phone to take a video recording of it. She showed it to the police, who described it in their arrest report. It said that it was a very loud and public display, in full view of multiple people. This is a far cry different than the version she's telling while trying to get out of being arrested. So, I'll ask again, what reason do you have to believe her?
    2
  5911. There are no videos that include the sun in view on missions before Apollo 15, because the camera was not made to sustain being pointed at the sun. Apollo 15's camera was hardened to be pointed at the sun, but, they only did it a couple of times, because they didn't want to chance it. By Apollo 17, you'll see plenty of times when the video camera was pointed at the sun. Just like your earlier comment about how there are no photos that show stuff further away than 300 meters (your claim), you're wrong about pointing the camera at the sun also. You really need to stop blindly trusting conspiracy videos, and actually look at the videos before declaring what's in them or not.
    2
  5912. We never did because of why because you say no way what do you think you know about impossibility that every space agency on earth doesn't know it's not impossible unless you say why you think that what is your expertise why do you think you know anything
    2
  5913. Freedom of Information Act.
    2
  5914. It will never matter. The conspiratards aren't conspiratards because of a lack of evidence. They're conspiratards because they feel badly about the fact that they pissed their lives down the toilet, and they feel the need to say that all of the people who made mankind's greatest achievement happen (Apollo)... they pissed their lives down the toilet too. There's no amount of evidence that will shatter their delusion. They revel in ignorance, and will ALWAYS believe that all evidence is fake.
    2
  5915. DAs are roving on liners of again.
    2
  5916. But, this news outlet never even ran the story until 1.5 years after she was dead. So, um, no.
    2
  5917. The release of the bodycam footage did not happen until 2.5 years later. By then, she had already been dead for 1.5 years. As for not fighting the charges, she handled this arrest the same as she handled her other million arrests, she was released, then didn't show up at court. Almost no reporters covered this incident until the bodycam footage was released, but, as I said, that wasn't until she was long dead already. You have absolutely, positively, no clue, do you?
    2
  5918. Search for "lunar rover deployment" - a video will explain it far faster than I could in words.
    2
  5919.  @randyjohnson6845  But, when you clearly know nothing about Apollo, how can you even state what you believe about Apollo? Don't you need to actually know something about a topic in order to have an opinion? And, why can't you answer any question or challenge put forth? Why did you even chime into this thread at all? Do you go around to brain surgery videos and chime in and give opinions about those topics too? I mean, look, I fully realize that, for people like you, YouTube is a place where you can pretend to have knowledge you don't actually have. I just don't understand why you find it appealing to fling ignorance everywhere. Why would you do that? Wouldn't it be smarter to keep your ignorance to yourself?
    2
  5920. YOU SAID: "Made in beautiful MGM studios in Burbank California." == Wow, that's a pretty huge set, miles upon miles long. Sure. YOU SAID: "My reasons for fake... 1. Haven't been back To moon since when???" == 1972. YOU SAID: "With all our technology now we can't or won't go back???" == It's not about technology. It's about money. You have no concept of how expensive it was. That level of spending simply wasn't sustainable. But, they're planning some return missions in the next decade. This is not all that different than other explorations. There were 50 years between the first time mankind circumnavigated the Earth, and the 2nd time. There were 50 years between the first time Marianas Trench (deepest sea dive possible) and the 2nd time. You don't get to call something "fake" simply because we haven't repeated it since 1972. YOU SAID: "2. Kuiper belt ? Rocks floating around earth can't get passed without getting destroyed." == The Kuiper belt is millions upon millions upon millions of miles away from Earth and/or moon. You have no idea what you're talking about. None whatsoever. YOU SAID: "3. Who's talking all these photos and videos??" == Ed Fendell. YOU SAID: "When the module takes off from the moon who's Manning the camera???" == Ed Fendell (from Houston). YOU SAID: "4. If they are closer to the Sun why isn't there more blinding light?" == What?? Good grief. The sun is 93 million miles away. The moon was only something like 10 or 20 thousand miles closer than the Earth at the time of this mission. You expect a major difference? And, um, what? It WAS very blinding light. Not because of the distance to the sun, but because, without an atmosphere, the light isn't filtered/diminished. Hence why they used the gold visors to block most of the light. YOU SAID: "And no there ain't a filter." == What do you call that gold layer on their helmets, if not a filter? YOU SAID: "Strong enough to filter an exponential amount of sunlight 40 yrs ago." == What's an "exponential amount of sunlight"? One of my degrees is in mathematics, and I have no idea what you're talking about. Exponential vs. what? What's the exponent value? How have you calculated this? Sorry, if you're going to use math as your objection, you don't get to just say "exponential," and think that's good enough. Do the actual math. Produce the numbers. YOU SAID: "5.if you wish to debate this do so thoroughly in number sequence." == There is no "debate" here. You don't know enough to have a debate. When everything you say (ask) is so ridiculously ignorant, sorry, but this isn't a "debate." You don't know what you are talking about.
    2
  5921. Well, if you think these are lies, why aren't you telling the world about the problems you predict in the future moon landings?
    2
  5922. If you believe anything you just wrote, why are you on YouTube? Why aren't you publishing your calculations in aerospace engineering journals, cosmology journals, particle physics journals, etc.? Why do you think the Van Allen belts were such an issue? Have you done the math yourself? Or, did a conspiracy video tell you that it was a problem? Why do none of the thousands of people who designed and built the craft think they were made of "create paper and pipe cleaners"?
    2
  5923. Really? Who is this "select group" with these magical telescopes?
    2
  5924. Lee Harvey Oswald never shot anybody. It was Bigfoot who shot Kennedy. And, they disposed of the evidence by feeding it to the Loch Ness Monster. The problem was that Kennedy was getting too powerful, so the lizard people from a planet on Orion's belt (who secretly control everyone on Earth) needed to get rid of him, so, they hired Bigfoot, and then planted Lee Harvey Oswald and set him up to take the fall.
    2
  5925. The guy had just murdered a woman right before this incident. He was refusing to comply with the officers in this video. He continuously kept going closer and closer to his rifle, refusing to stop, no matter how many times he was told. And, when he grabbed the rifle, yes, he got shot as a result. Are you SERIOUSLY trying to claim that it wasn't justified?
    2
  5926. Alex, who are you blaming? Do you think NASA wants it this way? Are you simply unaware of the fact that NASA's budget isn't controlled by NASA? There's a congressional appropriations committee that decides how every dime of NASA's money is spent. NASA cannot buy a stick of chewing gum unless congress allocates the money for it. CONGRESS decides what programs to run, and what programs not to run. CONGRESS allocates the money.
    2
  5927.  @purplehz97  YOU SAID: "But does that warrant a death sentence? I don't think so." == Well, I think there are very few things that warrant a death sentence. And, I agree, this wouldn't be one of them. But, the reality is, death sentences happen in life, whether it's "warranted" or not. Go rock climbing without any ropes or anchors, and yeah, you might face a death sentence by falling. Go BASE jumping off of a cliff with a beat-up 30 year old parachute, and yeah, you might face a death sentence when it fails. And, yeah, drive underage on public roads, on an illegal dirt bike, recklessly, fleeing the police, and yeah, you might face a death sentence when you go out of control and crash. YOU SAID: "the kid freaked and wrecked when he saw the cop, or the cop hit the bike intentionally" == Well, if you watch the video, it's pretty clear that the kid was freaking out. The cop car came into frame while they were still at the gas station parking lot. Then the kid gunned the engine, and tore out of the gas station onto the public road, fleeing the police. The video doesn't have an angle to see the crash itself. But, the official word is that there's no evidence that the police car hit the bike, nor that any witnesses are even claiming that the cops hit the bike. Also, the bike certainly doesn't look to have been hit (nothing on the bike looks to be mangled from the kind of damage you'd expect from impact with a car). And, the cop said the kid just wiped out on his own while fleeing. That seems pretty consistent with what you might expect from a 13 year old, not exactly a seasoned rider who would know how to control a motorcycle 100%. Of course, time will tell. We'll see if any new reports come out with different evidence. But, from what's seen so far, it doesn't look like the cops did anything wrong, just chasing a reckless driver who was on the streets illegally.
    2
  5928. First of all, no news or social media covered this story until after she was dead 1.5 years. So, no, she wasn't shamed to death. Inside Edition will have you believe the question "was she shamed?" IS the answer. But, the actual answer is "no" (and they know it). But, that doesn't go viral, so, they just asked the question and never answered it. Only one obscure website I've never even heard of published a small blog posting about it while she was alive. The viral videos came 2.5 years later, long after she was dead. As for first offense (?), um, no. Not by a mile. She served some felony time in prison for stealing cars. She had an arrest record a mile long. Multiple judgements against her for theft. Open warrants for her arrest for various failures to appear. Attempts to change her name to evade the police. Numerous drug and alcohol charges. Her landlord says that her "career" was being a stripper at the local club (and it's suspected/assumed that she also made money on the side for one-on-one time). Apparently, she decided to put on a similar show at the beach.
    2
  5929. Gee... a group of people who hold the theory that it was a conspiracy.... What shall we call them?
    2
  5930. What's the basis for the suit?
    2
  5931.  @occhamite  I believe it's Apollo 11 and 17 that they're trying to preserve, not Apollo 12. I'll have to re-read the law to be sure.
    2
  5932. The dewdrop is talking about the lack of a lot of Hollywood movies about Apollo 11. Dewdrop, Hollywood knows what makes money, and what doesn't. Apollo 11 movies never make a dime. Therefore, they don't make very many movies about it. First Man was their biggest attempt, casting a big name actor to play Armstrong, and still, it cost more money to make the movie and advertise it than they ever got back at the box office. It may be able to trickle in some profits in the home viewing market eventually, but, it was considered a financial disaster. You act as if Hollywood should magically create demand for movies that don't have any demand. They've tried that before, dewdrop. It doesn't work.
    2
  5933.  @DeputyNordburg  Yeah, that guy was amazing. He accomplished so much, but remained so humble. And, he'd talk with anybody... even a nobody like me (I met him a few times).
    2
  5934. "months before they understood it so well to navigate, their answer was to 'nuke it'." No, dewdrop. They were studying the effects of exploding those bombs in space as far back as 1962, which was 6 years before sending people, and for unrelated reasons. You don't know what you're talking about, and you're just regurgitating ridiculous claims from videos that lie to you.
    2
  5935. "The proofs that we were not there far outweigh the belief that man went." No, dewdrop. Regurgitating "proofs" from conspiracy videos isn't proof of anything at all, except that you're willing to blindly swallow anything without fact-checking.
    2
  5936. "The 'air bubbles' in space are a problem for integrity." Oh, those air bubbles that don't go straight up, and tend to radiate outward in many directions? Do you know any air bubbles that actually do that? Or, did a silly video tell you that those were air bubbles, and you decided to believe it because it makes you feel good to have "knowledge" (sigh) that the experts don't have?
    2
  5937. "German origin of NACA" NACA was formed in 1915, dewdrop. What in the world are you talking about?
    2
  5938. "they weren't given live feed access for the greatest achievement of mankind" Dewdrop, this is again just a silly nitpick that you're poaching from videos that lie to you. The format of the signal wasn't NTSC, and needed to be converted to NTSC before any of the networks could use it. The delay in running the live feed through the converter was how long? A matter of microseconds? This is really your complaint? You're complaining that the feed wasn't "live," but it was a microsecond delayed? How would YOU have done it instead? You'd give the raw feed to a hundred different media outlets, in a format that not a single one of them could use, and make each of them convert the signal themselves? Or, hmmm, wouldn't it just be easier to put it through the converter first, and hand it off in a format that all of them could use?
    2
  5939. Concorde stopped, and now we can't fly on supersonic passenger airliners across the Atlantic. Building 500 foot tall pyramids made of stone stopped, and it took mankind thousands of years before ever building something that big again. China built a 13,000 mile long wall thousands of years ago, now we can't even get a wall built for the US-Mexico border. Magellan sailed around the world, and it took 50 years before anybody repeated it. Where are you getting this "first time in history" garbage from? History is full of examples of significant events that consume tons of money and resources and manpower, and then are not repeated for a long time. And, Apollo was one huge program that no country (thus far) has ever wanted to sink that much into repeating. It costed (adjusted for inflation) $150 billion in hard costs, and another $50 billion in soft costs and international support. And, what did we get from that? 12 people walked on the moon for a few hours each. That's how much money? Around $50 million per minute (or so)? It's like nothing else in history, even the examples I already gave. Yeah, no surprise that the funding stopped.
    2
  5940.  @simonferrier7936  YOU SAID: "lol your the idiot," == You know, if you can't even spell your insults correctly, while calling someone ELSE an idiot, it's this amazing poetic irony that backfires in your face. YOU SAID: "trust me." == I wouldn't trust you to sweep the floors. YOU SAID: "Your the one trying his hardest to explain, as if to convince himself." == Um, dummy, YOU were the one asking questions, remember. Don't complain if you get answers.
    2
  5941. Ah, you've modified your lie. Your last thread on this topic claimed that you consulted many experts who told you that retro-propulsion fails to work on landings and liftoffs. Of course, this was ridiculous, because the entire concept of retro-propulsion couldn't even apply to a liftoff, and no expert would ever utter such nonsense. You cannot fire a rocket in the direction of motion when it's not even moving in the first place. It's very apparent that the only "experts" you're referring to are the makers of your favorite conspiracy videos. Are you ever going to just admit that you've never consulted anybody, and that all you're doing is regurgitating claims made in conspiracy videos?
    2
  5942. You are correct, for the majority. But, there's no shortage of idiots in every religion (or lack thereof).
    2
  5943. And, you believe that, why? Because Inside Edition told you? July 1, 2021 = arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video went public. Then the major media covered it. Only very small obscure articles were written about her while she was alive. Doubtful she suffered any shame from them.
    2
  5944. And, you WOULDN'T report someone putting on a show in front of children? Huh?
    2
  5945. You're doing your namesake Klaus Fuchs very proudly.
    2
  5946. So, Apollo 11 was faked, but, the rest of them were real? OK, so, what prevented Apollo 11 from succeeding in July of 1969, but didn't prevent Apollo 12 from succeeding in November of 1969, a few months later?
    2
  5947. Stop pretending you understand topics you do not.
    2
  5948. It's a bit old school, but, yeah, "their" is considered a neutral possessive pronoun, even if the subject is singular.
    2
  5949. So, the entirety of the world's 77 space agencies, staffed with the bulk of the world's aerospace engineers, either directly as employees, or indirectly as contractors, have never noticed this "glaring" problem of the lack of Cape Canaveral on the moon... but, YOU noticed it, eh?
    2
  5950. No, you've got your facts mixed up. McCurdy was so high most of the time that they said she was on the moon, but meant it FIGURATIVELY. You seem to have taken it literally.
    2
  5951. Pffttt. What do you know that the 12 jurors, prosecutor, investigators, and judges don't know? Was he "just defending himself" when he recorded himself on tape hours before the criminals got to his house, planning the murders, including stating where exactly he was going to shoot them when they got there? Does someone "just defending himself" ever rehearse what he's going to say to police, on tape, before the criminals even arrive at the house?? Yes, I repeat, he recorded himself practicing what he was going to say to the cops about these shootings, BEFORE THE SHOOTINGS EVEN HAPPENED, including stating "in the left eye" (then proceeding to shoot the girl in the left eye twice). Is that "just defending himself"? Or, how about the fact that he got a tarp ready for the bodies before the teens got there? Or, how about the fact that he didn't call the cops or 911 until the next day? Does that sound like "self defense" to you? After he killed the one teen, he waited around another 20 minutes (or so) for the other teen to arrive, so he could make sure he killed both of them, instead of just one. Is that "self defense" to you?
    2
  5952.  @WilliamMann-co8un  "No rocks were lost, NASA knows who got every piece." Yes, lots of rocks were lost/stolen.
    2
  5953. I am not aware for certain, but, with her extensive criminal record, and multiple open arrests, I'd tend to doubt she could legally move. But, it's a moot point anyway. She gave up her career and family more than a decade ago in order to live a life of crime and drugs. I doubt she sold any houses in the last decade, especially after her prison term about 6 years ago. Her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the local club, and neighbors said she did "private extras" for cash in her apartment.
    2
  5954. The dad (a convicted felon) changed the story. In one interview, he said that Mark knew someone was in the car, and wanted to go check it out and find out who it was. In another interview, he said he knows nothing about the case, other than the positive fact that Mark didn't think anybody was in the car. (How would the dad know what Mark knew, when Mark died 20 seconds after opening the car door?) Gee, did their attorney say something in between the two interviews like, "it's a really bad idea to tell people that Mark knew someone was in the car"?
    2
  5955. Eventcone already gave you a summary (which you are undoubtedly ignoring). But, to repeat him a bit, what's painfully evident is that you don't have the slightest understanding of rocket science. No, it's not as easy as "the fuel is already there" (to get back off the lunar surface). Every pound was accounted for. And, to simplify this down, the way the thermodynamics of rocketry works, yeah, skipping right to the punchline, they needed that 6 million pound rocket (Saturn V) in order to lift a couple of guys and some rocks off the surface of the moon. Eventcone was right. Every pound you wanted to take off the lunar surface resulted in a bigger launch vehicle, bigger command modules, bigger landers, and more and more and more and more fuel for all of it. The Apollo program operated with remarkably thin weight margins. They left as much stuff behind as possible. If they were to pick up all the trash and try to bring it back home, not only would that result in wasted mission times, but you've basically just multiplied the size of the rockets/craft you'd need in the first place. Yet, you wipe that all away with your ignorance, as if your ability to post a YouTube comment makes you understand things you do not. That's one of the amazing things about you internet experts. You ACTUALLY believe that your ability to post a message, means you know what you're talking about. Guess what, you do not.
    2
  5956. The arrest video was posted online on November 24, 2023. Her death was in March, 2022. So, um, no.
    2
  5957. Really? Multiple people called the police. One of the "audience" even recorded it on video, and showed the video to the police. And, you've come to YouTube comments to declare that the police did their jobs wrong?
    2
  5958. Huh? What do you believe the cops did wrong?
    2
  5959. Dewdrop, the carjacker opened the door. Watch frame by frame. And, huh? You're denying that it was a carjacking? The guy wears a balaclava ski mask in the middle of a Kentucky summer, approaches a car, opens the door, and points a gun at the driver, and you're going to deny it was a carjacking? Yes, dewdrop, he pointed the gun right at the officer's head. If you cannot manage to watch in slow motion in this video, watch "Body camera video shows undercover LMPD officer fatally shoot suspected carjacker WLKY News Louisville" instead. They circle the gun for you.
    2
  5960. Let's see... he told her that he went to the moon. She asked "why haven't we gone back to the moon in such a long time?" He said, "we didn't go ..." then explained why we haven't been back to the moon in such a long time. Then, he said again later in the conversation that he went to the moon. Dewdrop, you wouldn't happen to be focusing on 3 words, intentionally taking them out of context, would you? Nawww. He lied, then "confessed," then lied again. Sure.
    2
  5961. A) Moon bounces sound different than direct radio. So, no, they couldn't just use moon bounces.
    2
  5962. B) Dozens of countries tracked Apollo 11 (and all other missions) with radar and radio telescopes, including enemy countries. How could a "moon bounce" fake the transponder signals, the Doppler shift, and the tracking data that was accurate to within 1 mile?
    2
  5963. C) Multiple countries have used orbital photography to see the Apollo 11 lander on the moon. This includes China, India, US, and now South Korea also. So, how does this fit in with your notion that Apollo 11 was not real, but the rest were?
    2
  5964. D) What "risk" was there for Apollo 11 in July of 1969 that wasn't there for Apollo 12 in November of 1969? Why would you think they couldn't do it in July, but you're perfectly fine with them doing it in November?
    2
  5965. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released from legal FOIA request.
    2
  5966. "If i do not focus correctly the picture and hold it properly still it will come out a little bit blurry." Yes, so what? Have you looked at the Apollo photo library? There are hundreds of blurry photos. But, when you have a camera set for 1/250th of a second of exposure time, it's also easy to take non-blurry photos. I mean, what exactly are you saying here? Every photo needs to be blurry, or they're fake?
    2
  5967. Freedom of Information Act. But, this video wasn't released until after she was dead for 1.5 years.
    2
  5968. Specks? Intense heat and radiation? Would you care to clarify?
    2
  5969. Someone comes out of nowhere and points a gun. The cop defended himself. A screaming banshee arrives seconds later. Some crazed brother is screaming a couple of minutes after that. Please explain: what do you think would happen to you, if you were in that situation, and you turned your focus on rendering aid instead of getting lots of cops on the site to secure the scene? You wouldn't be worried that another maniac might pop out of the woodwork and pick up where Mark left off, while your focus is on aid, instead of your surroundings?
    2
  5970. A) Why would you think you know anything about her intentions? Because of what she sad while trying to avoid getting arrested for the millionth time? B) It was handled correctly, and her suicide had nothing to do with this arrest. The arrest video wasn't even released to the public until 1.5 years after she died.
    2
  5971. Did you just double down? As I explained, the arrest video wasn't released until 1.5 years after her death. The police handled everything 100% correctly. You said you believed her, and that she didn't have bad intentions. Why do you believe the words of a convicted felon who served a prison term for stealing cars, and who has an arrest record a mile long?
    2
  5972. There's a difference between distance and resolution. Distance isn't a problem for telescopes. Resolution is the problem.
    2
  5973. OK, please name the EXACT technology they lacked. Can you? Then, please name the reason that none of the thousands of engineers working on that particular technology ever realized that the stuff they designed and built wouldn't actually do the job they designed and built it to do. Can you? Don't just wave the "technology" word around, as if it means something. Name the exact technology.
    2
  5974. No, they lost or recorded over BACKUP copies, not the primary copies.
    2
  5975. What are you asking?
    2
  5976. So, if the USA would like to examine lunar samples from China to get a look at how a completely different area of the moon looks, it's fake, because the USA should never want to examine anything besides the 6 sites they landed at. If the USA doesn't want to examine lunar samples from China, it's fake, because they should want to examine other sites on the moon besides just the ones they landed at. Either way, your answer is "it's fake," regardless of whether the USA wants to look at other samples or not, huh? Dewdrop, how about the fact that the USA has shared its Apollo samples with China for 5 decades? Is it a bad thing to ask for them to return the favor?
    2
  5977. By going quickly. It would take at least a week in the Van Allen belts to get a fatal exposure. Apollo went through in a couple of hours, and went around the worst parts. They don't send Skylab/Shuttles/ISS/etc. into the belts, because those missions DO/DID last a week or more. But, Apollo just went fast, through the outer edges of the belts.
    2
  5978. "Do think an object traveling at 24,000 mph is going to slow to subsonic speeds just by air resistance?" Yes, dewdrop. That's how it works. Bullets from a pistol, for example, aren't very effective at 200 yards because they've lost too much velocity due to air resistance slowing them down. Most lose about half of their velocity within 200 yards (completely due to air resistance). The command module is DESIGNED to have tons of air resistance to slow down, and had about 1,200 miles to do so. Yes, they entered the atmosphere about 1,200 miles away from where they landed, and had plenty of air resistance to slow the craft.
    2
  5979. Aww, you poor thing.
    2
  5980. See, we live in this thing called a "society," in which we pay these people called "police," to handle these things called "crimes."
    2
  5981. Huh? What makes you think you can't go to jail for shoplifting food? And, she did have her receipt, she just refused to show it.
    2
  5982. I it video who landing ladders when recording so where from wasn't to the ladder
    2
  5983. It's the same camera. It was mounted to the side of the lander, in the MESA equipment bay, then, Armstrong detached it from there, mounted it to the tripod, and moved it to its final spot where it took the video of the moonwalk.
    2
  5984. Um, ok, what EXACTLY would you make the basis for your lawsuit? You want to launch a lawsuit because not all cop cars have dash cams? Is there a law stating that cop cars must have them? (Hint: no.) I mean, yeah, I would wish they all had dash cams also. But, I fail to understand any such lawsuit. I think the correct course of action is to petition your local congressman/woman.
    2
  5985. There were three officers, not two. And, why do you blame them? What EXACTLY do you think they should have done differently?
    2
  5986.  @michaelstillman1171  She can't see my comment (at least not directly). It's been shadow banned in the notifications. YouTube doesn't approve of what I wrote, apparently.
    2
  5987. Brian, let me explain: This is a very well understood phenomenon among people with very low intellectual capacity. A person with high capacity will take in all of the words, even the ones he/she doesn't understand, and go look them up, or reserve judgement. A person with low capacity simply mentally deletes the words he/she doesn't understand. I could explain the whole thing, but, then there'd be a risk of losing you completely. So, I'll give you the short version here: Moore asked whether the astronauts could see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare. Armstrong answered by saying he didn't recall whether he saw stars while photographing the solar corona. Collins echoed that, and said he didn't remember seeing any (in reference to Armstrong's statement about when photographing the solar corona, and the original question from Moore, about seeing stars in the solar corona). Now, here's the issue: people of low capacity who don't know what the solar corona is, nor when the astronauts could/couldn't see it, will simply omit those words from their minds. It's truly as if those words were never spoken. And, all they process is, "could you see stars?" They honestly don't even realize that they omitted half of the sentence. It's just one of those psychological phenomenon. Some people realize when there are words that they don't understand. And, some people don't, and literally it's as if those words were never spoken at all. And, that's what you've done. You truly thought the question was "could you see stars?" You honestly were completely unaware of the 2nd half of the sentence, "IN THE SOLAR CORONA IN SPITE OF THE GLARE." Your mind just couldn't absorb it. The solar corona, and its glare, were only visible for a couple of minutes. Sorry if the astronauts were too focused on photographing the corona at the time, and just didn't pay attention to whether they could see stars or not. But, hey, this is really the least of your problems. I'd explain about seeing stars from the lunar surface, but, something tells me that you're not even reading this far. Attention span... just isn't your thing.
    2
  5988. Oh, get real. Nobody is going up to someone in the middle of doing that. You wouldn't do that for a guy doing that at a playground, and you wouldn't do that for a woman on a beach. And, why do you believe she thought nobody was around? Because she said so, while trying to avoid her millionth arrest?
    2
  5989. 1) Who cares what the government's interests are? It's the EVIDENCE that matters. 2) Why can't you admit the difference between a wire and an antenna? Why won't you address your mistake? 3) Do you really believe that they'd need a program like Apollo to "steal taxes"? Really? There are a million government programs with a much lower profile, much less documented, much less in the public eye, and you think they'd choose Apollo as the place to do this thing you're accusing them of? And, sorry, dewdrop, but the money didn't go to whoever you think it did. The CONTRACTORS got the money. Boeing. Grumman. GM. Etc. There were hundreds of private contractor companies that built everything, and that's where most of the money went.
    2
  5990. Wrong. NASA has been asking to return to the moon many many times. Congress has denied them the money (until 2019, when they funded Artemis).
    2
  5991. "Armstrong couldn't land his practice lander" Dewdrop, he had about 35 flights (about 70 landings, because each "flight" usually had two times up and down) just in the month before his mission. You're not under the impression that his only flight was the one that had the fuel issue (ran out of control fuel with no way of knowing it)? You can view some of his successful flights right here on YouTube. Why would you make this comment?
    2
  5992. "No rocket engine noise in the audio tapes." Wrong. Just plain wrong. Go watch/listen to them. You hear when the engine is off, and when it's on. It's not super loud. But, that's because most of the would-be sound never happens. There's no sound in space. But, yeah, some slight amount of sound vibrates through the craft.
    2
  5993. "So many holes in NASA's story." But, dewdrop, you don't even KNOW NASA's story. You know only what conspiracy videos told you, no more, no less. You just got done claiming that Armstrong's only flight in the LLRVs/LLTVs was a crash. You had no idea that he flew both models of the trainer, and landed somewhere around 100 times successfully. You just got done claiming that you can't hear the rocket engine. You're not studying Apollo, dewdrop. You're watching conspiracy videos and regurgitating their ridiculous claims.
    2
  5994. Pfffttt. You say here, and in a separate thread, that you don't think they show the entire trip??? HAVE YOU EVEN LIFTED A FINGER TO LOOK!!?!?!! "Apollo Seventeen" - YouTube channel, containing nearly the entirety of the Apollo 17 mission video and audio. Good grief. This is ridiculous. You conspiratards are constantly saying "why don't they do [whatever]?" And, most of the time, THEY DID. And, for the stuff you request that they really didn't do, it's usually because your request is impossible.
    2
  5995.  @gives_bad_advice  They don't build any beliefs. They watch conspiracy videos and then parrot them.
    2
  5996.  @Kat-zj5kd  I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    2
  5997.  @justsomeguy934  Why should anybody need to estimate anything? (Rhetorical question, you already answered.) Anyway, if the tractor is only 27,000 pounds, I can't imagine why Musk would want to keep that a secret.
    2
  5998. Pfffttt. What's taking so long? It's been 50 years. Meanwhile, sure, if your attitude is simply not to trust a single source, yeah, that's healthy. But, ok, the Soviets tracked Apollo with radio telescopes and radar. They didn't have any beef about Apollo. Many other countries tracked Apollo with radio telescopes and/or radar. UK, Spain, Australia, Madagascar, Guam, Turks and Caicos, Canary Islands, Ascension Island, Wales, etc. None of those countries have a beef about Apollo, and still, proudly, to this day, brag about their roles in tracking Apollo missions to the moon and back. There are dozens of laser ranging facilities around the world, in dozens of countries, that bounce lasers off of the Apollo reflectors left on the moon. None of those countries have a beef about Apollo. Japan sent JAXA/Selene to the moon (orbit) in 2008, and used it to confirm Apollo. Japan doesn't have a beef about Apollo. China says they verified Apollo also with their orbiter. They don't have a beef about Apollo. Arizona State University has the best lunar orbital camera up there since 2009, and has taken hundreds of photographs of all of the Apollo landing sites. They don't have a beef about Apollo. Thousands of worldwide geologists and geology students have analyzed the hundreds of pounds of rocks brought back from the moon, and none of them have a beef with Apollo. Why do you? What do you know that the entire world's experts do not?
    2
  5999. Another dewdrop proud to have peaked in his life in 1st grade.
    2
  6000. Maybe you should try writing this in your native language, and just let people use a translator. I mean, I'm not trying to insult your English. I'm sure your English is better than my [whatever your language is]. But, politely, I am telling you that your sentences do not make any sense in English.
    2
  6001. Sure, if that actually happened. But, since virtually no media even covered this story while she was alive, yeah, that kinda negates your point.
    2
  6002. Hey, dewdrop, WRITE IT UP FOR RADIOBIOLOGY JOURNALS!!! Why are you on YOUTUBE?
    2
  6003. Hey, dewdrop, WRITE IT UP FOR RADIOBIOLOGY JOURNALS!!! Why are you on YOUTUBE?
    2
  6004. Dewdrop, science isn't done by quoting stuff out of context. Do you know what study that statistic came from? It's from "Cancer risk from exposure to galactic cosmic rays - implications for human space exploration" by Francis A. Cucinotta, Marco Durante. That's also referenced as a source, and is on NASA's site. But, you didn't read it. Instead, you read the one sentence you think supports your nonsense, and ignored all of the source material. Here you go, dewdrop, the quote that clarifies what they were studying: "Proposed missions to the moon in the next decade could last up to 200 days (figure 1) and a possible mission to Mars lasting as long as 3 years would lead to whole body doses around 1-sievert (Sv) or more" Do you understand it yet, dewdrop? They're studying the effects that could result from missions lasting YEARS. Sorry, but your little one sentence quote means NOTHING. Also, in that paper, they outlined the following: A 180 day lunar mission would result in 0.17 Sieverts, and a Mars mission lasting 3 years would result in 1.07 Sieverts (1,070 mSv). As for 2,000 mSV (2 Sieverts), yeah, if there's a massive solar flare with no protection. That's a different topic entirely. Again, if you think your one sentence quotes somehow override the extensive research done by the real experts, WHY ARE YOU NOT PUBLISHING IN JOURNALS ON RADIOBIOLOGY? Why won't you answer this question?
    2
  6005. WHY WON'T YOU WRITE IT UP FOR RADIOBIOLOGY JOURNALS!!??! Why are you on YOUTUBE?
    2
  6006. WHY WON'T YOU WRITE IT UP FOR RADIOBIOLOGY JOURNALS!!??! Why are you on YOUTUBE?
    2
  6007. WHY WON'T YOU WRITE IT UP FOR RADIOBIOLOGY JOURNALS!!??! Why are you on YOUTUBE?
    2
  6008. If you adjust for inflation, Apollo costed about $300 billion in hard costs, plus about $150 billion in soft costs and international support. Now, Artemis is being asked to do it for about $35 billion. I'm sure that will balloon. And, they also have the benefit of a lot less research and development costs. But, you get the point. And, dewdrop, nobody wants to replicate Apollo. It was too limited. They could only stay on the surface for about 70 hours. They couldn't do landings further than about 30 degrees off of the equator. Their biggest delivery payload was a 400 pound rover (plus a couple hundred pounds of miscellaneous). Their biggest return payload was a couple hundred pounds of rocks. Yeah, nobody wants to merely replicate any of that. They stretched Apollo to the limits of the capability of the Saturn V and the rest of the components.
    2
  6009. You asked a question. I gave you an answer. And, all you're now doing is changing the terms of what you asked? The answer is the same, dewdrop. Congress never funded another manned moon program (until Artemis). Don't pretend that changing the terms of what you're asking for somehow changes the ultimate answer. Nobody builds anything to go to the moon unless congress pays for it.
    2
  6010.  @1337-exe  No, dewdrop. She's responsible for her own actions.
    2
  6011. Well, do the actual math on those photos. See, the issue with ANY photos (of the moon from Earth, of the Earth from the moon, whatever) is that you need to know a lot more than just what you think you see in a photo. "Super full Moon of March 19th, Espejo's Castle, Spain, by Paco Bellido" "François-Xavier Cardon Tiny Moon" Yes, those are two real photos of the exact same thing (the moon). Change lenses. Zoom in or out. Change the distance to relative items in frame. What happens? Two radically different apparent sizes. In reality, the moon didn't change sizes. But, photography can make it look that way.
    2
  6012. Nowhere not the don't cars ain't dash cam not reverse the negative not.
    2
  6013.  @purplehz97  So, you went from comment to comment to comment on a tirade, spewing nonstop cop hatred, and didn't even think to look for other videos first? Really? Again, just as in all of the other comments you made nonstop in this video, yeah, you're definitely not the brightest bulb. See, what I do is look for other articles, more details, more videos, etc., before I say a single thing. That way, I'm not going off like you. I mean, yeah, you always clarified that we "don't know for sure" whether the cop hit the boy or not. But, that was a very thin veil, because you've made it quite obvious what your opinion was. You obviously believed that the cop ran this kid down with his car. You didn't watch the video of the kid just fleeing the police right from the gas station. You didn't see/read any reports that outlined that NOBODY has said the cop car hit the bike. Nope. You went straight to assuming the worst. Your hatred of the police bleeds through every word you type.
    2
  6014. "What happend to the film camera that filmed them taking off going bk to earth" Crashed into the lunar surface. But, for clarity, it didn't film them taking off. During Apollo 11, that camera was not turned on until they were about 1,000 feet above the lunar surface. "wouldn't it have stayed on for some time?" Yes. "What happened to that footage" It is in the national archives. You can see copies of it right here on YouTube. "Apollo 11 lunar liftoff." It's a bit of a misnomer, because, like I said, they didn't actually film the liftoff, but, it'll get you the video you're looking for.
    2
  6015. No flat Earther has the attention span for a 55 minute video. They all tucker out at about 3 minutes, and then their brains go on overload.
    2
  6016. Well, it only took 3 replies for you to change topics. That's not too bad. Some nuts take 5-10 replies before they change topics and run for the hills. Others change topics in their very first reply as they run for the hills. 3 replies... not too bad... kind of right in the middle.
    2
  6017. "nothing should have ever happened to him" Good grief. Well, it's a good thing that the jury, the judges, the attorneys, the appellate court, the state supreme court, and the US Supreme Court, all disagree with you.
    2
  6018. Dewdrop, not all videos need to be about proving things to reality-denying internet crack meets pots.
    2
  6019. They'd think Inside Edition is trash news.
    2
  6020. Huh? They did do it again. They flew 9 manned missions to the moon, and landed 6 of those times. They also approved the Artemis program in 2019 and they're doing it again now. What more do you want?
    2
  6021. Another dewdrop who watched a video that told him that there are no photos/videos of Earth from the Apollo cameras, and he just swallowed it hook line and sinker. Nobody who has ever actually looked at the archive videos/photos has ever made that claim. Why? Because there are videos and photos of Earth, taken from lunar orbit, taken from the transit, and taken from the lunar surface. And, if you want to see stars from the Apollo photography, why not look at the Apollo photography of the stars? Again, did a video tell you there were no such photos, and you blindly believed it?
    2
  6022. YOU SAID: "i thought they put a second pole on the flag so that it stayed upright." == I'm not sure what you mean. Can you explain this better? YOU SAID: "but when you see the lunar take off the flag is blowing all over the place." == Well, in this video, they've borrowed from Apollo 14's liftoff (blowing the flag). On Apollo 17, the flag was a lot further away. It was blowing also, but, not as much, because it was further from the rocket exhaust. The reason they needed to borrow the flag-blowing shot from a different mission is because Schmitt couldn't get the 16mm camera running for liftoff. They missed the first few seconds. So, there simply is no such footage, other than the low resolution TV camera from the rover (you can catch a glimpse of the flag off to the right when they switch to the rover camera). YOU SAID: "also when they lifted off the flag would have been uprooted by all that force needed to leave the moon" == Apollo 11's flag was blown over. But, all of the other flags are still standing to this day. We know this because LRO can see the shadows of the flags from the low sun angles.
    2
  6023.  @therealzilch  "The original tape" is even a misnomer. It/they were never even viewed a single time. The tapes that were lost were the pre-NTSC raw-format tapes. They never even manufactured a machine capable of playing them, because the primary copies worked fine. The tapes that were lost were never considered more than backup tapes.
    2
  6024. "Space craft should be a major museum display for ever but they destroyed them" You didn't expect anybody to take you seriously after a statement like that, did you?
    2
  6025. Well, I certainly agree that media should never have shown any of it. But, frankly, I'm not sure what we could do about it, what with the Freedom of Information Act. But, hold on just a second here. What did the release of the video have to do with bullying her? This arrest = July 21, 2021. Suicide = March, 2022. The arrest video was released = November 24, 2023. How do you bully someone who has been dead 1.5 years?
    2
  6026. Yes, the Carruthers UV telescopic camera took 125 photos of the stars. So, what are you waiting for? You've had 50+ years to use those photos to prove whether they went or not. How much more time do you need? Is 50 years not enough?
    2
  6027. You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. And, if you didn't bother reading my reply before spewing more nonsense, then that's your own problem.
    2
  6028. Really? Well, that's one way to demonstrate that you have absolutely no understanding of the topic. See, dewdrop, during Apollo's development, they took 110 dogs and put them in vacuum chambers to establish how long they could survive and remain conscious. The universal answer was about 2 minutes, then they'd go unconscious. So, for Apollo, they designed the suits and everything to be able to last 2 minutes until a quick repair could be made. The suits also had 24 layers, including ripstop fabrics and self-sealing layers akin to the fighter plane wings that sealed up the fuel tanks if hit by bullets. A simple fall wasn't going to affect the suits that way. Stop pretending you understand things you don't.
    2
  6029. "Who put it there to capture the first steps?" The engineers at Grumman installed the camera in the side of the lander. Are you confused because, about 20 minutes into the moonwalk, they moved that same camera to a tripod?
    2
  6030. "why haven't any of the vehicles that have orbited taken any pics" Did you bother to try looking for that which you think doesn't exist? Since 2009, LRO has taken hundreds of photos of the landing sites, and can see landers, foot paths, rover tracks, etc. In the last 5 years or so, China, India, and South Korea have all taken photos of the landing sites with their orbiters also.
    2
  6031. "You had to resort to a computer simulation?" As opposed to what? Orbital photos of the landing sites are taken from dozens of miles away. There's no way to get this level of detail out of them. So, if he wanted to speculate about how the stuff looks today with this level of detail, what other method is there, besides computer simulations?
    2
  6032. "Odd to say the least" No, what's "odd" is that you're pretending to ask questions with no actual interest in the answers.
    2
  6033. Apollo Lunar Surface Journal.
    2
  6034. Yeah, that blue moon with white clouds. Right.
    2
  6035. Huh? What media would that be?
    2
  6036. She abandoned her career and family about a decade ago to live a life of drugs and crime. She spent some felony time in prison for stealing cars. She had a bunch of judgements against her for other thefts and crimes. She had an arrest record a mile long. And, failing to appear in court seemed like the normal way she handled all of her arrests, because there were open warrants, and again, she didn't appear for this arrest either. It's difficult for a convicted felon with her arrest record to get a job, so, according to her landlord, she was a stripper at the local club. According to her neighbors, she also took "private" cash encounters in her apartment with bunches of men. The witnesses of this particular crime said it looked intentional, and one of them recorded it and showed the video to the police. Apparently, the video didn't match her version of a quiet and discreet act with nobody around. Quite to the contrary, it was a loud act in view of multiple people including children. So, yeah, I'd say you're correct.
    2
  6037.  @AM-rd9pu  I just don't know why they pretend so much. I mean, ok, they feel like they must pretend to ask questions and pretend to be neutral, because they think it strengthens their position to sound that way. But, good grief, they abandon it SOOOOOOOO quickly, and then cut straight to outright denial, while running for the hills declaring victory. And, of course, as usual, none of them can read and write at a 2nd grader's level. Sheeesssh. But, I guess why that's why they believe what they believe. If they actually knew how to have a dialog, accept input, etc., then they wouldn't believe the nonsense in the first place. They believe nonsense because their thoughts and intellect are sub-par to begin with.
    2
  6038. Really? You want a lead spacecraft for the Van Allen belts? Why would you do that? Aren't you worried about the secondary Bremsstrahlung radiation that comes with using lead with that ionic radiation? Wouldn't aluminum be far superior? Isn't that why there are no aerospace engineers anywhere on Earth that make spacecraft out of lead? What do you know that they don't? And, why would you write this up on a YouTube comment, instead of science journals on cosmic radiation, or aerospace engineering journals? You didn't think YouTube comments were a peer reviewed journal, did you? Have you done the math? Why did James Van Allen disagree with you?
    2
  6039.  @stusue9733  Ah, yes, strictly payload missions. Yes, but, getting 50 tons into lunar orbit doesn't mean the same thing as landing 50 tons. But, sure, you can probably land a lot more than just a 400 pound rover. The issue is that, realistically, while it's true you can save on some launches that way, you still need a heck of a lot of manned launches to go assemble it all. And, those, by definition, would be quite short duration.
    2
  6040. You need far more emojis to be convincing.
    2
  6041. There was always the correct amount of delay. You are either watching shows that edit the delays out (the original audio always has the correct amount of delay), or you are painfully unaware of where the recording was taking place, and you expect a delay when there's no reason for any delay.
    2
  6042. The government definitely lied to you if they told you that you were qualified to pass 7th grade.
    2
  6043. That's some mighty big libel there, care to provide evidence?
    2
  6044. Not the airlines, the airplane manufacturer.
    2
  6045. Well, the only saving grace is that nobody saw the arrest video until long after she was dead.
    2
  6046. As usual, dewdrop, you will ignore this reply, as you always ignore all replies... but, your press conference quote is out of context. He was asked if he saw stars IN THE SOLAR CORONA. He wasn't trying to say he didn't see stars at all. He was talking about the 2 minutes of time that the solar corona was visible, and didn't remember seeing stars DURING THAT TWO MINUTES. Secondly, dewdrop, if they attempted to land with 10,000 pounds of thrust, the only direction the lander would be going would be straight up. Learn physics.
    2
  6047. I mean, I normally wouldn't even engage someone who proudly displays this level of broken thinking. But, just out of curiosity, how do you even square that away in your mind? The scientific community has understood the shape of the Earth for thousands upon thousands of years, as far back as Egyptian pyramid times or earlier. Ancient mariners used the stars for navigation of the globe, which doesn't work if the Earth is flat, it only works on a sphere. This stuff has been resolved for hundreds/thousands of years. What compels you to try to throw yourself back into the prehistoric times for no reason? And, how would NASA, formed in 1958, possibly ever "cover up" something that has been known since long before NASA even existed?
    2
  6048. Correct. But, that's not what happened here.
    2
  6049. She hadn't sold a house for about a decade. But, she gave that life up for a life of drugs and crime instead.
    2
  6050. "why would any satellite photos of something there prove anything except that we could send something to the moon when the question is about someone ?" Well, the LRO satellite imagery of the Apollo landing sites show the landers' descent stages, foot paths, rover tracks, shadows of the flags still standing (5 of the 6 anyway), etc. And, it all matches perfectly with the original mission photos and video. If that's not proof in your mind, ok, fair enough, but, can you tell me what you WOULD consider proof? If you believe they sent unmanned probes that deployed a rover and drove it around remotely to make all of those rover tracks, and some sort of robotic thing to make something that looks like foot paths, but, you don't think people did it... well, alright, but, at that point, if they could manage to land all of that stuff, why NOT just put people aboard? What would be the point in doing all of that with robots? Just put people on the craft, right? "There are too many questions that prove the whole thing was a huge lie" What questions prove anything? Good grief. You won't accept photos of the landers and rover tracks at proof of landings, alright. But, you accept "questions" as proof that they didn't land? "We went to low earth orbit and then we saw them come back home several days later when they returned from low earth orbit." And, your "questions" prove this? "Where is the telemetry data to show they went any further ?" In numerous aircraft-carrier sized storage facilities. "They recorded over it !!" Wrong. Dewdrop, where are you getting this garbage? They think they may have recorded over two backup video tapes. BACKUP copies!! Why? Because nobody had ever watched the backup copies, because the primary video tapes worked fine. And, yes, they lost track of the backup copies somehow, and suspect they may have recorded over them. So what? Why would you think any data was recorded over? "I would love to have that film that's been recorded over to prove it wasn't !!" I don't even understand what that means, and neither do you.
    2
  6051. It's called a FOIA request. And, whoever first uploaded it has deleted his/her channel. And, sorry, but her death had nothing to do with this video. Arrest = July 2021 Suicide = March 2022 Arrest video made public = November 2023 Stop believing nonsense you see on Inside Edition.
    2
  6052. In one of the Armstrong interviews, he said he'd have landed the thing even if they ran out of fuel at 20 feet, and if memory serves, he said that he thought the thing would survive a drop from 30 feet (remember, 1/6th gravity). Note: there were two different fuel gauges that read slightly different numbers. The protocol was to assume the worst of the two readings. We'll never know how much fuel actually remained. But, it's reasonable to assume the real number was somewhere between the two different readings. Armstrong understood how much fuel remained according to the lower reading, and flew accordingly. It was an intentional choice he made to use the fuel to find the best spot. But, had the reading been lower, he'd have landed sooner.
    2
  6053. "send a drone with a 4K camera to fly around" You do know the Mars drone works because there's an atmosphere, right? You do know that it wouldn't work on the moon, right?
    2
  6054. "post a link here. I dare you!" Dewdrop, links are not permitted. Anybody who posts a link will be the only person who can see that posting. Nobody else can see posts with links.
    2
  6055. Who killed her? And, how?
    2
  6056.  @ladylindemanmogot9992  Dewdrop, they took 7,000 photos from the lunar surface, and 110,000 photos from lunar orbit. Not three.
    2
  6057. The cops were lucky, no more, no less. The driver had just attempted to murder a woman, and clearly he was attempting it again by trying to stay concealed behind the car door as he was attempting a quick draw. Those cops were 1 or 2 seconds away from eating lead from that driver, and neither had their guns drawn. No, you're not the only one to notice. Cxm_peach has no idea what she's talking about. You don't avoid a gunfight by risking your life like that, and the life of your partners.
    2
  6058.  @critthought2866  I'm sure they'll say that was the one and only interview... just like Armstrong's bailout in the LLRV was the only flight.
    2
  6059. YOU SAID: "She did the right thing." == Um, no. Not even close. YOU SAID: "According to the statue of wearing a mask states: if u have a medical condition which forbids u from wearing one u have the right to not wear one." == Which statue? Was that an illiterate attempt to say "statute"? Name the statute? Which jurisdiction? And, ok, pretending you're correct, ok, but this doesn't mean you're allowed to attend a facility that mandates you wear masks. You don't NEED to attend a football game. YOU SAID: "So she was not in the wrong." == Yes, she was. YOU SAID: "If I were her I'd sue" == You'd lose.
    2
  6060. And, do you not find it amazing that nowhere in any of your comment do you even mention the EVIDENCE? No? Follow your heart? Sorry, dewdrop, I follow the evidence.
    2
  6061. a) Ask a question. b) Come to conclusion before getting answers. c) Ignore the answers when you get them. d) Run for the hills. Typical.
    2
  6062. This is a joke, right?
    2
  6063. A little bit difficult to tell with that much cloud cover, but, I'm pretty sure that's North America, mostly showing Mexico and the Gulf of California. North is to the right. West is upward. The brown patch you can see on the lower left of the globe is the northern part of South America.
    2
  6064. C'mon, do you really not understand the difference between landing in an atmosphere and landing without an atmosphere? Are you even serious?
    2
  6065. I'm sorry, but, clearly this would be as difficult as trying to explain calculus to an earthworm. I'm done here.
    2
  6066. Naw, they were her own handprints. And, the "murder" story has way too many flaws. The timeline doesn't match up, nor the circumstances. Unfortunately, yes, she was stumbling around for a while before bleeding out. Sad.
    2
  6067.  @firstmotorhome8024  Well, I seriously doubt this woman even knew what "shame" was. I mean, did you read the police report, in which they describe the video of this beach incident? It doesn't exactly match her story about a discreet little act with nobody around. It describes the video as a very loud and very public display in front of multiple people including children. I mean, there's a reason multiple people called the police when this was happening. And, she didn't exactly feel shame over her prior arrest record for stealing cars and public drunkenness. And, flopping down on a public beach and putting on a show for multiple people including children... yeah... again, I doubt "shame" was even in her vocabulary.
    2
  6068. Hilarious!! "A Funny Thing" is about the most dishonest video there is. But, you think it's honest?
    2
  6069. Yeah, blame the victims, never the criminals.
    2
  6070.  @NeverStartTradingOptions  The law disagrees.
    2
  6071. You asked NASA? Pffttt. How? You think there's a hotline you can call to ask inane questions? QUOTE: "The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight. The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months' duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure. A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week. However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. -- James A. Van Allen"
    2
  6072. Sane people are more interested in the EVIDENCE. Internet cranks make their decisions based upon silly "logic" (not logic) about how, 50 years later, a 3rd party search engine doesn't work the way they want it to.
    2
  6073. Great job avoiding the question Tim asked. You're brilliant.
    2
  6074. Huh? They arrested her. How is that "bullying"?
    2
  6075. YOU SAID: "why not just use the entire video to present proof & evidence that the conspiracy theories are wrong" == There are thousands of those kinds of videos on YouTube. This video isn't about that, and he isn't pretending that this video is about that. Oh, but in your mind, he should make the videos YOU want him to make, and not the ones he wants to make. Yeah. Sure. YOU SAID: "instead of talking about how having a high school diploma or a college degree has anything to do with any of this." == The more educated you are on the relevant topics, the less likely you are to believe Apollo was a conspiracy. This is a very valid dynamic to talk about. The average moon hoax nuts are massively undereducated about the sciences they reject. They show a complete lack of understanding of the topics. And, meanwhile, you'd be hard pressed to find more than 4 or 5 aerospace engineers or physics PhDs anywhere on the planet who believe Apollo was a hoax. If you don't understand the significance of that kind of dynamic, then you are one of the massively undereducated people YOURSELF. YOU SAID: "especially when education is mostly about memorizing info & not about intelligence" == Um, dummy, have you ever set foot into a university classroom? And, no, not to mop the floors. Good gods, how backward can you be? YOU SAID: "& people can major in useless things that don't improve on their or have any use in the real world." == Yes, that happens all the time. So what? How is that relevant to Apollo? Good grief. You typed a mere 3 sentences (very broken, borderline illiterate sentences), and half way through the 2nd sentence, you've already drifted off of the topic. What IS wrong with your brain? YOU SAID: " this video is pathetic." == Awwww, what's wrong, dummy? The video said things you don't like to hear? You want to hear about how special and awesome you are, and how your lack of an education is a wonderful thing? Poor poor baby.
    2
  6076. "permitted her to put clothes on; asked her to step outside" That's what she was wearing. And, yes, they took her away from the restaurant, away from people. You don't see others in this video, do you? Well, that's because they already did exactly what you asked for.
    2
  6077. "issued a fine" "cannot go to a beach again" Really? That's how you think the law works? No due process? No judge or jury? Officers decide for themselves what the penalties should or shouldn't be?
    2
  6078. "by the Police and the judicial system" They followed procedure correctly. And, sorry, but, there is no judicial system if she refuses to show up in court (which is what happened in this case, as well as lots of her prior arrests, given the open warrants she had). She had actually been trying to change her name for years to duck the legal system, but, they wouldn't let her because of her prison record and her continuous crimes before and after, and the fact that she seemed to never show up for court dates. How can the judicial system do their jobs when she keeps refusing to show up?
    2
  6079. How ironic is it that you complain that the judicial system didn't do their jobs, while simultaneously you suggest that the officers should have bypassed the judicial system altogether and issue fines and penalties themselves? You get your jollies by pretending to know things you don't, eh?
    2
  6080. Huh? What makes you think it's wet?
    2
  6081. I haven't got the foggiest clue what you're talking about, and neither do you.
    2
  6082. Good grief. This is a highly modified story. She left her family (husband, 6 month old son, and another son) about 15 years ago to lead a life of crime and drugs. Stealing cars, bunches of alcohol and drug charges, other thefts, judgements against her both civilly and criminally. She spent a felony term in a Florida prison in 2018. Her landlord said she was a "dancer" (yeah), and neighbors said she did "private extras" with parades of paying men in her apartment. If she wasn't making "public beach" content, I'll eat my hat. And, with her open warrants, sorry, but she was going to get arrested either way.
    2
  6083. Oh, and by the way, the arrest video wasn't released until 2.5 years later. She was gone for 1.5 years by then. Nobody saw it while she was alive. So, I fail to see how she was "embarrassed" by it.
    2
  6084. Don't pretend you've seen the video. It was never released. And, the arrest report says the exact opposite.
    2
  6085. OK, how? Who? On what basis?
    2
  6086. Blame the victim?
    2
  6087. Who would pay for it?
    2
  6088. 30 years of checking things every day, and you haven't found the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal site? Ever hear of Google? Wiki even?
    2
  6089. It's not a technology issue. The USA was not lacking any technology required to go to the moon in 1969-1972. Sorry, you don't get to just quote-mine (out of context) three words once spoken by one astronaut, and then assume you know what you're talking about. You clearly do not.
    2
  6090. So, the criminal herself isn't responsible for her own actions?
    2
  6091. Probably. But, she was a convicted felon who spent time in prison. So, I don't think she could legally have the gun she had anyway.
    2
  6092. Um, ok, maybe. But, what's the basis? I don't quite get it.
    2
  6093. Thanks, I'll stick with reading the police reports, the medical examiners reports. Anybody who believes claptrap they see in a sensationalist YouTube video like this is nuts. And, sorry, but I still don't understand what the lawsuit would even allege. The arrest was in July of 2021. Her suicide was in March of 2022. The arrest video was made public in November of 2023. I'm sorry if you fell for some garbage you saw in a YouTube video that has twisted the facts and played word games to get ad revenue, but, again, the floor is yours... what EXACTLY is the basis for a lawsuit?
    2
  6094. Another denier who reads and writes at a 2nd grade level, and is only capable of little one-sentence out-of-context quotes. Evidence doesn't matter, right?
    2
  6095. "what makes you believe they actually went to the moon?" Oh, quit your pretending. Anybody who bases his opinions about Apollo on someone's comments decades later about an unrelated rocket has zero interest in "reason." As if, decades later, criticizing or not criticizing a rocket would actually have any bearing on what you believe? Dewdrop, how about the EVIDENCE? Did that ever cross your mind? Do you even know what the evidence is?
    2
  6096. Huh? Um, no. There's nothing "correct" about refusing to ID, obstruction and obfuscation, and resisting arrest.
    2
  6097. "I was around 10yrs old when we all fell for this fake story." And, you peaked at 10 years old? It's been downhill from there, huh?
    2
  6098. "when people started asking why we haven’t gone back, their answer was we lost the technology!" So? Why is this evidence against Apollo? We have "lost" Concorde supersonic airliner technology in the exact same way. It was retired. We used to be able to fly 100+ people (plus luggage) at mach 2 for 3000 miles. Now, the best we can muster is a couple of military pilots in a small plane for a couple hundred miles, then they need to slow down. It's a tiny fraction of the supersonic capability of the Concorde. Does this mean you think Concorde is fake, because it was retired/lost?
    2
  6099.  @upload638  So, your understanding of physics hasn't changed since you were 10, and you're extremely proud of it.
    2
  6100. Pffttt. You think that the Manhattan project was kept secret? Good grief. Um, no. Many people knew who weren't supposed to know, starting with Stalin. Stalin knew about the bomb development before Truman knew. And, Stalin probably knew about the first successful test before Truman also. He definitely knew about that test before Truman told him the next week.
    2
  6101. How is that an answer to any question asked of you? And, if you didn't want answers to your own questions, why did you ask anything at all?
    2
  6102. Then, again, why are you asking questions when you make it perfectly clear that you refuse to read the answers?
    2
  6103. They're trying to go to the moon on about 10% of the budget of Apollo (relative to inflation). Don't worry, the costs will inflate to triple that, since it's a government operation. But, it's still just a small amount compared to Apollo. Yes, it will take time.
    2
  6104. "how did they remote control a video camera 300,000 km away... In the 1960s." They didn't, dewdrop. The first Apollo remote controlled camera was in 1971. You don't even know when these missions took place. You literally know ZERO about this topic. Stop pretending.
    2
  6105. 1) I take issue with the word "skeptic" the way you use it. Those people aren't skeptical at all (though, they believe they are). True skepticism is a method of analyzing. The way they use it, however, they just think "skeptic" means the blind rejection of things they don't like, or things they don't understand. 2) "Ridicule is the only weapon against unintelligible positions." - Thomas Jefferson. It still holds true today. These people need to feel ridicule.
    2
  6106. Every time a president has sought to ban guns, there's an inevitable increase/rush in gun sales. Just an irony I'm pointing out. I didn't really have a point to your exact mesage.
    2
  6107. Well, she's already dead, so, I don't know what kind of "protection" or "guardians" you expect.
    2
  6108. Apollo 8 went to the moon in 1968, before Nixon ever took office in 1969. How do you explain that?
    2
  6109. Make no mistake here. 74 hours on the lunar surface with 2 people was stretching to the limit of Apollo's capabilities. If you wanted bases/colonies, the Apollo hardware was never going to do it, not by a long shot. You'd need far bigger rocket boosters, far more missions (most of which would need to be supply missions). Yes, they could have done that, of course. But, during the peak of Apollo's spending, it occupied 4.5% of the entire federal budget, plus the equivalent of another couple of percent in soft costs and international support. And, what did they get? 12 men walked on the moon for a few hours each. Now, if you're talking about a massively bigger program than Apollo, such that you could build bases and send endless supplies to the moon, you're talking about more money, many times over. That level of spending just wasn't going to be sustainable. And, for the most part, there really isn't that much return on investment. Don't get me wrong, I'm amazed by Apollo. I've spent decades studying it. I've met most of the moonwalkers. I'm glad it happened. But, if you're talking about colonies up there, wow, that comes with a heck of a price tag that I don't know if I'd want my personal tax dollars to pay for.
    2
  6110. If this posted message was real, you'd have posted it multiple times.
    2
  6111. Please place that on every job application you ever fill out. Usually it takes a while to figure out you've hired someone who couldn't win a checkers match against a chipmunk. It'd be nice to know that up front.
    2
  6112. You opened by claiming there are no pictures of Earth... and you're accusing ME of comedy?
    2
  6113. Yet, amazingly, no actual experts make these silly claims of yours. None of the world's 72 space agencies agree with you. No film manufacturer on the planet has ever made these claims you're making. No radiobiologists have made these claims you're making. But, a conspiracy video told you these things, therefore you blindly believe the conspiracy video, while you accuse others of blindly believing things??
    2
  6114. On Apollo 11? There was no film of them leaving the lunar surface. The 16mm film camera wasn't turned on until they were about 1,000 feet above the lunar surface.
    2
  6115. No. What you're seeing is a choreographed media circus story. Other than a couple of obscure blogs that nobody has ever heard of, no news outlet even covered this story when she was alive. She died more than 2 years ago. But, the arrest video was released on November 24, 2023. That's when the media jumped on it, and they wanted two viral video rounds instead of just one. So, they released the initial viral story a few months ago without mentioning that she was already dead. Then, they released the "updated" video to say that she had killed herself, letting the gullible public believe that the first round of videos caused the suicide. See? Two viral videos for the price of one. In reality, nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive, so, it didn't cause any shame to her at all. And, she was a very troubled person with an extensive criminal background, and her suicide had nothing to do with this arrest. But, "sweet and innocent pretty soccer mom kills herself after evil police arrest her" goes viral. "Convicted felon who cannot stop getting herself arrested, gets arrested yet again, and kills herself a year later in an unrelated incident" doesn't go viral.
    2
  6116. Normal citizen? She was a convicted felon for stealing cars, and when she got out of prison, continued her crime spree until she died.
    2
  6117. "How is it possible all the data disappeared? There is no way that would happen." You answered your own question. But, who told you that the data disappeared in the first place?
    2
  6118.  @alt777-in9lw  And, you're proud of it. Good gods.
    2
  6119.  @alt777-in9lw  Yet, you cannot name anything I said that's incorrect. Right. Sure. You're not very good at this, huh?
    2
  6120. Yeah, when you see a guy at a playground cranking in front of kids, just go ask him to go home, nothing else.
    2
  6121. "So lack of profitability and safety?" Yes. NASA's main purpose is to pave the way for commercial ventures. They take on the burden of the heavy research and development costs, then share the results with private enterprise. This was its main purpose also, before they were even called NASA, and they were the NACA. Example: make jets quieter. NASA invests the research money into it, because private industry never will do that. Of course, this isn't their only role, because, with Apollo as an example, the goal was never to pave the way for private industry to have the capability to go to the moon. Its purpose was to beat the Soviets as a political statement. And, going to the moon isn't a valid commercial venture. It's just not economically viable, and is not likely to ever be. I was shocked Artemis got approved, to be honest. "It is certainly true that the 9 years it took to get Apollo to the moon was less safe." Yes, nobody said it was risk free. It was always considered experimental. "Nobody would take the same style of craft to the moon again" Well, it seems worse now, what with selecting Starship as the lander. But, don't get me started. "but we've had a stated goal of returning to the moon since George W Bush was the president." So what? Presidents say a lot of things. Do you believe them? Do you even think he decides? Congress decides. Congress allocates every dime of NASA's money. Congress picks which programs to fund, and which ones not to fund. And, they decide how much money each program gets. Sure, the president has a lot of influence. But, for example, under Bush, the Constellation program was divided into 3 parts. Part 1 was low orbit flights in a new command module (called Orion). Part 2 was manned missions returning to the moon. Part 3 was manned missions to Mars. Congress only ever approved part 1. And, before they even finished part 1, congress discontinued it half way. It took until 2014 before they scraped together an Orion capsule out of what was left of that budget. And, it only flew one flight (unmanned). (Until Artemis picked up where Constellation left off.) Lots of presidents make lots of promises. None of it matters without congress funding it. "Two tries, yes, but the Saturn rocket was successful from the first launch." Yes, well, mostly anyway. Apollo 6 would have been a failure if the goal was to go to the moon. They had problems with the Saturn V that clipped many of the mission objectives, and it was only partially successful. But, I get the point, and agree, its success was far better than SpaceX. But, the budget was also many times higher than SpaceX's budget also (adjusted for inflation). "If technology keeps getting better, it seems rocket technology hasn't." Bingo. Welcome to the post-Russia rocket development. Do you even know why we outsourced so much of our rocket purchases to Russia? It was for nuclear non-proliferation. We traded them. We'll buy rockets from you for the next couple of decades, and you won't give your nuclear weapons to 3rd world countries. What did that do to the USA's rocket industry? It basically destroyed it. And, all we did was buy the same old rockets that the Soviet Union produced. Yes, there were some US rocket companies still building some rockets, but, not many, and not for much money. SpaceX, a ridiculous company run by a conman, was born from the ashes of what was left of the US rocket industry. Once the non-proliferation agreements were over, and the US rocket industry could thrive again, well, most of the big USA rocket vendors had moved on to other things. Why compete for a $3 billion per year rocket industry, selling one mission at a time, when you can compete for a $1.7 trillion program building fighters or bombers that lasts decades? Born is SpaceX, with their smoke and mirrors to dazzle people into thinking landing rockets upright is such a major accomplishment, while accomplishing almost nothing (except hype). Do we really need that gigantic monstrosity to land on the moon? Of course not. "Hopefully the third launch will put that thing into orbit, but will it land or will it crash?" Don't know, don't care. We already wasted about $3 billion on a contract for that thing. And, now we're spending that money twice by asking Bezos to build a backup version. Yaaay!! Why does any of this even matter to you? Why? How is this not "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake"? Do these answers to your questions mean that Apollo was real? Do they mean Apollo was fake? No. All it means is that you don't understand the rocket industry. The EVIDENCE is what matters. And, you never even asked for that. Nope. Instead, your position is that people must explain the current state of the US rocket industry, otherwise Apollo never happened 50-60 years ago?
    2
  6122. Arizona State University made/manages the camera on LRO orbiting the moon. They have a couple hundred of the photographs you're looking for on their site.
    2
  6123. The police released the video because the Freedom of Information Act says they must. They blocked its release for 2.5 years, though. It was only released 1.5 years AFTER she died, because the investigation had been closed long enough that they could no longer block it. Get your facts right.
    2
  6124. Pfftt. So, the photos aren't good enough? Let me guess, if they had photos that could see the serial numbers on the equipment, you'd still reject it, right? I mean, you can clearly see rover tracks, foot paths, lander bases, etc. But, that's not good enough. So, what ever would be?
    2
  6125. Secondly, why do you believe her claims about nobody being around? She was a convicted felon who spent time in prison about 6 years ago, with a million arrests before and after. Stealing cars. Other thefts. Drugs and alcohol. The list goes on. Frankly, I'm going to trust the innocent bystanders who took video of the incident, and the police, before I'm trusting this woman.
    2
  6126. Armstrong.
    2
  6127. OK, I'll ask. Hey, photos, within + this on?
    2
  6128.  @sj4632  Tesla's scams include a long list of promises that were aimed at falsely boosting stock price, for goals that the company isn't even close to delivering. Some examples: Tesla Semi... why won't they reveal the weight of the vehicle? That's the most crucial fact, yet, they simply won't tell it. Full self driving... why did Musk promise it "next year" (repeatedly), while his own legal department says that Tesla has no such plans? SpaceX... Boca Chica. Need I say more? I mean, I could say more. But, just sticking with Boca Chica when you constantly ignore FAA orders, and continue to violate your own stated purpose of Boca Chica, um, yeah, that's pretty scammy. What's that tower he's building there now? He said he'd never construct a launch tower there, right? The FAA never approved a launch tower. Yet, hmm, looks like a launch tower to me (add to the long list of violations in Boca Chica). Or, if I do want to go further than just Boca Chica, what?? Musk is saying he's going to achieve Mars missions for $100K per person? How? That Starship sure isn't going to do it. I could go on to how SpaceX charges private companies less per launch than he charges government/NASA launches, thus padding his infrastructure with the government-paid launches, then lies and pretends that his launches are cheaper than they actually are... with his long history of cooking the books in both Tesla and SpaceX... but, whatever, I doubt you know or care about any of that. Tesla again... Solar City is now part of Tesla, right? Are you going to deny that Solar City was a 100% scam? Musk narrowly avoided being thrown in prison a couple of weeks ago, right? But, the judge said that Musk must personally pay billions to those he scammed with Solar City, right? Musk claims that he only owes $3 billion for scamming Solar City. The plaintiffs say Musk owes $9 billion for scamming them. Then, Musk cashed in $6 billion in stock, and claimed it was for paying taxes?? What? Who owes taxes on stock that pays no dividends, and hasn't been sold yet? On what planet would anybody EVER owe tax money on that? Or, hhmmmmm, could it be that, a couple of days prior to him selling that $6 billion in Tesla stock, the judge told him that he will be personally liable for the billions he scammed out of Tesla investors when he merged it with solar city, thus bailing himself out of billions of debt that he couldn't pay, and instead, used Tesla investors to rescue his bankrupt company. I'd say that's a Tesla scam, wouldn't you? The judge certainly agreed.
    2
  6129. A) I don't even understand your "way the space suit fits" example. B) "I have seen several experiments" Where? On YouTube conspiracy videos? "trying to move objects with a fan" Rockets aren't a fan. Rockets don't use fans. "ignite a substance in a vacuum" Which substance? "show that neither of these is possible." So, because you watched some conspiracy videos that told you rockets don't work, you believe the entirety of the planet's aerospace engineers are unaware that rockets don't work? That's your position here? "they ignited the rockets on the module and lifted off the moon" Um, yes, that's because rockets actually DO work. "with the camera following their movement" Well, on the final try, yes. They had tried before, and didn't have much luck with it. Why is this an issue for you? "they "pushed off" into space" You have no understanding of how a rocket works, do you?
    2
  6130. On Apollo 11, nobody. There is no video of Apollo 11 lifting off of the moon.
    2
  6131. Yes, dewdrop, an art museum foolishly accepted a piece of petrified wood as a "moon rock" donation. Who cares? It is estimated that around 30% to 40% of art in museums is fake. Art museums don't exactly have a good track record of authenticating art, let alone authenticating moon rocks. Does that mean real art doesn't exist? No? If the art museum accepted a fake Rolex watch as a donation, would that mean that real Rolex watches don't exist? No? So, why would an art museum's acceptance of a fake moon rock mean anything to you? It wasn't given to them by NASA.
    2
  6132. When you can't answer a single question or challenge, change topics, right?
    2
  6133.  @stusue9733  "picking up the astronauts on EVA and the PLSS only used a 0.5W transmitter." I always thought the backyard amateurs were tuning in to the Unified S-Band relayed from the PLSS/OPS VHF transmitter, not the VHF directly. Do I have that wrong, and they were actually listening in on VHF?
    2
  6134.  @stusue9733  Yeah, I guess I just don't know. I'd have my suspicions about whether a backyard antenna/dish could pick up VHF directly from the radio on top of the backpacks. One would wonder, logically, if that was possible, why'd they bother installing the S-band audio radio relays on the rovers and on the lunar landers, which converted the omnidirectional VHF from the astronauts over to the directional S-band dishes. If a backyard amateur could pick up the VHF directly from the astronaut's radio, then why would the engineers be worried about pumping the audio through the S-band transmitters first, when they had those massive dishes that no backyard amateur had. My first guess is that which you already mentioned... the article writer might have misunderstood. This is emphasized by the notion that the article writer said "he did not attempt to pick up the encoded S-band signals from the main Moon-Earth communication link" - where the "encoded" part is throwing me off. I don't think the S-band audio was encoded, but, the S-band video certainly was. But, hey, who knows? Maybe he could pick up VHF. It's not impossible. I won't pretend to know for certain.
    2
  6135. Well, articles say he (the dad) was also a convicted felon. And, it's pretty interesting that his story kept changing from interview to interview. In one interview, he said that Mark knew someone was in the car, but was going to find out who it was. In another interview, he said he didn't know anything about why Mark went to the car, except the one thing he definitely knew was that Mark thought nobody was in the car. Gee, ya think the attorney told him between the interviews that it's a bad idea to say that Mark knew someone was in the car?
    2
  6136.  @Jan_Strzelecki  The most absurd thing is that these people (overall, listening to hundreds of them say similar things) seem to say that a first landing simply isn't possible. That's what their viewpoint boils down to. A first landing simply can't be done. By the way, you may want to look up the Apollo mission numbering. It's not as it may appear.
    2
  6137.  @Jan_Strzelecki  YOU SAID: "I can only charitably assume he meant the glider tests" == Well, yeah, the assumption is always that he knew what he was talking about. Sadly, however, when it comes to moon conspiratards, they never do. They inevitably end up exposing that they actually have no clue what they're talking about on any level. But, yes, like you, I always TRY to make sense of their gibberish, and TRY to give them the most charitable interpretation of what they're saying. But, the most charitable interpretation always fails, and it turns out that they are just ignorant.
    2
  6138.  @Jan_Strzelecki  Apollo 2/3 didn't exist. But, there were other flights that were part of the program that never got an "Apollo X" designation.
    2
  6139. No, but, I wish they'd put their silly notions onto every job application they ever fill out. Usually, it takes a couple of months before their true nature is exposed, then it's very difficult to fire them. It's nice to learn what kind of people they are BEFORE you hire them.
    2
  6140. Diddly, you rambled on about physics, spewing formula after formula. Yet, you clearly never applied any of those formulas to the videos. Calculate it. What are you waiting for? Don't sit here and spew formulas, pretending it means something. Go demonstrate that the astronauts' trajectories don't follow the correct arc. Good luck with that. I told you, I'm not playing your game, ya crank.
    2
  6141. "The photos of earth from the moon, the earth is huge covers the entire skyline." Huh? How many of the photos have you looked at? Maybe you're thinking of the Earthrise photos taken from lunar orbit, greatly zoomed in?
    2
  6142. Yeah, we're not going to lose sleep over the criminal teens. But, like many crimes, it doesn't necessarily mean that there's an entirely innocent party, and an entirely guilty party. Many crimes are criminals vs. criminals. This is one of those cases. This man quite clearly sought out to kill these two teens, long before they arrived at his house.
    2
  6143.  @Republic996  So, breaking into someone's house warrants the man planning two murders, and then following through on that plan?
    2
  6144. If you're going to use text we have to read instead of listening to talking, then don't monetize your video by placing ads right on top of the text you expect us to read. Thumbs down.
    2
  6145. Well, I guess that makes you an authority.
    2
  6146. So, FIRST you declare it as "BS"? THEN you ask questions? Dewdrop, if you don't know the answers to such simple questions, why would feel you're in any position to declare "BS"? Wouldn't you first need to understand the topic?
    2
  6147. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    2
  6148. Well, when they arrest you, you get put into cuffs, period. And, nobody posted the arrest video online until long after she was dead.
    2
  6149. Thank you for your amazing expert opinions. You're a true hero for coming to YouTube to share your thoughts. 1) Multiple people called the police during this incident. One of the crowd that saw her took video of the incident. They showed that video to the police. It is described in the police report as a very loud and very public display in view of multiple people including children. So, no, it wasn't a matter of "he said she said." They had it on video. 2) You don't get warnings for crimes. You can get a warning for an infraction. But, for crimes, there's either probable cause, or there isn't. I don't think you know the difference between crimes and infractions. But, you keep on bringing your opinions to YouTube. Thanks a million, you're definitely a hero.
    2
  6150. Hello YouTube Law School graduate. It's called The Freedom of Information Act. Your suit means nothing. Furthermore, the video wasn't released until she was already dead for 1.5 years. But, keep on pretending to know things you don't. That's what you YouTube attorneys do best.
    2
  6151. You're preaching to the wrong choir. This is an Inside Edition video, where the fans gobble up every piece of silly nonsense they see. "Logic" isn't their thing. They feel whatever Inside Edition tells them to feel.
    2
  6152. Are you under the impression that you can just throw a bunch of legal sounding words into a YouTube comment, and that means you're correct? Good grief. You're wrong about every single thing you wrote here, sometimes so wrong that you don't even know one legal term from another. Case in point: "Once probable cause is established then the officer can legally detain and investigate until discovery in obtained." This is pure nonsense. The cop requires "reasonable suspicion" to detain someone, not probable cause. Probable cause is for an arrest. And, I have no Earthly idea what "until discovery in obtained" is supposed to mean. Even if you meant "is" instead of "in," it still makes no sense. Discovery of what? Your entire posting is exactly what's wrong with people on YouTube. You obviously have no concept about any of this, not in the slightest. But, for some reason, because YouTube gives you the ability to type some words and post them, this makes you think you know things you do not. Like, because you have the power to write things, this somehow means you're correct. Her own attorney didn't agree with a single thing you wrote here. What do you think you know that he didn't know?
    2
  6153. Why do you ask questions when you know in advance that you don't want answers, dewdrop?
    2
  6154. A) You are watching documentaries that edit out delays. Nobody likes to listen to them. B) It matters about who's responding to whom. The recording device was in Houston. Therefore, you won't hear a delay when an astronaut speaks and Houston answers. Why should someone in Houston wait 2.6 seconds to respond? But, when Houston asks an astronaut something, yes, there's a minimum 2.6 second response delay. But, the nuts who think it wasn't real are painfully unaware of where the recording device was located, and when to expect a delay (or not).
    2
  6155. Search for "lunar rover deployment" and you'll find several videos that show you.
    2
  6156. Wrong. The cops successfully prevented the arrest video from being seen by the public for 2.5 years. That's 1.5 years AFTER she died. But, eventually, they can no longer block legal Freedom of Information Act requests after a case has been closed for so long, and they had to release it. July 1, 2021 = arrest. March 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. She suffered ZERO shame from the release of the arrest video, because it wasn't released until long after she was dead. Take your obvious hatred somewhere else.
    2
  6157. "No one would believe a nasa employee if they tried" "I'm neutral on the whole thing" Um, sorry, you don't sound neutral.
    2
  6158. And the other witnesses who called the police? Huh? Did you think they dispatched 3 officers out of the blue?
    2
  6159. Well, maybe that's all YOU know, but, the rest of the world knows other things.
    2
  6160.  @JayVee-d  Especially since nobody had soft-landed ANYTHING on the moon 60 years ago. The dewdrop can't do math. Funny that he pretends he knows physics, huh? He can't subtract 2024-60, yet, he pretends he understands electrostatic physics and stuff.
    2
  6161.  @michaelstillman1171  My "working theory" is that they'd lose an IQ contest against a hamster.
    2
  6162. How about when the backpacks, suits, and landers off-gas? The flag shouldn't move when blown by those things?
    2
  6163. Hilarious!! YOU used the word "evidence"? YOU? Dewdrop, you don't even know what the evidence is.
    2
  6164. Flagged as misinformation.
    2
  6165. Wrong. She has to show her ID.
    2
  6166.  @michaelstillman1171  Your comment is a good joke. But, just for 100% clarity, in some other languages, "until today" (translated) basically means it hasn't happened yet. In English, it sounds like she's saying it never happened before, but it happened today. But, that's just how the languages don't quite translate correctly.
    2
  6167. YOU SAID: "Amazing! Amazing how the moon buggy came fully assembled" == WRONG. It required some assembly. YOU SAID: "and ran on an engine of electrical power" == What does "an engine of electrical power" mean to you? If I take what you're saying literally, um, yeah, it's called "batteries." Not really too complicated to understand. YOU SAID: "yet no footage of the unpacking," == WRONG. There are many videos of unpacking it, in simulations, in practice runs on Earth, and on the moon during Apollo 15. You can find them very easily by searching for them. Try "lunar rover deployment" in the search bar. Not too difficult, you know. YOU SAID: "carrying of the lunar vehicle." == WRONG. You can see the folded up rover if you know what you're looking for. The rover didn't completely fold into the lander, and actually stuck out a bit. You can see the fenders of the rovers if you are familiar with it enough to recognize what you're looking at (which, obviously, you are not). YOU SAID: "Rumor is they’re still planning on how to figure out how to make room on the already crowded small lunar module" == Does this stupid conspiracy even make sense to you? Do you ACTUALLY believe that the hundreds of engineers and technicians at Boeing, General Motors, and Grumman, all universally forgot to make the thing fit?? No?? They were all too dumb to realize that they forgot to make it fit into the lander, and, for the past 50 years, none of those hundreds of engineers and technicians ever woke up and realized, "Hey, wait a minute, we forgot to make the rover fit into the lander!!!"?? No?? YOU are the first one to notice that it wouldn't fit??
    2
  6168.  @michaelstillman1171  He's also the reason there is a "report spam" option. Nothing he's talking about is relevant to this video (nor relevant to much else either, but, that's a side topic).
    2
  6169. Gamerbike: YOU SAID: "I was born long after this supposed event and yet to discover how they packed rover into landing module, nor I can imagine space for it, nor any ramp to lower it." == Here's the thing: there are these new fangled things called "search engines." You get to key in words and phrases like "lunar rover deployment." And, voila, you get thousands of articles/videos showing how they folded/packed the rovers. You can see trial runs on Earth. You can see simulations. You can see an actual deployment of one on the moon (Apollo 15). But, you can't even imagine it, huh? YOU SAID: "Maybe they spend a day assembling it." == Or, you could watch the video of the deployment and assembly, and learn that they didn't spend a whole day assembling it. You know, there are these things called "engineers." Those "engineers" design things for specific purposes. And, in this case, they designed a rover to be deployed from a folded position in equipment bay #1, and to be assembled easily with lunar gloves on. YOU SAID: "I start to believe this is sole strongest point" == So, your sole strongest point is that you think the thousands upon thousands of engineers at General Motors, Boeing, Grumman, and NASA, all somehow forgot to make the rover fit into the LEM?? And, your strongest point is that you think somehow none of those people said, "hey, wait a minute, Apollo is all fake, we never made that rover fit into the LEM!!!" That's how your "strongest point" goes, in your mind? YOU SAID: "but I am learning about it now and as Droid say, I will try not to be too drawn into hoax theories before reviewing some original photos/documents first." == Yeah, stick with that idea. Start by acknowledging (to yourself) that you haven't got the foggiest idea what you're talking about, and that your "logic" is as flawed as looking for wholesome family values in a prison.
    2
  6170.  @soniamartin2007  You have been completely roasted by ann onn. Good grief. You say something dumb, and rather than admit it, you delete your comment. But, he/she had a copy. Hilarious!!! Hey, dummy, quit pretending you know what your'e talking about. I mean, your logic is akin to the idiots who use the Van Allen belts as an argument... as if the 2 hours Apollo spent in the Van Allen belts can be compared to the WEEKS/MONTHS that Orion has planned for those belts and/or other deep space missions. Radiation is mainly about the amount of exposure and the amount of time you're exposed. But, people like you sit there and think it's an all-or-nothing thing. No. There's a big difference between spending a few hours on the moon, vs. spending weeks/months on the moon. There's a big difference between spending a couple of hours exposed to radiation, vs. spending weeks/months exposed to radiation. But, people like you... completely ignorant... think you know more than the world's finest radiobiologists, engineers, and PhDs. Hey, dumbass, step 1: learn your own limits. When you haven't got the foggiest clue what you're talking about, quit slandering everyone who does. Good grief. Rude piece of gutter trash.
    2
  6171. Huh? And, that relates to Apollo, how?
    2
  6172. There are many different ways to try to draw comparisons between the Earth's atmosphere and the moon's atmosphere. Each way has a bunch of flaws and exceptions. But, ok, one way is to look at the total weight of the atmosphere. Earth's atmosphere is about 5,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg (about 5 quadrillion kilograms). The moon's entire atmosphere weighs about 25,000 kg. That's a factor of about 200,000,000,000,000. This is vastly different than the 100x you're claiming. Looking at it that way, it's like you don't know the difference between the entire gross national product of every country on Earth combined for a period of two years... vs. a single dime. I don't think I've seen that level of error before, not even from Kent Hovind. Sure, the moon is smaller, so that's a factor too. But, c'mon, let's get real here. You're way off. Another way is to look at density. That's a little more difficult, because it really depends on numerous factors that are difficult to capture with general statements. Temperature, size of the molecules, altitude, etc., all matter. But, ok, if we try that method with general statements anyway, you can say it's roughly 100 molecules of atmosphere per cubic centimeter on the moon. And, it's roughly 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules per cubic centimeter on Earth. So, if we try to look at it that way, your claim of 100x is still off by 1,000,000,000,000,000,000x. You'll forgive me if I don't think you know what you're talking about, right?
    2
  6173. Itchy Boy: YOU SAID: "I agree. Whether man walked on the moon or not cannot be proven or disproven." == Ridiculous. YOU SAID: "Personally, having studied the matter extensively, my conclusion is that no man has ever walked on the moon." == Pfftttt. I seriously doubt you've actually done much real studying. If you had, you'd know that the evidence for the moon landings is completely overwhelming.
    2
  6174.  @Tim22222  You don't use the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal for the photos?
    2
  6175.  @derrickmckinney5083  Why do you ask questions, but come to conclusions before you get answers?
    2
  6176. So, let me make sure I understand. You are under the impression that there were 3 men on the lunar lander. No, there were only 2 men on the lander. And, you cannot conceive of the notion that there might already be a camera mounted to the outside of the craft. No, that much understanding is beyond your capability. But, you feel confident in your knowledge about Apollo to claim that the entirety of the world's aerospace engineering community is wrong?? You don't even know how many people were in the craft, but, you somehow know that everyone else is wrong, and you're right? Is that the level of arrogance we're dealing with here?
    2
  6177. Yes, the descent stages are still on the moon, and Arizona State University's LRO camera has taken hundreds of photos of every landing site from just about every sun angle possible. You can go to their site and view them yourself.
    2
  6178. It IS illegal to yell fire in a theater if your intent is to cause a panic. If you yelled "fire... just kidding" or in a tone that nobody would take seriously, then it's not illegal.
    2
  6179. Are you going to just post this same nonsense into every video you see? This has been answered. What's your problem?
    2
  6180. If you want a car analogy, what you're saying is that thousands of people build the car, and don't know what happens to the car after they build it. But, what I asked (and you ignored) was why not just drive the car then? If thousands of people were under the impression that their individual components of the car actually worked, ok, why not just drive the car? You're claiming that the car never worked, right? You're claiming that some sort of select very few people knew ahead of time that the car would not work. But, if everyone who designs all of the car's components think those components will work, and everyone who builds the car thinks they built it correctly, why not just go drive the car then? What EXACTLY do you think these few people knew that would make the car not work, that nobody else knew?
    2
  6181. The witnesses and the video they took of the event disagree with you. And, nobody saw the arrest video until 1.5 years after her death.
    2
  6182. The dust accumulation is measured in thousands of years, not years. 50 years isn't all that much in cosmic time.
    2
  6183. Yes, they got back inside the lunar module, took off the PLSS backpacks, and got ready to discard everything that they were leaving behind. They then plugged their suits into the internal lunar module life support (oxygen supply hose), opened the hatch again, and tossed out anything non-essential for getting back home (including the PLSS backpacks). It's only a couple of pounds of oxygen to re-pressurize the cabin. My favorite photo of this is from Apollo 14, AS14-66-9338. You can see both PLSS backpacks, which they really got some good distance from the LEM when they threw them. 1/6th gravity helps, of course. And, they removed the OPS and radio from the top, which lightened it up quite a bit. And, you can clearly see from the marks in the dust that the far one bounced/dragged across the lunar surface. But, they managed to throw the thing way out past the flag.
    2
  6184. Inside Edition never even covered it until 1.5 years AFTER her death.
    2
  6185. Translation: I didn't watch the video, but, I'm going to tell everyone what's in it.
    2
  6186. Sorry, but your favorite conspiracy videos lied to you.
    2
  6187. YOU SAID: "If you strip away the peer pressure you all fall under, and closely observe, maybe you can see that they were absolutely NOT on the moon." == Look, maniac, I've NEVER felt "peer pressure." I wouldn't know what "peer pressure" even is, because I've never in my life cared one bit about what people think of me. It's not peer pressure that makes me understand that Apollo happened. It's an understanding of the history, the underlying sciences, and the evidence. You clearly have no understanding of those things. YOU SAID: "Mind you, I'm not saying they didnt land on the moon." == Pfftttt. Spare the world your ridiculous behavior of pretending to be intellectually honest. We all know what you think. You don't have to act like you have an open mind. We all know otherwise. YOU SAID: "I'm saying that THESE films, all of them! were not filmed on the moon." == Pfftttt. So, in this "intellectual honesty" you're trying to pretend you have... you're saying that they might have landed on the moon, but decided not to use the cameras they had, and decided to fake the videos for some crazy reason? Good gods. Why? Why not just use the actual footage? YOU SAID: "Again, I hate to be in this category of people, because I'm nto really a conspiracy nut." == Yes, you quite obviously are. YOU SAID: "But when you see @$#%%$@# in a thing, you should call it!" == On YouTube comments?? No, again, that's what a crackpot does. Any sane person would demonstrate it mathematically, and submit it to a science journal, before accusing thousands of people of being criminals. What we have here is you, who doesn't quite understand the physics involved on the moon, and then accusing people of being criminals because you don't understand something. YOU SAID: "Ok. Ive heard this a million times from people like yourself. Still not buying it." == Yet, if you hear it a single time from another person like yourself, you "buy it" immediately. You're like one of those delusional cancer patients that sees doctor after doctor after doctor after doctor, all who tell him, "yeah, you have cancer, sorry, it's non-operable." And, sooner or later, you end up in the Philippines who tells you that you're fine, you just need this psychic surgery to remove the tumors. You say, "yeah, I've heard it a million times that nobody can operate, here, take my money, do the psychic surgery." And, they take your money, you go home, and your family mourns you a few weeks later. Sigh. Yeah, you've heard it a million times because IT IS TRUE. I mean, good gods, can you even listen to yourself? Do you think before you speak (or write)? You are on YOUTUBE COMMENTS. For FIFTY YEARS now, the entire world has had these videos to watch and analyze. Yet, not a single physicist or mathematician, anywhere on Earth, in friendly or enemy countries, has published these objections in any science journal anywhere. Nowhere. Not a single time. Now, is that because the entire world's physicists and mathematicians don't understand how to do the physics and math behind the motions you see in these videos? And, YOU do? Or, is it because the entire world's physicists and mathematicians DO understand the dynamics on the moon, and YOU don't? Which is more likely, in your mind? Good gods, have some humility. Sheeessssshhh. YOU SAID: "I think you're looking at htis without bias, but thats ok." == Hilarious. Well, you're either massively stupid, or that was a hell of a Freudian slip. YOU SAID: "I get that it's all 1/6 of earth's gravity, but it doesnt exclude mass, which happens to be absent when every time he gets up, or stumbles." == Because mass has a hell of a lot more effect on lateral movement than vertical movement. Yes, it affects vertical movement to an extent also. But, the main component of vertical movement is the force of gravity (thus, the force you must overcome to lift something). You'd be correct in that mass will affect the acceleration in the vertical direction. But, he's not accelerating very much anyway. Again, you are simply demonstrating that you really don't understand these concepts. And, you're using your LACK of understanding in order to accuse people of being criminals. YOU SAID: "I could say the very same thing to you. It might look like he's on the moon bouncing up and down like a kangeroo, but it doesnt mean that he is...." == You don't even know how to spell things. I mean, good grief. I truly try NOT to pick on spelling and grammar. But, you're borderline illiterate. Why should anybody presume that you understand math and physics if you can't even spell the word "kangaroo"?? I realize that one has nothing to do with the other. But, you're not exactly making yourself out to be smart here. You make spelling/grammar/punctuation errors constantly. And, yet, you want others to think you're capable of understanding advanced mathematics and physics. Yes, there are people who understand math and physics better than they can read and write. But, you're not one of them. YOU SAID: "And of course you could fake this stuff!" == Well, the interesting part (that you seem to have missed) is that you see the motion of the dust simultaneously to the motions of the astronauts. It would be remarkably difficult to fake the movement of an astronaut to look like he's in 1/6th gravity, within the same frame as dust that IS clearly moving in 1/6th gravity. Modern CGI could probably do it. But, you'd have an awfully difficult time doing it in 1969-1972. And, this is especially ironic because your entire premise is saying that they COULDN'T fake it!!! Now you're saying they could??? Your entire point is that this is faked, but they couldn't fake it good enough, and that you spotted the "problems." Now, you're saying that they "of course could fake it" good enough, but, apparently they didn't bother to do so, because you're saying they could fake it, but didn't fake it good enough?? My mind is spinning with this circular logic. If they COULD fake it (your current position), then why didn't they? If it is sooooooo easily spotted as fake (as you're claiming), then you're saying they DIDN'T fake it good enough!!! Hence, they couldn't fake it. So, they could fake it, but couldn't fake it? YOU SAID: "People are in general so dumb!" == The irony. YOU SAID: "I hate saying this on youtube." == Liar. But, whatever. You don't have to say it on YouTube. There are hundreds of worldwide science journals. What are you waiting for? Why aren't you providing your calculations to them? What are you doing here, if you hate it so much? See, YouTube comments is where crackpots and idiots go when their assertions don't hold water under real scientific scrutiny. Delusional people can say anything they want in a YouTube comment, and maintain (to themselves) that they're correct. Science journals don't work that way. If you do the math wrong, or you assert something that is unfounded, or can't prove your point mathematically, you don't get past the first round of scrutiny, let alone rounds of scientific rebuttals. Hence, delusional people post their objections on YouTube, and pretend that they hate to do it.
    2
  6188. YOU SAID: "You'd think he'd struggle to get up for a few seconds at least! nope! He just lifts up liek it's made of paper, remains at an angle that youd expect anything to topple over! But no, he's just fine. Off he goes." == Yes, he lifted himself up that easily because he weighed 27 pounds, and his backpack and suit weighed 31 pounds. You know what's amazing about people like you? You are the living embodiment of "damned if you do, damned if you don't." There literally is no way to win with people like you. If the astronaut had struggled to get up, you'd be the first to say, "Hey, wait a minute, I thought this was 1/6th gravity!!! Yeah, that stuff weighs a lot on Earth. But, getting up should be just a easy flick of the muscles in a vertical direction, and shouldn't be much of a problem at all. Horizontal movement should be difficult, while vertical movement should be easy. Mass vs. weight!!! Why is he struggling? Apollo is fake!!!" But, when he doesn't struggle to get up, you're saying the exact opposite, "Hey, wait a minute, shouldn't he struggle to get up?? That backpack is heavy, yet, he gets up as if the combined weight of the backpack, suit, and astronaut is less than 60 pounds or something. Apollo is fake!!!!" People like you are just plain ridiculous. No matter which condition happened, struggling to get up, not struggling to get up, you were going to scream "FAKE!!!" anyway. How can anybody possibly respond to that kind of attitude? YOU SAID: "Now you could call me names and throw @%#@ at me," == What? Kind of like you're doing to the astronauts by accusing them of criminal fraud? How many other thousands do you think would need to have actively participated in this fraud also? How many thousands are you accusing of committing crimes that would get them thrown in prison for the rest of their lives? Oh, but you don't want anybody to call YOU names? YOU SAID: "but consider seeing this without bias!" == I'm a math guy. One of my degrees is in mathematics, highest honors, tons of accolades, blah blah blah (nobody cares, least of all me). I was literally one of those math prodigies throughout childhood and university life. That was decades and decades ago at this point, and I can barely remember that kid. I took my life in a different direction (there's no money in just doing math for a living), so I'm not bringing this up to brag or whatever (again, nobody cares). But, my point is, even though math hasn't played a role in my life for decades, I haven't lost the fact that I'm still a math guy. Math isn't biased. Math is perfect. You can take the known physics formulas for any motion you see on the moon, do the math, and find out if the motion is correct, or not. No bias. No predetermined conclusions. Math works. Math can determine whether the motions you see on the moon are correct, or not. So, don't come here with your silly "see this without bias" nonsense. SHOW THE MATH if you think you're correct. Do that math. Write it up. Submit it to a science journal if you think you're right. YouTube comments are where crackpots and idiots go to make their anti-Apollo cases. Here you are, making a claim that can be verified with a basic understanding of physics and math, and what are you doing? You're complaining on YOUTUBE COMMENTS?!?!?!?!?!? Good gods.
    2
  6189. YOU SAID: "I really hate being in the category of disbelievers in the moon lands," == Then stop doing it. YOU SAID: "but bloody hell! look at frames (34:42 - 34:55) - that is clearly a man dangling by the hios on really thin cables. Look at the way he falls. Given the fact that those suits are really heavy! plsu the guy is gunning super fast....he doesnt tumble. His belly doestnt even touch the ground when he wipes! You wanan know why? The cables at the hips are stopping his tumbling motion, and he hardly lands heavily....because of the cables." == Pffttt. Or, maybe it's just because that's a lot of mass, but very little weight, and he can't get enough traction to slow down, but the mass just keeps carrying him forward. And, what? You are literally complaining that he didn't let his belly touch the ground? Good gods. Don't sit there and tell me that you "hate being in the category of disbelievers" then act in shock because the man fell and didn't let his belly touch the ground. You are literally SEEKING things to disbelieve. People can fall without their bellies touching the ground on Earth. People can fall without their bellies touching the ground on the moon. This is just ridiculous. If you have a beef with any of the actual physics of the motions you see, you demonstrate it mathematically. That's how you do it. Any of the motions seen in the video can be calculated with basic physics 101 formulas. You don't go on YouTube comments and complain that their bellies didn't touch the ground, therefore they are criminal frauds that would get a lifetime in prison for the crimes you're accusing them of committing.
    2
  6190. YOU SAID: "Watch now how he gets up! He's at a complete angle!" == Um, yeah. It's the moon. Between the meandering surface, plus the fact that the PLSS backpack, OPS backup unit and radio on top, yeah, they often sloped forward. Just standing on a flat part of the ground, they were already sloped a bit forward due to the need to offset the PLSS and OPS on their backs. If they're standing on a sloped ground, it's going to look that way even more. Have you gone to analyze the exact station stop they were at, and found out how sloped the ground already was at that location? I'd do it for you, but, 99% of the times that I go out of my way for one of you maniacs, find the topographical map of that area and look at the slope angles, it ends up that I've wasted my time, because people like you just aren't listening anyway. But, you're welcome to do all of that, you know. But, for every single time someone has complained about the slope angles seen in the videos in the past, it turns out that the angles were correct for the location they were at. Remember, if they're on a hill, the rover is on a hill too, which means that the camera mounted to that rover is also on that hill, and has a sloped viewing angle already.
    2
  6191. YOU SAID: "Again, those suits are really heavy!" == 88 pound suit. 80 pound PLSS. 20 pound OPS and radio. Yeah, 188 pounds. Divide by 6 to adjust to the moon's gravity. It's 31 pounds. They themselves weighed let's say 160-165 pounds (a typical weight of an Apollo astronaut). Divide by 6, and the astronaut weighs 27 pounds. Total weight that the astronaut's legs must lift = 58 pounds. Not too difficult. If your leg muscles were accustomed to lifting 160-165 pounds on Earth, yeah, it's mighty easy to lift 58 pounds on the moon. Remember, weight and mass are different concepts. Slowing yourself down involves stopping the momentum of MASS (which doesn't change). Lifting yourself off the ground involves lifting WEIGHT (which depends on the different gravity conditions).
    2
  6192. I don't know about the "scumbag" part. But, yes, he was fleeing. There are other videos that show the kid at a gas station, when a cop car pulls in, and the kid guns the engine and races out onto the public road, fleeing the police.
    2
  6193. The most amazing part about all of this is that you people never fact check a single thing you say. If a conspiracy video tells you something ridiculous, you literally just take it at face value, no matter how wrong or ridiculous. Meanwhile, you accuse the SANE people of blindly swallowing what WE are told? Utterly amazing.
    2
  6194. It's truly amazing to behold. You sit there and start dozens of threads on various topics. You pretend you want answers to your questions, but, you always ignore the answers, or reject the answers before you get them. And, when asked return questions, you ignore those also, never answering. Then, you repeat the process of demanding answers from others. Apollo was expensive, dewdrop. It had very little public support once the first landing happened. And, people wanted to stop spending that kind of money once the race was won. The Soviets tried doing it, but, their most crucial failure was in the design of the N1 moon rocket, which kept exploding. Once they lost the race, they made some half hearted attempts to keep making the N1 work (which it never did), but, they really didn't want to spend the kind of money it was going to take to put the 13th man on the lunar surface, so, they shifted their focus onto cheaper accomplishments that they could claim some "firsts," like probes to Venus, or space stations. China has the 2nd largest space agency budget on Earth (next to the USA). And, even at that, it's only about 10% of NASA's budget. Nowadays, they're looking to trickle money into landing people on the moon over the period of their 11 year long program to do so. Even at that pace, it's very aggressive to think they can get the job done for that amount of money, and it might be more realistic to say that they'll do it in 15-20 years instead of their intended 11 years (2019 to 2030). Again, it's expensive. No other country even wants to entertain that level of spending. So, don't sit there and pretend that other countries' lack of moon programs somehow debunks Apollo. I asked (and you ignored), let's pretend you are the NASA administrator at some point between 1975 and 2018. Apollo is over, ended by congress. But, you'd like to start up a new program to put people on the moon. How would you do it? See, dewdrop, you don't get to just moan and complain that there hasn't been such a program since Apollo (and before Artemis). You have to outline how YOU would have managed to make such a program happen. How would you do it?
    2
  6195. I swear... most people who comment on this video have got to be the most gullible people alive. This woman was a career criminal who did a felony prison term in Florida in 2018. She abandoned her family and friends about 15 years ago to live a life of crime and drugs, leaving behind a husband, 6 month old son, and another son. Her landlord said she was a "dancer" (stripper) at the local club, and neighbors said she did "private extras" in her apartment with parades of paying men. If she wasn't making "public beach" content, I'll eat my hat. Multiple witnesses called this in to the police. One of them even recorded it and gave a copy of the video to the police (never released due to graphic content). This arrest happened on July 1, 2021. She decided to exit this world sometime in February or March of 2022. This arrest video wasn't released until November 24, 2023, about 1.5 years after she was already dead. The reason they don't know the exact date (or even which month) was because she had no family or friends at that point who cared enough to even find out what happened to her when she went missing, and she wasn't found until her landlord went into the apartment to collect overdue rent. No, there was no "public shame" that resulted from this video, because nobody saw the video until long after she died. Yes, her mugshot was published on a couple of obscure blogs I've never heard of. But, so what? This was, by far, nowhere near her first arrest. She had been busted for stealing cars, drugs and alcohol, other thefts, etc., and had quite a long record. She had been trying to change her name, but the courts rejected it because of her criminal history. She had multiple judgements against her, both civilly and criminally. Yet, all Inside Edition needs to do is ask the question "was she shamed to death?" They never answer their own question, they just spin the story, show a couple of clips of her trying to cry her way out of her millionth arrest, and tell people she was a real estate agent (even though she hadn't sold a house in over a decade), and the public just gobbles it up. Good grief. STOP FALLING FOR WHATEVER THE MEDIA SAYS!!!
    2
  6196. What? You're just going to abandon your other threads, and start a new one? What's wrong with you? YOU SAID: "Do you really look at the photo's, no dirt on the landing pads, all klean" == Says who? The conspiracy videos you're watching. I pointed you to the location that you could look at all of the photos yourself (in another thread). Did you look at them? There was dust on some of the landing pads. As a matter of fact, the north landing pad of the Apollo 14 lander was half way submersed in dust. Sorry, dummy, but those are the photos that the conspiracy videos aren't going to show you, because it kills their narrative that all of the landing pads didn't have dust. But, of course, you're not really interested in fact-checking anything. You swallow whatever a conspiracy video tells you, hook line and sinker, blindly believing whatever you see... then you turn around and accuse the sane people of doing EXACTLY what you're actually doing. YOU SAID: "no blast hole in the ground where the rocked motor was supposed to land." == Correct. That engine cannot cut a crater into compacted regolith and rock. If there had been a crater, then that would mean Apollo was fake. YOU SAID: "When they were using a hammer you could hear the strikes, in a vaccume ." == Yes. Sound conducts through a hammer, and into the suit, and the air inside a suit. This is well understood. YOU SAID: "and so on." == TRANSLATION: "and so on, whatever the conspiracy videos tell me, is true." YOU SAID: "No I don't call all the photos fake just a few." == So, they took some authentic photos on the moon... but, some of the photos from the moon were fake?? Which ones? Do you have catalog numbers? If they were on the moon taking real photos, why would they need fake ones? What ARE you talking about? Good gods, go see a doctor. You are severely impaired.
    2
  6197. Well, neither do you, if you cannot even spell his name correctly.
    2
  6198. Says who? Her? One of the witnesses recorded it, and gave a copy of the video to the police. It didn't match her version.
    2
  6199. "Temperature and the radiation will kill you" What exact temperature? And, what type and quantity of radiation? "not to mention the lack of atmosphere pressure" Not to mention? While you mention? Huh? You do know they were inside spacesuits, right? You do know they were inside spacecraft, right? "Ie vacuum, you'd blow up like a egg in a microwave" Dewdrop, did you ever consider that dropping out of school when you were in 2nd grade was maybe a bad idea?
    2
  6200. Sorry, dewdrop, waving the letters "AI" around doesn't actually mean you know what you're talking about.
    2
  6201. Why is it that none of you nuts ever actually want evidence? Why is it just some form of an argument from incredulity? Airplanes have been around since 120 years ago. Yet, the 737-Max crashed twice. So, does this mean airplanes didn't exist before? Yes, new rockets sometimes have problems. Nobody said that rocketry is an easy business with no failures. Why do you care about what's going on with a completely different rocket platform, instead of actually wanting to understand the evidence itself?
    2
  6202. Can you name the type of proof that you'd accept and expect? People could write entire encyclopedias of evidence. But, given that people like you tend to reject the evidence before anybody gives it to you, I must ask what evidence you would expect and accept?
    2
  6203. "how the astronauts were shielded from radiation in space" Depends. What kind of radiation are you worried about? Waving the word "radiation" around means absolutely nothing. Light is radiation. To protect from light, they wore a spacesuit. Sound is radiation. But, you don't have to really worry too much about sound in space. Gammas are radiation, but, there aren't very many gammas in space either. Electron ions are radiation. Aluminum works very well for that. Proton ions are radiation. There isn't much you can really do about them, though. Aluminum and plastics are about as good as anything else just for the outward shield from protons, but, not super-effective. Nothing really is. So, you basically just have to minimize your exposure. Thankfully, they weren't exposed to protons very much. I mean, the mere fact that you're just saying "radiation" is pretty useless. If you don't even know what kind of radiation you're asking about, it's impossible to answer you. Again, I must instead ask who told you radiation was a problem? What type did they tell you was a problem? I don't think you have even the slightest education about radiation, none whatsoever. I don't think you've taken a single university physics class about the various forms of radiation. And, I don't think you have a lick of experience on aerospace engineering. I think you were told by a conspiracy video that radiation was some sort of problem, and you just blindly regurgitated the question. Sorry, doesn't work that way in reality. If you can't specify what you're worried about, it means that you don't know enough about the topic to even be worried about it. And, if you actually believe that the 450,000 people who worked on Apollo forgot to deal with radiation, then there's really not much hope for you.
    2
  6204. "How were they able to protect from heat and cold in space" By staying inside spacecraft and spacesuits. Those spacecraft and spacesuits had environmental control systems. Again, heat and temperature mean very different things in a vacuum than what people are used to in an atmosphere or in water or something. Vacuums themselves are wonderful insulators. But, yes, spacecraft can heat up or cool off, depending on how much energy they're receiving, vs. how much energy they're emitting. But, just like your house's heating system and A/C systems can keep you comfortable, even if it's neg-30 outside, or 110 outside, you feel just fine inside, yes, spacesuits and spacecraft have similar systems. They do it a different way than your house does it, though. They used porous plate sublimators for cooling. Those work rather marginally in an atmosphere, but, work wonderfully in space. But, the heaters were fairly conventional.
    2
  6205. Still getting every message blocked, and I need to keep rewording. Do you make firemen prove that a firesuit works to protect them from 2000 degree temperatures before you're willing to believe that they fight fires? If your criteria is that you must understand how a spacesuit works before you'll believe it, do you require equal proof that a firesuit works before you'll believe that a fireman can fight fires?
    2
  6206. "These are just a few things that nasa has never explained." Absolute nonsense. The environmental control systems on the spacecraft and in the spacesuits are well published, down to every single wire and switch. The schematics of every single component of Apollo are readily available. What do you mean NASA never explained them? Have you looked? Or, did a conspiracy video tell you it's never been explained, and you just believed it for no reason? "Anything can be put on tv, but can you prove that it really happened?" But, dewdrop, I gave you the opportunity to specify what type of proof you required. And, your only reply was a list of questions about how stuff works. You didn't ask for proof. It was a pile of "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake" questions. Good grief. You don't even know what "proof" means, apparently. Sorry, a list of questions about how things work aren't proof of anything. Answers to those questions aren't proof. Yes, there are mountains upon mountains of proof of Apollo. But, you didn't actually ask for any of it in any coherent fashion. So, I'll ask again, what kind of proof do you expect, and what would you accept?
    2
  6207. They went there 9 times (landed 6). They brought back 850 pounds of rocks.
    2
  6208. All anybody needs to do is look at the reflection patterns with and without the reflectors. Those graphs are readily available. It's clear as day. And, no sane person would/could confuse the two.
    2
  6209.  @deanhall6045  Why are you asking new questions again? You have refused to address a single thing I've asked, or answer a single challenge I've put forth. Now, you're coming around to keep asking new things. Why?
    2
  6210.  @amandagrant4331  Oh? So, how does that go, in your mind? Do you think they just produced 3 extra moon rockets for 3 extra missions (unmanned) to send 3 reflectors to the moon? Who built the landers and the deployment mechanisms? Who built the 3 extra rockets? It took about 3000 people about a month to prepare a moon rocket for launch. Why didn't those 3000 people ever say there were 3 extra missions that nobody knew about? Why didn't anybody in the public ever notice these 3 extra moon rockets sitting on the launch pads for a month being prepared? Why didn't anybody in the public notice 3 moon rockets being launched. Those rockets could be seen and heard for hundreds of miles. Nobody noticed that 3 extra rockets were launched? See, dewdrop, you don't get to just blindly dismiss the 3 Apollo reflectors on the moon by claiming that they were put there on unmanned missions. It's not that simple. You'd have a heck of a lot more things to explain.
    2
  6211. Huh? The cop was told by a store employee that the woman didn't pay. That's reasonable suspicion, so, yes, he can (and should) stop her. What would you propose instead? And, what rights do you think were violated, and who violated them?
    2
  6212. Jon, The main evidence you can use to "personally verify" the moon landings would come if you get the education required to be a geologist and analyze the moon rocks. They only allow accredited geologists and geology students to cut the rocks and chemically analyze them. I've seen and held moon rocks, but, I'm not a geologist, so, I've never had the opportunity to actually analyze what they're made of, and test them for oxygen and moisture, etc. But, there are thousands of peer reviewed scientific articles about the 850 pounds of moon rocks/dust brought back on the Apollo missions, performed by accredited geologists from all around the world, and not a single one of those articles has ever accused the rocks of being fake. Quite to the contrary, they report that the rocks are of non-Earth origin, date back over 4 billion years, and have never been exposed to moisture or oxygen. Good luck finding that on Earth. You could also become an accredited laser ranging expert, and work at one of the dozens of worldwide laser ranging facilities that bounce lasers off of the Apollo reflectors every single day. But, I'm sure you'd just complain that those reflectors could have been placed on the moon robotically. I wouldn't know how you could explain how they managed to sneak 3 secret probe missions to the moon without anybody noticing, and build specialized landers and reflector-deployment mechanisms without anybody spilling the beans that they somehow designed/built/launched those things (other than the well documented Apollo landers, with the reflectors that were deployed with human hands). But, anyway, it's evidence, nonetheless. You could become a professor/researcher at Arizona State University, or attend as a student and work as an intern, and receive the daily 400 gigs of downloads from the LRO camera orbiting the moon. Among those daily downloads over the past 14 years have been photos of the landing sites, which show the landers, rover tracks, etc. Beyond that, if you're going to set a standard where only things you've personally verified are accepted, well, you can toss out all kinds of things throughout history. Civil War? Never happened. You can't verify it. George Washington was the first president? Nope. You can't verify it, and must rely on the historical record. I mean, it's pretty obvious among your numerous postings, pretending you want evidence but can't find anything to convince you, and demanding something you can "personally verify," well, you're basically setting up a situation in your mind where it's essentially an impossible goal. And, that can apply to ANYTHING, and you'd use it as a mechanism to deny whatever you feel like denying. That's not a mechanism to understand the world. That's a mechanism to fuel delusion. I mean, I assume you don't have access to the massive underground neutrino detectors either, right? Or the CERN supercollider? Does this mean you can claim that there are no neutrinos coming from the sun, because you have no way to personally verify it? Does this mean that heavy man-made elements do not exist, because you've never operated a supercollider? Sorry, your entire act of pretending you want evidence is just not flying. You are clearly a moon landing denier, and you're just trying to wiggle your way into explaining that you're just an observer looking for evidence. Nobody is buying it. Stop pretending. You're not good at it.
    2
  6213. So, in your mind, who knew it wouldn't work? I mean, ok, your "compartmentalization" argument... let's say you're right... you're not correct, but, let's pretend you are. Now, everyone builds components of the rockets and spacecraft, and everyone thinks their individual components would do the job they designed them to do. Now what? Why not just go to the moon? Which particular parts wouldn't have done the job? And, why didn't those engineers know it? And, who knew it wouldn't work? Administrators? The president? Who? Name those people who somehow knew it wouldn't work, and why the individual engineers didn't know?
    2
  6214. Spare the world this nonsense. If you didn't see the weapon, you weren't looking. They even talked about the gun, and spelled out where it was. But, you still didn't look. Since you're too lazy to do it yourself, watch the last minute or so of "KSP Statement on LMPD OIS on June 19, 2023 (KSP Captain Paul Blanton)" and they circle the gun for you.
    2
  6215. It was visible to the naked eye in the right lighting. And, its radio signals were received by anybody tuned in.
    2
  6216. A physics class on how light works would end that surprise you're feeling. You cannot see photons that have been interfered with in transit. How much resolution do you want? Do you have any idea of how many miles across the lens would need to be?
    2
  6217. Quit your obvious hatred. The carjacker approached the door while wearing a balaclava ski mask in the middle of summer, pulled a gun out, and pointed it straight at the cop's head. If that's not a justified reason to shoot, I don't know what is. And, sorry, but if you think it's a good idea to bring a Taser or pepper spray to a gunfight, then do it with YOUR OWN LIFE, don't sit there and request that others should take those same chances that you want to take. Tasers, bean bags, pepper spray, etc., are not always effective. And, no, you don't use those types of tools against an armed attacker with a gun pointed at you. You use your firearm, or else you end up being the one on the ground who's got 20 seconds of life left inside him. And, you dare say that the guy wasn't going to shoot? You know this, how?
    2
  6218. YOU SAID: "Thats definitely is a BIG LIES OF HISTORY" == Clearly your education has been a lie. YOU SAID: "You are more of a manipulated idiot, China will find out very quickly that the American flag is there the moon vehicle," == Which flag? You do know there are 6 of them, right? And, what do you mean "the moon vehicle" with relation to the flag? YOU SAID: "this is great, the guys even say they put a moon vehicle, where is the assembly?" == Search for "Lunar rover deployment." There are plenty of videos that show you where it was, how they assembled it, how they folded it and packed it, etc. There's even the video from Apollo 15, which shows them deploying it on the moon. YOU SAID: "as you landed, you deluded." == Oh, the irony.
    2
  6219.  @PRONTOFALEI11  So, you ignored every question, changed topics, and declared victory. Wow. I don't think I've ever seen a conspiratard do that before.
    2
  6220. First of all, the Freedom of Information act REQUIRES that the police release the video. Secondly, it wasn't released until November 24, 2023. She died two years ago. Nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive. But, you keep on pretending to know things you don't.
    2
  6221. Well, until you looked up what really caused all of this, and not just believe everything Inside Edition tells you.
    2
  6222. Who told you that? A conspiracy video? That's not what the museum that has that rock thinks happened. Why do you? No, dewdrop. The children of a dead politician in the Netherlands who was elected to office in the 1940s, two decades before Apollo ever went to the moon, gave a piece of petrified wood to an art museum, claiming it was a moon rock. It was the wrong color, wrong look, wrong size, wasn't encased in Lucite, had no plaque like the actual goodwill samples had, etc. The art museum contacted NASA to ask if it was real, and was told that they had no record of such rock, and offered to take a look if they'd send it to them. The art museum decided not to bother authenticating it, and just accepted it, and stuck it into a drawer for about 14 years. It was instantly spotted as a fake the moment they put it on display. Meanwhile, their real lunar samples remain proudly on display in their science museum. Now, what do you think actually happened here? Do you think NASA gave a piece of petrified wood to a politician who was elected decades before Apollo? That would be like China giving a moon rock to Bill Clinton rather than the sitting president. And, nobody noticed it wasn't a moon rock until long after he died? Or, hmmm, do you suppose maybe the children of a deceased politician were trying to get a massive inheritance tax credit by donating a fake $50 million rock to an art museum that would be gullible enough to accept it without verifying?
    2
  6223. It's not 9,000 degrees, but, yes, the particles can sometimes get super hot. So what? We're counting atoms at that point. Ask yourself why a tiny thimble of boiling hot water doesn't melt a glacier, and maybe you'll start to understand the thermodynamics here. A few tiny hot atoms/molecules cannot melt a spacecraft. And, how exactly does this go, in your mind? You think you understand the topic better than the entire planet's aerospace engineers and astrophysicists? YOU?
    2
  6224. No, dewdrop. I didn't say that Mars cannot have dust storms. I said that they aren't caused by a solar wind. And, anybody who looks at these comments can see your lies right here.
    2
  6225. Oversimplifying here, radio is basically the same thing as light. It's all part of the electromagnetic spectrum, travels at the same speed, gets generated basically the same way, just operates at a different frequency. If light can make it that far, so can radio.
    2
  6226. And, you believe that, why? Because the woman said she didn't think anybody was around, while she was attempting to avoid her millionth arrest, and didn't want to go back to prison again?
    2
  6227. YOU SAID: "During the Challenger landing.....there is the 'sound' of the engine ...is that real or faked ?" == Fake. I assume you're talking about the faint background noise of a jet engine, right? No, the rocket doesn't make that noise. It was added by the makers of this documentary. YOU SAID: "During the landing, they are talking to Gordy....who is that?" == Houston mission control.
    2
  6228. So, you want them to also be therapists?
    2
  6229. Is this a joke? Did you really not understand the "low budget" comment? Good grief.
    2
  6230. Um, ok, but, do you know the actual story, or just this deceptive joke of a story from this video? I mean, start with the fact that she waited almost a year after this arrest before she decided to end it all, and that the arrest video wasn't released until 1.5 years after that. Then, dive into her extensive criminal history, her time spent in a Florida prison about 6 years ago, etc. And, then deal with the fact that her neighbors said she was a "dancer" (yes, that kind) who did "private extras" with parades of paying men in her apartment. In all probability, she was making "public beach" content for her fans. You're welcome to still be mortified, but, let's face the reality, not the fantasy of an innocent soccer mom shown in this video.
    2
  6231. Huh? Read the police report. Good grief. Yes, one of the audience recorded it on video, and showed it to the police. Needless to say, it didn't match her version about a discreet act with nobody around.
    2
  6232.  @camdengraves1442  https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5317065-Complaint-for-Damages-00269643xB0FCA.html#document/p1
    2
  6233. Frankly, I do not believe you in the slightest. If you were in his shoes, and you knew darned well that Sibrel's only purpose was to slander you, and lied to you to get an interview, and had already established the pattern that his intent was to pretend YOU were the liar, I don't think for a single second that you'd cooperate. I think you're just saying that because it aligns with your delusions. Aldrin had already spoken to Sibrel, and Sibrel had already told him, to his face, that he thought the moon landings were faked, and had told him that he had the film of one of the Apollo 11's broadcast (the famous "round window trick" video) carbon dated by professionals, and that this proves the mission was faked in low orbit. (Of course, you cannot carbon date a piece of film, and the video wasn't even on film in the first place, because it was a radio broadcast, not a piece of film, so, Sibrel was lying constantly.) There is absolutely no reason to cooperate with someone like that, and I think you know that. You are avoiding even mentioning the astronauts who DID swear on Sibrel's bible. So, do you accept that they walked on the moon? No, of course not. Whether or not someone swears on a bible has absolutely no impact on what you believe. You're just looking for an excuse to blame Aldrin for the fact that Sibrel is a conman.
    2
  6234. "I have not seen any video proof" It's in one of Sibrel's own videos. How is it that you somehow know about Aldrin refusing to swear on Sibrel's bible (after he had already been harassing him constantly), but, you don't know about the ones who did? See, this is what happened, dewdrop: it was a matter of whoever Sibrel got to first. He attempted interviews with ALL of the astronauts, forging fake press credentials, and lying about being employed by a major network. Rather, he was putting together a hit piece. The first few astronauts he interviewed believed his initial lies, and swore on his bible. But, when Sibrel began accusing the astronauts, the word spread, and the rest knew not to cooperate. He manipulates the video and audio in his editing room to produce a false narrative. It's amazingly easy to debunk him, simply by watching the original videos and paying attention to all of his dishonest edits.
    2
  6235. "Buzz should have had an answer instead of abruptly ending the interview." Sibrel claimed he had the film "professionally carbon dated" while accusing Aldrin of lying (you cannot carbon date a piece of film, and, the video wasn't on film in the first place... it was a radio transmission). So, Sibrel was lying straight to Aldrin's face, while accusing Aldrin of being a liar. Yeah, I'd kick him out also. "I would have shown interest in their video clip and tried to explain it" Spare the world, seriously. When people come and call you a liar to your face, and present evidence that was quite obviously edited and faked, no reasonable person is going to engage in a conversation.
    2
  6236. "I would have invited him to join me at a local tavern to discuss it over a beer." This is beyond reason or humanity. The man was creating a video full of slander, and lying right to Aldrin's face. You're saying that you'd be friendly and have a beer? Sorry, but you're just saying that to keep your delusion-wall intact in your mind. If someone [blanked] your wife, are you going to have a beer? If someone stole your car, are you going to have a beer? But, when someone attempts to accuse you of being a criminal who committed multiple felonies, oh, then you're going to have a beer?
    2
  6237. Start with "Addendum A Funny Thing Happened... (By GreaterSapien - MIRROR)" and go from there. There are a million ways to know that Sibrel is a liar, but, that's just one of the million, and only takes a couple of minutes to see.
    2
  6238. I am not sure what you mean. It's true that they tended not to take pictures directly into the sun, because it tended to just turn out to be a really lousy photo of lots of lens flare and a big white blob drowning out the image. It's just like on Earth, you know. If you point a film camera at the sun, it just dominates the image, making a much bigger blob of white, beyond just the angular size of the sun. The chemical process on the film goes bananas with that much light, and bleaches out the colors, and kind of dominates the image altogether, and creates tons of lens flare. But, to say that there are "no pictures"?? Huh? They took about 7000 photos across the 6 missions that landed, with 80 hours of walking out on the surface, across 2 astronauts per mission. I've never counted the number of those photos that were pointed directly into the sun, but, it's at least a couple of hundred. Yeah, not a large percentage of the 7000 total (because they tried taking most of the photography down sun, rather than up sun). But, yes, the photos do exist. AS12-46-6762 is only just one of them, but, instantly proves that you have never even looked at the photo archive before spewing absolute nonsense.
    2
  6239. What in the world do X-rays have to do with anything?
    2
  6240. "The technology existed when these pics were take to zoom I mean really zoom" No, dewdrop. The cameras in orbit around the moon don't have "real" zoom (optical zoom). They have digital zoom only. "to be able to distinguish the parts left behind." Seeing landers and rover tracks isn't good enough? "If your happy" If my happy? What does that mean? Was that your 2nd grade level education trying to write "you're," but you can't figure it out? "seeing specs, dots of distorted pixels then that's on you." Well, I just told you in my prior posting where to find hundreds of photos. Why didn't you look at them? "The government isn't your buddy." Dewdrop, nobody relies on the US government to understand Apollo. Don't confuse *YOUR* blind rejection into somehow believing *I* use blind acceptance. You don't know what you're talking about.
    2
  6241. So, you don't know anything whatsoever about the topic, and you don't want to know, and you refuse to address responses/questions. Bravo.
    2
  6242. This event was on July 1, 2021. She was no longer alive about a year later, in March of 2022. The arrest video was released on November 24, 2023.
    2
  6243. Or, hmmmm, maybe the jury who listened to the entirety of the facts of the case might know more than you do from just watching a 2 minute news story, huh?
    2
  6244. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    2
  6245. "it's always funding that's the only thing I've heard" Correct. "yet the world is a competitive place NASA isnt the only space program" Dewdrop, the USA had the biggest economy on the planet in the 1960s, by far. And, at its peak, they spent 4.5% of the entire federal budget on Apollo in hard costs, and the equivalent of another 2% (approximate) on soft costs and international support. If we adjust for inflation into today's dollars, that's about $300 billion in hard costs, and roughly another $100 or $150 billion in soft costs. That's very nearly a half a trillion dollars. What other country on the planet do you think would spend that kind of money on 12 people walking on the moon for a few hours each? The Soviets tried, but, they kept blowing up their N1 moon rocket. And, after they lost the race, they eventually came to the conclusion that they just weren't going to do it without starting from scratch on their N1, and gave up. Can you name another country that would have been willing to spend that kind of money to make the 7th landing on the moon? "that just doesn't suffice" Dewdrop, have you even noticed that you haven't once even asked for the evidence of the moon landings? Nope. It's "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." Or, "if nobody else does it, I refuse to believe it." Or, "they looked different than I expected, therefore it's fake." Nobody owes you any explanations about why people haven't gone back to the moon. I mean, could you even imagine yourself in Magellan's time? He was the first to sail around the world. And, that wasn't done again for 50 years. And, you'd be sitting there saying, "nobody has sailed around the world, because if someone had, we'd be doing it again." I mean, never mind the maps that Magellan returned with, showing lands that nobody knew about, and were later confirmed by others. Nope, doesn't matter. 50 years passed, therefore it didn't happen. Right? "We just don't stop exploring space we will always want to know more. To not have a manned flight in our lifetimes wouldnt even make sense." Well, nobody cares what makes sense to you or not. And, it's within my lifetime. And, barring any accidents or rapid tragic illness, I'll live for the next round of moon missions also. I couldn't care less if you were or weren't alive for the Apollo missions, nor could Apollo care less. The missions happened with or without you, dewdrop. "Those hypersonic planes have been rendered obsolete with newer fighter jets is the point I'm making." Huh? How has the mach 7 X15 been rendered obsolete by any fighter plane? What ARE you talking about? Are you under the impression that the X15 was a fighter plane? What? "I know Van Allen was quoted saying the radiation levels would be lethal to human beings" Yes, if they stayed for a week in the worst areas. The Apollo missions didn't stay in the belts that long. They were in the worst area for about 15 minutes. What's your point? Do you know more than James Van Allen knew about the Van Allen belts? "this was before the missions so he could've over estimated I have no idea." Or, you could quote him accurately, rather than just listening to the part where he said they could be lethal, and avoid listening to how much time it would take for that. But, just like the press conference, where you only heard "did you see stars?" and didn't hear the other phrase "IN THE SOLAR CORONA IN SPITE OF THE GLARE," you have done the same here. You heard a Van Allen quote that the belts can be lethal. But, your mind put up a brick wall for the other part, when he explained that it would take a week for that. "If you ever look at the press conference when the astronauts came back use your own judgement." Yes, I judge that they had been in quarantine for weeks, then put into parades, press events, speaking events in front of congress and television shows, meeting dignitaries, doing debriefs, being studied medically inside and out, going on a world tour visiting 29 cities in 24 different countries, giving a thousand interviews, etc. And, yes, somewhere in the middle of that, they were required to give that scripted press conference that you nuts think is so important. So what? You aren't under the impression that they stepped off of the carrier and headed over to that press conference, are you? You do know it was around a month later, right? No, I guess not. The conspiracy videos you've been watching haven't told you that, therefore you don't know it. "You would see hesitancy, inconsistent stories, and sadness on the greatest feat ever accomplished" No, dewdrop, that's what people tell you to think. But, you haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about. Stop pretending you do.
    2
  6246.  @ChrisPBacon777  Seriously? You don't understand? Let me explain: 3/4 is the brakes under trueele bullets!!! Really are reports of emptiness. 19 is the president of hum. This is what it's like to be open wide. Do you finally understand now?
    2
  6247.  @ChrisPBacon777  Are you able to see my replies in this thread? Or, has YouTube's censorship algorithms hit an all time high in craziness? Right now, I can only see my replies if I'm logged in. But, if I use a browser that's not logged in, I can't even see my messages. It says there are 8 replies, but I can only see 3 of them (and none of my own).
    2
  6248.  @ChrisPBacon777  And it blocked my reply to you just now. Not one bad word. Not one offense thing. Nothing. But, it blocked me.
    2
  6249.  @ChrisPBacon777  Yes, it appears that YouTube has run some sort of algorithm to block others from seeing messages. If you copy/paste someone's words back to them in your response (which is a vast majority of the messages I post), now it blocks anybody else from seeing the message. It's more than just that, though. They're also blocking stuff for who-knows-what reasons, even if you don't copy/paste words. It seems that they've only gone back a few weeks (thus far anyway). But, I wouldn't be surprised if 95% of my messages I've ever posted will soon disappear.
    2
  6250. And, you think she didn't know anybody was around, why? Because the convicted felon with an arrest record a mile long said so while she was trying to avoid her millionth arrest?
    2
  6251. Probably as a result of a legal FOIA request. But, the silver lining is that it wasn't released until 1.5 years after she died. So, she never lived to see any shame from the release of the arrest video.
    2
  6252. If one will notice footage from say satellites or ISS from say 250+/- miles above earth, one will see breathtaking views of our planet, There are no such views of the moon, why is it that there are no views from say 700 miles, 500, 400, 300, 200, 100, 60 miles and so forth from our moon" Huh? Japan's JAXA Selene? Its altitude above the moon was about 175 miles, and it returned some very spectacular moon images. LRO's altitude was similar, and they even dropped it to 12 miles. China's Chang'e orbiters? Chandrayaan orbiters? C'mon man. This is just plain silly. You're complaining about stuff that you believe doesn't exist, simply by denying that it exists. "Because it is impossible to reach our moons orbit with satellites or space craft." So, before anybody could answer your "objection," you already negate the answer? "Moon orbit according to NASA: Our moon orbits earth every 27.322 days" What do you mean "according to NASA"? Why is NASA even relevant? The moon's orbit has been understood since centuries before NASA was even formed. It's not tough, dewdrop. Just look up in the sky and time it yourself. "what would happen if man was in moons orbit, or on the moon being say 230,000 thousand Miles closer to Our Sun, what will occur?" Well, man never went to the moon when it was 230,000 miles closer to the sun. But, did you actually mean to say 230,000,000 miles? Because, technically, that's what you wrote. 230,000 thousand is 230,000,000 miles. But, whatever, you accidentally wrote it wrong, no big deal. But, with nuts like you, who knows? Sometimes, people like you actually believe even more nonsense than you're even revealing. So, I had to ask. Which is it? 230,000 miles, or 230,000,000? Anyway, 230,000 miles closer to the sun doesn't matter all that much. As it is, the Earth's orbit around the sun isn't a perfect circle anyway, you know. It varies in altitude over the sun by millions of miles. But, at this distance (about 93 million miles on average), if you think 230,000 miles matters all that much, you really don't understand basic geometry. And, speaking of basic geometry, again, look at the sun angles and see where the moon/Earth system was oriented for each of the Apollo missions. No, there was never an Apollo mission when the moon was 230,000 miles closer to the sun anyway. Just at ISS 245 +/- miles above earth temperature is +250 degrees on the sunny side, Just Think what the temperature is going to be at 1000 times closer to our sun," Good grief. Are you REALLY under the impression that thermodynamics works that way? Sheeeesssshhh. "One will burn up long before! What will occur if one is 230,000 miles "look up distance to moon," further from our sun? Just take a look at ISS on the shade side minus 250 degrees in temperature, one would freeze long before" So, in your mind, the 500 degree temperature swing of the ISS has nothing to do with the time exposed to the photons (sunlight) vs. time in shadow (blocked by the Earth)? But, it's really because of the slight varying distance to the sun? Really? I mean, ok, if that's your thought on the matter, how do you explain the James Webb telescope, which has the exact same temperature variance on the side facing the sun vs. the side facing Earth? That's not varying in its distance to the sun by hundreds/thousands of miles. That's varying by a couple of feet in distance. Yet, it experiences the exact same variance in temperature that you think is accounted for by hundreds/thousands of miles.
    2
  6253. "rockets were added later" They modified all of the mission photography, and somehow none of the 7,000 Grumman engineers noticed? C'mon.
    2
  6254. "Lunar Module: Imagine, So later astronauts blasted off from the moon and then proceeded to dock with spaceship for return back to earth correct?" Correct. "Impossible, at the time in late 60's, early 70's, There were No such capabilities on such a lunar lander(s)" So, that radar dish on top of the lander was just for show? Or, you think they added that later also? "For any lander to be able to redock with rocket it will need to be equipped with multiple small rocket engines in various positions for this complex re-docking procedure," It used the exact same 16 rocket engines for steering that it used during descent. "docking shuttle with ISS, and in use with all docking procedures presently, One will see, Just observe those videos." So, by the shuttle, they "remembered" to include a mechanism to steer the craft, but, "forgot" for the Apollo landers? "Moon Return, Supposedly we landed on the moon for a total of six times? If this is true, why no one has ever returned?" How many more times would convince you? I mean, this is just plain ridiculous. You're complaining about them not returning to the moon, while stating that they returned 5x. Does that even make sense? Are you even reading this? Can you prove you're reading this message by writing "green" at the top of any reply? I've been through this rodeo before, and people like you love to post a million "questions," but never pay attention to the answers. So, I have to put a check in place to even see if you're reading the answers to your own questions. "Why are their not any research stations on the surface of the moon by more than one nation?" Huh? Did you really just compare research stations on Earth to the moon? Good grief. They stretched the envelope to its limits by putting Apollo 17 on the lunar surface for 74 hours, then had to come home or else they'd run out of supplies. Now you want research stations up there? Do you have any concept of how much that would cost? "I can assure you, If it was possible, Nations would be on the surface of the moon, Especially since over fifty years have passed, ..And Why Not!" You assure us? YOU do? You don't even know about the 16 thrusters on the landing craft. That's how little you understand about the topic. You're the one who thinks that changing the distance to the sun by a couple thousand miles will dramatically change the temperature of stuff. You don't know anything. Why should anybody trust YOUR "assurances"? "If possible to orbit/ land on the moon, Why no tours to orbit and/or land on the moon?" You clearly have no concept of the cost involved. "Why No accommodations on the moon?" For the exact same reason nobody has built any "accommodations" at the bottom of the ocean in Mariana Trench.
    2
  6255. Well, then you'll end up in prison, just like Smith. But, the picture you're painting isn't what happened here. Smith was never in danger. He planned the murders in advance, then carried out that plan. Ask your sheriff if THAT is allowed by law....
    2
  6256.  @i.m.s.s2564  No. In order for it to be self defense, it has to be self defense. There was no point at which Smith was ever defending anything. You don't get to plan two murders in advance, then claim self defense.
    2
  6257. Wow. I mean, absolutely wow. And, I thought most graduates of YouTube University would be a little ashamed of it. I mean, they act all "proud" from the "knowledge" (sigh) they get from YouTube University. But, they usually deny that's where they got their education. In this case, wow, he's actually PROUD to be a graduate of YouTube University.
    2
  6258. No. SUV police car. Looks like a Ford Explorer to me.
    2
  6259. Soooo, evidence doesn't matter to you? You just find stuff hard to believe with no basis?
    2
  6260. "up until recently Russia was supplying NASA with their engines." Yes, that was part of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons treaty. After the Soviet Union fell, the US was worried that the Russians would sell their nuclear weapons to 3rd world countries. So, they formed a treaty that included lots of commerce to keep the Russian economy going. Part of that agreement was that in exchange for NOT selling nuclear weapons, we would buy rockets from them. "In 1959 Russia had the N1 rocket" 1969, dewdrop. Not 1959. Good gods. "Why did we not send a probe first?" Is this a joke? What in the world are you talking about? I mean, good grief, the main mission objective of Apollo 12 was to land next to one of the probes that they sent to the moon in prior years. They did exactly that. Are you getting it yet, dewdrop? The video that told you that the USA didn't send probes first LIED TO YOU. "everything went perfectly." Huh? So, Apollo 1 killed 3 astronauts. Apollo 13 exploded half way to the moon. Apollo 11 missed its intended landing spot by 4 miles. Apollo 14 never reached its primary objective (Cone Crater). Apollo 15 smacked the surface so hard that it cracked the engine bell, and could basically be called a crash landing. Apollo 16 had so many faults that they nearly canceled the mission repeatedly, and never did get the S-band radio on the lander to work AT ALL, and ended up on backup communication throughout the mission. I mean, do I really need to go on here? Is it sinking in? You don't know anything about the topic. "I wouldn't believe the government" You don't have to. The evidence for Apollo comes from all around the world, private companies, universities, other countries, etc. But, remember, you're not interested in evidence. All you want to do is slander people. "even if I was in the rocket" Yes, that's how far out to sea that your mind has gone. There literally is no mechanism to show you that you're wrong. You have created a wall in your mind that cannot be penetrated, even if you were inside a rocket and went to the moon and saw the landing sites for yourself. Dewdrop, that's not a trait to be proud of. That's a very shameful and embarrassing trait. I mean, you read and write like a 2nd grader, and you have no understanding of the topic. And, here you are, basically announcing to the world that you have a mental defect that is incurable. Bravo. You're a real genius alright.
    2
  6261. "my point still stands." See how far gone you are? Every single thing you've stated has been laughably wrong. Yet, you think you still have a leg to stand on? "The N1 rocket was more powerful than the Saturn V. Both of them probably were failures." Is this a joke? Millions of people watched the Saturn V rockets go into orbit, dewdrop. Dozens of countries tracked them with radar and radio telescopes all the way to the moon (including enemy countries). "They say the Saturn V was retired in 1973 because of aging technology." Um, no, not really. It was because it didn't serve a purpose once Apollo was canceled. See, with 1.5 million pounds of thrust out of each F1 engine, which couldn't be throttled, you really can only do one thing with that rocket, and that's to lift 6 million pounds (you need 7.5 million pounds of thrust to launch it, and need to have an extra 1.5 million pounds of thrust just in case you lose an engine). If you don't have a need to lift 6 million pounds, you don't need the Saturn V booster. "We haven't walked on the moon since" Correct. Does this mean you're acknowledging that we DID walk on the moon? Or, a Freudian slip?
    2
  6262. "Nothing can be verified as fact." To you, no, of course not. You have only two rules to your game. Rule 1) if the input aligns with your predetermined conclusion, you accept it, no matter how wrong it is. Rule 2) if the input goes against your predetermined conclusion, you reject it as fake, no matter where it comes from. "Especially coming from a government that lies constantly." But, dewdrop, you already believe that they sent Apollo missions to the moon, remember? You just think there were robots onboard instead of people. So, the only "lie" you're accusing them of is that people were inside those craft instead of human sized robots. And, that's why I asked you why they wouldn't just put people inside at that point? If you think robots were up there making foot paths and rover tracks, why is it so difficult for you to conclude that people were inside the craft instead of robots?
    2
  6263. Good gods. Just go learn English. I promise you, it will serve you far better in life to learn to read and write, than worrying about silly conspiracies on topics you don't understand.
    2
  6264. Oh? Kind of like the common sense of watching a video before commenting on it? The makers of this video are saying the moon landings happened. They quote all of the deniers, then shoot down the deniers' arguments.
    2
  6265. The last name is Jaggers.
    2
  6266. So, basically, you didn't read my message except for the first sentence. Yeah, you're a real hero.
    2
  6267. Are you incapable of reading the title of the video? The actual photographs were taken in 1969. This video is speculating on what it might look like now.
    2
  6268. Sure, if you trust trash TV like Inside Edition.
    2
  6269. The irony. You're saying THEY don't make any sense... while YOU spew complete nonsense. Bravo.
    2
  6270. WOW!!! This has got to be the most stunning display of stupidity I've seen in a while. YOU SAID: "That has got to be the most fake blast off, leaving the lunar surface." == Um, no, you don't get to just declare it to be fake. You need to explain EXACTLY what makes it fake. Then, you need to explain why the entire aerospace engineering community across the globe doesn't agree with you. YOU SAID: "Confetti and all the bells and whistles too hahaha lol" == This is another "damned if you do, damned if you don't" piece of "logic" by conspiratards. If there's a bunch of the shrapnel from the double guillotine cutting all of the wires and plumbing, and the explosive bolts, and pieces of loose mylar and junk, flying away from the lander as a rocket blast hits all of that stuff... you people cry "FAKE!!! Look at the confetti." But, ironically, let's get real here, if there was no junk blasted away from the lander as it lifted off, you'd be crying "FAKE!!! Why is there no loose stuff being blasted away??" Either way, you were going to cry "fake" about it. So, no, you don't get to look at the loose stuff and scream that it's fake. There's loose stuff because there's loose stuff, period. YOU SAID: "You'd think with all the time NASA had after faking this whole "space program". == What ARE you talking about? What's wrong with you? Which drugs did this to you? YOU SAID: "I'm glad to read the real from you, Im'a guess because you were there too. Tell me more of your geniusenes I want to learn more about the fake science that has managed to fool and trick you into believing in their bullshit since grammer school," == Dummy, when you cannot even spell "grammar school" correctly, yeah, I think it's time that you go back and finish grammar school. YOU SAID: "and you still believe in the garbage. Well my prayer for you is to wake up, research, research and research more," == Sorry, dummy, but YouTube videos aren't "research." You don't know what research is. YOU SAID: "because my friend you bro are the 1 that is wrong. If you are going to be wrong about this then you've got alot of waking up to do,and grow up with you maturity, IQ and common sense, because everybody knows that the earth is not a ball" == What a moron.
    2
  6271. YOU SAID: "why are all the craters perfect round" == Well, not perfect. But, yes, pretty close. That's because of the energy of the impact, not because of the angle of the impact. It takes an extremely shallow angle to create anything other than a round crater. YOU SAID: "wouldnt they come in from all angles not straight down." == Yes, but the angle isn't what causes the shape of the crater. The dispersion energy of impact causes the shape of the crater. YOU SAID: "and why do they never do a 360 view" == There are hundreds of them. Sorry, but this is making it very clear that you're not actually looking at the original videos/photos, and then stumbling across these anomalies yourself. This makes it very clear that you haven't looked at ANY of the original videos, and the only videos you're watching are conspiracy videos that make ridiculous claims. OF COURSE they have 360 photos. OF COURSE they have 360 video. Most conspiracy video makers know this, and they just rely on the fact that none of you gullible fools ever fact-check them. You just blindly swallow anything they say. You want to see piles and piles of 360 video?? There's a channel called "Apollo Seventeen" (spelled out, not numeric) that has all of the rover camera footage from the entire mission (hours upon hours upon hours). Go watch it. There are plenty of times when the camera pans all the way around. YOU SAID: "the first thing you do when you climb a mountain" == They didn't climb any mountains. Slight slopes, sure. Some edges of mountains, sure. But, no, they never climbed up a mountain. YOU SAID: "look ll round you..just asking .." == The first think someone should do when they wonder why there aren't any 360 views would be to go ACTUALLY watch the videos and look at the photo library, and look for the 360 views. You aren't doing that. Why not? Just asking.
    2
  6272. Yes. It's grainy, but, if you go frame by frame at the highest resolution available, you see him walk up to the car door, reach inside his shirt, pull the gun out, and point it at the officer at 0:08. You also see the gun laying on the ground at 5:02 next to a 2x4 piece of wood (if the gun wasn't drawn, it would still be on his person, not on the ground).
    2
  6273. Huh? Why would anybody spend billions of dollars on a mission to the same places they've already been? Wouldn't that money be better spent going to new places?
    2
  6274. Is that how you try to make your arguments? When someone corrects you when you say something wrong, you accuse them of using Google to do it? And, this somehow magically means you win? I mean, I don't know nor care if others looked at Google or not. Your argument stands or falls on the facts, regardless of whether the people got those facts from Google or anywhere else. But, in this thread and others, you seem to think, "hey, you used Google" is somehow a feather in your cap. The irony is that YOU use conspiracy videos for YOUR "facts" (incorrect facts). So, while you're criticizing people for using Google, you can be criticized for blindly believing claptrap you see in videos made by charlatans.
    2
  6275.  @yassassin6425  All of the Apollo sites have been photographed by LRO. Check out Arizona State University's LRO photo archive to see a few hundred of them.
    2
  6276. I see you're posting the same nonsense here that you did in the other video. And, you're ignoring the responses here, just as you did there. You're STILL repeating this same silly stuff about thinking that Earthrise photos were taken from the lunar surface?? I told you already that none of the Earthrise photos were from the lunar surface. You ran for the hills, and just posted the same nonsense here? How far gone are you?
    2
  6277. "hiw is this all possible with chemical quantities this small" How many times must I ask you to do the math yourself? How many times must I ask you to explain why you believe that no aerospace engineer has ever done the math? 30 times? 50 times? Why do you refuse to answer?
    2
  6278. I told the dewdrop weeks ago to use the rocket equation to do the math. Do you know what he did? He did the calculations based on the truck he drives, with highway mileage. I asked him again to do the math with the ROCKET equation. He ran away.
    2
  6279. Still unable to explain why you think not a single aerospace engineer on the planet has done the math, dewdrop? Still going to ignore it and run away?
    2
  6280. Answer the question, dewdrop. WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THAT NO AEROSPACE ENGINEER ON THE PLANET HAS DONE THE MATH THAT YOU CANNOT DO?
    2
  6281. "I just dont have time" You've been studying Apollo for 50 years, you say. And, in all that time, you have never had the time to do the fuel calculations that any aerospace engineering student does for routine homework in a matter of 5 minutes?
    2
  6282. "try to determine where the apogee needs to be" The height of the moon's orbit. Typically 238,000 miles (depending on time of year). There, I did the determination for you.
    2
  6283. "determine breakaway speed from the moon" Is your Google broken? "Escape velocity of the moon." You've had FIFTY YEARS of "research," right, dewdrop? It took me about 4 seconds to find the answer that you've been searching for over the last FIFTY YEARS?!?!?!
    2
  6284. "how much fuel is needed" Dewdrop, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Both here, and in your other thread in the other video, you said you already determined the amount of fuel needed!!! You said they didn't have enough!!! Now, you're [finally] admitting you never calculated it (which was already obvious). Instead, in the other video, you made calculations based upon driving a truck down a highway, rather than flying a rocket in space, remember? You don't think this is laughable?
    2
  6285. "how much fuel is needed to deceleratio when reaching earth" Thanks for demonstrating (yet again) that you don't read most of the replies to your own questions. I already told you, they didn't decelerate when approaching Earth. They came in at "full speed" and used the heat shield and the Earth's atmosphere to slow down, not fuel.
    2
  6286. "ascent stage although i dont see any directional thrusters" And, once again, you are proving that you don't read the answers to your own questions. I answered that already also.
    2
  6287. "how the the ascent stage rendezvous work?" By using the 16 thrusters you refuse to observe. How do you think it goes? The 7,000 engineers at Grumman forgot that they had to steer the craft?
    2
  6288. "less fuel than can fit in a delivery truck" Again, you are proving that your only ability to calculate rocketry is to base it upon your profession as a truck driver. Bravo, dewdrop.
    2
  6289. "too laughably far off the mark" How would you know? You've never done the calculations.
    2
  6290. "Size and fuel quantities matter." Dewdrop, I've asked you a dozen times now, and you always refuse to answer: WHY DO YOU THINK NO AEROSPACE ENGINEERS ON EARTH HAVE DONE THESE CALCULATIONS?? Why is that what you believe?
    2
  6291. Dewdrop, ANSWER THE QUESTION: WHY DO YOU BELIEVE NO AEROSPACE ENGINEER ON THE PLANET HAS EVER DONE THE MATH?? I've asked dozens of times now.
    2
  6292. Since you at least pretended to answer my question (poorly, but, whatever), I'll answer a couple more of your laughable questions. "without homing electronics onboard but an antenna the ascent stage they kept track of the lunar module to rerendezvous" Yes, the dish on the top of the ascent stage was for rendezvous. But, the main tracking was done from Earth with dozens of Type-C radar stations around the world, combined with homing in on the transponders, and calculating the Doppler shift. Again, how does this go, in your mind? The 1,200 engineers who built the network to make that possible forgot that they needed to track the craft? Oh, but YOU know better?
    2
  6293. "we have to find at what speed we need to be at and the fuel requirement" Hence the rocket equation I already gave you in the other video, and here.
    2
  6294. "Multiply the fuel requirements by 1.5 to account for inefficiencies" The rocket equation already has inefficiencies built in. Have you not even looked at the equation? It's basically a conservation of mass equation. Inefficiencies do not matter. FIFTY YEARS you've been studying (now 15 years under your new silly statements), and you literally have not even LOOKED AT the rocket equation?
    2
  6295. "I refuse to believe" Yup, that much is obvious. Your mind has formed an impenetrable wall. You refuse all input. Your delusion is far more important to you than reality.
    2
  6296. "do a burn back to earth with so much damage to the lunar module" Dewdrop, the damage was to the service module, not the lunar module. Good gods, you don't know one piece of equipment from another!! The part that exploded was literally as far away from the lunar module's descent engine (the one you're complaining about) as was physically possible. You again prove that you know literally nothing. After 50 years. FIFTY YEARS, and you don't know one craft from another.
    2
  6297. "it was never fully peer reviewed." Is this a joke, dewdrop? Your complaint is that there wasn't enough fuel. THAT is your complaint, and you now admit that you never even calculated it, and you've proven that you don't even know how. The rocket equation is essentially a derivation based upon conservation of mass, not an invention. And, you're going to sit there and pretend that routine homework assignments for every aerospace engineering student on the planet has never been adequately reviewed?
    2
  6298. "its just impossible to take somethingbthe size of less than a jet airplane to the moon and back" Did you tell that to the Soviets? They did it multiple times. Did you tell China? Their Chang'e 5 craft did it. It was only 18,000 pounds, and the return craft was only 1,500 pounds. That's quite a bit smaller than a jet airplane, right? So, now, you not only think you know more about aerospace engineering than the entire planet's aerospace engineers, but, you also think you know more than enemy countries' engineers also. I'm sure they await your teachings about how they got it so wrong, huh?
    2
  6299. "which is not the same as launch assess extend capabilities and so forth" I don't know what you're talking about, and neither do you.
    2
  6300. "The substance of what Ive said should be looked at" Dewdrop, the substance of what you have said is: "I don't know which craft is which, I don't know anything about rocket fuel or how it works, I have a million questions that I don't know the answers to, I don't know how the radar worked, I don't know how rendezvous worked, therefore, since I know nothing about Apollo, it must be fake, and not a single aerospace engineer on the planet has spotted these problems that I have." Sorry, there's no SUBSTANCE to your "substance."
    2
  6301. "Ive heard a story of Buzz getting drunk in earlier years and asking the air around him, did we go to the moon?" Where'd you hear such a ridiculous story? Was it from a video made by a taxi cab driver, and you decided to believe it?
    2
  6302. "Michael Collins agreeing ay the press conference that he didnt remember seeing any stats, even though he's not on the surface" That's because of the question being asked, dewdrop. Moore asked if they saw stars IN THE SOLAR CORONA IN SPITE OF THE GLARE. The only time the solar corona was visible was from lunar orbit in the command module. He answered about that specific period of time (about two minutes). But, since you don't know what the solar corona is, and you don't know when it was/wasn't visible, and you don't know what glare he was talking about, your mind just omitted those words, and all you heard was "did you see stars?" It's a well understood phenomenon of people with severely impaired capacities, such as you. Rather than spending the last 50 years in your massive "research" you claimed to be doing, you never even tried to look up what he was talking about. And, it's especially funny that you only know that part of the press conference. They talked about photographing the solar corona earlier in that very same session. But, you don't know that, because the silly videos you've been watching only show you about 30 seconds that fits your silly rejection stories.
    2
  6303. "where were the heating and air cooling units located on the command module?" Are you getting it yet, dewdrop? Is it penetrating the brick wall yet? (Obviously not.) Dewdrop, you could easily look this stuff up. But, you don't. You PRETEND you've been "researching" for 50 years (which you pruned back to 15 years now). But, in all of that time, you never lifted a finger to look at the schematics? And, do you yet understand that "I don't know anything about how anything worked" isn't an argument. It demonstrates that you're in absolutely no position to reject Apollo. You know NOTHING about it, which is evident from these questions you keep asking. NOTHING. Why would you believe you understand aerospace engineering AT ALL, when you need to ask remedial questions about the environmental control systems?
    2
  6304. "The bunny hops on the moon may not have been possible " Spare me. Dewdrop, this is just outrageous at this point. You pretend to understand EVERYTHING better than the engineers and physicists who actually worked on the program for a decade of their lives.
    2
  6305. "if you think the ascent phase is advanced enough to do thousands of mph with an engine the size of a washing machine" Again, dewdrop, why do you believe you understand aerospace engineering? Why? 7,000 engineers at Grumman designed and built the lunar module. Yet, you're basically saying that none of them could figure out that the ascent engine wouldn't work. But, YOU figured it out. YOU did. YOU. The guy who doesn't even understand the rocket equation used since 1902. The guy who has NEVER done the math in his life. The guy with ZERO engineering education or experience. You drive a truck for a living, and you think that 7,000 aerospace engineers botched the job so badly that they forgot to use an engine capable of accelerating the craft they built. And, for 50+ years, not a single one of them ever realized that they forgot to use an adequate engine to do the job they built the craft to do. Your arrogance is astounding.
    2
  6306. "take the old blueprint and do another landing" Dewdrop, we don't use those kinds of systems any longer, and the Artemis program wants a lot more out of the landers than Apollo's lander could ever do. You have ZERO understanding of the topic. You didn't even know the difference between a rocket motor and rocket engine, remember? You thought they were the same thing. That's like me pretending to be a truck expert, and not knowing the difference between a gasoline powered truck, a diesel powered truck, an electric battery powered truck, and a compressed natural gas powered truck. You understand absolutely ZERO about rocketry, dewdrop. Stop pretending you do.
    2
  6307. "its a question of space onboard to have all of the necessary componrnts supplies nav gear food water" So, now the 7,000 engineers at Grumman forgot to include food and water? How far gone are you? Seriously. How far gone? Again, I will ask you to write "green" at the top of your reply (if you make one) to prove you're even reading. I keep replying to the constant stream of nonsense, and it's going in one ear and out the other.
    2
  6308. Yet again, just like you did in the other video's thread, you proved that you aren't reading the answers to your own questions, yet you keep asking questions anyway. I asked, once again, for you to prove you were reading the answers by typing "green" at the top of your reply, just as I asked you to do in the other thread. And, again, you didn't do that. Why should I give you answers that you have no intention of reading, dewdrop?
    2
  6309. Given the fact that you don't read answers to your own questions, I wasn't going to respond again. But, this particular statement must be the absolute most hilarious one you've ever said, and I cannot help myself. "no sign of the famous comtact sensor on the surface photos" There are literally hundreds of such photos. But, the pinnacle of ridiculousness is that the 5'8" contact sensor probe is clearly visible IN THE MOST FAMOUS PHOTO IN HUMAN HISTORY. The photo of Buzz Aldrin on the moon as taken by Armstrong has that contact probe right in front of him at his feet. This is literally the most replicated and famous photo anybody has ever taken in all of history, and you're sitting there saying you can't find it? Good gods, man. I'm done.
    2
  6310. "i am naturally curious" No, dewdrop. You are not. 95% of your questions are quite easily answered in 5 seconds of simple searches. But, you don't bother doing them. And, as I said, you clearly do not read most of the answers to your own questions. So, stop pretending that "curiosity" is what you're using. "Blind rejection" is what you're doing. No more. No less. I will not interface further with someone who doesn't have the common courtesy to read the answers to his own questions.
    2
  6311. So, you started by saying that there were zero photos that included the sensor probes. I pointed out to you that there are hundreds of such photos, including in the most famous photo taken in human history. So, now you change it to "it's inconsistent" and you expect to see the probes on every landing leg? Dewdrop, they only put the probes on THREE of the four landing legs. The only lander that had probes on all 4 legs was Apollo 9, which was just used in Earth orbit tests. When are you going to stop pretending? How about just admitting you were wrong? Are you even capable?
    2
  6312. I'm not playing this game with you any further. Not only do you lack common courtesy to read the responses to your own questions, but, you don't have the integrity to admit you're wrong, even in the face of hilarious things like you claiming there were no landing probes in any of the photos.
    2
  6313. "no shake when the lem lands which means all 4 legs were perfectly oriented to the ground" Again, all this is doing is demonstrating that you know absolutely nothing about Apollo. Apollo 15 landed so hard that it literally smashed the engine bell on the lunar surface, crushing the engine bell, and it was so tilted to the side that it was at the absolute limit of being able to take off again. It could literally be called a crash landing. Apollo 14 landed so crooked that it literally slid about a foot to the north after landing. It was also leaning. And, ALL of the landers had crushable mesh struts, that would make it very difficult for you to even know if the legs were all hitting the ground simultaneously.
    2
  6314. "16 motors" So, you refuse to learn? Or, you didn't read my responses here and in the other thread? I already explained that they aren't motors.
    2
  6315. "You just dont understand that with that little of fuel" Dewdrop, and with that, I'm done. No sane person could possibly tolerate dealing with you. My own sanity is in question for even going this far. You do not get to tell me that **I** do not understand things, when **YOU** are the one who is wrong about literally every single thing you've asserted throughout these videos' threads. You literally do not even understand what a rocket motor is (Apollo didn't use them, except in the kerosene pumps while sitting on the launchpad in Florida). You don't know one fuel type from another. You don't know which craft served which purpose. And, you've outright refused to do the math on any of your assertions.
    2
  6316. Well, I believe that's the same neighbor who thinks she was murdered, rather than a suicide. Not the brightest bulb.
    2
  6317. The "media outlets" never reported a darned thing until 1.5 years after she died. The arrest video wasn't made public until about a month ago. She died 1.5 years ago. The only exception is "The Smoking Gun," with an obscure article that never went viral or caused any real distress. The goal the media accomplished was to generate ad revenue by making people like you believe utter nonsense.
    2
  6318. Freedom of Information Act. And, it's not up to the police to do the blurring, it's up to the media who posts it.
    2
  6319. "How can sovet know it is beyond radar range" Dewdrop, a decade prior to sending Apollo to the moon, some of those exact same radar dishes were tracking surface features on the planets Mercury and Venus in order to determine the direction and speed of their spin (which couldn't be determined visually at that time). They did this from about 70 million miles away. But, you think the moon was beyond their range?
    2
  6320.  @theeraphatsunthornwit6266  Then how did the Soviets use radar to track their own lunar satellites that were much smaller?
    2
  6321. Where? In the conspiracy videos you've watched? Are you upset that the conspiracy videos won't show you the mountains of evidence that prove themselves wrong?
    2
  6322. Yes, a loose piece of mylar, perhaps. Or, maybe an ice crystal that got dislodged. If you go watch all of the mission video, you'll see plenty of loose stuff floating around. In particular, on Apollo 16, they said it looked like a snowstorm because a bunch of paint and junk had gotten dislodged and flaked off of some of the equipment. They have it on video.
    2
  6323. So, before anybody could even give you the answer to your question, you said "lies," which means you didn't want answers to your question in the first place. You came to your conclusion before anybody could even answer you. How honest of you.
    2
  6324. So, before anybody could even give you the answer to your question, you said "lies," which means you didn't want answers to your question in the first place. You came to your conclusion before anybody could even answer you. How honest of you.
    2
  6325. "There's literally NOTHING to suggest we pulled this off." - Huh? Where have you looked for the evidence, and what evidence have you found so far?
    2
  6326. But, dewdrop, you've made it clear that you don't know anything about the topic. Why would you believe your conclusions are correct when your understanding of the topic is completely wrong?
    2
  6327. If you want to see a lunar module from the distance of Earth, in enough resolution to barely be able to see its shape a few pixels wide, it would take a lens a quarter mile in diameter. If you really want to be able to determine the shape and start to see a few details, you're talking about a half mile wide lens. If you want to read a license plate, well, I'd have to do the math, but, since you haven't done the math, I'm certainly not going to spend that time for you. Rough guess, about a lens 6 or 8 miles in diameter. Largest lens in existence = 5 feet in diameter, and costed $168 million. But, you just keep on pretending to know things you don't. That's why you use YouTube, right?
    2
  6328. It's difficult to discard the contributions of the Germans. I wouldn't even want to discard them, I want to acknowledge what they did. But, make no mistake about it, we'd have gone to the moon with or without them.
    2
  6329. Yeah, when you can't deal with your own topics that you're questioning, just switch topics, right?
    2
  6330. What conspiracy video told you that? You clearly never looked at the photos and videos.
    2
  6331. They took bunches and bunches of sun photos with the 70mm Hasselblads. They pointed the RCA TV cameras at the sun numerous times. They pointed the Westinghouse TV cameras at the sun ONCE (Apollo 12), and it burned out because it wasn't designed for that.
    2
  6332. An old silent pond A frog jumps into the pond— Splash! Silence again. A world of dew, And within every dewdrop A world of struggle.
    2
  6333. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake. The thousands of engineers working on the Apollo program all forgot that people need to relieve themselves, and never designed systems to deal with it. I'm very proud of myself for being the first person in history to figure this out.
    2
  6334. Around 30% of police cars still don't have dash cams. Why do you find this unbelievable?
    2
  6335. So, you refuse to address any challenges or questions. But, you think you know what you're talking about? What a massive hero you are. You've come to YouTube comments to rescue everyone from believing things you blindly reject. Bravo!! "they already admitted the video we watch was made here" This is just downright ridiculous. When did "they" "admit" anything of the sort? What in the world are you even talking about?
    2
  6336. First of all, the radiation is nowhere near what you apparently think. Secondly, who told you none died young or from cancer? Was it a conspiracy video? (Hint: they always lie, and are wrong.)
    2
  6337.  @whitefreeman5798  Wow, what a stretch!! So, putting a cop's life in danger by driving off with him hanging from the outside of your car is justified because of this wild fantasy in your mind about what might happen if he gets arrested?
    2
  6338.  @whitefreeman5798  Oh, I guess I misunderstood your underlying message. But, look, for the most part, the current state of fear is completely unwarranted. It's mainly a byproduct of the media publishing every single bad interaction, and ignoring the hundreds of millions of good interactions. A large chunk of the public can't do the math, and they get a false impression that all cops are out there to hunt down and kill/injure people.
    2
  6339. Omar, do you have any idea how much evidence there is? I'd agree with you, if the only evidence was some video segments and some photos. But, seriously, that's a drop in the bucket. The best evidence has nothing to do with what's on TV or photographs. Do you even know what it is?
    2
  6340. Putting on a public show in front of people that included children. But, you're right if you're saying that's not all that horrific. I'd say all of her other million prior arrests were more serious than this one.
    2
  6341. There are entire volumes of papers written about this. Go read some. But, the short answer is that is how it works... the surface layer gets pulverized by meteorites, but, underneath, it solidifies into regolith and rock.
    2
  6342. Good gods. What in the world do Saturn's rings have to do with your original question about dust on the moon? Sheeeesssssshhhhh. It's like YouTube comments is an asylum or something. Look, deedumdiddly, there are science journals for this stuff. Go read them. Go publish in them. Knock yourself out. But, I'll never understand why you'd think a YouTube comment is the correct place to promote your gibberish.
    2
  6343. Good gods. What IS wrong with you? What does any of this have to do with the amount of dust? Man, your ship has sailed, but you're not on it. Obviously, your only purpose here was to see who would respond to your ridiculous questions, and then waste that person's time. Well, mission accomplished.
    2
  6344. The Radioplane Company had been building radio remote controlled aircraft since 1939. Most were about quarter scale. But, some were full size. During WWII, they built about 10,000 of them for the military to use as target practice. Someone in a different airplane would remote control the Radioplane because, ya know, it's a lot better to practice shooting down airplanes with nobody inside them. But, you think that 30 years later, during Apollo, nobody could figure out how to remote control a camera?
    2
  6345.  @DemonDrummer  Oh, but, in the other thread (right above this one), I can see your response to him in Edge, but cannot see it in Chrome. Good grief.
    2
  6346.  @DemonDrummer  Yeah, posting things on the internet has only existed since the 1980s. YouTube and Google are still trying to figure it out, and only need 20-30 more years to get it right.
    2
  6347. Are you under the impression that the moon has zero gravity? What???
    2
  6348. Well, there are mountains of evidence. But, you people seem to just reject it before you even know about it. So, please explain what kind of evidence you would expect, and accept...?
    2
  6349.  @daryllect6659  As I've told you before when you've made that claim: go ahead, produce these rocks, and see if you can fool any geologists. Also, I've offered tons of evidence to you before, and you only ignore it.
    2
  6350. Yeah, that's a good shot. But, you might consider upgrading to Apollo 11, reel 44, shot 6640 or 6641 or 6642.
    2
  6351. If you see a guy cranking at the playground, leave him alone! He wants to do that tomorrow also. Right?
    2
  6352. Well, it WASN'T "broadcasted all over" until about 2.5 years later. The arrest took place in July of 2021. She committed suicide in March of 2022. The arrest video went public in November of 2023. The arrest video had nothing to do with the suicide.
    2
  6353. WOW!!! How did the president manage to call to/from land lines from Air Force One while in flight? How did he call ocean ships? How did anybody call car phones (which have existed since the 1940s)? I guess cars must have driven around with huge cords, huh? It's not like radio had been invented 50 years beforehand or anything. (sigh)
    2
  6354. There are videos taken during the transit to the moon. However, your specific request for video as they are approaching the moon was not possible. Why? Because they had oriented the craft to face away from the moon. This is so the craft would be in the correct orientation to fire the SPS engine directly opposite the line of flight (to slow the craft down for orbit). So, you're asking for something that can't exist. But, like I said, there's plenty of video both before and after that particular moment you're asking for.
    2
  6355. I loved the part when he went on and on about how he thought he caught COVID, but, refused to be tested.
    2
  6356. Multiple people called the police. One in the "audience" recorded it on her cell phone, and showed the police, and described that the woman was going up and down the beach, looking for a place to do this, then deliberately plopped down near a family with children, and put on a show. According to her landlord, those shows were part of her actual profession. I guess with her mile long arrest record, and her prison term for stealing cars, being a convicted felon, with a pile of judgements against her for various thefts and drugs and alcohol, it's probably pretty difficult to get a real job. But, I'll bite, why do you believe the woman who is trying to avoid getting arrested for the millionth time? Because she said nobody was around? Isn't that just another form of, "I didn't do it"? As for releasing the video, well, I'd love to hear how you think the police can defy the Freedom of Information Act. Will you explain? They had already blocked its release for 2.5 years. She was already dead for 1.5 of those years. At that point, they can't block a legal FOIA request any longer. But, do explain. You're the legal expert here, not me.
    2
  6357. Huh? Did you just confuse distance with resolution? Um, no, there are no telescopes on Earth that can see Apollo artifacts on the moon. The lens would need to be far larger than any lens in existence (literally miles wide if you want to see some of the details). As for the "extreme clarity" you think telescopes have, you should look up Dawes' limit and the Rayleigh criterion to understand the properties of light that demonstrate why you're wrong about your assumptions.
    2
  6358. So, let's recap. You opened by saying you want a ban on assault weapons. But, you don't know what an assault weapon is. You referenced the 1994 ban. But, you don't understand that either, because the actual guns that it banned were not really all that relevant to most of the shootings in the USA, and weren't even scratching the surface in what constitutes the definition of an assault weapon. The 10 year ban had virtually no effect on the homicide rate. You then said that they should ban all automatic and semiautomatic weapons. Well, automatics are already banned, so, again, you don't understand the topic. And, almost all guns sold are semiautomatic. I don't think you know what that means either. You complained about ad hominem attacks, while simultaneously stating that anybody who doesn't agree with you isn't "keeping it for a legitimate nonviolent reason." This flies in the face of reality, because there are around 400 million guns in the USA, with a vast majority of them being semiautomatics, and obviously, the vast majority are not resulting in gun violence, otherwise nobody would be alive today. But, let's pretend you actually know what you're talking about (you don't, but, just for grins), ok, you've now banned semiautomatic weapons. What's next? How do you get anybody to actually turn them in? Who's going to gather up 400 million guns?
    2
  6359. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    2
  6360.  @dansv1  Yeah, he doesn't care. I've answered him about 5x now for over a year about that one question he keeps asking. When he answers, which is rare, his reply is literally, "oahsdpaiushtgipahv" (and that's it, just a pile of gibberish).
    2
  6361. You do know there were TWO people on the moon at the same time, right?
    2
  6362. "A vacuum is actually negative pressure." No, dewdrop. There is no such thing as negative pressure. You have gotten confused by one of two possible things. (1) When people say "negative pressure" as a factor of relative pressure. Like, if the inside of a container is 10 PSI, and the outside is 5 PSI, they'll say it's "negative pressure" on the outside, merely because they're comparing it to the inside. Or, (2) You don't understand mathematical terminology like "ten to the negative 5th power" (10^(-5)), or scientific notations such as 8x10^(-3). You don't understand what a "negative" power means in a mathematical equation. "Many hoses are flat when there is no positive pressure inside. Some fire hoses are like that." Yes, but, they inflate to a certain size and then quit getting bigger. That's the same as the Apollo suits. Put them on the ground with nobody in them and don't pressurize them, and they're rather flat. Put a person inside, seal it, and put some pressure inside, and they look just like the Apollo photos. But, they don't really get any bigger. Just like the hose example, they get to their "pressurized" shape pretty quickly, and no matter how much more pressure you give them, they don't get any bigger after that.
    2
  6363. "you guys are pretty hateful" Absolutely nobody likes people who ask questions and ignore answers. Absolutely nobody likes people who accuse OTHERS of ignoring comments, while that person ignores almost every comment, and the person being accused answers every single point. Absolutely nobody likes people who pretend to understand things that they do not.
    2
  6364. Your hatred is showing.
    2
  6365. Do you mean air currents? Like, when you look down a long road on a hot day, the horizon gets wavy ripples?
    2
  6366. Yet, you trust the conspiracy theorists who told you that lie about the CIA?
    2
  6367. Deniers just keep expanding the number of countries involved in "the deception." The photos you're talking about already exist, by the way, from India and China (India having the best resolution). A quick reference = "ISRO Chandrayaan2’s photos of Apollo 11 & 12 landing sites."
    2
  6368. Hey, dummy, this video isn't about presenting facts. This video is just giving an overview of the history of moon conspiracies, just as the title suggests. He isn't even intending to present facts about the landings in this video. Yet, what?? You deluded idiots think that every video should automatically present what YOU want them to, and nobody is allowed to make a video just talking about the history of conspiracies themselves? Why? And, look, clown, there are plenty of facts available, if you want them. But, we all know the rules to your game. There are only two rules in your game. 1) All evidence for Apollo is fake, no matter how real it is. 2) All evidence against Apollo is real, no matter how outlandish it is. Those are the only two rules to your game, so, what difference would it make if anybody presented you with facts? No matter how many facts you're given, you'll just declare those facts as "fake," regardless of how many people that would need to be in on "the hoax" to pull it off.
    2
  6369. The difference is that one of the "audience" caught it on video and showed it to the police. Needless to say, it didn't match the version about a discreet act with nobody around as the woman is trying to tell as she's attempting to avoid her millionth arrest.
    2
  6370. Good gods. Not by a long shot.
    2
  6371. Sorry, but, no, you didn't see the arrest video while she was alive. It wasn't released until 1.5 years after her death. This was just a little media trick. She died in March of 2022. The video was made public on November 24, 2023. So, what the media did was show the arrest video without telling you that she was already dead. Then, they posted these "updates" a few weeks later, saying she committed suicide.
    2
  6372. Never been arrested: You're wrong. They absolutely arrest for this misdemeanor. There's no such "ticket" for this crime. And, with all of her open warrants, did they really have much of a choice anyway?
    2
  6373. humiliate her: Huh? The police politely took her away from the restaurant and questioned her far away from other people. They then blocked the release of the arrest video for 2.5 years, until they could no longer block FOIA requests. Nobody saw it while she was alive.
    2
  6374. never should have admitted to it: Huh? One of the "audience" recorded it and gave a copy of the video to the police. Also, I'll bet she was hoping to cry her way out of it before they looked up her prison record and all of the open warrants. Staying silent = they'd definitely look her up. Admitting it and crying her way out of it = 50/50 odds that they'll just let her go without looking her up.
    2
  6375. MULTIPLE people called this in to complain, not just one. She put on a show in front of an audience that included CHILDREN.
    2
  6376. You included, right?
    2
  6377. No, that was not a "strong belief" at all. Engineers were challenged to come up with a list of possible concerns. A vast majority didn't think what you're claiming. But, a couple of engineers voiced that concern as one of the possible outcomes. So, what did they do? They sent unmanned impactors and landers to the moon years before attempting the first manned voyage, studying the surface. They had a very good understanding of the composition of the lunar surface before sending people. Nobody cares what YOU are pretending to expect. If you actually had any of these real concerns, there are numerous scientific journals throughout the world that you can use to publish your calculations. But, nope, you're in a YouTube video about silly denials of the moon landings, posting your unfounded opinions in the comments section. Bravo.
    2
  6378. The CIA invented the words "conspiracy theories" live to the world? Huh? Still not recovered from a rough Friday and Saturday nights?
    2
  6379. How does the Apollo moon program result in "control" over anybody?
    2
  6380. You understand physics exactly the same amount that you understand reading and writing. (ZERO)
    2
  6381. Huh? Defenseless man? So, when he killed his own father right before this chase, that was defenseless? When he was shooting at the cops during the chase, he was defenseless? And, what do you call 2:10 in this video, where he's firing non-stop at the cop? Oh, the poor defenseless man.
    2
  6382. Wow, were you intentionally trying to get every sentence wrong? Or, was it accidental? Multiple people called the police. One witness said she walked up and down the beach, and intentionally chose a spot in front of people. Another witness recorded the incident, and showed the video to the police. They describe it in their police report as a loud and public act in front of multiple people including children. I'm sorry if that doesn't match the version being told by the woman who was attempting to avoid her millionth arrest, but, yeah, I think I'll trust the police and innocent bystanders more than I'd trust a convicted felon who has been on a crime spree for the last decade. I mean, you do know that she gave up her family and career to live a life of drugs and crime, right? And, after getting out of prison for stealing cars, she continued to get arrested for various other thefts and different crimes. She had warrants for her arrest for numerous failures to appear in court. And, after all of that, it's tough to get a straight job, right? So, her landlord said that she was a stripper at the local club. I mean, is it THAT much of a leap to conclude that maybe she wasn't so discreet and innocent on that beach after all?
    2
  6383. So, I said to stop being proud to know absolutely nothing, and your reply is that you're proud to know absolutely nothing?
    2
  6384. Conclusion first, ask questions second. Oh, you're totally honest. "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake."
    2
  6385. YOU SAID: "what a joke." == No, your education is a joke. YOU SAID: "i cant believe people buy this lie." == Like who? The entirety of the world's aerospace community? They're the dumb ones, and you, a less-than-literate internet clod, are the smart one? YOU SAID: "NASA has even admitted we can’t go further than lower earth orbit" == Let me guess, you watched a conspiracy video where the guy says, "RIGHT NOW, we can't go past low Earth orbit," and you just omit the "right now" from your brain... am I right? You don't think the "right now" is relevant? Yes, right now, that's the highest people can go. There hasn't been a big enough booster to go all that much higher in a manned craft since they retired the Saturn V. Why do you think this is evidence against Apollo? YOU SAID: "but most people just don’t listen." == Oh, the irony. YOU SAID: "billions of our dollars wasted" == Well, you can call Apollo a waste if you wish. But, that has nothing to do with the veracity of the program. YOU SAID: "while we have homeless numbers skyrocketing," == How many of those homeless would there be without Apollo? A lot of people believe that Apollo helped to prevent the cold war from becoming a hot war. The space race to the moon was mainly political posturing. And, if not for succeeding in getting to the moon before the Soviets, many people believe that we'd have been in an all-out war, instead of a cold war. How many millions of lives might have been saved? YOU SAID: "slipping to the lowest levels of education ever before. its all fake" == So, the barely literate person with absolutely no education about Apollo thinks Apollo is fake... and complains about education...? Too ironic to even know where to begin.
    2
  6386. There are 12 step programs available that can help you get through your troubles, you know.
    2
  6387. Yes. The computer on Apollo 11 was overloaded, and it set off alarms. But, beyond that, you obviously disbelieve this. So, let me ask you a few questions: 1) How do you square away this "logic" in your mind? How did the hundreds of engineers and PhDs at MIT/Draper Labs (the top university in the country for technology), and Raytheon (one of the most prominent contract companies that builds craft and systems for government and military), all fail to realize that the computer didn't have the power to do what they designed and built it to do? 2) Are you aware that there is a working Apollo guidance computer that still exists today, and it is able to receive inputs that would be exactly the ones that would happen on a real mission, and it does the correct calculations and outputs that can control the craft? 3) Are you aware that they'd have gone to the moon without the onboard guidance computers, because those were a secondary method of navigation anyway? The primary navigation was provided by dozens of ground-based radar and radio telescope tracking stations located all around the world, tracking the Apollo craft all the way to the moon. It used massive dishes run by numerous countries, and they could triangulate the location of the Apollo craft to a margin of error of only one mile. It was all tied back into their massive IBM mainframe computers. The onboard computer was secondary.
    2
  6388. Sure. The outcome was that she had the receipt. She didn't steal anything. The charges were dropped. But, she came back with a high profile attorney and sued the store for $50,000 for discrimination. The court threw the case out the window (as they should), and she will be getting nothing. They didn't sue the police. She refused to ID, she obstructed and obfuscated, resisted arrest, and was lucky that she wasn't charged for those things, despite having the receipt. So, even her own attorney knew that there wasn't a case against the police.
    2
  6389. Well, any physicist on the planet can explain optical resolution to you. Stick your head in the sand and pretend to know things you don't know all you want. But, there's a good reason that you don't find actual physicists claiming the gibberish you're claiming. As for the laser reflectors, yeah, there are dozens and dozens of laser ranging facilities around the world doing exactly that, aiming lasers at the Apollo landing sites and getting a bounce-back from the Apollo reflectors. The accuracy is within about 2 inches nowadays. Many countries run these facilities, universities, science organizations, etc. Are you under the impression that you understand that technology better than the experts? Also, ya know, maybe you should concentrate on learning English.
    2
  6390. "actually I have done quite a bit of research on the subject." Watching conspiracy videos isn't research. "Computer tech in 1969 Apollo mission less than my galaxy Samsung of 2022" So what? 50 years from now, someone will say that your 2022 phone technology was primitive by comparison to what they have in the future. Does this mean your phone can't make a call? You claim to have done research, ok, what were the capabilities of the computers used for Apollo? Can you mathematically demonstrate that they didn't have the processing power required to run the navigation programs? Why didn't anybody at MIT, Draper Labs, IBM, or Raytheon (the major contractors that produced the computers for Apollo) notice that the computers couldn't do what they built them to do? "I can't even get reception in certain parts of my house or yard" Well, that's usually because cell phone providers don't care about trailer parks all that much. "yet Nixon can call 240, 000 miles" I don't understand it, therefore it's fake. "without any delay and sounds very clear." Dewdrop, the delay was correct. You just don't know which direction you're supposed to hear the delay (it relates to where the recording device was located). "Temperatures on the moon between shadow and sunlight of 400 degrees." Really? Is that actually how you think it works? Like, if you are walking on the moon, and you cast a shadow, you think the rocks in the shadow instantly drop by 400 degrees? And, you make a few steps so the sun is shining on those rocks again, and they're instantly 400 degrees hotter? Is that how this goes, in your mind? Um, dewdrop, all Apollo landings were early in the lunar morning. It doesn't drop that low until the lunar overnight, and doesn't get that hot until the lunar high noon. "Cameras that can supposedly withstand that" No. The cameras were not designed to withstand that... because they were never on the moon for this massive 400 degree swing you're talking about. And, no, temperatures do not instantly drop or heat up by 400 degrees the moment you put them in or out of a shadow. "not to mention the astronauts in their space suits." A standard fireman's suit can withstand 1000 degrees. A really advanced one can withstand 2000 degrees. But, you think the Apollo suits couldn't withstand the mild temperatures of a lunar morning? "Fuel to get back" So, the thousands of engineers forgot to include fuel to get back to Earth? Huh? "van Allen belts" Please name the scientific paper that outlines that the Van Allen belts were a problem for Apollo. Can you? "I pray that you are open enough to seek the Lord and His Truth." You should be praying for a new brain. Your "Lord" gave you a completely defective one.
    2
  6391.  @secondhandsock3086  YOU SAID: "well there you have it you have an answer for everything" == You asked questions, I gave you the answers. Now, you're acting as if you didn't want answers to your own questions. YOU SAID: "and none of it was backed up by anything" == Pffttt. This is a YouTube comment. What do you want? A dissertation with bibliography? I asked several clarifying questions, you ignored them. Do you expect me to pour in MORE effort into replying to a person who doesn't want a reply? YOU SAID: "you can't just say you have no idea what you're talking about and make no counter argument to most of the subjects" == Good gods. You can barely string a sentence together. I could barely make it through anything you wrote. I did my best to sort through the gibberish and give you answers. What more do you want? YOU SAID: "no alternative facts" == WHAT FACTS?!?!? You asked questions, I answered. YOU SAID: "or ideas where do you think all our black budget money goes?" == You didn't even ask that question!!!! Do you expect me to read your mind and answer questions you didn't even ask?!?!! Are you a drug addict? What IS wrong with you? And, if it's a "black" budget, that means that I wouldn't know the answer... or if I did (which I don't), I certainly wouldn't be in a position to post it on a YouTube comment. Good gods. You are insane. YOU SAID: "Let alone the rest of the hidden GDP of countries and billion dollar corporations" == What does this have to do with Apollo? What ARE you talking about? YOU SAID: "and I'm sorry but if we can't do it now with trillions then they didn't do it then with piss poor technology" == WHAT "trillions"?? Until 2019, congress hadn't allocated a single dime to more manned moon missions. Good grief. YOU SAID: "even if you write everything else off one talk with buzz aldrin will set you straight" == I've talked with him many times. What EXACTLY are you talking about now? YOU SAID: "but just saying no to all my points makes you nieve and having nothing to back you up or any valid facts to prove I'm wrong you're not using your noodle you're just being a five year old child sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to think you're restricting yourself because you don't want to look at the truth you want to live in your bubble of beliefs and that's alright if you feel safe in your bubble but you can't learn anything new if you live in a bubble" == How old are you? 13?
    2
  6392.  @secondhandsock3086  Typical conspiratard. Ask questions. Ignore answers. Ignore return question. Ignore challenges. Change topics. Ask more questions. Ignore more answers. Ignore return questions. Repeat until the other person cannot stand you any longer. Hey, dummy, don't ask questions if you don't want answers. Hey, dummy, don't ignore return questions and then keep asking more questions yourself. What a jackass.
    2
  6393. Hilarious!! So, in your mind, in 1961 when Apollo was funded to go to the moon, the purpose was to pacify people 7 or 8 years later, huh? With that level of predictive foresight, they could just predict the lotto numbers instead, eh?
    2
  6394.  @AM-rd9pu  They only had one suit for each astronaut. And, they wore the same boots (but with an overboot strapped on) out on the lunar surface.
    2
  6395. QUOTE "The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months' duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure. A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week. However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable. The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense. James A. Van Allen " END QUOTE
    2
  6396.  @sigmasd10  So, let me get this straight... NASA says there are Van Allen belts, you believe NASA. NASA and James Van Allen tell you how they traversed the belts, you reject it. NASA tells you that they (and Arizona State University) tell you that they build and sent LRO to the moon, and that there are experiments to prove that NASA never went to the moon, and you believe NASA. NASA shows you LRO images from that very same craft that show the Apollo landing sites on the moon, and you reject it. NASA builds Orion and sends it up into the Van Allen belts, and you believe NASA. NASA tells you that it passed the tests, and you reject it. What a pure psychopath!!! You have selectively chosen which NASA claims you feel like believing, and which NASA claims you feel like rejecting, based on your psychotic delusions. Any NASA claim that you feel supports your delusions, you blindly accept. Any NASA claim you feel goes against your delusions, you blindly reject. Dummy, you obviously should be submitting your amazing calculations for scientific peer review!! If you feel that NASA's own data contradicts itself, you write it up, and you submit it to a journal!!! That's how this is done. Only idiots and crackpots think that YouTube comments is a science journal.
    2
  6397.  @sigmasd10  YOU SAID: "Clearly you are an ignoramus...The cameras on the LRO do not have sufficient resolution to resolve something as small as an Apollo artefact on the Moon." == Wrong. You clearly see the landers, rover tracks, shadows of flags, etc. The resolution in black&white is 1.5 feet per pixel. Yes, you can see a 16 foot lander just fine. Obviously, you haven't even looked at the photos.
    2
  6398.  @sigmasd10  YOU SAID: "Clearly you are an ignoramus..." == I'm not the one who insists on remaining ignorant. That's YOU who does that. YOU SAID: "The cameras on the LRO do not have sufficient resolution to resolve something as small as an Apollo artefact on the Moon." == So, once again, we have the dual "logic" that you have been using all along. NASA and Arizona State University say they send LRO up there. You believe what NASA & Arizona State University tell you. NASA and Arizona State University say the LROC camera has enough resolution (in black&white) to see the landers, foot paths, rover tracks, etc. (and you can see all of those things in the hundreds upon hundreds of images). You reject what NASA & Arizona State University tell you. And, you can't see that this is a product of your delusions? The dividing line (in your mind) between what you believe from what people tell you, vs. what you reject from what people tell you, is EXACTLY at the point at which it shatters your delusions. You apparently have no problem believing that they sent LRO up there with a camera. But, the very moment someone shows you the images of the Apollo equipment on the moon, BAM, that's the point at which you reject what you're seeing, and you claim that it's "insufficient resolution." Says who? YOU?!?!?! The people who built that camera (Arizona State University) do not claim what you claim. They say the resolution is good enough, and they've produced a decade's worth of photos from it, which show the landing sites, and the equipment left on the moon, and rover/foot paths. YOU SAID: "In fact, no optical instrument yet built by man has such resolution..." == Well, not from the distance of Earth, no, of course not. It would take a massive lens about 1/4 of a mile in diameter to be able to see with enough resolution to make out the Apollo artifacts from this distance. And, you'd also have to solve the problem of atmospheric distortion (good luck with that). But, LRO isn't on Earth. LRO is orbiting the moon. Did you not know that? YOU SAID: "Even the most powerful optical telescopes in existence (the two VLT's linked in interferometer mode) can only see objects on the Moon that are larger than 300 feet across, anything smaller, like the 12 foot square base of the LEM, is totally invisible from Earth." == But, LRO isn't on Earth, dummy. LRO is orbiting the moon. YOU SAID: "Even the LRO pictures show nothing...What they do show is arrows pointing to places, but you can't actually see anything they are pointing to..." == Go on Arizona State University's website, and you will see HUNDREDS of photos of the Apollo landing sites. You can see them with the arrows, without, etc. You can see the landing sites from numerous sun angles. You can see the shadows of the flags. Etc. You obviously haven't looked, if you keep insisting that the photos don't show anything. YOU SAID: "This is NASA saying you just have to believe us, there really is something there..." == No, dummy, NASA doesn't manage LROC. Arizona State University does. YOU SAID: "Only a moron believes such extraordinary claims without irrefutable evidence...But there is none." == Funny that you took the time to discover some photos with arrows, yet, hmmmm, you stopped your discovery short of going to look at the actual LROC photography that clearly shows the landing sites?? Good grief. YOU SAID: "Conveniently for NASA, there is no way to verify if anything was left on the Moon..." == LROC. YOU SAID: "But of course there is nothing left there as they never went to the Moon." == Wrong. YOU SAID: "The Chinese are just as bad as they have faked their Chang'e lander missions too." == Look at how psychotic you are. Look at what this delusion has done to your mind. YOU SAID: "Oh, and Van Allen never claimed they traversed the belts...He only stated what as insurmountable barrier they were to spaceflight outside of low Earth orbit." QUOTE: "The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight. The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months' duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure. A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week. However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable. " The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense. James A. Van Allen" END QUOTE But, once again, you've proven my underlying statements all along, and that is that you should do the math, and demonstrate it. If you think the Van Allen belts couldn't be traversed, then you write up your calculations, and submit a paper to the astronomical science journal of your choice!!! That's how this is done!!! You don't go on YouTube and spew ignorance everywhere. You don't just use words like "insurmountable barrier" or "too much radiation," etc. You write up the type/amount of radiation at the various altitudes above Earth, calculate how much of that radiation penetrates an aluminum hull spacecraft like the Apollo capsule, calculate the amount of time Apollo would spend in those regions, and then determine the biological effects. If you want to do these calculations in the more modern "Sievert" scale, ok, fine. James Van Allen did the calculations in the RAD scale, and radiobiologists convert that to REM (which is the conversion multiplier to calculate how specific forms of radiation affect the human body). But, you're welcome to use whatever scale you want. But, no, you do not get to claim that James Van Allen agreed with you. No, he did not. That's your delusion talking again. You're so psychotic at this point that your mind has manufactured factoids [false] to agree with your delusions. No. James Van Allen did NOT agree with you. The only point in time that was even in question was the first two shots into the Van Allen belts, which didn't even have meters of any kind, and only had a tape recorder and a Geiger counter. Those first two shots into the Van Allen belts DID return some results that made it seem like the Van Allen belts were worse than they were. But, the hundreds of subsequent shots up and through the belts (more experiments with better equipment, high altitude satellites, Apollo 6, Orion in 2014, international shots through the belts, every geosync satellite ever launched, more and more probes, etc.) have shown that the first two launches into the Van Allen belts (which didn't even have instrumentation, just recorded clicks on a tape recorder, that's all) painted a worse picture than it really was. A lot of you conspirtards love to quote the "readings" (not readings, but whatever) from those first two shots, and ignore the hundreds of shots since then. But, no, I'm not going to let you do that. And, if you were correct (which you're not), and they needed more shielding to get through the Van Allen belts, why wouldn't NASA simply say they had more shielding? You think it was all faked, right? You think the Van Allen belts are worse than they are. So, why wouldn't NASA simply state that they had better shielding? The Soviets were already launching probes into the Van Allen belts themselves. So, the USA wasn't going to be able to get away with merely claiming the Van Allen belts weren't there, or that the radiation levels were lower than they really were. By the early 1960s, the Soviets had already put plenty of their craft into and through the belts. And, any "lie" about the intensity of the Van Allen belts wouldn't last very long, and would be found out quite easily. So, why wouldn't NASA simply "lie" about the shielding in the craft instead?? In your mind, if the Van Allen belts are stronger than James Van Allen says they were, wouldn't NASA simply lie about the level of shielding Apollo had??
    2
  6399.  @sigmasd10  YOU SAID: "Quote: "However, the smallest details visible in this image are still about one hundred metres on the surface of the Moon, while the parts of the lunar modules which are left on the Moon are less than 10 metres in size. A telescope 200 metres in diameter would be needed to show them."" == Yes, from Earth. But, again, you are demonstrating your amazing ignorance, such that you apparently don't even realize that LRO isn't on Earth. It is orbiting the moon. YOU SAID: "Are you so thick that you didn't see that this is exactly what I already wrote Yazzam?" == Dummy, you were RESPONDING TO Yazzam in that very quote!!! You don't even know who you're addressing. You just cut and pasted Yazzam's quote back to Yazzam, but you are too psychotic to even realize it. YOU SAID: "If so then you clearly deserve to called ignorant!" == You're the one who doesn't even realize that LRO is orbiting the moon, and you keep comparing to Earth distances. Yazzam was illustrating that, yes, you're correct, there is no Earth-based telescope in existence today that can see the Apollo landing sites in enough detail to know what's there. But, he then quoted about LRO. And, you apparently ignored it, and don't want to address it. Instead, you quote from the first couple of lines, ignored the rest, and declared victory. This is EXACTLY how a delusional mind operates. You only absorb information that supports the delusion. The minute someone shows you that you're wrong, your mind shuts down, ignores that input, and focuses on any input that you think supports the delusion. Within a couple of sentences, Yazzam's quote goes AGAINST you, and what did you do? You ignored that section of the quote entirely. And, your delusion was so powerful that, not only did you block the part of the quote that goes against you, but you didn't even know who was providing you that quote. Good gods, your mind is toast.
    2
  6400.  @sigmasd10  YOU SAID: "Of course the the LRO is orbiting the Moon..." == Yet, you made it pretty clear that you were unaware of this. Only now, after it's been beaten into you by a couple of different people, do you finally realize it. Now you're just playing the "I knew it all along" angle. YOU SAID: "But with very low resolution cameras, incapable of resolving anything as small as the alleged Apollo artefacts," == In color, you'd be correct, the camera cannot resolve the Apollo artifacts. But, in black and white, yes, it can. And, there are hundreds of such photos on the Arizona State University website, which clearly show that you're wrong. Arizona State University designed and built that camera. They're the ones that publish the camera's resolution capabilities. They say you're wrong. Why do you say you know better than the people who built the camera? YOU SAID: "even at it's" == The word is "ITS" (no apostrophe), you illiterate moron. The word "its" exists for a reason. Use it!! Good gods. Every one of you stupid conspiratards is functionally illiterate. Maybe that's why you know so little. If you can't write well, it's probably because you can't read well. If you can't read well, you probably don't know very much. YOU SAID: "lowest orbital approach...As I said, you are an ignoramus, because you do not know the facts." == Again, why do you think you know "the facts" about LRO's camera better than the people who designed and built LRO's camera? They disagree with you.
    2
  6401. It's called a "flagpole." I'm sorry if you don't understand it.
    2
  6402. Huh? China recently released their orbital photos of the Apollo 11 landing site, showing the lander in the exact same place as LRO shows it, which is the exact same place as India's orbiter shows it, which is the exact same place as the original mission photography shows it. China has already verified Apollo. So, what in the world are you talking about?
    2
  6403. Wow. You're an amazing detective with some extremely powerful deductive abilities. July 2021 = this arrest. Suicide = March 2022. Arrest video released to the public = November 2023. It's probably because the police can no longer block a legal FOIA request after the case is closed long enough. And, since she was already dead for 1.5 years, they can no longer block its release. She suffered ZERO shame over the release of this video, because she was long dead before anybody ever saw it.
    2
  6404. Tell me, if it was a man at a playground, would you say the same thing about the people who call the police?
    2
  6405. So, you posted a bunch of "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake" arguments. I called you out on that. And, your response is another one just like it? Dewdrop, the radiation belts are comprised of loose protons and loose electrons. Those don't have a concept of temperature. Bravo. You're batting 0.000. Is there any point at which you're going to stop pretending to understand concepts you don't? Or, is this going to go on forever?
    2
  6406. Or, for your sake, I'll add a slight correction. The concept of temperature in the radiation belts is not the same as you think of it. Individual electrons and protons don't have a temperature. However, cumulatively, they can have a temperature effect. It's so slight and insignificant, however, that it really doesn't even matter what the "temperature" even is. It's like a drop of hot water cannot melt a glacier. The "temperature" inside the radiation belts (if you can even manage to measure it) can be very high or very low, but, when those ions come in contact with solid matter (like a spacecraft), the ions are like the drop of hot water, and the spacecraft is like the iceberg. It's not going to have any measurable effect. This is all well beyond your capability to understand, however, I just couldn't stomach leaving my prior comment being slightly inaccurate.
    2
  6407.  @ladylindemanmogot9992  Thanks for demonstrating (as usual) that you didn't read my replies before posting your gibberish.
    2
  6408. What difference should it make about whether they see stars or not? Are you under the impression that viewing stars should be part of the mission objective list?
    2
  6409. "What's the purpose they went there?" How is that any different than your prior question?
    2
  6410. How typical. You first say that you reject it (you do not believe), THEN you ask for the evidence? So, you don't know what the evidence is, but, you've already come to your conclusion before asking for evidence. Bravo. You are a true hero.
    2
  6411. "didn’t deserve it" Really? What would you recommend that the officer do when your buddy pointed a gun at his head?
    2
  6412. Deucemonkey 23 Herb Castro Your perception of the Van Allen belts is an utter butchery of what Kelly Smith was saying in the video you're talking about. He merely said that they needed to test the shielding on Orion in order to be sure the computers and people would be able to function/survive in the Van Allen belts. That video was made in 2014, and yes, NASA tested Orion's shielding later that same year, and it passed the tests. Yet, still, to this day, moon hoax nutbags are still quoting that video as some sort of assault on Apollo. It's nonsense. Kelly Smith was never claiming that Apollo didn't go through the belts. He said that Orion's shielding needed to be tested. They tested Apollo's craft going through the belts on Apollo 6, unmanned, much in the same spirit, before they ever put humans through the belts. So, yes, a new craft, with new mission parameters, different computers, yes, they needed to test the shielding again. I mean, for the sake of comparison, nobody ever questions if a brand new aircraft with brand new wings needs to have those new wings tested before certifying the craft for passengers. Nobody ever says, "hey, why did you need to test the wings for the Boeing 747, when you had perfectly good wings on the WWI biplanes?" Yet, that's exactly what the conspiracy nutbags are saying about the Orion shielding, as if they should just use the exact same shielding that Apollo used 50 years earlier (different craft, different missions planned, different computers, etc.). It's insanity. Conspiracy nutbags are insane.
    2
  6413. It's far simpler than that, at least for most of them. These are generally people who have absolutely failed in life, and they feel badly about it. If they get an opportunity to accuse the most successful people in history of being failures also, this makes them feel better about themselves. Facts don't matter. All that matters is the accusation. So, they gleefully embrace any videos that support their own viewpoints, no matter how factually wrong those videos are. And, they will never fact-check, because they're happier with the delusion.
    2
  6414. Would you say that if it was a man in a playground? "Just leave him alone, kids. We'll just go to a different playground. Leave him to do his thing."
    2
  6415. This video isn't trying to offer anything like that. The purpose is to show what the stuff might look like today after having been sitting on the moon for 50+ years. In your mind, this isn't a valid purpose for a video? Any moon video needs to be about proving it was real?
    2
  6416. As for unmanned probes to prove it's real, what more do you want? Japan sent Selene to the moon, but, it didn't have the resolution required to see the landers on the surface. It could tell that the dust was disturbed at each of the 6 sites. Deniers = "not good enough, I want closer." Arizona State University sent their camera onboard LRO, and was able to see the landers, the rover tracks, foot paths, etc. Deniers = "not good enough, I want 3rd party verification, not a USA probe." China sent Chang'e to the moon, and told the public that it verified Apollo. Deniers = "not good enough, why won't they show the photos?" China released the photos. Deniers = "not good enough, I want better resolution." India sent Chandrayaan to the moon, yielding the best resolution to date, showing the landers, shadows of the flame deflectors, shadow of the flag on Apollo 12, etc. Deniers = "not good enough, India has just decided to join the deception." Why do you believe another probe will result in deniers suddenly accepting it, instead of saying, "not good enough"?
    2
  6417. Time is loose. Care is before. Ground is play. I make sense.
    2
  6418. Well, there are a lot of reasons. He knew they were coming, and planned ahead to kill them. He parked his car a quarter mile away so that they wouldn't know he was home. He disabled the lights so they couldn't flip the switch and see him. He got tarps ready for their bodies, and placed them where he planned on killing them. Long before the teens got to his house, he recorded himself rehearsing what he planned on saying to the attorneys and friends. He said on that same recording that he planned on shooting "in the left eye" (and later shot the girl in the left eye, twice, from point-blank range). When the boy arrived, he shot him, gathered up his body, moved it to the other room, then prepared the room again for the next murder for when the girl would come in. When he shot the girl, he apologized to her for killing her too slowly (his first gun jammed, and had to switch guns). He admitted in his confession that he knew she was incapacitated, but didn't want to give her a chance to live, so put those two bullets into her left eye. Then, when he was uncertain if that fully killed her, he went back again and shot her under the chin and up into the brain. He then said, "cute." And, he waited 24 hours to call the police. The police found the girl with her shirt open (make of that what you will). Shall I go on? Or, are you convinced that this was premeditated?
    2
  6419. And, you're PROUD to be closed minded?
    2
  6420. They tried sending people to the moon, but, they never got their N1 rocket to work correctly. It kept blowing up. After the race to the moon was lost, they knew they'd either need to just scrap the expensive program, or start from scratch on their N1 rocket. They elected to scrap the expensive program.
    2
  6421. So says the flat Earther whose account name is "my other account"? You don't see the irony here?
    2
  6422.  @Tim22222  "Show me video of the moon flag waving when the astronauts AREN'T touching it. I dare ya!" Do you dare me also? I can give you 3 or 4 examples. One of them was while the astronauts were inside the lunar module on Apollo 14.
    2
  6423.  @Tim22222  No. Purge valves mainly. Or venting from porous plate sublimators. The flag blew about 180 degrees on Apollo 14 in between the two EVAs when the astronauts opened the purge valve and oxygen rushed over the surface. Also, if/when astronauts happened to walk near a flag, and their backpacks or suits were off-gassing, the flags blew slightly.
    2
  6424. Nobody is claiming this CGI video is real, dewdrop.
    2
  6425. Yeah, they constantly borrow footage from other parts of the mission and match it with audio from a different part of the mission. As a matter of fact, in this case, it's even worse than that. The footage you're asking about isn't even from Apollo 17. It's from Apollo 15. You can find it at a video called "Apollo 15 16mm Film (1971)" at about the 15 minute mark in that other video.
    2
  6426. They DON'T know exactly what it looks like today, which is the point of this video. He's speculating what it might look like, and made a CGI version.
    2
  6427. Are you actually PROUD of yourself? Good gods. What's wrong with you?
    2
  6428. Yes, you ask questions, but, you don't want answers.
    2
  6429. Well, look, it's 100% clear that you don't know anything about what makes sense or not. Your opening comment asked why they can't see small items with a telescope. You don't understand the optical properties including Dawes' limit and/or Rayleigh criterion (basically the same general concept, just two different approaches). Light and telescopes don't work the way you think they do. So, don't sit there and complain about what makes sense to you, when you know absolutely nothing about the physics of light.
    2
  6430. Also, you now have shifted what you want. You original said you wanted current photos. Now, you're saying you want photos from during the mission itself. Well, did they take photos of every single little thing depicted in this video? No. Did they take photos of most of it? Yes.
    2
  6431. So, let's recap. You originally asked why telescopes in present day haven't taken photos. (No telescope in existence has anywhere near that kind of resolution, and would require a telescope many miles in diameter to do what you want). You then shifted the topic, claiming no photos of this stuff even existed during the missions. (I provided you a few examples. And, it's clear you never looked for yourself, if you're making that claim in the first place.) And, rather than acknowledging any of this, you now shift the topic to the liftoff video? (There is no lunar liftoff video of Apollo 11, because the camera wasn't turned on until they were around 1,000 feet up.) If you feel absolutely no obligation to understand anything about a topic before you reject it, what's your point in asking questions? It's clear that you don't want the answers.
    2
  6432. Moving legs are ridiculously difficult to hit. And, contrary to what you see in movies, a leg hit won't necessarily stop someone. This guy was found to have drugs in his system. As it was, he took 6 shots and barely broke his stride. He got back up and went to lunge at the cop again. The coroner's report (both of them) said that the headshot was finally the thing that stopped him. A leg shot?? Nope, wouldn't have done a darned thing. And, yes, a baton (like a baseball bat) is a potentially deadly weapon.
    2
  6433. "Photographic film is damaged in a vacuum" So, Kodak didn't do anything about it? Dewdrop, first of all, no, film doesn't get significantly damaged from a vacuum. That's something conspiracy videos tell you. It's a very minor effect. Secondly, even for the small amount of issues that film can have in a vacuum, Kodak knew this, and engineered specialized film to help mitigate that. "Apollo 13 should have been blown hopelessly off course by the blast from the side of the service module" Huh? So, 320 pounds of oxygen gets blown out the side of the service module, and you think it has THAT much effect on the trajectory of the 97,000 pound total command/service/lunar modules? Math just isn't your thing, eh dewdrop? Plus, given that the craft was rolling, any small amount that the craft was pushed in one direction would quickly be negated by the same effect a few seconds later when the very same offgassing would push the craft in the opposite direction as it rolled the other way. Stop pretending to know things you don't.
    2
  6434. Yes, agreed. It's amazing to me about how many people blame police for her death. The police did everything they were supposed to do. Multiple people called the police for this incident. The woman not only did this in public, but, it was public enough that one of the "audience" was able to capture it on video and show the police. The description in their arrest report just doesn't match this woman's story about a quiet secluded thing with nobody around. They say it shows a very loud and public display in front of multiple people including children. Yet, many of the viewers blame the police for doing their jobs? Good grief. The woman had a mile long legal record of arrests, prison time for stealing cars, legal judgments against her for various thefts, drugs and alcohol, etc. Yet, the commenters in this video actually believe the woman when she says nobody was around, and scold the police for arresting her... as if this was their first time ever hearing a criminal say, "I didn't do it." It's ridiculous.
    2
  6435. Timestamp?
    2
  6436. a) It wasn't released until she was already dead 1.5 years. b) Freedom of Information Act.
    2
  6437. "Some how nasa forgot" Oh, look, another moon landing denier who reads and writes at a 2nd grader's level. Seriously here, don't any of you people ever wonder why literate people don't believe the same things you do? "how to get through the VanAllen Belts without killing everyone" Go fast. That's the answer. Nobody has forgotten that answer. You are intentionally taking a 30 second clip about a completely different spacecraft out of context. Shame on you. "but somehow they knew back in the 60s." Yup. Of course they did. They did the same thing in the 1960s as they did for Orion a decade ago. They sent the unmanned capsule up through the belts and back to test its ability to operate in the belts. And, James Van Allen himself said that, as far as human lives are concerned, going through the belts quickly is just fine. It's only sustained exposure that is dangerous. Why don't you understand this? Is it because the entirety of your knowledge about the Van Allen belts rests upon the 30 seconds you're taking out of context from a video made for children? Is that what this all about for you? You watched a clip from a video made for children, but, you didn't understand it, so, Apollo is fake now? That's how this goes, in your mind?
    2
  6438. Spewing your nonsense across multiple videos, eh dewdrop? Have you bothered to look at any of the photos of the landing sites, which all clearly show that the dust was blown upon each landing? No, of course you haven't. You watched some videos made by taxi cab drivers that showed you some very poor resolution photos at bad angles and said, "look, no blast crater," and you bought into it, hook line and sinker. Bravo, you're a true hero.
    2
  6439. Honest? She claimed she was alone. This greatly differs from the statements given by the witnesses, one of whom recorded it and gave a copy of the video to the police. Sounds more like she was making "public beach" content for her fans, than this innocent soccer mom version they're pretending in this video.
    2
  6440.  @stusue9733  They were trained to land without an onboard computer, if they had to. There's no way they'd fly a J-mission without the landing computer (mountains and valleys). But, they'd have gone to the moon (to a less mountainous area) with or without the onboard guidance computer.
    2
  6441. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    2
  6442. "bust your thoughts on "reality" youve been taught" You just got done claiming that you thought the lunar module was supposed to come back to Earth (demonstrating that you don't even know the basic function of each of the craft). Sorry, but, you don't get to assert what OTHERS know or don't know about reality. You actually need to know something about the topic before you can accuse people of being criminals. Now, will you admit you know nothing whatsoever about Apollo? Or, are you going to continue to pretend you know things you don't?
    2
  6443. You have your order of events wrong. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released.
    2
  6444. And, you think that's incorrect? Secure the scene first. Get plenty of cops on the scene. THEN render aid. What happens the other way, rendering aid first? You take your focus off of other things, and someone comes out of the woodwork and then YOU are the one needing aid. You saw TWO people in this video alone, one in just a few seconds, the other a minute or two later. Who's to say that there weren't 3 more just waiting for the cop to turn his focus off of his surroundings and onto aid?
    2
  6445.  @brennen203  What ARE you talking about? What's wrong with you? So, your "logic" is that if a modern rocket blows up, this means that Apollo rockets should have blown up? So, if there's a plane crash today, that means that planes didn't exist 100 years ago? And, what happened to your radio comment? Do you know anything about how radio works? Do you know anything about how Apollo's communications systems were designed?
    2
  6446. How about this... get back to me when you ACTUALLY want answers to your questions. It's clear that you don't, and you should stop asking questions when you clearly don't want answers.
    2
  6447. "I know the answer. Space travel is very expensive" Good gods. Dewdrop, that DOESN'T answer your original question. Your original question was asking about why they don't build carbon copies of the Apollo equipment and suits. But, what seems to elude you is the fact that doing it "your way" (recreating 60 year old stuff bolt for bolt) is MORE EXPENSIVE than taking the overall lessons from the past, and building fresh now. It would also take longer to accomplish.
    2
  6448. 1) In all likelihood, that was the point of putting on the show in the first place. 2) One of the audience showed the video to the police. Between that, and her mile long existing arrest record and open warrants, she was getting arrested no matter what.
    2
  6449. Bingo! And, she did exactly that, except she got $0.00, because she lost the case (very badly).
    2
  6450. If all you wanted to do was send a person to the moon or Mars, and never care to get the person back home, it probably would probably cost only about 10x more than sending a probe. But, the minute you want to get the person back home, this means you have to include an entire craft capable of lifting off of the moon (or Mars, or whatever), with the capability of making the return voyage, and re-enter Earth's atmosphere. For Apollo, this meant that it required a 6 million pound rocket to send 100,000 pounds of payload to the moon. That 100,000 pounds included the command/service modules and the lander, and all of the fuel required to return. That's a lot different than sending a 4,000 pound probe. And, sorry, but you simply don't know what you're talking about. Not in the slightest. And, if you can't comprehend that sending manned missions requires far more redundancy, far more testing, far larger and more complex craft, etc., than sending a probe, then there's really no hope that you'll ever understand much of anything. And, by the way, stop asking questions if you don't want the answers.
    2
  6451. The only "footage" that disappeared were the two BACKUP tapes from the Apollo 11 moonwalk. Those tapes had never even been viewed a single time. All primary copies are intact. And, "storing techniques" has nothing to do with it, because they have absolutely no knowledge of where/how they were stored. They lost track of the backup tapes immediately.
    2
  6452. Off weights are grams of buggies. Three rovers because not one. Of added 25,000 of pounds of thrust to each F1 engine accommodate rovers. Nice job asking questions but no waiting for answers, dewdrop.
    2
  6453. Just checking here... you do realize he's NOT being charged with murder, right? You do realize what the term "manslaughter" means, right?
    2
  6454. There are mountains of evidence. But, of course, you'll never find any of it by watching the silly denier videos you've been watching. The makers of those videos wouldn't dare show any of it to you, because it ruins the lies they've been telling you (and you've fallen for). I'm not going to sit here and type an entire encyclopedia of evidence to you, so, I'll just name the most recent stuff. South Korea, India, China, and the USA (via the Arizona State University camera) all have orbiters around the moon that have photographed the Apollo landers on the lunar surface. India's photos have the most resolution of all of them. All of the landers are exactly where they're supposed to be. Why do you deny this evidence?
    2
  6455. Then this video wouldn't exist. It only exists because there wasn't a dash cam. Every day, numerous people are killed somewhere in police pursuits, fleeing, shootouts, crashing a car or motorcycle, you name it. It almost never makes the news, because it's just another dumb criminal doing dumb things, and the cams capture those things, open and shut. Those will never make the news.
    2
  6456. So, that's it then? I gave you EXACTLY where to look to find out that you're absolutely wrong. But, you're running for the hills?
    2
  6457.  @therealzilch  They're all metallurgists now, and experts on why towers fall. They're all aerospace engineers now, and know all about tinfoil craft. They're all ballistics experts, and know what's supposed to happen to bullets through presidents. They're all jet experts, and can tell the difference between a contrail and a chemtrail. They're all physicists now, and really know the difference between the phases of the moon and an eclipse. They're all geologists now, and know petrified wood from moon rocks. But, sorry, no, it didn't come from sitcoms. Their degrees came from YouTube University.
    2
  6458. Ateing waitless on da muun is walking under your matter of on think of it!!!
    2
  6459. It's very difficult to take you seriously when you call the police "aggressive." They calmly took her away from the restaurant so nobody could see/hear what was going on. And, they protected the privacy of the arrest video for 2.5 years (which was long after she was dead), until a FOIA request mandated its release. That's not aggressive, dewdrop.
    2
  6460. Yes, dewdrop. Her history IS relevant, because it included the open arrest warrants.
    2
  6461. It was a misdemeanor. There is no such thing as a warning for this crime.
    2
  6462. Esthersar, Your dishonesty has reached new heights, which is very difficult to do, since everything you've ever posted has been a complete lie. But, here you said: "Why did they not reset any of the cameras to long exposure to be able to photograph the stars?" I have answered this question from you in previous threads, multiple times. I told you that they DID take 125 photos of the stars that exact way, using the Carruthers UV telescopic camera on a tripod mount. I gave you EXACTLY what you asked for, and the EXACT name of the telescope and the photos. And, here you are, 2 months later, claiming the same thing, saying that they never took the photos that I already told you they took. How low can you go? How bad is your disorder, when you feel the need to constantly lie?
    2
  6463. Note, I particularly love the part when you quoted my own words back to me: You wrote: Quote: "Do you really expect me to go through 125 photos and give you a list of clear ones? " (quoting my words back to me) Then, you replied: Quote: "Not a list, just one. One single photo would do." Now, the problem with this new lie of yours (among your repeated parade of lies throughout many different comment threads), is that you later claimed: Quote: "What catalog numbers? I have not seen any catalog numbers from you." See, the issue is that the catalog numbers I posted were in the very same message as the "Do you really expect me to go through 125 photos and give you a list of clear ones?" quote. So, you don't get to sit here and pretend that you could see part of the message, but couldn't see the rest of it (the part with the catalog numbers). You are merely stalling, distracting, ducking and dodging, like you normally do, throughout all of your threads. When presented with evidence, all you've EVER done is distract and dodge, switch topics, shift the goalposts, whatever. And, this is just another dishonest attempt to do the exact same thing. They took 125 photos of the stars using the Carruthers camera, mounted to a tripod. They took some using the Hasselblads also, but, those were hand-held cameras, and taking photos of stars requires very long exposure times. This causes very blurry images, because a human cannot hold a camera steady by hand for 20-30 seconds at a time. You don't even know which mission is which, and which camera is which. I told you to look at the Carruthers ultraviolet photos. I gave you catalog numbers of those Carruthers UV photos that showed non-blurry stars. I explained why some are blurry, and some are not, because they wanted to vary the exposure times across the 125 photos, some shorter, some longer, to get a really good sampling of all types of photos (exactly like any sane person would expect). And, I seriously doubt you looked at any of them, not even the blurry ones. You probably saw some of the blurry ones from the Hasselblads at some point, and concluded all of them were blurry, contrary to the fact that I repeatedly explained that you're wrong. But, you're not honest enough to deal with any of that. You will continue to simply reject, duck, dodge, and avoid. That's all you've ever done in any thread you post in. Your mind has been made up, based on incorrect facts. Garbage in, garbage out. You ate up the garbage spewed by dishonest videos, thinking it was all valid, without lifting a finger to find out it wasn't. And, rather than being upset with the people who made those dishonest videos in the first place, you are upset with the messengers who show you why those videos are wrong. This is classic paranoid delusional behavior, and, you will lie through your teeth to defend the delusion.
    2
  6464. Huh? American Moon? Why would you fall for that garbage? Why would you believe that charlatan knows anything whatsoever about the topic? Literally every single thing said in that movie is easily shown to be incorrect.
    2
  6465. Well, I posted a reply with a photo of the rover and its remote controllable camera. But, it must have been deleted by YouTube.
    2
  6466. Why not quite? Because as I said, the modern photos don't have this level of detail. That's because they're taken from lunar orbit. Three different countries have sent lunar orbiters that have photographed the landing sites in enough detail to see the landers and some of the larger things. But, thus far, none have been equipped with a camera/lens big enough to see the smaller details. I'm not sure why you struggle with this.
    2
  6467. I don't think he is including the laps around Earth in the 380,000 km.
    2
  6468. Nobody saw the video while she was alive, so, it was pretty irrelevant to her decision a year later to say goodbye. And, what's so special about this arrest that was different than her other million arrests? She didn't say goodbye after being in prison 6 years ago. But, THIS little arrest did the trick?
    2
  6469. YOU SAID: "As much as you but the difference between me and you I'm not a gullible fool like yourself to believe everything I'm told" == Yeah, believing everything you're told is indeed ridiculous. You should only believe things with a proper understanding of the evidence, the history, and the technology. You clearly have none of that. But, wait just a second here, in the other thread (you apparently don't know how to hit "reply" in your own thread, and started a new thread for some crazy reason), you asked for people to explain radiation to you (despite that you claimed to work in a radiation lab). You clearly don't understand anything about radiation, because you claimed it should take 5 feet of lead to shield you from the radiation belts (as if you think the radiation belts were nuclear, or something, rather than trivial ionic particles). YOU SAID: "do some research before you make a idiot comment.." == HILARIOUS!!!!! You called the Van Allen belts the "Von Ryan belts"!!!! Now, you're telling OTHERS to "research"??? You don't even know the name of the belts you're complaining about. But, OTHERS need to "research" it??? Tell me, dummy, do you suppose that none of the world's 72 space agencies have ever "researched" the "Von Ryan" belts? Really? None of the world's 72 space agencies have ever made the claims you're making. Do you suppose they don't know how to watch conspiracy videos as well as you know how to watch them?
    2
  6470.  @therealzilch  "no photos or films from any of the missions are missing" Except the ones Pete Conrad accidentally left inside the camera he tossed out on the lunar surface.
    2
  6471. You do know that Artemis 1 is sitting on the launchpad this very minute in preparation to go to the moon, right?
    2
  6472.  @lvega5606  Pffttt. Yeah, and like I said, I have a bridge for sale. I mean, what the hell? How goddamned gullible can you be? Even if the first part of your fantasy was true, do you REALLY believe the "news" crew wouldn't have asked about it? Well, there's one born every minute... and it's you.
    2
  6473.  @l.c.8475  And, your point is?
    2
  6474. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    2
  6475. Well, you're half right anyway. Yes, people get arrested for aggravated misdemeanors.
    2
  6476. ​ @X-Prime123  Well, I'm not the one you were addressing, but, I have no trouble claiming moral superiority either. She left her career and family about a decade ago, including a 6 month old son, a husband, and another boy from a prior father, in order to live a life of drugs and crime. She ended up serving a felony prison term for stealing cars. And, when she got out of prison, she continued her drug and crime spree until she died. There were multiple judgements against her for various thefts, an arrest record a mile long for various things including drug and alcohol charges, and numerous failures to appear in court (including this particular arrest, which she never showed up for her hearing). She tried changing her name a few times to evade police. And, after all of that, yeah, it's difficult to get a straight job. So, according to her landlord, she was a stripper at the local club. And, interviews with neighbors said that she did "private" cash transactions out of her apartment also. Witnesses of this incident said it seemed like she intentionally chose a spot in view of others. And, one witness recorded it, and showed the video to the police. Needless to say, the arrest report describes a very different version than the discreet "nobody was around" version as told by the felon who was trying to avoid her millionth arrest.
    2
  6477. Multiple people called the police for this incident. One of them even recorded it, and showed the video to the police. It's described in their police report as a loud and public act in front of multiple people, including children. I'm sorry if this differs from the words spoken by a convicted felon who was trying to avoid her millionth arrest, but, yeah, time to wake up to reality. People often say just about anything to try to wiggle out of arrests. There's no reason for you to believe her.
    2
  6478. Scott Free: YOU SAID: "ann onn how did he leave his boots? Did he take his suit off before he got in the capsule, or did they just open a window and throw them out as they set off? Think about it mate." == Good fucking gods. What IS wrong with you idiots? Do you morons EVER look anything up before you spew bullshit everywhere? The "boots" were basically just overshoes that strapped onto the main shoe. I can't remember if they left the boots (overshoes) on the lunar surface or not, and I'm sure not looking it up for YOUR sake. Look it up yourself. Don't just sit there and say something doesn't make sense, merely because YOU don't understand it. I mean, how dumb can you be anyway? You think none of the thousands of people who worked on Apollo noticed this glaring "error" that you've noticed? None of the women who made those boots stopped and said, "hey, how'd he do that?"?? No? The world has been waiting 50 years for a nutbag like YOU to come along? Good grief. And, yes, dummy, they opened the hatch and tossed many items out before they took off. It's part of the mission checklist that you never read.
    2
  6479. Stick with your first 4 words. The rest are pure gibberish.
    2
  6480. Because these are hollow point 9mm pistol rounds, not armor piercing .30s or something. They do not penetrate trucks very well.
    2
  6481.  @randyschissler5791  In his language, I'll bet "video" vs. "photography" doesn't translate very well, and that's why he used "photographs."
    2
  6482. "You can even watch a clip from Apollo 14, and the flag blows in and out of the frame no less than 8 times." Yup, and as I said, the lunar module off-gassed from time to time also, blowing the nearby flag. As I have said before many times, when they opened the purge valve on Apollo 14, it was even worse than gently swaying, and the flag rotated nearly 180 degrees. The gentle swaying at the edge of the frame was the result of minor off-gassing. How does this go, in your mind? Do you think the super secret lizard people who somehow managed to bluff the entire planet's aerospace engineers somehow just forgot that a flag isn't supposed to sway, and left that in the final videos for some reason?
    2
  6483.  @aok4418  Why do you post anything at all at this point? All you ever do when proven wrong is stick your fingers in your ears, cover your eyes, and say "lalalalalalala."
    2
  6484.  @aok4418  If you're not even going to read my responses, what's the point of continuing to ask me questions?
    2
  6485.  @aok4418  Well, you already made it clear that you weren't reading answers, and now you're acknowledging it. Yeah, that's exactly how you operate. Ask questions, then stick your fingers in your ears, cover your eyes, say "lalalalala" and run for the hills.
    2
  6486.  @aok4418  Dewdrop, you don't even read answers to your own questions. You're not in a position to say anything at all.
    2
  6487. What you may not know is that he is considered the original founder of the moon landing conspiracies, and the foremost expert. Of course, that says quite a lot about the people who believe him.
    2
  6488.  @leononle478  I cannot help you when you're THAT proud to know absolutely nothing.
    2
  6489. Why spend billions of dollars to send a rover to a spot on the moon they've already been?
    2
  6490. And, you believe she was alone, why? Because she said so as she was trying to cry her way out of her millionth arrest? The witnesses disagree, and one of them recorded the incident and gave a copy of the video to the police. She wasn't alone. She was putting on a very loud show in view of multiple people including children. And, sorry, but the arrest video wasn't released until long after she died. So, it had nothing to do with taking her life. She did that all by herself, and you should stop blaming others.
    2
  6491. Yet, you cannot actually name any of those levels?
    2
  6492. YOU SAID: "34:58 defying physics! leaning that far forward and they dont fall forward... How are they leaning forward in the air at that angle without falling over?" == The rover (the camera was mounted to the rover) is on a slope, therefore everything is sloped. YOU SAID: "that would be a good answer although if you look at the moments before its easy to see he was going downhill before." == Ridiculous nonsense. He was skipping along the sloped surface, which is part of the reason he lost his balance in the first place. If you don't like what you see in those few seconds, why aren't you watching the entire unedited sequence instead? Why would you think you can judge this stuff from just a few seconds of video? From those 2 or 3 seconds you're referring to, you can't tell whether he's going uphill or downhill. He's just hopping, and about to fall, and then falls. Go watch the entirety of the hours upon hours of Apollo 17 videos, and then make your judgment. Don't watch 2 or 3 seconds of an astronaut falling down, then tell me that you think you know things you don't know. YOU SAID: "he is facing downhill so that makes him leaning forward" == Seriously? Does that even make sense to you? You think if you're going downhill, you face forward? No wonder you believe silly things. Go try it. Walk uphill, and see if you think you're leaning backward (relative to the slope of the ground). Walk downhill, and see if you think you're leaning forward (relative to the slope of the ground). Good grief. You are completely and totally BACKWARD in your understanding. YOU SAID: "like that even more likely he would fall over." == He DID fall over!!!!!!!!!!! What's wrong with you!?!?!?!?!? YOU SAID: "He literally hangs for a sec before his bottom legs come forward to life him up.. at the very end of the clip he stands up straighter than the hard lean. so if he was on a slope that lean wouldnt change because the camera is still.. but I do like your answer and is still a most likely plausible answer." == Just go watch the full original videos. Good gods. What a train wreck. You are entirely backward, and, yet, you think you understand these topics.
    2
  6493. @KH4L0Dz YOU SAID: "I swear i can't imagine how the people believe this this is the biggest conspiracy have ever the human being seen" == Yet, it's been 50 years, and countless illiterate people (just like you) make these wild claims. Yet, never in history has anybody ever offered any moon conspiracy notions that can pass scientific muster. Each and every moon conspiracy claim in history has been utterly destroyed the moment it comes under scientific scrutiny. YOU SAID: "nothing is logical in this videos I bet you, if this was true, they would have occupied the moon these days" == Then you don't understand thermodynamics. Sorry, but you're just plain wrong. It takes millions of pounds of rocket fuel/oxidizer to lift 3 or 4 people to the moon, including the craft itself, the fuel itself, a lander capable of returning to Earth, and the people inside. That hasn't changed. For example, SLS is nearly identical in size/capacity as the Saturn V was. And, the most they think they can squeeze out of Orion on top of SLS is maybe 4 people to go to the moon instead of just 3. So, you can sit there and "bet" on your ignorance until the cows come home. But, the equations to understand rocketry haven't changed in over 100 years since they were discovered/derived. The principles are the same today as they ever were. And, if you want to lift that kind of payload to the moon, it will require millions of pounds of propellant. The average person will never even be able to buy the fuel to go to the moon, let alone the craft, and everything else it takes to go there. YOU SAID: "and we were watching this on the moon through telescopes" == Oh, but I thought you said that "nothing is logical in this videos" (your wording)?? Yet, simultaneously, you think that telescope optics on Earth can see something like that on the moon??? Atmospheric scatter? That means nothing to you? Optical resolution? That means nothing to you either? Good grief. I mean, the mere fact that you'd make this suggestion only shows how ignorant you are. Google "optical resolution," Select the wiki page. Read the formula to calculate the size of lens you'd need to see something like this from the distance between the Earth and moon. Do the calculations yourself. In order to see something that size from this distance, with enough resolution to even know what it is, would take a lens A QUARTER MILE in diameter!!!! Given that the biggest optical grade lens ever constructed was about 5 feet across, and costed $168 million, yeah, I think we're a long way off from QUARTER MILE telescope lenses!!! Shhheeeeessssshhhh. Oh, but "nothing is logical" in the videos? Um, no, dummy. Nothing is logical about anything YOU say. YOU SAID: "yoo dude ehat kind of facts you are talking about ?? The flag which is waving from the wind or the same recording place for every moon mission from apollo 11 to 17?" == The flags have waved only under very specific conditions: 1) When being handled, or immediately after being handled. Did you expect them to stay stiff for some reason, if they're being handled? 2) When an astronaut passed near a flag, and the PLSS (life support) backpacks are off-gassing at the time. Yes, there were one or two times during the missions that this happened, and you can see some slight flag movement. Yes, the "wind" (extremely tiny amount) ever so slightly causes some small motion in the flags. 3) When the purge valve on the lander is opened, and the oxygen rushes over the lunar surface. Those are the only times the flags have ever moved. None of those things require a conspiracy explanation. YOU SAID: "Or that weird illogical for the physics movements when they stumble?" == It's simple. The rover is on a slope, and the astronauts are on a slope. The ground looks "level" in the TV picture because the camera is mounted perpendicular with the surface. Yazzam posted a link to a video that shows this same sort of concept. Tilted ground, tilted camera. It's really that simple. YOU SAID: "We all know how the gravity that should be on the moon but not like this !!" == Then calculate it. What are you waiting for? Why are you on YouTube, if you think the gravity is "wrong" in these videos? You can demonstrate it via the scientific method. Calculate it. Write it up. Submit it for scientific peer review. I really don't know why you people don't do that. Instead, you just come to YouTube comments and claim it's "wrong" with absolutely no math to back you up. YOU SAID: "He looks like he is tied with rope lol" == Because the ground is sloped, and the camera is sloped with it. There is no rope. YOU SAID: "dude just give me one evidence that they reached the moon surface except this kind of fake videos They did not solve the mystery of Bermuda triangle until they land on the moon lol!!" == Sure. I'll cut and paste one of the small pieces of evidence that I posted to someone else below. YOU SAID: "dude i just wannt you to tell me why the earth is look so small despite to the earth that bigger than the moon with 20x it should be bigger in the picture here 35:27" == 20x, eh? Funny, I've done the math. One of my degrees is in mathematics, as a matter of fact, not that I've ever bothered to call myself a mathematician. But, you don't need to have a degree in math to be able to do the simple trigonometry to calculate it. But, yeah, the moon is about 0.5 degrees in angular size from Earth. The Earth is about 2 degrees in angular size from the moon. That's 4x the size, not 20x. And, yes, it looks pretty correct in the videos to me. But, again, this is one of the many reasons you shouldn't even bother being on YouTube, and you should be submitting your calculations via the scientific method. I always thought that 2 divided by 0.5 was 4. But, you apparently think 2 divided by 0.5 is 20. But, yeah, it's been decades since I got my degree in mathematics, and I pretty much abandoned math shortly thereafter, despite my chart-shattering aptitude for it. So, yeah, why don't you go ahead and show me how you get to the conclusion that 2 / 0.5 = 20? I'm sure there's a Nobel Prize with your name on it if you can demonstrate it.
    2
  6494. @KH4L0Dz Here's that cut-n-paste I promised from the last posted message: == One example out of hundreds of possible examples: the radio telescopes, the radar tracking, and radio communications devices. For example, dozens of countries (including enemy countries) tracked the Apollo missions with radar and/or radio telescopes. Like, the Soviets sent Luna 15 (unmanned probe) to the moon a couple of days ahead of Apollo 11. The plan was to stay in orbit around the moon until Apollo 11 got there, wait for the astronauts to land, then send Luna 15 down to the lunar surface while the astronauts were still there, then robotically grab some lunar samples, then race Apollo 11 back home with the first lunar samples in history. Unfortunately for them, it was a very rushed mission, and they ended up making some mistakes and crashing it into a lunar mountain while Armstrong and Aldrin were on the lunar surface. But, the fact remains, the Soviets tracked both Apollo 11 and their Luna 15 mission, using radar and radio telescopes. Numerous countries did this also. It wasn't just the Soviets and the USA doing the tracking. Spain. Australia. Madagascar. Canary Islands. Ascension Island. Wales. Britain. Turks & Caicos. Bahamas. Guam. The list goes on and on. All of those countries, and more, used their radar and/or radio telescopes to track the Apollo missions.
    2
  6495.  @xpez9694  YOU SAID: "I see you writing a lengthy comments to everyone else as well." == TRANSLATION: "I have the attention span of a dead chipmunk. So, if you can't explain rocketry, and if you can't explain a 10 year long program to reach the moon, in 3 sentences or less, I'm not going to read it, and it's fake." YOU SAID: "God only knows what kind of misquoting you are doing to make yourself seem superior to everyone." == Dummy, I have only quoted MYSELF!!!! I cut-n-pasted MY OWN words. Someone else recently asked the same sort of questions you asked, so, I went there, grabbed a few lines that ***I WROTE***, and pasted them here. How can I possibly "misquote" MYSELF?!?! Good grief. YOU SAID: "rockethead7 doesnt know what he is talking about." == Wait, what? You think the Earth should look 20x larger from the moon, remember? That's YOU who made that claim. Do you do the math to back that up? No, of course not. Have any one of the world's experts, staffed in any of the planet's 72 space agencies, ever noticed such a massive "mistake" that the Earth is the wrong size by a factor of 20x?? No, of course not. You're also the one who thinks you'd lean FORWARD when going down a hill, remember? Don't sit there and tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about. And, you know what?? It doesn't matter anyway. Every single thing I've said is correct, whether it comes from me, or comes from someone else. You can verify this stuff the exact way I outlined, and therefore it doesn't even matter if I know what I'm talking about or not. You can verify these things FOR YOURSELF (if you'd lift a finger to do the math).
    2
  6496. @KH4L0Dz YOU SAID: "naaahh he didn't" == Dummy, the stuff I wrote stands upon its own. You can't push it aside just because you don't like the person who posted it to you. All of those countries tracked Apollo missions to/from the moon with their radio telescopes and/or radar. You asked for one small piece of evidence for Apollo that doesn't depend on videos. I provided exactly what you asked for, and I could give you tons more iron clad evidence on top of that, which also doesn't require you to watch videos. You don't get to dismiss it merely because you were unaware it existed. All you've done is ask for evidence that doesn't depend on videos (while laughingly expecting the answer to be "there is none"), then, when provided the exact evidence you asked for, you shove it aside. I'll never understand why you dummies ask for evidence, when every single one of you conspiratards intends to ignore the evidence when you get it. YOU SAID: "He's just a copy-and-paste taker dude" == I copied and pasted FROM MYSELF!!!! Did you not read? I clearly said, "I'll cut and paste one of the small pieces of evidence that I posted to someone else." Get it? I had posted that same stuff recently to someone else who asked for it (then ignored it, just as you are doing), so, I copied it to this thread. And, again, you are ignoring it. Guess what, dummy? It wouldn't even matter if I had copied and pasted it from someone else. I didn't do that. I copied and pasted FROM MYSELF. But, hypothetically, if I had copied it from someone else, it's still something you can verify for yourself. All of those countries, and more, proudly say THEMSELVES that they tracked Apollo missions. A lot of those facilities are still online to this very day (upgraded electronics, of course). And, if you go there, they will tell you all by themselves that they tracked Apollo with radar and radio telescopes. And, as I said, that's the tip of the iceberg. I can type for 30 hours, presenting evidence from sources completely outside of NASA, that confirms Apollo. You asked for evidence. I gave it to you. Now you're finding excuses to ignore it. YOU SAID: "if you search for the truth you will find it but you don't" == Dummy, conspiracy videos aren't "truth." If they were, they wouldn't be presenting it in conspiracy videos. The reason those conspiracy videos exist is BECAUSE they are wrong. If they were correct, they'd be presenting this stuff via the scientific method. They publish their stuff in conspiracy videos because they want to avoid the scientific scrutiny. Every single one of their claims collapses immediately under the slightest bit of scientific scrutiny. Every single one. Never once in the past 50 years since Apollo has anywhere EVER, from friendly or enemy countries, ever presented any of this anti-Apollo "evidence" (sigh) via any recognized science or engineering journal, and had it pass entry level scrutiny. Not once. Not one single time. So, instead, they skip the scientific method altogether, and publish straight to conspiracy videos, so that their gullible viewers can eat it up. They know their target audience will never fact-check them. YOU SAID: "You are treating the words of the scientists as definitive" == No, that's the OPPOSITE of the scientific method!!! Good grief!!! Have you ever even written a scientific paper? Sheeessshhhh. When you write a paper, and submit it to a journal, it doesn't matter who you are. The "words of scientists" do not matter. That's the entire point of the scientific method. It takes individual claims of scientists out of the equation, and makes testability and repeatability paramount. If you have something against Apollo, you write it up, and submit it. From there, it undergoes review, and if it passes muster, it gets published for the entire world to rebut, or accept. It doesn't matter if you're Albert Einstein, or the janitor at a nursing home, your paper undergoes the same scrutiny, and is prone to be rejected, or accepted, based on the merits of the claims themselves. YOU SAID: "even if that lies You believe in their words as Muslim for thier words" == I haven't got the foggiest clue what you're talking about, and neither do you. YOU SAID: "also i can't read all this newspaper you wrote with nothing convincing" == So, you didn't read what I wrote, but, I'm wrong about what I wrote? You didn't find anything convincing in words you didn't read??? And, you're PROUD of this level of stupidity?
    2
  6497.  @xpez9694  Amazing. Your paranoid delusional state doesn't just exist for Apollo, it permeates through your entire being. You find it impossible to believe that more than one person would tell you what a complete fool you are, such that you accuse me of being someone else. Your mind is completely lost.
    2
  6498. His name is Ed Fendell. Radio delays are what they are. Generally, he panned/zoomed/tilted pretty slowly so that the delay didn't affect him that much, and he got used to anticipating the delays. But, if you actually go watch the videos in their entirety, you'd see that the 1.3 second delay (2.6 round trip) was enough to make him lose track of the astronauts from time to time, and had to zoom back out, find them, and start panning again.
    2
  6499.  @eastendmafia  Yes, that was my point. The guy concluded that because this particular CGI video is not real, this means Apollo wasn't real.
    2
  6500. Well, given that this arrest took place in July of 2021, her suicide was in March of 2022, and the video wasn't released to the public until November of 2023, yeah, I think it's safe to say that this incident had nothing to do with her suicide.
    2
  6501. The only "dream" here is coming from you. You dream to know what you're talking about. But, you don't.
    2
  6502. So, in your mind, congress canceled a program because it never happened, yet, not a single member of congress ever started any sort of inquiries about bilking billions? What? How does that work, in your mind?
    2
  6503. True. But, he planned the murders in advance.
    2
  6504. So, you watched Bart Sibrel's ridiculous movie packed full of lies, and fell for it hook line and sinker, eh? Sorry, dewdrop, but the "round window trick" you're talking about from his video is fraudulent. He created that lie in his editing room. Anybody who watches the original videos will instantly see that the video you watched was an edited lie. But, even if you don't do that, you can know he's wrong just by looking at his own video. You apparently already watched it, but, you missed the obvious mistake he made. See, dewdrop, Sibrel claims that they were actually in low Earth orbit, not half way to the moon, right? That's his claim, right? Well, why aren't the clouds moving by the window at 17,000 mph? Go watch your silly video again. Those clouds aren't moving. If they were in low orbit, and they were taking video of the Earth from across the cabin out of a round window cutout, sorry, but those clouds wouldn't be stationary. If they're in low orbit, they're going 17,000 mph, or they're falling out of the sky. There's no way to go slower and still be in orbit. Yet, the clouds don't move. Sibrel's lie falls apart all by itself. But, beyond that, there are also a dozen more ways to know Sibrel was deliberately lying. I'll spare you the details, but, shame on you for just blindly believing such claptrap. The rest of what you wrote is equally wrong. But, I doubt you care. It's pretty clear that you're not only willing to swallow nonsense, but, you voluntarily lap it up like Christmas dinner.
    2
  6505. Well, that's only if you believe the words of someone who was trying to avoid getting arrested for the millionth time. Multiple people called the police for this incident. And, one of the witnesses said that the woman wandered up and down the beach a few times, looking for a spot, and picked one in view of a family. Furthermore, one of the "audience" recorded the event, and showed the video to the police, who then described the video as a very loud show in view of multiple people including children. I wasn't there, but, I think I'd side with the innocent bystanders who captured it on video, rather than the words from a convicted felon with an arrest record a mile long, trying to avoid getting arrested again.
    2
  6506. I don't even understand this objection. They took hours upon hours upon hours of video. What exact video are you complaining that they don't have?
    2
  6507. Still on the moon, just east of the lander's descent stage.
    2
  6508. Sadly, get ready for this to be the normal. ALL of the auto manufacturers are jacking up prices during this rapid inflation period. I never thought I'd buy a car that costed that much, but, well, I'm in the process of ordering one right now (gasoline powered, not electric, but, same cost).
    2
  6509. "so your telling me" My telling you? Engrish unt spoke yu? "carries enough fuel" Did you really just ask me to explain physics and rocket science to you over a YouTube comment? Dewdrop, I'll tell you what... when you REALLY want answers, maybe I'll answer. But, right now, you're making it awfully clear that you don't want answers. I think you'd rather pretend you know things you don't.
    2
  6510. "no i want answers!!! so explain!! it’s simple!! entertain me with ALL your knowledge and expertise on this b/c… right now… I don’t believe you have an answer" You have the reading and writing skills of an 8 year old, and you understand so little about physics that you think (from your other thread) that there's no gravity on the moon. Don't sit there and pretend you want to understand rocket physics from Apollo. You clearly want to pretend to know things you don't. But, dewdrop, the energy to get home was already imparted upon the command module by the Saturn V rocket. It's as simple as what goes up must come down. The 363 foot tall Saturn V uses its fuel to make the command module go to the moon. The energy is stored in lunar orbit. And, it falls back home when they're done. It only takes a small nudge (relatively) for the service module to push the craft out of lunar orbit, and from there, the Earth's gravity pulls it back home.
    2
  6511. Well, the main purpose of Apollo was as a political message to the Soviets. Remember, this stuff was funded during the times of the Bay of Pigs and Cuban missile crisis, and when people were building bomb shelters in their backyards. Basically, it was a "don't mess with us, or we'll beat you" message. That's what got it funded, and, the idea was that if we express that much technological dominance, then the Soviets wouldn't start a nuclear war that would kill millions of people. We'll never know for sure whether WWIII was prevented because of Apollo, because there's no time machine to go back and change what happened. But, yes, basically, Apollo was one of many measures the USA was taking for the purpose of preventing the cold war from turning into a hot one.
    2
  6512. Wow, it's been at least 3 hours since someone asked that. A new record.
    2
  6513. All 4 of them? Well, that'll sure change the world.
    2
  6514.  @stusue9733  Yeah, gravity is everywhere, but, that's not the reason for the term microgravity. In fact, there's nearly the same amount of gravity at 200 miles up as there is on the surface (hence not "micro"). But, an orbit just cancels that gravity. Yup, it's like I said, they're just trying to be super scientifically accurate to accommodate slight changes in gravity due to imperfect orbits over an imperfect sphere.
    2
  6515.  @critthought2866  The 70mm film they used doesn't just "rival" modern digital cameras. The resolution on that 70mm film is still 10x greater than the most expensive digital cameras.
    2
  6516. It's remarkably difficult to hit legs. And, sorry, this isn't the movies, where a leg hit actually stops someone. Many times, a leg hit will barely slow him down, especially if he's on drugs.
    2
  6517.  @adrianlee3497  A) I don't recall ever posting anything about Bob Lazar on YouTube before the last day or two in this video. So, I have no idea what you're talking about. B) What in the hell does any of your stories have to do with Bob Lazar's credibility? Hypothetically, I could tell you that everything you said in your posting was 100% true, and still, it wouldn't mean Bob Lazar is at all credible. C) None of you Bob Lazar fanatics seems to be able to actually address any questions or challenges I put forth. None. Every single one of you crackpots just replies with anecdotal stories, and none of you people actually address the core of my questions/challenges to Bob Lazar's credibility. D) My point is, there is absolutely no way to distinguish between Bob Lazar just telling ridiculous lies vs. Bob Lazar telling the truth. He offers no evidence of any kind. None. And, ok, so, if there's no evidence, what is the next logical step in determining whether something is true or not? You look at someone's credibility, right? Well, Bob Lazar has NONE!!! No credibility whatsoever!!! I mean, I already outlined why he has no credibility in this thread a million times over. So, I'm not going to sit here and repeat myself. So, I'll just ask one point. If YOU were someone (like Bob Lazar) who was in high school in the bottom 1/3rd in grades and academic achievements, and then you went to a non-accredited junior college, and then somehow managed to get into MIT (the world's top scientific institution that normally only accepts the top 1% of applicants) as the first person in history with no academic achievements to warrant getting in... after all of that, somehow you got into MIT... you pay through the nose for one of the the most expensive educations the world has to offer... and then some super-secret people somehow "erased" the fact that you got a degree from MIT... what would YOU do about it? Would you just say, "oh, they're erasing me" and move on with your life, doing absolutely nothing about it? Or, would you fight with everything you had to sue MIT for erasing you, and use every legal means necessary to get your degree back? Well, the story you MUST believe in order to find Bob Lazar credible is that he miraculously got into MIT despite competition from people far more academically qualified, then paid a tuition that costs more than most people's annual salaries at that age, got his Master's Degree in physics from there, and, then, after people tried to "erase" his records of ever being there, he did absolutely nothing to fight it. Nothing whatsoever. Didn't gather up what records he could. Didn't sue MIT for erasing him. Didn't collect bank records for paying MIT a single dime. Didn't depose witnesses would would remember him there. Nothing at all. THAT is what you'd have to believe in order to believe Bob Lazar. They took away a degree from the most prestigious university on the planet in that field, and he did ZERO to fight it, besides going on TV and saying "they erased it." And, remember, this whole thing supposedly happened only a few years after he claimed he got his degree from MIT. So, banks would still be required to have records of canceled checks. Most professors probably still worked there, and he should be able to name them. Credit card companies would still be required to have records of all of the purchases. It was still fresh enough that there still should be plenty of written material around with his name on it. And, he should be able to name classmates. But, he did NONE OF THAT. So, what are we left with? We're left with stories told by a convicted felon, with zero evidence whatsoever (beyond his words), and a track record of just letting himself "be erased" from MIT's records without lifting a single finger to fight it, after supposedly spending years of his life and a small fortune to get a degree... just letting it all go while doing nothing about it. If you find this man to be credible, sorry, there's really nothing I can do for you.
    2
  6518.  @hannahgabrielle3191  YOU SAID: "he has actual people backing him up from the school in his documentary professors, classmates, ex coworkers" == Pffttt. WHO SAYS!!!?!?!? Him??? Who says any of those people are who he claims? Why didn't he sue MIT to get his degree back?!?!?! What's wrong with you!?!?! You're saying that he had all of those people to verify these claims, so why didn't he use them to get his degree back?!?!!? YOU SAID: "Do research you have no links or resources for all of your denial" == What? I'm supposed to produce a bibliography?? This is amazing stupidity. Did YOU just provide links or resources?? No?? In the very same sentence that you're complaining that I need to produce a bibliography, you yourself fail to produce a bibliography?? Good grief, you're dumb. YOU SAID: "your just an annoying skeptic" == My just an annoying skeptic?? Hey, dumbass, being skeptical is a GOOD thing. Skepticism is a method of analyzing claims. Skepticism is a method of thinking. Skepticism doesn't mean blind rejection or blind acceptance of things. Skepticism is a METHOD. YOU SAID: "who wants to try to debunk a real solid case" == You said it yourself, you moron, there IS NO EVIDENCE. How "solid" is a case that literally has no evidence whatsoever? YOU SAID: "proving the government is corrupt and hiding much more beyond what we can imagine and your pea brain will never accept it because you live in a society bubble saying “oh now why would the gov do such a thing?" == Hey, moron, you aren't even reading what I wrote!!!! You didn't even read it!!! How can you claim to know what I wrote, without reading what I wrote?!?!! Good gods, could you get any dumber? I never once said this statement you're accusing me of stating. YOU SAID: "What evidence does he have?”" == Exactly. YOU SAID: "It was erasedddd my dude down to his social security number, college attendance and degree, etc." == I'm not going over this again. YOU SAID: "he has GRADUATION PHOTOS with friends and family in the documentary along with pay/clock in stubs from working at the air base in Mexico the ONLY piece of evidence that wasn’t erased and over missed which he also had as evidence in his documentary go ahead and watch it so you can know the facts of what happened instead of basically saying it’s all bs" == Then, he should use that "evidence" to sue for his degree back, then shouldn't he? But, he doesn't, does he? YOU SAID: "lmao your the only ignorant person in these comments" == My the only ignorant person in these comments? You are not even literate!! YOU SAID: "hints why everyone is coming at your neck and no I didn’t read not a damn one of your comments because it’s all rubbish and you sound like a complete idiot" == So, you have proven me correct. You won't read anything I wrote, but, not only are you claiming that I'm wrong about what I wrote (which you didn't read), but, also, you have decided you already know what I wrote (without reading what I wrote). You are a complete moron.
    2
  6519.  @WhiteWishesHD  YOU SAID: "So if the topic is Bob Lazars credibility why do you then proceed to tell us how a banking infrastructure works and what the possibilities are within the system." == Because I'm illustrating that bank records CANNOT be erased like people assert. If someone erases a bank transaction for $5000 in a tuition check, or $1000 in a rent check, or whatever, then that bank's balances are instantly wrong. And, this doesn't just happen on one side. It happens on both sides (receiving and sending side). And, people wouldn't take too kindly to all of the sudden having a couple years of their income (i.e. rent checks) suddenly evaporate. If Bob Lazar paid, let's say, $10,000 in rent over the years to [whoever], and the big bad wolf goes and erases those transactions, don't you think the landlord is going to notice? The point is, people can't go around claiming that the government can just "erase" bank transactions. It sounds all great in a single-lined YouTube comment that says, "they erased him." But, in reality, it CANNOT work that way. YOU SAID: "You don't have a clue." == Oh, yes, I do. YOU SAID: "Your a MR know it all" == My a Mr. Know It All?? Haven't you UFO conspiracy idiots ever recognized that most of you are completely illiterate? Don't you think that has some significance? YOU SAID: "You claimed Bob said that there was lizard people in the government?" == No, I didn't. YOU SAID: "SOURCE PLEASE because last time I checked it was David Icke who said that. Ill think you find its you who has zero credibility.." == Well, given that I never said that, I really don't have to worry about this comment. Your reading comprehension is just as bad as your ability to write.
    2
  6520.  @garryprosser281  YOU SAID: "Bob lazar' spoke of (element 115) over 25 years ago, if i remember rightly in the video that was going around at the time!.. Then years later it suddenly appeared on the "periodic table" as (ununpentium element 115) as it was unknown on earth!!.. I think thats right?" == Are you even aware of how they produce those elements? If you name 119 now, and if they cram another proton into a nucleus in an atom smasher somewhere/sometime in the future, are you a prophet? Or, is it the next logical step?
    2
  6521.  @hiroshippuden  Good grief. How many of you people are going to display your ignorance and stupidity for the entire world to see? Why do you people think it's a good idea to do so?
    2
  6522.  @angelramirez5417  YOU SAID: "Of course" == There are 119 messages in this thread. Care you elaborate on what the hell you're responding to? YOU SAID: "yep I saw what I saw no noise just vanished something was right above US 3 lights 1 in middle real dim like red triangle 🔺 🛸lights were white 🚀 🧖‍♂️🌌🌠🛸" == Were you high at the time? YOU SAID: "they dester destroyers our all it ty" == I think maybe you need to come back and try again when you're sober. Nobody can understand a word you're writing. YOU SAID: "got me thinking 🤔" == I seriously doubt that. YOU SAID: "but stop ✋ what if it was true" == Pffttt. Well, outlandish claims require evidence, even if they're true. I answered this already. Even if the absolutely ridiculous claims made by Bob Lazar were true, there'd still be no reason for you to believe those claims. I mean, if your standards of evidence is to just blindly believe claims with no evidence, then you're pretty much doomed to just being an idiot all your life. You can go through your life with the "wait, what if it was true" attitude about ANYTHING. Bigfoot. Zeus. Thor. Loch Ness Monster. Unicorns. Flying pigs. Anything. By that standard of evidence, there's no limit to the amazing garbage that would fill your head. The time to believe things is when convincing evidence is presented. Bob Lazar presents NONE. And, his behavior is absolutely NOT congruent with what anybody in his [supposed] shoes would do. He has zero credibility. And, if you are going to go on the words of a convicted felon who claims to have attended MIT, and to have worked on alien craft, then I'm afraid there's really nothing I can do for you. YOU SAID: "he just can’t know certain things he does js" == WHAT things???
    2
  6523.  @RealVennieKocsis  In any other walk of life, if someone like Bob Lazar made outlandish and self-contradicting claims, and lied about his education, with the "dog ate my homework" level of excuses, they'd be laughed out the door. But, the UFO crowd wants soooooo desperately to confirm their hallucinations were real, that they attach themselves to ANYBODY who makes a claim that aligns with their delusions. "I got a Master's in physics from MIT, despite lacking the academic record that would even get me in the door... the guv'ment erased it... I did nothing whatsoever to get it back... I never even attempted to produce a single person to back up my story that I attended... no bank records showing I paid tuition... no witnesses... no girlfriends I dated when there... no professors of any classes I took... no rent records for where I lived... nothing... and, by the way, I worked on alien spacecraft... you believe me, right?" If he was claiming to see live T-Rex dinosaurs, or Bigfoot, or anything else, these people would laugh Lazar out the door. But, he says he saw an alien craft, and oh, now it's believable. Right.
    2
  6524. 9:55 - Failsafe to get into the car with the keys inside. Usually, you can just shake the car. It wakes up the car and key fob so the car realizes the keys are inside, and unlocks the doors.
    2
  6525. One day, you might graduate the 7th grade. Never happened yet, though.
    2
  6526. No, you have fallen for a simple media trick. She died more than 2 years ago. But, the arrest video was just released on November 24, 2023. They wanted two viral rounds for the price of one. So, they released the first round to talk about the arrest (without mentioning she was already dead). Then, they released the "update" to say that she committed suicide (and falsely let you believe that it was the first round of videos that caused it). Just look up the dates. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. Suicide (unrelated) = March, 2022. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released due to FOIA request. It was only after then that things went viral. She was long dead before just about anybody knew anything about it. Welcome to Inside Edition, where facts don't matter.
    2
  6527. A telescope on Earth? Um, no. That would require a lens many orders of magnitude larger than the biggest lens ever constructed. The best photos we have are from the mission itself, of course. Short of that, the best photos come from LRO when it was about 12 miles above. That's still too far to see a lot of detail, but, you see enough of the basic stuff.
    2
  6528. Yeah, I hope you have the same reaction when they arrest a guy cranking it at a playground in front of kids.
    2
  6529. Well, you're close, but not quite. They knew when they aired the first story that she was already dead. But, they chose not to reveal that fact. So, they had one viral round of the fake story, and then published another viral round of the fake story with the "update" that she had killed herself. In reality, the story they're presenting was never accurate from the start, and they knew darned well that she was already dead when they aired the first story, but wanted to get two rounds for the price of one.
    2
  6530. Well, the reality is that the reflectors are heavily degraded now. We don't get the bounceback today that we got in the 1970s. Mirrors are made of glass, which isn't quite solid. It's like half way between being a liquid and a solid, which is exactly why panes of glass deform over decades. Combine this with the conduction of heat cycles over 50+ years, and yes, they're not perfect corner cubes any longer. And, they suspect that dust does build up due to static electricity levitating microscopic dust, and dropping it back down again.
    2
  6531. Yup, if you were told that, it must be true.
    2
  6532. "How DID they get through the Van Allen Radiation Belt without serious shielding?" There is virtually no effective shielding from protonic radiation. Some shielding has some effect. But, those protons tend to rip through just about anything. What would you use for shielding? "They did not, so a trip to the moon was just a fable" But, dewdrop, you don't instantly die from protons. It matters about how much exposure you have, and over what period of time. It's not like a bullet, where you instantly die if you get hit by one. It's more like a hot tub. If you sit in 102 degree water for a week, you're simply not going to survive it. But, sitting in hot water for 15 minutes is no big deal. The same is true of the inner Van Allen belt. Yeah, it's deadly if you get exposed for too long. But, short exposures don't matter all that much. Apollo went through the inner belt in about 15 minutes. It wasn't enough exposure to be anywhere near fatal. "like all the government fables before and since." Huh? But, you didn't name anything of merit. Your basis for your belief relies on the Van Allen inner belt acting like bullets. It doesn't work that way. James Van Allen himself said there'd be no trouble going through the belts on Apollo. What do you know that he didn't? "Stop trusting government fables, the cost of them is your freedom!" Really? First of all, you are wrong. But, let's pretend you're correct. What "freedom" did you lose when Apollo went to the moon? How does this even make sense?
    2
  6533. "The surface of the moon is extremely hot like boiling water hot" At high noon, yes. The astronauts were never there at high noon. All missions landed early in the lunar morning.
    2
  6534. "How would any film survive?" By keeping it inside the camera. It was light colored and lined with silver to reflect most radiant energy. You know how you can hold an insulated cup with boiling hot water/coffee inside, and yet, your fingers don't burn, even though they are a few millimeters from the hot liquid? Same concept here. Insulation.
    2
  6535. "that lead acid powered car" Nope. Silver-zinc.
    2
  6536. "the van Allen belts" James Van Allen (and every other scientist in that field, and every radiobiologist on Earth) disagrees with you. If you think you know better, why are you on YouTube comments, instead of publishing your calculations in a journal on astronomy/cosmology/radiobiology?
    2
  6537. "I have done very deep research" Dewdrop, you haven't researched anything. You've watched conspiracy videos that lie to you.
    2
  6538. "Do you know that the side that we see it's always hot right? Either you have 0 clue about science and logic" Good gods, dewdrop. How ridiculous are you? No. It's really hot at the "center" of the moon when it's a full moon. And, it's really cold at the "center" of the moon during a new moon. Do you really not understand the phases of the moon?
    2
  6539. "I have telescopes, I have researched, I have a 190" And, at 190, you don't realize that there isn't a telescope in existence capable of seeing Apollo stuff from this distance? Who gave you that 190 number, by the way? You read and write like a 2nd grader. So, ok, if you're 18 months old, alright, I'll believe you. Otherwise, this rings of one of those apps that get advertised as "solving this puzzle means your number is XYZ." It's silly. Anybody worth their salt would be PUBLISHING IN THE JOURNALS ON RADIOBIOLOGY AND COSMOLOGY/ASTRONOMY, not in a YouTube comment.
    2
  6540. "My question is the Russians. They had beaten us into space 12 yrs earlier" Barely. The US actually could have beaten them, but, decided to send an extra monkey mission into space, thus the Soviets sent a man into space a few weeks ahead of the US. "and had a technical advantage on us." Well, only during Mercury. By the Gemini program, the US had surpassed them. The US flew 10 manned Gemini missions between Mercury and Apollo, during which time the Soviets didn't fly a single manned mission at all. Not one. And, of course, once Apollo got going, forget it, the Soviets were left far behind. "But when it came to the moon they backed away." Huh? Who told you the Soviets backed away? They desperately were trying to catch up. They built and flew 4 of their own lunar landers in space on test missions. They kept trying to get their N1 moon rocket to work, launching 4 of those also (but, all 4 blew up). Anyway, why would you say this is "backing away"? "Was it something they discovered that made the moon mission a no go for the Russian government." What in the world are you possibly talking about?!?!?! One of their [failed] launches of their N1s came just a couple of weeks before Apollo 11. Yes, they were still vigorously attempting to beat the USA to the moon. Good grief. "I mean they never even attempted it." Is this a joke? Did you lift a finger for one second to even TRY to find out if your own gibberish was even remotely correct? "What about Buss going around telling people for years it was all fake and they never went." C'mon, dewdrop. If that happened, you know very well that the entire world would stop. It would be front page headline material. There would be senate inquiries. There would be prosecutions. International lawsuits. Etc. This is just plain ridiculous. You have fallen for silly garbage and out-of-context quote mines shown to you by conspiracy videos. Why in the world would you believe it? "Then there was that dreadful press interview of the 3 astronauts shortly after the moon mission." Do you even know when that interview took place? Do you know what the astronauts were doing during the surrounding timeframes? "Niel acted as if he was ashamed of himself and could start crying at any second." You cannot even spell his name. What could you possibly know about him? "I don't know" anything whatsoever. "I'm thinking" No, that's not what you're doing. "it's all a lie not just the moon landings." But, dewdrop, when every single "fact" you offer is incorrect, how can you possibly think that your conclusions are correct?
    2
  6541. Gee, did a conspiracy video tell you that the cameras don't work in a vacuum? And, you just swallowed it, hook line and sinker?
    2
  6542. Yes, if you "know" it is a lie, then yes, your head is very screwed up.
    2
  6543. They weren't transparent on film. They were "transparent" in TV video. So what? Do you not understand it? Therefore it's fake?
    2
  6544. Another posting demonstrating that every denier reads and writes at a 2nd grade level. Bravo, dewdrop. You're a true hero.
    2
  6545. Well, what mainstream media even touched this story while she was alive? Can you name even ONE mainstream media? (Hint: no, you cannot.) Secondly, I'd say that the mainstream media is painting a much better picture of this woman than reality. She abandoned her family (including a 6 month old boy, a husband, and another boy) and career in order to live a life of crime and drugs, had a prison record and a million other arrests. She was almost undoubtedly making "public beach" content for her adult fans in this incident. But, the media paints her out to be an innocent soccer mom.
    2
  6546. There was nothing on YouTube about her before she died. She died more than 2 years ago.
    2
  6547.  @417Theory  Dewdrop, I was pointing out that she experienced ZERO "shame" from the arrest video, because nobody saw it while she was alive.
    2
  6548.  @hal4k  YOU SAID: "As far I know," == TRANSLATION: "I believe everything Musk says, with no critical thinking whatsoever." YOU SAID: "Elon Musk is selling $11 billion in stock primarily to pay taxes" == Taxes on what? Who needs to pay tax on stock that has no dividends, and hasn't yet been sold? Do you know anything about tax law at all? You don't pay tax on stock you haven't yet sold. So, to claim he needs to sell stock to pay taxes doesn't make any sense. Tax ON WHAT INCOME?? If you buy $100 in stock, and it's now worth $1,000, are you under the impression that you must now pay tax on $900, before you've even sold the stock? (Hint: no. You don't pay tax until you sell it. Musk had no reason to claim he owed billions in tax money.) YOU SAID: "probably there are other reasons too why he is doing it now" == Yeah, like I said, he was almost thrown into prison, but, avoided it, at the expense that the judge said he is personally liable for billions to those he scammed in the Solar City fiasco. YOU SAID: "but that I do not know, only speculate." == TRANSLATION: "I will wait to hear what Musk says, then regurgitate it." YOU SAID: "When it comes to SolarCity, I know that the solar tile is taking far longer than anticipated and some reviews are not favorable due to lack of support etc, but I wouldn't go as far to call it a fraud or scam" == Wow. Did you listen/read ANY of the trial?? Musk said that there were a thousand solar rooftops already installed. Meanwhile, there were actually only about 10. And, none of them actually worked. He then stood in front of a bunch of studio houses, and claimed that they all had solar rooftops (baiting the investors). None of those houses did. Then, during the trial, Musk backtracked and said that it was only a "concept" he was selling, and tried to tapdance and claimed that he never said those houses had solar roofs... but that they were only solar roof "visual concepts." And, of course, Solar City continues to lose money every quarter, only buffered by the investors in Tesla, because, like it or not, they now own those debts. Seriously here, get real. The judge only DIDN'T throw Musk into prison because it would mean the investors would never get paid. He let Musk stay free of prison so that he could pay his debt to the people he scammed. Sheeeessssssshhhh. YOU SAID: "but I can understand why some people would say that if expectations were not met." == The expectation is, when someone is asking for billions in investment money to buy Solar City, that the person should TELL THE TRUTH. Don't claim that there are thousands of them installed already. Don't claim that "these are all solar houses" when not a single one of them is. Don't pretend the the solar tiles actually work, when they don't. Good grief. "Expectations were not met"??? Is that the wording that is most appropriate here? If someone robs a bank at gunpoint, are you going to say, "the expectations were not met" (like, the expectation that people follow the law, and not rob people?).... YOU SAID: "I am not saying Elon Musk is perfect, and most certainly all this attention is getting to his head, but this anti Elon Musk movement is getting to fanatical when everything Musk related is twisted to some dark ulterior motives, I would like to see a more balanced discussion, which I am not seen here." == TRANSLATION: "I don't like hearing bad things about my heroes. So, stop saying so many of them." Hint: life is a lot easier if you don't have heroes at all. Life is a lot easier if you analyze things one at a time, and establish your own moral compass, rather than just blindly swallowing anything a snake oil salesman tells you.
    2
  6549. Of what wind of are you of talking of? Do you of know that flags of can wave of of without wind of? How of about of being handled by of astronauts of of?
    2
  6550. Of you not understand of? Why of you not of paying attention of to the input of of? Of when an astronaut of handles a flag of, it of moves of of. It's of that simple of.
    2
  6551. But, too of you not of answer? Are you too of not reading of replies too your statements of of?
    2
  6552. You seem to be answering your own statement. The police kept the arrest video private for 2.5 years. Nobody saw it while she was alive. No regrets required. And, if you want to make it so that the video never gets released, even long after her death, then that means you need to repeal the Freedom of Information Act.
    2
  6553. Well, when you decide ahead of time that all footage will be denied, yeah, you can make the claim that there's no undeniable footage.
    2
  6554. Well, the facts differ from your opinion. The fact is that a woman in the "audience" video recorded the incident with her cell phone and showed that video to the police. They describe it in their arrest report as a very loud and public display in front of multiple people including children. This differs quite a bit from your version. But, where did you get your version anyway? From the few selected words spoken by a woman trying to avoid getting arrested again? Thanks, I'll stick with the witnesses, the fact that they took video of the incident, and the police report itself. If you want to put your faith in some woman with an arrest record of stealing cars and public drunkenness, hey, that's fine, you're welcome to do that. But, yeah, it seemed rather intentional to me. But, guess what? Intent doesn't matter anyway.
    2
  6555. Little 9mm hollow points don't penetrate glass or trucks very well.
    2
  6556.  @franknorthcuttmusic  Well, good thing for him that he's worth $400 million nowadays. No need for ruining his job application after all.
    2
  6557. Probably not. Almost no media even covered this story until the arrest video was released on November 24, 2023. She's been dead for 2 years.
    2
  6558. Huh? I think you'd need to name an example or two in order for anybody to answer such a question. And, I am not sure what you'd mean by "government sanctioned experts." Sanctioned for what?
    2
  6559.  @stusue9733  She is saying that she was watching an Ariana video and this video was the next suggested/queued.
    2
  6560. This is so frustrating. I wrote a reply, but, YouTube auto-deleted it. So, I'll try again, and I'll have to change some of the wording. Unfortunately, this means I cannot refer you to the source material, because YouTube not only blocks links, but blocks anybody from telling you how to even find it.
    2
  6561. On the Earth side of the communications, they built the DSN. These were dishes at were located in California, Spain, and Australia. The Parkes Radio Telescope is the most impressive of them. No matter which way the Earth was facing (as it rotated), at least one of those dishes could aim at the moon, and pick up the radio signals. The radio signals themselves were called Unified S-band. It's basically a subset of microwaves. On the moon side, they used S-band dishes on the lander, or that they assembled and put on the lunar surface, and aimed at the Earth. For the rover missions, they had an S-band dish on the rover itself. They would stop the rover at a crater or valley or whatever they were going to study for the next 20 minutes, aim the dish to establish communications, and then the astronauts would go do the work. Ed Fendell back in Houston would then be able to control the camera mounted to the rover. My original response was a lot longer. I hope this shortened version helps.
    2
  6562. If you pause at 0:08 and go frame by frame in the highest resolution available, you can see the carjacker pointing the gun straight at the cop's head. Furthermore, you see the gun on the ground at 5:02 next to a 2x4 piece of wood. And, the cop repeatedly talks about the gun. Yet, you say he wasn't armed?
    2
  6563. The way WHO treated her? What should "they" have done differently?
    2
  6564. Life with Father: "I've seen the 'conference' in its entirety." Then you saw the part when they talked about photographing the solar corona as they approached the moon, right? They put a couple of the photos of the solar corona on the big screen and talked about how the camera wasn't quite able to capture the corona very well. You remember that part? Or, just Patrick Moore's question about it later during the Q&A?
    2
  6565. Life with Father: "Neil had some difficulty answering the question" Yeah, anybody would have difficulty. As I said, the question didn't make any sense. He seemed to be asking about the lunar surface "when you looked up at the sky," and then negated himself in the 2nd half of the question when asking about seeing stars "in the solar corona in spite of the glare." The solar corona wasn't visible from the lunar surface, yet, Moore asked about "when you looked up at the sky." When photographing the solar corona from the command module as they approached the moon, you wouldn't say "when you looked up at the sky" because you're just looking out the window, not "up" (no real up or down while in transit to the moon). So, Armstrong did his best to answer by splitting it into two parts. (1) Seeing stars from the lunar surface (he couldn't). (2) Seeing stars during the 2 minutes that the solar corona was visible as they approached the moon and took photographs (he didn't remember whether or not he saw stars in that brief timeframe).
    2
  6566. Life with Father: "Michael Collins (supposedly circling the moon in the command module) apparently without thinking, attempted to answer on Neil's behalf." No, dewdrop. Armstrong had just talked about the timeframe when they were photographing the solar corona. That was done from the command module. Collins was right next to him. Did it ever dawn on you to wonder why Armstrong would even mention photographing the solar corona if you were under the impression that he was talking about the lunar surface at that point? No? You have no idea what the solar corona is, or when they could/couldn't see it, or when they photographed it, therefore you simply omitted that from your mind altogether?
    2
  6567. Life with Father: "Apparently Michael forgot that he was not on the moon but circling the moon in the command module and thus he should not have been able to answer the reporter's question, which was addressed to Neil in the first place." So much wrong here. First of all, you obviously didn't watch the entire conference, because, as I mentioned, they had talked about their attempts to photograph the solar corona on the approach to the moon, and how poorly the photos came out. Go look at them. They're lousy. Most of them are just a blur, and there are only 1 or 2 shots where you even know what you're looking at. Secondly, the question wasn't addressed to Neil, but was asked of any of them. Collins was responding directly to Neil's statement about not recalling whether or not he saw stars in the couple of minutes that the solar corona was visible, and they were photographing it. This was IN THE COMMAND MODULE.
    2
  6568. Life with Father: "In the meantime, Buzz just silently sat there" Well, dewdrop, Aldrin had just answered the question about the properties of the lunar surface right before Armstrong answered about the photos of the solar corona. The astronauts tried to take turns when answering the questions.
    2
  6569. Life with Father: "watch Neil whisper something to Michael out of the side of his mouth." No, dewdrop. He said something, yes, but, it was drowned out because there was someone else in the audience asking a new question into the microphone at that same time, and we cannot hear what he said. You are making a mountain out of a molehill.
    2
  6570. "No wonder Neil died having never made affirmation on the Bible" Dewdrop, Armstrong wasn't a Christian. Why should he swear on any bibles? And, secondly, when Sibrel forced his way in to shove that bible in Armstrong's face and demand he swear on it, this was already after 3 other astronauts already swore on that same bible, before realizing that Sibrel is a charlatan and a convicted criminal taxi cab driver, not a reporter doing a story on Apollo. He was able to trick some of the astronauts into this silly charade of his, but, the word got out about his real intentions, so, none of the astronauts after that would give Sibrel the time of day, and rightfully so.
    2
  6571. Life with Father: "the ultimate 'read-between-the-lines' statements that has ever be made." Ridiculous babble. If Armstrong wanted to "spill the beans," why make silly hints? Why make anybody read between the lines AT ALL? He could just go to any news outlet, or speak in front of congress, and say anything he wanted. Oh, you're going to say there would be some sort of lethal ramifications? NONSENSE. The absolute safest he could ever be would be to reveal "the secret" to the public. If anybody did anything to him or his family after that, the entire public would come down like a ton of bricks.
    2
  6572. Life with Father: "refusing to make Bible affirmation means said individual is afraid" Dewdrop, so, again, 3 astronauts DID swear on Sibrel's bible. So, in your mind, they're the ones who will "meet their maker" with this lie? In your mind, unless all 12 swear on a bible, it's fake? Huh? Not all of them were Christians anyway, dewdrop. Shepard and Schmitt were/are undoubtedly atheists. Armstrong was a deist at best, but not a Christian. I could go on and on here. And, again, let's face reality: Sibrel was the liar here, a taxi cab driver lying about being a reporter, shoving bibles in people's faces, clearly trying to smear the astronauts. And, by the time it got around to the rest of the astronauts after duping some of them into his slanderous interviews, the rest knew not to give the guy any of their time. It's as simple as that.
    2
  6573. "I notice you didn't bother to address a single one of rocketheads comments. One is forced to wonder why that might be." Well, you can see from his "logic" about bibles that he gets confused quite easily by stuff like this. I guess he's trying to live up to his namesake (Clarence Day). It's like the pug dog economics all over again. Life with Father was the very first movie my family recorded when I was a kid, even before video tapes were in VHS format. We had a crazy expensive video recorder and only about 5 tapes. I've seen that movie a thousand times. I shouldn't assume you've seen the movie, but, the 1 minute long "pug dog economics" scene is readily available. Movie Clarence's head is spinning about the pug dog, just like YouTube Clarence's head is spinning over understanding obvious things like the bible and astronauts, etc. He doesn't know how to respond.
    2
  6574. Well, then you'll be happy to learn that this story never actually answers the question it's asking, and in reality, it didn't happen the way they're pretending. July 1, 2021 = this incident. March, 2022 = she decided to leave the world. November 24, 2023 = arrest video was released. Nobody saw it while she was alive, and being "internet famous" didn't come until 1.5 years after she was gone.
    2
  6575. Welcome to Inside Edition, where facts don't matter.
    2
  6576. It is blocking me from talking about it. Scroll down in the comments a bit (sorted by newest). You'll find out what her "job" was, and what she did with her family.
    2
  6577. Trying one last time: no family or friends, life of crime instead, "job" was a stripper.
    2
  6578.  @critthought2866  You should keep one window open that's logged in, and one incognito window open that's not logged in, and verify whether your posted messages can be seen by anybody besides you. My ratio is about 50/50, and I sometimes have to reword my responses 8 or 10 times to get them to post. Links have almost a 100% chance of getting your post blocked.
    2
  6579.  @critthought2866  Yeah, it's a mix. Sometimes it's outright deleted. Other times, it's shadow banned, where you're the only one who can see it.
    2
  6580. Wrong. All of the astronauts saw stars just fine while on the dark/night side of the moon. You undoubtedly just didn't pay attention to the question they were answering.
    2
  6581. "spaceship in the moon surface don't heat up and cool down because of transmission but because of direct energy from the Sun" Well, the black surfaces are very good at radiating heat. The inconel surfaces are very good at absorbing heat without transferring it into the hull underneath. The Mylar/Kapton surfaces are very good at reflecting heat/sun/light. And, the vacuum between the outer and inner layers make a very good insulator. This is still how satellites are constructed today, by the way. "it does nothing to keep an aluminum ship from heating up or the ground from heating up and then cooling down by an extreme of 400°." Again, they weren't there for those extremes. Tim advised you that a day was 2 weeks (and, I'm sure he meant daytime, meaning half of a full day). You seem to have ignored that input. Shocker. People like you love to ask questions, then ignore the answers. "That's not a number I came up with!!! That's the point that NASA has stated for 50 years," Yup, and for 50 years, they have said that they landed early in the lunar morning, and lifted off within that very same lunar morning, thus never being on the surface for the extremes you're talking about. Why is it that you are very willing to quote NASA's numbers when it suits you, but refuse to quote the parameters that don't suit you? "the extremes of temperature shift on the moon between shade and Sun." Are you under the impression that the sun comes up, then BING, it instantly heats by 400 degrees, then the sun goes down, and BING, it instantly cools by 400 degrees? I mean, once again, you say you're quoting NASA on the numbers. OK, but, this means you are ignoring the temperature/time graphs themselves, which show exactly when those temperatures were reached. "It's going to heat up and cool down dramatically." Well, yes, but, not as dramatically as you're pretending. "NASA itself said that they deal with 200° One direction and 200 degrees in the other direction in terms of the temperature extremes they had to prepare for." Name anybody at NASA who said that the lunar lander would experience those extremes while on the lunar surface. Who said such a thing? "I've been reading about the moon landing since it happened when I was 10." And, you're STILL unaware of when the landings happened? You STILL haven't looked at the temperature charts that clearly show that they weren't on the surface for the extremes you're outlining? You STILL haven't read the temperature data itself, as produced by the EASEP and ALSEP experiment packages? "I've always been quite interested in it as I am an Engineer, computer programmer and now independent software developer." You're an engineer who doesn't know not to capitalize the word "engineer"? And, what does software programming have to do with lunar temperatures? "I've always wanted to put wanted to put those three things together" I've always wanted to answer to answer to answer those three answers together. Forgive me if I put zero faith into your claims of being an engineer.
    2
  6582. "They landed there when I was 10 years old in 1969." Yeah, and they didn't have the temperature problems you're complaining about. "It is now 2023 they definitely used 'really old' batteries." Yet, if you want to spend that kind of money, they'll still sell them to you today. "If you don't understand energy efficient windows and you refuse to go to the NASA site yourself and see what temperature extremes they were dealing with on the moon." Tim already answered you, and you ignored it. They weren't there for those extremes, dewdrop. A full day on the moon is about a month on Earth. The longest mission spent 74 hours on the lunar surface. A full lunar day, from sunrise to sunrise, is about 708 hours. The longest surface stay on the moon was barely more than 10% of a lunar day. Again, it was like landing at 6:30am, and lifting off at 9:00am. Why in the world are you quoting afternoon temperatures and overnight temperatures? Why? Why do you ignore all input? "There is no communication happening here." Yeah, I'll say. You can solve that problem by actually reading the replies, you know. "I have nothing to learn from someone with a rigidly closed and uninformed mind, who refuses to admit things" Hilarious. This is coming from the guy who refuses to accept the fact that a lunar day is a month long on Earth, yet keeps on quoting nighttime and afternoon temperatures, over, and over, and over, and over. Get this through your skull, dewdrop: they were never there for a lunar overnight. They were never there for a lunar afternoon. They never saw the extreme temperatures you're talking about. Utterly amazing. Why do you refuse to understand this, yet, blame others for your own inability to read replies to your questions?
    2
  6583. So, your evidence is a conspiracy video made by people who know nothing about Apollo? Huh?
    2
  6584. So, when asked for evidence, your reply was that you expect progress? That's "evidence" in your mind? Um, no. That's "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." Never once does evidence even enter your mind as part of the equation. Your "knowledge" is based upon personal incredulity and ignorance.
    2
  6585. YOU SAID: "there must be a better solution than the current taser gun that is being used." == You're welcome to invent something. The perfect solution doesn't yet exist.
    2
  6586. Huh? She lost everything long before this. You're wrong anyway, because she was never bullied over this arrest, because almost nobody knew about it until she was dead for 1.5 years. But, she had abandoned her family and career long before this arrest. She had a rather long arrest/prison/legal history going back to almost a decade ago. She did time in prison for stealing cars. She had judgements against her for various thefts. "Failure to appear" seemed to be her main objective on how to handle her legal issues. A long history of drugs and alcohol. But, you just keep on believing Inside Edition.
    2
  6587. Do you want to try this again when you're sober? You're not under the impression that anybody can understand you, are you?
    2
  6588. You're asking about when the astronaut went outside the craft to get the film on the way home? That's the CMP (Ron Evans). He wasn't on the moon's surface. He never got his suit dirty. Two astronauts go down to the surface, and one stays in lunar orbit.
    2
  6589. What do you think is supposed to happen to the camera and film, if not taking photos? And, sure, they had the chest mount to make it easier to carry and take photos. So what? Did you have some sort of specific question in mind? Or, were you just going to spew this out as if it's supposed to mean something?
    2
  6590. Photos must be released immediately. Videos are usually blocked until the investigation is complete. Nobody is getting a lawsuit. There's no case here.
    2
  6591. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    2
  6592. If I was really comprehensive, I would have pointed out his own discrepancy: "Apollo 17........3 EVAs...22 hours, 04 minutes....(1324 minutes)" - then "Apollo 17...1986 photos in 844 minutes." He contradicted himself by originally saying there were 1324 minutes, then shifted that to 844 minutes. To answer your question, I'm nobody. Just an unemployed 7th grade dropout who used to hand-dip Dove ice cream bars into chocolate before automation took my job, and I'm now homeless, living in a cardboard box in Los Angeles, wishing I had the money to buy one of those Dove bars I used to dip. Doubtful the dewdrop will even respond to the "takedown" (as you put it). First of all, I'm not even certain he'll see it. YouTube tends to block notifications of long messages. Did you get a notification? Or, did you refresh the video and see my response by looking fresh at the thread?
    2
  6593.  @gives_bad_advice  Sorry, I never worked at Dove. I stole that story from a buddy. And, I have degrees and earned bunches of academic accolades along the way. Sorry if I set the wrong expectations there.
    2
  6594. That's your reply? You ignore every correction, every question, and every challenge, and you change topics? I asked you a dozen questions on YOUR OWN INITIAL TOPIC. You ignored every single one of them. No, dewdrop. I'm not playing your Gish Gallop game. I am not answering new topics, when all you're going to do is change topics again and again until nobody can stand you. Address your own initial topic, dewdrop.
    2
  6595. Almost enough emojis to make your point. Can't spell to save your life. Yeah, you're definitely an expert.
    2
  6596. Huh? What difference? Why is this statement relevant to silly people who believe ridiculous things about topics they know nothing about?
    2
  6597. Why do you ask questions while making it clear that you have absolutely no interest in the answers?
    2
  6598. Because they're making lots of ad revenue.
    2
  6599. "I think the moon landing was fake" Well, I think you're on drugs, but, nobody cares what I think. Why should anybody care what you think? You don't know what you're talking about. "find it a waste of money and time trying to find out what's going on out there when you still have so much to do here" Because you can do both at once. Why are we building better submarines when we could be curing cancer? Why are we upgrading to faster internet connections when we could be building more hospitals? Why are we filming new Hollywood movies when we could be sending food to Madagascar? Society is society. Lots of different people. Lots of different jobs. If you want to go live on an island somewhere, with about 20 people, struggling to build shelter and plant crops, hey, go for it. But, for those of us who live in countries with hundreds of millions of people, where we can invest in lots and lots of different things, yes, we are going to do that.
    2
  6600. Secure the scene first. Render aid second. One guy crawls out of the woodwork with a gun. A screaming banshee arrives seconds later. A screaming brother arrives a couple of minutes after that. No, you don't stop to render aid and take your focus off of the surroundings, otherwise, who knows how many other people are going to crawl out of the woodwork to take up where Mark left off?
    2
  6601. Well, that might be true, or it might not be. Even Armstrong's own wife won't say what he took to the moon, and Armstrong himself never said (at least not publicly). I realize the terrible movie about him showed him throwing the bracelet. But, whatever, it's a movie. I'm not saying I believe it, or don't believe it. But, I'd certainly not listen to some guy on YouTube who can't even spell his name.
    2
  6602. Why? 4 different countries have taken orbital photos of the Apollo landing sites, and have found the landers there. Some can even see rover tracks, foot paths, shadows of the flags that are still standing, etc. True, the level of detail isn't all that great, but, the photos are certainly good enough to confirm Apollo. The deniers simply conclude that more and more countries are joining "the deception." Why would photos with more detail matter to them?
    2
  6603. Huh? You want them to waste weight and battery energy on floodlights when they were on the lunar surface in the daytime? And, Apollo was fake if they didn't bring these floodlights?
    2
  6604. The point is that the later missions wanted to travel miles and miles from the landing sites. The early missions didn't venture out all that far, and walking was good enough. But, for the later missions, they drove over 20 miles. You can't walk that distance while carrying rock samples, experiment packages, core drills, other tools, etc.
    2
  6605. The store employee Anna told the cop that she thought the woman didn't pay.
    2
  6606. Please do the world a favor, and put that on every job application you ever submit. OK?
    2
  6607. There were unmanned probes that were sent into space long before putting people in space, which took pressure readings.
    2
  6608. And, you believe that, why? Because the woman said so, while attempting to avoid being arrested for the millionth time?
    2
  6609. This is a common practice to hire people to cheer in audiences. Politicians do it. Companies do it. I personally cannot stand it, of course. To me, it's like the fake recorded laughter during a sitcom.
    2
  6610. What humiliation? This barely got any press until long after she was dead. And, her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club... hardly a good career choice for someone who is easily shamed, huh?
    2
  6611. I'm not sure if one of my replies is showing up or not. So, to keep it brief, "Shooting Stanley Kubrick" (2015) by T. Patrick Murray with actor Tom Mayk as Kubrick. Bravo, dewdrop.
    2
  6612.  @gregstauffer8922  Yeah, I was too young during Apollo to have been involved. But, if I had been born in the right decade, I'd have been doing everything possible to be on one of those landings.
    2
  6613.  @mrbushmaster3322  Good gods, what a clown. Of course he had a record. But, you don't get life imprisonment without parole for a weapons charge. Good grief.
    2
  6614. Doubtful. Virtually no media covered this while she was alive. And, if she didn't feel shame after all of her prior arrests and prison term, it's farfetched to think she'd feel ashamed about this.
    2
  6615. Once again, just like your other thread, if this is your edited version, I'd hate to see how badly you botched the original version. YOU SAID: "We never went to the moon" == 24 people went to the moon. 12 of them walked on it. YOU SAID: "just like most all of history, we were lied too again." == You were lied "too"?? I promise you, becoming literate will help you greatly in life. You showed massive illiteracy in your other comments, and you continue to do this here also. I'm not saying this to be the grammar and spelling police. But, the point is, people who can't write... can't read. That's how it works. If you can't write well, it's because you can't read well. And, if you can't read well, your reading comprehension is very low. And, if your reading comprehension is very low, you don't understand stuff (which is clearly the case with you). You don't know what you're talking about. YOU SAID: "you don’t send a man were you never sent a monkey FIRST." == Ridiculous nonsense. First of all, the word is "where" (not "were"). Secondly, how EXACTLY do you think sending a monkey to the moon would work anyway? The Apollo equipment was designed to do a lot of stuff automatically, true. But, those craft needed to be manned with people who understood the guidance computers, the oxygen systems, the power systems, etc. They couldn't even get the lander out of the SIVB without a human steering the command/service module into place, and docking with it. There was no automatic method of doing that. The craft were not self sufficient. They had to maintain the environmental controls, they had to take star sightings to keep the guidance computers aligned, etc. Do you think a monkey could do those things? YOU SAID: "especially when you can’t pass through the Van Allen radiation belts without frying" == Says who? I mean, in the other thread, you said that social media was the tool you used to run around mainstream media. Well, stuff like you're saying now is EXACTLY the product of such ignorance. There have been thousands upon thousands of papers written by aerospace engineers, astrophysicists, etc., around the globe, from friendly and enemy countries, about those belts. Not a single one has made the claim you are making. But, someone on "social media" says that they couldn't go through the Van Allen belts without frying, and you just choose to believe it?? Why? What would make you think non-experts know this material better than James Van Allen himself. James Van Allen said that Apollo astronauts would receive less than 1% of a fatal dose of radiation. Why would you think your social media sources know better than James Van Allen? YOU SAID: "it,so they didn’t and faked it anyway" == Who knew that the Van Allen belts would fry them, and they needed to fake it? Who? The administrators? The engineers? Who knew? You don't get to just say that this is what they did, and not explain who exactly made those decisions? If you think the administrators knew it was impossible to pass the Van Allen belts, I'd ask you why/how they knew more than the actual engineers? If you think the engineers knew, I'd ask you how they managed to get thousands of engineers to go along with criminal fraud? So, explain, who EXACTLY knew that the Van Allen belts couldn't be passed? And, why didn't James Van Allen agree? YOU SAID: "that’s why we never went back and invested the last 50 years of manned missions in low earth orbit rather than building a station on the moon if we truly had plans to go to Mars." == No, the main reason why nothing outside of low earth orbit happened after Apollo (manned anyway) was because it's massively expensive, and congress never allocated the money to do so. Once the Soviets dropped out of the cold war space race, there wasn't a lot of motivation to keep doing those things with expensive manned missions. Congress didn't fund those kinds of manned missions again until 2019. YOU SAID: "If you take the time to scale down the earth to the size of a basketball you quickly see how absurd it is to go from a mere thickness of a tin can (which represents low earth orbit) above a basketball (representing earth) to the moon which would be the distance of 25 balls away and back multiple times without major failures??" == Good gods, what in the world are you talking about? You don't think there were major failures??? Have you ever heard of Apollo 13?? It exploded in space, nearly killing the astronauts, and they were never able to land on the moon. And, it's a lucky thing that they didn't, because if they had, they wouldn't have had the lunar lander to act as a lifeboat to keep the astronauts alive, to steer the command module back to Earth, and to provide enough power to keep the astronauts alive. Oh, but this isn't a major failure, in your mind? Sheeeessssssshhhhhh. How about Apollo 12, which was hit by lightning twice, causing all kinds of havoc? Not major enough to end the mission, but yeah, some pretty significant failures happened as a result. What about Apollo 1, which never even got off the ground before killing 3 astronauts? Was that a major failure, in your mind? YOU SAID: "That’s no how the learning curve works" == So says an internet clod who has never learned anything. Believe me, the rest of the world doesn't need YOUR definition of "learning." YOU SAID: "especially since it took the entire decade of failures in the 50’s just to go into low earth orbit safely." == What?? What ARE you talking about? They never even attempted to put a person into orbit until 1962. And, it worked on the first try. What EXACTLY do you mean? See, this is how insane you have become. You claimed (in the other thread) that social media is your mechanism to run around the mainstream media, and find "truth" (sigh). Look, you illiterate clod, I could even agree with using alternative mechanisms of finding "knowledge" if you had some sort of a basis to establish what's real, and what's not, to begin with. But, you don't. You are barely literate. You don't understand anything about the topics you're talking about. Etc. If maybe you had first started by learning as much about Apollo as possible, THEN looked to social media as some sort of fact-checking mechanism... you know, just to keep an open mind, get other viewpoints, etc., then maybe I could respect such an attitude. But, that's not what you conspiratards do. You know NOTHING about Apollo, outside of what conspiracy videos say. You didn't first get educated about how everything in Apollo worked, what the missions were, what happened in those missions, etc., then go look for other viewpoints. No. Instead, you immediately sought the "alternative" social media sources to be your ONLY input, completely ignoring the mountains of evidence for Apollo. You don't even know what the evidence IS, because the social media echo chambers you've chosen to bury yourself inside, have not told you. Nobody who understands the Apollo program says anything like the pile of garbage you're spewing. Nobody. You are one messed up psychopath, and not a very bright one at that.
    2
  6616.  @eventcone  YOU SAID: "The fast trajectories through the VAB resulted in doseages of about 1% of a fatal dose for the Apollo astronauts." == James Van Allen said that it would be LESS than 1%. And, the dosimeters showed that it was more like 0.1%. (Just FYI.)
    2
  6617. Persecution? How? She didn't appear in court. And, the arrest video wasn't made public until long after she died.
    2
  6618. Expecting "class" out of a carjacker (or his accomplice) is your first mistake.
    2
  6619. A hatch. They're not classified. You can start with NASA report TN D-7080 to begin learning about the summary. And, if that's not enough, you can dive into the raw data. If you don't like nonsense, stop watching conspiracy videos.
    2
  6620. And, I just thought of a better analogy than I just wrote. So, here, a second reply in a row (regarding my #2 point in the prior posting). Cyanide is poisonous and fatal, right? If it takes 250 mg of potassium cyanide to be fatal, and I told you that I poured 1000 mg into water, and that you drank some of the water, are you going to die from it? Well, it depends on the volume of water, right? If I poured it into a shot glass, and you drank half of it, yes, that's quite fatal. But, if I poured it into an Olympic size swimming pool, and you drank half a shot glass worth of that swimming pool, yeah, you'd probably get exposed to more cyanide while eating a handful of almonds than you'd get from the cyanide I poured into the swimming pool. See? Context matters, dewdrop. And, you didn't include the context while you were cutting and pasting the stuff you didn't understand.
    2
  6621. Nope. Wait 10 seconds, you can see he's holding himself up against the rock with his left arm. This is also taken from the rover parked at a very sloped angle, which makes the effect even more dramatic.
    2
  6622. What are you talking about? Good grief. Stalin knew about the atomic bomb program before Truman. And, just after the first successful test, Truman told Stalin in person in Potsdam, and Stalin already knew the test was successful. There were plenty of leaks, dewdrop. Klaus Fuchs was just one of them. Do you know NOTHING about the program that you yourself brought up as an example? What? So, you wanted to use Manhattan as your model example, but, you're oblivious about Manhattan? Well, here's a clue for you: you're also oblivious about Apollo.
    2
  6623. "Just a comment." Yeah, you obviously don't care one bit about whether your comments are true or not. You actually seem to revel in spewing garbage. And, dewdrop, I couldn't care less if you find some video that supports the nonsense you're spewing. So what? There are videos claiming that psychics talk to dead people. There are videos claiming that Bigfoot is real. So what? You can find a video that supports just about every silly thing mankind has ever dreamed up. That doesn't make it true. "once upon a time I used to believe everything" Pffttt. Is this a joke? Your position is that you believed a guy in a video that said Manhattan was kept under wraps... something that is easily proven wrong by the simple fact that there have been criminal convictions of some of the people who were leaking the information... and that many reporters found out about Manhattan, and held the stories back in the interest of national security... and that Stalin knew about the atomic bomb before Truman told him. Yet, you believe otherwise, because you saw it in a video from a guy that you can't remember. And, now you're saying that you "used to believe everything"? Um, dewdrop, it sounds like you still do. You believe whatever nonsense floats your boat. Good grief. How far gone are you? How far out to sea has your mind set sail?
    2
  6624.  @stusue9733  "I know a guy this knows a guy and his buddy said a guy he used to work for knew a guy that was in on it." Well, if that's what you're proposing that she's saying, you forgot a part: "I know a guy this knows a guy and his buddy said a guy he used to work for knew a guy that was in on it, but, I can't remember who it was or what video it was, but, I believe it."
    2
  6625.  @extravagantpanda7962  Not that I'm saying you're wrong. But, it is a bit ironic that SLS uses engines developed in the 1970s, and first flew in the 1980s. But, hey, if it's not broke, don't fix it.
    2
  6626. "HOW do you keep 400,000+ people silent?" You can't. "HOW can an astronaut survive the Van Allen Belt ?" By going fast. It takes about a week in the worst areas of the inner belt before getting a fatal exposure. They were through that area in about 15 minutes. "HOW were the transmissions almost instantaneous back/forth from the moon ?" They weren't. You aren't paying attention to where the recording is taking place (in Houston). There's no reason someone in Houston needs to wait 2.6 seconds to respond to an astronaut. But, yes, an astronaut's response was always 2.6 seconds later. You only hear the delay in one direction. If you find any examples of a response from an astronaut faster than 2.6 seconds, you'll be the first in history to find it (and it's not for lack of trying, there's no shortage of people wanting to claim the responses were too fast). Note: listen to the original recordings, however... not edited audio from documentaries that sometimes remove the delays so the audience doesn't have to listen to it. "And YES why no stars at all?" Well, maybe you should stop listening to silly videos that lie to you, and look at the photo archives yourself. They took 125 star photos from the lunar surface with the specialized Carruthers UV telescopic camera, and countless stellar photography photos (including stars) from lunar orbit. "And yes how does a flag wave in outer space ?" Most of the time, deniers complain about flag movement while the flag is being handled. That makes no sense. Without an atmosphere, the flag will move EASIER and MORE when being handled. But, yes, the flag occasionally also moved without being handled. The suits, backpacks, and craft, were NOT closed systems. They occasionally off-gassed. There were purge valves, overpressure valves, porous plate sublimators, etc., which vented off the spent gasses. This sometimes resulted in a slight "wind" that moves the flag. Without an atmosphere, even a small amount of gas will cause movement. Now, a return question: why do you base your "knowledge" and "questions" on the routine claptrap found in conspiracy videos? There are no aerospace engineers who feel the Van Allen belts would be a problem for Apollo. Nobody who listens to the audio themselves ever complains about the wrong amount of delay. Nobody who understands photography would expect stars in "normal" photographs (they know it takes specialized equipment and really long exposure times). Did you just watch a bunch of conspiracy videos and gobbled up every word?
    2
  6627.  @critthought2866  Apollo 14 went right through the middle of the belts. It got the highest dose of radiation as a result, but, still nothing significant.
    2
  6628. And, on what planet is a public beach in view of children "not a public space"?
    2
  6629. "I believe she is innocent" So, her felony term in prison 6 years ago? Her mile long record? Stealing cars, drugs and alcohol, failures to appear, open warrants, other thefts, civil judgements... those, she was guilty. But, THIS TIME, she's innocent?
    2
  6630. Louis, why are you pretending to understand things you do not? Good grief. When every single sentence you write is incorrect, it's time to go back to the drawing board and learn something.
    2
  6631. What's the basis for the suit?
    2
  6632. Do you really not understand what a bodycam is?
    2
  6633. PART 1: Are you just completely unable to reply in your own thread that you started... you have to start a new one now? YOU SAID: "Personal attacks prove nothing." == WHAT?!?!? How hypocritical are you??? YOU are accusing thousands of people of being criminals. Why? Because you watched a few conspiracy videos that you like, and you never lifted a finger to verify the veracity of any of them. You are personally attacking thousands of people. You are spitting on the graves of people who died to make Apollo happen, astronauts killed in the line of duty, scientists who got killed while working on exotic and volatile fuels, people who died constructing the massive infrastructure needed to make Apollo happen. 450,000 people worked on Apollo for a decade of their lives, and you're accusing thousands of them of perpetrating a massive crime against the planet. And, for the ones you don't think were directly involved, you're accusing them of being soooooooooo stupid that they couldn't even realize that "they didn't have the technology to communicate with the moon at that time" (your claim). You are accusing them of failing to even be able to recognize that the stuff they designed and built to go to the moon (or communicate with the moon) couldn't actually do the tasks they designed and built them to do. But, you don't want anybody to "personally attack" YOU???? YOU ARE PERSONALLY ATTACKING 450,000 PEOPLE, YOU DUMMY. You are discarding the 4.5 million years of human effort that those 450,000 people put into Apollo, and why?? Because you watched some conspiracy videos. YOU SAID: "I want proof: Tell NASA to produce the APOLLO data, all of it, including recordings and telemetry," == It's all available, dummy. You've been told this repeatedly (in the other thread). But, you refuse to name EXACTLY what you want. YOU SAID: "and make it freely available for independent analysis. Unless they can do this, all we have is their word, which is not scientific evidence or proof, of anything they claim to have done." == It ***IS*** all available!!!! Anybody in the USA can order copies of anything from Apollo, you dummy. You may have to pay copying fees (as I did, decades ago, for everything I asked them to copy and send to me). But, it was mandated by congress that all Apollo materials would be publicly available, and it all is. You are merely listening to deceptive conspiracy videos that claim the data is all missing, and trusting everything they say, without questioning it. YOU SAID: "Thanks. What's out there seems cherry picked and redacted." == Nonsense. A few hours ago, you didn't even know where to find some of this information. The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal website (which you were pointed to) has a lot of what you asked for. But, it's TERABYTES of information. Tens of thousands of pages of lunar module schematics and technical manuals alone. Millions of pages of other Apollo information also, hours upon hours upon hours of videos, tens of thousands of photos, etc. And, literally, just THREE HOURS after you were told where to look, you are coming back and judging this material as "cherry picked and redacted"?? You are rubber room insane at this point. Any sane person would say, "holy cow, I've barely even opened the first link on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal website, and I can't even get my arms around all of the information here." But, nope, not you, in 3 hours, you've reviewed enough of the millions of pieces of information on that website, such that you have determined that it's not good enough, eh? Let me guess what really happened here... you opened the site, didn't like what you saw, and immediately constructed reasons to avoid looking at any of it... am I correct? YOU SAID: "There are apparently some 700 boxes of data which NASA can't seem to find, is reported destroyed, or claim that is useless because they no longer have the hardware to run it." == Sure, maybe so, so what? 700 boxes?? Do you have any concept of how much space all of that stuff occupies? MILLIONS of boxes of Apollo information are stored in multiple aircraft hangar sized facilities. Only a tiny fraction of this information has ever been scanned and put on the internet. But, ironically, yes, you were right a bit ago when you say it was "cherry picked," because yes, they did scan just some of the stuff people cared about, and put it on the internet. It was all done by volunteers. Do YOU want to volunteer to go through millions of boxes of information and scan it onto the internet? How about the ~100,000 photos taken from lunar orbit, which have never been scanned and put on the internet? Would you care to dedicate some years of YOUR life to doing that? No? You're complaining about 700 boxes of information? Why? I mean, yeah, guess what, nobody operates those old systems any longer. And, if they have a bunch of this information already transferred or transcribed to another media, why bother keeping them? If they can't find the blueprint for a random elbow joint used to connect a tube within the F1 rocket engine, what? Apollo is fake, then?
    2
  6634. PART 2: YOU SAID: "Seems that they claim to have bèen able to go to the moon, but they are unable to maintain their data on a viable storage medium." == THREE HOURS ago, you were introduced to terabytes of information. THREE HOURS ago. And, already, you've come to your conclusions. You are one of the most intellectually dishonest people I've ever seen. Any honest person would say, "Holy crap, I've been duped by those conspiracy videos that claimed all of the information is gone, and now I'm looking straight at terabytes of information that would take several days of high speed internet downloading to a major storage array before I could even begin to look at it all." But, not you, though. THREE HOURS after you're told where to start looking, you have immediately dismissed it all. You are a piece of gutter trash. That's what you are. You love to accuse people who have accomplished more in their lives than you have in yours of being criminals. Why? Because you are a pathetic piece of gutter trash, who has wasted his life, and feels badly about it. So, rather than trying to use your remaining time alive in improving your condition, it's just easier for you to try to drag everyone else down to your pathetic level, by saying that mankind's greatest technological feat in history was all just a hoax. You get to feel like those very accomplished people actually accomplished nothing, just like you. Rather than making yourself better, you're trying to make everyone else worse. That's why you are a piece of trash. YOU SAID: "I'm fine with whatever the truth is here, but so far I haven't seen anything that approaches it." == First of all, in the other thread, I (and others) responded to every single line of your "questions." And, you didn't address ANY of it. As a matter of fact, you proved that you weren't even reading the replies. So, no, you don't get to claim you are "fine with whatever the truth is," then ignore all responses to your own questions. Clearly, you are NOT "fine" with it. You are REJECTING it. == Secondly, again, you are a complete liar. There's no way you could have even begun to scratch the surface of the materials on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal website. It has taken me YEARS to read the documentation I've read from that website. YEARS. And, that website has only a tiny fraction of all of the materials available from Apollo. And, you've thrown it out the window within THREE HOURS of first being introduced to it... then you claim you "haven't seen anything that approaches it"??? How could you possibly even know?? You are obviously quite married to your delusions. There are only two rules you operate by. Rule 1: You accept any anti-Apollo input, no matter how ridiculous it is. To you, if it's anti-Apollo, it's true, and you never lift a finger to fact check any of it. Rule 2: You reject any pro-Apollo input, no matter how correct it is. And, you've done exactly that. You have rejected the terabytes of information on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal website before you could even get anywhere near viewing/reading 0.01% of the information on it. There's no physical way you could have even scratched the surface of everything on that website, yet you've already rejected it as "redacted" (your claim). This is because it falls under Rule 2. It supports Apollo. So, your delusional mind has decided, in advance of seeing the remaining 99.99% of information on that website, that the website is wrong/redacted. You are exhibiting every trait of the classic textbook paranoid delusional mindset. Again, reminding you, in the other thread, multiple people (including me) replied to every word you wrote. And, you refused to even read it. And, instead, what did you do? You started a new thread, so you wouldn't have to look at the information you don't want to accept, and your delusional mind has blocked it out. Yes, dummy, you deserve every bit of the "personal attacks" you're complaining about. You don't get to spit in the faces of all who poured a decade of their lives into Apollo, calling a big chunk of them criminals, and claim that the rest of them were all too stupid to recognize the stuff YOU can recognize, and then sit there and wonder why people would "attack" you for it. What you're doing is slander/libel. YOU are the criminal here, but you're too stupid and delusional to know it. No, you cannot be convicted of slander/libel for defaming the people who worked on Apollo, because no jury would ever believe that someone as dumb as you are would actually know what you're saying is incorrect (one of the parameters of being convicted of it would be that you have to be aware that you're wrong). But, I know you are aware of it. It's obvious that you are consciously avoiding addressing any claim that goes against your delusions. The delusional side of your mind might not know you're wrong. But, yeah, the sane part of your brain (whatever little is left of it) knows that you don't have the slightest understanding about Apollo, and that you have no business claiming to know ANYTHING on the basis of watching some ridiculous conspiracy videos. Yes, indeed, you deserve every bit of the personal attacks toward you. Nobody likes people like you. Absolutely nobody.
    2
  6635. Well, that's one way to demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing about the topic. Dewdrop, congress controls NASA's money. They don't just hand NASA a budget and say "there you go, do whatever you feel like." Each and every program NASA runs is funded separately, and individually approved by congress. NASA cannot take a billion assigned for jet research and just decide to build a rocket with it instead. They cannot take a billion assigned for atmospheric or glacier studies and build a lunar craft instead. You seem quite proud to have zero understanding of the words you write.
    2
  6636. The bodycam footage wasn't released until 1.5 years after she died. And, sorry, but with her mile long arrest and felony prison record, I think she'd be pretty used to cuffs by then.
    2
  6637. "Momentos" (sigh)
    2
  6638. Yes, small particles often floated around like that. Sometimes it was little pieces of mylar or loose stuff from the lander's thermal blanket. Other times it was ice crystals that had gotten attached to the craft and didn't get dislodged until executing various maneuvers. Yes, that stuff happens. But, no, it wasn't something "leaving the moon."
    2
  6639. Huh? Only one obscure website posted a clip about it. The arrest video wasn't made public until 2.5 years later, which was 1.5 years after she was already dead. What humiliation do you really think she suffered, and why do you think it? Because Inside Edition said so?
    2
  6640. "Top clearance jobs are sworn to secrecy." Sorry, but, that excuse doesn't fly for a whole bunch of reasons. First of all, people working on top secret jobs that help the nation are one thing, while people working on top secret jobs to defraud the nation are another.
    2
  6641. Secondly, oaths to secrecy are instantly invalid if it involves committing crimes. You are not obligated to honor any such oath if the other party demands that you perform criminal acts in order to fulfill such an oath. Yes, defrauding multiple nations out of billions of dollars is definitely a crime.
    2
  6642. And, it won't let me post my 3rd point.
    2
  6643. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. Nobody saw the arrest video when she was alive. So, um, no.
    2
  6644. They did protect her privacy. The arrest video wasn't released until 2.5 years later, and, at that point, the investigation was closed long enough (she was long dead by then) such that they could no longer block a legal FOIA request.
    2
  6645. Wrong. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released due to legal FOIA request.
    2
  6646. Gee, an astronauts standing, vs. a landing leg that is slanted. And, you thought that magically the shadow of the landing leg shouldn't be slanted, like the leg itself? Huh?
    2
  6647. I deleted nothing, you goddamned moron. You're now posting messages from yourself to yourself? Jesus fucking goddamned imaginary christ, you take stupidity to a new level.
    2
  6648. No data tapes were lost. Two backup video tapes were lost. The primary copies are all still intact. All data is still intact. Just because it says "telemetry" doesn't mean it's data. Video is telemetry also.
    2
  6649. Well, maybe if anybody ever offered any evidence....???
    2
  6650.  @franknorthcuttmusic  The best resolution is from Chandrayaan-2. But, you'll find the most overall photos from Arizona State University's LRO camera.
    2
  6651. @I's wideopen YOU SAID: "First of all wth was he pulling a 13 year old over for any F way?" == Did you watch the video from the gas station? Kid jumps on his dirt bike (not street legal), and then tears out of there at maximum speed as soon as the cop car was coming up. Um, yeah, if you're a cop, you pull people over for driving an illegal vehicle on the public roads. Um, yeah, if you're a cop, you pull people over for driving recklessly and fleeing the police. YOU SAID: "Second of all if he was white I wouldn't be commenting on your F post rn. GTFOOH." == So, let me make sure I understand you correctly... are you saying that white people are not allowed to comment on the death of black people? Is that how this goes? Sounds awfully racist of you.
    2
  6652.  AuthenticFallacy  Wow, you're really not the brightest bulb in the pack, eh? What are you talking about? Why would you call this a "murder"? Sheeesssshhh. The kid was underage, driving a dirt bike on a public road (not street legal), recklessly, and fled the police. Why is this the police's fault, in your mind? What EXACTLY do you think the police are supposed to do instead? Just let him go? Suppose the maniac kid rammed into a pedestrian and killed him. Then what? Then, you'll blame the cops for NOT chasing the kid, right? Either way, it's the police's fault, right? If the kid dies, it's the police's fault for chasing. If the kid kills someone else, then it's the police's fault for not chasing. Right? You said: "Why can't they just arrest him?" == HOW?!?!?!??!?! The kid fled the scene the moment the cop car came into view. What is the EXACT mechanism that you're proposing that the cops should use to arrest him? Are you under the ridiculous impression that the cops ran him over or something? Where would you get such a notion?
    2
  6653.  @occhamite  Also South Korea.
    2
  6654. No. One of the "audience" recorded it and gave a copy of the video to the police.
    2
  6655. Well, Inside Edition never ran the story until 1.5 years after she was already dead. So, the woman suffered no humiliation from them. The same is true of 99.9% of the media. Almost zero media covered this while she was alive. There were a couple of obscure blogs that listed the arrest. But, for the most part, the media didn't touch this until the arrest video was released (again, long after she died).
    2
  6656. Huh? What in the world are you talking about? Have you never looked at the moon? Ya know, sometimes it's a full moon, sometimes a new moon, sometimes a quarter moon, etc. Why would you believe there's no night and day, when you can look right at it and see it happening? A lunar day, sunrise to sunset to sunrise again is 708 hours.
    2
  6657. Huh? A warning for an aggravated misdemeanor? And, just who's the recipient of this suit of yours? The sky? Clouds? The sand? Certainly, you can't mean the police. With her extensive criminal history, if she wasn't arrested for this crime, she'd have been arrested for open warrants on other prior arrests.
    2
  6658. Oh? Did you watch some videos made by grocery store clerks and roofing contractors that told you "the truth" that not a single aerospace engineer on the planet has ever been able to spot?
    2
  6659. It's a crime scene, and you can't have people messing with it. How can you sit there with such obvious hatred?
    2
  6660. "thousands of people wouldn't lie" Yes, it's impossible to believe that thousands of people can be convinced to become criminals to defraud the USA and dozens of other countries in the largest financial bilk in human history, including convincing enemy countries to go along, and not have someone say something.
    2
  6661.  @gives_bad_advice  "95%" - Then your track record far surpasses mine.
    2
  6662.  @AM-rd9pu  And South Korea, and China. They can see the landers, but, their resolution isn't as good as LRO's or Chandrayaan-2's, so there are fewer pixels. But, yup, good enough to confirm that they're there, exactly where they're supposed to be, exactly matching the photography and coordinates.
    2
  6663.  @AM-rd9pu  You need to be a member of their website to see the photos (China's). There are sites that have made copies and posted them. I have them if you don't know how to hunt them down.
    2
  6664.  @AM-rd9pu  India's are the more frustrating ones. They say they have photos of all of the sites, and can see rover tracks, etc. But, thus far, I've only found two photos from them. Apollo 11 and 12. I've written to them to ask for the rest. No response. If you know where the rest are, I'd be much obliged if you'd fill me in on how to find them.
    2
  6665.  @AM-rd9pu  And, dandy, my response about the China photos isn't visible.
    2
  6666.  @AM-rd9pu  Sort by date, re-view this thread.
    2
  6667.  @inlee99  For the exact same reason that building new supersonic airliners isn't successful. Nobody wants a repeat of the amazingly expensive Concorde, and making it cost efficient is very difficult. Same for Apollo. Nobody wants a repeat of such an expensive and limited program. Furthermore, they couldn't spend a single dime on return missions to the moon until congress approved Artemis in 2019.
    2
  6668. All 77 space agencies on the planet say we did. YouTube crack meets pot says we didn't. Oh, really convincing.
    2
  6669. Daniel Andre: YOU SAID: "If you still think we landed on the moon in 2018, YOU ARE NOT TO SMART" == Hilarious!!! You're calling OTHER people "not to smart"?? Like, you don't know the difference between "to" and "too," but, OTHERS aren't smart? You know, we all make mistakes, me included, of course. But, if you're calling other people dumb, it really helps if you manage to spell that very sentence correctly. Otherwise, ya' know, it's just this massive irony that makes YOU look like the dumb one. But, anyway, let's see here, polls of rocket scientists, physics PhDs, radiobiologists, aerospace engineers, etc., almost universally agree that the moon landings happened. There are probably fewer than 10 of the millions of experts on the entire planet who think the moon landings were faked. Meanwhile, you need only flip a coin to find an uneducated idiot who thinks the moon landings were faked. You're clearly backwards. YOU SAID: "And to think, they lost all the data and its a painful process to get it back 😂" == If you think all of the data is lost, you are not too smart. None of the data is lost. The machines themselves are gone. The training facilities are gone. The launch equipment is gone. The companies that produced all of the Apollo hardware are almost all gone (or were bought out, sold, whatever). Most of the top administrators and engineers from those days are gone/retired/dead. The list is endless. I mean, what EXACTLY would anybody expect to happen after 50 years? Were they just going to keep employing people to build Saturn Vs without funding? Were they going to make all of the facilities into untouched shrines, ready to go right back to building LEMs and CSMs? I mean, you can sit there and give a stupid laughing face all you want, but you have no idea what you're talking about. YES!!! It would be painful to just bring back Apollo. That lesson has been learned a million times over. Nobody is ever going to rebuild an Apollo program with that kind of hardware ever again. If/when they go back to the moon, it'll be a different program, with different equipment and technology. YOU SAID: "But lets call it a conspiracy theory so anyone who gets to close to the truth, are considered crazy." == It IS a conspiracy theory. And, the people who know the truth aren't crazy. The problem is that you are mistaken about what the truth IS. YOU SAID: "And if you are afraid of ridicule, YOUR WEAK MINDED" == Good fucking gods, get an education, seriously. Stop messing around with your dumbass delusions and conspiracies, and learn English. Good grief. YOU SAID: "or maybe your job is just that fragile, your job security hangs by the strings of your image and if you dare to test the waters, its just that easy for your higher ups to pluck your strings to your sudden career death." == Yes, I truly wish all people like you WOULD advertise your stupidity for the world to see. I have no desire to hire nutbags who can't think straight. So, yes, you're doing the world a favor by exposing how ridiculously fried your brain is. YOU SAID: "Whatever the reason, WE NEVER BEEN TO THE MOON." == You have no idea what you're talking about. YOU SAID: "But lets make this video stating bogus information that if your not of the top educated (brainwashed and programmed) your probably a conspiracy theorist 😂😂😂" == Are you on drugs? Funny how the guy talking out of his ass has a british accent, where 75% of apollo beleivers make their nest.
    2
  6670. Except, nobody saw this arrest video until after she was dead for 1.5 years. So.... yeah, um, no.
    2
  6671. The landing was shot on color 16mm film. The moonwalk was in black and white (TV signal) from the camera on the surface, for very specific reasons. There was also the same color 16mm film camera inside the lander during the moonwalk pointed out the window. What is the purpose of your emojis? Are you trying to say that they made a mistake?
    2
  6672. To land? At the pace they're going, probably around 2028-2030. But, you can expect a moon orbital mission a lot sooner than that.
    2
  6673. It's all good. Most people never admit being wrong. For you, it may have taken a while, but, you clearly learned a couple of things in the process, and came around just fine. Have a wonderful day.
    2
  6674. So, it's not even feasible, in your mind, that one of the possibilities is that they went to the moon?
    2
  6675.  @critthought2866  Well, you know how you need to do summer school if you didn't pass classes... this guy couldn't pass kindergarten, so, he had to do summer school.
    2
  6676. Yeah, but, FYI, none of this went viral, and the video wasn't released, until 1.5 years after she was already dead.
    2
  6677.  @enanoh8971  YOU SAID: "72 of the world's space agencies have "bought it"?, Exactly another point," == Wait, you think this is a sign of strength of your ridiculous opinion? You think that the entire planet's foremost experts all agreeing that you're wrong... is a sign that you're right?? What? You just say, "exactly," and keep on going? YOU SAID: "Middle East have been in war for many of thousands of years, then the cruzades, the Conquest of America Continent, Wars over petroleum, wars over territory, wars over ideologies, north korea sout korea, Hungaria, the cold war, even if Republican or Democrat, Cowboys or the "Red skins" (sorry is not politcal correct) Washington. Humanity never ever is in AGREE, BUT, BUT when it came to Antartica territory they sign a World Treaty in days that nobody will fight for land , resources, etc. WOW amazing, World Peace Ladies and Gentlemans, so for the Space Hoax, everybody is joining togheter, only on Boundaries they do that, but here INHOUSE, dont you dare have another shirt, god, step on my 400 acre territory without my permission or make a better World couse there, it will be War!" == Good gods, what ARE you talking about?? What are you talking about?? What are you talking about!!??!!?! You go from talking about Apollo to cowboys and Hungaria? What?? Sorry, this is just too insane to even address. What EXACTLY are you expecting here? Are you expecting to talk about all of those wars and politics in a YouTube comment? What??? YOU SAID: "see the irony?, why?? Think......." == No, and I don't care to chase you down your rabbit hole of complete insanity. You were talking about photographs of the moon. Now you're talking about Antarctica and wars over oil. No, I'm not even going to start. You have clearly lost your mind. I asked you some questions, and you ignored every single one, and spewed out this pile of internet vomit about the Crusades from a thousand years ago and a bunch of other gibberish. You said something about there being only one photo, so I asked what one photo you meant, and THIS pile of junk is how you responded. YOU SAID: "btw all Earth photos are different in shape and sizes never consistent," == Wrong. The angular size IS consistent. But, I'll bet you have no idea what that means. You know, dummy, the same is true of photos of the moon. It's called "zoom." When you zoom in a lot, it looks bigger. When you zoom out, it looks smaller. Meanwhile, it's the same moon, dummy. Yet, you can take one photo and it looks really big, and another photo and it looks really small. If you combine that factor with the way photographers align other things in frame, yes, photos of the moon can look radically different in size. But, guess what, the angular size in the sky NEVER CHANGES. YOU SAID: "many videos on this." == Thanks, I'll stick with my degrees and years of experience in understanding mathematics and science to calculate the angular size of things. I don't need to watch a video to learn how to do basic math. Go back to school. Get your high school diploma. Lay off the drugs. Forget the stupid conspiracies you don't even understand. And, go try to make something of yourself. Good grief.
    2
  6678. Elon didn't use a Saturn V. And, sorry, you cannot "logic" your way into denying evidence.
    2
  6679. You asked if that's what this documentary is saying. This documentary shows you a bunch of nonsense spewed by cranks who don't understand anything. Then, they show you the correct answers. Don't pretend you've watched the documentary, if you're unaware that the documentary is NOT saying that Apollo was fake. The documentary is saying Apollo is real, and they're presenting you the crackpot view, then presenting you with the rebuttals to the crackpots. How about watching the video before asking others to tell you what's in it?
    2
  6680. What press conference would that be?
    2
  6681. Guns don't just fall out of their holsters. It was on the floor of the car because he pulled it out.
    2
  6682.  Big Tom's Fan  Sorry, no, that's the conspiracy video version, hacking up the quotes to present a false picture.
    2
  6683. "The biggest problem is that they can't do it even today, 60 years later." So what? Is congress never allowed to end a program? And, math just isn't your thing, eh? "The last one was unmanned and landed on it's side." Landed on it is side? What does that mean? Or, are you proving for the millionth time that no Apollo denier can read and write past a 2nd grader's level? "60 years later." So, you can't do math, and you can't read and write. What a surprise. "They still can't do it." They retired the program, dewdrop. How would you expect them to do it when the program has been retired for about 50 years? Or, should I ask about 60 years, to put it in your terms? They retired Apollo's moonshot program in 1972. They retired Apollo's applications programs in 1975. Please name the mechanism you'd use to get back to the moon after the programs have been retired for that long? "And they did it in the 60's? No way" I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    2
  6684.  @michaelstillman1171  Did you mean this for a different thread?
    2
  6685. "the photo they've got from moon it is too good like professional photographer" They took about 7,000 photos on the lunar surface (about 1,500 inside the lunar module, and about 5,500 while walking on the lunar surface). How many have you looked at? Just the very best ones? Have you seen the bad ones?
    2
  6686. "they take too many round trip to the moon, if go to moon is expensive, go one time is enough to win Soviet" Well, congratulations on knowing nothing whatsoever about Apollo. Dewdrop, they didn't pour $300 billion (adjusted for inflation) into just building one rocket, one lander, one command module, one launch facility, etc. They took an incremental approach, launching mission after mission after mission, each time accomplishing a little bit more than the prior time, until finally landing. They didn't know for certain about how many missions it would take. If a mission failed, they were prepared to try again, and again, and again, until succeeding. And, after spending that much money on developing Apollo, they weren't just going to land once then stop. They had contractual obligations to build a certain minimum number of each component. Anyway, the bottom line is that you don't understand anything about the topic whatsoever.
    2
  6687. Yeah, the "hoax" was committed by about a dozen exclusive people in the 1960s/1970s who had inside knowledge... then they shared it with Google and YouTube staffers.
    2
  6688. Do you actually think anybody on the planet would believe the "I knew it all along but was just pretending" line you're basically asserting?
    2
  6689. You can love armed carjackers all you want. But, you don't get to tell the rest of the world to love them.
    2
  6690. Drama queen, first of all, I don't see what race has to do with anything. Secondly, the main "hate" I see in these comments is toward the criminal.
    2
  6691. Ah, fair enough, thanks for the clarification. It wasn't really clear in your first comment. Have a wonderful day.
    2
  6692.  @aemrt5745  Thanks for the info/correction. I'll study up.
    2
  6693. You need to lay off of the drugs.
    2
  6694. Huh? She already had a criminal record a mile long. She served a felony term in a Florida prison around 6 years ago. Her landlord said her "job" was as a "dancer" (yeah, that kind) at a local club, and her neighbors said she did "private extras" with bunches of men out of her apartment. I don't think you lose those "jobs" from this incident. If she wasn't making "public beach" content for her fans during this incident, I'll eat my hat.
    2
  6695. Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. But, whatever. Then explain how/why dozens of countries tracked the Apollo missions with radar and radio telescopes, including enemy countries? And, explain how/why both China and India released their lunar orbital photography last year showing the Apollo landers exactly where LRO showed them in 2009-2012, and where the original mission photography showed them?
    2
  6696. Dewdrop, the landers weren't even meant to come back. If you don't even know the role of each craft, why are you pretending to know anything at all?
    2
  6697. On Apollo 11 specifically? Two Hasselblad cameras were brought down to the moon inside in the lander. They used the one darker in color for for inside the lunar module, taking pictures out the window. They used the more metallic one outside, during the moonwalk itself. Both were emptied of their film magazines, then the cameras themselves were thrown out onto the lunar surface before departing. I have no idea what you mean by "video camera" regarding Hasselblad. The video cameras on Apollo 11 were made by Westinghouse and Maurer.
    2
  6698. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    2
  6699.  @rat1837  YOU SAID: "no the younger woman was only in for theft" (in response to "she deserved everything") -- == Um, what? So, if you kill someone for a theft, that's different than killing the wife of your lover? She doesn't deserve the same penalty for killing for purposes for theft?
    2
  6700.  @btsrecycle5811  YOU SAID: "Are you saying that theft and murder should be on the same level of punishment?" == No. Why would you get that crazy idea?
    2
  6701.  @btsrecycle5811  Oh, good grief, sorry, I had mixed up two different videos. My fault. One of the other segments of this series had two murderers, one who killed for a theft, and another who had killed the wife of her lover. So, when I responded, I got this video mixed up in my head with a different video in this same series. Sorry, my fault entirely.
    2
  6702. You listed infractions. What she did was a crime. You need to learn the difference between an infraction and a crime.
    2
  6703. Contrary to what movies depict, space doesn't have a temperature. It would take a lot of time to freeze (radiate your heat).
    2
  6704. Well, then it gets even sadder, because she lived through the gunshot wound for a while, stumbling around, before finally bled out.
    2
  6705. Yes, it was in front of children.
    2
  6706. Dewdrop, you said 320kg is 705,479lbs. You're in absolutely no position to try to teach anybody else the metric system.
    2
  6707. So, you have no idea how to convert kilograms to pounds, and you pretend to ask questions, but don't want answers. Spare the world, dewdrop. I'm done here.
    2
  6708. Yes, that's the biggest issue. But, to add to what you said, not only would they need participation from far too many people back in 1969-1972, including participation from dozens of countries including enemies, but, they'd also need to pass that torch down from generation to generation. In the last few years, China and India have photographed the Apollo landing sites with their own orbiters, showing the landers and foot paths and stuff. So, somehow, they'd have to perpetuate it for decades without a single person spilling the beans, and even gain participation from additional countries.
    2
  6709. "The "Earthrise" pic was debunked as a composite" Which one? There are bunches of them, dewdrop. They took "Earthrise" photos on most of the 9 manned missions to the moon. I just checked the photo catalog, and I counted 41 "Earthrise" photos on Apollo 11 alone. ("Earthrise" means, I assume, the Earth coming up over the lunar horizon from orbit, right?) There are hundreds of photos of Earth on that mission, from the lunar surface, during the traverse between Earth and moon, and from lunar orbit. But, yes, 41 of them were "Earthrise" photos just from that one mission. I mean, sure, I wouldn't doubt that someone may have made composites as well. But, NASA always labels which ones are composites/modified, vs. which are original scans. So, which are you complaining about? Can you give a catalog number?
    2
  6710. "Why no pics of stars taken during the journey when the sky was pitch black?" There are tons of them, dewdrop. "Apollo stellar photography." Start there. When you're done with those, look at the Carruthers UV telescopic photos of the stars. They even took some with the 70mm cameras (which always came out horribly, because those weren't set up for stars, but, yes, they took them anyway). Why do you trust conspiracy videos when they tell you these things don't exist? Why? Those videos are ALWAYS wrong, dewdrop.
    2
  6711. "Despite the WEALTH of evidence proving my point" Huh? You just got done complaining that there are no star photos (yes, there are), and no Earth photos (there are hundreds). And, you have the audacity to complain about "evidence"? What?
    2
  6712. "just use your brain when you watch the press conference after Apollo 13." Um, ok, what about it? They were lucky to be alive, and I don't recall seeing anything noteworthy to support your silly notions.
    2
  6713. "Think about how many things had to be executed with precision for it to be accomplished with 1969 technology" Can you name the EXACT technology you think they lacked? And, can you explain why none of the thousands of engineers who designed and built that technology ever realized that they failed to make things that can do what they built them to do?
    2
  6714. "and the flippant disposition of the astronauts on future "missions"." You don't know what you're talking about, as usual.
    2
  6715. "Look at the construction of the lunar module." What's wrong with it? What EXACTLY would you have done differently?
    2
  6716. "And a $7 million dune buggy?" No, dewdrop. They were $38 million each in 1970s money. That's about $300 million each in today's dollars.
    2
  6717. "NASA has even slipped and stated the truth - that man has never traveled beyond near-earth orbit." Pffttt. Who told you that? A conspiracy video?
    2
  6718. "All telemetry data is GONE (the greatest feat in history?)." Another conspiracy video told you that? Why would you possibly believe it?
    2
  6719. "There is literally camera footage of the Apollo 13 crew fabricating an image on its window." No, dewdrop. You watched Bart Sibrel's movie packed with lies created in his editing room. And, you don't know the difference between Apollo 11 and Apollo 13.
    2
  6720. Um, no. This incident happened on July 1, 2021. The arrest video wasn't released until November 24, 2023 (2.5 years later). Nobody saw it while she was alive.
    2
  6721. She wouldn't get a warning for this, sorry. But, it doesn't matter. With all of her prior arrests and open warrants, they had no choice but to take her in.
    2
  6722. They did that. It's called LRO. They took many photos from 2009 to 2012. And, in 2012, they dropped the orbit even lower to get even better photos.
    2
  6723. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    2
  6724. A month with no response (you ran for the hills), and you responded by saying you are responding, without responding. Right.
    2
  6725. Well, first of all, it's always amazing to me when people use the term "majority of normal people." All that really means is "anybody who agrees with me." Sorry, a meaningless phrase like that simply cannot stand up to scrutiny. Given that there are somewhere around 400 million guns in the USA, owned by roughly half of the population, I find it pretty difficult to adhere to any definition you'd put forth as being "normal." But, forgetting any of that, the bigger issue is that people are constantly using words like, "more tightly regulated," or "more control," but, when pressed to find out what that actually means in terms of specific laws they'd enact, their answers (if/when they give any) almost inevitably expose that they don't understand what they're asking for. I see people throwing around the "AR15" terminology, but, most of those people don't know what an AR15 is. And, I find it slightly ironic that AR15s get called out first, but, nearly none of those people even mention the more lethal AR10 (because they've never heard of it). Like, ok, we hypothetically ban AR15s. Now all of the bad guys go out and buy the even bigger caliber AR10 instead. What did that accomplish? Anyway, you, and everyone else I've ever seen who make comments like you make, aren't offering anything specific that you think would will actually be effective. You say, "I want more regulations!!!" But, did you offer a single regulation that you think could achieve the goal you're seeking to achieve? Nope.
    2
  6726.  @samiblank6761  What in the world are you talking about? What telescope do you think there is that can see stuff on the moon in the same resolution that Selene or LRO can see it from lunar orbit? And, Selene used its 2D/3D imaging to be able to see the landscape from angles that aren't available from any telescope, giving details of the terrain and mountains that you cannot get anywhere else. Good grief. You don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about, do you?
    2
  6727. Brain
    2
  6728. Property? How about the gun pointed at the officer's head? That's not protecting property, that's protecting his own life.
    2
  6729. My daughter learned long ago that I can tell when she's fake-crying. The woman in this video still hasn't learned that lesson.
    2
  6730. Freedom of Information Act.
    2
  6731. Well, she abandoned her family about a decade ago because she wanted to live a life of partying, drugs, and crime. And, she ruined her own life, no blame belongs to others.
    2
  6732. Why do I get the feeling that you still think that closing your eyes means nobody can see you? Most grow out of that by, oh, I dunno, 9 months old or so?
    2
  6733. A) Temperature doesn't work the same in a vacuum as in a physical medium such as air or water. You should know this from just your everyday life. If you're in air, and it's 60 degrees outside, it might be a little chilly, but, nothing bad is going to happen, and you can stay in that temperature indefinitely. If you're in water, 60 degrees is frigid. You will lose dexterity in about 15 minutes, and lose consciousness and die in about 90 minutes. Why? Because there are far more cold molecules touching your body in water than in air. Well, imagine ZERO air or water, just a vacuum. No cold molecules. Heat transfer is remarkably slow, and it all just becomes an equilibrium between energy absorbed vs. energy radiated. Again, sorry, but you simply do not understand thermodynamics at all. B) You are quoting surface temperatures for the lunar afternoon and lunar overnight. Apollo was never there for those times. They always landed early in the lunar morning, and left in that same morning. A lunar "day" is 708 hours, which is approximately a month. No Apollo mission was even there for the extremes you're quoting. C) You said you had a question, but, never asked anything. I know you intended to ignore the answers anyway, but, c'mon, if you're going to pretend you had a question, couldn't you at least ask it? D) Do you REALLY believe the entire planet's rocket scientists forgot to make sure the rocket fuel didn't freeze? Really?
    2
  6734.  @arelortal6580  I just wanted to hunt down that image that you say is "impossible" at 18:40 (from the other video). And, I was wrong. The photo wasn't taken from in front of the LM, like my last posting said. It was taken from INSIDE the LM. It's the exact same basic concept that I've outlined in my prior posting. But, it's even more hilarious. You are insisting that the LM should be in the frame... but... the photo was taken from INSIDE the LM!!!!! This is pure comic gold at this point. It's image AS17-140-21355 from the Apollo catalog. The photo was taken from inside the LM, looking out the LMP window. Yet, you expected the LM to be in frame. This is just too funny. It really is. You have literally no concept of left/right/up/down/east/west/north/south. You can't figure out what should or shouldn't be in the frame of photos. You fail to understand simple concepts like... when mountains are miles away in the distance, yeah, they're really not going to look very different by merely moving a few hundred feet in the foreground... you don't seem to understand that the background is going to look the same, but the foreground will change when you move around... and you seem to be so single dimensional that you fail to understand that the astronauts actually traveled around in all directions, taking photos all the time. You seem to be under the impression that they only ever had the LM in front of them, and never went behind the thing, or something like that. You seem to always expect that the only photos they ever took were facing towards the LM. Good grief. You really are one of the dumbest people around.
    2
  6735. "why didn't they do it ever again ???" They sent men to the moon 9 times. They landed 6 of those times. If that's not doing it again, I don't know what is.
    2
  6736. Just a side note: if they got the two craft together, but couldn't dock, they'd just open the hatch and spacewalk to the other craft.
    2
  6737. They didn't. They probably released it as a result of a legal FOIA request. The original channel that published it is gone now. But, at least the police kept the video private for as long as possible. It wasn't released until 2.5 years after the incident, which was also 1.5 years after the suicide. The poor woman never had to suffer any shame from the release of the arrest video, because nobody ever saw it until she was dead for 1.5 years.
    2
  6738. Just a quick check here: you do know some of the details Inside Edition omits: she had an arrest history a mile long, spent a felony term in a Florida prison about 6 years ago, her landlord said she was a "dancer" (ya know), and her neighbors said she did "private extras" for cash in her apartment. If she wasn't making "public beach" content, I'll eat my hat.
    2
  6739. Another response from someone with "truth" in his nickname, proving, yet again, that nobody with "truth" or "woke" in their nicknames has any understanding of truth, and are fast asleep. "The windows on the lunar command module are annealed silica glass and have a melting temp of 3000F and reentry temps reach 5000F by NASA's own admission." Yes, and they also "admitted" that they used ablative heat shields. Why do you omit that from your statement? Do you even understand how that works? (Of course you don't. You think that the entire world's aerospace engineers forgot about the melting temperatures of things.) "The astronauts were taken with the capsule in a military plane and the plane dropped them out the back. Commericial pilots have corroborated that." Which commercial airline pilots? Bob Knodel? The flat-Earther who was busted for claiming to be a commercial pilot when he has never held such a license in his entire life?
    2
  6740.  @ballerballa9122  And, you think the deniers will accept Apollo if they do it again now? You don't think they'll simply reject the new missions also? Or, if they accept the new missions, they will not still just keep denying Apollo?
    2
  6741. The planet is turning into a pile of people who read and write at the level of 2nd graders, don't know the difference between "there" and "their" and "they're," and make judgements about situations they know absolutely nothing about, because they blindly trusted some garbage they saw on Inside Edition.
    2
  6742. Van Halen, Van Ellen, Van Allen, who cares? Clearly, this is an expert in cosmology and radiobiology who has come to reveal his remarkable knowledge into a YouTube comment. Publish in the physics journals on particle radiation? No, who would do that? Publish in medical journals on radiobiology? No way. Everyone knows that a YouTube comment is where to declare that an entire field of science studied for almost 50 years is all completely wrong.
    2
  6743. So? Decades have gone by, and we don't have the technology to carry 150 passengers at mach 2 for 3000 miles across the Atlantic (Concorde). We don't have the technology of mach 3 spyplanes (SR71). We don't have the technology of mach 7 planes either (X15). You can call BS until the cows come home, but all you're doing is exposing your ignorance. Technology (in the sense of knowledge about how to do it) has never been lost. Technology (in the sense of actual hardware ready to use) has been lost since congress shut down the Apollo program. That's how these things work. If a program gets defunded, and the technology is retired, then we don't have it any longer. It's as simple as that.
    2
  6744. 1) Why do you ask questions when you know you're not interested in the answers? 2) For anybody else, there's a concept called "apparent magnitude" that explains things that this guy is pretending to ask.
    2
  6745. Depends. Most of the time, when people who reject the moon landings ask that question, it's because they're painfully unaware of basic physics. Flags with move when being handled. And, they move even easier when being handled in a vacuum. They don't understand these simple principles, as if they think the flag should be stiff as a board or something. But, beyond that, yes, the flags sometimes moved without being touched. The astronauts' suits, backpacks, and the lander itself, were not closed systems. They vented for various reasons (porous plate sublimators, overpressure valves, purge valves, etc.). With no surrounding air to suppress the venting of gasses, even the small venting of suits/backpacks will make the flags move a little bit. If you want more details, let me know.
    2
  6746. Men first went to the bottom of the ocean (deepest possible depth) in 1960. It took over 50 years before that was repeated.
    2
  6747.  @gives_bad_advice  The China ones went public (at least for Apollo 11) a few months back.
    2
  6748.  @yazzamx6380  Just a friendly update: it appears links are now allowed again in this video. It seems the channel host changed the settings.
    2
  6749. "Why not?" Because congress ended the program, and didn't start another manned moon program until 2019 when they gave the green light to the Artemis program.
    2
  6750.  @stusue9733  I don't think so. There was never any program that would have used the same equipment, thus, asking contractors whether they can build the same equipment makes no sense. Furthermore, most of the contractors were long gone. North American Aviation folded before Apollo even ended. Grumman was sold off a couple of decades ago. The company that manufactured the fuels used in the service module and lander no longer exists. The primary guidance computer (for most of the trip anyway) was a 1960s IBM mainframe that no longer exists on any level. The list goes on. I outright reject the notion that NASA asked anybody anything about rebuilding carbon copies of craft that they couldn't even communicate with.
    2
  6751. Huh? "WHAT MANIPULATORS!!😂 left photo is WIDE angle lense" When you can't spell "lens" correctly, forgive me if I have zero faith in your knowledge of photography. "that’s why it’s horizontal & RIGHT photo is a regular camera that’s why it’s square." The angles of shadows has nothing to do with the type of lens. The shadows will appear at the same exact angles whether you use a wide angle lens, or not. That's because the shadows land where they do, regardless of whether anybody is taking a picture or not. Also, you weren't under the impression that the shape of an exposure on a piece of film has anything to do with "wide angle" or not, are you? (Yes, you are... sigh.) "The only way you can get that affect" When you can't even spell "effect" correctly, forgive me if I have zero faith in your understanding of cause and effect. "with the left photo is with a WIDE LENSE CAMERA🤣" Dewdrop, the lenses are round. The film's aspect ratio has nothing to do with whether or not the lens is "wide angle" or not. Whether a lens is wide angle has to do with the focal length, not the shape of a single frame of film. "when they went to the moon THEY DIDNT USE A WIDE LENSE CAMERA" Well, not exactly, no. I'll grant you that they weren't wide angle lenses from a technical standpoint. But, you don't understand it anyway, so, you're only correct by sheer luck. Either way, it doesn't matter, because the angles seen are the same, no matter which lens is used. "TO TAKE THISE PHOTOS!! In other words these angles casted shouldn’t be possible with the CAMERAS THEY USED." Yes, dewdrop, the angles seen in the Apollo photography are exactly correct. "look at the original photos it wasn’t cropped LMFAO" Well, he was trying to address your broken interpretation of what a wide angle lens is. He just didn't take the time to try to correct your parade of barely understandable gibberish, and just skipped right to what appears to be your main message. "If you believe we went to the moon with the computing power of a calculator then okay" So, after someone corrected you about what a wide angle lens is, what do you do? Change topics. Do you admit you were wrong? No, of course not. You ignore all input, then switch topics completely. Dewdrop, can you explain why the hundreds of computer engineers at MIT, Draper Labs, IBM, and Raytheon, never realized that the computers they designed and built for going to the moon, wouldn't do what they designed them to do?
    2
  6752. You believe her story about trying to hide it, why? Because she said so, as she was trying to cry her way out of her millionth arrest? I'd eat my hat if she wasn't making "public beach" content.
    2
  6753. To be trick is easiest, governments by their
    2
  6754. It has blocked my response. But, I'll summarize it this way: you have absolutely no understanding of the topic.
    2
  6755. What gave it away? The fact that she abandoned her family and career more than a decade ago to live a life of drugs and crime? Or, her mile long criminal record including a felony term in a Florida prison and a million other arrests?
    2
  6756. Dewdrop, watch the video in slow motion or frame by frame. The carjacker had the gun pointed directly at the officer's head. And, you see the gun again on the ground next to a 2x4 piece of wood at 5:02 in the video. No immediate threat? The guy wearing a balaclava ski mask during a Kentucky summer, pointing a gun at the officer's head... no immediate danger... nope. The cop shouldn't take action until there's a hole in his head, right?
    2
  6757. Yes, if that was true, that would be a major issue. However, it's not true. Why would you believe there were any such cameras? There are no videos/photos that couldn't have been taken by the cameras they brought on the craft. Every single video/photo aligns perfectly well with the known locations of the cameras.
    2
  6758. It's one of those attributes of having a completely delusional mind. If someone opposes you, it's because you are "over the target," and you feel positive reinforcement. If someone agrees with you, you feel positive reinforcement. If nobody objects at all, you feel positive reinforcement. No matter what happened, you were going to feel positive reinforcement. Um, sorry, but that's not exactly indicative of a strong position here... especially given the fact that you feel like you're the first person on the planet to suggest pointing a telescope at the moon. I wouldn't even know how to operate my life if I was that far gone, so, sorry, but, I cannot relate to this ridiculous condition you're in. You're like one of those stalkers who haunt a poor girl's life while she avoids you like the plague, and you just feel, "she's just playing hard to get, but, as soon as she gives me a chance, she'll love me." Like, ya know, you must be getting pretty close to the mark for her to call the police, huh? Who would call the police on someone she doesn't care about at all? Clearly, she must care a lot.
    2
  6759.  @australiaplus9629  July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released due to FOIA request.
    2
  6760. Are you PROUD to be such a hater?
    2
  6761.  @austinsrandomvids1019  Sorry, not playing your ridiculous game.
    2
  6762.  @austinsrandomvids1019  Are you drunk, or are you always that illiterate? I cannot even cut through this gibberish to understand you.
    2
  6763.  @austinsrandomvids1019  Did you even graduate high school?
    2
  6764. She didn't steal anything. She had her receipt. She was just very offended to even be asked, and decided to escalate "can you show me your receipt" into being arrested. I think it's pretty clear that her actual motivation was to do everything to make the case even worse, hoping that this would result in a bigger dollar amount in her lawsuit. Thankfully, the court saw right through that, and her case was thrown out.
    2
  6765. It doesn't help anything when Google Maps uses the word "satellite" on their images instead of "aerial." Their FAQ explains that those images come from low flying planes and balloons. But, they leave the misnomer on their actual map pages nonetheless. To re-confirm what's already been said, the answer is that we don't have anything remotely close to being able to read license plates from satellites. That's an old myth from decades ago. But, I suspect the US intelligence agencies were perfectly happy to have the world believing they had capabilities that they did not, and weren't exactly going to explain that they didn't have that ability. It would have opened the door to the next question, "what ability DO you have?" They weren't going to answer that, so, they left the whole topic alone.
    2
  6766. And, when they pass, will it make a bit of difference on what you believe? Or, is this just another excuse for you to complain?
    2
  6767. Yes. I agree. But, the Freedom of Information Act would need to be repealed in order to change this.
    2
  6768. OK, Mr. Aerospace Engineer, please outline how you'd have designed the lander instead, if you don't like the way it was designed? Can you?
    2
  6769. What do you mean? How did they act?
    2
  6770. So, your position is that they were gathering moon rocks buried in ice and snow... and managed to somehow come up with 850 pounds of them that had never been exposed to oxygen or water? How'd they manage that?
    2
  6771. Well, at least nobody saw the arrest video while she was still alive.
    2
  6772. You then ignored questions asked of you, and changed topics. You want to keep it simple? The simple explanation for this is that you don't know what you're talking about, and you refuse to admit it. So, you change topics instead. Simple.
    2
  6773. "Not insulting" You are accusing thousands of people of being criminals that would be thrown in prison for their entire lives if you were correct, but, you don't think that's insulting? "I just love debates" Then why won't you answer questions asked of you? Why do you just change topics when someone points out that you're wrong, and you refuse to address it? Sorry, that's not a debate, dewdrop. You don't enjoy debates, you just love to listen to yourself talk, and pretend to know things you don't. "unreal stuff and conspiracy" Yeah, you've swallowed the garbage, hook line and sinker, and you're quite proud of it.
    2
  6774. Pfffttt. Another conspiratard who doesn't know the difference between a wire and a radio antenna.
    2
  6775. The guy at 39:33, Ed Fendell.
    2
  6776. Wow, and to think, all of the aerospace engineers on Earth have been fooled for decades!! They all need to read this comprehensive YouTube posting demonstrating "nuh uh, never will." Yup, that'll show 'em.
    2
  6777. Hubble doesn't work correctly until you post enough emojis to pretend you understand things you don't.
    2
  6778. YOU SAID: "its fake" == Wrong. YOU SAID: "why is he translucent?" == So, you first declare it fake, THEN you ask questions? That's how this works, in your mind? Conclusions first, questions second?
    2
  6779.  @stusue9733  Or, get eaten by a bear, and get carried miles away, then discarded out the rear end.
    2
  6780. A) You have absolutely no understanding of the topic. Did you think that means nobody else does either? Don't you at least stop a minute to wonder why you never find any physicists expecting any Earth-based telescope to be able to see the Apollo artifacts on the moon? No? It's always people like you, with zero understanding of how light works, who expect these impossible things? No? That doesn't bother you in the slightest? B) Why do you ask a question, then immediately make it clear that you don't want the answer? You opened by asking why telescopes can't see Apollo stuff on the moon. Then, before anybody could even answer you, you negated any answer by declaring it fake. Why'd you ask the question, if you weren't going to wait for the answer?
    2
  6781. Dewdrop, the answers have always been available. And, sorry, no telemetry data has been lost.
    2
  6782. The USA was in a cold war against the Soviets. Yes. That's what Apollo was mainly for. It was a political statement of superiority. So what? That has no bearing on the veracity.
    2
  6783. Have you not heard of Artemis?
    2
  6784. "I'm only quoting the video" When in the video did they say they never took a small telescope? I must have missed that part, because, as has been repeatedly explained to you (and you ignored), they did. Or, were you just making that up yourself (obvious answer is obvious)? So, again, now that you know they took star photos, why are you not using those photos to do the parallax you complained about? What are you waiting for? Or, are you running for the hills now, ignoring the answers to your own questions, like all of your ilk?
    2
  6785. Do you have any concept of the cost of a base on the moon?
    2
  6786. An astronomer who can't calculate arcseconds? You sticking to your lie about being an astronomer?
    2
  6787. The internet has empowered people with absolutely no knowledge of anything to magically believe that their ignorance is superior to actually having knowledge. I mean, it's like TV all over again. If you told John Baird (the man who first built a functional television) what was going to happen, he'd probably lose his mind out of frustration. Here was a machine that could distribute knowledge, news, and education to the masses, in the convenience of their own homes. But, what happened instead? We got "I Love Lucy" (ridiculous entertainment for the lowest common denominator) and crooked quiz shows dominating the airwaves. And, the internet is no different. We have a mechanism now to distribute the virtual entirety of human knowledge to anybody at the click of a button, and what happens instead? People who know absolutely nothing use the internet as an echo chamber to spew nonsense to others who know absolutely nothing. And, they each gobble up each others' misinformation like it's Christmas dinner.
    2
  6788. Huh? Why?
    2
  6789. "There is a mirror reflector that we left there." There are 6 of them, 3 placed by Apollo astronauts, 2 placed by Soviet probes, and 1 recently by an Indian probe. "Anyone can perform tests with this reflector." Huh? There are a dozen or two facilities around the world that can bounce lasers off of the reflectors. Only about a half dozen do it daily. I don't think "anybody" can just walk up and use the lasers. "How do the people that say we faked it explain that?" Blind rejection. All evidence for Apollo is fake. All evidence against Apollo is real. Those are the only two rules to their game.
    2
  6790. Well, ok, but there was plenty of probable cause.
    2
  6791. Lots of people modify that photo to include extra black sky above the backpack. The original photo wasn't framed very well because there was no viewfinder on the camera, and the center of the frame was aimed at the bottom of Aldrin's right leg, rather than the center of his chest. It resulted in the photo ending right at the top of the backpack (can't see the antenna). But, people like editing that photo, and adding more black sky above Aldrin to complete the photo. But, yeah, the authentic original photo ended right at the top of the backpack, and you can't see the antenna. You see it just fine in the prior frame, though.
    2
  6792. Dewdrop, it's a black strip at the top of the photo inserted to put Aldrin closer to the center of frame. They don't need Photoshop for that. And, yes, many people used copies of the photo with the black strip at the top. Good grief. As I said repeatedly, just go look at the original version of the photo. The original photo ended at the top of the backpack.
    2
  6793. Are you incapable of paying attention to a single word I wrote? You won't find a copy of that photo with an aerial antenna. That's what I said. Good grief. Why are you unable to understand this? Did you look at the original photo yet?
    2
  6794. "not one shows an aerial" Dewdrop, this is just plain ridiculous. How many times do I have to explain the same thing? I never claimed that you could see the aerial in any of the photos. If you're not going to read what I wrote, what's the point?
    2
  6795. This is just plain ridiculous. Go look at the ORIGINAL photo, dewdrop. Look at the one in the archive. Not the modified ones from magazines. Good grief. How many times must this be explained to you?
    2
  6796. An astronaut fell down, hence the moon landings were fake? Good grief. What in the world are you even talking about? "A prize possession in the Dutch national museum is not what the curators thought." Yeah, they should have had it authenticated. Instead, what did they do? They called NASA, who said they had no record of this rock, but, offered to examine it if the museum would send it to them. The museum elected not to do so, and instead, stuck it into a drawer for about 14 years. It was instantly recognized as a fake when they finally took it out and put it on display. I guess that's what you get when an art museum accepts a moon rock. As it is, art museums are full of about 30% counterfeited art, because the curators have no clue about how to properly authenticate art... let alone a moon rock. Gee, maybe that's why the rock was given to an art museum instead of a science museum in the first place, eh? "In 1969, three Apollo 11 astronauts visited the Netherlands." They visited a whole bunch of countries, yes. Who cares? They didn't give out moon rocks during that trip. "And the U.S. ambassador gave the Dutch prime minister what he said was a moon rock." No, that ambassador said he had no recollection of any such rock. And, the good will rocks were not ready to be given out yet (by that point). So, no. That's not what happened. And, that's not what the museum thinks happened either. That's what conspiracy nuts say, not what really happened. "When an expert saw the rock in the museum, he didn't think it was real. Geologists have identified the moon rock as petrified wood." Yes. That's true. Why does this matter to you? Who cares? Yeah, an art museum accepted a piece of petrified wood as a donation, and after 14 years, finally put it on display, and it was instantly recognized as petrified wood. Kind of makes you wonder... if NASA was going to give out moon rocks, why would they even bother, if they're going to give out petrified wood instead, so easily recognized? Why haven't the hundreds of ACTUAL samples given out by NASA been identified as petrified wood? What about the 850 pounds of rocks, examined by geologists around the world? Why aren't those petrified wood? Dewdrop, all you have here is an example of a museum that believed that a piece of petrified wood was a moon rock. So what? If a museum accepts a fake Rolex watch as a donation, and puts it on display, and a Rolex expert recognizes that it's a fake, does this mean that all Rolex watches are fake? Or, does that mean a museum foolishly accepted a donation without authenticating it?
    2
  6797.  @AdroitJake  The store employee said she thought the woman didn't pay. That's reasonable suspicion.
    2
  6798. "why do they say they 'lost the technology?' " Who is "they"? The makers of the conspiracy videos you're watching? Or, just an out of context quote mine that you couldn't even get right?
    2
  6799. "i do not believe ANYTHING any government claims" So what? Apollo has been verified dozens of ways by dozens of other countries, companies, universities, etc. But, do you believe the Civil War happened? The government says so, therefore it's false, right? Who was the first president? George Washington? Nope, the government says so, therefore it must be wrong. See, dewdrop, sane people use EVIDENCE to decide what's real or not. All you're doing is rejecting things because you feel like it.
    2
  6800. Is that how you justify your lies? You say it's in your genes?
    2
  6801. How'd the news manage that, when no news even covered this story until long after she died?
    2
  6802. Hard to tell. It's likely either some loose Mylar/Kapton that got dislodged and floated away, or perhaps some ice that formed and got dislodged.
    2
  6803. You don't know what you're talking about.
    2
  6804. Of course. You have decided in advance to reject all explanations. As for "top tier skeptics," yup, that's the cream of the crop. The guy with 30 cats living in a trailer, and the unemployed goon with a leaf blower.
    2
  6805. And, just look at your very next comment (the next thread up)... about as non-skeptical as it gets. Once again, blind rejection, not skepticism. You don't understand how the image was generated, therefore it's fake. "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake" is the OPPOSITE as true skepticism.
    2
  6806. How did the 2 dogs that the Soviets sent up into the worst areas of the belts live for 3 weeks? What do you know about the belts that the Soviets didn't know, and James Van Allen didn't know? And, why are you on YouTube comments? The entirety of the aerospace and physics community doesn't believe what you believe. Why aren't you submitting your calculations to scientific journals? Why would you think a YouTube comment is the correct place to tell the entirety of the planet's experts that they're wrong?
    2
  6807. By "symptom," do you mean "I need to make money from making 'public beach' content"?
    2
  6808. What discretion did the police lack?
    2
  6809. YOU SAID: "I'm not saying the Moon landing didn't happen, but I'm also not saying it did." == Pfttt. Nice try. We all know what you really think. YOU SAID: "I find it suspicious that all the 50 year old technology that got us to the moon is now "too difficult" to make again." == Tupolev TU4. Look it up. Rebuilding Apollo would be a million times worse than the TU4. Any engineer will tell you that it's easier to build new than to retro-engineer old technology. YOU SAID: "As well as the fact that they ERASED the original MOON LANDING TAPES because they "needed to reuse them"" == Yes, that's how those tapes worked... not just for NASA, but for ALL companies/entities that used those types of systems back then. The big thick (2 inch, if I remember) tapes were made for high speed, and didn't work well for long term storage. ALL businesses/entities that had those kinds of systems would keep the temporary tapes for only as long as they needed them, but then would use the long-term storage tapes for archiving. That's how the technology was back then. I mean, for comparison, it's a bit like digital cameras just 5-10 years ago. You took photos. You kept them in the camera for a while. You transfer them off of the camera to your hard drive or other storage, and you reuse the camera for more pictures. Those tapes from the 1960s were somewhat like that. They recorded all of the video/data/telemetry on the temporary tapes, then transferred everything to the long-term tapes for storage, and reused the temporary tapes. YOU SAID: "Oh yes, the fucking space agency with BILLIONS in funding can't afford more tapes and needs to re-record over what is the most historically significant event in human history." == You have no understanding of the topic. Do not even pretend you're on the fence. You're only PRETENDING to be intellectually honest. I call bullshit. YOU SAID: "Luckily we have HOLLYWOOD to come and "remaster" the shitty TV broadcast now." == And, what's your point? You know, this is the problem with assholes like you. Nobody can win with you. You create these no-win situations. I mean, if the imagery had been absolutely perfect, you idiots proclaim, "what, how can this be so perfect in 1969 from a quarter million miles away?" But, when it's not perfect, you idiots proclaim, "what, why aren't the images better?" It's sickening. YOU SAID: "You mean facts like this from NASA? https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/Apollo_11_TV_Tapes_Report.pdf From page 2: "Aside from a few canisters of Apollo 9 telemetry tapes still stored at the WNRC, the Apollo-era telemetry tapes no longer exist-anywhere." == Yeah, because all of the important data had been transferred to the archives, and the original tapes were reused. But, stop tapdancing here. It doesn't matter. No amount of telemetry is going to convince a non-believer of anything. If you knew the readings from battery #3 of the Apollo 16 lander, would that convince you? I mean, this is the truly amazing part of this ridiculous claim. Conspiratards act as if, "oh, if only we had those original tapes, I'd believe it." Bullshit. Nobody even knew about those tapes until decades later. It made no difference on anybody's beliefs, or non-beliefs. Now, it's just taken completely out of context, and conspiratards use it as fuel to make an argument they don't understand. I have yet to meet a single conspiratard who even knows what EXACT data was on those tapes. All they know is that they're supposed to complain about the fact that NASA doesn't have them any longer. It's pure bullshit.
    2
  6810. No, the 2008 Japanese Selene orbiter took some images, but none were clear enough to see the landers. It crashed into the moon a year or two later.
    2
  6811. So, you're not aware that there already is a camera watching Earth 24/7, but, you declare victory and think everyone ELSE has lost their minds? Have you looked into the mirror lately, dewdrop?
    2
  6812. "To view the full rotation of Earth in the black void of space. It's NEVER been captured." Huh? I already pointed out EPIC/DSCOVR in a prior message, and you just laughed. Sorry, dewdrop. You don't get to ask for something, then laugh when you get it, then pretend you never got what you asked for. And, how about Japan's Himawari-8? That's a real time stream of Earth from a geosync satellite. If you want to sit there for a day and watch, yeah, you'll get exactly what you're asking for (again). Or, are you one of those people who think the Earth should rotate like 10 times a minute or something?
    2
  6813. 1) Did you look at the two satellites that I pointed out? 2) You want to watch the Earth rotate, right? Give me a rough idea, how fast do you think it will rotate in any kind of live stream? How long will it take to rotate once?
    2
  6814. He didn't use the Taser because of theft. He used it to force compliance. She was resisting arrest. It wouldn't matter if the original suspicion was murder, or theft, or jaywalking. If you resist arrest, you're getting the Taser.
    2
  6815. So, 450,000 people worked on Apollo. 50 years later, the son of a guard "confesses" on behalf of his dead father, on a Bart Sibrel video (convicted criminal taxi cab driver, who has a track record of fabricating false videos). This is the best you can do? A confession from a guy who wasn't even involved with Apollo, and whose dad was a security guard? I mean, wow. Talk about grasping at straws.
    2
  6816. YOU SAID: "where's the link to the pictures from the telescope they left on the moon?" == Yeah, tell me about it. The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal website has every single photograph taken while on the moon... short of the film roll Pete Conrad accidentally left on the lunar surface on Apollo 12, and, for some reason, it's also lacking the Apollo 16 photos from the UV telescope. It's obvious about why the missing Apollo 12 photos aren't on the website, because that film roll never came home. But, why aren't the Apollo 16 UV photos there?? Beats me. But, if you search YouTube for "Apollo 16 UVC slideshow Far Ultraviolet Camera/Spectrograph S201 AS16-123," you can see those photos, and the description contains a link to download them yourself.
    2
  6817. Bingo. Thankfully, she didn't get it.
    2
  6818. YOU SAID: "Come on guys, just look at the "Blue marble photo. Isn't that Africa right above North America." == Um, no. Africa is in the photo. It's the main continent seen, as a matter of fact. But, North America is on the other side of the globe, and isn't visible in that photo. YOU SAID: "I didn't know that if u go North of Alaska, u can reach the Sahara desert." == Well, if you go far enough, such that you go north, then back south, eventually, sure, you can get there. But, that's not what you meant. YOU SAID: "I meen u can clearly see Saudi Arabia almost at the North Pole." == Pffttt. The SOUTH POLE is visible in that photo. The north pole is not. Have you never seen a globe in your lifetime? YOU SAID: "So is that a legit photo taken from space?" == Go back to school. You might learn something.
    2
  6819. You pay nothing? How is this "clear pic" supposed to be taken for free?
    2
  6820. There are plenty of real photos from the mission itself. But, the point of this video is to speculate on what it might look like after +50 years of sitting on the moon.
    2
  6821. He is widely considered to be the origin and ultimate authority in denier circles. Not kidding. That says a lot right there.
    2
  6822. "everything is light and floating, you don't have to do such a quick action because of the scoop you have in your hand" What in the world are you babbling? Good grief. What do you think should be "floating"? And, quick action? Are we looking at the same clip?
    2
  6823.  @Cliffmchrist  Since he refuses to reply, I'll reply for him: "Yeah, but none of your 23 items addresses why Pettit said we lost the technology. And, why are they still testing the Van Allen belts (or, as he says, Van Halen belts), if they tested during Apollo? And, since they haven't gone back in 50 years, this means it's fake. Therefore, I have successfully ignored your 23 items."
    2
  6824. "Where is the moon buggy?" There are three, they're still at the Apollo 15/16/17 landing sites.
    2
  6825. "why is the moon buggy not still there" Not the brightest bulb, eh?
    2
  6826. Better watch out, your stupid is showing.
    2
  6827. What's "amusing" about it? What difference would it have made to you? They started the Apollo program in 1961 that was going to put people on the moon and bring them back home. It occupied about 4.5% of the entire federal budget at the time in hard costs, and approximately 2% more in soft costs and international support. What possible reason would there have been to begin ANOTHER moonshot program to return a probe from the moon, while they were putting all of their efforts into Apollo? Why? So 50 years later, a nut like you can't complain that there wasn't a return probe? They landed a bunch of probes on the moon before Apollo, but, because they didn't include any returning to Earth, this "amuses" you? So, NASA was supposed to begin an entirely different and new moon landing program, back in the mid 1960s, to return a probe from the moon, so that a dewdrop like you doesn't get "amused"?
    2
  6828.  @buy_my_bath_water  YOU SAID: "there is no evidence that he planned a murder" == WHAT??? What ARE you talking about?? The man unscrewed the lights in his house so the teens couldn't see him. He got two guns ready. He went outside, got two tarps to use as body bags, and brought them inside where he planned on killing them (this is on video). He parked his car a quarter mile away so the teens wouldn't know he was there. He rehearsed on a recording what he planned on telling police and friends about the killings (before he killed them). He said on that same recording that he planned on shooting "in the left eye," and, then, hours later, when the girl arrived, he shot her from point-blank range in the left eye twice. If that's not planning a murder, I don't know what is. Furthermore, EVERYONE disagrees with you. The police investigators. The DA and the rest of the attorneys. The judges. The jury members. Then, this case was escalated to the appellate court, the state supreme court, and even the federal supreme court, none of whom would take his appeal (because they think he's guilty also). NOBODY agrees with you. Good grief.
    2
  6829. Well, I have no idea if the Earth is the correct size in that photo or not. I haven't done the math. But, I don't really care, because the Earth wasn't in the original shot. That's photo AS17-140-21497. I don't know why the editors of this video decided to paste in a photo of Earth into an original photo that didn't have the Earth in it. But, that's what they did. There are hundreds of photos that actually contain the Earth in them. You're welcome to go through them and do the math against the lens used for each one of them, and compare to relative objects in frame, etc. If you spot a single one where the Earth is the wrong size, you'll be the first.
    2
  6830. C'mon man. Kick that addiction. Look what it's done to your brain.
    2
  6831. Yet, you couldn't manage to key in that very question into Google?
    2
  6832. You silly dewdrops never check your own "facts" (not facts). There was never a single time when the delays were wrong. But, you hoax nuts don't understand it. First of all, documentaries or TV shows sometimes edit the audio to skip the long delays. Viewers don't like listening to it. So, they sometimes edit accordingly. Secondly, you people never seem to be aware about where the recording is taking place (in Houston). There's no reason to expect a delay when an astronaut speaks and Houston answers. They are not required to wait 2.6 seconds before making a reply. But, you always hear a delay (in the original recordings) when Houston speaks and an astronaut answers.
    2
  6833. Why? Why would you believe such a ridiculous thing? Because a Pink Floyd song says "dark side of the moon"? Have you never looked up? See that big thing in the sky we call "the moon"? Sometimes it's "full" (the entire side facing us is lit up). Sometimes it's "new" (the entire side facing us is dark). Sometimes you can only see a quarter of it (some of the side facing us is dark, and some is light). You can see with your own two eyes for your entire life that there is no permanent dark side or light side, yet, somehow, you don't realize it?
    2
  6834. "brought back tons of moon soil" Um, no. About 800 pounds isn't "tons." And, most wasn't "soil" but was rocks.
    2
  6835. "Why is it so eager to want to "borrow"" Well, the USA has lent samples to China for decades. Why shouldn't they want them to return the favor?
    2
  6836. "And the composition of the Nasa moon soil is close to what's from the earth" Hilarious!! Dewdrop, do you think we've EVER found a single sample of ANY rock on Earth that has never been exposed to moisture or oxygen? Well, that's what they have with the lunar samples. And, beyond just that, um, no, they do not resemble any Earth rocks.
    2
  6837.  @therealzilch  It's more of the same with these dewdrops. If they DO ask for samples from China, this means Apollo was fake because they need real samples because the Apollo ones weren't real. If they DON'T ask for samples, this means Apollo was fake because they don't want anybody to be able to do a side-by-side comparison. Either way, same conclusion.
    2
  6838.  @stusue9733  "Ummm I can't find where NASA is eager for samples." Then you haven't watched enough conspiracy videos.
    2
  6839. What in the world is wrong with you. If you pause at 0:08, and go frame by frame, you can see the guy had a gun pointed directly at the cop's head. And, huh? They planned ahead to have a maniac wearing a ski mask during a hot summer pull a gun on the cop? Sorry, dewdrop, your hatred is showing.
    2
  6840.  @DoctorKnox  Ah, I see the cop's hand going for the handle at 0:06 to 0:07. But, you may indeed be correct. It sure seemed like he opened the door. But, yeah, maybe the door started to open just at the same time as the cop's hand was going for the handle. My apologies. It's a close one.
    2
  6841. Hubble's best resolution of the moon would yield a surface area of 160 feet x 160 feet per pixel. You cannot see any of this stuff with Hubble, not even a 30x30 lander.
    2
  6842. You know, I really hate to see what happened to her. It's tragic. However, "sweet soul"? A woman who abandoned her two kids, finding meth more important? Stealing repeatedly? This is "sweet"?
    2
  6843. And, she might still be alive today if they had thrown her in prison.
    2
  6844. How'd they "compartmentalize" the dozens of countries (including enemies) that tracked the Apollo missions to the moon and back with radar and radio telescopes?
    2
  6845. "Ok we went to the moon" Congratulations on the only thing you said that is correct. "even though Gus Grissom hung a lemon on his spacecraft." No, dewdrop. He hung a lemon on the simulator. No lemons have ever been hung on the spacecraft. But, that's a minor quibble, because yes, the spacecraft had a lot of problems. That's why they never put people inside a block-1 again. All subsequent missions took place in the revamped block-2 craft, even when the docking hatch wasn't required. "BUT why did Grissom's widow, Betty, agrees with her son's claim that her husband had been murdered." That's a bit of a stretch. Her version isn't that Apollo was a conspiracy. She felt that it was major negligence akin to murder. She might be right. They kept pushing the timeline, and the block-1 was far too glitchy to fly humans. It would be fine for unmanned flights (which they did do with block-1s). But, yeah, that craft was too rushed. But, on the flipside, the astronauts all signed their lives away by signing up for the program. There were no promises that it was risk free. Eventually, they just paid her as a token of not wanting the bad press, and risking expensive prolonged litigation. What difference does this make to the veracity of Apollo? Yes, accidents happen. It doesn't change the fact that they sent people to the moon 9 times.
    2
  6846. Why does your belief or disbelief depend on what other countries or future generations do or don't do? Magellan sailed around the world, and that wasn't repeated for 50 years. So, does that mean Magellan never sailed around the world? People haven't returned to the moon since 1972 because congress never funded another program to do so. That is, until Artemis was approved in 2018, and funding began in 2019. So, what's your beef? Why does this matter, and not the evidence itself?
    2
  6847.  @Jimmy-tq8dk  "point to the so-called punctuation errors in what I wrote" Says the guy who doesn't use periods. Utter hilarity. Oh, and you do know that YouTube shows when a posting has been edited, right?
    2
  6848.  @Jimmy-tq8dk  Hilarious again! Not only do you challenge people to show you your punctuation errors, but, you thumbs-up your own comments. What a winner.
    2
  6849.  @stephenpage-murray7226  Just one small clarification: yes, the Saturn V boosters for Apollo 18/19/20 were basically "finished." They weren't quite 100% finished, some minor final assembly stuff, but, yeah, close enough to call them finished. No real argument there. But, the landers were not finished. The one for Apollo 18 was closest to being finished, of course, and became a museum piece. It is missing the navigation computer, and much of the electronics. The antennae that are on it were added later, and are just cosmetic replicas. But, ok, it was close enough to being finished that I wouldn't even argue a lot about that one. But, the ones for Apollo 19 and 20 were so far from being finished that they just scrapped them entirely. So, I wouldn't use the word "completed" about those missions. However, I'm just nitpicking, and I definitely am not trying to denigrate your underlying point. Your main point was obviously valid... they were far enough along on Apollo 18/19/20 that they definitely lost a lot by canceling them, leaving unused hardware to be put into museums. Also, only one Saturn V was used for Skylab. That was the one that put Skylab up into orbit. The other Skylab launches (to launch the crews) used the Saturn 1B.
    2
  6850.  @stephenpage-murray7226  Yeah, sometimes I go overboard on the details. But, the flipside is, whenever I don't, and I try to keep an answer brief, they just throw it back in my face that I wasn't accurate enough. With these people, there's no way to win.
    2
  6851. What balls?
    2
  6852. Well, then she should have at least cooperated at a very basic level, rather than refusing to ID, obstructing, and obfuscating, and resisting arrest.
    2
  6853. I suppose "over 40 years" is technically correct. However, nobody who actually knows the years would ever pick "40" as the number to question, given that it's actually been 52 years. And, the answer to your question is because nobody has found that it would be worth the effort and money to do so. But, Artemis is progressing.
    2
  6854.  @occhamite  "Not to mention Starship/HLS" Let's hope not. But, I predict Uncle Sam will give them $3 billion more before finally abandoning it altogether. Maezawa already pulled out. Lueders is no longer at NASA to protect that hideous choice. Blue is well underway with a superior design. So, let's hope I'm wrong about the $3 billion, and that they cut it off before putting in another dime of the public's money. But, I doubt I'm wrong.
    2
  6855. I'll add to what you said: July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. She suffered nearly zero shame from the arrest, because none of the major news outlets even covered it until after the arrest video was released, and nobody saw it while she was alive. Side note: she was a convicted felon who spent time in a Florida prison, and had a million other various arrests, and according to her landlord, she was a stripper at the local club. I'd eat my hat if she wasn't making "public beach" content, and was trying to cry her way out of an arrest before they looked her up and found open warrants.
    2
  6856. Well, then Smith should have gone back to the cops once he knew who was robbing him. But, he didn't. Once he knew who they were, he never went back to the police again. Police don't have magic crystal balls. If it's not clear who was breaking in, they can't magically wave a wand and know who it was.
    2
  6857. Zero gravity? Huh?
    2
  6858. And a mask, don't forget. By the way, the story is worse than even that. Mark's father was interviewed twice. One time, he said that Mark was going to see who was in the car (i.e. he knew someone was inside, and was going to ask who it was). In a different interview, he said he didn't know what happened, but, definitely knew Mark didn't think anybody was in the car. That much he knows for sure. Now, do you suppose the attorney told him in between the two interviews that it's a really bad idea to tell everyone that Mark knew someone was in the car, and went up to it with a gun drawn, and he should say that Mark thought the car was abandoned instead? Would that explain the change in the story? And, if Mark died 20 seconds after getting shot, how would the father know what Mark was thinking anyway?
    2
  6859. Huh? This incident didn't hit social media until 1.5 years after she died. You don't blindly believe the tone set forth in videos made by Inside Edition, do you? Arrest = July 2021 Suicide = March 2022 Arrest video made public = November 2023 If you believe any claptrap you see on Inside Edition, would you like to buy a bridge I have for sale?
    2
  6860. Well, you're wrong about the word "skeptics." I don't think I've ever seen an actually "skeptical" person deny the moon landings. Skepticism is a method of thought, it's a method of analysis. What those moon landing deniers are doing isn't skeptical, it's just blind rejection. But, the rest of what you wrote is accurate.
    2
  6861. I think you have a bit of dyslexia when it comes to numbers. The moon landings started in 1969, not 1699.
    2
  6862. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    2
  6863. People who want to make "public beach" video content.
    2
  6864. Yes, and I wasn't joking. Her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club. So, what I said makes sense.
    2
  6865. "Ask yourself why haven't they been back since" Huh? They sent men to the moon 9 times, and landed 6 of those times. How is that NOT going back?
    2
  6866. Videos, not pictures. And, the DSN consisted of Australia, Spain, and Goldstone, not just Australia. It depended upon which country/dish had the best angle to the moon as the Earth rotated.
    2
  6867. So, you saw conspiracy videos that showed you a bunch of random and out of context clips of astronauts saying they could or couldn't see stars in unknown conditions and contexts, and you didn't laugh? You thought it was "real'? And, you saw those same video makers present some deceptive nonsense about wire harnesses? Why would you believe a single thing out of these dishonest people making those dishonest videos?
    2
  6868. A) To answer the question, the ascent engine had 3500 pounds of thrust. The craft weighed (in lunar gravity) about 1950 pounds (give or take per mission). B) It's confusing about why you'd ask about the lunar module going back to Earth. Are you under the impression that the lunar modules ever did that? The answer is no, the lunar modules never went back to Earth, except on Apollo 13, which never landed on the moon.
    2
  6869. Thanks for proving (yet again) that nobody could possibly ever have a dialog with you. You're wrong. It's easily demonstrated that you're wrong.
    2
  6870. How can I possibly ever prove anything to someone who just changes topics? That's what you did in this thread. That's what you did in the other thread. Every time I've corrected you about the surface temperatures of the moon, and told you that the Apollo missions always landed early in the lunar morning, long before the surface got very hot, you have simply changed the topic again. You tried to talk about the color of the rocks. You've tried to talk about the Van Allen belts. Every time I've addressed you, your ONLY response has been to change to a different topic. So, how can anybody possibly ever demonstrate ANYTHING to you, if your only replies are to switch to a different topic? Good grief. This is ridiculous. You don't know what you're talking about!!! How do you think this works? The entire world's experts forgot the surface temperature of the moon, and you think YOU know it better?
    2
  6871. Another attempt to avoid talking about your own original topic. Another attempt to keep changing topics. When that fails, just attack the messenger, right?
    2
  6872. Prove WHAT? The temperature of the lunar surface in the early morning? I mean, talk about shifting the burden around. YOU stated the temperature. If you're going to sit there and say "prove it" about the lunar surface temperatures, then why aren't YOU proving what YOU said? Good grief. I mean, not only can't you stay on topic, but, you're sitting here, treating YouTube comments like a science journal. So, here's what you do: if you don't believe that the maximum surface temperature is 120 (C), and you think it's really 160 (C), you write it up and submit it to cosmology journals. If you think the lunar morning (when Apollo landed) had those temperatures, instead of the well understood science for the past 60 years as produced by every country that has sent anything to the moon, that universally say those are the afternoon temperatures, then you write it up and send it to the science journals. Sitting here on YouTube and declaring that the entire planet's scientists are wrong about science is what CRACKPOTS do.
    2
  6873. "I read that there can be a jump up to 160 degrees" Do you believe everything you read? Where is the actual scientific data? "The surface temperature varies from +117 degrees in clear sunlight on a lunar afternoon to -172 degrees on a deep lunar night..." So, now you're saying the maximum is 117 (C), which is pretty close to the 120 (C) that I said. Not the 160 degrees (C) you complained about. So, does this mean you are now admitting that I was correct? How many messages into this thread are we? You couldn't muster up the courage to admit I was correct until now? "If at noon the temperature is +117 degrees, is it not logical to assume that when the Sun rises to 10 grades," I am sorry, but, the language barrier must be an issue right now. I do not know what "10 grades" means in terms of sun rising. Can you maybe try to write it another way? I am sure in your language this means something, but, in English, I don't understand. Sorry. "the surface temperature will be at least +80 degrees?" No astronaut was on the lunar surface for +80 (C) either. But, keep in mind, your original posting complained of 160 (C). "Let's also not forget that on the Moon, the Sun takes more than 24 Earth hours to be at such an altitude." Yes. A lunar "day" is 708 hours (from sunrise to sunrise). When the sun rises on the moon, it takes 177 hours before reaching high noon, another 177 hours before the sun goes down, and 354 hours of night, then the sun rises again. "The expedition on the moon lasted 22 hours, respectively, there was a solstice peak on the moon and the astronauts left the moon at a temperature of +117 degrees? I don't think." Your last sentence there was correct. You don't think. The rest of what you just said was ridiculous and wrong. "Another controversial point, how did they fly to the moon, which was on a trajectory closer to the sun than the earth?" Well, first of all, the moon was closer (than Earth) to the sun for Apollo 11, 16, and 17. The moon was further (than Earth) to the sun for Apollo 12, 14, and 15. But, why do you think this matters? The sun is 90 million miles away. Relatively speaking, the moon and Earth are mostly the same distance to the sun on average. The moon is only an average of 238,000 miles away from the Earth, which is not very different when compared to 90 million miles. During the Apollo missions, the distance to the sun only varied slightly. For Apollo 15, for example, the distance from Earth to the sun and the distance from the moon to the sun was within 1000 miles of being the same distance for most of the journey. Touchdown was just after the quarter moon (phase), so, the Earth and moon were the same distance to the sun during the journey to the moon. Anyway, I fail to understand what the "controversy" is over this. Who cares? Why does this matter to you? Do you think a few thousand miles matters when you're 90 million miles away from the sun? "The spacecraft apparently hid under the shadow of the moon for 11 whole days of flight." Wrong. This makes no sense whatsoever. "But for some reason you are trying to condemn me, belittle me" You are accusing thousands of people of being criminals, on the basis of absolute gibberish. You do not get to play the victim. "and continue to prove your case." What have I tried to prove? The only thing I've proven is that you change topics constantly, and refuse (until this message) to actually address the surface temperature topic!!!! "they do it for money." There is something severely wrong with you. Believe me, Apollo isn't your problem. You have VERY severe issues that have nothing to do with Apollo.
    2
  6874. Nobody filmed the return takeoff of Apollo 11. They didn't have the external camera hooked up, and they didn't turn on the internal camera until they were at about 1000 feet.
    2
  6875. Well, that's one way to demonstrate that you have no understanding of film exposure.
    2
  6876. "how was it possible for the module to return a day faster than to get there?" It didn't, at least not quite to the extent you're claiming. For example, the TLI burn (the burn that sent them out of Earth orbit and toward the moon) on Apollo 11 happened at 2:50:13 into the mission (2 hours, 50 minutes, 13 seconds). Then, the burn to drop them into lunar orbit happened at 75:49:50 into the mission. Basically, this is about 73 hours to get to the moon. On the return trip, the TEI burn (the burn to break lunar orbit and head back to Earth) happened at 135:23:42. The capsule entered the atmosphere at 195:03:05. That's about 60 hours. So, it's not a day faster, it's about a half day faster. And, the answer is because they took a far less direct path in getting to the moon than the path to return to Earth. Why? Because they had to send the astronauts way out "in front of the moon" (as it traverses through space), with a wider arc in the trajectory. They wanted to conserve on energy, and gently/slowly approach the moon at a minimal energy state, so, as they got to about 85% of the journey toward the moon, the command module would barely be moving (relatively speaking), and then the moon comes closer (as it's in Earth's orbit), and gently tugs the craft as close to being a lunar orbital pathway as possible, thus minimizing the amount of energy it took to drop it into a circular orbit. As you pointed out, Earth's gravity is tugging back the entire voyage, slowing the craft, until finally the moon's gravity is more dominant than Earth's gravity, and it speeds up again. Well, they didn't care about any of that on the way back home, because they weren't going to use fuel to slow the craft down for reentry. The heat shield was designed to do that work. So, they really weren't trying to put the craft on some sort of wide arc to gently get back to Earth. And, it wouldn't work the same anyway, since the Earth's positioning on the return isn't in orbit around the moon (it's the other way around). They didn't have to "lead" the Earth's position, aiming at a wide arc out in front of the planet to intercept its orbit. They just pointed the craft almost straight at the Earth's terminator, and headed home. The Earth's gravity did the rest of the work. "when was the fastest rate of speed achieved, the answer is that of the launch from earth" Pffttt. That's ridiculous, and you know it. The launch from Earth put it into orbit at about 17,500 mph. Then, they checked out the spacecraft, made sure everything was ok, fixed their problems for a couple of orbits, and then did the TLI burn to bring them up to about 24,500 mph. To claim that the launch from Earth was faster than TLI is just plain silly.
    2
  6877. "You could have a look at the copyright images that NASA has of the flight path" There are no copyrights when it comes to Apollo. There are copyrights on the various assemblies of images that were put together. There are copyrights on the text descriptions of images. But, the images themselves aren't copyrighted. But, anyway, it doesn't matter, that's just a minor quibble. I already outlined the approach vs. journey home. If you looked at some images that were oversimplified, well, so be it. But, the actual flight paths toward home vs. toward on the way to the moon were not the same. "and see that the paths were no different other than circling the moon more times than they did getting there." How would that even work? As I said, the moon orbits Earth, not the other way around. They had to take a more wide arc, aiming forward of the moon's position in the sky, in anticipation of where the moon would be located 73 hours later. They also took it even further forward of the moon so that it would be easier (less energy) to drop it into lunar orbit. None of that is relevant to going back home. I'm sorry if you don't understand it. But, that's orbital mechanics for you, most people don't understand. That old phrase "it's not rocket science" has an origin in the fact that this stuff isn't always very intuitive. I'm sorry you saw some oversimplified diagram, rather than actually looking at the mission logs, but, hey, whatever, that's your own issue. "Also, they only had 15 seconds of fuel left when they landed on the moon." They don't actually know exactly. There were two different gauges, and they didn't exactly agree with each other. But, yeah, that's close enough to whatever the true number is (which we'll never know). "We have 15 seconds of fuel left." Buzz Aldrin." Yes, the protocol was to take the most conservative number of the two. So what? Was there a point here? I truly fail to understand what this has to do with the path home, etc. Who cares how much fuel was still in the descent stage? "They used "free-return trajectory" from the moon's gravitational pull to gain speed to get back." That is not what a free return trajectory means. A free return trajectory describes the approach to the moon from Earth. It means that the craft will pass by the moon (pretty closely), and the moon's gravity will whip it around and send it back toward Earth, without any rocket input to make that happen. That's what a free return trajectory means. Once they dropped into lunar orbit, landed on the moon, ascended back to the command module, and then accelerated away from the moon, that term "free return trajectory" does not apply. You do not know what you are talking about. "Now how did they go from 15 seconds of fuel to 435 seconds of fuel just to lift off the moon??" Dewdrop, it was 15 seconds of fuel IN THE DESCENT STAGE. The ascent stage had its own fuel tanks (which, by the way, they hadn't even used yet, except for RCS). Good grief. "Did Buzz not know what he was talking about?" Let's see. So, I basically have two choices here: Choice A) The guy who has a doctorate in orbital mechanics from MIT, shot down two enemy Mig fighters, an Air Force brigadier general, Air Force Distinguished Service Medal, Distinguished Flying Cross, Air Medal, Congressional Gold Medal, Presidential Medal of Freedom, NASA Distinguished Service Medal, NASA Exceptional Service Medal, first in his class at West Point, also has a degree in mechanical engineering, flew in both Gemini and Apollo, and walked on the moon... didn't know what he was talking about? Or, Choice B) You don't know the difference between the ascent stage and descent stage of the Apollo craft? "That's just the fuel to lift off" In the ascent stage. They left the descent stage on the moon. "and not counting the fuel they needed to stay in orbit 31 times before leaving" And, why would you think they need any fuel to stay in orbit? What ARE you talking about?
    2
  6878. "Why would they need fuel to fight off their gravitational pull of the moon?" You commented about them using fuel to stay in orbit. You don't burn fuel to stay in orbit. Orbits do decay, yes, but, it takes years. "Do inner orbit astronauts" What's an "inner orbit"? "use fuel to keep from being pulled down by the Earth's gravity?" Well, astronauts don't use fuel. Craft sometimes do. But, once in orbit, a craft doesn't need to use fuel to stay in orbit, except every couple of years just to get a boost because of the drag. There are no perfect vacuums, especially in low orbit. You won't use fuel to stay in orbit a day or two. But, yes, eventually, your craft slows down a little bit due to drag on the faint amount of trace gasses. "Do not airplane pilots fly nose up to also combat gravitational pull?" No. For the most part, the wings give the lift. Depending on the craft, however, they will go nose up to climb faster. But, virtually all airplanes are capable of climbing without pulling up on the nose. The wings do the work of combatting gravity. "What do you mean fuel is not needed?" What in the world are you talking about? I didn't say they didn't need fuel to get to orbit. I said that they had completely unused fuel tanks in the ascent stage, and that you were quoting how much fuel was remaining in the descent stage, which is completely irrelevant. "Fuel is needed to push against gravity in order to pick up speed. Without gravity there is no matter elsewhere for them to use to even move. You have to have matter for matter to move and space without gravity, a planet, or moon has none." So, you're trying to teach me something? You? You? The guy who doesn't know what a free return trajectory is? The guy who confuses the ascent stage fuel with the descent stage fuel? The guy who refuses to address the fact that going to the moon, they had to send it on a wide arc for an "intercept course" with the moon for a position it would be in 73 hours later, and that simply wasn't the case when going back home? You? The guy who thought the launch speed from Earth was faster than the TLI speed to the moon? You're going to teach me? "They had fuel to accomplish 24200mph, pushing against gravity," Well, the Saturn V did. But, the lunar module ascent stage only had to accelerate to 3,600 mph. And, then the command/service module only had to accelerate from about 3,600 mph to about 5,800 mph. After that, no additional fuel was required on the way home for the command module to get back up to 24,000 mph, because Earth's gravity did that. "which put them at a higher rate of speed getting to the moon than they did getting back." No, the speeds were about the same. Except, on the way to the moon, the Saturn V boosted them up above 24,000 mph. And, on the way back, Earth's gravity accelerated them to that same approximate speed (give or take an insignificant amount). "SO, how did they accomplish higher speeds getting back than they did getting there with much less fuel??" Earth's gravity. They fought against Earth's gravity on the way there. They had Earth's gravity to assist on the way home. And, they left half of the craft behind. If you throw a rock up to the rooftop of a skyscraper, how much energy does it take you? Now, chop that rock in half, and toss it over the edge of the skyscraper to fall back down to the ground. How much energy did that take you? And, for Apollo, they even preserved most of the energy in the command module, because it maintained the 3,600 mph orbital speed the entire time. All they needed was a short burn to break out of lunar gravity, and then Earth's gravity did the rest. "You don't need to arch out to catch the moon." If you aimed directly at the moon when you do your TLI burn, dewdrop, sorry, but the moon isn't going to be in that same spot 73 hours later. Yes, you have to aim AHEAD of the moon's trajectory, in order to meet it 73 hours later. Again, why in the world do you think you know this stuff? Why? Literally every single thing you've written has been wrong. You don't know anything. You don't even know the definitions of the words you use. Yet, you think the entire planet's aerospace engineers and physicists somehow got it all wrong? "If you calculate the moon will be in a given space at a given time then you can fly straight if timed right." Wrong. The moon's gravity causes it to arc. So, you have to aim ahead, so it arcs to intercept. There is no such concept of flying to the moon in a straight line. If you tried that, the moon would pass your line of flight pretty darned quickly. Then, yeah, the moon's gravity would try to tug you along, but, there's not enough potential energy there for that to actually work. No. You have to fire the rocket well ahead of where the moon is, and plan for the arc throughout the entire voyage. "The same thing happens when a quarterback leads a receiver. He throws the ball straight and it's the receiver who catches the ball on his planned route. Only difference, the astronauts control the catch and not the quarterback. No need to arch out." Dewdrop, why are you here? You clearly don't actually want answers to your questions. You have no bloody idea what in the world you're talking about. But, it doesn't phase you one bit. You had no idea about which fuel tanks they were talking about when they said there were 15 seconds remaining. You had no idea what a free return trajectory is. You clearly have no understanding of orbital mechanics. What in the world is your purpose here? You spew garbage left and right, pretending as if YOU understand the topic better than Buzz Aldrin, who holds a doctorate in orbital mechanics from MIT. It's ridiculous. Literally hundreds of people programmed those massive guidance computers using the complex orbital mechanics involved with the Earth/moon gravitational system. We're talking about engineers from IBM, MIT, Draper Labs, and Raytheon. But, nope, you, a YouTube comment crusader who didn't understand what was meant by 15 seconds of fuel remaining... you think they were all wrong, and didn't understand the topic... and you do?
    2
  6879.  @critthought2866  I deleted my comment after your revisions.
    2
  6880.  @critthought2866  I never saw any response from you. YouTube censorship again, no doubt.
    2
  6881. And, my response to Zack about "uniformed" and "flat Earth" has disappeared also. Good grief. I'm getting really sick of this level of censorship by YouTube. It's almost random at this point.
    2
  6882. You wrote this to the other guy, but I will reply anyway. "Laws of motion state that a body at rest stays at rest and a body in motion stays in that current motion unless it interacts with an external force. What do you think that external force is?" Gravity. The exact force that causes the spacecraft's path to arc on its way to the moon. The exact force you then denied, when you insisted that they could take a straight path ahead of the moon's trajectory, failing to realize that the moon's gravity is going to arc the path that the craft takes. As for the rest of your comments (i.e. flash photography, etc.), well, I understood what you meant. The other guy obviously didn't. But, that's not his fault. See, the real issue is that you can barely write a coherent thought. The stuff you were saying was so disjointed that I feel that most people wouldn't have grasped it, with the wording you used. The gap in communication was your own fault. It's also pretty clear at this point that you are simply never going to admit being wrong about anything. You clearly do not understand orbital mechanics. You refuse to admit it. You clearly don't even understand your own terminology, like when you said that they took a "free return trajectory" back home (which makes absolutely no sense, as I explained), because that phrase doesn't mean what you think it means. You don't know an arch from an arc. You refuse to answer any questions or challenges. All you do is keep spewing more of the same gibberish. Clearly, YouTube comments isn't the correct path for you. If you believe that the entirety of the engineers in the Apollo program couldn't figure this out, and they made mistakes on their trajectories, then you really should write up a paper on orbital mechanics for moon approaches and return paths, showing your calculations, and proving them all wrong that way. Submit the paper into any number of the many journals around the world available for peer reviewing orbital mechanics. Demonstrate that Apollo didn't happen because they got the orbital mechanics all wrong, via the scientific method. But, see, here's the thing, dewdrop, nobody will ever listen to you as long as you don't know the definitions of the words you use. If you write in any of those journal articles that you think they used a "free return trajectory" on any mission besides Apollo 13 (which never dropped into lunar orbit at all), sorry, you're simply going to be laughed out the door. And, when you write articles for peer review, you need to be prepared to actually defend challenges to your position, and answer questions when asked. You don't get to ignore them, as you've done here. It's quite obvious that you believe I should turn in my degrees, and that somehow you think you know this topic better than I do. So, forget YouTube, and go straight to the journals. It's obvious you won't listen to me here. But, let me know when you publish, and in which journal, and I'll write a rebuttal in the very same journal you publish in. You won't listen to me here, so, maybe you'll listen via the scientific method of peer review.
    2
  6883. "They left the Earth's orbit at 12:00am, that's midnight" It launched at about 12:33am at local time in Florida, or 11:33 in Houston time. TLI was at 3:18 into the mission, so, that's about 3:51am Florida time, or 2:51am Houston time. "and placed the moon on the opposite side of the planet." Dewdrop, you do realize the Earth is rotating, don't you? You do realize that it doesn't matter about what time it is in any timezone on Earth, right? They're going to run the TLI burn whenever and wherever sends them to the moon. In the case of Apollo 17, the TLI burn took place when they were over the Atlantic, about to head over the Southern area of Africa, basically at high noon for that part of the world.
    2
  6884. "Now tell me how many times will the moon circle the planet in 2.5 days" None. It will circle the moon only about 10% of one orbit. So, around 0.1 times. "and where will it be at the end point??" By "end point," I assume you mean when the lunar orbit insertion burn happens. That would be approximately 167,000 miles further west in its orbital trajectory than when the TLI burn happened. However, as I stated, they had to aim the rocket even further west than that, because, as I said (which you fail to understand), the moon's gravity is causing their trajectory to arc the entire voyage. If they had aimed at only 167,000 miles west of the moon at TLI, then the arc would put them in the wrong place. Sorry, once again, you do not know anything about orbital dynamics.
    2
  6885. "Then explain how the moon's gravitational pull acts the same way towards the space module for 2.5 days" The moon's gravity pulls the craft toward it. When the moon is to the "right" (so to speak) of the craft's actual path, the craft arcs to the right. Again, you yourself do not even understand the "figure 8" you're quoting from. You got yourself married to an extremely oversimplified diagram made for common people to understand (not actual physicists working on trajectories). And, even then, you still got it wrong. Again, why aren't you doing what I said? Why aren't you writing this up for the journals? Are you even reading this at this point? You keep avoiding answering any questions or challenges. In one ear, out the other. Can you prove you're even reading this by writing "green" at the top of your next reply? In the meantime, when are you going to admit the following? 1) You had no understanding of the 15 seconds of fuel you brought up. You were referring to descent fuel, and you were completely unaware that the ascent stage had its own fuel tanks, separate, and fully unused until liftoff? Will you admit this? 2) You had no understanding of what "free return trajectory" means. You thought the used a free return trajectory after being in lunar orbit. But, that concept has no meaning at that point. A free return trajectory means that the craft will never enter lunar orbit, and instead, it is on a pathway to return to Earth by using no rocket burns, and just using the moon's gravity to reverse direction back to Earth. Again, ZERO rocket burns while at the moon if you're on a free return trajectory. And, therefore, this doesn't apply to the conditions you stated. Will you admit this? 3) You do NOT know more about orbital mechanics than Buzz Aldrin, who holds a doctorate from MIT in the subject. Yet, you mockingly pretend you do, while you utterly butcher orbital mechanics. Why do you pretend? 4) Your orbital mechanics model of flying to the moon and back is completely flawed. You opened by loosely stating that gravity might play a role, but, immediately dismissed it. You claimed that they came back a full day quicker than it took to get there. I proved that wrong, and it was more like a half day. I said that the reason was that they needed to fling the craft far more outward and indirect on the path to the moon, and demonstrated why. And, I also said that they intentionally let the craft just barely scrape itself into its pathway with the moon, going the slowest possible speed when at the 85% distance, resulting in a minimal energy state to enter lunar orbit. I said they had no such concerns on the return trip, and there is no real concept of sending the craft on some sort of "intercept course" with the Earth, because the Earth wasn't in orbit around the moon, it's the other way around. Ever since then, all you've done is tapdance and pretend your model of orbital mechanics is correct, even though it's not. You sit there and accuse the hundreds of engineers at MIT, Draper Labs, IBM, and Raytheon, who plotted those courses of "doing it wrong," while demonstrating that you continuously forget about the role of lunar gravity. Why can't you admit this? Again, go publish in the journals. I'm waiting. I'll be your first rebuttal, I promise.
    2
  6886. "So NOW the moon doesn't orbit the planet every 24 hours huh?" Correct. It orbits approximately 27 days. You have confused the rotation of Earth every 24 hours with the orbit of the moon. Once again, you don't know what you are talking about. "You see how you're all over the place?" You have no idea what you're talking about. Just ask Google how many days it takes for the moon to orbit the Earth. Don't rely on me. Go look. Or, hey, just look up at the moon now and then. How many days is it between one full moon and the next? 27 days. That's because the moon takes 27 days to orbit Earth. "To keep up with the arc explanations now the moon stays basically frozen in time for 2.5 DAYS" No, as I said, the moon is traveling at about 2,300 mph (relative to Earth). And, as I explained, and you ignored, the trip to the moon took about 73 hours. That's a bit over 3 days, not 2.5. And, as I explained, the moon has traveled around 167,000 miles in its orbital path during the time between TLI and lunar orbit insertion. "60 hours" 73 hours, as I said, and you ignored. "so the shuttle can use an arc" It is going to arc due to lunar gravity. It's not "so it can use an arc." It has no choice but to arc. "Like I said you're stating the moon and earth are stationary." But, dewdrop, you're clearly not reading what I said. I asked you to prove you were reading what I wrote by writing the word "green" at the top of your reply. You didn't do that. So, you're clearly not reading more than a couple of sentences here or there. I've explained this repeatedly, and you continue to ignore it. As for the rest of what you wrote, I'll pay you the same respect as you paid me. Since you're clearly not reading everything I wrote, I'm not reading what you write. I asked you repeated questions that you refuse to answer. I pointed out the things you don't understand, and you refuse to address them. No, I'm not going to continue with this. If you can't manage to bring yourself to even read the responses, why should I bother? You have absolutely no understanding of the topic.
    2
  6887. One correction to what I wrote... the moon orbits the Earth in approximately 27 days, as I wrote. But, I also said that it's 27 days between full moons. That's actually wrong. Since the moon travels about a 12th of the way around the sun during an orbit around Earth, the sun angle has changed, and it takes about an extra two days (Earth days) before the next full moon. So, we get a full moon about every 29 days as a result of the position change. It's about 660 hours for the moon to orbit Earth, but, around 708 hours for the moon to experience sunrise to sunrise (all "phases"), and, as I said, this is because of the distance the Earth/moon system travels around the sun during those 660 hours.
    2
  6888. The people they're talking about hold a theory that the moon landings were a conspiracy. Gee, what should we call those people?
    2
  6889.  @ApolloKid1961  Chang'e-2 cannot see tracks and rovers. It barely sees the landers.
    2
  6890. Really? When asked what "so many things" you're talking about, your first comment is that they looked sad to you in a press conference? Do you have any idea how many press events those men did after returning? You do know that as soon as they got out of quarantine, with doctors examining every inch of their bodies for weeks, inside and out, that they went on a whirlwind tour of the world, right? They spoke in front of congress. They did TV interviews. They were in parades. They gave hundreds of speeches. They went from city to city, etc. And, somewhere in all of that, they gave this singular press conference you're talking about (because a conspiracy video told you to care about that one, and never mentions any of the other stuff they did). How many of their other press and public events did you watch? Just that one, right? Did you even watch the whole thing? Or, just the parts fed to you by your favorite conspiracy video?
    2
  6891. The criminal came up to the car wearing a balaclava ski mask in the middle of a Kentucky summer, pulled a gun out, opened the door, and pointed it at the officer. Yet, you are complaining that the cop shot too fast? What EXACTLY do you expect the cop to do? Wait until a bullet goes through his own head before fighting back? And, he shot 3 times, one of which merely hit the car door's window. So, that's only two shots toward the attacker. Two shots is too many for you? Do you have any firearms training AT ALL? How do you think it's supposed to go? Shoot once, wait to see what happens next, shoot again if it didn't work, wait to see what happens next, etc.? Quit your hatred over topics you clearly know nothing about.
    2
  6892. Hey, your stupidity is showing.
    2
  6893. Hold on. Clearly, he's saying that if someone can make a movie about faking a mission, this means that all missions were faked. Hollywood never produces fiction. It's all true!!
    2
  6894. Pffttt. Um, what? So, let me make sure I understand... you're saying that LESS education is better than MORE education??
    2
  6895.  @sinisamajetic  You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. You obviously do not have a higher education yourself.
    2
  6896. You're also on drugs. This isn't debatable.
    2
  6897. As opposed to what? NOT explaining things? That's the thing about you nuts... if they explain it, you reject Apollo, saying that the fact that they are explaining it means Apollo was not real... if they don't explain it, you complain that you never get answers to your questions, therefore Apollo was not real. No matter what happens, you come to the same conclusion. It's the very definition of being delusional.
    2
  6898. There were 9 manned missions to the moon, 6 of which landed. Why in the world would you say they only did it once?
    2
  6899. And, this mess was your edited version? How ridiculous was this before you edited it? Let people know when you actually want answers. Right now, it's painfully obvious that you don't.
    2
  6900. Well, when you cannot even lift a finger to read the other 29849 times per week the same question is asked in this video, no wonder you don't know the answer. You clearly don't want to know. The answers have been readily available for 55 years.
    2
  6901.  @bvskyfacer4377  The real irony is that the conspiracy crowd claims they want Hubble to take photos of the Apollo stuff on the moon. But, if that was even possible (which it's not), they'd just deny those photos are real anyway. They don't actually ask for things because they really want them. They ask for things to PRETEND they're intellectually honest. Usually, they ask for things that do not, or cannot, exist (i.e. asking for Hubble shots of the Apollo stuff on the moon). But, it's utterly hilarious when they ask for things in the EXPECTATION that those things don't/can't exist, but, when you show it to them, they *NEVER* admit being wrong. Like, they complain that there are no 360-degree pans from the video cameras on the moon (yes, there are). No photos of the stars (yes, there are). No photographs of the Earth (yes, there are). No dust on the landing pads (yes, there was). Etc. Etc. Etc. You show them these things that they claim do not exist, and they'll never acknowledge it. Never. Their favorite conspiracy videos told them that these things don't exist. So, when you show it to them, they simply refuse to accept that their conspiracy videos lied to them. Meanwhile, ironically, they accuse the SANE people of blindly believing what WE are told. Yet, you can prove them wrong every single time, and it never makes a dent. They're truly happier being ignorant. Note: there's no actual evidence that Steve Heuser is one of those people. He sort of alludes to the same things that Apollo deniers allude to. But, he never outright said he denies Apollo.
    2
  6902.  @bvskyfacer4377  Yes, I've seen the LRO images. I'm only replying to exactly what the original poster was talking about. By the way, have you seen the ones posted on Arizona State University's website? By the way, ASU runs LRO, not NASA. They designed and built the camera. They are the ones downloading the images every day. Etc. Anyway, on their website, you can see a lot more LRO images than you can on NASA's site. There are some pages that let you slide through all of the LRO photos from all of the various sun angles. You can see the shadows of the flags as the sun rises and sets. It's really quite impressive to look at all of the photos in sequence, almost like a short video clip, rather than one at a time. And, as it has been pointed out to me recently, LRO may have even spotted the Apollo 11 flag. If you look at the sun angle at 12:36 on the ASU/LRO website (just a hair after lunar high noon), you see a very bright object on the lunar surface just where the flag should be (it was knocked over by the ascent blast). See, I've seen two stories about what the flag was made out of on Apollo 11. It's pretty clear that the flag was nylon on later missions. But, on Apollo 11, some people say it was a mylar blend, which would give it very reflective properties, as well as making it impervious to the 250 degree lunar surface temperatures during the lunar afternoon. I've always envisioned in my mind that nothing is left of the Apollo 11 flag besides a couple of poles and a bunch of melted mush in the lunar dust. But, if it was really mylar, that would mean it may still be intact on the lunar surface. Anyway, maybe you know all of this already. But, if you don't, go to ASU's website and check out the bright spot at the 12:36 sun angle for Apollo 11, right where the flag was placed. I'm a bit surprised that I never noticed it myself. But, after all of these years, yeah, someone pointed it out to me around 3-6 months ago, and I'm optimistic that the flag might be the bright spot. I went from thinking there's nearly no chance that the flag is intact, to now thinking there's at least a 50/50 shot that the bright spot is the flag.
    2
  6903. 1) There's a difference between being a salesman, but not knowing the actual technologies very well.... vs. outright lies and deception. I could sit here and list 1,000 outright deceptions, but, one will do for now: the man outright refuses to give the weight of the truck. Every statement he makes about the weight is quoting the total weight of truck+cargo. That's ridiculous and slimy. People need to know the weight of the truck, so they can know how much cargo they can carry, and stay under the 80,000 pound cap. 2) I suggest you keep track of the number of promises Musk makes, vs. the number of times he's delivered on those promises. 3) You don't get to just "dream big" when it comes to publicly owned companies. The investors need to know realistic timelines, realistic goals, and actual costs/profits. This isn't just "nice to have." It's a legal requirement. He can "dream big" all he wants. But, if he stands in public and states that "full self driving" will be available in 12 months, "robo-taxis with nobody driving," and then his own legal department has to follow behind and say that they have no such intentions, um, yeah, that's criminal. He barely avoided prison with his Solar City scam. He's toying with prison again with these Tesla false promises. "Dreaming big" in private is fine. But, as a representative of Tesla, he cannot tell these lies to investors. That's a classic pump and dump, which is illegal, yet, it's exactly what he did when he unloaded so many billions in Tesla stock, after pumping it up with false statements.
    2
  6904.  @Matu1  What should I "do better"? Lie to investors?
    2
  6905.  @occhamite  Yeah, it's like, USA: "OK, we're going to fake a race to the moon, and you need to cooperate by confirming that we did it. You're going to be a international embarrassment by being ahead at the beginning of the race, but then you're going to blow up all of your moon rockets, and you'll lose the race so badly that you quit trying." Soviets: "Yeah, sounds great, let's do it."
    2
  6906. Do you even read responses to your own questions?
    2
  6907. How EXACTLY would you suggest that they should have saved lives in Africa, India, and South America?
    2
  6908. Huh? So, in your mind, nobody is ever allowed to simply be wrong? The store employee must be 100% correct, 100% of the time, else the cops are never allowed to even question anybody? That's what you're proposing? And, what do you mean "guilty until proven innocent"? She's not guilty of anything until found so by a court of law. The side of the road isn't a courtroom. And, an arrest isn't a conviction. I mean, in your fantasyland, it seems like you want to do away with courts altogether, and all police arrests are basically the entire trial, where the officer is judge and jury. Um, no. Sorry, we don't want cops to have that kind of power, as you wish them to have. We want cops to make arrests based on probable cause, and leave the rest up to the courts.
    2
  6909. Or, maybe you can look at evidence, instead of trying to "logic" (not logic) your way into delusion.
    2
  6910. Dewdrop, the level of resolution you're asking for requires a lens/mirror a quarter mile in diameter. The largest optical grade lens ever constructed was $168 million, and is 5 feet in diameter. You don't like reality? Not my problem. I'm sorry you don't know the difference between distance and resolution, but, should everyone who worked on Apollo really be slandered by you because you don't understand physics?
    2
  6911. YOU SAID: "Does it mean on the moon there in no sunrise and sunset?" == Sure there are sunrises and sunsets. But, one "lunar day" (sunrise to sunrise) is a month on Earth. So, the astronauts never saw any sunrises or sunsets (except from orbit). YOU SAID: "And where is the sun anyway!!!! I have only seen the earth" == Well, when they point the camera at the sun, it kind of blurs things out, so they don't tend to put those sections of video into these little documentaries. But, if you want to see the sun, there's a YouTube channel called "Apollo Seventeen" that has all of the rover videos from the entire mission. There were plenty of times that they panned the camera all the way around, and the sun came into view. They still generally tried to avoid it (doesn't produce the best video imagery to point the camera at the sun), but, it happened enough times for you to see it.
    2
  6912. First of all, LRO (orbital satellite) has photographed all of the landing sites in enough detail to see the landers' descent stages, rover tracks, foot paths, etc. The hoax nuts reject that evidence and call it fake. What purpose could ever be served in sending this small drone you're talking about to take more photos? The only thing that would happen is that the deniers would just call those fake too.
    2
  6913. "8 days in space the radiation will kill you" Then explain why no radiobiologists, aerospace engineers, or cosmologists agree with you. Can you? Have you tried writing up these calculations for scientific peer review in the journals? Or, did a conspiracy video tell you this claptrap? "The 3rd stage could not hold enough fuel" So, the thousands of engineers at Douglass Aircraft Company, and every aerospace engineer on the planet, have somehow overlooked this. Oh, but YOU know? Where's your math? "It takes 4 sec for a radio signal to reach the moon an 4sec from the moon to the earth" It's 1.3 seconds each way, dewdrop. Not 4 seconds. Once again, you cannot do basic math. "2 hours in the van Allen belts will cook you" Why did James Van Allen not agree? Why did he say that the couple of hours traversing the belts would be less than 1% of a fatal dose? How did the Soviets send two dogs into the very worst part of the belts, and they lived for 3 weeks? Can you explain these things? And, again, why are you on YouTube comments, rather than writing this up in science journals about cosmology and radiobiology? "There was no disturbance of the dirt underneath the lander" Says someone who has clearly never looked at the photos. Sorry, dewdrop, you're just plain wrong. "The lander was clean as a whistle No burn marks on the legs" And, you'd expect burn marks, why? Most of the legs were covered in the thermal blanket. But, two of the legs on Apollo 14 lost their coverings, and you can clearly see discolored metal facing toward the engine bell, as well as clear marks of not discolored metal for the areas blocked by the sensor wire leading to the 5' 8" probes. Ya know... kind of like the rocket blast blew the thermal blanket off, and charred the leg a bit in those spots, and even shows markings where the wire blocked the blast. Oh, but, you have never looked for yourself, have you? A conspiracy video told you something, so, you just blindly believe it.
    2
  6914. I heard that Boeing produced this 737Max aircraft a few years ago. It apparently crashed. Therefore, no airplanes have ever succeeded. After all, once you do something once, you can never have failures after that.
    2
  6915. The words you were looking for were, "I don't know what I'm talking about."
    2
  6916. So, you watched a conspiracy video that intentionally twisted some words around, taking some quotes out of context, and from that, you think you understand the topic well enough to discard the work of 450,000 people for a decade of their lives. Yeah, you're a superhero.
    2
  6917. "to think you've figured out something that PhDs around the world haven't" Yes, that's one of the primary reasons why the deniers do what they do. They didn't get extra decades of education and professional experience. But, they want to feel as though they are on the same level (or superior) to those who did. So, they replace the decades of education and experience with 30 second clips from conspiracy videos, and then feel like they're the ones who know things the experts don't.
    2
  6918.  @michael.forkert  But, dewdrop, you don't believe rockets work in space. You don't know enough about anything to even have an opinion.
    2
  6919. Dewdrop, the LRO photos are extremely high resolution, better than any commercial camera today. But, you must use digital zoom to see the landers and stuff. Same for the photos from India's orbiter. Go look at some of the original image files for yourself, rather than the zoomed versions. I've done it. I even knew where to look, and it took me about 15-20 minutes to zoom in on the lander. Or, since you clearly have no idea what I'm talking about, I need to take this down about 40 notches for you... it's like when you look at the girly pictures online. Even with super high resolution, you're not able to zoom in on a single hair without it looking very grainy, appearing to be "bad resolution." I'm sorry you don't understand digital photography, but, should the rest of the world really suffer for your own "knowledge level" (lack of)?
    2
  6920. Let me guess, you never thought about where the recording was taking place. Therefore, you expected a delay in both directions, when you'll only ever hear the delay in one direction. You expected Nixon to wait 2.6 seconds before responding to an astronaut, but, in reality, there's no reason for him to wait before speaking. Am I right?
    2
  6921. "Big question mark" - but, will you listen to the answers? Or, "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake"?
    2
  6922. Yes and no. In the peak form of Darwinism, he'd have died before having kids. In this case, he already procreated. But, I guess you could say it's still Darwinism because he didn't have more kids.
    2
  6923. Moore's Law doesn't apply to rockets, dewdrop. It just doesn't. Why aren't you asking for EVIDENCE, rather than trying to "logic" (broken logic) your way into silly beliefs?
    2
  6924. "I never said Moore's Law applied to rockets" Then you don't understand Moore's Law. Yes, you basically expected rockets to have some sort of equivalent to Moore's Law. Don't pretend otherwise. As for the rest of your gibberish, sorry, I'm not going to sit here and chase you down a rabbit hole of insanity. The topic here is Apollo. Everyone knows EXACTLY what you think, and you're not fooling anybody. And, I'm not going to talk about politics, or oil, or COVID, or whatever other silly distractions you want to throw into the mix. You're just using a scatter-gun approach to making an argument, and that's what people do when they have no understanding of the topic.
    2
  6925. Pfftt. No, only conspiratards make that claim.
    2
  6926. There was a remote control camera on the rover.
    2
  6927. YOU SAID: "The temp on the Moon soars from 270 below to 270 above. There's never been a Man there and won't be in 500 years" == And, what makes you think Apollo missions went during those times? It doesn't get to the super low temperatures until the lunar overnight. It doesn't get to the super high temperatures until the lunar afternoon. All Apollo missions landed in the early lunar morning, long after the super-lows, and long before the super-highs.
    2
  6928.  @MrFlores0594  OK, and if people break into my house with the potential to do my family harm, yes, they will receive a magazine or two from me also. So what? How is this relevant to what happened in this case? This wasn't a guy who was defending himself and his home. This was a guy who planned two murders, and followed through on that plan. There's a huge difference between defending yourself under the "castle law" concept, vs. planning ahead to murder people.
    2
  6929. The arrest video was released 2.5 years later, which was 1.5 years after she died. How do you get consent from a dead person?
    2
  6930. Your nickname is quite ironic, given that you're wrong. Not only does the video description say that she had her receipt, but, yes, you actually see the receipt in the full version of this video (not this one that's edited down).
    2
  6931. Dewdrop, did you read your own copy/paste? Good grief. Do you know that you can get a 20 watt radio in your own backyard and bounce radio signals off of the moon and speak with people half way around the world using the moon as a radio reflector? Millions of radio amateurs do this. Why do you suppose it works, if you insist that radio shouldn't make through?
    2
  6932.  @SolarChronicle  This isn't the only topic where he's done that. He did the same thing (copy/paste) in another thread, proving himself wrong. But, of course, he doesn't read what he copies/pastes.
    2
  6933. Go take a photography 101 class. Learn something about the chemistry of film. Stars don't show up on film very easily, whether it's daytime or nighttime. It doesn't matter if it's a black background. In order to produce an image on the film, photons have to hit the film and cause a chemical reaction to the film's silver halides. Starlight is extremely dim (not very many photons), and it takes very long exposures to trigger the chemical reactions to make an image show up. Typical film that is designed for regular daytime exposure requires about a 30 second exposure for stars to show up. There are films that are a bit faster than that, and they can get the exposure times down to around 4 seconds. But, those films are no good for filming regular daylight things, and Apollo didn't bring any of such film. With the exception of Apollo 16, which brought along a specialized camera for taking star photos (it took 125 of such photos), they just weren't there to take star photos. They were there to take moon photos in daylight. And, all of their equipment was designed for that. I'm sorry that you know absolutely nothing about photography, but, seriously, this is stuff any university photography 101 class would teach in the first couple of weeks. Exposure settings are crucial to understanding photography.
    2
  6934.  @janelcloutier9543  Huh? Do you think Musk cares about traveling to the moon to the point of using his own money? He didn't even enter SpaceX into the running without the $45 million congress gave the contractors just to write up proposals. Where do you think SpaceX's money comes from? You think Musk funds it himself? Or, do you think NASA supplies most of their money? Do you think Musk will ever spend a single dime of his own money to fund a moonshot?
    2
  6935. Your instinct is correct. She was a convicted felon who spent time in prison and had a million arrests and other problems. It's quite doubtful this incident had anything to do with her suicide, especially since it never went viral until 1.5 years after she died.
    2
  6936. "WHY DIDNT THIS FLAG MELT OR SHRINK TURN TO DUST" Well, this video is just speculation about what it might look like today. But, nylon melts at about 520 degrees F, and the lunar surface only gets up to about 250 F.
    2
  6937. Maybe they figure the safety and security of billions of people in the world is more important than having 12 people be able to walk on the moon for a few hours each? Or, naw, that can't be it. It must be fake.
    2
  6938. And, what happened in the end? Because of her actions, she got absolutely nothing in her lawsuit, which was thrown out completely.
    2
  6939. I have my name on a couple of mathematical formulas, none that anybody actually cares about (including me). But, I think maybe I can form a new mathematical proof. No moon hoax nut is capable of basic arithmetic. 39 summers ago would mean Apollo 11 took place in 1984. Now, if I could just develop this proof that all hoax nuts are mathematically inept....
    2
  6940. Actually, I guess you never accused Apollo of being fake. I suppose I just assumed it, based on your lack of 2nd grader math skills. Sorry.
    2
  6941. Well, it's more than the rockets. Those rockets weren't going anywhere without the 1960s era mainframe guidance computers that calculated trajectories based upon ground based radar tracking. You'd have to rebuild all of that stuff too. And, the communications were geared around old analog S-band microwave. That stuff hasn't been used in decades, and all of that would need to be built back up. And, all of this stuff attached to North American Aviation command modules, which came from a company that no longer exists, and there are no more new ones remaining (one time use only). All of that would need to be rebuilt. The list goes on and on and on.
    2
  6942. Because she's not actually listening to the answers. She's PRETENDING to listen to the answers, then looking for a way to twist the answers to suit her narrative.
    2
  6943.  @stusue9733  I'm trying to learn their language.
    2
  6944. And, if those people actually commit "an act" at those parades, then they get arrested also.
    2
  6945. That's wonderful!! Congrats. It's too bad that the woman in this video didn't take your path. Instead, she never learned anything by the acts of kindness from others, immediately went right back to stealing from Walgreens, and is dead now.
    2
  6946. So, "the news" should pay millions because you have decided what's newsworthy?
    2
  6947. Nope. It's public record. It wasn't released until November 24, 2023. There were some blogs that posted about this incident (without the arrest video). And, I wouldn't be surprised if someone either showed some other video of someone else in a similar situation, or maybe found a different arrest video of her (she was arrested a million times over the past decade or so). But, this particular arrest video wasn't seen by anybody until November 24, 2023.
    2
  6948.  @bradleyrex2968  Wow. I wonder why the website showed a collector and didn't mention what you wrote. Thanks for the info.
    2
  6949.  @bradleyrex2968  Yeah, I re-read the Smithsonian page that I thought depicted a solar wind collector. It said that it was just for training. So, I must have missed that upon the first reading. Thanks again for the info.
    2
  6950. Which time? There are several reasons.
    2
  6951. Typical conspiratard claim. 50 years go by, and none of you idiots ever just do the math. Every stupid claim you make is "too small," "too large," "not enough," "too much," "too far," "too slow," "too fast," etc. None of you people ever just show, mathematically... ANYTHING!! Every claim you idiots make just comes from your own incredulity, and is never backed up by mathematics. It's very simple to do. Just look up the lens used in whatever photograph you're complaining about, compare to the size and distance to other items in the frame of the photograph, and then calculate the size that the Earth "should be" in that photograph. If you're right, you will have mathematically proven that the photograph was faked. But, nope. It never happens. All we ever get are YouTube idiots saying, "too small," "too large," etc., never ONCE doing that math.
    2
  6952. Well, maybe if you had a literacy level beyond 2nd graders, you might be capable of looking this stuff up and understanding it better.
    2
  6953. The Freedom of Information Act requires it. But, just checking here, you do know that it wasn't released until November 24, 2023, right? You do know she died almost 2 years ago, right?
    2
  6954. More proof positive that nobody with "truth" or "woke" in their nicknames has any idea what that means. Dewdrop, the photos we have of the landing sites come from about 300 megapixel cameras. That's well past high definition. But, there's this concept called "angular resolution" that you clearly do not understand.
    2
  6955.  @Hobbes746  Apollo 11's uplink for the moonwalk was via Parkes, not Goldstone.
    2
  6956. spoileralertrecap: "Instant communications" No, dewdrop. You simply aren't accounting for where the recording is taking place. There's no reason to expect a 3 second delay after an astronaut speaks for Nixon to answer. That's because the recording is taking place on the Earth side, not the moon side. When Nixon hears the astronauts, he can respond right away. There's no reason for him to wait 3 seconds. But, in the reverse direction, when Nixon speaks, and when the astronauts answer, you will always hear the delay. Again, that's because the recording is happening on the Earth side, not the moon side. "who set the tripod up?" Armstrong. But, you're an expert on the topic, right? You know enough about it to label it as fake, right? So, why do you not know who set up the tripod? Have you never watched the video of the tripod being set up? "who controlled it remotely" On Apollo 11? Nobody. Remote control of the TV camera didn't happen until Apollo 15. Again, why do you not know this? You have more expertise on this topic than the entire world's experts!!! I don't understand why you know so much about Apollo, yet don't know simple things like this. "And what invention was it that plugged the prez directly to them? To speak in back and forth convo from a landline?" It's called a "telephone." And, no, it wasn't direct. It was relayed through Parkes, Australia, where the radio signal was connected to a wired signal. Ya know, just like had been done a million times before since the first car phones in the 1940s, where an operator just plugs in two wires between the phone call and the radio transmitter? I thought you were a communications expert?? The president could make phone calls to ship captains on the ocean, car phones, Air Force 1, etc. Are you not aware that it's a simple matter of connecting two wires between a radio transmitter and a landline? Back then, they did this with operators who had a 2-wire plug and a switchboard. Today, it's all automated. But, it's the same 2-wire system. How can you not know this? "if they can zoom inside a crater to studyrocks and water. They can zoom to the base pole of the flag" Dewdrop, the LRO resolution in black and white is only about 1.5 feet per pixel. In color or other wavelengths, it's even worse. They cannot see flagpoles. And, when they look for water, they're just trying to see photons of a certain wavelength, not take actual photos of the water. Aren't you an expert on the Arizona State University camera system? Look, dewdrop, stop pretending to know things you don't. This is just plain ridiculous. All you're doing is blindly rejecting everything, while knowing absolutely nothing about the topic you're rejecting. And, it's crystal clear that you don't actually want answers to your questions. So, why do you ask them?
    2
  6957. "The flag they put on the lunar surface in 1969 was waving" The Apollo 11 flag never moved unless an astronaut handled it. You are absurdly wrong.
    2
  6958. "A simple search online will show you that spy satellites have a resolution of 5-6 in" Yeah, different sources say different things. Some say more. Some say less. So what? The fact is that most nations simply will not reveal the true resolution. Like, if you look up the top speed of the SR71, it says 2,200 mph. But, there are records indicating that SR71s have been over one place at one time, and then been spotted over a different place 3,000 miles away, just 60 minutes later. When it comes to spying, disinformation is a very normal thing. Also, let's just take your 6 inch statement at face value. That doesn't mean you know what that 6 inch thing is. It means that one single pixel is 6 inches by 6 inches. If you want to see a 12 inch shoe, that would mean that it would occupy 2 pixels. You wouldn't know it was a shoe. It would just two brown pixels. And, guess what? That's not all that different than the Chandrayaan-2 camera I told you to look into. "and they don't have a 5 mile lens last time I checked." Dewdrop, you asserted that you thought a satellite could read someone's shoe size from space. That would mean that you would need enough resolution to read a small number printed on a shoe. That would mean you'd need a resolution of roughly a millimeter per pixel, not 6 inches per pixel. Do the math, dewdrop. "So, there is no need for so long comments buddy." If you didn't want answers to your questions, don't ask them. And, did you even read the entire message? I can tell you didn't. "And it's not me who moves the goalposts." Yes, you are. "The LRO show no remains." Complete nonsense. You can't have looked at the hundreds of LRO photos of the landing sites, if you're making that claim. "They show shadows and arrows which supposedly dictate where something is." Then look at the raw images that don't just show shadows and arrows. What are you waiting for? Look at the images from other sun angles. A lot of times, if they're just showing one LRO photo, yes, they show a really low sun angle to emphasize the shadows of the smaller objects and the flag. But, if you want to see the larger objects without shadows, sure, just go look at the raw images. There's a button to turn off and turn on the arrows. Arizona State University has hundreds of those images cataloged and set up as a slide show. They're the ones that built and maintain that LRO camera. Go look. Stop spewing nonsense. Stop asking questions when you have zero interest in the answers. And, go look.
    2
  6959. It's quite clear that you're not even reading my replies. So, don't pretend you are. I addressed exactly what you asked for (repeatedly). And, yet, you still ask for things I already gave you. And, thanks for proving (to the other guy, but, I see what you wrote) that, just as I said, you ARE shifting the goalposts.
    2
  6960. So, I explained exactly how you can see the Apollo remains (in numerous ways), you didn't read it, and instead you kept insisting that they're just shadows and arrows, I explained exactly how you can see the images without just shadows and arrows, you ignored that also, and now you want me to "admit" that the photos that show you exactly what you asked for... don't show you exactly what you asked for??
    2
  6961. Is that REALLY the response you're going to give? Get real.
    2
  6962. Um, no. You have to pay the drivers. You have to wait X amount of time to recharge before you can put the truck back on the road. Oh, good grief, why am I trying to explain this to you? Nobody who says "it doesn't matter if it can only haul 1/4 of the load" can possibly understand anything.
    2
  6963. She's dead. She's been dead for almost 2 years. Her life was ruined long before any media was hunting for clicks.
    2
  6964. Really? A warning for a crime?
    2
  6965. And, after viewing your channel's video about the moon being in the sky simultaneously with the sun, and your massive lack of understanding of basic geometry, I hardly think you are qualified to have any opinions on anything. Did you REALLY believe that the phases of the moon are caused by Earth's shadow? You really don't know the difference between the phases of the moon and an eclipse? Good grief. Some basic education that any 5 year old should know, dewdrop: an eclipse is when the moon is in Earth's shadow. The phases of the moon are caused by the angle toward the sun. Your video shows the exact condition it's supposed to show. But, you have no ability to comprehend simple geometry. A "half moon" (well, technically a quarter moon, but, I'm just repeating your terminology, which is fine) is exactly what you'd expect to see when the sun and moon are in the sky in those positions. If you saw a full moon, or a new moon, while the sun was also in the sky, yeah, then something strange would be happening. But, nope, your video shows very nice evidence of the sun's reflected light off of the moon, but, you really don't even know that your own video debunks itself.
    2
  6966. In a stroke of poetic irony, my response was banned. Good grief. Dewdrop, YouTube bans stuff all the time. It's very annoying. But, you're not special. And, if they were going to block links to that video, why wouldn't they just ban the video itself? What's wrong with you?
    2
  6967. "What I find strange is just how did three men fit in that lander" Dewdrop, the lander carried TWO people. Why do you think there were three? They left one person in the command module while TWO people got into the lander. You don't know anything whatsoever about Apollo, not even what the role is for each craft, yet, you think you understand the topic better than the entire planet's experts?
    2
  6968. So, dewdrop, you came back and edited your remark to change it to two people in the lander instead of your original statement about three people in the lander. But, you don't have the courage to answer any questions or challenges, eh? Nope? Just edit, pretend you knew it all the time, then run for the hills, huh?
    2
  6969. No, it wasn't ordinary 70mm film. Yes, it was protected. No, it never experienced all that much heat or cold.
    2
  6970.  @truth2power528  Oh, and, again, you STILL won't acknowledge being wrong about the documentation for Apollo. You said all of the schematics were gone. I pointed you to a site that has millions upon millions of pages of detailed schematics, down to every single wire and fuse. In one ear, out the other. See, a SANE person would have responded, "oh, wow, I don't know why I blindly trusted conspiracy videos that said all of the schematics were destroyed, I guess I was wrong about that." Not you, though. In one ear, out the other, change topics, spew more nonsense.
    2
  6971. But, Dave, lots of dust was kicked up. Why would you think otherwise? You're wrong about the amount of thrust also (they landed with about 2,500 pounds of thrust, not 5,000). But, that's a minor quibble, because even at 5,000 pounds, the effect would be about the same.
    2
  6972. YOU SAID: "What happened to the three second signal turnaround delay, which was nowhere in evidence?" == Pffttt. What? Why would you say such stupid things? Go listen/watch all of the original video/audio, not short edited clips. The delay caused CAPCOM and the astronauts to frequently talk over each other as a result. If all you're doing is watching edited films, where they took the delays out in the interest of time, then of course you're going to come to the wrong conclusions. Also, you have to keep in mind where the recordings were taken (Houston). You will not hear a delay from the perspective of where the recording device was. YOU SAID: "Or doesn't it take light that long to travel from Houston to a film set in Houston?" == Oh, I see, the entire world was too stupid to do the math, but YOU spotted this problem, huh? No, it's not because you're only watching edited clips. It's because the entire world was too stupid to recognize it, and you're the smart one. YOU SAID: "And also, by the way, if humans were exploring this place for the first time in 4.5 billion years, who made the wheel tracks you can see beside the rover vehicle?" == The rover. Good gods, what's wrong with you? Once again, YOU are the amazing genius to spot these things, huh? Nobody else in history has ever noticed? Or, maybe, just maybe, they occasionally drove the rovers back on the same tracks they went out on (just as planned)?? YOU SAID: "And also also, I believe these shots were the ones in which the background hills do not change when they ought to" == Wrong. You dummies have had 50 years to demonstrate this assertion, and never have. Instead, if you actually analyze the photos taken from each station they stopped at, you see the exactly correct amount of slight angle change on the distant mountains in the background. When mountains in the background are miles high, and miles away, yeah, they're not going to change very much just by moving the foreground a bit. But, the angles do change ever so slightly, and it always matches up exactly correctly. But, none of you conspiratards ever actually do the math/geometry. You just make blind assertions that the angles don't change the correct amount, but not a single one of you nitwits has ever actually backed up your claims with the mathematics/geometry. YOU SAID: "despite supposedly having driven kilometers to a new site." == DO THE MATH!!! YOU SAID: "I really want to believe that the moon missions were for real" == Liar. You obviously need to compensate for your own inadequacies by accusing others of not accomplishing the things they accomplished. By accusing Apollo of being fake, you get to believe that the 450,000 people who made Apollo happen, are actually just as big of failures as you are. YOU SAID: "but little details like these make that increasingly difficult." == Your "little details" are not correct. YOU SAID: "Possibility #1 : the astronauts pulled off the journey of exploration of all time while clowning around like ten year olds and singing silly songs to each other; or (2) : that the US government lied about its space successes, like it lied about Vietnam, the USSR, China, drugs, the federal reserve, and just about everything else it has ever said in my 65 years of life and more." == Or, possibility #3, you're an idiot.
    2
  6973.  @johnellizz  YOU SAID: "The moon is 1/6th of Earth's gravity so the astronaut should be able to easily hop up the little slope." == Probably. So what? He chose to take steps rather than jump. But, you didn't answer my question. Did you even bother to read anything I wrote? If I pretended that this looks like Earth in that one clip, are you willing to concede that there are thousands of other clips that do not look like Earth? YOU SAID: "Yet he takes short choppy steps as if struggling with a strong gravity." == Or, he just had his hands full, and didn't feel like going through a big jumping motion while inside a pressure suit. YOU SAID: "The astronaut cannot kick the boulder even though it should be six times lighter than it is on earth." == Did you read my reply? YOU SAID: "No, there are no other times where astronauts display buoyancy" == Pfftt. WHAT? Buoyancy? In a vacuum? What are you talking about? What does buoyancy have to do with anything? YOU SAID: "or jumping abilities in the Apollo missions" == Yes, dummy. They did. YOU SAID: "The astronauts constantly struggle with what appears to be Earth gravity in all the long hours of footage." == No, dummy. They do not. YOU SAID: "This is made even sillier by the obvious use of slow-motion" == Slow motion? Um, no. I mean, sure, mathematically, some movements probably look that way. That's just the nature of the underlying physics. However, there are plenty of examples of motions that are not explained by slow motion, and would look comically ridiculous if sped up. YOU SAID: "to try and suggest a buoyancy." == Dummy, there is no buoyancy. You don't even know the definitions of the words you're using. YOU SAID: "Simply by speeding up the slow-motion footage we see this illusion disappear, instantaneously." == Wrong. That only works for very simple motions. There are many actions and movements across all missions that do not fit your assumptions. YOU SAID: "If you were in 1/1000th of Earth's gravity the house wouldn't weigh anything and you could easily move it in any direction you wanted to." == No, dummy. If you tried to throw the house horizontally, it would barely move. You don't understand anything about physics.
    2
  6974.  @johnellizz  Sorry for the multiple replies (deleting as I went). Unfortunately, it kept having formatting errors, and I also wanted to re-write to make things more clear. As a result, I reposted my reply after you replied. YOU SAID: "Let me get this right: A rock does NOT weigh less on the Moon than on earth? It is just as heavy to lift in both environments?" == Look, dummy, I already explained this. The weight is far less. But, the mass is the same regardless of gravity. This is why I said you could lift the house, but not throw it. I'll switch to the opposite dynamic to make this more clear: if you were on a planet with 10,000x gravity (not 1/10,000th, but 10,000x more), and well, if you could even live through that (which you can't, but, this is just hypothetical anyway), and there was a half pound marble (Earth weight) on a table, you could flick the marble with your finger and it'll roll just as easily across the table as on Earth. A little tiny thumb flick, and the marble would very easily roll, 100% identically to the ease of flicking the marble on Earth. But, you'd have no chance in the world of lifting the marble. You could pour every ounce of strength you have into lifting the marble, and you're not going to do it. The weight of the marble on the other planet is now 5,000 pounds. You cannot lift it. But, yes, you could flick it across a table just as easily as on Earth. The inverse is true of the house in 1/10,000th gravity. You could lift it with a mere 10 pounds of upward force. It would move very slowly upward, but, yes, you could lift it. But, you'd have no chance whatsoever of throwing it. Let me dumb this down to your level: horizontal movement will operate the same as on Earth, and vertical movement depends on gravity. This is greatly oversimplified, but, you're just not capable of much more than that. If you're not going to answer anything I've asked, I'm certainly not answering more of your ridiculous questions after this. Your mind is too far flushed down the toilet.
    2
  6975.  @johnellizz  YOU SAID: "If that rock weighs 100 pounds on the Earth, it weighs merely 16.6 pounds on the Moon. I could kick it, you could even kick it. Are you saying you're too nerdy to kick a 16 pound rock?" == Dummy, once again, you have confused weight with mass. YOU SAID: "You honestly think the rock magically weighs 100 pounds as soon as you try to kick it?" == No, dummy. Again, the mass is what matters. It's not force = weight x acceleration. It's force = MASS x acceleration. Your foot will have just as difficult time horizontally accelerating a large mass on the moon as you would have on Earth. This is exactly like the house analogy. If you're on a planet with 1/10,000th of the gravity as Earth, the house will weigh less than 10 pounds. But, if you tried to kick it horizontally, the house isn't going to move. YOU SAID: "Is this rock watching you?👀He see you're about to kick and he exerts himself...forcing himself to weigh 100 pounds! wah-HAHAHAH! Uhh, no. The rock weighs 16 pounds. If you kick it, it is easy to kick because of that fact. How hard it is to kick a rock is determined by its weight and nothing else." == Thanks for proving, once again, that you do not know the difference between weight and mass. YOU SAID: "If you doubt this fact, go outside and line up two rocks: One little more than a pebble and one the size of that rock in the video we're watching..." == Dummy, the little pebble doesn't have the same mass as the big rock. Once again, for the 10000000th time, you obviously do not understand the difference between weight and mass. YOU SAID: "Then try to kick each one. For your benefit I'll inform you of what will happen: It will be easier to kick the little rock WAH-AHAHA!" == Just go publish your physics into a physics journal!!!!! What are you waiting for?!?!?!? Why would you try to convince ME??? You have multiple Nobel Prizes waiting for you if you're right!!!!! (Note: I only answered this message because of my own fault that I posted out of sequence, and re-posted, and I caused those few messages to go out of order, and you didn't get my recent message by the time you posted. But, at this point, I'm going to stick with what I said at the end of my last message. I'm not answering you after this, if you cannot bring yourself to answer any question I asked.)
    2
  6976.  @johnellizz  So, you won't answer a single question I asked. And, you've reconfirmed constantly that you don't know the difference between weight and mass. Bravo. You're a real genius.
    2
  6977.  @johnellizz  You're not even reading my replies.
    2
  6978.  @johnellizz  I told you, I'm not answering new stuff from you while you ignored every single question I asked. Go publish your ridiculous version of physics in a physics journal. Watch them laugh you out the door.
    2
  6979. "if the surface was so bright" Huh? How is this any different than on Earth? What don't you understand about "too bright for dim objects like stars"? Do you think that automatically means it's like a giant spotlight?
    2
  6980. "how is there a picture of earth from the moon?" Dozens of them, maybe hundreds.
    2
  6981. "When you out in the desert the Milky Way star system is very bright at night." Keywords: "at night." Do you think any of the Apollo missions went at night?
    2
  6982. "can you not see even the Milky Way" You answered this yourself. You see it AT NIGHT. All of the Apollo missions happened in the daytime.
    2
  6983. "stars are Suns they are very bright." Go learn about apparent magnitude and get back to me. The inverse square law dictates you're wrong.
    2
  6984. "NASA messed up" Let me get this straight: you can barely form a sentence without butchering the living daylights out of the English language. You understand absolutely nothing about the sciences you are blindly rejecting. But, you are so confident in yourself that you think the 450,000 people who worked on Apollo were "messing up"? It's not YOU who is messing up? It's the engineers who understand the topics that you do not?
    2
  6985. "an internet to pick apart their movie" Um, dewdrop, here's a news flash: the internet is full of just about every opinion on Earth. It doesn't mean that YouTube University is a real thing. You can watch all of the videos you want, made by taxi cab drivers, warehouse workers, and yoga instructors. The bigger question is about why you'd ever believe a single thing they say? Why? What do you find so compelling about those videos you've been watching? Each and every one of those denier videos you watch is wrong, and is easily proven wrong. Why in the world would you ever believe ANYTHING they say?
    2
  6986. "there put together at NASA to show what earth would look like" No, dewdrop. They clearly label what's CGI/modified, and what's not. The ONE photo you're talking about (Blue Marble II) is basically a CGI composite with greatly modified colors, and various areas patched together. This is because a lot of the color is lost in transit, and greens tend to turn more brown/pink. Also, it's very difficult to get an appealing shot where clouds aren't blocking at least some of the areas you want to see. And, they used low orbit satellites that don't necessarily cover every square inch in their orbital pattern. Sorry, but ONE photo does not mean EVERY photo.
    2
  6987. "from the ISS station, how come there are NO reflections of light from satellites or all the space junk floating around?" Is this a joke? You cannot possibly be serious here. Space isn't the size of a local playground, dewdrop. It's big.
    2
  6988. "We never see 6 - 10 cameras as a landscape to picture the right,left,botom/upside of the moon, earth." I definitely do not know what you mean by this. Landscapes that include Earth? A landscape would mean horizontal, not upward toward the Earth. And, now you want 6 or 10 simultaneous cameras? I think we have a translation issue here.
    2
  6989. Why? Were you one of her "customers"?
    2
  6990.  @paulcrespi2914  YOU SAID: "FAKE, FAKE. FAKE" == No, your education is fake fake fake. YOU SAID: "cgi" == CGI in 1969-1972?? Oh, you're a real genius. YOU SAID: "filmed in studio." == So, literally the next words after you accuse it of being CGI, you say it was filmed in a studio. You can't remain consistent from one word to the next. What a moron. YOU SAID: "It was and still is to send tv pictures 238.000 miles" == Why? What happens to TV pictures at 238,000 miles? We routinely send TV pictures to/from satellites that are 25,000 miles away. Anybody with a 1 foot satellite dish on his/her house can receive TV pictures from satellite TV providers that send the signals 25,000 miles up, and 25,000 miles back. What's so special about 238,000 miles that you think will stop a TV signal from working? YOU SAID: "did not have battery" == Good grief. Um, yes, dummy, they had batteries. YOU SAID: "or computer power !" == For the TV signal?? Who cares about computer power? They didn't use computers for the TV signals. Those were analog, sent by S-band. No computers were involved. YOU SAID: "All you can do to answer is throw abuse." == Pffttt. "Don't throw abuse at me while I'm committing slander/libel, accusing thousands of people of being criminal frauds." What a hypocrite. You are too stupid for words to describe.
    2
  6991. This is just plain silly. They didn't do anything like you're asserting. They got into low Earth orbit at an altitude of about 100 miles (still below the belts), checked the craft out, made sure everything was working properly, then did the TLI burn after 1 or 2 orbits. There was none of this swinging around or slingshotting (which you're confusing with a different type of maneuver, doesn't apply to Apollo). And, your notion that they'd fry in a few seconds in the belts is just downright wrong. James Van Allen calculated that you wouldn't get a fatal dose until being in the thickest part of the belts for a week. And, the Soviets tested this themselves by sending two dogs into the thickest area of the belts. Those dogs lived for 3 weeks. It's true that they probably received the fatal dose in a week or two, and it just took them a week or two more to actually die. But, there's no evidence anywhere that says a few seconds in the belts would be fatal. That's just plain incorrect. I mean, how do you think this goes anyway? The entire world's aerospace engineers and radiobiologists have just overlooked this thing YOU think YOU know?
    2
  6992. A vast majority of the people NASA employed during Apollo didn't work directly for NASA, but actually worked for contractors. NASA doesn't build any rockets or spacecraft, nor has ever built any rockets or spacecraft. They always contract it out to private companies. In the case of Apollo, they used approximately 20,000 contracting companies and universities, for a total of about 400,000 people domestically. Each of those contractors had to pass audits. Spare the world your silly notions that they didn't employ thousands of people.
    2
  6993. So, you acknowledge the balaclava, but, you want to pretend a balaclava isn't a mask? That's like, "There was no car." "Huh? It was a Honda Accord." "Yes, but that's not a car."
    2
  6994. Oh, you poor thing. I had no idea you were that far gone. I hope you get well.
    2
  6995. They know absolutely nothing, and are looking for a way to pretend to know things. But, unlike you (studying it for years, reading all of the books, looking at the evidence), they want a shortcut. So, they watch a couple of hours of videos made by taxi cab drivers and yoga instructors that tell them it's not real, and just buy into it because it makes them feel good to pretend to have "inside knowledge," and to skip the process of a decade of education and study.
    2
  6996. What in the world are you talking about? In your first message, said they went to the moon, but never put a foot on it. I don't even understand this, so I asked. In your second message, you said I should remain silent for asking what you meant? Good grief. And, it gets worse from there: "They encountered complications while landing due to something shredding their suits and equipment." Does that even make sense to you? While they're landing, something is shredding their suits? Good grief. "Imagine a moon of metal" Metal moon? Metal? Do you even know what a metal is? "getting hit all the time , releasing tons of tiny metal pieces that are going to act as a sand storm there." Sandstorms on the moon? "They never even tried to go back since then" Dewdrop, there were 9 manned missions to the moon, 6 of which landed on it. If that's not "going back," I don't know what is. "there ain’t even a question to ask as if they really went there" But, wait, that IS the question you were asking. Then you immediately contradicted yourself. "if they really did successfully landed why would they leave and never go back" They DID go back!!! What's wrong with you? "dont tell me that’s because they had nothing to discover on the moon anymore" No, dewdrop, I never said any such thing. "and I guess it makes sense to you that they would cut nasa ´s budget" Yes, they couldn't afford that level of spending. And, they also wouldn't get that amount of international support. NASA's budget went from about 4.5% of the entire federal budget down to about 0.49% of the entire budget after Apollo. And, the soft costs and international support equated to about 2% more, which were not going to be perpetuated either. "when they would have just landed on the moon and the whole country was sheering about it ?" Dewdrop, they ended the Apollo program in 1972 for moon missions, and in 1975 for the Apollo applications programs such as Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz. The first moon landing was in 1969. "please think further" The irony.
    2
  6997. Oh, and it takes a YouTube clown 50 years to realize this? No aerospace engineers anywhere on Earth, in friendly or enemy countries, for the past 50 years have realized that the craft wasn't capable. Instead, the lunar module has become an icon in aerospace engineering, studied by generations of students who become engineers themselves, taking the lessons learned from the lunar module and applying them to spacecraft and satellites today. Oh, but the YouTube clod comes along and thinks that's all wrong, and the place to expose this "hoax" is in a YouTube comment? And, everyone should listen to you, huh? You offer no proof, no calculations, no evidence, no specifics, nothing. Just "there is no way" and leave it at that? You "worked on" aircraft? Like, what? Washed them? Sprayed de-ice formula onto the wings? Loaded the baggage? What does "worked on" mean to you, such that you think you have the expertise to say that the 7000 engineers and technicians at Grumman who designed and built the lunar module were all universally wrong about how they did their jobs?
    2
  6998. Huh? One of the audience took video of the incident and gave it to the police. What more do you want?
    2
  6999. Of really? Of couldn't of cops written of a report of that of said otherwise? Of your of memory of not very good of. Of there were of multiple of callers. Of three of cops were dispatched of of. Of one of the of witnesses gave of a video of to the of cops of the incident. It's of all in the report of that of you could of read of yourself of. And, with of all of her prior of open warrants of, they'd of needed to arrest her of anyway of.
    2
  7000. You write like a 2nd grader, and when I mock your own ridiculous words, you don't even get it, and tell ME that I have to learn to write?
    2
  7001. Really? They didn't teach you that "of" isn't part of a verb by the 4th grade? Anyway, how about NOT offering advice on topic you know nothing about? The police had complaints from multiple callers. They had video of the "event" itself because one of the callers recorded it. And, she had piles and piles of open warrants because she was a career criminal and convicted felon who served time in prison. If she wasn't making "public beach" content for her fans at the "dance club" where she worked, I'll eat my hat.
    2
  7002. Oh? But, you think you know enough to tell ME that I should learn to write a coherent sentence?
    2
  7003. Part 1: YOU SAID: "This video does more of twisting the view point to the wrong conclusions." == No. And, we all know what you think. Your track record of dishonest "reasoning" precedes you. YOU SAID: "There are the pones that believe that the moon landings are real. They believe in this view even if they were told by a person at NASA it was faked they would still believe it was real. This was also checked and there are many that are quoted in saying "Event if Neil Armstrong said ti was faked I would still believe"" == Yes, and at this point, that is the most rational viewpoint to take. I mean, this would be akin to saying "even if General Patton said WWII was fake, I will still believe that WWII happened." Your flaw in reasoning at this point is to EVER rely on a few words spoken by any single person. People can joke around. People can lie. People can go senile. But, no one person's statement can overturn the avalanche of evidence. YOU SAID: "The other side is the people that Question the Apollo viewpoint." == Yeah, and you're going to pretend this is you. No. We know from your track record that you don't question Apollo. You PRETEND to question Apollo. But, you came to your conclusions long before you ever got any answers. You only "question" now because you know you're supposed to sound intellectually honest. But, you have no intention of listening to answers. You know it. I know it. Don't play these games. YOU SAID: "They seem to do this because of many factors. Man believe that there should be a one piece of proof but if we really think about it you would then be suggesting the people that may of faked such a event to be stupid." == Yes, nearly every single moon hoaxer is very stupid. You do get the occasional high IQ person who thinks that the moon landings were a hoax, who believes it out of drug induced problems, and/or clinical paranoid delusional conditions. But, by and large, the overwhelming majority of moon hoax believers are just plain dumb. YOU SAID: "There are many reasons to question the view of Apollo through NASA and the government. Many see something like this for example https://www.facebook.com/NowThisPolitics/videos/427652531107960/ and start to say yeah I knew it." == See, you couldn't even make it through one posted message without drifting off into neverneverland "logic." Who the hell cares about a modern day government problem, when the topic is the Apollo program from 50 years ago? Again, by your "logic," if all you needed to do in order to doubt stuff that happened any time in the past, was to watch a crazy US Representative talk about stuff happening today, you can apply this thought pattern to ANYTHING YOU WANT. Did the Civil War happen? Nope. Look what Rep. Ocasio-Cortez says about the government, therefore none of the evidence matters. I mean, good grief. THIS is what your arguments have reduced to? YOU SAID: "Yet history also shows that it is more possible to fake this than to do." == Ridiculous, and wrong. There are countless aspects of Apollo that we couldn't even fake TODAY, let alone in the 1960s. You are just lying at this point (as usual, given your history). YOU SAID: "We can base this on 2001: A Space Odyssey." == Hilarious!!! Yes, your entire science education appears to come from watching movies. Sorry, I'll stick with the science education I got from 10 years at 3 universities, thank you. YOU SAID: "We can see that they could do these things." == But, they COULDN'T do them!! There were countless problems in that movie that anybody who knows what he/she is talking about which make it painfully obvious that it was done through special effects, and the effects weren't remotely correct for being on the moon, or going to the moon. YOU SAID: "NASA however would have to make a twist slightly but it was created in 1968 with in the same timeline that many suggest this type of activity could not happen." == I have no idea what you're trying to say. YOU SAID: "Then there is the 50 year gap in technology." == No. Technology itself keeps advancing. But, they simply stopped with the ultra-expensive building of moon rockets and craft. The budget got pulled. They were spending FIVE PERCENT of the entire federal budget on NASA during the height of Apollo. That's a devastatingly huge amount. WARS have been fought for less. And, after the space race was won, they pulled the plug on the spending. But, technologies keep moving forward. There's only a "gap" in the particular capability to put humans on the moon. There's no "gap" in mankind's knowledge of how to do it.
    2
  7004. Part 2: YOU SAID: "We know for a fact that we can't go into space because they destroyed the technology. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEamGAXJkjo" == Oh, good grief. Quit with your stupid quote-mines. Don Pettit was never implying that "destroyed technology" meant that NASA went through all of the records and burned them, like a corrupt corporation would burn their files as the IRS is coming to storm the joint and bust them for tax fraud or something. He's merely a colorful speaker sometimes, and used the word "destroyed" a bit liberally. But, guess what, it's essentially true. It IS "destroyed" in the context that there is no current means to do it again. Do you see any functional Saturn V rockets? Do you see any functional command modules? Do you see any functional landers? Where are the lunar training facilities? (Gone.) Where are the LLRVs/LLTVs? (Gone.) Where are all of the companies who built everything for Apollo? (Gone, bought by other companies, or shut down.) Where are the buildings and tooling to manufacture any of the Apollo hardware? (Gone, or completely retooled for other things.) Where are the launch facilities that are capable of launching a Saturn V? (Gone. Rebuilt for other things now.) See, this is the problem with your dishonesty. You hinge on ONE WORD: "destroyed." And, you INTENTIONALLY take that word out of context. You know damned well that Pettit wasn't denying the moon landings happened, or saying that NASA committed a secret burning of all of the Apollo records. That's your collective conspiratard hive-mind at work. You people see ONE SENTENCE and then throw all logic out the window, and all evidence out the window, just because it suits your delusion to do so. YOU SAID: "The problem with this has to do with the truth twisted to be a lie could be something NASA could play. It is after all history driven that NASA and the government would lie." == Well, fine. Let's pretend you're right, and somehow the US government could pull off a "hoax" of that scale (not possible, but whatever). Now, explain the active participation of all of the other countries involved? Explain why/how Spain spotted multiple SIVB fuel dumps around the moon, if they didn't go to the moon? Explain the radar tracking stations around the world, operated by Australia, the UK, the USA, the Soviets, etc., which all tracked Apollo to/from the moon? Explain the countless radio telescopes around the world, both in friendly and enemy countries, all AIMED AT THE MOON, receiving Apollo radio signals? Radio telescopes don't work from the side, or angles, they only work in an extremely narrow corridor that they are pointed. They were all over the world, including ones operated by amateurs who had some fairly large dishes (good enough to receive audio, but not video). As the Earth rotated, even NASA had to change to various dishes based around the world, operated by other countries, in order to receive Apollo signals, Australia, the UK, etc. How'd they get the participation of those other countries, all the way down to the hundreds of actual dish operators? Explain how Japan's JAXA/Selene was able to confirm Apollo's photography in a level of detail that wasn't possible in 1969-1972 (besides going there)? Explain why, still today, countless countries are able to bounce lasers off of the 3 reflectors left on the moon during the Apollo missions? Oh, unmanned probes put them there? Really? OK, who built them? And, more importantly, how'd they manage to sneak off 3 secret moon launches with nobody noticing, and nobody saying a word. It took about 3000 people to get a moon rocket off the ground, you know. And, those launches could be seen/heard for hundreds of miles. Nobody in the public noticed that unscheduled moon rockets were being launched? None of the thousands of people it took to launch these extra moon flights ever said a word about it? None of the contractors who built them cared to know where their rockets were going? "Hey, go build us an additional 3 moon rockets, but don't tell anybody you're building them." Is that how this goes for you? How about the 850 pounds of rocks/dust/core samples? Those were sent to universities around the world, and examined by trained geologists from many countries. They found those samples to be billions of years old, and never exposed to oxygen or moisture (which is not possible if those samples were gotten on Earth). Every single geologist who examined the rocks said they came from the moon. Explain it? And, the above list is just the tip of the iceberg here. I'm not going to waste [more] time spewing off the additional armies of evidence that goes against your silly notions that the US Government could simply "lie" and pull it off. So, hey, spare the world your bullshit explanation that everything about Apollo could simply be tucked under the blanket of "the US Government lies, therefore Apollo was faked." YOU SAID: "I don't have a view of my own because I really don't care." == Fucking liar. I've seen you a million times before, parading your anti-Apollo nonsense everywhere you go. You're PRETENDING not to care, so you can come across as intellectually honest. We all know you're not. I mean, good grief, at least the "normal" conspiratards spell it out up front. No, but not you. Your new tactic is to try to sneak your absolutely stupid notions under the guise of "oh, I don't have a view." Spare me. YOU SAID: "But it is interesting that they could just setup a moon base on the moon with say 4 people there with a 24/7 camera." == What the hell are you talking about? What moon base? And, yeah, Japan's JAXA/Selene has a 24/7 camera from the moon. But, it's not manned by people, it's just in orbit. And, LRO is sending back imagery 24/7. But, no, there are no people there. What do you mean that they could set up a moon base? Do you have any clue what that would entail? Good grief. Apollo stretched the limits of the equipment to the extreme, and they managed to put 2 men on the surface for about 3 [Earth] days. And, that was all the mass they could get the Saturn V to do. And, they had to greatly modify the F1 engines to get them to lift that much for Apollos 15/16/17, pretty much to the absolute limit of the equipment's capability to lift. Oh, but you think they should have a BASE up there 24/7 with 4 people? Good grief. If they took all 13 of the Saturn Vs that they flew, and finished building the other 2 that never got 100% completed, they still couldn't put a base up there, capable of 24/7 housing of 4 astronauts. See, this is about ENERGY. Going to the moon is about ENERGY. There are rocket equations that have been understood since 1903, long before there were ever manned rockets, outlining the exact amount of ENERGY required to send a certain amount of mass [wherever]. If you need XYZ amount of mass to be launched to the moon via a rocket, you need ABC amount of energy (fuel and oxidizer) to do it. A Saturn V used 6 million pounds of rocket fuel and oxidizer, and this was just enough to lift that little lander and 2 occupants to the moon, with another occupant in a command module for the return trip. That was it. No BASES. No 4 astronauts. Good grief. You know NOTHING about rocketry. Absolutely nothing. And, I've explained this before. There's a reason that there aren't any aerospace engineers or rocket scientists who share your insane viewpoints about Apollo. There's a reason that these ridiculous assertions only come from people (like you) who have never set foot inside a university classroom on these topics. A BASE on the moon? HOW?!?!?!?!?!!? Do you have any clue what kind of rocketry that would take??? The Saturn V, the biggest and most powerful rocket ever built, couldn't put a base on the moon, even if you took all 15 of them ever built, and tried to do it in pieces. Not by a long shot. Not even remotely close. Maybe 100 Saturn V rockets, ok, perhaps we're in the neighborhood of starting to be able to build a very small base. But, sorry, they only built 15 of them, and only 13 of those were ever made flight worthy. Try again, you ignoramus. YOU SAID: "Yet they don't I do find that very strange." == It's not strange to anybody who understands the topic. It's only strange to people like you, who pretend that all of those thousands of PhD rocket scientists and aerospace engineers were all "doing it wrong." Yeah, and, in your massive expertise that defies the entire scientific community, you've resorted to posting on YouTube. Yup, because that's what people do when they have Earth-shattering revelations that go against the last 100 years of scientific understanding of rocketry... they post it on YouTube comments, right? No, YouTube isn't a forum for scientifically illiterate people to pretend to know more than they actually know, is it? YOU SAID: "I also find it odd that ISS has to loop and less than 60 mins and the so called live ISS turns off for 40 sh mins. Just enough time to rewind video tape I guess. Could they fake this. Yes but the real question is why not just put a person on the moon and get it done. Something is odd about that. The main argument is NASA had more funds to work with is the other big argument. The truth is NASA budget is based on a startup of a business. This would be a large startup cost and the a drop for normal operations. We are seeing this is. So there is only go or stay. Looks as if we are stuck on earth at this time." == Hey, next time you want to PRETEND to be intellectually honest, and PRETEND that you don't care, and PRETEND that you don't actually have an opinion, maybe you shouldn't be so obvious about what you really think. You're not fooling ANYBODY.
    2
  7005.  @primemac3dstudio18  Dummy, I told you, I'm not bothering with your intellectual dishonesty. I've seen you post a million times over the past years, and you have proven a million times that you are not open to any input contrary to your delusion. I don't care how much you pretend to be intellectually honest. You are not. And, so, I only read one sentence from your latest posts (returning the favor for the number of times you did the same to me). YOU SAID: "This video was not a quote mine. Don Pettit stated "destroyed technology" because that is what he stated. " == Unbelievable. See how dishonest you are. That is the very DEFINITION of a quote mine. It's about the most perfect example you can find that defines the words "quote mine." If they were to put an example of the term "quote mine" in the dictionary, they could use that Don Pettit quote. Yet, you say it's not a quote mine. What an idiot. No, I'm not playing your game. I'm done with you. You're just a dishonest and rude pig who is not deserving of my time any longer.
    2
  7006. He sued HUNDREDS of people. And, who "allowed" him to become as powerful as he became?? The deluded fans did.
    2
  7007. The Freedom of Information Act disagrees with you. And, by the way, nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive. It wasn't released until November 24, 2023. She committed suicide 2 years ago.
    2
  7008. Um, you do know they launched Artemis I to the moon a few months ago, right? You do know that, a few weeks ago, they've announced the Artemis II mission's astronauts who will go to the moon next, right?
    2
  7009. Yes, the store employee stating that she thought the woman walked out without paying is reasonable suspicion. And, if the woman isn't carrying an ID card on her, then she must at least provide enough information to identify herself (name, address, birthday, etc.). She refused.
    2
  7010. Huh? Harassment? For stopping a woman suspected of a crime, and requesting a receipt and ID? Good grief. Sorry, but that's not harassment. Why is this so difficult for you?
    2
  7011. Questions are fine. The problem is that only 1% of the people who ask the questions are willing to listen to the answers. Most of the deniers only pretend to ask questions, then ignore all answers.
    2
  7012. Then you don't know anything about the cultists who deny the moon landings. They keep on following the video makers spewing garbage, no matter how many lies they are caught producing. It truly doesn't matter to the cultists. The only thing that's important to them is making the accusation. Evidence doesn't matter one bit.
    2
  7013. Well, for the bigger items that are pretty clear in the original photography, it looks like the CGI has copied their locations pretty well. He botched the orientation of the laser reflector (it's not aimed toward Earth in this video). But, for small stuff for which there are no photos, or for the condition of the equipment today, what more than "trust me bro" is even possible?
    2
  7014.  @michaelstillman1171  You think there's any debate to be had?
    2
  7015. YOU SAID: "Demand that NASA Produce all of the APOLLO data and make it available for independent review." == It is all available... for the millionth time. You can sit there and proclaim it isn't all day long. But, all you're doing is avoiding the fact that it is. YOU SAID: "That's how science is done." == By going on YouTube comments and proclaiming that Apollo violates the laws of physics (your claim)? Is that your impression of "science" also? Where are your calculations? Why haven't you submitted those physics calculations to a physics journal? THAT is how science is done. YOU SAID: "They claim to have lost or misplaced it all" == Wrong. Nobody has ever made that claim, besides conspiracy videos. YOU SAID: "making it impossible for them to repeat the feat." == No, you are confusing the conspiracy video where Don Pettit says that it's very difficult to rebuild it all, with "impossible to repeat." That's ridiculous. Pettit was saying that the entire program was retired, all of the facilities it took to make everything for Apollo are long gone, the buildings have been destroyed or retooled for other things. The launch facilities have been torn down and destroyed, replaced by shuttle launching facilities. The training facilities were all torn down. The LLRVs/LLTVs are gone, non-functional, crashed, or put into museums. The companies that built everything for Apollo are mostly long gone. North American Aviation (the company that built the command modules) went out of business before Apollo even ended. The key people who worked on Apollo are almost all dead, and the ones still alive have been retired for a long time. Nobody uses Apollo's radar type any longer. The old analog communications network has been retooled for digital communications instead. Yeah, it would be remarkably difficult to rebuild a carbon copy Apollo, and it would be far easier/cheaper/faster to use modern engineering and construction, rather than to attempt to reverse-engineer old technologies, and build all of the scientific infrastructure using all of the old standards. I'm sorry your entire "education" is based on 1-2 sentence quote mines taken completely out of context by the conspiracy videos that have destroyed your mind. But, guess what... those conspiracy videos are ALWAYS wrong. Every single one of them, every single time. YOU SAID: "Considering that this is supposedly their signature event, does that not seem to be a lame excuse?" == Pfttt. WHAT?? They're building Artemis, you know. I suspect it'll get defunded under Biden's administration, in the same fashion that Biden/Obama killed/defunded Constellation's attempt to send people back to the moon (before it even got really started). But, yeah, at least at this moment, Artemis is funded, astronauts have been named, and are in training. Two more Orion capsules have been ordered. SLS is accelerating. Amazon's Jeff Bezos is building the landers under his "Blue" company. What more do you want? Nobody's making "excuses," dummy. In order to go to the moon, congress has to approve it, and allocate the money to do so. And, congress had not done so from the period of 1972 to late 2019, when they green-lit Artemis, and granted it the funding to move forward. YOU SAID: "BTW: NASA's recent spokesman publicly admits that radiation is a barrier that they need to overcome before they can go to the moon." == Pfftttt. "Recent"?? You are undoubtedly referring to Kelly Smith's video made in 2014 for children about Orion. And, his words were that they need to test Orion before putting people inside. They called it a "trial by fire." And, yes, he said that the computer systems on Orion would be very vulnerable to the radiation. And, he said that they wanted to test Orion and its computer systems before putting people in there. And, they did that later in the same year, 2014. They sent Orion up into the Van Allen belts, and back, and it passed all of the tests. So, what's your beef? Sorry that your entire "education" about the Van Allen belts came from about 30 seconds of a video made for children, for a completely different spacecraft than the Apollo command module. But, that's what you've done. Kelly Smith said they wanted to test Orion before putting people inside. And, they did that. Yet, you conspiratards keep bringing it up anyway. Why? They did the same thing with Apollo 6, you know. They sent Apollo 6 up and through the belts and back, unmanned, just like they did with Orion in 2014, in order to test the systems in the belts. I mean, this is the thing about you conspiratards... there are THOUSANDS of papers that have been written about the Van Allen belt radiation. THOUSANDS!!!! Yet, your entire knowledge about them comes from a 30 second clip from a conspiracy video that intentionally took Kelly Smith's words out of context. Now, you idiots are sitting there, claiming that they should have just used Apollo's mechanisms, and shouldn't have tested Orion. It's another one of the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" pieces of "logic" you conspiratards use. If they said they wanted to test Orion in the Van Allen belts before putting people inside, you say, "FAKE!!! Why don't they just use Apollo's mechanisms?? Therefore, Apollo is fake, because they want to test a new craft." If they said they weren't going to test Orion in the Van Allen belts, you'd say, "FAKE!!! Do they want us to believe that they engineered an entirely new craft with new mission parameters, but they don't even want to test it in the Van Allen belts before putting people inside?!?! Apollo was fake!!!" Either way, you idiots were going to claim Apollo was fake. So, what EXACTLY is the point you're trying to make? YOU SAID: "Was it not also a barrier in 1969?" == It's not a barrier now, and wasn't one in 1969 either. The word "barrier" pertaining to the Van Allen belts is only used to describe those belts as a "barrier" to ELECTRONS, not to people/craft. Yes, there's ionic particle radiation in the belts. But, this has been explained to you multiple times, and you have ignored it. So, I'm not explaining it again. YOU SAID: "I want my money back." == Stop making a jackass of yourself, and keep your delusions to yourself, dumbass.
    2
  7016.  @c.harris4509  How do secret moon missions result in any "power"? Seems to me, the way to be more powerful is to make these things public. Ya know, like, everyone in the world believes them to be so powerful that they keep on doing these missions, right? What kind of "power" results from actions that nobody knows about? As for "greed," what are they greedy for? Have you seen a mental healthcare professional lately? Maybe you should make an appointment?
    2
  7017. Every word you wrote is wrong. But, just to respond to this insane notion that nobody else wrote a memoir, good grief. Tom Kelly ring a bell?
    2
  7018. Max F. Unfortunately, I cannot write his last name, because YouTube blocks it. It's spelled too close to a slur.
    2
  7019. It had dual batteries in case one of them failed, each battery being capable of 25 miles, totaling 50 miles. They drove about 22 miles.
    2
  7020. Multiple people called the police, not just one family. I mean, you don't actually buy this story she's telling about thinking nobody could see her, do you?
    2
  7021. Oh? Why? So she could be 30 miles away by the time the cop gets someone to log into the camera system, look at videos, check the register transaction logs, inventory records, etc.? That's how you think this should go? Spend a bunch of time looking at all of that stuff, so the person can just leave and never be found?
    2
  7022. Who told you that the only Apollo evidence comes from the US government? Why would you think that's true?
    2
  7023. Stars in the daytime, using cameras set for daytime exposure? Um, yeah, you're right, that's definitely the greatest proof. And, when your "greatest proof" falls apart as quickly as looking at the Carruthers UV telescopic camera photos of the stars that you think didn't exist, um, yeah, how quickly will every other claim you make fall apart... if that's your "greatest" proof?
    2
  7024. What is the basis for the suit, and against who?
    2
  7025.  @marksprague1280  Um, he's on our side.
    2
  7026. Huh? There are mountains of proof. There are laser reflectors left on the moon by 3 Apollo missions, used every single day by dozens of countries around the world. Apollo audio received all throughout the world from countries and even some backyard amateurs, by aiming their dishes AT THE MOON. Arizona State University's LRO camera has captured hundreds of photos of the landing sites, including landers, rover tracks, foot paths, etc. China and India have each released their orbital photos of some of the landing sites, which match perfectly with the mission photography as well as the LRO images. Japan has used Selene's 3D imaging to confirm Apollo's photography at a level of detail that wasn't available in 1969-1972, except by being on the moon. Dozens of countries tracked the Apollo missions with radar and radio telescopes. There are 850 pounds of lunar rocks that have been examined by thousands of geologists from all over the world, which have never been exposed to oxygen or moisture. I mean, good grief, the list goes on and on and on. Why would you sit there and say there's no proof? What EXACT type of proof would you require and expect, that hasn't already been provided?
    2
  7027. Well, given that she was only seconds behind him in the car, and magically knew it was her boyfriend Mark who was wearing the balaclava ski mask, I'd say she was in on it... thus just as much of a criminal as he is... or, was.
    2
  7028. Nice and all, but, when will you ever realize that his vacuum tube demonstration kept showing the pods kick up dust, which lingered in the air inside? Hint: if it was anywhere near an actual vacuum, the dust would just fall after getting kicked up. Hence, with dust lingering in the air, it's not a vacuum. I've never seen you point this out.
    2
  7029.  @CreatureColossus  YOU SAID: "The reason I mention it here is simple: detractors are faced with an ever shrinking list of criticisms to justify their views." == WOW!!!! I wouldn't even know how to be more backward than that statement is!!! Sheeeesssshhh. YOU SAID: "I'm curious what happens when this also gets solved." == Then, it goes through the legal steps to become certified. There are 5 levels of automated driving. Level 0 is a basic car with no automation. Levels 1-5 have some automation. Most cars that tout assisted driving nowadays are level-1. Level-2 has been attained by some cars. No cars have yet achieved level 3-4-5. Tesla's solution was to promise level-5 (full self driving, like a robo-taxi), then, a few years later, simply declare (re-define) that "full self driving" now means level-2. Of course, this is just one of the many snake oil sales tactics. If you can't deliver "full self driving," just re-define what those words mean... to something you can deliver. So, to answer your question about what happens when this gets solved, well, my return question would be, are you talking about REALLY getting solved, like REAL level-5 self-driving? Or, are you asking about Musk's version, where he simply changed what "full self driving" means, and declares it's already solved? If the former, yeah, then what will happen is that the first auto manufacturers will not sell the cars. They will go through the rigorous process of getting those cars legalized, passing years' worth of tests and proof-of-concepts. Then, they will keep them as money-printing machines. Once too many of them are on the market to make profits that way, then they will resume selling cars to the public again. YOU SAID: "It must be hard for thunderfoot to perform the mental gymnastics of brushing aside the success of Tesla" == What? Tesla spent 2003 to 2010 as a private company, never making a profit. It went public in 2010, and never made a profit. They attempted to claim a profit in 2014, but, the FTC slapped them down for illegal accounting practices (cooking the books), and they had to report losses instead. Then, in 2020, they reported profits for the first time (yeah, when every auto manufacturer on the planet benefitted from COVID's dynamics). I'd hardly call this a "success." I mean, if stock price means anything, yeah, Tesla is worth more than every auto manufacturer on Earth. But, the reality is, in order to justify that stock price, the per-car profit margin would need to be about $2 million (yes, literally). Given that they barely make any profit on their cars whatsoever, and they don't even sell a single car for the margin required, um, yeah, I'd say the stock is overvalued, wouldn't you? YOU SAID: "and SpaceX," == Musk just declared a couple of weeks ago that SpaceX is on the brink of bankruptcy!!!! What's wrong with you? YOU SAID: "in order to justify his hatred of Musk." == Good grief. Are you capable of paying attention? Yes, credit goes where it's due. But, you Muskites need to quit focusing on these "successes" and look at the overall track record of Musk's claims. It ain't good. YOU SAID: "Also, businesses make promises, miss timelines, and change strategies all the time. Especially in the tech field." == Good grief. -- Exploding nuclear bombs over the poles of Mars will terraform it into an Earth-like atmosphere?? Where does he get that sort of nonsense? Mars' atmosphere is approximately 1% of that of Earth's. Exploding bombs over the poles isn't going to do squat to terraform the planet's atmosphere. He is making that up. -- He puts a mime in a robot costume, and says he's now manufacturing robots next year? Do you believe him? -- Full level-5 self driving cars "next year" (years ago). Meanwhile, his own company's legal department says they have no such plans. -- Hyperloop? What a joke. A 99.9% vacuum, with a pod floating on a cushion of air?? How does that work? How do you maintain a vacuum, if you're pumping air into the tube? Then, he puts on this ridiculous Hyperloop demonstration, pretending to vacuum the tube down. But, hmmm, the cameras inside show dust floating in the air?? How is it a vacuum, if the dust doesn't fall to the ground, and is suspended in the air? (Scam.) -- Vegas tunnel? Musk's contract indicates that he has to pass 4,400 passengers per hour. He promised full self driving pods through the underground tunnel in order to deliver on this. Meanwhile, the system was a bait-and-switch, and all they ended up doing was staffing it with drivers in regular Tesla cars. Of course, Vegas is laughing all the way to the bank, because they don't have to pay Tesla or the Boring Company a dime if the system doesn't deliver (and, it's not delivering). So, of course, Vegas agreed to let Musk build more tunnels, because it's FREE (to the city)!!! Musk / Boring Company / Tesla have to foot the bill. Meanwhile, it's the laughing stock of the town. -- How about that illegal $420 tweet? Do I even need to start? -- A couple of weeks ago, Musk narrowly avoided going to prison. But, the judge told him that he'd be personally liable for the billions of dollars he scammed in the Solar City deal. It is estimated to be between $3 billion (Musk's claim), and $9 billion (the plaintiffs' claim). Then, a couple of days later, he sells off $6 billion in stock, claiming it was to pay taxes??? Since when do you pay tax on stock you haven't yet sold? He doesn't get dividends, remember? So, why did he owe $6 billion in tax money? Was it merely a coincidence that, a few days before he sold that $6 billion, he was told by the judge that he was personally liable for between $3 billion and $9 billion to the people he scammed? Oh, but the list of things Musk does to warrant hatred is DECREASING, you say?? Good gods. It's a cult. You people can't see the forest through the trees.
    2
  7030.  @CreatureColossus  Thanks for demonstrating that you didn't read what I wrote. Tells all I need to know about you.
    2
  7031.  @CreatureColossus  Then you should have stuck with your own original topic.
    2
  7032. I don't really understand this type of objection. This is a 52 minute long video that addresses some of the most common objections posed by deniers. There are 10,000 different aspects of Apollo that aren't addressed n this video. Why do people like you pick one topic and ask why it's not addressed? If they made the video 60 minutes, and addressed your concern, there'd still be 9,999 more aspects that they didn't address. What's next? Are you going to sit there and expect a video that takes a couple of years to watch? Why should it be this video's responsibility to explain Apollo to you? Why aren't you actually just studying Apollo itself, and how the return trip worked, rather than trying to learn it via conspiracy videos?
    2
  7033. Pfftt. How do you "forget" the technology? What are you talking about? Undoubtedly, you're inserting new words there.
    2
  7034. It's up to the network to blur the face. The police must release the video as-is.
    2
  7035. Good grief, what an absolute mess. "there is a bedrock that should have been exposed(not necessarily a crater)" See, this is what happens when all you do is watch videos that lie to you, rather than looking at the photo archive itself. Like AS11-40-5921? Tell me that this doesn't fit EXACTLY with what you're requesting. See that the dust layer has almost completely been eliminated, blown down to the compacted regolith and rock layer? See the radial striations? This is EXACTLY what you're complaining that should happen. But, you don't know about it, because those dishonest videos you love so much will never show it to you. And, you'll certainly never look at the archive photos yourself. "by the strong rocket blast" But, dewdrop, it wasn't a very strong blast. Do the math. It's a 20 square foot engine bell opening. And, they landed with about 2,500 pounds of thrust. That's not a heck of a lot of thrust per square inch, you know. This is especially compounded by being in a vacuum where the thrust spreads very wide very quickly. "as it descended close to the surface, two inches of dust are blown away" See what I mean? You're describing exactly what happened (if you looked at the photos yourself), yet, you think it didn't happen (because you listened to dishonest videos that say it didn't happen, and you've never looked at the photos for yourself). "in less than a second by a rocket engine" No, not that fast. I mean, fast, um, ok, but not THAT fast. You clearly don't understand rocketry that well. "of not less than 5000 thousand pounds( the actual weight of the entire module at 1 sixth the gravity of earth) that is ,15 tons divided by six," Are you getting it yet? Is it penetrating that ridiculous wall you've build in that brain of yours? Good gods. No, dewdrop. The lander didn't weigh 5000 pounds when landing. Why? Because there's this concept called "rocket fuel," and another concept called "oxidizer." See, what happens, dewdrop, is that when a rocket does this thing called "burning," it ejects tons of mass of exploding hot gasses in one direction, causing an equal and opposite reaction in the other direction. That's basically how a rocket works. Spew out tons of mass at high velocity in one direction, the craft moves in the opposite direction. It's called "conservation of momentum." But, gee, that's not what you think happens, huh? You think a craft can magically spew tons of exploding hot gas out of an engine bell for 14 minutes, yet still weigh exactly the same when it gets to the surface? Really? That's how this goes, in your mind? Those 18,000 pounds of fuel and oxidizer (Earth weight anyway) that burned on the way down to the surface just somehow still are inside the craft? You think the craft weighed the same at touchdown as it weighed when they first lit the engine? Like, burning all of the fuel and oxidizer during descent didn't lighten the craft at all? Sheeeessshhh. Sorry, dewdrop, but you clearly know NOTHING about rocketry. There isn't a rocket engineer on the planet who would EVER do the math the way you're doing it. Not one. Anybody even remotely knowledgeable about rocketry even slightly would understand to subtract the weight of the fuel/oxidizer that were burned during descent. The fact that you don't know that... completely wrecks your credibility (which, sorry, you barely had in the first place anyway). "actually that blast is so strong that even the dust that registered armstrong¨s foot print would have cleared." No. Not even with the 5,000 pounds of thrust you mistakenly thought it had. Yes, it would clear quite a bit of dust from directly underneath, but, no, it wouldn't clear all that much dust further away from the center of the rocket thrust. Stop pretending to understand topics you don't. Is it really that difficult for you to just admit you don't understand? Really? You're sitting there saying stuff that would make any ACTUAL rocket engineer cringe like nails on a chalkboard, that's how blatantly wrong you are about things. You don't have the foggiest understanding of the topic. Yet, you boldly go around accusing thousands of people of being criminals, based upon (a) you never looked at the photo archive yourself, and blindly trusted silly videos that lie to you, and (b) your own warped and inaccurate understanding of how rockets work. Ridiculous dribble. I hope you're proud.
    2
  7036. Sorry, but when you don't know the difference between "geosynchronous orbit" and "tidally locked," you're not exactly in a position to assert your opinions anywhere. Sorry, I know you feel badly about having chosen a life of drugs instead of a life of education, but, that was YOUR OWN CHOICE. Stop polluting the world with your lousy choices.
    2
  7037. You have reversed your terms. I mean, I am not sure why you'd mix km and mph in the same sentence in the first place, but, whatever. They drove a total of around 20 miles per mission (missions which had the rovers anyway). And, the rovers' top speed was about 10 mph. And, when it was super bouncy, they simply slowed down. This isn't difficult to understand. These are mostly people who flew experimental jets for a living before they joined the Apollo program. Gene Cernan's job was to fly nuclear bombs and train to attack the enemy by flying at supersonic speed just at tree level (to avoid radar), then pull up at high-G forces, then release the bomb straight up into the air, then boogie out of there at top speed before the nuclear explosion blew his plane into a million pieces. Um, yeah, I think he wasn't too worried about driving 10mph in a lunar buggy.
    2
  7038. So, in your other message, you asked where the moon car is for this video. Now, you're saying that they didn't go to the moon. So, you know sooooooo little about Apollo that you think they had a rover on Apollo 11 (they didn't), but, you think you know more about the topic than the entire planet's experts. Pure genius at work.
    2
  7039. So, in your mind, congress is never allowed to end a program? Really? Once they funded Apollo, they were never allowed to defund it? How does that warped logic even work in your mind?
    2
  7040. So, that's your excuse now? They're "doing it wrong"? And, you've come to YouTube comments to tell the world that you understand it better?
    2
  7041. Awww. You poor thing.
    2
  7042.  @yazzamx6380  Do you really expect him to count to 4?
    2
  7043. "When they visit in the future they'll do what Apollo 12 did and visit an old landing site." The next landings are planned for polar regions, not the fairly equatorial prior landing sites. "They might go to the Apollo 12 site in fact." If they were to revisit any Apollo landing sites, Apollo 12 would be very low on the list. Apollo 15 would be far more fruitful, because they had to cut it short, and didn't finish all of their planned stops, and is far more interesting geologically than Apollo 12. It's got a massive lava flow, mountains, anorthosite rocks (extremely old with features that show how the moon was formed), etc. Taurus Littrow (Apollo 17) would be quite phenomenal also, which is a valley surrounded by mountains, where they found orange soil (but couldn't stay long enough to really dig into it), and various crater types, and whole bunches of meteorites that rolled down hills and shattered, etc. On Apollo 14, they never even got to their main objective (Cone Crater), because they got lost and couldn't find it. So, we have absolutely no experience in any Apollo mission of exploring that size/style crater. Apollo 12's few craters were fairly "normal" and didn't teach them much. Anyway, I could go on about each of the missions, and why they'd make a better choice than Apollo 12, but, you already get the point. "They'll be a need to quaranteen some of them." If you can't even spell "quarantine" correctly, why should anybody believe you know what people should or shouldn't do about it? And, no, that's not the correct word in the first place (for what you're attempting to say). "The Apollo 11 site for example might receive some sort of listed status." Well, nobody owns the moon, so, there is no legal mechanism to ban anybody from going there. But, what the USA has already done is passed a law stating that anybody going to the Apollo 11 landing site will not get any financial assistance from the government. They also asked for other countries to enact the same laws in their respective countries. They want it treated like a historical landmark. Look but don't touch. However, ultimately, nobody can stop anybody from going. "Perhaps, in a future mission the crew would unfortunately be stranded and die there. Again, that might be an off limits one." Again, how do you enforce it? How can you dictate what individuals, companies, or countries, do with their money, when nobody owns the moon in the first place? "Someone might develop the ability to clean up landing sites, perhaps where boosters have crashed." OK, for what purpose? "Eventually the moon might become a tourist attraction" No. There's no position in the future that will allow a common person to be able to afford a trip to the moon. This isn't like air travel, where the costs can be reduced and reduced, gaining economies of scale. Getting to the moon involves a completely different set of thermodynamics. It will always be an extremely high energy cost, unlike airline travel. Even if you reduced the cost of the craft, and the radar systems, the labor, and everything else, down to near zero, the problem will still remain that each person requires millions of pounds of rocket fuel/oxidizer. You cannot get around that. And, everyday people will never be able to even afford to purchase the fuel/oxidizer, let alone the fact that reducing the cost of the craft and everything else isn't going to drop all that much either. "and laws would have to be passed about what you can and can't do with whatever you pick up." Again, the extent of those laws would just be to affect whether or not you'll get government aid in doing so, not for whether you can or cannot pick something up. Nobody owns the moon. "It'll all end in court." Were you at all interested in actually understanding the topic? Or, did you just want to pretend you understand things you don't?
    2
  7044. You want more people to engage? While, simultaneously, you refuse to address or answer a single question I asked? Good grief. Your hypocrisy is stunning.
    2
  7045.  @yassassin6425  Have you listened to the audio of that segment? It sounds like they were about to have heart attacks. That MET was fairly useless.
    2
  7046. Wow, with evidence as strong as that, who could argue? The one sentence: "We choose to go to the moon," gives away a 10 year plot involving 450,000 people. Sure. You wouldn't happen to be a drug addict, would you?
    2
  7047. Hilarious!! You are accusing thousands of people of being criminals who would be put into prison for their entire lives if anything you said was correct. And, the basis for your beliefs is that Kennedy said "we choose to go to the moon" in a speech. But, you want people to be polite? You don't like rudeness? What IS wrong with you? Have you looked into the mirror, dewdrop?
    2
  7048. "Seriously" Um, no. You clearly don't know what that word means, because the rest of your posted message is nothing but comedy. "I used to believe this was all true." Then you found meth, and it changed your life. "However, the story that NASA lost all the technology" No, dewdrop. That's not a "story" (except from nuts like you). That's an intentional out-of-context quote mine. It's somewhat true, depending on the spirit in which you mean the word "lost." The Apollo technology is lost in the exact same spirit that Concorde technology is lost. It's all retired now, and we wouldn't be able to get one of those flying again, even if we wanted to. It would be more difficult, expensive, and time consuming, to rebuild a Concorde (or a Saturn V) than it would be to just build something new. It's "lost" in that sense. "and information" Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. Start there. There are terabytes of information, schematics, photos, operations manuals, videos, etc., that would take you approximately 10 years to get through. And, that's only scratching the surface. There's a ton more information available that isn't on that archive. After you do that, I'll give you more archives that will take you another 10 years to get through. But, wait, did a conspiracy video tell you the information is gone, and you just blindly believed it? "to repeat this historical event" Nobody wants a repeat of Apollo, dewdrop. Apollo was extremely limited. It couldn't land more than about 20 or 30 degrees off of the lunar equator. It couldn't land on the far side. It couldn't land at the poles. They couldn't stay very long. They couldn't carry much payload. I mean, they did the best they could with what they had, but, nobody wants a repeat of Apollo. "and its now not capable of doing this 54 years later, is very suspicious and hard to swallow!" We cannot fly mach-7 airplanes today, like the 1950s era X15. We cannot fly mach-3 spyplanes for 3000 miles, like the SR71. We cannot fly 100+ people at mach 2 across the Atlantic (plus luggage) either. Does that mean those planes were fake? See, dewdrop, what you don't understand is that the 1950s and 1960s were the "golden age" of aviation and space travel. They designed and built these marvels on virtually unlimited budgets. And, not a single one of them was financially viable, but, they didn't care, they built them anyway. The Soviets had built a near carbon copy of the Concorde, by the way, but, guess what? They almost immediately retired it. Why? Because it wasn't viable. And, Concorde proved them right, because it lost money on every single flight, and only survived out of contractual obligations and government support, until they finally managed to kill the financial monstrosity 20 years ago. See, the only way technologies persist and advance is if they're financially viable. Apollo wasn't. Concorde wasn't. Concorde remained virtually unchanged since 1969. Why? Because they were already losing billions on the thing, and didn't want to sink more money into it. Congress killed Apollo because it was a financial monstrosity also. And, it took nearly 50 years before they were willing to spend money on Artemis (the next manned moon program). So, nobody really cares what you find "hard to swallow." Those who understand the topic, understand the topic. Those who don't understand the topic, believe whatever the conspiracy videos tell them to believe, and find it "hard to swallow" because the conspiracy videos tell you to find it hard to swallow. "The Vanellan belt is a serious problem for the module," You cannot even spell it. Why would you think you understand what kind of problem it was? "the fuel and water on board would not have protected the men from severe radiation poisoning?" Dewdrop, you have confused radioactivity with radiation. I realize it's very "in style" for your ilk to not understand the difference between nuclear radiation (radioactivity) and every other kind of radiation. But, particle physicists understand it just fine. There is no such concept as radiation poisoning of water as a result of ionic radiation. That makes no scientific sense at all. And, all you're doing is pretending to understand things you do not. "This is not possible today because of this reality." Fine. Write it up. Tell the world that you think ionic radiation results in radioactive-type poisoning of water. Publish it in the science journals on radiobiology. What are you waiting for? You can rewrite everything known about radiation in a single paper!!! You'll win a Nobel Prize for certain. Yet, all you're doing is making a comment on YouTube? Why? This is your opportunity to (a) win a Nobel, plus (b) the million dollars that goes with it, plus (c) spend the next 5 years of your life making $70,000 per week on the university lecture circuit, and (d) book deals worth 7 figures-plus. You said in your very first word that you wanted to think seriously, right? So, seriously, what are you doing on YouTube, instead of publishing your knowledge in science journals? "To have a ship capable of going 1 to 2 hours through this massive radiation belt would take tons of lead to protect the astronauts" Huh? Lead? Well, there goes your Nobel Prize. See, dewdrop, if you use a heavy metal like lead to protect against ionic particle radiation (which is what the Van Allen belts are comprised of), the heavy metal causes secondary Bremsstrahlung radiation. Often times, the secondary Bremsstrahlung can be worse than the primary radiation. There isn't a particle physicist on Earth that would ever recommend lead as a protection from ionic particles. Lighter metals, or polymers, are far more effective, and don't cause Bremsstrahlung. But, I guess I'm not surprised. You didn't know the difference between nuclear radioactivity (lead is good for that type) and ionic radiation (lead is bad for that type). So, well, sorry, I guess you have a long way to go before claiming that Nobel Prize and making $35 million from all of the proceeds from books and lectures. I guess that's why you're here on YouTube anyway, right? To pretend? The science journals certainly won't let you pretend. But, YouTube comments... nobody can stop you from posting pure gibberish. It's a nice make-believe for you. You get to pretend you know more than the entire planet, and the rest of the world gets a laugh. "The rockets and fuel would have been massive." The 363 foot tall Saturn V wasn't big enough for you? "This ship was lightweight and made with sheet metal." Huh? Dewdrop, there's this concept of a "booster rocket." The craft itself doesn't need a lot of fuel, or doesn't have to be very big, when you have a "booster" that does all of the heavy lifting and propels the craft up to the required speed. "Last but not least, how did that rover get carried up and dropped off?" I guess you think the 7,000 engineers at Grumman (who built the lander), plus the engineers at GM and Boeing (who built the rover), forgot to include a way to bring the rover to the moon, huh? "I never seen it hanging off the command module??" Correct. It hung off of the lunar lander. What good would it do attached to the command module? "The rover was built with a cheap trailer frame with tires." They were $38 million each, in 1970 money, and none had tires. "The seat to drive was a nylon lawn chair, and the satellite was an upside-down umbrella 🌂 look at it." Your Nobel Prize gets further and further away with every word you type. "Does it look like they spent 100 million on this? No, they were stealing money from the American people. Seriously, look at the actual quality of the rover & module. It's hard to swallow." But, dewdrop, you haven't got the foggiest understanding of the topic.
    2
  7049.  @yassassin6425  Is there some reason you left out Apollo 11 and 16 from the LRO photos?
    2
  7050. The multiple people who called the police, and the one in the "audience" who took the video of the incident, disagree with you. The witnesses said that she wandered up and down the beach looking for someplace to do this, then plopped right down in front of multiple people, children included, and performed. The police saw the video and described it in their report as a very loud and public act in view of people. I'm sorry if that differs from the version being told by a woman who attempting to get out of her millionth arrest. But, yeah, "I didn't do it" is a really common claim. I don't know why you'd blindly believe her??
    2
  7051. So, a user named "J White" wants people to go watch "Jarrah White" videos? Shocker. And, didn't Jarrah finally have to admit that there is evidence for Apollo on the moon, when India recently released their photos of the Apollo landing sites, which showed the Apollo lander descent stages still on the lunar surface? Didn't he deny the similar photos from LRO 10 years ago? Oh, but isn't his excuse now that, yes, Apollo sent those landers to the moon, but without people inside? Tell me, does that concept make sense to you, J White? I mean, if Apollo had adequate technology to land the Apollo-sized landers exactly where they planned on landing them, why not just put the people inside?
    2
  7052. "With the size of those engines, it won’t matter how low the engines were burning, you’re gonna move a TON of dust and rocks" Congratulations on knowing exactly NOTHING about rocketry, yet magically deciding you understand it better than the world's experts. Good grief. The larger the engine nozzle, the LESS the pressure and exhaust velocity. They specifically used a massive 5 foot wide (20 sq. feet) engine nozzle in order to cause the exact opposite of what your opinion is. The resulting pressure per square inch of the landers' descent engines is actually less than the pressure of a human footprint on the moon. Yes, dust was blown, and that's quite evident. But, people like you have greatly overestimated the blast, by many orders of magnitude. No rocket engineer on the planet agrees with you.
    2
  7053. "Other inconsistencies also make it hard to believe" Well, then stop using conspiracy videos as your source of knowledge. Guess what? They're always wrong. Sometimes they're just wrong because the makers of the videos have no understanding of the topic. But, most of the time, the makers of those videos know in advance that they're wrong, and proceed to lie to you anyway.
    2
  7054. "makes me wonder why we haven’t left earths atmosphere since the moon missions." "we should be able to leave earth’s atmosphere" Good gods. Are you under the impression that the ISS is in Earth's atmosphere? What in the world are you talking about? Do you really believe that? I mean, technically, there's no such thing as a perfect vacuum, so, you do get scientists analyzing the few molecules here and there as you go higher and higher. But, c'mon man. No sane person would actually say that the ISS is inside the atmosphere. The Kármán line is the well accepted line between the atmosphere and space, which is 62 miles up. Are you under the impression that nobody has gone more than 62 miles up?
    2
  7055. "they would have lost a ton of muscle mass and wouldn’t be able to stand or hold themselves up after months of being out of our gravity." Dewdrop, the longest Apollo mission was less than 2 weeks. Sheeeesssshhh. I mean, I realize you opened by saying that you haven't decided what to believe. But, seriously, when every single "fact" (not fact) you present is so amazingly wrong, no wonder you can't decide. Again, stop getting your information from videos that lie to you!!! Good grief. Why? Why would you believe anything you just wrote? NOBODY (outside of the lunatic fringe) would ever say anything remotely like what you're saying on any of these things. The only thing you're demonstrating is that you have absolutely no ability to sort good information from bad information. And, sorry, but running off to videos made by taxi cab drivers and warehouse workers isn't going to teach you anything about aerospace engineering. And, by the way, you need to learn English. Sheeesssshhhh. Reading what you wrote is like looking back on my kids' school papers from when they were 7 years old.
    2
  7056. And, you think Musk was the first one, why? Because he said so? That man lies more than anybody I've ever seen, and it's always shocking to see how many people blindly believe him. A) First of all, no, dewdrop. Musk's rockets weren't the first to land. The quickest way to debunk his claim about being the first to do it is to look at the McDonnell Douglas DC-X. It's really that simple. B) Why do you suppose nobody else besides SpaceX has even really bothered with it for Earth-bound rockets? Is it because nobody could figure out how to land one until he came along? Or, do you suppose nobody else bothered because it was just far more economical to strap some parachutes to a booster and let it land in the ocean? Thus, they get to use all of the rocket fuel for actual payload/altitude, rather than cutting down on the payload/altitude, to save rocket fuel for a landing that could have just been done with a parachute. Here's a hint for you: landing rockets on Earth isn't really the game changer Musk pretends. He sacrifices payload capability to do it, and, it's not nearly the huge money saver he makes it out to be. It's basically a parlor trick. Any other competent rocket company can do it. But, none have really desired to do it, because parachutes are just plain easier, and don't waste fuel for a landing. This isn't an option in an airless environment where parachutes don't work. And, this is also exactly why the DC-X was abandoned. Nobody really saw a use for it. C) Why don't any of you "skeptical ones" (not skeptical, but, you pretend) ever just want to see the evidence? You look for these little "gotchas," while ignoring the elephant in the room, which is enough evidence to bury a mountain. Oh, but that doesn't interest you? No? It's "I don't know anything about landing rockets, and a conspiracy video told me Musk was the first one to do it, therefore it wasn't done before, and Apollo was fake." Really? That's how it goes?
    2
  7057. Huh? Freedom of Information Act. The police don't have a choice. If someone makes a legal FOIA request, they must release it. But, yes, they block it while there's an open investigation. However, given that the arrest was 2.5 years ago, and she was already dead 1.5 years ago, yeah, in November of 2023, they had to release it. The investigation had been closed a long time, and could no longer block the FOIA request.
    2
  7058. Yes, there's no shortage of dribble being spewed by bunches of people making spurious videos. There's no evidence that her boyfriend had anything to do with it. And, if you watch some of the videos making that accusation, you'll find that their version of the story is completely wrong.
    2
  7059. "we never see actual footage" Dewdrop, all original footage is readily available. But, the purpose of this video is to speculate about what this stuff looks like after 50+ years.
    2
  7060. "Even the creator of the camera said that camera wouldn't have been able" Wow, so, a quote mine? Dewdrop, Hasselblad (the creator of the cameras you're alluding to) are still very proud to this day to have manufactured the Apollo cameras. So, how do you explain this? If your assertion is that the makers of the cameras know that they couldn't function in those extremes, why do you suppose they believe Apollo happened? Gee, could it be because Apollo never went to the moon during those extremes, and the makers of the cameras know that? You've had YEARS to work on this since last time you spewed this garbage. Yet, you're still quoting high noon hot temperatures and overnight cold temperatures, even though no Apollo mission ever landed at night, nor at high noon?
    2
  7061. "No ones fault" Incorrect. It was her fault.
    2
  7062. "Temperature on the moon is over 100 degree Celsius" Not until the lunar high noon. All Apollo missions landed early in the lunar morning. So, the surface temperature for a time they weren't even there is completely irrelevant. "no foot prints would be left behind" Good gods, what ARE you talking about? Why wouldn't a footprint be left? The rocks/dust don't melt. Why do you think the boiling point of water has anything to do with the melting point of rocks? "No photos or images from outside have proven we landed there." Arizona State University's LRO camera. Chinese orbiters. Japan's JAXA/Selene. Etc. "l will give you a million dollars." Right. Sure you will.
    2
  7063. I'm sure they hate you too.
    2
  7064. "Told of many suspicious deaths of a lot of people involved in this." Told by whom? The makers of conspiracy videos? Note: with 450,000 people involved for a decade, it's a mathematical certainty that some people will die during the program. Just labeling deaths as suspicious is useless. "Also the Russians said they wouldn't put men on in the moon because there was no way to protect the astronauts from radiation if I recall correctly." Well, you don't recall correctly. In 1970 and 1971, the Soviets tested three lunar landers in space in preparation for going to the moon. They also launched four N1 moon rockets between 1969 and 1972. They would not be doing any of that if they believed radiation was going to be a problem. They had flown many missions in space with animals at various altitudes to test radiation exposure, how much time they could be exposed without dying, and knew pretty well what those limits were. The reason they never made it to the moon was because the N1 rockets kept exploding, and they realized they'd need to overhaul the design in significant ways, costing too much money and time, and they had already lost the race, so they gave up and shifted focus to sending probes to Venus and building a space station in Earth orbit. "Or maybe it was this The pressure at the bottom of the ocean is incredibly high, so you would be crushed, but space is a vacuum, which is like negative pressure, and would effectively try to pull you apart." There is no such thing as negative pressure. The lowest pressure is zero (i.e. empty space). The pressure of our atmosphere is about 15 PSI. The pressure in the spacecraft was 3-4 PSI. The pressure in the spacesuits was 3 PSI. The pressure at the deepest point in the ocean is 16,000 PSI. Getting the point? Or, wait, are you under the impression that we cannot go into space AT ALL? Are you a flat Earther?
    2
  7065. Don't worry, she lost, very badly. She got $0.00, and she's been barred from filing the case ever again.
    2
  7066. "Chinese landed a probe on the moon" They also used their orbiter to photograph all six of the Apollo landers on the lunar surface. So, if you're going to use China's accomplishments as a mechanism to dispute Apollo, do you ignore them when they verify Apollo?
    2
  7067. "earth magnet poles divert the suns flairs" You cannot even spell it. What do you think you know about it?
    2
  7068. I hope the same happens to you for slander/libel. Dewdrop, the arrest video wasn't released until 1.5 years after she died. The police managed to keep it private. But, eventually, after the investigation had been closed for that much time, they couldn't prevent the legal FOIA request to release the video.
    2
  7069. Your words: "Space radiation is made up of three kinds of radiation: particles trapped in the Earth's magnetic field; particles shot into space during solar flares (solar particle events); and galactic cosmic rays, which are high-energy protons and heavy ions from outside our solar system." Notice that nothing you just said mentioned a single thing about radioactive barrels. You are proving, yet again, that you don't understand anything whatsoever about radiation. And, all you've managed to do is cut and paste from NASA's website. So, when NASA tells you about the radiation, you accept it. When they tell you how they dealt with it, you reject it. How convenient. You pick and choose whatever words suit your delusions, and ignore the rest.
    2
  7070. They wore dosimeters. There's an Apollo report on radiation called "APOLLO EXPERIENCE REPORT - PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION." It has the answers you're looking for.
    2
  7071. Great person? She was a repeated felon with a mile long record. Stealing cars. Drugs and alcohol. Open warrants. Other thefts. Her landlord said she was a "dancer" (yeah, that kind), and neighbors said she did "private extras" with parades of paying men in her apartment. She served time in a Florida prison in 2018. And, she tried for years to change her name to evade her past, but, due to her record, the courts wouldn't let her.
    2
  7072. This news outlet never said a single thing about her while she was alive. This incident = July 1, 2021. She decided to end it all in March of 2022. This video wasn't released to the public until November 24, 2023. That's when they aired the first story about her. So, how much humiliation could she have suffered from it when she wasn't even alive?
    2
  7073. Multiple people called the police, not just one family. But, please tell me, if it was a man at a playground, pants down, doing his thing, would you go up and talk to him?
    2
  7074. You are misunderstanding "too expensive." Yes, it's very expensive to go to the moon. But, what you fail to understand is that (until 2019 with Artemis) congress didn't fund more manned moon missions. If they don't fund it, then it doesn't happen.
    2
  7075. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    2
  7076. "radiometric dating laser ranging results" Did you check the flux capacitor or the radioisotopic strobes? If you invert the polarity on the multiplexor of the gamma emitter, you can radiometrically route the laser through the hyper turbine.
    2
  7077. YOU SAID: "Is this for real .." == Yes. YOU SAID: "man never went to the moon" == You know, normal people wait for an answer to questions before coming to a conclusion. Abnormal delusional people come to their conclusions first, then pretend to ask questions. YOU SAID: "in a tin can, really if we did why can't we see the evidence with such powerful telescopes we have today ?" == WHAT?!?!??!! Earth-based telescopes?!?!??!!?!?! Good gods. Well, look, it's fine that you don't understand physics and light. That's fine. Most people don't. But, the obscene part of what you're basically saying is that you think NOBODY understands it. Like, if you don't understand it, nobody does, therefore it's fake. That's basically what you're saying. I mean, did you really think that the entire world's physicists have overlooked this obvious answer?? Nobody has thought to look through a telescope before you?? Good grief. The amazing arrogance. See, a normal person would say, "I don't understand why we can't just look through a telescope, I guess I should find out why, then come to a conclusion. After all, it's such a simple thing to do, certainly there must be millions of people who have thought of doing that before I did. So, there must be a reason that I just don't understand." A delusional maniac says, "if we can't look through a telescope, Apollo was fake." == There isn't a telescope in existence with the resolution to see Apollo artifacts on the moon. It would take a lens (or mirror) 75 feet across to see a lunar module as a single dot. You wouldn't know what it was. It would only be a dot. If you want enough detail to know what it is, it would take a lens (or mirror) a quarter mile across to be able to see it. This is just the physics of light. It's called "optical resolution" if you want to look it up. On the wiki page for "optical resolution," you can scroll down to the formula for "lens size" and do the math yourself, if you don't believe me. Thus far, the largest optical grade lens ever built was 5 feet across, and costed $168 million. Yeah, we have a long way to go before we can construct optical grade lenses a quarter mile across. == Then, there's atmospheric distortion to worry about, but, that's another story. YOU SAID: "It never happened like we were told," == Again, paranoid delusional maniacs come to conclusions before getting answers to questions. Normal people wait for answers before coming to conclusions. YOU SAID: "911, covid, JFK, weapons of mass destruction..right 👍👍" == Did drugs do this to you? Is that the cause?
    2
  7078. Correct, and, I don't even think it's from Apollo 17 (if memory serves anyway). As a side note, there would be no easy way to capture the TLI burn from outside the craft like that. Well, not on film anyway. The way the 2nd/3rd separation video worked was that the film canisters were jettisoned and rode back down into the ocean under parachutes, then automatically released dye-packs like they do for fighter plane rescue (dying the water a bright color that can be seen from miles away). And, spotter aircraft and boats would go retrieve the film. If you try to do that with the 3rd stage after TLI, however, you're now going nearly 25,000 mph, and if you tried to eject the film canisters, they sure aren't coming back down, because it's nearly escape velocity at that point. The jettisoned film canisters would basically just follow them to the moon.
    2
  7079. No, her suicide was not related to this arrest, despite the inaccurate picture that Inside Edition falsely paints.
    2
  7080. Are you really under the impression that they left cameras running for 3 days? Or, is this just a silly objection that you want to propose to add to your pile of total gibberish?
    2
  7081. Huh? Lost photos? Who told you that photos were lost? Was it a conspiracy video? Have you checked the online archives instead of blindly trusting conspiracy videos?
    2
  7082. If anybody starts cranking in front of kids at a parade, that person is getting arrested also.
    2
  7083. "According to a lady astronaut" OK, but, you can't name her? "you cannot accelerate the rover" Yeah, they always build vehicles that cannot accelerate. They must stay at 0 miles per hour. Any amount more than 0 means that they must have accelerated. "bounce like crazy" Yes, hence why they had very forgiving suspension and wheels, but, it would still bounce like crazy (and did). They kept the speed at around 5 or 6 miles per hour most of the time. The top speed any rover ever achieved was 11 miles per hour, and that was downhill. The documented maximum speed on level ground was 8 miles per hour, but, they rarely had the throttle at maximum. For very bumpy areas, they went about 3 miles per hour.
    2
  7084. Well, yeah, you should have seen the signs before then. But, yeah, you did pick a really good one. The tunnel thing was ridiculous. As if a single lane tunnel that can handle a few cars per minute is really going to help a city that needs to move 3 million people during rush hour.
    2
  7085. "British was buying it and started making more money" Of even of in your fantasy of of, if of this concept of was correct of, how of does this of compare to Soviets of of? What of money of they made from the USA of of?
    2
  7086. YouTube changed its algorithm for this about a year or two ago. I don't even know if the thumbs down button means anything any longer. It's not just this video, it's every video.
    2
  7087. "Your objections are spurious nonsense." Then why is Musk/Tesla fighting tooth and nail to keep the weight and price a secret? "The cost of operation of the Tesla truck is so much less than diesel, essentially makes the diesel truck not competitive." So says Musk. Is there any particular reason you blindly believe that? If the man won't reveal the price or numbers, and all he does is put on a PowerPoint display making the claim that it's cheaper, um, ok, we'd believe that, why? "The issue of cargo capacity is spurious." Yeah, go tell that to any trucking company. Tell them that they don't need to worry about cargo capacity. Right. "You increase the load capacity by increasing axle numbers and wheels. Instead of having an 18 wheeler you increase the wheels to 26, and gross vehicle weight to 120,000 instead of 80,000lbs." Sorry, but the maximum allowable weight by law is 80,000 pounds. They give an extra 2,000 pound bonus for electric trucks, bringing that to 82,000 pounds. But, no, you can't just make it 120,000 pounds. You need all kinds of permits and pay all kinds of massive fees to ship oversized loads. And, they have to be scheduled, and can't be done in all weather conditions. And, they don't just grant endless permits. Pepsi cannot just say that they need to run oversized loads 200 times per day. The highway commissions will not permit it. Oversized loads are the exception, not the rule. They'll just demand that Pepsi should split their loads up into multiple trucks, else, every single bottle company in the country would have been shipping oversized loads every single day for the last 80 years. You don't need an electric truck to have saved money that way. You can save money using diesel trucks by combining shipments into a huge oversized load. But, why haven't they been? BECAUSE IT'S NOT ALLOWED!!! And, you usually need all kinds of escorts and flag trucks and stuff to run that kind of load, which increases the cost even more. Don't sit there and talk about "spurious" claims, while you're advocating something that isn't allowed. "With respect to driving range, 500 miles per day is the maximum that you want to drive without a 10 hour reset. You charge the battery during your 10 hour reset." Maybe. Depends on the charger. How fast do you think it'll charge? I mean, sure, with a megacharger, maybe that'll work in that amount of time. But, how many of those exist anywhere in the country? One or two?
    2
  7088. Huh? The lower 50% of income earners pay virtually zero federal tax. The majority of the tax burden is on the rich. Why would you think rich people aren't taxed? And, as for corporate taxes, I'm sorry, but most of the time, when I hear people like you saying this, its because you're unaware of how those taxes actually work, and you fall for some sensationalist articles that claim XYZ company didn't pay such-and-such taxes. Usually, it's because the profits got passed through to private individuals, and the taxes get paid there instead. But, yes, sometimes there are tax programs that amount to companies paying little to no tax, but, that's almost always a product of the taxes being the mechanism to induce change and development.
    2
  7089. You clearly don't know anything at all. Quit pretending you do. The petrified wood rock never came from NASA, nor was it ever represented to have come from NASA, nor the moon. The museum that has that rock doesn't believe what you believe. As for taping over the original data, sorry, dewdrop, but, as usual, you people listen only to conspiracy videos, and never lift a finger to fact-check. The only thing lost or taped over were two backup video tapes from one mission. They were never even viewed a single time, because the primary copies worked fine. They only made those two backup tapes for if the primary copies failed. But, over the years, the makers of the videos you have been watching have altered what was lost to believing it was "data," and "all of it." Shame on you for believing them.
    2
  7090. YOU SAID: "Can anybody answer me the question on how we made it through the Van Allen belts without becoming crispy chicken?" == What are you talking about? What makes you believe the Van Allen belts are THAT harmful? James Van Allen himself said it would take a week inside the most dense part of the inner belt before getting a fatal dose. Apollo skirted around the worst parts, and went past the belts in a couple of hours. I mean, it's true that they wouldn't want to send the shuttles/Skylab/ISS up into those belts, because those missions do/did last for weeks/months. But, it was no big deal for Apollo, because they weren't in there very long. YOU SAID: "We didn't have the technology to go to the Moon then" == Oh, it's a technology problem?? Alright. Name the EXACT piece of technology that you think was lacking. And, then explain why none of the thousands of people who designed and built that particular piece of technology ever realized that the stuff they designed and built, couldn't do the job they designed and built it for? YOU SAID: "and we don't have it now." == Correct. Are you under the impression that we DO have it??? We don't have any functional command modules, lunar landers, or Saturn V boosters. The stuff you see in museums isn't functional. The lunar landers seen in museums were never actually completed. The command modules in museums were one-time-use only, and were used. The Saturn Vs you see in museums were very close to working, but, have long since been gutted and put on display. All of that stuff has been retired for decades. It's correct, we don't currently "have the technology" (meaning we literally don't have it in our hands). But, we have the knowhow. YOU SAID: "They're still trying to figure out how to keep people from getting microwaved." == That doesn't make any sense. Why would you believe such a thing? Let me guess, you listened to a conspiracy video about Kelly Smith saying that we need to test Orion in the Van Allen belts before sending people, right? That's your "source"? Um, yes, we tested Orion in 2014 in the Van Allen belts, and it passed the test. Why are you still referencing that video, which was made BEFORE the test? And, what EXACTLY is your problem with wanting to test the craft before putting people inside? Why is this a bad idea in your mind? They tested Apollo 6 the exact same way, by sending it unmanned through the belts and back. Why shouldn't they do that with Orion? YOU SAID: "That sun puts off cosmic radiation like you wouldn't believe." == And, yes, most of it is blocked by a simple piece of paper. You have no understanding of radiation. YOU SAID: "We can barely protect ourselves down here on Earth from that stuff." == Yet, people live through it!!
    2
  7091. So, you listened to one sentence, and had no idea what all of the other things were... which were mentioned in the prior sentences... bravo.
    2
  7092. From what I read, punk's father was also a punk, who had a felony/prison history himself.
    2
  7093. two of the talks anyone first wins .......usa faster fake have said shadows.... moon else always zippers air..... eazy me way could not thats faster places light
    2
  7094. I don't quite understand why such a huge percentage of people pretend to know things they don't. Warning or a ticket for a crime? Um, no. That's for an infraction. For a crime, you get arrested.
    2
  7095. Three different countries hit that laser reflector before the Apollo 11 astronauts even lifted off of the surface. Hardly "future science."
    2
  7096.  @OogieWa  You should have stopped at those first two words. The rest of what you wrote was gibberish.
    2
  7097. Ask a question. Don't wait for the answer. Call it nonsense. Then, express an opinion on no basis whatsoever. Bravo!!
    2
  7098. Huh? China, South Korea, India, and USA have all sent orbiters to the moon that have photographed all 6 of the landers on the surface, exactly where they're supposed to be. Some photos are good enough to see foot paths, shadows of the flags and flame deflectors, rover tracks, etc. Please explain why you believe a rover would convince anybody. If you people don't accept the evidence now, you're not going to accept anything shown to you by a new rover. You'll just call that "fake" also. So, what's the point?
    2
  7099.  @gives_bad_advice  Yes.
    2
  7100. OK, no problem. With light, there's this concept called "Dawes' Limit." It's basically a property of light that outlines how much the photons interfere with each other, thus, at the distance from the Earth to the moon, you can only achieve a certain limit of resolution. The photons really close to each other just aren't there any longer at this distance. Hence, you cannot see very small things at very long distance. This is a well understood concept in physics, and the only way to get around this problem is by building a bigger lens (or mirror). You have to build something large enough to capture photons that are spread far enough apart that they didn't interfere with each other along the way. Bottom line: you can't see the Apollo stuff from this distance with any telescope, because it would require too large of a lens. There's a well understood formula for calculating the size lens you'd need. I don't normally advocate Wiki as a source of knowledge, because too much stuff on Wiki is wrong. But, for this purpose "optical resolution" is good enough, and you can use the formula to calculate the size of the lens you'd need. In order to see an Apollo lander on the moon as a single dot, your telescope would need to have a lens or mirror that is 75 feet in diameter, to capture photons far enough apart that they didn't interfere in transit. You wouldn't know what it was, because it would just be a dot. But, that's the size required. If you want to be able to start to make out a lander and some basic shapes (no extreme details, just enough to know what you're looking at), it would require a lens/mirror a quarter mile in diameter. The largest optical grade lens ever constructed, by the way, is 5 feet in diameter, and costed $168 million to build.
    2
  7101. Yeah, well, maybe so, if the kid killed someone else in this act. But, given that the kid only killed himself by this ridiculous act of fleeing, I think the parents have lost enough already.
    2
  7102. Another dewdrop with "truth" in his nickname, yet having absolutely no understanding of the truth.
    2
  7103. What a shocker!! A denier who reads and writes like an 8 year old? I've never seen that before.
    2
  7104. A) You cannot even spell his name correctly. B) If you think the size of the universe is wrong, what are you doing on YouTube? Why aren't you writing scientific papers about how all of those galaxies seen in telescopes are not billions of lightyears away, but, in actuality, are close, and the stars in them are the size of basketballs instead of the normal size of stars/galaxies? I mean, you'll also have to explain how a basketball sized star doesn't burn out in less than a second, but, whatever. In order for those galaxies to be closer than we calculate, yes, you will have to believe those stars are the size of basketballs. So, go right ahead, explain that in the science journals. YouTube comments is where people who have no idea what they're talking about go to pretend that the world's experts are all wrong.
    2
  7105. The rest of your comment I have no interest in.
    2
  7106. Another dewdrop who not only doesn't understand physics, but cannot read or write. Shocker.
    2
  7107. Buzz Aldrin.
    2
  7108. We're done here, right dewdrop? If you're not going to read answers to your own questions, and you're just going to continue to make stuff up out of thin air, there's no point here.
    2
  7109.  @FURST420  You know, people wouldn't be quite as hard on you if you didn't ask a question straight out of the conspiracy videos. If you honestly just asked, "hey, I know nothing about how radio works, how'd they get those Apollo signals from all that distance?" - then I think people are more likely to be helpful. But, when your "question" has been repeated a billion times in conspiracy videos, and you go watch them, and pretend like you're asking a "new" question that nobody has ever thought of, yeah, that's not exactly helping your case. Furthermore, if you'd actually address the real answers (like the one I gave), rather than just ignoring it, yeah, that helps your credibility a little bit also. But, it seems you did none of those things.
    2
  7110. Are you REALLY under the impression that Armstrong crashed a lunar module on Earth? Seriously? Who told you that? Dewdrop, no lunar module has ever flown on Earth. They were designed to fly at the moon, not at Earth. The lunar modules had 10,500 pounds of thrust, with a weight of about 33,500 pounds. Guess what? At full throttle, the craft still isn't budging on Earth. It was designed to operate in 1/6th gravity. The craft you're referring to was the LLRV, not a lunar module. And, Armstrong flew the LLRVs/LLTVs many dozens of times. Yes, there was a problem on one of those flights. So what? You can sit there and "ha ha ha" all you want, but, you're the one who cannot get the facts straight.
    2
  7111. So, your proposed "solution" is, when the cops are called to the scene after someone commits trespassing, assault, and attempted theft... the cop should simply let the person go?? THAT's your solution?
    2
  7112.  @bigdog5389  How about holding people accountable for their own actions, huh? The guy did this to himself. Quit trying to shift the blame.
    2
  7113.  @bigdog5389  Good gods, what an idiot. Hey, dumbass, the guy ignored lawful orders to stop, and sought to leave the crime scene. Hey, dumbass, the guy broke the nose and leg of one cop, and then went with a baseball stance to try to take the head off of another. Don't pretend that this guy was shot because he trespassed, you dishonest jackass. If that's how stupid you are, that you think he was shot for trespassing, then there's really no hope for you.
    2
  7114. "are you sure you mean the Dunning Kruger effect?" Yes. "I don't normally overestimate my intelligence or skills." Is your "scroll up" broken? "Actually, I took a MENSA IQ test back in the day, was expecting to be near average, wound up scoring 9 points higher than the bottom of the top 1 percentile globally." So, you scored in the 108th percentile? Hilarious. "I have a history of underestimating myself, which I guess could still fit with the Dunning Kruger model, low skill overestimates themselves whilst higher skill underestimates themselves." No, dewdrop. The "underestimating" bit isn't part of the actual Dunning-Kruger papers. That was just a follow-up notion that tagged on later. "Whats your thought on it?" You suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect. "I litterally never heard of the Dunning Kruger model, and didn't look it up till a few minutes ago" Well, you should consider the definition of the Dunning-Kruger effect as a direct reflection of who you are.
    2
  7115. Dewdrop, not that it matters, but I scored far higher. And, like I said, you don't know what you're talking about. And, I have zero tolerance at this point for this "I can't tell you because it's illegal" line. I'm done. You're wrong. You're a liar. And, you don't understand the topic.
    2
  7116. Let me guess: there will be an outcry that the cops shouldn't chase underage kids driving illegal dirt bikes on public roads, and the cops should be held responsible for the kid crashing his bike. Right? And, if the cops didn't chase, and the kid had struck a pedestrian, then there'd be an outcry that the cops should be held responsible for not trying to stop a 13 year old from illegally riding on the streets. Right? Either way, it's the cops' fault. Right?
    2
  7117. Why? The media outlets didn't cover it until long after she was dead.
    2
  7118. Well, I don't know about all of "we" - but you certainly are.
    2
  7119. Dewdrop, multiple people called about this incident. One of the "audience" recorded it, and gave a copy of the video to the police. It doesn't match her story about a quiet incident with nobody around. To the contrary, it was a loud public act in view of multiple people including children. Yes, that's a misdemeanor, and she deserved to be arrested. The witnesses said it was clearly an intentional act. And, sorry if YOU blindly believe criminals who try to say "I didn't do it" when being arrested, but, sane people know better. And, dewdrop, nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive. She suffered nearly zero shame over it. It wasn't released until November 24, 2023. She died 2 years ago. And, given that her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club, and her neighbors said she also did "private" cash transactions with numerous men in her apartment, um, yeah, I'd hardly believe for a single second that she even knew what "shame" was anyway. She was a convicted felon who spent time in prison and had a mile long arrest record. Why would you believe a single word she says?
    2
  7120. Wrong. You are required to show ID if you are being investigated for a crime.
    2
  7121.  @dante510  Yes, and she refused. She then made matters worse by obstructing/obfuscating and resisting. If she had provided her ID and then remained silent, complying on a very basic level only, then your point would apply. But, she didn't do that.
    2
  7122. Why? What did they do wrong, in your mind?
    2
  7123. Sure. And, after being that upset about it, you did nothing whatsoever. This makes it totally believable.
    2
  7124. Well, they weren't really trying to prove anything... outside of proving the fact that moon landing deniers don't know anything about the topic.
    2
  7125.  @shantishanti1949  I don't deserve "honoring," and I really am not very good at accepting "thanks" for things. But, thanks for the thanks. Side note: my wife and I spent a couple of weeks in Queensland, and loved every minute of it... Cairns, Brisbane, Gold Cost in general, surrounding areas, touring the mountains and scenery on land, diving the Great Barrier Reef on the ocean, Steve Irwin zoo (the best zoo on the planet). Fabulous. Absolutely fabulous. We want to go back after this virus stuff has passed.
    2
  7126. It would take a telescope about 75 feet in diameter to see a lander on the moon as a single dot. It would take a telescope with a quarter mile wide diameter to see a lander with Atari 2600 level graphics. A few boxy pixels. If you want much higher resolution, so you can really make out the smaller details, now you're talking about a telescope that is multiple miles in diameter.
    2
  7127. According to the police (who saw the video of the actual event), it was a very loud and graphic display in front of multiple people (including children). Now, get real here, do you actually believe anybody in the "audience" is going to go up to her during this show, and ask her to stop? If you saw a guy at a playground putting on a very loud show in front of the kids, would you go have a conversation? Or, would you phone the police (as multiple people did in this incident)?
    2
  7128. Jackpot! You're the 1,000th person to ask that question in a row. Your check is in the mail.
    2
  7129. Well, this is definitely a fake news story... or well, highly modified and skewed anyway. But, I haven't got the slightest understanding of 2 x 3 = 33. What does that mean?
    2
  7130. Oh, this is downright hilarious!! "if you have 6' tick led walls ?" Oh really? Lead? You aren't worried about secondary Bremsstrahlung radiation that gets caused by ions? Any aerospace engineer would tell you that a heavy metal like lead is a horrible choice for the Van Allen belts. But, YOU know better? "How many basic space flight in 90' went in smoke" Zero. "but "all apollo missions went ok" Apollo 1 ring a bell? Apollo 13 ring a bell? Three astronauts died from those, and three more nearly died. Yeah, you really know a lot.
    2
  7131.  @moemuggy4971  But, he is claiming to be a flat Earther.
    2
  7132. No, it's beyond that. China's Chang'e lunar orbiter took photos of some of the landing sites a couple of years ago, and found the Apollo landers there. They've gone beyond just accepting it, they've fully confirmed it. The Soviets tracked the Apollo missions with radar and radio telescopes (just as many other countries did), and they know the missions were real also, beyond just accepting it.
    2
  7133. But that would defeat the purpose of making "public beach" content for her fans.
    2
  7134. What are you talking about? Why would you say there's no footage or data available? Good grief.
    2
  7135.  @therealzilch  It's definitely a USA thing. "Moonshine" is an illegal alcohol made in stills. They'd get fast cars to run this alcohol to evade police. Over time, this became the start of NASCAR racing (cars made to run "moonshine" were raced on tracks). My joke was when the guy complained about "Earthshine," I said there were stills on the moon and it eventually became lunar NASCAR. But, as my wife and kids are fond of reminding me, when you have to explain a joke, it's not a good joke.
    2
  7136. You came to the correct conclusion, but for the wrong reasons.
    2
  7137. If you actually believe the moon rocks came from Antarctica, don't "let me tell you" anything. Write it up. There have been thousands of articles written by PhD geologists and geology students from all around the world who have analyzed the moon rocks and published those articles in science journals on geology. If you believe they're all wrong, coming to YouTube and posting a comment isn't going to prove anything. Publish in the very same journals that they do. Write rebuttal articles in those science journals. Show your analysis. Demonstrate your claims. That's what the scientific method is all about.
    2
  7138. But, she wasn't. This is Inside Edition, where facts don't matter. Why would you believe a single thing they say?
    2
  7139. If nobody corrects people who claim the moon landings didn't happen, that means the moon landings were fake, because nobody argues that they're real. If people correct other people who claim the moon landings didn't happen, that means the moon landings were fake, because people are arguing that they're real.
    2
  7140. What social media drove her to do what? Can you be specific?
    2
  7141. Yes, especially because the suicide was a year later than the arrest, and a year BEFORE all of the big media attention. None of this went viral while she was alive, because the arrest video wasn't released until November 24, 2023. According to the articles and police reports and arrest records, etc., she abandoned her family for a life of drugs and crime about a decade ago. She served some felony time in a Florida prison around 6 years ago. A mile long arrest and judgement record for stealing cars, drugs and alcohol, more thefts, failures to appear in court, etc. And, her landlord and neighbors say that she was a stripper at the local club, and also did "private" cash encounters in her apartment. She tried to change her name a few times to evade the police, but, the courts wouldn't let her. And, she had no friends or family to speak of, because nobody even knows when the suicide took place. It wasn't until the landlord opened her apartment door to look for overdue rent that they found her, well into the maggot phase of decomposition, down to 84 pounds according to the medical examiner. Who knows how long she was decaying with absolutely nobody even wondering where she was? Yeah, it sounds like her life just caught up with her and she couldn't deal with it any longer.
    2
  7142. He told you a million times that it's on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal!!! What more do you want? You clearly never looked at the official online archive. Instead, you badger people on YouTube? You're gone. Your mind has set sail for a distant land out in the middle of the Pacific, and has left your body behind. He gave you what you asked for in the other thread. He gave it to you again in this thread. I gave you the photo catalog numbers you asked for in a different thread. You ignore it all. Instead, you waste days trying to figure out that links don't work on YouTube comments. I mean, if this is the level of functionality your mind has right now, where you don't understand any input anybody gives you, you can't look up catalog numbers, and you repeatedly ask for things that have been given to you a million times over, yeah, you're gone man. It's time to make that appointment you've been postponing for years now, get evaluated, get diagnosed, and try to go on some sort of treatment plan (assuming your mind isn't permanently lost). Quit worrying about ridiculous conspiracies you don't even understand, and work on your own mental health. Good gods.
    2
  7143.  @stusue9733  Yes, we're on the same page here. Don't confuse my comments as trying to combat you. I'm just too obsessed with accuracy, and didn't know if you were aware of some of the nuances.
    2
  7144. And, you believe the thieving criminal drug addict from prison wasn't given her medications, why? Because she said so? It's truly amazing to me... the number of people who will just blindly believe whatever they see and hear.
    1
  7145. S. Garr. YOU SAID: "Its all about money. They dont make money if they dont keep people in the system." == Are you saying that it's your belief that there's a SHORTAGE of criminals in the USA??? Do you think they have to artificially do things to make people re-offend and get thrown back in prison? Good grief. No. There's a SURPLUS of criminals in the USA. You're completely backward.
    1
  7146. YOU SAID: "Link in the description to all the information." == I don't see any such link. Am I missing something?
    1
  7147. YOU SAID: "all of you are fucking stupid." == Everyone is stupid but you, huh? YOU SAID: "Have more respect." == I assign respect appropriately. YOU SAID: "The crooked ass cop shouldnt have shot him 5 times and reported 3" == He fired 5 times, and made 3 hits. What exactly is your dispute about this? YOU SAID: "see how people can lie so fast to claim innocent" == So fast? Quite the contrary. The officer was taken off-duty while there was a detailed investigation. It was only after being reviewed by several parties was the officer cleared. And, what "lie" is being told here? You can't just scream at the wind and declare that someone is telling lies. You have to outline what you think the lies are. YOU SAID: "He was in school. playing football" == Yeah, because if someone plays football, he can't possibly commit murder?? What?? YOU SAID: "as well he more to live for than to get shot down for running basically." == What the hell?? What ARE you talking about?? First of all, he had been threatening to kill his girlfriend for breaking up with him. He went and bought the gun, showed it to her, and told her that this was the gun that would bring her life to an end. He told his friends that he had a bullet with her name on it. Then, on this day, he texted her and said he was on his way to the church to kill her (which is when the pastor called the police). The thug brought his gun, and had it cocked and loaded, ready to fire. He then tried to pass the gun to a friend as the cop came up, but the friend didn't take it. Then, while being frisked, he hit the officer and ran. He dropped the gun, and went back to pick it up!!! Did you get that?? He WENT BACK FOR IT!!! This clearly means that he intended to use the gun, because if he was "basically running" (your words), he would have left the gun and kept going. But, no, he clearly intended to use that gun, which is why he went back for it. Then, he was moving erratically, left, right, forward, backward, and at one instance had his hand on the gun while facing directly at the officer. THAT was the moment that sealed his fate. Yeah, fine, he turned away to try to run again. But, so what? What universe do you live in, where that means the officer shouldn't fire?? In your version of reality, you think that all anyone has to do in order to avoid getting shot is turn his back, then he freely gets to run away, get in a fortified position, and then the gunfight can begin?? The officer has to wait until bullets are flying before determining that there's a threat? And, what would you be saying if that thug shot the driver of that car on the left to use it as a getaway vehicle?? You'd be criticizing the cop for NOT shooting the guy when he had the chance. YOU SAID: "For all you smart moutherfuckers" == Well, that's a new one for me. What exactly is the entomology of "moutherfuckers"? YOU SAID: "tell me. In the state of Oklahoma what is the protocol for suspect that might be armed is it walk up and pat down ??? dpnt think so stupid" == Yes. The pastor reported that the guy was in the parking lot of the church with a gun, and had been threatening to kill his girlfriend with it, and identified the guy, yeah, the cop is supposed to go and frisk him. Sheessh. What's wrong with you? How SHOULD a cop deal with an armed thug whose entire reason for going to that church was to commit murder? What do you suggest?
    1
  7148.  @Diabolical05  No problems with responding to an old comment. I do the same sometimes. Obviously, neither of us is him, so we're both making assumptions and guessing. But, I still find it ridiculous for anybody to say they prefer prison life to the billionaire life. In response to your notion that this man lived his life in some sort of constant fear for decades, thus, he felt better in prison than he did while living like a billionaire... well, please let me explain why I think that simply doesn't make sense: he obviously lacked scruples, lacked empathy for others, lacked a moral compass, etc., however, he didn't lack brains. He was smart. And, any smart person would know that if this haunting fear plagued his life for decades upon decades, the easiest way to relieve that fear isn't by eventually going to prison, it would have been to simply cook the books in the opposite direction, zero things out, and run an honest investment firm from that point forward. After all, $17 billion had been given to Madoff, and the government was able to recover $14 billion of it. If he was able to cook the books in one direction, he could have cooked them in the other direction, show some losses instead of perpetuating the Ponzi scheme, and square everything away, and try to switch to honest investing. But, no. Obviously, this man thrived on being a liar, and by stabbing people in the back from his own community. That's what made him tick. Anybody with his intelligence would have known that all Ponzi schemes collapse eventually. And, if fear of his situation was his biggest problem, such that he prison was preferable to freedom, it was THAT bad, then this intelligent man would have relieved that burden long before. We're not talking about someone who did it for a couple of years, got in too deep, and then things collapsed. He perpetuated this for decades, snubbing his nose at the entire world. And, the "I'm happier now" comment is just another snub (as far as I'm concerned).
    1
  7149.  @Diabolical05  Yeah, I hadn't realized that he reported $60 billion in "earnings" on top of the $17 billion in investments. You're right. He'll never make that back without a massive "run on the bank" that would have collapsed the entire thing. But, as far as I'm concerned, again, this is DECADES we're talking about here. And, I'm not going to sit here and say that once a Ponzi scheme gets started, the only way to deal with it is to keep inflating it to a bigger Ponzi scheme for decade after decade. And, no part of me believes Madoff regrets his actions. Again, he had DECADES to contemplate his actions. If he had regrets, he'd have dealt with them well prior to everything blowing up. He might regret the fact that it all blew up before he died. But, he doesn't regret committing the crime. Regarding your comments about his family, well, there's no part of me that believes his family didn't know what was going on. There are a lot of reasons, which I won't bother with for right now.
    1
  7150.  @Diabolical05  Poor guy. His ONLY choice was to commit the same crime for decades and decades.
    1
  7151. +frbe0101 YOU SAID: "I'm tired of this "fear for my life argument"" == I'm tired of know-nothing idiots posting pure nonsense on the internet. YOU SAID: "the first duty of police is to the public trust, not themselves" == Pffttt. What do you think this cop just did?? He saved the life of that ex-girlfriend that day. The thug had been threatening her, and bought that gun for the sole purpose of using it to kill her. He TOLD HER THAT. And, then, he told his friends that he has a bullet with her name on it. Then, he texted her at the church, saying that he was on his way there to kill her. Then, he showed up, gun cocked and loaded, ready to fire. What more do you want? Also, did you not notice that there was a car nearby?? Suppose this thug turned 20 degrees and decided to shoot the nearby driver to use the car as a getaway vehicle. Or, suppose he turned and shot any of the other members of the crowd. Or, suppose he outran the cop, then circled back, and killed the girlfriend he went there to kill in the first place. This cop may have saved ALL of those lives. And, he may have saved his own. YOU SAID: "every time a pig kills someone because they fear for their life, it often causes public distrust and riots" == Oh, I see, so a cop is just supposed to lay down and die, so that the public trusts cops more. Pffttt. Do you even read what you are writing? What is wrong with your brain? YOU SAID: "that kill many more people and cost millions in property damage" == Yes, cops are TRAINED to kill more criminals than cops get killed themselves. They're doing this successfully. What's your beef? Do you want just as many cops to die as criminals?? Is that what you're saying?? YOU SAID: "it would be much better if pigs simply took a bullet for the the good of the people rather than shoot first." == Fuck you. YOU SAID: "They don't risk their lives, that is the problem." == Why should they, asshole?? You think that this cop should have just gotten himself shot here?? For what?? So this goddamned thug can go kill his girlfriend (who he went there to kill in the first place)?? THAT is what you want?? You want a dead cop instead of a dead killer??? Really?? So, you want the cop dead, and the girlfriend dead, so that the life of a goddamned idiot thug is saved?? Hmmmm, I wonder if the girlfriend (the intended victim that day) agrees with you. I tell you what, asshole, go find her, and tell her that you'd prefer that she and the cop die that day, so that the thug can live, and the "public trust" in cops can be reinforced. Let us know how that works out, asshole. YOU SAID: " If I was armed and had free range to kill anyone I felt threatened me, yes my life would be in very little danger, other people's lives around me would be in more danger, ergo the problem with police." == Ohhhhh, I see. It's ok for YOU to defend yourself and others, but COPS shouldn't do the same??? You definitely win the "asshole of the week" award. YOU SAID: "Consider for a moment the top 10 most dangerous jobs: Lumberjacks, Fishermen, Pilots, Roofers, Garbageman, power linemen, Truck drivers, Oil workers, ranchers, Construction workers." == So, if you don't have a job that is ranked in the top 10 (in your mind), then your job is to lay down and die?? YOU SAID: "oh look at that being a donut inhaling pig that people must submit to or die is not even on the top 10 list, tell me are any of those people "great men and women risking their lives" by virtue of their job?" == Asshole, this cop may have been 1 second from being killed. The driver of that nearby car may have been 1 second from being killed. The girlfriend may have been killed that day also. If that's not risking your life, I don't know what is. This thug in this video had his gun cocked and loaded, ready to fire. He announced his intentions to commit murder that day. He had been threatening his girlfriend since before this day also, and went and bought this gun with the specific purpose to kill. If this thug isn't a threat, I don't know what is. And, the icing on the cake is that, when he dropped his gun, he WENT BACK TO PICK IT UP!!!! Why'd you think he'd risk his life to go back and pick it up if he didn't intend to USE IT?!!??!!? If all he wanted to do is run, he'd have left the gun on the ground and kept running. But, he didn't do that. He went back for the gun. That is 100% proof that he intended to use it!!! What is wrong with you?? You are being stupid, and a complete asshole.
    1
  7152. frbe0101 Let me get this straight... you open by saying you didn't read what I wrote... then continued to argue that I was wrong about what I wrote??  Did it ever occur to you that you're a moron? 
    1
  7153. frbe0101 How would you know what I do or don't know, if you refuse to read what I wrote, you goddamned moron?
    1
  7154. frbe0101 So, you're saying that you're a moron, and proud of it? 
    1
  7155. frbe0101 It's one thing to be an idiot.  It's another thing entirely to be proud of it (as you clearly are).  Look, dumbass, I don't know why you'd ever imagine that your remarkably stupid opinions are worthy of any public opinion whatsoever, but that's your own failing, not mine.  Next time, if you're going to post opinions on the internet, don't act all smug and superior.  It's clear that you're the exact opposite.  In the meantime, enjoy your life, and perfect the phrase "would you like fries with that?"  It's the only future you'll ever have.
    1
  7156. Pffttt. Yeah, the kids didn't know??? Yeah, and I have a bridge to sell. Madoff told his kids to turn him in to help deflect blame. If the kid wasn't guilty, why'd he kill himself? How gullible can anyone be to believe this criminal family? Dad steals BILLIONS, and nobody thinks the sons knew??
    1
  7157. moonyprongusa Moony, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. 1) You talk about the abundance of the hydrogen element? Yes, but that doesn't mean anything. How do you collect it for fuel cells? You act as if hydrogen can be harvested from water just laying around in everyone's house without energy required?!?!?!! No. You have to use electrolysis on it. Yes, ELECTROLYSIS. You consume 8x more electric energy to collect the hydrogen than you can ever get back in combustion. So, while you're sitting there griping about how much electric energy electric cars will consume, get it through your skull that hydrogen fuel cell cars actually ultimately consume MORE electricity than battery powered electric cars. Sheesh. Get your facts straight before you spew gibberish. 2) You also talk about the combustibility of hydrogen being equal to that of gasoline??!?!?! Are you insane? Hydrogen is massively more explosive than gasoline! Where on earth are you getting your misinformation? Straight out of your ignorant ass, no doubt. The combustion of hydrogen is so violent that it causes metal fatigue about 5x quicker than combusting gasoline. It's a very hot and rapid explosion, and will require a lot of re-engineering and harder metals (extremely expensive) to make the engines last. And, the gaskets, bearings, fuel supply channels, rings, pistons, valves, etc., all need to be beefed up well beyond their current capaiblities in order to contain the violent explosions in combustion. Right now, they're lucky to get 20,000 miles out of a hydrogen engine for the same engine that they get 100,000 miles using gasoline. Longevity and endurance is a major problem in hydrogen engines, and that's 100% due to the fact that the combustibility is NOT equal to gasoline as you claim it is. And, let's not forget about the fact that you'd be carrying a bomb around in your hydrogen fuel cell car. Auto makers have been working for decades on hydrogen fuel cell cars, and they're getting closer (slowly) to making them viable. But, they're about 20 years behind electric/battery cars in viability (at best). You're massively ignorant about the real issues and facts when it comes to hydrogen powered cars. You even acknowledged yourself that hydrogen would need to be harvested from water. But, you're apparently so ignorant of science, you seem to have forgotten about the massively inefficient process involved in harvesting the hydrogen, the massive loss of energy, and the very hot and violent inefficient explosion produced during combustion. Yet, wallowing in your ignorance, you sit there and profess that hydrogen is more viable than it really is. Get educated on topics before you spew your gibberish all over the place.
    1
  7158. moonyprongusa A) What difference does it make to use "renewable" energy to use electrolysis to produce the hydrogen? That's irrelevant. The topic is about energy efficiency. And, if you use renewable energy to produce the electricity, you're still FAR better off using that electricity to charge batteries than you are to make hydrogen. In other words, your idiotic notion is still wrong. B) And, you say that hydrogen and gasoline are the same in safety? So, basically, you're confirming that you ARE insane. And, again, you're talking out of your ignorant ass. Any actual hydrogen fuel cell engineer who reads your stupid comment is laughing his/her ass off at you right now. You clearly lack any knowledge of physics, chemistry, or engineering. C) How far have you pissed your brain down the toilet to have responded that somehow I am the problem here? YOU are the idiot who spewed your profoundly ignorant nonsense all over the internet, "correcting" people with your uneducated foolish notions. You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And, now you're trying to twist your idiocy onto ME?!?!? Look, jackass, if you don't like when someone call out your idiocy, DON'T FUCKING POST YOUR IDIOCY. You're the one who decided to spew ignorance all over the place. If you don't like being corrected, don't BE an idiot in the first place, and get some knowledge on the topics instead of pretending to know things you don't know.
    1
  7159. moonyprongusa You wouldn't know what "research" was if it fell on your head. The answer is simple, nitwit... quit pretending to know things you don't know.
    1
  7160. moonyprongusa Oh, and by the way, moron... that's twice now that you've critiqued the fact that I write more than a 2-line answer (or whatever small length answer will fit your finite attention span). See, that's your second problem. You only know enough about hydrogen fuel cells that can fit in about 10 lines, and that's the limit of your understanding... and from those 10 lines you read somewhere, you've now proclaimed that you understand it well enough to determine its viability. In actuality, however, you don't know ANYTHING. And, of course, it's because you're revolted by the idea that, in order to ACTUALLY know stuff, you might have to actually have a deeper education than 10 lines on the internet can provide. Your first and foremost problem, is, of course, that you talk out of your ignorant ass about topics you don't even come close to grasping, pretending to have knowledge you don't have. But, yes, your short attention span is your second problem.
    1
  7161. moonyprongusa Moony, just fucking quit being a goddamned jackass. What poetic irony. You say "if you can't explain it to a six year old...." - then you say you're not going to READ my reply. What a stupid pig you are. 
    1
  7162. SOSLICK22 Yes, that guy moony is the embodiment of idiocy. He implies that I am unable to explain these concepts, then in the very next line he says he's not going to read my explanation because there are too many words. Nobody could be a bigger idiot than that, especially with the irony that he acknowledged in an earlier post that I DID explain the concepts... then proceeded to still deny the concepts. I'm 99% sure that his idiocy must be drug induced.
    1
  7163. moonyprongusa Direct: you're an idiot. Direct: you're wrong. Direct: you pretend to know things you don't even come close to knowing. Direct: first you said "I'm not gonna spend my time reading 64 lines of dribble" - how would you know its dribble if you didn't read it, you fucking nitwit? Direct: Now you say you DID read it? Which one is it, nutbag? Direct: You're a massive hypocrite. Is that direct enough for you, moron? Oh, and moron, I DID make my points, and you proceeded to STILL deny the facts, despite that you don't even understand the topic well enough to know what to deny, or what not to deny. Direct: that makes you the very embodiment of an ignoramus.
    1
  7164. moonyprongusa If you don't want to be insulted for spewing absolute uninformed ignorant nonsense all over the place... then QUIT PRETENDING TO KNOW THINGS YOU DON'T KNOW. See, I'm not your problem, you nutbag. You are your own problem for being an ignorant hypocrite. The ability to post a comment on a public forum doesn't mean that your comment has merit. And, if you don't want to be criticized for making stupid comments, STOP MAKING STUPID COMMENTS. Clear enough for you? Or, your drug addled brain couldn't make it past the first two lines?
    1
  7165. moonyprongusa YOU SAID: "My position on H fuel is still the same." - So, basically, you're incapable of learning. YOU SAID: "You've brought up some interesting points about energy efficiency" - Yeah, so my point about the massive difficulty and massive expense in making super-hardened engines capable of withstanding the beating of the violent and hot hydrogen explosions in combustion... that point meant nothing to you? Do you WANT cars with engines that cost $50K? YOU SAID: "in that case, perhaps natural gas will become the fuel of the future, though there are potential adverse effects due to the fact that it's still a fossil fuel." - Finally, you said something correct. Have a cookie. YOU SAID: "Still not sold on electric cars." - I wasn't trying to sell you anything regarding electric cars. I wasn't trying to sell you an electric car. I wasn't trying to sell you the concept of electric cars. I was commenting on your massive ignorance of the issues at hand, while you simultaneously professed knowledge you didn't have, and went around trying to "educate" others (with your silly and incorrect notions). - Electric cars aren't ready to take over the gas market either. The best batteries available are lithium ion based, and that has many shortcomings. It is very expensive, and lithium mining cannot keep up with demand. It doesn't perform well in cold weather. And, the more you use them, the less the lithium ion batteries can be charged the next time, requiring expensive replacements too frequently for most people's liking. They're trying to combat this effect by not allowing you to charge/discharge the battery to full capacity, but then that results in cars like the Chevy Volt, which they've restricted to only about a 40 mile range on battery in order to preserve the battery's long term life. But, in today's world of technology advancements, I say confidently that battery/electric cars are far closer to "full" viability than hydrogen fuel cell cars.  And, as you've acknowledged, energy efficiency is a handicapping factor for hydrogen fuel cells which cannot be overcome (because it pertains to the very chemical/physical nature of the electrolysis process itself). Electric cars today are available (obviously), but they are still too expensive, and have too many shortcomings, to consider them viable (yet) for a typical middle class buyer. As battery technology advances, and as electric drivetrain technology advances, it's probable that battery electric cars will become the most viable option to displace gasoline powered cars. - I don't have a crystal ball, however, and I cannot guarantee that battery electric cars will overcome their shortcomings and become the most viable non-gasoline alternative. But, as I said before, battery electric cars are about 20 years closer to viability than hydrogen fuel cell cars, and have energy advantages.
    1
  7166. moonyprongusa 1) You said: "I'm not the only one who believes in H fuel as the future" Responses: a) So what? Plenty of people believe stupid things. What does that prove? All you're proving is that there are other people just as uninformed as you are. b) You don't know enough to comment or make claims. Your short attention span doesn't even allow you to learn enough to comment or make claims. Yet, you comment and make claims anyway. c) Auto makers and energy policy makers cannot bank everything on any one technology, and I wouldn't do so either if I was in their shoes. That being said, you can tell which technologies are the leaders, vs. which ones are the "backup plans" purely by the amount of money they're spending on it. The department of energy has spent an average of $150 million per year on hydrogen fuel cell development/advancement in the past 10 years. They spend about $8 billion per year on battery electric car development. And, about the same ratio is true in all of the major auto manufacturers. Each major auto manufacturer is spending billions on battery electric car development, and only millions on hydrogen fuel cell development. These are the people who know this material 100x better than you and I put together, and their money is going into battery electric cars... globally... across the board... with few or zero exceptions. It's pretty clear to me that the best experts in the world think you're wrong, and if you don't believe it, follow the money. 2) You said: "Surely if RENEWABLE energy was used to power the electrolysis processes" Response: Again - so what? You can grind up a tree to make a single toothpick if you want to. But, you can't make the argument that it's a smart use of the tree. It costs about $18K worth of solar panels to generate the amount of electricity needed to recharge the battery for an electric car every day. To do the same job with hydrogen fuel cells, it costs about $55K worth of solar panels to generate daily hydrogen to drive the same number of miles in a fuel cell car. Or, you can pay $55K and charge 4 battery powered cars. Just because an energy source is called "renewable" doesn't make it responsible or smart on any level to advocate a solution that wastes that energy that could be going into other things. Run your toaster. Heat your home. Whatever. The point is, "renewable" energy still isn't cheap energy, and still requires scarce resources. Wind turbines, solar panels, tidal energy generators, etc., are all very expensive, and all require maintenance, and you can't advocate INefficiencies simply because you've chosen hydrogen as your pet favorite (while being completely ignorant of the topics). If the hydrogen fuel cell car is going to be more viable than battery electric cars, it's certainly not going to be because of the use of renewable energy. No matter what way you spin it, you can't justify the energy waste on its merits alone, so don't even try. If hydrogen fuel cell cars win the race to market viability against battery electric cars (which is a 100-to-1 long shot at best, but who knows), it'll be because battery technology ends up costing too much, or they hit a standstill in development, or something like that. It will NOT be because you can justify the extra energy consumption, "renewable" or not. 3) You said: "thanks for the cookie" Response: Go get a REAL education while you're eating your cookie. And, no, I didn't put your favorite drug of choice into the cookie, so don't get your hopes up.
    1
  7167. moonyprongusa Did you simply not read a word I wrote? Are you STILL on this conspiracy garbage?? I'll tell you what, you go find out why all 196 countries on Earth are still on oil ("big oil" cannot bribe THE ENTIRE PLANET), and let us know what's holding back every country on Earth from using your silly beliefs?? Huh? Could it be because (a) your beliefs are wrong? or (b) "Big oil" bribes every government official in every country on Earth... and all of the physicists on Earth too (since they all disagree with you also).
    1
  7168. YOU SAID: "you make the assumption at the beginning that it was racially motivated yet cannot prove that." == Agreed. I see no evidence that racism was what motivated this shooting. YOU SAID: "From what you can see here I wonder wtf the guy is doing and why he isnt following commands." == Well, apparently, they found a bunch of PCP in his car. I suppose we need to wait until the final investigation before jumping to conclusions, though. YOU SAID: "That said wtf didnt they just tazer him?" == At least one version of the story (out of the many versions flying around) states that they DID taser him, and it was the taser that spooked the cop into shooting the firearm. In that version, one cop taser'd the guy, and the female cop got too jumpy and fired her gun when the taser went off because she was surprised by it, and fired prematurely. Again, waiting for the final story, though. There are so many different versions flying around, who knows? YOU SAID: "From what I read the window was up and there was no gun in the car." == Well, being a broken record, yeah, but we need to wait until the final investigation and verdicts are in. But, in the meantime, gun or not, if someone appears to be reaching for a weapon, and isn't following commands, yeah, that's a bad idea. YOU SAID: "If this is truely the case then that officer should be tried for murder" == It would really be tough to get a murder verdict on this. I mean, I heard she's being tried for manslaughter. But, murder?? That would be a stretch. YOU SAID: "thats what the process is for and we should see if it works. Im very sorry hes gone and my prayers are for his family. I think there needs to be retraining in every police dept." == Every police department, huh? Even if you're correct, and this woman gets thrown in jail for killing the guy, are you truly placing blame on EVERY police department?? Should EVERY pilot be retrained if one pilot crashes? Should EVERY doctor go back to medical school if one doctor does something wrong and kills a patient on the operating table?
    1
  7169. carloak9 YOU SAID: "According to this you would still need fuel, but it would be water for the steam turbine." -- That's not what a "fuel" is.  *IF* this investment scam was real (which it's not), then Thorium is the fuel. Water is just part of the "drivetrain" that makes stuff move. And, you can recapture the water/steam, put it through a radiator, and reuse it (if this was real, but it's not real). YOU SAID: "But that is still a whole lot cheaper than gasoline." -- There isn't any basis for how much a Thorium reactor costs, since there aren't any online. The only one that ever existed was in Germany in the 1980s, and it failed miserably, they had tons of technical problems, and couldn't keep it working without spending a fortune, and they had to shut it down.  I think it's safe to say that the car would be over a billion dollars, though. You can buy a lot of gasoline for that kind of money. YOU SAID: "Contrary to what some may think, eliminating gasoline burning cars won't bankrupt the oil companies. Eliminating all petroleum burning internal combustion engines might do it but consumer and motor carrier petroleum fuel is a fairly small percentage of their business." -- According to the US Department of Energy, 46% of petroleum production goes toward gasoline, and 20% toward diesel fuel.  In your mind, that's a "fairly small percentage"??? YOU SAID: "As for what the car looks like, I actually prefer the look of the cars we use now" -- The car is just a computer rendering done by skateboard designer, Loren Kulesus.  And, of course you prefer cars we use now.  The one in the video doesn't even have doors.
    1
  7170. carloak9 Sorry, I am not just going to blindly believe that regular vehicle gas/diesel consumption is a "fairly small percentage" of the oil usage, simply because you say so.  When I saw your claim, I looked on the US Department of Energy website to find out that 66% (as I outlined before) of oil production goes toward gas and diesel.  Now you're somehow still saying that most of that gas/diesel doesn't go to consumer vehicles. You know, when someone replies to you with USDOE statistics, you'll need more than "I stand by what I said" replies before anyone will believe you. Show the ACTUAL stats to back your position, or you're just another YouTube armchair expert pulling comments out of nowhere.
    1
  7171. carloak9 And, you think listing other products made from oil can somehow justify your comment "consumer and motor carrier petroleum fuel is a fairly small percentage of their business" - why?  The US DOE says that 66% of oil production goes toward gasoline and diesel.  And, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council, a vast majority of that goes toward passenger vehicles and trucks (52% of the oil production goes to those things, which you're calling a "fairly small percentage").  If you want to sit there and have me read articles about how golf balls are also made from oil, hey, whatever.  If you think 52% is a "fairly small percentage" - fine, give 52% of your gross income to some accredited universities' scholarship funds, so that a few kids in the next generation of people won't be as silly as you're being.  You're one of those people who have some crazy notion in your head, and no matter what, you've decided you can't be wrong.  For whatever the reason, you're just not able to accept reality.  So, there's really no speaking to you any further.  Your mind is far too shut.  And, when you'd rather link me articles about what other things are made from oil (as if I didn't already know), while ignoring the fact that you're dead wrong about what's done with MOST of the oil, sorry, there's really nothing more I can say to you.  I've provided you the real numbers.  You've provided me speculation that comes straight out of nowhere.  Convinced, I am not.
    1
  7172. I think you probably have the species confused. Not only is it pretty well known in diving circles that there aren't any great whites in captivity (at least not for more than a few days), but I just checked the website, and they don't even claim to have any great whites in captivity. They talk about the great whites in the context of diving with them out in a cage in the ocean, not in their own aquarium. (Added edit): but there's no shortage of people who confuse the species. If you google it, there are a bunch of pictures posted by people claiming that there are great whites in the aquarium in Capetown, but they don't know what a real great white looks like, because those sure aren't great whites.
    1
  7173. Evan Bell Refuting stupid claims and hoaxes is one thing. Responding to downright brain dead idiots is another. Keep on doing the former, drop the latter.
    1
  7174. Evan Bell Personally, I don't have a problem with people who are ignorant of things. I'm ignorant of millions upon millions of things. I think the problem comes in when people PRETEND they know things they don't actually know (which, of course, there are endless supplies of those kinds of people on YouTube). People who think that the mere ability to post a message on YouTube somehow means that their message is somehow valid... um, no. There are a ton of people who comment on this thread with zero understanding of nuclear physics, zero understanding of engineering, zero understanding of the history of Charles Stevens and his scamster friends who duped millions out of gullible investors... yet, those people come here and feel qualified to make statements about the validity of this Thorium car bullshit. I've said this a million times... that would be like me parading into the operating room during brain surgery and then declaring that the doctors and nurses have no idea what they're doing (while I, myself, have almost no medical training or experience). I really will never understand people who pretend to understand physics. There's no shame in not understanding physics. There's no crime in not understanding physics. Yet, people who don't understand it, well, somehow feel compelled to pretend they do, and then they spread pure bullshit everywhere.
    1
  7175. Evan Bell Well, I understand the words you're saying (and the ones you're repeating from Sagan). It's very true that our society would essentially come to a screeching halt without the sciences that have been so completely integrated into everything we do. And, yes, such a small percentage of the society has any more than a high school level understanding of those sciences (and most people have forgotten most of what they learned). But, you know, there's a fundamental problem with "complaining" about this.  See, the truth is that most people are simply not very good at science. For example, back in high school, the number of students who really understood the physics they were learning... yeah... wasn't very many. Some could be taught to regurgitate formulas, just enough to take the tests. But, very few had any real understanding of the underlying science. Even if those people got 100% correct on their test papers, few of them really understood WHY a certain formula applies to a certain situation. Then, I thought it would be better in my university days... figuring that people wouldn't be taking the university physics classes unless they had some ability to understand physics. In high school, they HAD to take it. But, at the university, it's optional, so I figured only people who were good at physics would take physics classes. But, it really wasn't that way. STILL, tons of people took the classes, but really didn't understand the laws of physics. Chemistry was just as bad. Almost nobody really understood chemistry, at least not in the same way that I understood it. Anyway, this is the same thing that I've seen and been told by countless others... most people just don't understand science. Now, I'm not trying to argue that only the top 1% in natural aptitude for the topic should take the classes. Actually, quite the opposite, I think the people who don't have the natural aptitude should take the classes, even though I think they'll never truly understand it, and all they'll ever be capable of doing is executing the formulas. But, I think what they'll gain from it will be some realization about where the science comes from, and how solid the science is. They may not "get it" themselves, but at least they'll realize the depth of the sciences, and will appreciate those who DO understand it. But, right now, at least on YouTube, the masses consist of people who have never taken a single class on the topics, yet feel confident enough to declare themselves experts anyway. I think I've just described every single 9/11 conspiracy nutjob on Earth.
    1
  7176. 1) Cops are not trained to empty their guns when confronted by an attacker. That's ridiculous and ignorant. Cops are trained to shoot, and keep on shooting, until a threat is stopped. The national average is 5 shots. If you were correct (which you're not), and cops always empty their guns, then the national average would be 15-18 shots. 2) I think you'd be hard pressed to find cops that pause that long between shots, and who shoot at someone with an innocent person standing between the cop and the attacker. 3) I don't necessarily agree with "Active Self Protection" about this case. I think I'd need to see all of the evidence, back-stories, testimonies, etc., not just a video clip, before coming to a final conclusion. But, if I was forced to give my opinion on the video alone, I'd say, given that the attacker with the club wasn't down on the ground, I'd give the benefit of the doubt that he could have still been a threat. Also, even with the long pauses between shots, it's still too tough to say that I'd find someone guilty of murder while he was defending himself from an attacker. If he was a cop himself, well trained in firearms, and would automatically know to fire off shots in rapid succession, yet did it this way instead, yeah, I could be swayed to agree with "Active Self Protection." And, I'd still need more information before reaching a final decision. But, never in a million years would I try to make the point you're making, arguing that you'd automatically empty your gun into your attacker, because you think that's how police are trained to do it. That's ridiculously uninformed. And, even if you and I agree on the final verdict in this case, we certainly wouldn't be agreeing on the reasons.
    1
  7177. Yup, and if it's in a movie, it HAS to be true!!!
    1
  7178. Do you actually believe his son wasn't in on the scam? Do you think he really committed suicide the next room over from his 2 year old child because of family embarrassment, and NOT because he was going to be the next one the feds were going to take down?
    1
  7179. +Spam'n'egg. === Yup, because all documentaries about conspiracies are 100% true. Sure. Um, by the way, I have a documentary about some oceanfront property in Kansas, it's a documentary, so it has to be true, can I sell you that land?? Cheap!!!
    1
  7180. Spam'n'egg. When you're ready to glue your head back to your neck, and explain how in the hell the type of nuclear fuel for reactors matters to oil companies, you let me know, ok?  Until then, you're just a dumbass conspiratard, and all of your ridiculous disjointed rants mean nothing. 
    1
  7181. Spam'n'egg. So, you're going to assert that it's all a big oil conspiracy, and not lift a finger to even tell anyone why "big oil" would even care whether nuclear plants are fueled by Thorium or Uranium/Plutonium??  And, *I* am the problem, not you??  What a clown.  Um, nutbag, oil has ZERO to do with which nuclear fuel is used for nuclear power plants.  There's no "big oil" conspiracy here, you dumbass.
    1
  7182. Just hand them a job and make the taxpayers spend even MORE money on them?? So, in your mind, ex-convicts, murderers, rapists, thieves, should have more rights than people who never set foot inside a prison? Nobody ever mandated that a company must give ME a job. I always had to claw my way. It was never mandated that ANYBODY should automatically have a job. But, in your mind, you want to see the first 100% mandated guaranteed job positions in the entire history of the USA... should go to criminals, huh?? And, you don't see anything wrong with that logic? Some college graduate somewhere has to fight and claw to get a job. But, an ex-con, yeah, that person gets a job automatically. Sure. Great logic.
    1
  7183. ***** I'm guessing there's a language gap, but the problem isn't my reading, it's your writing.
    1
  7184. ***** 1) Spare me the condescension. You wrote an incoherent mess, and then blamed me for not understanding it.  YOU are the problem, not me. 2) Health can't bring you happiness?  What the hell?  Health is the number one source of happiness in most people's lives, even if they don't realize it.  How do we know?  Because it's freekin' miserable to be sick, especially seriously sick.  Or, even worse, dead.  Your ramblings are not only incoherent, but you're wrong.
    1
  7185. ***** YOU SAID: "why dont you learn to write in proper sentences than 'Expose him' mode, fedora wearing numale theist?" == What on Earth are you talking about? Your sentences are a mess that nobody can understand, and you're telling ME to write in proper sentences?  And, I have no idea what you're talking about with the "fedora wearing numale theist" comment.  Pure babble. YOU SAID: "Arrogance comes from feeling like your life is worthless." == No, dumbass.  Arrogance is the sense of OVERimportance, and feeling that your life is MORE meaningful than everyone else's.  Arrogance is the exact opposite of feeling like your life is worthless. YOU SAID: "They are connected. Learn to understand words rather than reading them" == I've read every word you've written, and none of them make any sense. YOU SAID: "too because words come from somwhere but I guess that place (called real life) is unfamiliar to you so your mind only works on a superficial level." == Pfftttt.  Look, I realize that you THINK the mountain of drugs you're taking make your mind work on a higher level than everyone else's, but you're wrong.  Your mind is fried from those drugs.  Lay off of them, and maybe you can start thinking straight again.
    1
  7186. ***** YOU SAID: "you'll sing another song in your 80s when you finally start to question 'Is this all I am here for?'" == There is seriously something wrong with your brain, and you need to lay off the drugs. You contradict yourself constantly. Dumbass, do you even know you just negated your whole point (whatever stupid little point I could decipher in your endless incoherent ramblings). You just got done saying that having good health doesn't make you happy, and now you're saying that when you're in your 80s, the lack of good health will make you unhappy. I've pointed out a number of your inconsistencies before in this thread also: You said that I was simultaneously self-pitying and arrogant (wrong: those two states of mind are polar OPPOSITES). You said that arrogance is a product of feeling worthless (wrong: arrogance is the exact OPPOSITE of feeling worthless, it's the feeling of OVER-importance). I mean, you can't even keep basic dictionary definitions of words straight, that's how fried your brain is. And, now you're insisting that when people are in their 80s, that means that somehow they should reject all medical technology, when that's when they need it the most? Oh, and side note: medical technology is probably what got them into their 80s in the first place, because before modern medical technology, the average life expectancy of humans was about 25-30 years. Your hypocrisy and self-contradiction are stunning, absolutely stunning. And, your brain is so fried that I've asked you at least a dozen questions trying to decipher your incoherent mess that you're spewing, and you won't lift a finger to answer a single question or challenge. Nope, you ignore the questions, and keep spewing condescending idiotic self-contradicting ramblings, then declare that it's a product of a superior mind. No, dumbass, that's a product of your out-of-control drug use. Lay off the drugs!!!
    1
  7187. ***** Seriously, lay off the drugs, they've ruined your brain.
    1
  7188. ​@classiccarz​ They titled this video a "buyer's guide." They opened the video by claiming it's a "buyer's guide." I opened my statements by asking "THIS is a 'buyer's guide'?" So, basically, I guess you're saying you agree with me.
    1
  7189.  @aggiesoldier  Not that I blindly trust anybody on YouTube who makes this kind of claim. But, if you are really the officer in this video, please know that you have another person on your side. When running down a guy who had just carjacked/kidnapped two women, and then watching a bus get evacuated and the driver calling for help, you're darned right, go in with your gun drawn. You don't know if that guy has a gun. He didn't in this case. But, with no way to know that, you're totally justified. My opinion might mean nothing to you (nor should it, I guess), and I am not 100% just blindly trusting you are who you say you are. But, if you are, you have one more supporter on your side of the fence. And, it's a travesty that soooooo many armchair quarterbacks pretend to know things they don't know, and condemn you because of their own ignorance.
    1
  7190.  @TAYBRITS  More armchair quarterbacks with absolutely no understanding of the situation. Do you think those two cops that went inside the bus, and several more cops outside, just so happened to be at that bus stop randomly? Do you REALLY think cops just randomly jump on busses with guns drawn? Or, hmmmm, can you fathom the notion that maybe... just maybe... there's more going on than meets the eye? Is that beyond your mental capacity to understand? This man had just carjacked and kidnapped two women. The cops were chasing him because of that. He fled to a storefront, where he appeared to take people hostage inside of the office. He then fled again onto this bus. That's why he was desperate to have the driver keep going without stopping. The police chased/followed the bus, which is why they were all there as soon as the bus stopped. Then, the cops saw the bus getting evacuated in a hurry, and the bus driver calling for help. So, spare the world your ridiculous opinions. Usually, people like that are armed. This man wasn't. But, more often than not, someone like that is armed and dangerous, and the correct thing to do is draw your firearm. Not doing so is the wrong course of action, and could result in officers getting killed instead of the bad guys.
    1
  7191. marv34001 YOU SAID: "he shouldn't have been shot." == What? You're just as bad as Cenk. The investigation has barely even started, and you've already come to your conclusion?? Sigh. YOU SAID: "There was no proof he was reaching for anything." == What? Are you not watching the same video that I am? At 3:20 in this very video, right before he gets shot, the man stopped having his hands up, and dropped his hands to his side, like he was going for his pocket and/or the car. What on Earth are you talking about by saying that there's no proof that he was reaching for something? Watch the video. Sheessshhh. YOU SAID: "And the issue is that cops somehow have the right to kill people" == YES!!!!!! Of course they do!!!!! What's wrong with you???? If cops believe there's an imminent threat, of course they have the right to shoot people. What don't you understand here?? Are you under the impression that cops need to wait for bullets to start flying before they're supposed to shoot someone they suspect might be reaching for a gun?? What are you talking about? YOU SAID: "and you think its ok for people to kill people if it looks like they are reaching for something" == YES!!!!!! Of course!!!! If someone isn't following lawful orders, and appears to be reaching for a weapon, of course they're going to get shot. What EXACTLY are you proposing? Again, answer the question, when EXACTLY do you think cops should shoot if/when they're faced with someone who isn't following lawful commands, and is reaching for something? At what EXACT point (in your mind) is a cop justified in shooting?
    1
  7192. Trisha Jones YOU SAID: "It's kinda hard to be reaching into a rolled up car window" == You're illustrating one of the exact reasons that judgment has to wait until all of the facts are in. It's not clear to me whether the window is rolled up or down. And, it's not clear to me if he was reaching for his pocket, or inside the car, or what. All we can see is that the guy isn't following orders, went back to his car despite that the cops clearly don't want him to do that, and that instead of having his hands up, he dropped his right hand, seemingly to go to his pocket, or into the car, or something. That's about all we can know until the investigation is completed.
    1
  7193. marv34001 YOU SAID: "Can you shorten this in anyway before I respond" == No. You spewed a mountain of garbage. And, the unfortunate reality is that it takes more time to clean up your garbage than it took you to write the garbage. That's just the nature of garbage.
    1
  7194. Ron R YOU SAID: "For the last time for you idiots who think he was reaching for something in his car... there was blood on his windows so clearly his windows were up." == Yes, fine, you're illustrating exactly my point. We have to wait for all of the facts to be in, and for the investigation to be completed, before making a final determination. Before then, these lines are blurred, and jumping to any conclusions prematurely is a mistake. Windows were up? Alright, did the cops know that? Why didn't he keep his hands up? Was he reaching for his pocket? We don't know all of these things yet. YOU SAID: "His car just stalled and stopped in the middle of the road, why would he attack?" == Who knows?? The audio seems to indicate that they thought he was on drugs. Why didn't he stay down when told? Why did he go back to his car when told not to? Why did he fail to keep his hands up when told to keep his hands up? We don't yet know these things. YOU SAID: "The Bitch cop only had to taze him if she felt threatened." == At least one version of the story is that they DID use the taser, but that she shot him after that. Again, WAIT FOR THE INVESTIGATION. Oh, but no, you're already determining that she's a "bitch cop," huh? YOU SAID: "That's what they invented tazers for." == If you can't even spell the word "Taser," do you really think you're an expert on the topic? YOU SAID: "For little pussies like her to use them if they're afraid to do their job." == Congratulations on, once again, proving my point for me.
    1
  7195. marv34001 You are a lost cause.  Your mind is gone.  I've already explained everything there is to explain.  But, you're too polluted.  I mean, you've stated in no uncertain terms (in the other thread) that you believe that that cops can LEGALLY kidnap and rob people.  When someone is as far gone as you are, there's no point.  And, you certainly don't get to come here and tell me how to respond, how long my responses should be, and ignore my questions while demanding that I answer yours.  You're just too stupid, that's all I can say.   You literally lack the IQ to understand these concepts.
    1
  7196. marv34001 Lay off the drugs, seriously. 
    1
  7197. marv34001 Moron, are you intentionally stupid?  You are proving MY point, not yours.  My entire point from the start is that we need to wait for the facts to come in, and for the investigation, BEFORE we jump to conclusions.  That's what I said from square one.  Now, you're asserting points that PROVE ME CORRECT!!!!!  Sheeessshhhh, you're as dumb as they come.
    1
  7198. marv34001 You clearly can't read.  You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. LAY OFF THE DRUGS!!!!
    1
  7199. marv34001 YOU SAID: "You see if you knew what you were talking about" == Pffttt. What a clown.  YOU are the one who says that it's LEGAL for cops to kidnap and rob people.  YOU are the one who says that the legal system encourages cops to extort money from people.  YOU are the one who doesn't understand the definitions of the words you're using.  And, you're wondering if **I** know what I'm talking about??  What a buffoon. YOU SAID: "you would tell me why I'm wrong" == This is even more funny.  I responded with hundreds upon hundreds of lines of responses, addressing your points one at a time.  How did you respond?  You said I wrote too much and you're not going to bother.  Now you're saying that I didn't tell you why you're wrong??  Pfftttt.  Stupid dumbass, I told you LINE BY LINE why you're wrong, but you didn't want to deal with it, remember?  I made dozens upon dozens of challenges/questions to demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about, which you ignored completely and refused to respond.  You didn't respond to at least 90% of my challenges/questions.  They went in one ear and out the other, or you didn't read them at all.  And, on the rare occasion that you gave a response to a challenge, it was so pathetic that it demonstrated that you don't even understand the definitions of the words you used.  Now, you're sitting there claiming that I didn't tell you why you're wrong???  Holy mother of imaginary gods, what hypocrisy, what irony, what idiocy. YOU SAID: "rather than just insulting." == No, dumbfuck, I BOTH responded to your statements, as well as insulted you.  And, I insulted you because you demonstrated a breathtaking amount of arrogance mixed in with your utter ignorance.  "Ridicule is the only weapon against unintelligible positions" (Thomas Jefferson).  Your position is as unintelligible as it gets. YOU SAID: "Now who's proving l who's point" == You're proving my point, as I illustrated many times.  You're just too dumb to know it (which is even more apparent because you can't even write a sentence in English if your life depended on it).  Get an education, you stupid clown, and lay off the drugs.
    1
  7200. nickie amos YOU SAID: "This concept car" -- No. It's a skateboard designer's rendering.  There is no car.  There never was any such car.  There never will be any such car.  It's an investment scam.  These "Young Turks" are nothing but brain dead idiots who never investigate anything before they spew utter gibberish all over the place. YOU SAID: "I like it but considering that it runs on thorium 100 years it's definitely capable of much much more" -- No. You cannot put a Thorium reactor in a car like this.  The high velocity neutrons and gammas would kill you.  Or, the car would need to be the size of a locomotive in order to build all of the shielding and cooling you'd need.  Also, the "lasers" in the design are just meant to bamboozle idiot investors who know nothing about science.  Thorium doesn't produce lasers.  And, no such laser exists anyway. And, if you built turbines to run generators to power the lasers, why not just power the car directly, and skip the stupid lasers. YOU SAID: "I wouldn't mind a month and a few chunks of for thorium as well." -- Go dig some up. YOU SAID: "In case you're wondering where thorium is well basically its like a uranium except the only difference is it can't be turned into a weapon" -- Its byproducts can be turned into a dirty bomb. You don't consider that a weapon?  And, while it's a bit more difficult to make an actual atomic bomb out of the byproducts, it's not impossible.  It's just easier with Uranium/Plutonium. YOU SAID: "it produces twice as much power in a power plant and we use same way as in a nuclear plant... 2 + no residual radiation if anything it actually neutralizes it I think" -- Really perfesser?  And, you got your nuclear physics degree, where?  The energy returns are LOWER with Thorium (for the same kind of reactor, anyway... but, yes, there are reactor types that are more efficient). The advantage it has over Uranium/Plutonium is that it's a bit cleaner, and fails a bit safer.  It's remarkably difficult, and massively expensive, to make it work, though.  There are a million technical problems that aren't solved.  The Germans has one online in the 1980s, but they could never keep it running, and it wasn't worth it to keep trying, so they shut it down as a failure after about a year. And, if you think that there's no radiation, hey, engineers are building a bunch of Thorium reactors around the world right now, trying to give it another go to see if they can overcome some of those hurdles that the Germans never could.  They're not successful yet, but, in your mind, if there's no radiation, how about just climbing right into that reaction chamber and let us all know about how little radiation you experience. Sheeesssshhh.  What is it with people like you??? You see a couple of videos on YouTube making impossible claims about miracle energy sources, and you just believe it???  Can I sell you some oceanfront property in Kansas that I have?  I'll make a YouTube video proving it's true.  After all, if you see a video of it on YouTube, it HAS to be true, right?
    1
  7201. nickie amos 1) Again, there is no car.  It's an investment scam.  Charles Stevens and his friends are being sued by the SEC for their prior investment scam, where they promised to "grow back lost limbs, and cure all diseases" (yes, literally, that's what they said). They stole $6.5 million from investors until the SEC shut them down.  So, now they are doing this Thorium car scam.  The car, as they propose, is not physically possible, not now, not in the future, not ever.  The concepts are flawed from the ground up, and would violate several laws of physics. 2) YOU SAID: "As for the thorium to what I understand it is an alternative to nuclear energy without the waste." -- That's because you believe everything you see/hear.  NO WASTE?  None??  Pffftttt.  No.  There's waste.  But, it's a bit safer, and a bit cleaner.  But, make no mistake about it, it's still nuclear energy, and therefore still has byproducts.  You also claimed that it didn't have radioactivity byproducts.  Sorry.  That's silly.  Every nuclear reactor produces radioactivity.  Without the radioactivity, there's no freekin' reaction!!!!  (Therefore, no energy.) 3) YOU SAID: "I know I do not believe everything on the internet I believe in the possibility of the existing." -- There is no possibility that such a car exists, or can exist (at least not without killing the passengers). -- Side note: you do know that it takes WEEKS to start a Thorium reactor, right?  And, you do know that it takes Uranium/Plutonium to prime it, right?  So, yeah, turn the key, insert some Uranium/Plutonium, wait 2-3 weeks for the reactor to start, and then go for a drive.  Sounds great. YOU SAID: "As for the cons going on those are opportunities to actually check it out yourself and see if it is true." -- Go right ahead. But, hey, look, the reason why these things don't exist today is BECAUSE there are lots of cons (and a ton of technical hurdles that are not solved).  If this miracle energy source was already viable, we'd be using it already. YOU SAID: "To be honest I'm least likely to believe what the government says" -- Well, between believing the government, or believing internet idiots who make impossible promises for miracle energy sources, I'd prefer to believe the government.  But, how about believing NEITHER, and reading some peer-reviewed physics journals instead? YOU SAID:  "as for owning land I don't even have a dime to my mother pocket why would I want to buy some place I don't have can't even afford." -- It was a joke.  Buying oceanfront property in Kansas is a joke.  It means you're gullible.  There is no oceanfront property in Kansas.
    1
  7202. YOU SAID: "Holy shit I can't believe the amount of people defending the victim executing the attacker." YOU SAID: "In any U.S. court, this victim will be charged and found guilty for manslaughter." == Those two statements are in contradiction. If you acknowledge that a large percentage of people believe that this man with the gun was acting in self defense in all 3 of his shots, then how do you simultaneously believe that a jury of 12 would unanimously find him guilty?
    1
  7203. Tyler This video isn't the sum of all evidence. We don't know the backstory, nor what was said, nor what the guy in the middle will say, etc. How can you be so "firm" in your opinions?
    1
  7204. Tyler YOU SAID: "You're correct. However your statement works both ways." == Yes, exactly my point. You were the one who talked about how firm your beliefs are. YOU SAID: "We don't know the backstory, what was said, or what the guy in the middle will say. This could lead to a guilty or not guilty verdict depending on these facts." == So, why were you just saying with so much confidence that you think he'd be found guilty, and you are very firm on your beliefs? YOU SAID: "However, just based off the video alone showing the attack, I'd bet money he's charged and found guilty with manslaughter. The video alone is enough to show the 3rd and final shot was an execution style shot." == Could be true. I wouldn't know. Maybe the guy in the middle will testify that the guy with the bat said "man, you shot me, I'm going to kill you now." Who knows? I'm not arguing one way or the other. I don't know, nor do I really care. I am just surprised at how certain you are, especially in the face of the fact that your opening line in this thread talked about soooooo many here who support the guy with the gun. I mean, in the USA, it only takes 1 to hang a jury. I don't know diddly squat about Israel's legal system, though. YOU SAID: "Bear in mind, I'm a proponent for the 2nd amendment and I own many firearms myself. I also firmly believe in one's right to defend themselves - even if one must take a life. However, I also believe one must defend justly. In this case, this man is attacking him with a bat. The bat is the threat - not the man. Once the first 2 shots hit the target, the threat was over because the man could no longer wield the bat. The 3rd shot was an execution shot." == Well, if we had to base things on the video alone (which I'd never actually do), I might cut the guy with the gun some slack. I mean, just putting myself in his shoes, I don't know if I'd have the mindset to know for sure if the attacker is truly stopped, as long as he's still standing. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I'd actually have certainty about that position. But, at least in the USA, the standard for criminal law is reasonable doubt (unlike civil law, which is just a preponderance of evidence). I think, based on absolutely incomplete evidence, mind you, I'd have enough "reasonable doubt" about his motivations and intent. But, again, I would never state these things, not knowing the evidence, with the same conviction that you are. Your overall tone seems to indicate that you've already convicted the guy in your mind.
    1
  7205. I think you probably don't know what a great white is. Not only is it pretty well known in diving circles that there aren't any great whites in captivity (well, not for very long anyway), but the Melbourne aquarium's website doesn't even mention having a single great white in captivity (which would be a huge deal if they did). I think you probably got the great white confused for a different shark.
    1
  7206. It depends on where this happens. Some states have more protective laws. In other states, you can fire someone for any reason you want (shy of "protected classes" such as race/religion). If someone can quit a job for any reason, why can't that same person be fired from a job for any reason?
    1
  7207. "I don't want to kill him over a bike, I'd rather have him get away with my bike than to shoot him." You know, there's an amazing thing that happens to the lefties that think shooting an armed criminal is the wrong thing to do... when it affects THEM, their opinion changes. OK, so, let's turn this situation around. OK, fine, this armed bike thief takes someone's bike and gets away with it, and the cop doesn't shoot. The next day, the thief is out robbing houses, breaks into the houses of these Young Turk morons, robs them, rapes their wives, and shoots their kids. Are these Young Turk morons going to say, "oh, well, I'm sure glad that the cop yesterday didn't shoot the criminal"??? Hell no. They'd wish the cop shot the criminal while he could have, and could have prevented the robbery/rape/murder to THEIR OWN FAMILIES.
    1
  7208. What would you have done instead?
    1
  7209. +Jacob Stanziole I honestly can't figure out what you're trying to say, or which side you're on. YOU SAID: "I support the police, but these comments are ignorant." == Which comments are ignorant? YOU SAID: "Even though that kid was in the wrong, he was still a human being. if that officer saw these comments, I guarantee he'd be disgusted." == Well, maybe he reads these comments, who knows?? I probably would if I was in his shoes. But, I'm definitely confused by your stance when you said "Even though that kids was in the wrong, he was still a human being." I mean, yes, sure, he was human. So what? You know who else is human? His ex-girlfriend that he went there to kill that day. He bought that gun for the purpose of killing her, showed it to her, and kept threatening her, and told her (and other friends) that he has a bullet with her name on it. Then, on the day of this incident, he texted her and said he was going to the church to murder her that day. So, putting aside for a moment that the officer was justified in shooting just to protect his own life, or the life of the nearby driver of that car that the thug could have shot... think about what would have happened if the cop didn't shoot this would-be murderer. He'd have gotten away, and circled back, and shot his girlfriend (who was the intended target in the first place). So, while people are complaining that this thug was a human, and didn't deserve to die... yeah... I'll argue against those people and ask them, "ok, fine, then what would you be saying if the thug had gotten away, turned back, and then shot the girlfriend??" What happens then?? Would those same people be saying "oh, I'm glad the cop didn't shoot the thug... it's too bad the innocent girl died... but at least the thug lived."?? Is that what they'd be saying?? Or, would they be saying: "stupid cop, should have shot the guy while he had the chance!!!"?? Look, none of that even matters. The issue is simple. The thug dropped the gun, and WENT BACK FOR IT. This very clearly shows that he intended to use that, or he'd have just left it on the ground and kept running. Nobody would risk being shot by a cop to go back for a gun unless he planned on using it. So, when faced by a thug who said he was going to commit murder that day, hit the cop and ran, dropped the gun, then turned back to get it, and was moving very erratically, the answer is clear, this man needs to be shot, period. He was turning left, then right, then forward, then backward, etc. Who knows what was going to happen one second later?? Sure, at the very moment the bullet hit him, yeah, he was going the other way. But, so what?? A second before that, he was facing the cop with his hand on the gun. That thug could have shot the cop, or the nearby driver of the car, or any of the hundreds of people in the crowd, or circled back to kill his girlfriend. The "ignorant" comments come from people who defend the thug in this case. He sealed his own fate when he went back for that gun after dropping it. He went there to kill someone that day, and this cop stopped that from happening. The cop should be heralded as a hero. It's sooooooo rare that cops actually prevent murders before they happen. Most of the time, the murder is committed, then the cops are called to clean up the mess. This time, the cop got there in time to save someone's life, and successfully did that, and what happens??? The public says the COP (!!!!!) did something wrong?!?!?!!!?! This attitude is ridiculous and stunningly stupid. The cop was faced with a guy who was brandishing a loaded weapon, hammer back, cocked and loaded with a round in the chamber. This thug could have turned on a dime and shot at anyone in less than a second, and had ALREADY ANNOUNCED HIS INTENTION TO COMMIT MURDER THAT DAY. Yet, merely because the thug was facing the other way at the very moment that the bullet hit him, the public cries out against the cop??? Bullshit. Pure bullshit. Seriously, to anyone who thinks that the cop did something wrong, go track down the ex-girlfriend (who was this thug's intended victim that day), and see if she agrees with you.
    1
  7210. +Jacob Stanziole == Oh, now I understand what you meant.  Great, thanks, I agree.  It's always tragic, and nobody "deserves" to die like this (conceptually).  But, at the same time, the cop did 100% the correct thing, and it was justified, and even required.
    1
  7211. YOU SAID: "Your stupid second amendment is what caused the outcome leaving one man dead and another in prison" == 1) This happened in Israel, so the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with it. == 2) Yeah? And, if you're worried about the outcome of one man in prison and one dead, don't you think that, if the defender didn't have a gun, that it could have had the same result, except the person with the club would be in prison, and the man in the car would be the dead one? That never crossed your mind?
    1
  7212. So, you can barely write a sentence in English. And, you think JFK was the best president, followed by Reagan (who was on the complete opposite side of the spectrum as JFK)... oh, you make a lot of sense. What's next? You're a devout anti-gun person, and your favorite organization is the NRA? You're anti-abortion, and your favorite organization is Planned Parenthood? How can your favorite president be JFK, and your 2nd favorite be Ronald Reagan (who would have opposed JFK on every single decision he ever made)?? Good grief.
    1
  7213. rob dempster YOU SAID: "A man in Glasgow was shot dead for carrying a firearm and brandishing it at police officers at night.  Only it wasn't a firearm, it was a table leg. That is an ambiguous case - police thought he was armed - he was only "Brandishing it" because he had been drinking." --- Pffftttt. There's nothing ambiguous here. If someone is aggressively brandishing anything that looks like a firearm at the police, they're going to get shot. No ambiguity. Shot. Period. As for trying to brush it under the rug because he had been drinking, sorry, but the law doesn't work that way. Cops aren't going to pause and run a sobriety test on everyone brandishing a weapon to verify whether they're sober or not. People are responsible for their own actions, whether sober or drunk. "Oh, sorry I raped that teen girl, I was drunk, so I shouldn't be responsible for my own actions." "Oh, sorry I shot your family, I was drunk, so you have to stop and make sure I'm sober before you shoot back." There's nothing ambiguous about your example. Brandish something at cops that looks like a weapon, and you're getting shot, period, drunk, or sober.
    1
  7214. Yes, if you consider a strict inflation adjustment, yes, Trump is probably the richest. But, the further back in time you go, the less relevant a strict inflation adjustment is, and it becomes more about how rich someone was relative to anyone else, and relative to the economic capacity of the times. For example, one could argue that a billionaire (even retroactively adjusting for inflation) couldn't even exist in the 1700s in the USA, and some might say Washington was richer than Trump (relatively speaking). But, whatever, I don't really care, they both [were/are] richer than I can imagine.
    1
  7215. YOU SAID: "Please learn, what they're trying to also do is to make a better habitat for the shark compared to it's natural." == Compared to it is natural? What does that mean? YOU SAID: "But they fail. People generally assume that nature and natural habitat is more luxurious than captivity and zoos, but that's all wrong." == Where do you get this nonsense? Yes, sure, animals that are used to swimming thousands upon thousands of miles will naturally prefer a 100 foot wide tank. Oh, by the way, I'll trade you your house for a phone booth. People generally assume that houses are more comfortable than phone booths, but that's all wrong. YOU SAID: "Zoos are meticulously designed and built to make it so that the species or animal that they keep has the best life as possible." == The best life possible IN CAPTIVITY, FOR THEIR BUDGET. Look, I'm not opposed to zoos and aquariums. But, I'm not delusional like you are.
    1
  7216. And, when the media says "Freedom of Information Act," what do you think happens to your suit?
    1
  7217. Let me guess, you fell for a bunch of sensationalist YouTube videos claiming her boyfriend murdered her, and never lifted a finger to discover the 1,000 holes in that version of the story?
    1
  7218. Eddie, oh Eddie, are you in there? Does your brain work yet? Still posting nonsense? YOU SAID: "The moon landing was all staged in a STUDIO. Pay close attention next time you see it." == Oh, so that's what the entire world's experts all lack? They can't pay attention properly? YOU SAID: "There are numerous mistakes made but one of my favorites is how absolutely clean the landing pads are after landing. Not even a speck of dust on them." == Wrong. Several of the landing pads had dust on them. Sorry, but your favorite conspiracy videos lied to you. All you'd need to do is look at the Apollo photo library to prove them wrong, and to find photos with dust on some of the landing pads. But, nope, you won't do that. The makers of the conspiracy videos know that their audience (you) will never fact-check them. So, they can lie all day long, with complete confidence that their fan base will never actually seek to verify if anything they say is actually true. YOU SAID: "You would also think a capsule landing on a surface would have some kind of downward thrust pushing dust away" == Yes, lots of the surface dust was thrusted away. YOU SAID: "and creating a small crater underneath the lander. But you don't see that here." == No. The surface dust was only a couple of inches. Under that, it was compacted regolith and rock. The lander's dinky little engine wasn't going to cut any craters into that. YOU SAID: "The ground underneath the lander looks untouched." == Wrong. Again, your favorite conspiracy videos lied to you. There are many photographs from the various missions that show under the lander. It varies a bit from mission to mission, but, all landings showed quite a bit of disturbance under the lander. Apollo 11's lander blew away almost all of the surface dust directly beneath it, for example. It was blown down to the compacted regolith and rock, and this is plainly evident in the photos. You even see radial striations from the rocket exhaust. Apollo 15, another example, actually landed on the lip of a crater, and the engine bell smacked the surface and cracked/bent it. Yet, you're saying that the surface looks untouched??? Have you looked? Once again, all you've done is listen to conspiracy videos. They show you some shallow-angle photos from the worst vantage points, make a claim that the surface doesn't look like it's been touched, and they avoid showing you the better photographs that show you otherwise. And, of course, you will NEVER fact-check them. YOU SAID: "Why do you think out of all the thousands of movies and remakes of movies has there never been a movie made of man's greatest achievemen." == What are you talking about? No movies about Apollo? There have been tons of them. They're still making them in the last few years. "First Man." "Apollo 11." Those were feature films, you know. What about back in 1995, the monster blockbuster by Ron Howard, starring Tom Hanks, "Apollo 13"? How about the "From the Earth to the Moon" miniseries on HBO? They made it in 1998, and remade it in 2019. I could go on and on and on. But, you don't think any of those movies exist? YOU SAID: "One movie with Armstrong walking on the moon." == There have been many. What ARE you talking about? YOU SAID: "NASA in the Hebrew word means " to deceive"." == No, it doesn't. You don't know what you're talking about.
    1
  7219.  @maxsmith695  YOU SAID: "Please watch , " A funny thing happened on the way to the moon "." == Why? That movie is a complete joke, filled with complete lies and garbage. Why would you believe a single thing seen in that movie? What makes you think it's correct? Every single thing that movie states/claims is either a twisting of what happened, or a downright lie. And, you don't need to take my word for it. Rather than just blindly swallowing the claims that video makes, why not fact-check it for yourself? YOU SAID: "Try to find the interviews with Ralph Rene who was a high IQ inventor." == Pffttt. Ralph Rene was a conspiracy crackpot who denied science. He held a couple of useless patents for a couple of tools he "invented." He lived in a trailer park and died virtually penniless. He claimed to have a high IQ, then proceeded to demonstrate that he was nothing but a crackpot. Only other crackpots would find him convincing. And, the reason he failed so badly is because he didn't have the slightest clue what he was talking about. Why would you seek information from a guy like that? Why not study ACTUAL Apollo documentation, rather than the crackpottery produced by Ralph Rene? YOU SAID: "They might be on Bart Sibrel YouTube channel." == Yeah, sure, by all means, go watch videos made by a convicted criminal taxi cab driver who made a couple of anti-Apollo movies full of lies. Yeah. Whatever you do, don't actually check any of the claims he made. Yeah, swallow whatever he says, hook line and sinker, while claiming the SANE people are the ones doing what you're actually doing. Yeah, you're a real genius. YOU SAID: "If you listen carefully to the Neil interview of 2011 ( his last) called, " An Audience with Neil Armstrong (2011interview) ", you might hear what I heard, in carefully phrased language and that is a confession, in my opinion. He needed to carefully disguise it. He once said in a White House talk, truth can be discovered if you peel away the layers of deception." == First of all, if that's what you believe, why not just "confess" it? Why would he need to carefully disguise anything? The man was fairly close to death, and he knew it. Why disguise anything? Who would have done anything about it, if he said "the truth" (your version)? == Secondly, how do you think this works? You think the NASA administrators selected guys like Neil Armstrong, then threatened them into submission? How does that makes sense? Armstrong flew 78 combat missions. He was shot down behind enemy lines. He flew the X-15 deathtrap rocketplane to the edge of space before ever joining the Gemini astronaut program. He nearly got killed in his Gemini flight when it malfunctioned in space, and barely got home alive. He nearly got killed when his LLRV malfunctioned, and he needed to eject and ride a parachute a mere second before crashing. He kept flying. He kept going forward. THIS is a man you think they could scare somehow?? They chose all of these astronauts as type-A dominant, ice-in-the-veins, over-achieving aviation superstars, then thought they could scare them all into submission? That's how you think? What's wrong with you? YOU SAID: "I have been a pilot for many years and what he said, really stunned me. If you are not a aviation person, it might not be obvious. He deliberately selected a non pilot and a starry eyed fan, with no aviation background and a non engineer to interview him. He did not want a carefully considered followup to comments he wanted to express." == So, all you're proving here is that pilots can be psychotic too. Bravo. Your imagination has taken over your thinking faculties. YOU SAID: "Neil was a high IQ test pilot. Nothing he said as random. He also steered the interview into areas he wanted ,s o he could make certain points." == This is a total contradiction. He didn't mince words. If he wanted to "confess" something, he'd have simply done it. You are projecting your delusions into the words he says, not the other way around. You are not extracting his "confession" from the words he says. You're projecting your own delusional nonsense into the words he says.
    1
  7220.  @maxsmith695  YOU SAID: "NASA's own website says that the man in charge of Risk Analysis for the Apollo program determined 10 missions would fail, before one was successful. The cost wold be 30 lives or 3 per mission." == What? Where are you getting this? Was it from a conspiracy video that claims NASA's own website says this? Or, was it actually from NASA's website? YOU SAID: "The chance of failure per mission was 95%." == Pure nonsense. None of the engineers would have even let those things fly, if they had that kind of failure rate. You don't know what you're talking about. YOU SAID: "NASA determined this information was bad PR and did not release it to the public." == Oh, so I guess your super-secret sources found it for you? Um, dummy, if it's not released to the public, doesn't that kind of negate your idea that it's simply on NASA's website? Which story is it today? Is it a secret that only YOU know about? Or, is it publicly available to everyone by looking at NASA's website? Good gods, you are a pschopath. YOU SAID: "NASA decided despite a 95% chance for failure, to proceed. NASA carried out 6 missions, all with 95% chance of failure and death and had no injuries or deaths." == Wait just a second here. You are claiming that NASA faked the moon landings, but, now you're simultaneously claiming that they went through with the missions? You wanted people to watch Bart Sibrel movies, which claimed that they never left Earth orbit? Now you're claiming that NASA decided to proceed with the moon missions?? WHAT?? YOU SAID: "The Space Shuttle was determined to have a 1 in 100,000 chance of failure, early on. After Columbia it was revised to: 1 in 100 chance of failure. That 1% was deemed too high and the program was cancelled." == And, this is relevant, how? YOU SAID: "The craft was placed on the studio surface and there was no disturbance of the dust." == You just got done saying that NASA proceeded with the missions to the moon. Now you're flipping back to saying they didn't. What's wrong with you? And, yes, the dust was disturbed. And, yes, it was ON THE MOON. You clearly have been doing nothing outside of watching conspiracy videos. Your entire Apollo "education" comes from conspiracy videos. You don't know anything about the actual topic.
    1
  7221.  @maxsmith695  YOU SAID: "Stanley Kubrick was the only person NASA relied on and he did what he did. The fake Front Screen Projection, FSP, on the studio set is all the proof any film student needs to see." == Again, you imagine these things. You have lost your marbles. YOU SAID: "The lack of stars at all times." == Pffttt. The irony. You just claimed that any film student would spot the fakery. Then, you talk about stars?? Any film student will tell you that it's very difficult to capture stars on film, even at night, let alone in the lunar daytime. Good grief. And, it wasn't at all times. They did take a few hundred star photos. Sorry that your conspiracy videos didn't tell you that. YOU SAID: "Fakery is everywhere." == Yet, amazingly, not a single one of the world's 72 different space agencies, staffed with the world's experts in aerospace engineering, are able to spot it. Nope. Instead, you suggest that people watch videos made by a criminally convicted taxi cab driver (Bart Sibrel). And, you find that more convincing than literally the entirety of the world's experts in the field? YOU SAID: "The failure to demonstrate 1/6 gravity by astronauts limiting their jumps to 2 inches is a sign of fakery." == Wrong again. Charlie Duke jumped about 4-5 feet. John Young jumped almost the same. It's on video. But, again, you'll never actually find it, because all you're watching is conspiracy videos making that claim. They don't show you things that contradict their own claims. They pick and choose the stuff they want to feed you, with full knowledge that none of you conspiratards will EVER fact-check them. YOU SAID: "Not even showing how they could throw a baseball 1000 feet, which is easy on the moon, = more signs of fakery." == They didn't bring a baseball. But, they showed Jack Schmitt throwing a hammer awfully darned far. Again, funny that you don't know these things. Could that be because your conspiracy videos don't show you that? YOU SAID: "The studio was small and that was not going to be done." == Pffttt. Yeah. Small studio. That's why there is footage of the rovers driving miles upon miles upon miles. Yeah, small studio? This would have to be the largest studio ever made. YOU SAID: "They used the same studio setting, and exact location for Apollo 14 , 15 and 17 as they did for 11, but said they were miles away. Exact background overlays prove they lied. Why lie?" == Sorry, your conspiracy videos lied about that. And, you don't have to take my word for it. Japan sent JAXA/Selene to the moon, and it verified the Apollo photography to a degree that simply wasn't available in 1969-1972 (except by actually being on the moon). They used their 2D and 3D photography from Selene's camera system to verify the Apollo photographs. They dedicated an entire section of their website to how they did it. And, they proved that you're dead wrong. Who told you this claptrap you're spewing? A conspiracy video? YOU SAID: "Stanley made 2 movies that exposed the moon landing hoax, one is the Shining" == How does "The Shining" expose the moon landing as a hoax? What in the world are you talking about? YOU SAID: "and the second more blatant movie expose, is Eyes Wide Shut." == Good grief. What's next? "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" exposes the Kennedy murder as an elaborate hoax? You wouldn't happen to live at a mental institution, would you? YOU SAID: "It is believed that because the second movie was so clear in showing viewers that the moon landing was fake" == So clear? What ARE you talking about? Have you ever watched the movie? YOU SAID: "Kubrick was killed because of it." == Amazing delusion. So, decades after Apollo, they're still out there "killing people"?? After all of the NASA administrators from Apollo are long gone, somehow, they keep replacing them with murderous thugs? How exactly does that work? Decades go by. The quiet and nerdy type of engineering students who dream of working for NASA someday, instead of the higher paying jobs in the private sector, go finally get jobs doing what they want to do... then, they escalate in the ranks... and eventually are told that they must murder people to conceal lies from decades prior?? And, they just go along with it?? Wow. I mean, just, wow. I've hired more people than I can possibly remember, with a good enough track record that other companies have contracted me to help them hire people. And, I can tell you, NOBODY, and I mean **NOBODY** has that good of a hiring record. All of the interviews, all of the screening, all of the background checking, has never yielded a 100% track record in making good hires that always results in people being who you expect/want them to be. Yet, amazingly, you think that NASA has this miraculously perfect track record of hiring geeky aerospace engineers (turned administrators) who are willing to run around and murder people?? That's how you think this goes?? Truly amazing. You are really out there. Your mind is as toasted as anybody's I've ever seen. YOU SAID: "Nixon ordered NASA to fake the landing" == How/why did he do that? I mean, NASA had already sent Apollo 8 to the moon before he ever took office. So, how does that work, in your mind? Are you saying they could go to the moon, but couldn't land on it? That contradicts all of the conspiracy videos you're watching, by the way. And, why? What did Nixon know about going to the moon that the engineers didn't? YOU SAID: "and then Kubrick was sought out and ordered to direct the efforts." == So, you're claiming that Kubrick was able to make moon landing movies, all by himself, in just a few months? I mean, his movies all required crew of hundreds of people, and typically took years to make. "2001," for example was FOUR YEARS in development. And, it has credits of hundreds of people. Yet, you think Kubrick was able to make fake moon landing movies in just a few months? And, somehow, miraculously again, they hired these hundreds of people, and not a single one ever spilled the beans?? YOU SAID: "The #2 executive at NASA was Arthur C. Clarke, one of 3 founders of NASA, who made, 2001 a Space Odyssey with Kubrick in 1968. Clarke likely convinced NASA and Nixon, that Stanley could help direct the fake landing." == Why? With the number of technical errors in that movie, you'd think that he would have steered AWAY from Kubrick. YOU SAID: "Stanley was a perfectionist and a slow worker when it came to making movies. Creating the fake moon landing in 5 months was nothing short of a serious rush job. Mistakes are everywhere, but Nixon ordered it done by summer." == Have you seen a doctor yet?
    1
  7222.  @maxsmith695  YOU SAID: "There was no YouTube in 1969." == YouTube is apparently what you think is a substitute for an actual education. You're a proud graduate of YouTube University. YOU SAID: "They idea was people see it once and that is it, over and done. No time for questions." == Ridiculous nonsense. The Apollo program is one of the most documented programs in history. They knew darned well that the entire world was watching. YOU SAID: "Well, Youtube and VHS tapes changed that. The Front screen Projection mock up all by itself proves the hoax. The rest is just gravy, with lots of proofs that make for a lot of laughter, at how easy it is to prove this sloppy hoax." == Yet, the only people who think that, are people like you, with no understanding of the topic, and self-contradictions galore. You are a mental case. YOU SAID: "You need to watch 2001 - A Space odyssey to see what FSP looks like. No more questions if you cannot figure that out. Bye." == Have you watched it? There are countless errors in that movie. Who would EVER want the maker of THAT movie to produce moon landing videos? YOU SAID: "Saturn -5 launches are real, they fly a few dozens miles and fall into the ocean." == Well, the first stage does that. That's how it was designed. In order to save weight and reduce thrust, they dropped the first stage after the fuel/oxidizer burns off. This serves the purpose of reducing the weight of the rest of the booster. And, since the first stage's rockets (five of them) had 1.5 million pounds of thrust each, this was too much thrust for the craft to handle once a couple of million pounds of fuel/oxidizer had burned off. They shut down one engine early to help with this. But, they couldn't just keep on shutting down engines, because then it would torque the craft too much. So, they dropped the entire first stage, and went to a less powerful 2nd stage after that. And, the other stages keep going. What's your beef with this? How would you have designed it, if not this way? YOU SAID: "That is why there is a 50 mile exclusion restricted no go zone around the area into the ocean." == HILARIOUS!!! And, you think this zone exists, why? And, you think they can enforce it, how? What difference does it make anyway? How does "restricting this zone" protect any information about Apollo? Why does this matter? So what if someone finds the remains of the Saturn V 1st stages? (Some have been found already, by the way.) Why would it be restricted to find them? YOU SAID: "Rest of you comments makes no sense." == Wow, your hypocrisy is stunning.
    1
  7223.  @eddiecastro8187  YOU SAID: "I couldn't tell you what was on Stanley Kubrick mind when he directed the moon landing. I know he left all the stars out because they were to difficult to accurately place them all." == No. Any actual film student could explain that it's very difficult to capture stars on film. It's hard enough with a still camera, and requires very long exposure times to do it. Most of the Apollo photos of the stars used at least a 4 second exposure time, and sometimes up to 30 seconds. And, that's ONE FRAME!!! For a motion picture to capture stars, how would that work? A typical film camera uses 24 frames per second. Even if you slow it down, how can you get 4 second exposure times? You still need multiple frames per second to make a movie work, you know. I mean, this is pure ignorance. Pure and total ignorance. You don't understand anything about this topic. And, beyond that, why do you think it would be difficult to place the stars? How does that make sense to you? Ancient mariners had been using star charts to pinpoint their location on Earth for centuries!!! CENTURIES!!!! You can almost set your watch by it!!! All you'd need to do is pick the longitude and latitude on the moon, reverse east and west (because you're on the moon, not Earth), look at the date of the calendar, and voila, you can pinpoint where the stars should be on any basic star chart. So, why do you believe that it would be difficult? What EXACTLY makes it difficult? Did your favorite conspiracy video tell you that it would be difficult? YOU SAID: "He for whatever reason used the same back drop on separate missions" == Nope. You have made that up. YOU SAID: "and you can see the rope pulling the lander up when it takes off." == When you start seeing things that aren't there, that's about the time that you call a doctor, don't'ya'think? YOU SAID: "There is also an admission from Buzz Aldrin to an 8 yr. girl that they never went there when she asked him how come it's taken so long to return to the moon." == Don't be ridiculous, you conspiratard clown. This is just silly. She asked why they didn't go BACK. He answered that they "didn't go" (and then continued to explain why). The word "BACK" was implied in the question. And, if that doesn't work for you, at worst, he simply misspoke. I mean, have you never misspoken in your life? He spoke about his lunar mission a million times before then, a million times since then, and you're going to pick on the man because he left the word "back" off of a sentence in one of the millions of times he talked about his lunar mission. I mean, he talked about it later in that very same interview!!! He talked about his lunar mission to that little girl!!!! So, how does this conspiracy go, in your mind? Aldrin "confessed" to the girl, then in the next sentences, he talked about his lunar journey that you're claiming that he was saying he didn't actually make? "Yes, little girl, after decades of talking about this mission, I'm telling you I didn't go to the moon, but while I was on the moon on that mission I didn't do..." etc. etc. etc. Is that how this goes? He said he didn't go, then immediately talked about going to the moon and coming back from it? How insane are you? Or, is it maybe more sensible to conclude that he was answering the girl's question about going "BACK" to the moon, and he was talking about the reasons that nobody went BACK to the moon after Apollo? YOU SAID: "It's completely silly to me to believe that we landed on the moon over 50 yrs. ago on less technology than our cellular devices and have never returned since." == Why? What makes this "silly" to you? None of the world's space agencies think it's "silly." What do you think you understand that the entire world's experts do not? And, why do you only talk about computer technology? Computers are only a very small part of a mission to the moon. The rocket technology itself has nothing to do with computer technology. And, rockets really haven't advanced very much. Today's rockets run on the same fuel, same basic efficiency levels, using the same materials, etc. What EXACT piece of technology do you think exists today, that would make going to the moon routine? If all you're going to talk about is the computer technology, then you're painfully unaware about aerospace engineering. YOU SAID: "Nor has any other space agency in the world landed on the moon." == Correct, because it's remarkably difficult and expensive. But, those same space agencies you're talking about do NOT deny Apollo did. Every single one of them acknowledges Apollo. Every single one. No exceptions. YOU SAID: "Do you think Russia just gave up the space race over 50 yrs. ago because we got there first?" == Yes, that's exactly what they did. They flew four lunar landers in space (test flights). They built command modules. They were building more landers. But, they had a bunch of problems with their N1 rockets. They kept exploding. And, making matters worse, they killed a bunch of their key engineers by being too aggressive, and demanding that they go work on fully fueled rockets, rather than waiting days to drain and refill them. It was the space race during the cold war. And, the Soviets pressured their rocket scientists to cut corners to try to beat the USA to the moon. After that, yes, the Soviets basically just gave up. The USA had already sent Apollo 8 to the moon, Apollo 10 to the moon, and were about to send Apollo 11 to do the first manned landing. So, they threw together an unmanned probe mission at the last minute, to race Apollo 11. It was called Luna 15. They sent Luna 15 to orbit the moon a couple of days before Apollo 11. The plan was to wait for Apollo 11 to get there, and land on the surface. Then, they would remotely command Luna 15 to land in the Sea of Tranquility while the astronauts were still on the surface. It would grab dust samples, then race Apollo 11 home, with the idea that the Soviets would claim the first lunar samples being returned to Earth. Unfortunately for them, it was a very rushed mission, and they made some mistakes, and ended up crashing it into a lunar mountain while Armstrong and Aldrin were on the lunar surface. But, guess what, the Soviets tracked Apollo 11 (and their Luna 15) all the way to the moon with their radar and radio telescopes. And, many other countries did the same. Madagascar, Turks&Caicos, USA mainland, Guam, Hawaii, Wales, Canary Islands, Spain, Australia, Britain, etc. (The list goes on.) All of those countries, and more, tracked Apollo to/from the moon, as well as Luna 15's trip to the moon also. As a matter of fact, they were very worried about their radar's ability to keep track of Luna 15, Apollo 11 command module, and Apollo 11 lunar module, all simultaneously. While it's true that these countries had been using radar to track ground features of Venus and Mercury for a decade before Apollo ever happened (to determine the speed and direction of those planets' rotation, prior to having the ability to see it visually), they really didn't design these systems to track 3 different spacecraft around the moon. So, MIT came up with a bit of a balancing act to use these different countries' tracking stations to track an extra craft also (Luna 15), to make sure the Soviets' real plan wasn't to smash it into Apollo 11. Anyway, I digress (with a point). Yes, the Soviets gave up going to the moon, once it was clear that they lost the race. YOU SAID: "We cannot leave lower Earth orbit and we never will." == YOU might be proud of your ignorance. But, ya know, the sane people, we tend to NOT display our ignorance for the entire world to see. I'm ignorant about a million different topics. I don't have the slightest understanding of ancient history of the island of Fiji, for example. But, you won't find me spewing my ignorance into YouTube comments about Fiji's history. You, on the other hand, don't have any clue about Apollo. You know nothing at all. But, you're very proud of it. It's utter insanity.
    1
  7224. No. Smith went a hundred miles past the line of "self defense."
    1
  7225. The description says he died.
    1
  7226.  @isrbillmeyer  YOU SAID: "Just lower cost and more launches than any company or government agency." == Paid for mostly by the government agency. And, by the way, the costs aren't as low as represented. YOU SAID: "Just more electric vehicles than anyone else." == As I said, that's one of the few "successes" (sort of). They did it by not making a profit for 10 years, with the cult following constantly increasing stock prices to astronomical unjustified levels. YOU SAID: "And both times most people said it could not be done." == I'm not most people. YOU SAID: "Boeing that is a veteran in the industry with generations of experience cannot even compete" == Yeah, because they do things correctly, while SpaceX cooks the books. Why do you think Musk said SpaceX is on the brink of bankruptcy? YOU SAID: "and the legacy companies need massive subsidies to stay alive but still cannot compete." == Sure, if SpaceX drives itself into bankruptcy in order to make its prices artificially lower than the others... sure. YOU SAID: "At some point you have to admit that Tesla that is now the biggest robot company, producing the most EV's, SpaceX that does the most launches of any entity is maybe not vaporware." == Biggest robot company? What? Um, no. But, nobody said that the cars or launches were "vaporware." It's all the rest that's vaporware. YOU SAID: "Well SpaceX and Tesla was also criticised and nearly went bankrupt a number of times." == Yeah, like now? YOU SAID: "Always amusing how the big critics don't actually have real products of their own other than hot air generation." == Again with the nonsense that nobody can criticize if they don't produce the same products. Meanwhile, if those who DO produce the same products criticize, you'll just say they're jealous. So, basically, you have defined it as impossible to criticize. Bravo, genius.
    1
  7227.  @isrbillmeyer  YOU SAID: " SpaceX will be doing just fine. More than fine. It looks like SpaceX is going to dominate and get a lot more contracts worldwide." == Yet, a couple of weeks ago, Musk stated that SpaceX was on the brink of bankruptcy. Mighty huge turnaround in just a couple of weeks. YOU SAID: "And I will repeat... yeah the hardest critics produce nothing but hot air." == You can repeat it until the cows come home. But, all you're demonstrating is that you won't accept input, by your own definitions. If someone hasn't done the exact same things, then they're not in a position to criticize. If someone has done the exact same things, and they criticize, then they're just emitting sour grapes. Either way, you won't accept input. YOU SAID: "Even as it stand now it is clear that SpaceX is still in better shape than the competition." == Then why did Musk say a couple of weeks ago that SpaceX was on the brink of bankruptcy? Look, as I explained, Musk benefits from having a few things that have been successful. But, by and large, a vast majority of his individualized claims have been absolute hogwash. I mean, I noticed that you refused to respond to my statements/questions about Musk narrowly avoiding being thrown into prison, and then being told by the judge that he is personally liable for the damages for the Solar City scam, which will amount to between $3 billion and $9 billion to his victims. Magically, a few days later, Musk sells $6 billion in stock, claiming that this is to pay taxes. (On stock he hasn't sold??? How does that work? You don't pay tax on stock you haven't sold yet. And, given that his stock doesn't pay dividends, what EXACT money did he owe taxes on? How does any of that make sense?) I asked you if you thought it was coincidental that, a few days prior to selling that $6 billion in stock, Musk was told by the judge that he would have to pay between $3 billion and $9 billion to his victims. You wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole. Instead, you went off on other topics. Sorry, your mind has been lost. Dazzled by a few successes, ignoring the multiple failures, and the outright scamming he has done. And, when you refuse any input (as you've made it quite clear that you intend to do), there's really no point here. You're doomed to be that way the rest of your life.
    1
  7228.  @isrbillmeyer  And, when you refuse any input (as you've made it quite clear that you intend to do), there's really no point here. You're doomed to be that way the rest of your life.
    1
  7229.  @isrbillmeyer  And, when you refuse any input (as you've made it quite clear that you intend to do), there's really no point here. You're doomed to be that way the rest of your life.
    1
  7230.  @isrbillmeyer  I just love when people who avoid answering things... turn around and accuse ME of avoiding answering things. Utter hilarity. I already outlined (twice) that you won't touch specific comments/questions I had... twice... you refuse to answer... won't touch it with a 10-foot pole... then, you have the audacity to come back and accuse ME of not answering you. Sorry, doesn't work that way. I'm not playing that game with you. It's 100% clear that there's no further purpose for me here. Your hypocrisy is off the charts... and your mind has been lost.
    1
  7231. Pareidolia.
    1
  7232. "I am not a conspiracy theorist" Yet, you believe the theory that the moon landings were a conspiracy?
    1
  7233. Multiple people called the police. Read the police report. You'll find the answers to your questions. You'll also find that one of the audience recorded it and gave a copy of the video to the police. Needless to say, it doesn't match this version about nobody being around. And, when you keep digging, you'll find that she was a convicted felon who served a term in a Florida prison about 6 years ago, and has had a million other arrests before and after. And, you'll find that her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club. If she wasn't making "public beach" content, I'll eat my hat.
    1
  7234.  @armorpro573  My guess is Louisiana.
    1
  7235. Sorry, society has decided that putting on this kind of show in front of children is a crime.
    1
  7236. It was released on November 24, 2023 as a result of a FOIA request. They blocked the release for 2.5 years, which was well past her death. But, they cannot continue to block the release once the investigation was closed long enough. Nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive, so, your claim makes no sense.
    1
  7237. And, she immediately continued to steal from Walgreens after this incident. And, she made the worst decision of her life by continuing her drug habit until it killed her.
    1
  7238. No, he used the Taser because it was very clear that she was resisting arrest, and there was absolutely no way to get her to comply short of either (a) manhandling her and tackling her to the ground, or (b) using the Taser. She even said "Tase me" multiple times.
    1
  7239. Any solid matter helps. And, yes, rocks are pretty good.
    1
  7240. What kind of oxygen is destroyed during the circle of blue?
    1
  7241. But, nobody saw the footage until she was already dead 1.5 years. She didn't kill herself over the arrest video. It wasn't released until 2.5 years later, which was 1.5 years after she was dead.
    1
  7242. Huh? What "media" has blood on their hands?
    1
  7243. Um, ok, so what? Are you under the impression that a cop must always call a supervisor when asked?
    1
  7244. First of all, huh? Haven't you ever seen "To Catch a Predator"? No blurred faces. No protected assets.
    1
  7245. Secondly, handled badly? How exactly?
    1
  7246. She didn't commit suicide because of people seeing the arrest video. The arrest video wasn't released until 1.5 years after she was already dead. Good grief.
    1
  7247. Her boyfriend was wearing a ski mask in the middle of summer in Kentucky, and wielding a gun, um, yeah, I think she knew what was going on.
    1
  7248. How EXACTLY do you think the hotel would know how much the teens drank? Do you think they hire someone to follow the teens around to make sure they don't keep drinking?
    1
  7249.  @Marriedwithagreatman  Yeah, but did you even read the lawsuit before making your comment? These kids drank at the pool bar at about 1pm, left the pool, and returned 6 hours later to the pool after dark when the pool was closed, and that's when this incident happened. Since the girl is dead, and the boy claims to have no memory, where were they drinking for those 6 hours or so? Why would it be the pool bartender's responsibility to know what happened for those missing 6 hours? Did anybody even see the kids during that time? Maybe they were drinking in their room. Maybe they left the facility and came back later. We don't know, because nobody is coming forth to say anything about where those two kids went. I mean, by your standard, working in a bar, are you responsible for what people do for the following 6 hours after they leave your bar? Are you responsible if someone leaves your bar, then continues drinking elsewhere?
    1
  7250. Wow!! It's magic!! The video was first posted on November 24, 2023. She died in March of 2022.
    1
  7251. Many of her million other arrests were for drugs and alcohol. So, I cannot tell if you're being serious or not here....? And, I'd eat my hat if she wasn't making "public beach" content, given that her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club.
    1
  7252. 1) They weren't strangers. He knew them, and they had stolen from him before. 2) He placed his car away from the house so they wouldn't know he was home. 3) He unscrewed some of the lights so they wouldn't turn on, even if they flipped the switch. 4) He ran a recording device while he waited in the basement, clearly he knew they were coming. 5) Before either one of the teens arrived at his house, he rehearsed on that recording device what he was going to say to the police after he killed them, including "in the left eye" (he later shot the girl in the left eye). I repeat: hours before the teens even got there, he rehearsed, on tape, what he was going to tell the police about shooting them. 6) He had a tarp ready for the bodies. 7) He gathered up the bodies, and put them in the other room so they wouldn't ruin his carpet. 8) He didn't call the police until the next day. 9) After killing the first thief, he then sat quietly waiting for a long time for the other thief to arrive, then shot her too. 10) Her shirt was found opened, make of that what you will. 11) After shooting the girl in the torso, she was still alive and incapacitated, yet he didn't want her to live (his own words), and wanted to make sure she was dead (his own words), so put a bullet next to her eye, and another one under the chin up into her brain (his own words). 12) While waiting for the criminals to arrive, he was armed with two different guns, one of which was a little bit faulty. 13) After he shot one with the faulty weapon, it wouldn't fire again. So, he literally apologized to the criminal (who was still alive) for not successfully killing right away, and switched guns for the fatal shots while the criminal was on the ground.
    1
  7253. Scott, you've confused the Arizona State University LRO (lunar orbiter) photographs with a telescope on Earth. There isn't a telescope anywhere on Earth with the kind of resolution required to see those things on the moon. Not even remotely close.
    1
  7254. When he axes a question, she substains the tackit agreement.
    1
  7255. A claim requires evidence. That applies to the claim that Apollo went to the moon. And, that applies to the claim that Apollo didn't go to the moon. So, right out of the gate, I reject your notion that people don't need to prove they didn't. If you make a claim that they didn't, then you should back up that claim with evidence. Thus far, 50+ years have gone by, and not a single piece of credible evidence against the moon landings has ever been presented. Every single "fact" (sigh) offered by conspiracy videos is easily demonstrated to be wrong, and fails the minute it falls under the slightest bit of scientific scrutiny. As for evidence in favor of the Apollo missions, well, there's so much of it, it's a bit like asking for evidence of WWII. Who would even know where to start? I could write encyclopedias about all of the evidence. So, I usually ask people about what evidence they expect and would accept. Most deniers can't answer that question. Or, when they do, they ask for ridiculous things like being sent there themselves to see it with their own eyes, or they want a new mission to view the Apollo remnants from closer distances. Of course, that's an empty request, because if/when they get the evidence they're asking for, they just shift the goalposts and say it's not enough. But, without writing an encyclopedia, some of the evidence for Apollo includes the following: - Dozens of countries tracked the Apollo missions with radar and radio telescopes, including enemy countries. - Anyone with a clean line of sight to the moon, and some decent equipment, including backyard amateurs, could aim their dishes/Yagi at the moon, and receive the Apollo audio signals. Lots of countries and individuals did exactly that. - Apollo left 3 laser reflectors on the moon, which have been used by dozens of countries every single day since being placed there, via high powered laser ranging facilities. - Both China and India have released their orbital photos of some of the Apollo landing sites that they got from their individual lunar satellites, and the photos show the landers in the exact same place that Arizona State University's LRO camera has shown them for over a decade, and matches perfectly with the original mission photography. - Spain had the largest telescope in existence at the time. It wasn't large enough to see the craft, but, it was able to see the large cloud of fuel from the SIVB fuel dumps around the moon, as well as the Apollo 13 debris cloud (these clouds of fuel and debris spanned miles, and could be picked up by that telescope). Beyond that, I'd have to ask you the same thing I'd ask everyone else. What evidence would you expect and accept?
    1
  7256. "it is indeed a fact (which even folks from NASA have mentioned) that the radiation beyond the earth and the moon is so strong that it can destroy the cells of any life form." So, when NASA says there's radiation, you accept it? When NASA tells you the levels of this radiation, you reject it? Nobody at NASA has ever said that the radiation you're talking about is instantaneously fatal. Most of the reports that talk about the radiation are referring to missions that would last over a year. Or, the reports talking about radiation in the Van Allen belts talks about exposure lasting weeks/months. Yet, you hear that it would be fatal, but, you don't pay attention to how long it would take to be fatal? When doctors tell you that sitting in a 105 degree hot tub too long can be fatal, does this mean you can't get into a hot tub? Sit in a hot tub at 105 degrees for a little while, no big deal. Sit in it for a week, and you cannot live through it. Does it ever occur to you to actually read the reports you're alluding to? No? A conspiracy video tells you that NASA says that radiation can be fatal, and that's all you need to know? "To date nobody has developed a material that can be applied to the outer shell of a space craft in order to shield the interior from this radiation (officially at least)." Ridiculous babble. A vast majority of the radiation is simple LIGHT!! A piece of paper blocks light. Sound is radiation. Foam rubber stops that pretty well. Electrons are radiation, and simple aluminum blocks that pretty well. Yeah, it's tougher to block some types than other types. Stop pretending you understand it, when it's crystal clear that you don't. The rest of what you wrote is ridiculous babble. Don't open your comment by pretending you want "an intelligent" discussion. If you want to pretend to have an intelligent conversation about radiation in space, do it in the science journals on radiobiology and cosmology. If you think Apollo couldn't do it, publish your numbers. YouTube comments are not the forum to mount your little rant about saying that the entirety of the world's aerospace engineers can't manage to understand the radiation that you think you do. Write it up, dewdrop. Show your math in the journals. Come back here after you publish, and then, I'll post a reply a week later after about 100 ACTUAL engineers write their rebuttals... that is, if you get past the first round (which you won't).
    1
  7257. Wouldn't have mattered. One of the "audience" caught it on video and showed it to the police. Needless to say, it doesn't match her version of nobody being around (the story she's telling as she is trying to avoid her millionth arrest).
    1
  7258. The cops didn't put it on YouTube. But, after 2.5 years, the cops could no longer block the Freedom of Information Act, since she was long dead anyway, and had to release it.
    1
  7259.  @stusue9733  Eventually, he will get banned for spam once enough people report it... if for no other reason than he repeats the same things over and over (violation of terms of service). You shouldn't keep cutting and pasting the same stuff word for word, or the same might happen to you.
    1
  7260. What in the world are you talking about? No lunar lander has ever been flown on Earth. Are you talking about the LLRVs/LLTVs? I'd say hundreds upon hundreds of successful flights of those are a pretty good track record for experimental craft of a very unique type. Yes, they had a couple of malfunctions also. But, with only 6 lunar landings, I'd hardly think it's a fair comparison of two completely different kinds of craft.
    1
  7261. I know what you said, and it was wrong.
    1
  7262. I explained it already.
    1
  7263. Dewdrop, the lunar module NEVER FLEW ON EARTH. What's wrong with you? Seriously? Good gods.
    1
  7264. In what way weren't the police discreet? They took her away from the restaurant to question her outside of the view of others. They didn't have much choice but to bring her back through the restaurant to get back to their police cars. And, they kept the arrest video private for 2.5 years, which was 1.5 years after she died. I'm not sure how much more discretion was even possible....?
    1
  7265. So, go to a public beach instead? Huh?
    1
  7266. Nobody showed the arrest video before her death. It wasn't released until 1.5 years after that.
    1
  7267. Huh? All of Apollo 17 videos were in color (both TV, and 16mm film). There were some black and white 70mm photos. But, that's not "footage."
    1
  7268. Well, I guess you're used to the McDonald's model. There are no burger cooks, there are no frenchfry cooks, there are only cooks, any of us can flip a burger or put fries in the oil.
    1
  7269. Why are you quoting the surface temperature of the moon at "high noon"? All landings took place early in the lunar morning. The suits never saw 250F.
    1
  7270. What don't you understand here? Once again, you're quoting the surface temperature for the lunar high noon, or early afternoon. As I explained, all landings took place early in the lunar morning. And, sorry, direct sunlight doesn't mean the suits were 250 degrees. This is just absurd at this point. You don't know what you're talking about.
    1
  7271. Hilarious!!! So, you think any object in direct sunlight instantly becomes 250 degrees, huh? So, what happens in shade? It instantly becomes neg-250 degrees? Then, light shines on it again, and it instantaneously becomes 250 degrees again? Why? What's so magical about 250 degrees? Why not hotter? If shining sunlight on an object makes it heat up from neg-250 to pos-250 in an instant, why doesn't it heat up even more in the next instant and become 750 degrees? Then, 1250 degrees the instant after that? Why stop at 250?
    1
  7272. So, first you complained that the temperature was magically 250 degrees. Now, you're complaining that the temperature was magically neg 100? How about this instead? Just admit that you have no idea.
    1
  7273. "no radio delay" Dewdrop, listen to the call again. There is the correct amount of delay. You don't expect to hear a delay when the astronaut speaks and Nixon answers, because that's where the recording is taking place. Why would he wait 2.6 seconds to respond? The delay is in the other direction.
    1
  7274. "same pose photographed from multiple different locations" Name the photos. Do you have catalog numbers?
    1
  7275. "same geography and lighting set-up for every landing site" This is beyond ridiculous. None of the landing sites looked like each other.
    1
  7276. Huh? Nixon wasn't even in office until the late parts of the Apollo program. And, Apollo 8 went to the moon in 1968 (Nixon took office in 1969). Why would you even bring up Nixon?
    1
  7277. Correct, but, then she must live with that choice. And, she must provide ID, and not resist.
    1
  7278. Hilarious!!! Um, no. See, Florida, like most states, is a "stop and identify" state. Yes, she is required by law to provide identification. Refusing to do so is an arrestable crime on its own. And, sorry, but it was too late to go watch the video. He spent more than enough time with her already, between the stuff that happened before this video starts (go watch the longer version), and the stuff that happened during this version also, yeah, she was getting arrested either way. The cop tried to explain that, but, she wasn't paying attention (and neither were you).
    1
  7279. "Make sure bad guys don't get guns." Does this guy think the "bad guys" are going to be deterred by another gun law?
    1
  7280. What media humiliated her?
    1
  7281.  @LunaLapin-ho5tk  This was not serious enough to get the full misdemeanor conviction.
    1
  7282.  @LunaLapin-ho5tk  It never even got as far as being charged. She didn't show up at court. Sorry, but, you can keep trying to exaggerate all you want, but, it doesn't change reality. This would easily be negotiated down (if she had shown up).
    1
  7283. We don't have the technology to fly 100+ people at mach 2 across the Atlantic today either. Is the 1969 Concorde fake?
    1
  7284.  @schex86  No, dummy, it's not that easy. If you actually play all of the hours of moonwalk footage, not just the cherry-picked footage you find on conspiratard videos, you'll quickly learn that it cannot simply have been sped up, like you're pretending.
    1
  7285.  @schex86  To WHAT video? To the hours upon hours upon hours of videos? Do it yourself, dummy. As I told you in other threads, all you're doing is blindly listening to dishonest conspiratards who are misleading you. You've obviously never actually watched the days and days worth of original videos yourself.
    1
  7286. Huh? No news even covered this until long after she died.
    1
  7287. I agree about the intellectual property theft. There ARE mechanisms to fight it, but, too few people do. But, about the woman in the video, let's face reality here, there was probably a lot more stuff in that bulky jacket than just those gloves and hat. And, the brutal ironic reality is that she might still be alive today if she had been put into prison.
    1
  7288. Well, she had her receipt. Just read the video description, or go watch the full video instead of this one that cuts half of the stuff out. Or, go read the lawsuit. But, anyway, I'm sure you can figure out why she played it this way. I think it's pretty clear that she was looking for an opportunity to turn "can I see your receipt" into a payday lawsuit, and did everything in her power to get herself Tased and arrested, thinking it would result in a larger settlement. Thankfully, she lost her lawsuit, and got $0.00. But, again, I think it's pretty obvious about why she did what she did.
    1
  7289. Well, right out of the gate, I agree with you. I would have a difficult time convicting Baldwin. But, there is a slight difference between a paintball gun and a real gun. There'd be absolutely zero expectation that a paintball gun would ever have any kind of fatal round in it. But, for a real gun, it's a possibility that it has a real round in it. So, the manslaughter charge applies to the concept that he was negligent in not taking proper precautions, and never pointing the gun at anybody. Manslaughter doesn't require intent. It means someone was merely not taking the cautions that they should have been taking. Again, I don't want to sound argumentative, because I think I'd probably not convict him either. But, you asked a question, and I wanted to provide an answer.
    1
  7290. Then why'd you ask the question if you didn't want the answer?
    1
  7291. He actually shot TWO cops.
    1
  7292. Depends. Do you know they are coming, and set up a trap, and plan ahead to do it? Or, are they surprise intruders?
    1
  7293.  @billywilson1389  Wow, good luck in your eventual and inevitable prison term.
    1
  7294.  @billywilson1389  No. As far as I'm concerned, ALL THREE were guilty, and this was not all that much different (conceptually) than a gangland shooting where all parties are guilty. I'm sorry you are so ruthless that you'd commit the same murders, but that's despicable.
    1
  7295.  @billywilson1389  You are extremely disgusting to support this man. He knew they were coming, and planned ahead to kill them. He parked his car a quarter mile away so that they wouldn't know he was home. He disabled the lights so they couldn't flip the switch and see him. He got tarps ready for their bodies, and placed them where he planned on killing them. Long before the teens got to his house, he recorded himself rehearsing what he planned on saying to the attorneys and friends. He said on that same recording that he planned on shooting "in the left eye" (and later shot the girl in the left eye, twice, from point-blank range). When the boy arrived, he shot him, gathered up his body, moved it to the other room, then prepared the room again for the next murder for when the girl would come in. When he shot the girl, he apologized to her for killing her too slowly (his first gun jammed, and had to switch guns). He admitted in his confession that he knew she was incapacitated, but didn't want to give her a chance to live, so put those two bullets into her left eye. Then, when he was uncertain if that fully killed her, he went back again and shot her under the chin and up into the brain. He then said, "cute." And, he waited 24 hours to call the police. The police found the girl with her shirt open and her body exposed (figure that one out for yourself). Don't sit here and tell me that this man was merely "protecting his house." This goes far past the line of self defense. He had been feuding with the girl's family for years, and he considered the girl's family his biggest enemies. The boy he killed used to work for him. He identified them months earlier when he installed the cameras in his house, but never again called the police to inform them that he knew who was performing the robberies. He did call the police for some of the earlier robberies, but, as soon as he knew who was doing the robberies, he stopped calling the police, and planned these murders instead. You are truly sick in the head to support this man, and to say you'd take the same actions as this man. You and he both belong in prison.
    1
  7296.  @billywilson1389  Sure, right, you didn't read it. Pffftttt. Why is it that the minute I proved you to be ridiculously wrong, suddenly, magically, you didn't read it. You read everything else but the comment that demonstrated you to be wrong. Sure. Enjoy your inevitable prison term.
    1
  7297. Why do you believe she thought she was alone? Because she said so, as she was attempting to cry her way out of her millionth arrest? And, sorry, if anybody did this at a parade, they'd be arrested also. And, against whom is this suit of yours? The sky?
    1
  7298. The US has [sort of] passed laws stating that the landing sites are not to be disturbed, but, the only real effect is that they will not publicly fund any missions that will result in disturbing the sites. The US has no claim to those sites. Thus, private parties, or other countries, can legally go to those sites, they just can't ask the US government for any money to help make it happen.
    1
  7299. Wrong. You can disturb the site with no legal consequence. You just can't ask the government to pay for the trip.
    1
  7300. Huh? Seemed like a pretty normal arrest to me. What would you propose? NOT arrest her?
    1
  7301. "Your opinion doesn't alter reality." Oh, the irony. The complete and total irony. YOU are the one who refuses all input, dewdrop. YOU are the one asking a million questions, then ignoring the answers. YOU are the one pretending to know more about aerospace engineering than the entire planet's aerospace engineers. YOUR opinions haven't altered the reality of Apollo. And, after you spewed your nonsense, and I answered every single sentence you wrote, every question you asked, what did you do? You ran for the hills. Did you answer a single return question? Nope. Did you acknowledge being wrong about anything? Nope. You didn't even know how many missions there were, remember? You repeatedly said there were 7 manned moon missions, with no mission failures. And, you thought they landed 7 times (or, well, you thought they landed 0 times, but, you're stating that NASA claims 7 times). That's wrong. There were 9 manned moon missions, with one failure due to exploding when half way to the moon. There were 6 successful landings. Again, you posed a whole pile of questions, which got answered, and what did you do? You ran away, refusing to answer a single question or challenge to your ridiculous position. Don't sit there now and pretend that OTHER people's opinions are wrong, dewdrop. YOU are the one who ran for the hills when your incorrect opinions were corrected.
    1
  7302.  @iamLI3  So, in thread after thread, you run for the hills when it's proven that your assertions are wrong. Silent. Abandon and go elsewhere. Yet, you still pretend you're correct somehow? And, whenever you're proven wrong, you try to dismiss it by asserting that the person who corrected you must have been paid to do it? That's how this goes? What's wrong with you?
    1
  7303.  @iamLI3  I can't help you when you're THAT delusional.
    1
  7304. "suffered from depression after the moon landing and had alcoholism." Yeah, 24 people went to the moon. Is it all that shocking to you that some of them had problems? How is this relevant to Apollo? Are you even reading the responses to your own questions? Can you prove you're reading this by writing "green" at the top of your reply (if you make one)?
    1
  7305. "NASA even admitted losing the original footage of landing on the moon" No, dewdrop. They lost two BACKUP tapes from the moonwalk. They didn't lose anything regarding the landing. And, the two backup tapes had never been viewed even a single time in history. Why is this important to you? None of you people thought those two backup tapes were important until NASA said they lost them. None of you people ever requested to view them. The primary copies are still intact. So, again, what's so important about those two backup tapes?
    1
  7306. "we have never even left low earth orbit which are the different levels of our atmosphere." Anybody can make a claim for what constitutes an "atmosphere" or not. But, it's commonly accepted in aerospace engineering circles that the Kármán line (62 miles up) is where the atmosphere ends. If you want to draw a different line in the sand, whatever. Nobody cares, dewdrop.
    1
  7307. Thanks for demonstrating that you didn't read the responses.
    1
  7308. If you're not going to read the answers to your own comments/questions, why do you post anything?
    1
  7309.  @jcdova29  If you had lifted a finger to understand the Van Allen belts, rather than just blindly listening to out-of-context quote-mining that supports your delusion, you'd understand the answers to your own questions. But, you don't ACTUALLY want answers, do you? You're happier with your delusion than you are with reality. Someone takes the time to explain it to you, and you refuse to even read it, then declare victory anyway. You are the hallmark of delusion. You are the living definition of the word.
    1
  7310. They went 9 times, and landed 6 of those times. If that's not going again, I don't know what is. So, what ARE you talking about?
    1
  7311. Yeah, poor guy, just wanted to enjoy himself at the playground. Kids didn't know what was going on anyway, right? Why did parents react that way to the guy cranking in front of kids? (Oh, was that a different video? Sorry, it's ok, she's female.)
    1
  7312. Which media? What do you mean?
    1
  7313. Um, no. I was explaining to TheTameriel why she thinks the rover videos are in Earth's gravity rather than lunar gravity. I was explaining that I think she believes that because the videos she's been watching have been "sped up." And, all she needs to do in order to see the actual speed of the video is go watch one that's been speed corrected back to the original speed it was shot at, and then she can see the 1/6th gravity correctly.
    1
  7314. You asked "what about if no one had a gun?" Sounds nice, but, how do you propose to accomplish that?
    1
  7315.  @michael.forkert  Don't come here with your "rockets don't work in space" argument, then pretend you deserve an ounce of respect.
    1
  7316. The issue isn't that anybody is crazy for asking questions. No. That's silly. Question everything. Absolutely. Blind trust in anything or anybody is a complete mistake, especially blind trust in any government. But, c'mon man, let's get real here. None of the people "questioning" Apollo ever want answers to their questions!! Have you read any of the comments made by the nuts? They don't want answers. Most of them make a comment, then run for the hills when they get answers. The ones asking questions rarely even read the answers. They are only pretending to ask questions, knowing that they must present an attitude of open mindedness in order to sound credible. But, the very moment they get an answer to their questions, they either run for the hills (again), or they change topics and pretend to ask different questions. Often times, I'll plant a comment like "please respond with the word 'green' at the top of your reply to prove you're reading this" within the answers to someone's questions. And, do they? Nope. They just tell me I'm wrong, and post new questions, proving that they didn't even read the replies to their own questions. These are people whose minds are one-way-streets. They want to spew their gibberish everywhere to pretend they know things they do not, but, they are unwilling to accept any input. Sorry, but that's not asking questions. That's just burying themselves in their own delusions.
    1
  7317.  @DavidKen878  No, she died TWO years ago.
    1
  7318. She died 1.5 years before any big news outlet even covered this. Two obscure blogs mentioned it while she was alive. But, the real coverage never happened until she was dead for a long time.
    1
  7319. Except produce literate citizens.
    1
  7320. Yeah, sounds like he misspoke when he said he doesn't have access to the camera footage. I think what he meant was that he doesn't have access to it IN TIME to investigate. Like, he couldn't possibly go review security tapes prior to stopping her, else she'd have been long gone by the time he finished reviewing them.
    1
  7321. Because Smith should have called the police, not planned two murders. Not that I weep for the two teen thugs... but, sorry, we can't have vigilante justice ruling our country. He should have called the cops as soon as he installed the cameras and identified who was stealing from him. But, nope, he didn't. Instead, he planned two murders, and followed through on that plan.
    1
  7322.  @trhansen3244  Really? Nobody should call the police? That's how this goes, in your mind? Multiple people called the police. One of the crowd even took video of the event on her cell phone, and showed it to the police. The report describes the video as a very loud, very public display, in view of multiple people, including children. I realize that the police report doesn't match the comments made by a woman trying to avoid getting arrested again. But, I wonder why you'd possibly believe her in the first place?
    1
  7323.  @trhansen3244  Well, thankfully for the rest of the world, you don't know what you're talking about, and you don't get to decide these things. And, if you actually advocate public displays in front of children, you've got issues.
    1
  7324. It's definitely a clickbait title. I agree. Nothing here is "new" or "untold."
    1
  7325. What in the world are you talking about? 4 different countries have orbiters around the moon that have taken hundreds of photos of Apollo landers on the lunar surface. China, India, USA, and South Korea. India's and USA's are good enough to see rover tracks, foot paths, etc. What has that got to do with knowing the small details that are shown in this video?
    1
  7326. Um, what? Did you not listen to the video? I hope you're joking.
    1
  7327. ann onn - According to NASA, the lowest the LRO drops is about 35km above the moon's surface. Just FYI.
    1
  7328. I'm sure you can figure it out... but, if not, I'll give you my 2 cents - she was mad that she was asked for a receipt, and decided to jump into the deep end of the pool, going totally bananas over it, and wanted to escalate "can I see your receipt" into a payday lawsuit. Thankfully, it didn't work, and her lawsuit was tossed out.
    1
  7329. Well, let's see... repeatedly refusing to ID, even though she knows it's required by law... repeatedly asking for the cop to use the Taser... lying and saying she doesn't have the receipt, when she actually knows she has it... um, yeah... and no, it's not "profiling," it's a matter of paying attention to her words and actions. But, hey, you don't have to believe me. Her own three attorneys didn't even file a suit against the cops, and her case for profiling against the store was tossed out of court. So, nobody else thinks it was profiling either. She dug her hole, and jumped right into it.
    1
  7330.  @markr.devereux3385  What are you waiting for? Publish your calculations in science journals on radiobiology or cosmology.
    1
  7331. The police kept the arrest video private for 2.5 years. It was finally released because of a legal FOIA request, which they can no longer block after the investigation was closed for that long. She was dead for 1.5 years before anybody saw the arrest video.
    1
  7332. I hated "cancel culture" a year or two ago. But, now, I want to bring it back. Get rid of this guy.
    1
  7333. Bravo. You have regurgitated the common list of garbage you got from conspiracy videos that lie to you. Oh, you're a pure genius alright. A big pile of "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." Why? What possible reason would you have to believe ANYTHING you're spewing is correct? You clearly don't know anything about Apollo outside of what was told to you in dishonest videos. So, why would you even begin to believe you understand the topic?
    1
  7334. Well, 99.99% of the media coverage never happened until long after she was dead. The arrest video was released on November 24, 2023, and that's when everything went viral. She died 2 years ago. The Freedom of Information Act is what's responsible for making arrest videos public property (once enough time has gone by).
    1
  7335. Do you just go from video to video, asking the same question, no matter whether it's been answered or not? I told you in the other video, it was Ed Fendell. If you aren't going to pay attention, and you're just going to go to another video and ask the same thing, sorry, but all you're doing is proving that you don't actually want answers to your own questions.
    1
  7336. What on Earth is your problem? You got your answer in the other thread. Despite that, you came here and asked the same question. Now, you're blaming ME? Dewdrop, if you didn't want answers to your questions, don't ask them. And, when you get answers to your question, don't blame the person answering if you don't like the answer.
    1
  7337. "No body ever mentions the impossibility of making defined footprints on the moon with its absence of moisture." Sure, conspiracy videos mention this all the time. That's where you got it from, right? "Like on a beach, the dry sand leaves formless step marks while moist sand makes defines footprints." Sand is very rounded, relatively speaking, without a lot of jagged edges for interlocking of the regolith. You are comparing a beach ball to a Lego. Legos stick together. Beach balls don't. "Let's face it: NASA even failed at faking the moon landing." Yet, no aerospace engineers on the planet agree with you. And, here you are, on YouTube comments, thinking it's a science journal. If you think there's any actual valid evidence to support your silly viewpoint, why are you on YouTube comments? Why aren't you publishing? "well then, let's just examine some of those moon samples they brought back to determine the soil composition." Yes, go do that. Go look at the microscopic images, and see how the jagged edges of the regolith make it very easy for the individual grains to interlock, UNLIKE sand. "Oh, samples were fake" Pfftttt. Thousands of geologists from all around the world have examined the samples. Not a single one, from ANYWHERE, has ever written any papers stating that they were fake. Not once. Never. And, FYI: the Soviets brought back samples from the moon on two robotic missions, which matched perfectly with the Apollo samples. What do you think you know that geologists don't? And, if so, why aren't you publishing your results of your studies in geology peer review journals? Why? Why would you think a YouTube comment is the place to announce that you discovered that the Apollo samples were fake? Only crackpots think YouTube comments = science journal. You're not a crackpot, are you?
    1
  7338. Yeah, she put on one kind of acting show in front of the people on the beach, and then put on a different kind of acting show for the officers.
    1
  7339. What in the world are you talking about? Astronauts going somewhere on Earth to see the rover and flag? Huh?
    1
  7340. A) No, dewdrop. The Apollo 11 astronauts were on the surface when the moon was on the other side of the Earth, and it was relayed through Parkes, Australia. No direct connection. B) Are you under the impression that they used cell phones to talk to the moon? What claptrap video told you to compare the DSN to cell phones?
    1
  7341. Mistakes? I'd eat my hat if she wasn't making "public beach" content for her fans. Why do you believe a word out of her? You do know she was a convicted felon with a prison term and a million other arrests, right? You do know her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club, and her neighbors said she did "private extras" for cash out of her apartment with parades of men, right? You find this woman credible? Not the innocent bystanders who recorded the incident, and gave a copy to the police? (Hint: it doesn't match her version about nobody being around.)
    1
  7342. I don't know of any such gatherings, but, if so, they don't involve a public beach with children.
    1
  7343. The Freedom of Information Act disagrees with you.
    1
  7344. My guess about the tight gap is that it's for aerodynamics, not weight.
    1
  7345. In your mind, planning and committing two murders isn't wrong?
    1
  7346. That's not bad advice. But, it wouldn't matter in this case. (1) One of the witnesses had it on video, and showed the video to the police. (2) With her lengthy criminal record, and open warrants, she would be arrested either way.
    1
  7347. I don't think you understand the term "baby daddy."
    1
  7348. Um, ok, but, what do you mean "internet shaming" in this case? How do you "shame" a dead person?
    1
  7349. But, the original arrest video wasn't released to the public until 1.5 years after she died. So, again, what "internet shame" came from it?
    1
  7350. So, again, how do you "shame" a dead person? Good grief. It's like trying to teach calculus to an earthworm.
    1
  7351. Good gods.
    1
  7352. Who? And, on what basis?
    1
  7353. What do you mean by "original video"? The video of the "show" on the beach was never released. Do you mean the first time Inside Edition posted a story (which was still long after she died)?
    1
  7354. I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that if he doesn't pray in his last seconds, he's not saved. But, if he does pray, he is saved? Why would your Jesus behave that way? Why should salvation depend on what someone does (or doesn't do) in a few seconds of time, with a 40 caliber bullet in his chest?
    1
  7355. Yes, that's true. Since the Van Allen belts were not much of a concern, the astronauts were not really heavily trained on them. Complaining about the Van Allen belts is really more of a phenomenon of the last 25 years or so, when taxi cab drivers and warehouse workers decided to claim that they were a problem for Apollo. But, they weren't. The Van Allen belts are only a problem for long duration, not for the short timeframes that Apollo zipped right through. So, it's not surprising that someone like Bean wouldn't know about them.
    1
  7356. Because YOU know what Poseidon wants, and she didn't. Sure.
    1
  7357. Ok, but, who really "shamed" her while she was alive? She died over 2 years ago. The publicity didn't happen until after the arrest video was released on November 24, 2023.
    1
  7358. Well, nobody can read minds, let alone of dead people... but, personally, I'd be a lot more embarrassed by her felony prison term, and the other million arrests. I don't know why this one would stand out so much in her mind.
    1
  7359. Let's face reality here. The odds that the father had any role in his life is quite near zero.
    1
  7360. You have identified the most confusing part about what the cop said. But, he did/said everything else exactly correctly. I believe he merely meant that he didn't have access to the cameras before he had to chase her out the door, but, he just was a little brief and said that he doesn't have access. I mean, she was flipping out, going bananas over nothing, so, sometimes it's difficult to articulate yourself correctly to a raving lunatic. So, anyway, I don't blame you for identifying that apparent contradiction in what he said. But, personally, I just cut a little slack because everything else he did and said was exactly correct.
    1
  7361. Ahhhh, YouTube comments... where intellectual cripples pretend they understand aerospace engineering better than the entire planet's aerospace engineers.
    1
  7362. @some guy Hilarious!! See, aerospace engineers and physicists and the world's experts work via the scientific method, publishing their opinions/ideas/calculations, etc. in journals. That's how they do it. And, thus far, there's never been a single anti-Apollo article ever published in any journal anywhere on Earth that has made any anti-Apollo claim that has made it past the first round of scientific scrutiny. Quite to the contrary, the evidence just keeps compounding. But, you wouldn't know any of that, because you just watch videos made by people who know the same amount that you do (zero).
    1
  7363. Huh? Whose hands?
    1
  7364. Oh, you make a lot of sense.
    1
  7365. First of all, you clearly do not understand how news producers work, and how they do their jobs. So, spare the world your hateful speculation about police officers leaking information.
    1
  7366. Secondly, with the exception of a couple of obscure blogs, none of the big news outlets even covered this incident until the arrest video was released on November 24, 2023 (but, she died two years ago). Freedom of Information Act. Nobody saw the arrest video until long after she was dead.
    1
  7367. Third, lift a finger to find out something about her history. Good grief. She was a convicted felon who served time in prison. She had a million prior arrests. It's pretty doubtful that THIS arrest was any different than the long parade of prior ones. She didn't even show up for court. This would have probably been negotiated down to a minor infraction, and that would be the end of it, had she shown up. But, she didn't. And, if you still believe that THIS arrest was what pushed her over the edge, how do you explain why she waited almost a year?
    1
  7368. Fourth, the crucifix: well, her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club... makes me wonder if she wore it while "dancing."
    1
  7369. And, what did you do if they were putting on a show in front of multiple people including kids?
    1
  7370. YOU SAID: "They got death penalty for being complices to murder" == Complices? Sigh. YOU SAID: "and the actual murderers got life sentences?" == Um, no, dummy. These two ARE "actual" murderers also. And, yeah, the ones that got life sentences got them because that was the deal they were offered. These two morons decided to reject the deal, and tried to fight the case instead. It's especially stupid because one of them had actually confessed TWICE, but then decided to fight the case anyway.
    1
  7371. Well, you're the legal expert here, but, I thought a legal FOIA request couldn't be blocked this long after someone was dead. Do explain how I've misunderstood. Can you? And, sorry, but you don't make the laws. Society has determined that indecent exposure is a crime. But, I'm sure you'd say the same thing if it was a man at a playground, right?
    1
  7372. No. You didn't claim that you were taking a "moral" position. You claimed that people need to be arrested. You claimed that her permission was needed for the video to be released (which is incorrect). Is it really all that difficult to ask that you know something about a topic before accusing people of crimes?
    1
  7373. "still working on this detrimental effects on astronauts beyond "safe" zone" Dewdrop, the effects of cosmic radiation are measured in terms of YEARS, not days. There's no negative effect in a mission lasting a week,. Yes, they are working on solutions for long duration missions to Mars or beyond, but, nobody is worried about short duration Apollo missions.
    1
  7374. Says who? You?
    1
  7375. "The flag thing would be more convincing if they had shots of it just sitting there and moving." There are shots like that. For example, on Apollo 15, the flag moved slightly when an astronaut walked by it without touching it. And, on Apollo 14, the flag swayed around a bit, and even did nearly a complete 180 degree turn, when the astronauts were inside the lunar module. Of course, these are easily explained. Those life support backpacks and the lunar module itself weren't closed systems. They had purge valves, overpressure dump valves, porous plate sublimators that vented off the sublimated ice that flashed into vapor, etc. "But the shots are when the astronauts are moving around." Yeah, most of the time, the nuts complain about the flag moving while it's being handled by an astronaut. I mean, I would have thought any chimp should understand that a flag will move when it's being handled. But, well, in this crowd, maybe chimps outclass them, because those people are constantly complaining about flags moving while they're being handled. Like, as opposed to what? NOT moving when being handled? Stiff as a board or something? "And what kind of cameras do they think they had back in the 60's where the resolution would be so good that they would get the astronauts, the moon, and the stars in the back ground?" They have no understanding of dynamic range, nor exposure times. "Hell, most cameras today probably wouldn't pick up the stars." Yes, it takes long exposure times to capture stars, which is why you almost always only see stars on video by using time-lapse photography/videography. Most cameras just can't capture stars without long exposures. And, long exposures mean that standard video can't really work. It's tough to get a standard 24 frames per second when you're doing 4 second exposures. Or, not "tough," but, yeah, not possible. And, yeah, most cameras can't even do it with 4 second exposures. The 125 photos they took on Apollo of the stars using the Carruthers camera used 20-30 second exposures.
    1
  7376.  @aok4418  a) You clearly didn't read my entire posted message. b) Learn English. Good grief.
    1
  7377.  @aok4418  Your lack of understanding of physics and English isn't my problem.
    1
  7378.  @aok4418  I'm not going to play these games with you. I addressed the different flag waving conditions. You read only a small part of what I wrote, then responded (in broken English) without reading the rest. Sorry, I'm not going to sit here and explain it to people who refuse to read responses.
    1
  7379.  @aok4418  Yes, dewdrop. I did. You didn't bother reading, obviously.
    1
  7380.  @aok4418  No, dewdrop. I'm not doing anything you say while simultaneously you keep deleting your messages, refusing to answer questions, and running for the hills every time you're proven wrong.
    1
  7381.  @ronaldgreene5733  So, that's it? You post a reply, delete it, and run for the hills? Dewdrop, yes, that's an edited version in that silly video you're watching. I've told you before (and you always ignore), if they were in low Earth orbit, like the video claims, the clouds would be going by the window at 17,500 mph. But, they're not. That's because they are actually half way to the moon. And, I've pointed out to you before about the million debunk videos to that one. One brief example, only a few minutes long, is "Addendum A Funny Thing Happened... (By GreaterSapien - MIRROR)." Did you ever watch it? They show you EXACTLY how you know that the video you're watching is deceptive, editing out the parts that show them far away from Earth, no window cutout. And, like I said, anybody who has ever watched the original version of that video knows better. Why don't you? (Answer: because you refuse to see anything that goes against your predetermined conclusions. Your mind won't let you, because you've put up a brick wall that prevents any new input.)
    1
  7382. The arrest video was not released until 2.5 years later, which was 1.5 years after her suicide. The arrest video had absolutely nothing to do with her death.
    1
  7383. It's called the Freedom of Information Act, dewdrop. They didn't have a choice. But, yes, they successfully denied the release for 2.5 years. But, after a certain amount of time past the case being closed, they could no longer block it.
    1
  7384. No, fuckpig, YOU don't know.
    1
  7385. Wouldn't that be nice if it was true? But, the fact is that HOAs were legalized before we were even born. It's a mechanism for people who live in that neighborhood to control what their neighbors do. I mean, fundamentally, you need to understand that "property rights" are subject to the rules of the governing bodies anyway. But, most people don't realize that. You're used to the concept that if you own a pair of shoes, then this means its yours, and nobody can mess with it. But, the reality is that the pair of shoes is only yours because the law dictates such. Fundamentally, however, nothing is ever "yours" besides your own body. Things become "yours" when the law says so (sad to think that way, but, it's true). And, in the case of homes and land, the governments can pass laws that restrict the concept of it being "yours," and impose the idea that it's not 100% "yours," but, you're only buying into a community, and that the community needs to agree on what the place looks like. It goes directly against the spirit of everything we are raised to understand, but, sadly, it's the truth. The people in HOAs only "own" the property to the extent that they obey the bylaws. You are buying into a neighborhood, you're not actually buying the property in the same way that you'd buy a pair of shoes.
    1
  7386. Do you know who he is/was?
    1
  7387.  @bargeman100  Yet, about 2 months ago, they did exactly that which you say is impossible.
    1
  7388. Huh? Both in jail? You do know Mark died, right?
    1
  7389. The main issue for space travel is that it'll never be cheap. It's not like airline travel, where you can gain economies of scale. Just build bigger and more efficient airplanes, and the price per ticket goes down. For space travel, it took millions of pounds of rocket fuel/oxidizer per person to get to the moon in the 1960s and 1970s. Still today, it takes millions of pounds of rocket fuel/oxidizer per person. There aren't really many ways to drag the costs down.
    1
  7390. "I judge quality of statement and thought" Really, dewdrop? How do you judge your own statements then? You opened with the ridiculous notion that there were no photos of the sun, nor video. That's how wrong you are/were. So, what's your own judgement when looking in the mirror?
    1
  7391. "just anger if people disagree with me" Hilarious!!! You cannot make me "angry," dewdrop. Your knowledge is ZERO, and your incorrect statements came straight out of conspiracy videos.
    1
  7392. "I explained what value footage of the sun from the moon would prove." And, I asked what you're waiting for!?!?! Now you have the footage, and the photos!!! Have at it, dewdrop.
    1
  7393. "I can work with someone that wants to argue the issues." There's no "argument" to be had. Your statements are demonstrably wrong. It's as easy as looking at the photos and videos yourself.
    1
  7394. "Most people only talk about conspiracy theory because they want to feel superior to other people with a cheap easy win, so they pick something they think is obvious and then jump in with zero though or knowledge." Oh? Kind of like you did in your opening comment? You thought it was an "easy win" that there were no photos or videos of the sun, right?
    1
  7395. "look at the internet release date of those photos, I doubt you can find an edit under 2015." So what? Eric did a massive re-scan of the photos about that time, using a higher resolution scanner than he had used in the older ones. Why is this relevant to you? All of those photos were available and published since shortly after returning from the moon. I've had the lower resolution copies of every single photo since the 1990s. I've had numerous photo prints since the 1970s. Why is it relevant to you that Mr. Jones did a re-scan in 2015 with better equipment?
    1
  7396. "I never saw those photos and I am a Nasa buff." HILARIOUS!!!! This is beyond all hope at this point. You're a NASA buff who doesn't know to capitalize the letters in "NASA," and has no idea about the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (the site that's been around for decades, and is the official archive of the Apollo landing missions). Oh, you're a real "buff" alright. That's like claiming to be a car buff, but you have never heard of Chevrolet before.
    1
  7397. "Nice pictures I wish they had released them 20 years ago." They did, dewdrop. They released every single one of the 7,000 surface photos, and 110,000 orbital photos, shortly after returning from the moon on each mission. They literally made thousands of copies and distributed them to media outlets all around the world. You have absolutely no understanding of the topic. And, the videos have been available also. I've had copies of every single minute of the moon videos since the 1980s when I sent away for them on VHS tape, then repeated that in the 1990s on DVD. Yes, the sun was visible in those also. What a nice "NASA buff" you are!!! You sure know a lot!!! (pfffttt)
    1
  7398.  @stusue9733  So, you object to my opinions, but want my opinions?
    1
  7399. "The single frame phots appeared in 2015 they are not on the inventory lists of photos from the moon landing" Ridiculous babble. The entire photo library was published and distributed to media outlets all around the world in the 1969 and the 1970s, within weeks of each mission's return. You think they could actually insert "new" photos in 2015 without being noticed? Look how far gone you are. This is beyond silly. Plus, you're in absolutely no position to make such claims. You said you're a "NASA buff," yet, even in your fantasyland where new photos were published in 2015, this means you've had nearly *A DECADE* to find them, but, today, you claimed they never existed. How much of a "NASA buff" could you possibly be, if one decade ago, they released thousands of "new photos" without you realizing it?
    1
  7400. "And the footage you provided is part of a documentary that also has completly cgi scenes" Hilarious!!! The live video from the moon was CGI? Again, dewdrop, those live videos were fed to countless media outlets around the world. It would be ridiculous to think they could sneak in "new" footage and nobody on the planet would realize it. And, let's be real here, they made it very clear which scenes were CGI. Don't pretend. I've had my copies since the 1980s. I paid the copying fees, and got them direct from NASA. In the 1990s, I paid the copying fees again for the DVD versions. And, again, how far gone are you to believe that they could insert a CGI sun into those old videos and nobody on the planet would ever notice? Do you see how far gone you are? "NASA buff"?
    1
  7401. "where there is the lander and dotted lines, so its not prime" Prime is dotted and landers are where is and.
    1
  7402. "can you link me a link to just fottage of the sun in a video without cgi composite footage." Dewdrop, I'm not playing this game with you. Don't sit there and pretend that, because that channel owner inserted some CGI to fill in for when there was no live footage (during the rover traverses) that this somehow negates the live footage. It's extremely clear that the cartoonish CGI scenes are just to let the viewer know what's going on, and then they switch back to live footage once the camera is back on. I'm not going to play this shifting goalpost game, because all that would result is that you'd see the exact same videos, minus the cartoon CGI rover traverses, and then you'd reject it the same way you are rejecting it now.
    1
  7403. "Most of the links you send were from photos released from the Nasa creative department for CGi education material, which are reinactment footage." I didn't send links. I gave you photo catalog numbers. Don't pretend they're CGI.
    1
  7404. "The photos you linked were released in 2015 or a bit earlier" Like I said, they had better scanners then, and Eric Jones re-scanned all of the photos direct from the original film prints. Prior to then, the exact same photos were available, but, they were merely lower resolution.
    1
  7405. "were not inventoried as part of any of the photo lists pre 2000." Bull.
    1
  7406. "Just look up the wiki." Let me get this straight... I bring to the table the official NASA archive. You bring to the table some wiki (which, by definition, is published by any old person who decides to publish whatever they feel like, and is riddled with errors constantly)? Is that really how far gone you are, "NASA buff"? With your great knowledge of NASA, your prime source of information is some random wiki?
    1
  7407. "Original footage and pictures please." You know darned well that the footage I provided is original. You're merely denying it to shift the goalposts. You complain about the video channel person inserting cartoonish CGI for the times when the camera is off, as if this means that it negates the footage when the camera is on. I'm not playing this game with you. By your own admission, those photos and videos have existed for a decade (in reality, since the missions themselves, but, in your world, you claim they've only existed for a decade), yet, only now you are seeing them. Don't simultaneously pretend you're a "NASA buff," but now asking a decade later about these things.
    1
  7408. "I understand I type fast so my spelling and grammar are not always prime" You read and write like a 2nd grader. Don't blame it on "fast typing."
    1
  7409. "nit picking grammar when you don't know the definitions of simple words is not addressing the persons point" Dewdrop, is your scroll-up broken? You don't see the irony in insulting someone's intelligence in a sentence riddled with spelling and grammar errors? Good gods.
    1
  7410. "not addressing the persons point" I addressed ALL OF YOUR POINTS!!! But, fear not, after this series, I'm never addressing you again.
    1
  7411. "I think understanding and comprehension are more important than style and the odd error in spelling or grammar." Nonsense. It's well understood that the worse someone's spelling and grammar are, the lower that person's comprehension is. And, beyond that, you clearly know nothing about the topic.
    1
  7412. "Well if you had the photos in the 1990s I will take your word for it" It's not about ME, dewdrop. I don't care whether you take my word for things or not. It's a matter of understanding basic concepts. The entire photo catalog was published to countless media outlets around the world within weeks of each mission. Anybody could order a print of any photo they wanted. Yet, your position is that these photos were manufactured in 2015? And, you don't think there'd be a thousand media outlets around the world screaming bloody murder if "new" photos were introduced that weren't part of the original bunch? Which ones are you proposing are "new," dewdrop? Just the ones with the sun in them? You know, back in the 1970s, I had one of those large coffee table books about Apollo, which mainly consisted of photography, including some of those panoramas. Many (if not most) of the panoramas include the sun, especially if the photos came early in the mission when the sun was low in the sky, because that's how those were taken. Point, click, turn, point, click, turn, point, click, turn. Then, they stitch together the individual photos and make a 360 pan out of them. But, you want to pretend the sun was only inserted in 2015? You want to pretend to be a "NASA buff," and you're only finding out about all of these "new" photos a decade later? Why aren't you one of the people who would have called out this deception a decade ago? NASA managed to publish thousands of "new" photos in 2015, and you, a "NASA buff" didn't realize it until now?
    1
  7413. "I would be happier with a link to an earlier source." So, it's my problem that low res photos were replaced with higher res photos a decade ago? So, it's my problem to hunt down a 3rd party that has chosen to maintain a website with all of the Apollo photography for decades, with inferior photos? And, what if I did (which, believe me, I won't bother, but, just hypothetically)... if I found such a website, would you believe it? Or, would you simply shift the goalposts and insist that they added those photos later and changed the meta data?
    1
  7414. "I am still waiting on commentary on the harder question of where is the camera sitting on the power descent footage I linked." First of all, nobody can see this post of yours besides you. You clearly do not know how YouTube comments work. You have to use an incognito window or a completely different browser that isn't logged in, in order to know if your own comments are visible to others or not. And, nearly all comments with links are blocked for anybody to see them besides yourself. I see your level of competence regarding Apollo things also translates to your level of competence in understanding how YouTube works.
    1
  7415. Powered descent was taken on 16mm film using the DAC mounted to a bar across the LMP window on each landing. A "NASA buff" doesn't know this already? AS11-36-5389 shows the camera mounted to the bar. But, oh, that photo was one of the thousands re-scanned in 2015 in higher resolution, therefore it's fake, right?
    1
  7416. "I mean their post date is all around 2015, the internet been around since 90s" Well, it's older than that. But, yes, popularized in the 1990s. But, there is minimal funding at NASA to upload all of that stuff to the internet. They didn't just staff people to make websites. Eric Jones did it as a volunteer. Yet, you want to criticize him for making better scans in 2015 to replace the older scans that didn't have the same resolution?
    1
  7417. "way before the nasa conspiracy has been a thing" Hilarious!! Um, no, dewdrop. There have been people rejecting Apollo since Apollo happened. I mean, the first astronauts I "met" (saw in person anyway) were sometime in the mid-1970s, Scott and Irwin from Apollo 15. They gave a talk, I was in the audience, they passed out moon rocks encased in Lucite for everyone to view (and give back, of course). And, someone a few seats over from me said, "fake." Sibrel's laughable "Funny Thing" movie came out in 1999, on the coat tails of numerous other smear attempts by various other moon landing deniers. I mean, good grief, you don't even know simple things, "NASA buff."
    1
  7418. "when they show footage of the lander landing in good frame, what's recording the landing and when was that camera set up." As I said, in the LMP window, pointed outward. How can you be a "NASA buff," and not know anything about the cameras they used during Apollo? Again, AS11-36-5389 shows the 16mm camera and the bar across the window. "APOLLO 11 16MM ONBOARD FILM 1969" shows the footage captured with that camera on Apollo 11, including being pointed out the window during the moonwalk to film the astronauts walking around (at 1 frame per second anyway).
    1
  7419. "You seem to be a Nasa buff like me" This is beyond ridiculous at this point. You are a moon landing denier with absolutely no understanding of Apollo. Stop pretending otherwise.
    1
  7420. "That a camera lander landed first and had the setup nailed perfectly so it could auto record the landing? I mean it is a real question." Oh, yeah, you really believe the landings were real (your claim)!! Surrrre you do. Right. And, as a "NASA buff," you think the engineers couldn't figure out how to mount a camera out the window? They could land on a dime from 240,000 miles away (except Apollo 11, which landed 4 miles from its intended spot), but, oh, mounting a camera in a window... just too baffling for them.
    1
  7421. "I keep an open mind, and always try to look though the surface of things." No, dewdrop. You have stooped to a new low. You saw the footage of the sun on video (and there are dozens of such examples), and you rejected it on the basis that in between the times when the camera was turned on, the video contained cartoon CGI to show the rover traverse path to give the audience some context about where they were. It's on that basis that you reject the videos that show the sun. That's not "an open mind," that's a delusional mind that is grasping at whatever means possible to cling to the false garbage you're clinging to.
    1
  7422. "I think we landed on the moon" No, you don't. You are saying this because you think it gives you more credibility. Stop pretending. You're not good at it.
    1
  7423. "Data visualization of the Sun from the Moon as seen from Hadley Rille, the Apollo 16 landing site." So, you found a CGI photo, therefore, all photos are CGI? That's your logic? Hey, "NASA buff" (pfffttt), how is it that you didn't manage to spot the error that Apollo 16 didn't land at Hadley Rille? That was Apollo 15, not 16. In your keen NASA knowledge, you managed to find a CGI photo made for children to learn a little more about the sun and moon, but, you couldn't notice that the caption was incorrect?
    1
  7424. "Apollo 11 TV transmission - 055:09:00 GET" at 1:11:35 shows Aldrin mounting the 16mm film camera to the LMP window to capture the landing (which will also be used for the moonwalk video). A "NASA buff" like you doesn't watch the NASA videos? Or, wait, that video was uploaded to YouTube only 5 years ago. Therefore it's fake, right? They made that video with CGI, and in reality, there was no such camera, until I go hunt down a link to the same video posted on the internet in 1969 before the internet existed, right?
    1
  7425. Dewdrop, what didn't you understand about the fact that nobody can see links besides yourself? You even acknowledged this. Now, you're complaining because I didn't respond to a comment that you know I cannot see? What's wrong with you?
    1
  7426. You've come to this thread to spread complete nonsense and gibberish, and everything you type is demonstrably wrong. You ignore all input. You refuse to read or respond to many comments. But, ***I*** am gaslighting??? Good gods, do you not own a mirror?
    1
  7427. Um, ok, so, how can you tell what's real or not? Answer: look at the actual evidence.
    1
  7428. You agree with what I said, but, then you disagreed in the next sentence? Putting on a public show in front of children is a misdemeanor. You don't get to decide it isn't. If you want your own set of laws, go buy an island somewhere and start a new country. But, here, we go by society's laws.
    1
  7429. Sorry, but carjacking isn't "doing the right thing." Spare me the nonsensical story the attorney made up after the fact.
    1
  7430. I think you figured it out just fine, American or not.
    1
  7431. Well, it's pretty tough to understand what point you're trying to make, since you don't actually write in English. So, I'll try to respond in your language. Democrats are proven for the falsehoods. CIAs are alone everything, from yes, and will always do so. Conspiracies of manipulation are stronger than grandmothers real. Got to see stealing we've 2023 is everything.
    1
  7432. So, you answered a pile of questions I never asked, and avoided the one question I did ask. Let me try to unclutter your mind a bit (which is obviously too scattered for reason): believe what is EVIDENT. Don't worry about a million silly conspiracies you find online, with not a shred of credible evidence. You should believe things that are backed by evidence, and disbelieve things for which there is no credible evidence. You wrote a boatload of gibberish there, not a single line of which ever even mentioned evidence. Frankly, I think your mind has set sail, and will never return to normal at this point. So, my words are almost certainly in vain. You have nearly no hope of understanding epistemology. But, hey, I can try. Someday, someone like you might surprise me.
    1
  7433.  @randyschissler5791  "Why would it be easy today?" It's a hypothetical. Yes, if they had continued Apollo, a la Gordon Cooper's vision of what Apollo should have been (3 or 4 lunar missions per year in perpetuity), yeah, it would be easy by now. Of course, in reality, there's no possible way it was ever going to happen like that. It was far too expensive. But, just hypothetically, if Apollo never ended, yes, it would be easy today. "What makes it much cheaper and easier to go to the moon" Far less R&D costs now, and more efficient production mechanisms. This is why Artemis was budgeted originally at $30 billion. Yeah, like all government programs, its budget is going to balloon out of control. But, it still is only a fraction of what Apollo costed (when adjusted for inflation). Also, Apollo's budget was due to the speed of the program, trying to land by the end of the 1960s decade. All programs have a concept of whatever the most efficient speed is. If you need to go fast, ok, doubling the budget will result in going faster, but, there are diminishing returns. Double the budget doesn't equal half of the time. Four times the budget doesn't equal a quarter of the time. For Apollo, it was more like if you wanted to get it done in half of the time, it required 8x the budget. So, with Artemis, they really tried to pace it out such that it uses the money more efficiently. They stand on the backs of prior generations, using an existing capsule (Orion), and existing rocket engines (from the shuttle), etc., and paced it out over a period of about 10 years (instead of Trump's stated 5 year cycle), and it becomes more efficient. Going too fast is wasteful. Going too slow is wasteful. So, they're trying to pace Artemis "just right" for its budget and objectives.
    1
  7434.  @Sucker_MC  No, dewdrop. They're trying to work out spacesuits that can last weeks/months on the moon. Apollo suits were designed to last for three 8-hour sessions on the moon.
    1
  7435. Is that how you'd handle it if it was a man at a playground? Just mind your own business as he's cranking in front of the kids?
    1
  7436. "would show actual photos" Well, you can go look at the original mission photography and see most of this stuff. But, that wouldn't tell you anything about what it looks like today.
    1
  7437. "and if the Eagle and others landed and shot themselves up from the moon, that there would've been modern lunar modules going back and forth the ISS already?" Is this a joke? Why would lunar modules go to the ISS? I don't know what you're talking about, and neither do you.
    1
  7438. "how did tht make it back" Again, it depends on which video camera you're asking about. Microwave radio was the mechanism most of the video was sent back. But, some was on film contained within silver lined aluminum canisters.
    1
  7439. Did it ever occur to you that going back to school to learn to read and write might be a better use of your time than worrying about silly conspiracies you don't even come close to understanding? Do you really think it's going to serve you well in life to have the literacy of a 2nd grader?
    1
  7440.  @gives_bad_advice  Yeah. Like if the measurement of an island to the moon on the horizon gives one reading, and the measurement from the mainland gives a different reading, showing that the island is exactly 200 miles from the mainland, ok, you've got that measurement. Then, a year later, you take the same reading, and it shows the difference to be 200 miles and 2 feet, you know the island has moved two feet further from the mainland. In reality, they're taking the measurements nearly every day. But, you get the idea.
    1
  7441. They're never going to overturn the use of police bodycams.
    1
  7442. Her privacy was maintained in the sense that the police blocked the release of the arrest video for 2.5 years as an open investigation. But, yeah, that also included the fact that she was dead for 1.5 of those years, so, eventually, they had no choice but to release it because the case was closed for that long. At least she didn't suffer any shame from the bodycam video, because she was long dead before anybody saw it.
    1
  7443. I don't understand your reference to profiling and a warrant, and neither do you.
    1
  7444. She was dead whenever you saw the video also. The video wasn't released until she was already dead 1.5 years. This was a manufactured viral story, based on a heck of a lot of deceptive wording. They knew she was dead in the first video run, but, part of the false portrayal was to come back a few weeks later and pretend she just killed herself. In reality, she died almost 2 years ago.
    1
  7445. Yeah, sounds nice and all... but, I think she just didn't want to turn this into a circus, and wanted to just deal with it 100% straight.
    1
  7446. So, the "employees" (450,000 of them) were "fooled"? Dewdrop, if the "employees" all thought they were building real rockets and spacecraft, why NOT just go to the moon?
    1
  7447. Who axed you?
    1
  7448. Another drive-by hoax nut. You were asked by Tim if the fact that we can no longer send 100+ people at mach 2 for 3000 miles across the Atlantic for the past decades (Concorde) means that Concorde was fake. Why can't you answer?
    1
  7449. Huh? It wasn't corruption that caused police to arrest her. It's the proper procedure.
    1
  7450. Yes, that question is always asked. The problem is that the people asking that question clearly do not want the answer.
    1
  7451. Thanks for proving me correct. You don't actually want answers to your own questions.
    1
  7452. Yeah, because the world's "hub carriers" are too stupid to adapt... sure... they're THAT dumb.
    1
  7453. Wow, and when was the last time you were tested for spelling and grammar?
    1
  7454. Nick, oh Nick, as you've been told repeatedly, yes, you see the guy draw the gun as he walks up to the car door. You see him point the gun at the officer at 0:08 if you go frame by frame. And, you see the gun on the ground at 5:02 in the video next to a 2x4 piece of wood. I have no idea why you keep pretending to know things about this incident, when you clearly do not.
    1
  7455. I'd assume they do. They're probably well aware that Inside Edition is trash news that should never be trusted.
    1
  7456. Oh, spare the world your hatred. Most cops are quite outstanding.
    1
  7457. Well, the "whole story" would have to start more than a decade ago when she abandoned her career and family, including a husband, a 6 month old son, and another son, in order to live a life of drugs and crime. From there, she was arrested countless times for lots of different things, stealing cars, drug and alcohol charges, spent a felony term in prison, etc. Eventually she became an "adult dancer" according to her landlord. Then, she ended up on this beach, and was trying to cry her way out of her millionth arrest with this unbelievable sob story about nobody being around. (If she wasn't making "public beach" content, I'll eat my hat.) And, around a year later, she called it quits on life.
    1
  7458. Huh? The arrest video? Or, the video taken of the incident itself by one of the "audience"? As far as I know, the latter has never been released due to content. But, the arrest video was released as a result of a FOIA request. July 1, 2021 = this incident. March, 2022 = no longer alive. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released due to FOIA.
    1
  7459. Dewdrop, multiple people called this in, not just one mom. The woman was a convicted felon with a million arrests and prison time under her belt, who gave up her career and family more than a decade ago in favor of living a life of crime and drugs, who then became a "dancer" at the local club (yeah, that kind), and put on a show at a public beach in front of children.
    1
  7460. Links aren't permitted, dewdrop.
    1
  7461. Start by reading the arrest report. Then, look up her warrants. Then, look at her 2018 felony prison record from Florida.
    1
  7462. Her "character"? Tell me, how much "character" could she possibly have, if absolutely nobody was looking for her. The coroner reported that she was in such an advanced state of decomposition that she was probably gone for a month or more before her landlord went in looking for the unpaid rent and found her. She had deteriorated to 84 pounds (in the 70s without the implants). And, absolutely nobody wondered where she was? Her husband and son didn't even go to her funeral.
    1
  7463. You don't know what a summons even is. Stop pretending.
    1
  7464. That's some mighty libel there. Got any ACTUAL evidence? Or, just silly YouTube videos making wild unsubstantiated claims?
    1
  7465. Yeah, and he had to beg the physician to even stay on the mission with his injured leg.
    1
  7466. Huh? The arrest video wasn't posted until 1.5 years after she died. Why would you believe it was a live feed?
    1
  7467. Um, just checking here... you do know that Artemis 1 is sitting on the launchpad this very minute, and is heading to the moon next month, right?
    1
  7468. No, I'm not going to "get back to you." You seemed like you had no idea that Artemis existed, and said you had only 30 more years. I pointed it out that.... oh, whatever, be that way if you want.
    1
  7469. What in the world are you talking about? None of those people were going back to the moon. Good grief. Name a single program to go to the moon that was approved by congress under any of those presidents. Can you? (Hint: no.)
    1
  7470. Good grief. Pence/Trump DID get Artemis approved. It was green lit by congress in 2019.
    1
  7471. You apparently have no understanding about the difference between talking about stuff, empty campaign promises, and actual congress funding/approval.
    1
  7472. So, basically, you've been waiting 50 years, but, in all that time, you have zero understanding about how NASA gets its funding, eh? Do you think every time someone says that they want to go back to the moon, this means that there's an actual program funded to do so? Presidents, vice presidents, etc., can talk all day long about how they want to go to the moon. It makes no difference. Until congress votes to fund an actual program to do so, nobody is going anywhere. The president doesn't control the money. NASA doesn't control the money. Congress does. Congress decides how much money NASA gets, and which programs get funded, and which ones don't. There have been two manned moon programs funded by congress in the history of the USA. The first happened in 1961, when they funded project Apollo. The second happened in 2019, when they funded project Artemis. Since 2019, they have ordered more Orion capsules, they have built the SLS booster with over 8 million pounds of thrust, they have contracted the landers to be built, they have prepared launch systems, etc. The astronauts have been named and are in training this very minute. Artemis 1 is sitting on the launch pad right now. It's only an unmanned mission, but, it will be followed up by manned missions.
    1
  7473.  @stusue9733  Wrong.
    1
  7474. Who told you that they never took photos of from the surface of the moon? Yes, dewdrop, they took bunches of them. Obviously, you haven't looked at the archive yourself. Instead, let me guess, a conspiracy video told you that they never took such photos, and you decided to regurgitate that false claim here. Am I right? AS17-134-20387 is a nice one. AS17-134-20465 isn't bad either. AS17-137-20960 looks up the wide/flat slope of South Massif mountain, and is pretty nice also. There are many more, if you'd lift a finger to look, rather than blindly trusting nonsense fed to you in videos that lie to you.
    1
  7475.  @stusue9733  You granted his claim.
    1
  7476. Yeah, but, when you buy in an HOA, that's how it goes. You don't have the right to do whatever you want, if you're in an HOA home.
    1
  7477. Theirs space rudaition is main light, und useing metal and silvur takes care of it.
    1
  7478. I hope you're joking. You can't REALLY be that stupid, can you?
    1
  7479.  @honzalev1  You think there's a dead cameraman on the moon, and you believe **I** am the stupid one??
    1
  7480.  @honzalev1  I don't know what you are trying to say, and neither do you.
    1
  7481. Take your hatred to a different video.
    1
  7482. The sky is black because there's no humid atmosphere on the moon to make it blue. You cannot see stars in the daytime on Earth, and you cannot see stars in the daytime on the moon (except by using specialized equipment to see them during the day).
    1
  7483. In prison for the rest of your life too?
    1
  7484. Huh? Police? How did they shame her?
    1
  7485. So, you can't/won't answer? I guess I shouldn't have expected an actual coherent answer from someone who doesn't know "there" from "their" and "they're."
    1
  7486. Oh, goodie. The one with the degree from YouTube University thinks real degrees are inferior. Hilarious!
    1
  7487. Huh? What should they do instead? Not show up when multiple people call?
    1
  7488. Then you cannot blame police. Blame the legislature and the entire public that put those laws in place.
    1
  7489. Yeah, they should make that stolen gun illegal, that's going to solve the problem.
    1
  7490.  @willoughbykrenzteinburg  I wouldn't bet on Artemis III landing. NASA is already backtracking and saying that Artemis III might be another orbital mission. It's pretty doubtful that either of the landers will be ready on time.
    1
  7491. They've already contracted Blue to be a "2nd lander" to the SpaceX version. As far as I'm concerned, it's only a matter of time before they cancel SpaceX altogether. I was shocked from Day-1 that they even chose SpaceX and that hideous monstrosity. But, when the person on the NASA board who was leading them to select SpaceX got a high paying job at SpaceX, yeah, it made more sense about why that happened. As soon as Blue shows that they're ready to fly, my guess is that NASA will dump SpaceX. SpaceX is a joke of a rocket company, powered more by hype than rocket fuel.
    1
  7492. Correct conclusion about the moon landings, terribly wrong reasons.
    1
  7493. Yes, I'm sure they know this. This "news" story (not news) is full of more holes than the Titanic. The "news" lost all credibility when they had to stoop to talking about tainted alcohol at OTHER resorts (because this particular hotel has never been found to have tainted alcohol, so, they had to talk about tainted alcohol elsewhere to try to make the case that this hotel had tainted alcohol too). When the reporters need to make their case that way, they have lost any respect that I had for them (which was already close to zero). The family lost my respect also when they sued the USA-based travel booking company for booking this hotel, saying that "they should have known" that this 5-star resort was serving tainted alcohol (despite no track record of it whatsoever), therefore the people who booked the trip for them deserved to be sued too.
    1
  7494. No, the charges against her were dropped before then. And, sorry, but there are no charges for making a simple human mistake.
    1
  7495. First of all, there are no Earth satellites that can produce [what you're calling] "hi res" photos of the surface of Earth. The very best ones would never be able to read a license plate, for example, because an entire license plate wouldn't even occupy a single pixel. The fact is that the resolution from Earth based satellites is roughly the same as lunar satellites.
    1
  7496. If you're not sure where to find the hundreds of orbital photos of the Apollo sites, well, I'll tell you to look right at their source: Arizona State University. They built and manage that camera onboard LRO. Their site has hundreds of Apollo photos cataloged and arranged into slide shows from tons of different sun angles. You can see rover tracks, landers, foot paths, shadows of the flags, etc. India and China have also released similar photos from their individual orbiters, but, not hundreds of them that are well arranged and cataloged like Arizona State University has.
    1
  7497. "We have had earth satellites capable of this level of resolution for decades." No, what's been happening for decades is that Google Earth and Google Maps have been using images from low flying airplanes, yet still labeling them as "satellite." You had to read their FAQ to realize that those weren't satellite images, and they explained that the images actually came from low flying planes, drones, or balloons, when over cities and stuff. They only used true satellite images when zooming far out, or over rural areas that they never bothered to map out with low flying planes. Today, they have changed the verbiage and it no longer even says "satellite" (which was too confusing).
    1
  7498. Sending a satellite to the moon isn't like sending one into low orbit around Earth. All other things equal, it takes far more energy to do it, and therefore far more lifting capability. So, no, all other things aren't equal. If you're using the same booster rocket, you can lift a larger satellite camera into Earth orbit (the bigger the camera, the better the resolution) than you can to the moon. The payload to the moon for LRO, for example, was 4,000 pounds. And, no, they weren't just going to plop a huge 4,000 pound camera into lunar orbit to grab "high res" photos (of the kind you're asking for). LRO was a complete package of scientific experiments and sensors and equipment, also carrying fuel to last for decades of burns to change orbit, etc. If you wanted LRO to have a bigger camera, that means you're giving up something else in trade. You have to give up some of the fuel, or some of the other experiments, because LRO weighed every bit of the 4,000 pounds payload they were given. They packed all they could into that probe. So, while you're complaining that the resolution should be better, because it's a lot lower (closer to the lunar surface) than Earth based satellites are to Earth, yeah, fine, if all things were equal, you'd be right, the resolution should be better. But, again, what do you want them to give up. They were willing to dedicate entire satellites to just photography around Earth (thus have really big cameras). But, for LRO, there are dozens of different things they wanted it to do, and they wanted it to last for decades and be able to change orbits (lots of fuel). A huge camera wasn't possible without giving up a bunch of other stuff.
    1
  7499.  @axle.student  There is no "hardware zoom" on any lunar satellite camera. Take a look at those camera designs on the Arizona State University site. You'll see why. Other countries have adopted similar designs for theirs. It's "digital zoom" only.
    1
  7500.  @axle.student  Because the camera doesn't even use a "lens" (not in the way you'd think). And, the end effect is that this was the best way to do it for the weight.
    1
  7501.  @axle.student  Pffttt. Your original comment stands? Yeah, the one where you started by demonstrating that you have absolutely no understanding of the topic.
    1
  7502.  @axle.student  Yet, YOU are the one dishonestly representing what I wrote.
    1
  7503.  @axle.student  Yet, YOU are the one asking them to use optical zoom, right? (i.e. You had no idea what you were talking about.)
    1
  7504.  @stusue9733  What's a RAM?
    1
  7505.  @stusue9733  First of all, you have confused AOK with the current comment spammer. This one doesn't accuse us of being the same person (at least not that I can remember). But, then again, I don't pay that close attention to him any longer, because he spams the comments so much that it's just white noise at this point. He accuses us of using a script, while he spams identical comments over and over and over. He has abandoned any notion of asking questions or dealing with the actual subject matter, and has resorted to just copying and pasting the same silly insults. At that point, that's about as much of an admission of being wrong as anybody could expect out of a denier. When they no longer address the topic, yeah, that's when they've thrown in the towel. So, I don't know, maybe he's accused us of being the same person and I've just missed it because I stopped paying attention to him. But, I don't think so (?). As for a Dodge RAM, ah, ok, I see. I was never much of a Dodge guy, but, they look purdee.
    1
  7506. Huh? I mean, ok, they may have missed a couple here or there. But, I don't understand your question.
    1
  7507. 27 minutes, and you didn't mention the massive panoramic sunroof??
    1
  7508. Hilarious!!! You think the cop needs educating? Um, no. You cannot even spell "Taser" or "Tased" correctly, what do you think you understand about it? "Taser" is a name brand of the less-than-lethal device that is designed to immobilize people. And, no, she didn't get hit with the Taser because of shoplifting, it was for resisting arrest. That's a Taser's main purpose, to force compliance on those who resist. It doesn't matter if the person is being arrested for murder, or theft, or filing their taxes wrong, or whatever else, if the person resists, he/she is getting the Taser. Oh, but you go right ahead and pretend to understand the use of Tasers better than cops. Sure.
    1
  7509. And, that's your best "evidence"? It "seems weird" to you? You don't understand it, therefore it's fake? How about actually learning something before you accuse thousands of people of being criminals, huh?
    1
  7510.  @saddletramp5000  It's not that simple, and you know it. This isn't just "an opinion." I mean, if people want to go around claiming they saw Bigfoot, or saying that they don't think calculus is real, or saying they think there's an invisible planet Nibiru orbiting the sun, well, they're just crackpots. But, when you shift the topic to denying the moon landings, you're in a completely different category, because you are discarding the work of 450,000 people for a decade of their lives, throwing that 4.5 million years of human effort into the trashcan, and then calling thousands of them criminals who would spend their lives in prison if you were correct. How would you like it if people went around accusing you of crimes, based on internet claptrap that's easily debunked with a moment of scientific scrutiny? What if people accused you of crimes involving little children, which I cannot mention without getting my comment banned? That's ok with you? That's just their opinion, because they saw a YouTube video making that baseless claim? Well, this goes for the people who worked on Apollo, many of them giving their lives in the effort. Now, we have an entire subset of people who accuse them of being criminals, simply because they watched a few videos and never lifted a finger to see if any of the claims were actually correct.
    1
  7511. Infraction = ticket. Crime = arrest.
    1
  7512.  @bradleyrex2968  The most common example I've seen is when documentary makers take the Apollo 14 video of Mitchell coming down the steps while talking about Armstrong going down the steps on Apollo 11.
    1
  7513.  @paulgee4336  Ah, the hallmark of delusion. Jan outlined dozens of individual pieces of evidence. You ignored all except one piece. And, your reply was an argument from incredulity. Every other piece of evidence she offered went in one ear, out the other, and you replied by repeating the insane notion that "there is no evidence." And, guess what, the evidence she offered you is just scratching the surface. There's plenty more evidence on top of what she wrote. I'd list some of it, except, you've proven that you have no intention of listening. Again, a hallmark of delusion. You listen only to things that support your delusion, and ignore everything that contradicts your delusion. That's how a delusional mind operates, by definition. And, you have the audacity to claim that you've done "research"?? Um, no. "Research" doesn't mean you ignore every piece of evidence, and then claim that the evidence doesn't exist. That's not what "research" is. Clearly, your version of "research" is to listen to people just as deluded as you are.
    1
  7514.  @paulgee4336  YOU SAID: "Yeah, those "SUPER high resolution" images that PROVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING." == This is what's called "shifting the goalposts." Decade after decade, more and more capabilities have been offered to be able to verify the landing sites. Laser ranging facilities have gotten better and better, verifying the reflectors left on the moon to a matter of a couple of inches nowadays. Photography has improved, from the time in the 1960s and 1970s to just being limited to long range imagery of gasses being released, to decades later seeing disturbance to the lunar soil, all the way up through today, when you can see the landers and rovers and rover tracks, etc. And, decade after decade, you conspiracy nutjobs just keep shifting the goalposts. LRO has the best resolution of any lunar orbiter up there (as far as we know anyway, because I don't think we know the resolution of the Chinese ones, because they don't disclose that information). But, it's never good enough, right? Whatever resolution it has, you're going to ask for better resolution. If they could see details of the footprints, you'd just say, "not good enough, I want to see serial numbers on all of the equipment." YOU SAID: "(and shown to most likely have been FAKED)" == See, no matter the resolution of the photos, you're just going to call them fake anyway. Thanks for proving me correct. The resolution doesn't matter to you at all. You just will call them fake anyway. And, how does that go, in your mind? Generations later, when everyone who worked on Apollo is long dead or retired, a brand new set of NASA engineers and administrators decided to put on a brand new version of "the hoax" for no reason whatsoever? YOU SAID: "(and have been PROVEN (NOT) to not be manipulated at all, so PLEASE just BELIEVE them without questioning, because you are an highly skeptical and objective person)" == No. You're not skeptical, nor objective. You have decided, in advance, to reject anything that goes against your delusion (no matter how much scientific backing), and to accept anything that supports your delusion (no matter how wrong it is). No, that's not objectivity. No, that's not skepticism. YOU SAID: "There is MUCH "smoking gun evidence" that HAS NOT BEEN DISPROVED. [sic]" == Pfttt. Um, no. I've seen just about every moon conspiracy claim there is. And, ALL OF IT falls apart under the slightest bit of scientific scrutiny. That's why you clowns are on YouTube and conspiracy websites. That's because no moon conspiracy claim ever offered for the past 50 years has ever been able to withstand the scientific peer review process. You people have had FIFTY YEARS to offer your "smoking gun evidence" to any recognized scientific journal of your choice. And, never ONCE has any claim made by insane people even gotten past the first round of screening. So, what do you do instead, when none of your claims can pass scientific muster? You make conspiracy videos. You create conspiracy websites. You self-publish your objections. That's the only way you can make your objections survive... because they fall apart the moment they are put to any actual scientific scrutiny. If any of you people actually had the evidence you pretend you have, you'd be publishing it in actual science journals. You'd be doing the university lecture circuits for $70K per week for scientifically proving Apollo was a hoax. You'd be getting million dollar book deals. You'd be invited on every talk show on the planet. But, nope, none of you do that, do you? Nope, you're on a YouTube crusade to claim that every single aerospace engineer on the planet somehow doesn't understand aerospace engineering as well as massively uneducated YouTube "experts." YOU SAID: "Intelligence and logic and critical thinking are obviously NOT your forte." == Oh, the irony. How does your "intelligence, logic, and critical thinking" address the fact that you ignored virtually everything Jan offered you earlier in this thread? She gave you a very nice (albeit quite incomplete) list of evidence for the moon landings. You ignored every word, except for the very first item. The rest went in one ear, out the other. And, THAT behavior is "logical" to you? THAT behavior endorses the idea that you use "critical thinking"?? Um, no. Ignoring all input that goes against your delusion isn't "critical thinking." That behavior is delusional, by definition.
    1
  7515. My uninformed guess is that the repeatedly convicted felon's sister (and the rest of her family) had long before had it up to their ears with the criminal's lies, thievery, and drugs, to the point that they couldn't trust her in their own homes. Or, putting it another way, if I had to choose blindly between blaming the family members who are NOT repeatedly convicted criminals, vs. blaming repeatedly convicted criminals for their own actions, I choose to blame the the repeatedly convicted felons for their own actions.
    1
  7516. Multiple witnesses called about this incident. They told the police it appeared to be intentional. One witness recorded it, and showed the video to the police. Needless to say, the video didn't match this woman's story about a quiet act with nobody around. It was described as a very loud and public act in view of multiple people including children. Frankly, I'll believe the statements by innocent bystanders and the police, before I'll believe a convicted felon who spent time in prison and had a mile long arrest record. Also, her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club, so, it's really not that much of a stretch for me to believe she was doing it intentionally. Anyway, it sounds like she deserved to be arrested, yes.
    1
  7517. Police reports, conviction history, interviews, etc.
    1
  7518. Despite the fact that they modified the name of the lander "LEM" to "LM" (Lunar Excursion Module to just Lunar Module), almost all of them continued to call it the "LEM."
    1
  7519. Good grief. The carjacker was wearing a balaclava ski mask, WAS armed, and pointed the gun directly at the officer's head as he opened the car door. You later see the gun on the ground at 1:51 and 5:02 next to a 2x4 piece of wood. Yet, you're claiming he didn't have a gun? His own family and attorney acknowledge that he was armed.
    1
  7520. Yeah, when a guy is cranking at the playground, don't worry, the kids won't understand anyway.
    1
  7521. Huh? Do you even know the difference between an infraction and a crime?
    1
  7522. First of all, it seems that you don't know the timeline. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. This story got almost zero coverage while she was alive. Secondly, it seems that you know nothing about this woman's history. She abandoned her career and family a decade ago, including a husband and 6 month old boy, because she wanted to live a life of crime and drugs. She served a felony term in prison about 6 years ago. She's been arrested a million times, and has had multiple convictions and judgements. Stealing cars. Other thefts. Drug charges. Alcohol. Failure to appear, etc. It's not easy to get a straight job after all of that, so, her landlord said that she was a stripper at the local club. Her neighbors said she also did "private" cash encounters in her apartment with a parade of various men. Third, multiple people called for this incident, not just the one family. Witnesses say it was an intentional act. One of them even managed to get the last few minutes on video, and gave a copy to the police. Needless to say, it didn't match her version about nobody being around. It was a very loud and public act in front of multiple people including children. Now, it's up to you if you want to believe she thought she was alone. But, I'd trust innocent bystanders who were able to take video, and the police, before I'd trust this convicted felon. I'd eat my hat if she wasn't making "public beach" content for her fans, but, got reported, and was trying to cry her way out of her millionth arrest.
    1
  7523. The arrest video wasn't seen by anybody while she was alive. It wasn't released until 1.5 years after her suicide. So, she suffered no shame over it. You're right about there being more to it than just this arrest. This was her millionth arrest, and she had already served time in prison long before this beach incident.
    1
  7524. As a general rule, they blur for open investigations, and don't blur otherwise.
    1
  7525. Well, your comment is too general to respond to every possible event. But, in this case, the arrest video was kept private for 2.5 years. She was dead 1.5 of those years before anybody saw the arrest video.
    1
  7526. Huh? What shame? Other than a couple of obscure blog posts on websites nobody has ever heard of, how much press do you think this got while she was alive?
    1
  7527. 5 years.
    1
  7528. First of all, multiple people called the police, not just one. Secondly, one woman in the "audience" recorded it with her cell phone. She showed that video to the police, who then described it in their report. They said it was a very public display, very loud, and in view of multiple people including children. Sorry, but, we all know that if it was reversed, and that was a man in a playground doing the same thing in view of children, you wouldn't be saying what you're saying. So, seriously, spare the world your obvious hatred.
    1
  7529. Schwarzenegger's performance is supposed to be dry and emotionless. He plays a machine. What's Nick Stahl's excuse for this horrifyingly bad performance?
    1
  7530. Um, what? WHAT? So, you're saying a routine bartender at a 5-star resort MURDERED someone so that the hospital could get money? In your mind, that's more probable than the idea that the girl simply drank too much? And, how does your murder plot go with her 0.25 blood alcohol level in the first place?
    1
  7531.  @GingerNinja1  Pffttt. Good job not answering a single thing I wrote. Yes, of course I watched the video. I also read the report from the hospital that first treated them. I also read the lawsuits against the resort in Mexico, and against the Florida based booking company who made the reservation for the family. I also read that the dead girl's heart was used to save the life of a man who was in need of a transplant. I also read the reports about this resort's track record for tainted alcohol (which is zero). What does any of that have to do with the question at hand? You are accusing them of committing a murder in order to rack up some hospital bills. In your mind, that's more probable than the idea that the girl simply drank too much? And, how does your murder plot go with her 0.25 blood alcohol level in the first place?
    1
  7532. There was no tainted alcohol (methanol) found in either of their systems. But, their alcohol levels were rip-roaring-fall-down-pass-out-drunk levels. And, as for people just leaving them alone instead of helping them, well, you need to understand that this "news" (not news) story is omitting the fact that the kids were drinking at the pool at about 1pm. They went back to the pool after dark when the pool was closed. So, people "left them alone" because no other people were actually there.
    1
  7533. Not even close. Why would you believe that? Because that's what she's saying while attempting to avoid her millionth arrest? Multiple people called the police for this event. One of the "audience" recorded it, and showed the video to the police. The witness stated that the woman had been walking up and down the beach to look for a place to do this, then seemingly deliberately, plopped down in view of a family. The police report said that the video shows a very loud and public display in view of multiple people including children. And, let's face reality here: with her mile long criminal record, as a convicted felon who served prison time, and bunches of other arrests and judgements against her, why would you possibly want to believe a word she says?
    1
  7534. And, you'd believe Inside Edition, why? The arrest video wasn't seen by the public until 1.5 years after she committed suicide.
    1
  7535. What did the police and family do wrong, in your mind?
    1
  7536. There biznes cauced by childs in site. Prof becouse witnes had videeo and showd perleese.
    1
  7537. Well, if you're relying on decency in media, your hopes will go nowhere. Legally, there is no such requirement.
    1
  7538. Sorry, 4 minutes in, and I'm bored to tears. PACING!!!
    1
  7539. Arrest video = July 2021 Suicide = March 2022 Arrest video made public = November 2023 Inside Edition = fake news
    1
  7540. What in the world are you talking about? First of all, what's wrong with a first attempt? Like, the first attempt must fail, otherwise it didn't happen? And, NASA kept building on mission after mission after mission. Like, for example, Apollo 10 went to the moon, and did the landing approach, and practiced the abort. They did everything except the landing itself. Any lucid person? Like the entire planet's community of aerospace engineers in both friendly and enemy countries, none of whom agree with you? Same effort? Huh? Congress controls NASA. NASA cannot buy a stick of chewing gum without congress' approval, let alone try to go to the moon. Congress only granted two manned moon landing programs. The first was in 1961 when they gave the green light (and funding) to Apollo. The second was in 2019 when they gave the green light (and 1/10th of the funding) to Artemis. And, that's what they're working on right now. Artemis 1 is standing on the launchpad this very minute.
    1
  7541. Well, he had already reproduced, so not quite a Darwin Award winner.
    1
  7542. now videos awsome are things from awsome sad ... very sad don now about tele scoups work ... resulution not same as distanc .. lern read n write might now more
    1
  7543. Open investigation vs. closed.
    1
  7544. Well, that's one way to demonstrate that you didn't bother reading the arrest report.
    1
  7545. Sure, if you believe a single word out of her. But, there were multiple calls, and the witnesses said it was intentional, and one of them recorded it and gave a copy of the video to the police. It doesn't match her sob story about nobody being around.
    1
  7546. Do you mean a violation in actually how the law really works? Or, just in your opinion of how things should work?
    1
  7547. I don't understand the grounds for your suit...?
    1
  7548.  @Just-Some-Helium  Huh? If someone thinks 2+2=59, and another one thinks it's 4, yeah, the second guy is smarter.
    1
  7549.  @outdoorgames4230  You're right, "Washing stud" is a moron. But, man, good grief. What the HELL are you talking about? YOU SAID: "LMAO You're stupid asf. Hotels never serve alcohol IN a pool." And, YOU SAID: "First of all, no proof that the Mexican resort where those college kids were at had their bar in the pool." Well, this image is right off of this particular hotel's own website: http://www.iberostarquetzal.com/images/gallery/gallery-2.jpg Yes, they serve alcohol IN the pool. And, you have clearly haven't spent much time traveling, because in-pool bars are quite popular. The hotels hate them, of course. They're hard to maintain. They are expensive. They're a pain in the ass. But, TOURISTS pretty much "demand" them (by virtue of their patronage), so the hotels build them. Want more evidence of how common swim-up bars are in that area? Here are a few photos. There are a million more where these came from. https://www.myweddingaway.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Royal-Playa-del-Carmen-Swim-up-Bar.jpg https://www.oyster.com/playa-del-carmen/hotels/hotel-riu-palace-mexico/photos/pool--v4386128/ https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/05fcac1c8089550332d038e22cb410bd43635714/c=2-0-1997-1500/local/-/media/2017/07/28/WIGroup/Milwaukee/636368341594227770-IMG-1886.JPG?width=534&height=401&fit=crop Anyway, look dude, if you can't admit being wrong (which you obviously cannot, because you doubled-down on your stupidity), you're going to lose every time, even if, in principle, you're correct. The girl drank herself into a stupor. And, the hotel shouldn't bear the responsibility, at least not most of it. A legal adult is responsible for her own actions. And, "Washing stud" is a complete moron, because he says the hotel is 100% responsible, and the girl bears 0.00% responsibility. I hate assholes like him. I hate them with a passion. The modern generation seems to want to wipe all personal responsibility off the face of the Earth. It's insanity. But, look, dude, you are making an ass of yourself if you don't even get your facts right.
    1
  7550. Oh, you poor thing, what happened to you?
    1
  7551. Pure and total nonsense. Nobody is going to just check out an abandoned car while wearing a ski mask in the middle of a hot summer, and brandishing a gun. And, sorry, but you clearly didn't pause at 0:08 in the video, and see the carjacker point the gun straight at the cop immediately as the door opened. That's not innocently confronting a guy in front of your house. And, no, it wasn't in front of his house anyway. And, he contacted the authorities? Get real here. When you feel the need to lie to make your point, you have lost already.
    1
  7552. "Forgot the technology"? Says who? A conspiracy video? An intentional out-of-context quote mine? Have you looked at the official archive? Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. It would take you 10 years to go through the terabytes of photos, videos, operations manuals, technical schematics, wiring diagrams, etc. Nobody has forgotten how it was done.
    1
  7553. There are no pentagrams in your country?
    1
  7554. Yup, he's another photographer who doesn't understand photography. It's amazing to behold, and, even worse, people listen to him.
    1
  7555. It's called the Freedom of Information Act. If you're opposed to it, then go to your local congressman/woman, and request to get the laws changed. Don't blame those who follow the law correctly.
    1
  7556. "I'm willing to listen" Somehow, I think this is false. Probably because I've heard it a million times from a million people who never listen. Maybe you'll be different? "as soon as someone explains how they got the rover there when weight in the rocket to get there was an issue" Well, you could read the "vehicle familiarization manual" for starters. It's document LMA790-2. And, it highlights the major changes that they made to the lunar modules to accommodate the J-missions (the ones with the rovers and extended stays on the lunar surface). But, I'll give you the top two changes (one of which is in the manual, one of which isn't). The first change was to add 25,000 pounds of thrust to each of the F1 engines in the Saturn V first stage. This allowed them to lift more total weight. The second change was to extend the engine bell in the lander, to make it longer. This helped to concentrate the thrust, giving a higher efficiency. In other words, it produced more net thrust for each pound of fuel/oxidizer, because the thrust wasn't allowed to spread out quite as fast as it exited the engine nozzle. You might ask why they didn't do that on all missions. Well, the answer is that it was considered less safe on the earlier missions, because the engine bell stuck out much further on the later missions, and might get too close to the lunar surface, or even hit it, if the surface was meandering too much. Ironically, they paid the price for the extended engine bell on the very first mission it flew that included a rover (Apollo 15). They landed on a meandering surface, and the engine bell DID smack the ground, bent, cracked, and could basically almost be called a crash landing. Thankfully, they had emphasized that landings like Apollo 11 or Apollo 14 were going to be extremely dangerous if they did the same thing on Apollo 15 (leave the engine running all the way past touchdown). So, Scott took extra special care to kill the engine immediately when the contact light lit up (5'8" above the lunar surface). So, the lander merely dropped the final 5 feet or so, and the engine wasn't running. Had it been running when it smacked the ground, there's a high chance that it would have ruptured and caused a heck of a lot more damage than it caused by smacking the ground when it wasn't running. So, yeah, as it turns out, it could have been a lot more dangerous had the longer engine bell been used on the earlier missions. So, they stuck with the safer (shorter) engine bell for the first 3 landings. Anyway, as I said, the familiarization manual tells you a lot more about the other changes that were made to the J-mission landers (as compared to the first 3 landings). So, you're free to read about them. But, I've given you the top two changes. So, are you willing to listen? Or, does this go in one ear, and out the other, like the million people before you who make a promise to listen, but never do?
    1
  7557. Yes, and you're looking at the cream of the crop among those nuts.
    1
  7558. Open investigations vs. closed.
    1
  7559. But, the video wasn't seen by anybody until long after she was dead. So, how is that manslaughter?
    1
  7560. First of all, this arrest was on July 1, 2021. She committed suicide in March of 2022. The arrest video was released on November 24, 2023. So, make no mistake about it, she suffered ZERO shame from the release of the arrest video, because nobody saw it while she was alive. If you're saying you saw it before, it was a crafted story by the media to get two rounds viral rounds out of the same incident, one to show the video without telling anybody she was already dead, and another round for the "update" that she had killed herself. Sorry, but trash news is what it is. Secondly, she was a convicted felon who served prison time for stealing cars, had an arrest record a mile long, judgements against her for other thefts/crimes, bunches of charges for drugs and alcohol, and open warrants for numerous failures to appear. Multiple people phoned the police about this incident, and one of them showed the video of the act to the police. Needless to say, the video didn't match her version of a discreet act with nobody around. One of the witnesses said it appeared that she intentionally plopped down in front of people. Thirdly, is it that much of a leap to believe she did it intentionally? After all, it's really tough to get a straight job after being in prison, and continuing a drug and crime spree for most of a decade. So, her landlord said that she was a stripper at the local club. Interviews with neighbors said that she did "private" cash transactions in her apartment also. Is it truly that hard to believe that she may have intended this incident?
    1
  7561. Were you intentionally trying to get every sentence wrong, or was that accidental?
    1
  7562. Bodycam = normal equipment now.
    1
  7563. You believe she thought she was isolated, why? Because she said so, as she was attempting to avoid getting arrested for the millionth time, and didn't want to potentially end up back in prison again? The witnesses and the video they took of the incident disagree with you.
    1
  7564. The police blocked the release of the arrest video for 2.5 years. She was already dead for 1.5 of those years before anybody saw it. And, they have to release it eventually. Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  7565. So, as long as someone out there does worse, nobody can be arrested.
    1
  7566. YOU SAID: "Do You still believe we went to the moon ...." == Yes, all educated people do. YOU SAID: "with computer 2K RAM and 36K ROM ..." == Oh, so it's a computer problem? Pfftt. First of all, they'd have landed whether they had the computer or not. The craft was designed to be able to land without it, if required. The computer wasn't even ready when they wanted it to be, and that's why many of the functions within the lander were NOT tied to the computer, because they had already begun building the things to land on the moon in the event that MIT/Raytheon couldn't get the computer ready in time. They were behind schedule, but, manufactured the computers in time to fly. If you think that the memory specifications weren't good enough, why are you on YouTube? Why? Why aren't you demonstrating that the memory was inadequate to do the job it was designed to do? Why aren't you mathematically proving that it couldn't work? And, please explain why none of the PhDs and engineers at MIT, Draper Labs, and Raytheon, who designed and built the Apollo computers, ever realized that they failed to make computers capable of doing what they were designed to do? Do you think they just threw the computers together, without ever testing them, and without realizing that they failed to build computers to do the job they designed them to do? What about the one operational Apollo computer still in existence today? Why is it able to accept simulated inputs, and produce simulated outputs to fly the craft, exactly to the specifications it was designed for? YOU SAID: "with old radio transmitting ..." == Pftttt. Um, yes, dummy. Radio was invented long before Apollo. Radio works just fine. Backyard amateurs with simple small dishes and/or yagi antennae had been bouncing radio audio signals off of the moon since decades before Apollo. Are you declaring now that radio couldn't have worked for them? You can do this today with the same equipment that was available back then. How do you explain this? YOU SAID: "with old camera ..." == What's wrong with you? What ARE you talking about? What difference does the camera make? YOU SAID: "and petrating 1500 C temperature of Thermosphere and 2000 C temperatur + radiation of Van Allen Belt but not melting in there ... ???" == Dummy, that's why it's called "space." The stuff you're talking about might be hot, but there's so little of it, it doesn't matter. A tiny bit of hot atoms isn't going to melt a spacecraft. That's like saying you have a single drop of hot water, and you want to use it to melt an iceberg. You are one massive ignoramus.
    1
  7567. "The dust would NOT have settled at the same rate as the astronauts descent because the astronauts weight was augmented" Good gods. Dewdrop, all things fall at the same rate of acceleration. Heavy things. Light things. Doesn't matter. ALL things fall at the same rate of acceleration. The reason it doesn't seem that way on Earth is because of the atmosphere. If you drop a 500 pound lead weight and you drop a feather at the same time from the same height, and you're in a vacuum, they hit the ground at exactly the same moment. Stop pretending to know things you do not.
    1
  7568. We already have gravity energy generators, and you don't even need to put the energy in first. Tidal energy generators. They gather the water during high tide, and then empty the water through a turbine generator for low tides.
    1
  7569. Well, I'm not really sure why you're saying they talked ill of her. They manipulated the story to make her appear like an innocent soccer mom who was embarrassed. In reality, she was an extreme drug addict with a tremendous criminal history, who did time in a Florida prison around 6 years ago, and (according her her landlord and neighbors) was a "dancer" (yes, that kind) who also did "private extras" with parades of paying men in her apartment. Compared to the reality, yeah, this video paints her as a saint.
    1
  7570. And, for all practicality, sorry, but most of the stuff you're talking about doesn't result in getting put on any lists. In most states, it doesn't even qualify. And, for the states where it does (on paper), it's quite rare that it results in anything more than a fine. Had she bothered to show up in court for this case (which she rarely did for her other charges, and didn't for this one either), this would be easily negotiated down to a minor infraction.
    1
  7571. There was a TV camera mounted to the side of the craft facing the ladder. There are plenty of documents and photos of this setup. The lunar module liftoff was taken with the exact same remote controlled TV camera that was used throughout the mission. Why don't you question the hours upon hours of TV video taken by that camera, and you just question the last few seconds? Is it because a conspiracy video told you to question it? If these are your "big questions," seriously, you've got nothing.
    1
  7572. Harshly? They took her away from the restaurant so that nobody could see or hear what was going on. And, they didn't harm a single hair on her head during the arrest. Leaked? Huh? No "leaks" required. Freedom of Information Act. And, you do know that nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive, right?
    1
  7573.  @AM-rd9pu  You lost him at your first sentence.
    1
  7574. Sure, but, she was already resisting and being non-cooperative. The police are under no obligation to go look at cameras. The cop's job is to determine if there was enough evidence to put it in front of a court to decide guilt or innocence. And, yeah, I'd say that he had enough evidence for that. The store employee told him that she left without paying, and then she showed every outward sign that she didn't pay, not cooperating the entire time, and then resisting arrest.
    1
  7575. Wow. Every single sentence you wrote is laughably wrong. Where'd you get that pile of nonsense? Was it from conspiracy videos?
    1
  7576. Again, who told you all of this obvious nonsense?
    1
  7577. And, why would you believe a single word of what you're spewing?
    1
  7578. Wow, what an amazing display!! Dewdrop, one of the witnesses recorded the incident and gave a copy of the video to the police. It doesn't match her sob story about nobody being around. And, she never showed up in court for this arrest (which seemed to be how she handled all of her arrests, given her open warrants, and the fact that she kept trying to change her name to evade the police). And, sorry, but direct testimony from witnesses isn't hearsay.
    1
  7579. I have a bridge for sale. Interested? Do you ACTUALLY believe that they didn't give her the meds? Really? Why would you believe it? Because the repeatedly convicted criminal said so? And, you think that the "news" (not news) people are just going to let that story go without asking about it? You don't suppose that they DID go ask the prison why they didn't give the meds, and the prison answered, "Hey, dummies, they're criminals, they lie constantly, of course we gave the meds, they're constantly saying we didn't give meds so they can get more, sell them, etc." Good grief. You'll believe anything you see, won't you?
    1
  7580. "How can you hear him banging on the rock" Because sound travels through any physical medium, including the gloves, into the suit, and picked up by the microphone. "you don’t hear the moon buggy when he’s saying “the fender fix is fine” why?" I'm not sure if you do or don't, nor am I sure if they were moving or not at the time. "No combustion engine? Never would have thought of that....never knew that ....amazing that it was electric." As opposed to combustion? You find electric motors to be a surprise? "Yet electric motors make noise" Pffttt. These were little 1 horsepower electric motors (1 per wheel). They're not going to make much noise. And, remember, any would-be noise that would travel through the air can't do so, because there's no air. You're now talking about the fraction of the noise that's able to transfer through the rover's body, all the way to the seat, through the astronauts' suits via the rear end, and then up to the microphone. Again, from a 1 horsepower motor. No sudden impacts like a hammer onto a rock, while the astronaut is holding the hammer. Nope. It's just the quiet whirring of a low power motor, which must transfer through much more than a hammer handle in order to get to the astronauts. "and vibration." Huh? Are you used to working with old and damaged electric motors or something? A nice new one doesn't vibrate. "The metal wheels made out of large piano wire hitting rocks and traveling over the surface....the space suit rubbing against the seat. and all the other things going on not a sound." You clearly haven't listened to the audio you're pretending you have. Yes, you can hear the faint background noises from time to time when they are traveling on the rover. But, note: the noises have to be loud enough to open the automatic mic circuit. Or, someone has to be talking, and you pick it up as a background sound while they are speaking. Again, these noises you're now talking about are far more dulled by the distance through the metals that they must travel, and then going into the astronauts' rear ends, through the 24 layers of the suits, and get into the air in the suits and up to the mic. It's far different than just through a glove with an astronaut holding a metal hammer. But, yes, you do hear it from time to time. Just go listen to all of the audio. It's faint, but, it's there (mainly in the background if the astronaut is speaking). The noises are not loud enough at that point to open the automatic mic. "Yet if you see the earlier post there was an individual saying that sound waves traveled through the hammer head...through the handle....through the multiple layers of space suit." No, dewdrop. Through the glove. "into the atmosphere inside the space suit....into the microphone where they was recorded on the tape. My question is why one and not the other?" Because you're wrong to begin with. A repetitive loud hammering sound (or would-be-loud) directly held held by an astronaut, is not the same thing as a quiet whir from a 1 horsepower engine that must reverberate through the axis of a wheel hub, through the entire frame of the rover, up into the seat, through the canvas straps of the chair, through 24 layers of suit, right where the astronaut sits, and then finally up through to the microphone. I'm sorry you think the two are the same. But, apparently, you're willing to grasp at any nonsense that supports your ridiculous beliefs. Quit denying reality. Quit looking for these ridiculous "gotchas" that you believe you've found. And, start LOOKING AT THE EVIDENCE!!!! What's wrong with you? Why is it always the same with you people? You pretend you're on this quest for truth, but, you're not. You're looking for anything to support your ridiculous predetermined conclusions. And, you refuse to look at the elephant in the room. Dozens of countries tracked those missions to the moon with radar and radio telescopes. Arizona State University's LRO camera took photos of the landing spots, and you can see the rover tracks, landers, etc. Both the Chinese and Indian probes have sent photos back, showing the same thing that LRO showed. The ones from India even have a bit better resolution than LRO had. Yet, you're sitting here, ignoring all of that, wondering why slamming a rock with a hammer can be heard through a glove... but, the quiet whir of a 1 hp electric motor (that you didn't even know existed until 5 minutes ago) doesn't travel through several feet of various structures in the rover, across a canvas strap seat, through 24 layers of a suit, and up to the microphone from the astronaut's rear quarters?? Really? That stuff is important to you, but the evidence isn't?
    1
  7581. And, you believe you have expertise in this matter?
    1
  7582. Well, they blocked the release of the arrest video for 2.5 years. But, she was long gone by then, the investigation was long over, and they could no longer block the release.
    1
  7583. Huh? What in the world? Are you intentionally backward? Or, accidentally? The fleeing felon law said it's JUSTIFIED to shoot someone in this situation. It's true that a cop cannot kill a fleeing felon who is UNARMED. But, if armed and dangerous, and it's reasonable to believe that they might use that gun to cause harm to others, yes, it's justified to shoot. Did you not read the very common law decisions you falsely think support your position? Good grief. You're about as backward as it gets.
    1
  7584. Yeah. Right. Go up to her in the middle of that, and have a conversation. Sure.
    1
  7585. To what end? I mean, don't get me wrong, I praise the officer, and I'd probably have done the same (almost). But, I'd have suspected she had a lot more than gloves and a hat in that bulky jacket. And, in the end, would she have been better off in prison anyway? At least then maybe she'd still be alive.
    1
  7586. No, as I said, if I was the officer, I'd suspect there were a heck of a lot more stolen items in her jacket than just a hat and gloves. Other than that, I would have done the same thing (as I said), and I also said I praised the officer. I was just pointing out the irony that the "break" she got from the officer did absolutely no good. She continued to steal from Walgreens immediately after this incident. And, it's also tragically ironic that she might have been better off in prison, because then maybe she might still be alive today. I don't blame the officer at all. I blame her entirely. But, I'm pointing out that things in life are sometimes ironic and tragic, and good deeds don't always end up doing what you want them to do.
    1
  7587.  @Tigerdriver91Academy  Huh? No. I was not there. I fail to understand the relevance of asking me that.
    1
  7588.  @Tigerdriver91Academy  Pffttt. Spare the world, seriously. She was a meth-head who immediately went back to Walgreens and kept stealing. She gave up the hat and gloves, and then covered right back up. I know there's no way to know for sure, but, let's get real here, she gave up the hat and gloves in particular because those come across as "just essentials," and hoped they wouldn't ask her to keep on emptying the coat (and, they didn't). You cannot trust meth addicts. This is a woman who abandoned her own two kids because meth was more important to her. Yes, a very pretty woman, tragically sad that she's gone, but, if you trust a single thing a drug addict does or says, you're extremely misguided.
    1
  7589.  @Tigerdriver91Academy  Huh? She was repeatedly busted for meth. And, she was arrested from stealing from Walgreens shortly after this incident, and was found with meth. She died of meth overdose. What more do you want from me? Don't "sheesh" me while you stick your head in the sand, dewdrop.
    1
  7590. Huh? So, I'm confused. Are you saying we CAN go now?
    1
  7591. Thanks for proving my point beautifully.
    1
  7592. Yup, keep it coming, dewdrop. This is priceless.
    1
  7593. OK, so more relevant... so you say you'd report someone for murder and rape... of course... nobody would expect otherwise. But, you'd "respect the intimacy" for a guy who fraudulently won millions and millions in fraudulent lawsuits? If you were one of the ones who had to pay Armstrong millions because he sued you to shut you up, I wonder, would you say: "Yeah, that's fine, keep your mouth shut, don't come out to help my case, I'll pay him the millions, you keep respecting the intimacy."
    1
  7594. "The LRO has the exact same camera that Google earth uses" Not even close. The LRO camera you're referring to (it has more than one, but, whatever, you'll never understand it), actually only takes photos that are literally 1 pixel tall, by 5,064 pixels wide. Then, it "stripes" the lunar surface via the motion of the camera itself. It's like one of those old Xerox copy machines, where you can see the light bar scanning the paper from left to right, creating the copy via those long stripes, then re-assembling the image onto a piece of paper. Same basic concept. That's not how Google works at all. "and is 240 thousand miles away and we can see cars and people" No, those photos on Google are from low flying airplanes, helicopters, and even hot air balloons sometimes. Most are from about 1,200 feet. Who told you those Google cameras are 240,000 miles away? "yet the LRO is only 62 miles away" They dropped it to about 22 miles to take the Apollo site photos. "and can't see squat." You can clearly see the rover tracks, landers, foot paths, etc. Don't pretend the resolution isn't good enough. "No reason at all that they can't zoom in on these sites" That IS zoomed in!!! Have you ever looked at the original photos? I have. And, just as an exercise, I decided to see how long it would take me to find the lunar lander from Apollo 11. It took me about 20 minutes. And, I even knew basically where to find it. The photos you see of the landing sites have already been zoomed in for you. They did you a favor, by finding the sites in those huge photos spanning miles upon miles wide, and dozens of miles long, and then zooming in for you. But, if you don't like it, just do what I did. Go download the original photo images, and go hunt down the landing sites yourself, and zoom in. "I can see my car from 240 thousand miles away but can't see squat on these alleged moon landing sites" Sorry, but if you think Google's cameras are on the moon, and can see your car, this is so painfully a pile of nonsense that I wouldn't even know how to respond. Google themselves tells you how they take the photos in their FAQ pages. Low flying aircraft at approximately 1,200 feet. You made a mistake by about a factor of a million x. That's like saying you make a million dollars, when you only make $1.
    1
  7595. Huh? With bulletproof glass over the face or something?
    1
  7596. Um, no. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released (FOIA request). She was never humiliated by the arrest video, because nobody saw it while she was alive.
    1
  7597. Good grief. How is it even possible to believe Aldrin said he didn't go? In your mind, he "confessed," but, nobody on the planet did anything? No senate hearings? No prosecutions? No international lawsuits? No press? No attention whatsoever? That's how you think it would go when "confessing" to the biggest fraud in history? Or, hmmm, dewdrop, maybe, just maybe, you're watching conspiracy videos that lie to you, and intentionally take his words out of context, eh?
    1
  7598. Three astronauts DID swear on Sibrel's bible. So, did they go, and Armstrong didn't? Why would Armstrong (not a Christian) swear on a bible in the first place?
    1
  7599. Hilarious!!! After I just got done talking about how YouTubers pretend to know things they don't, you replied by doubling down on talking about stuff you know nothing about. Dewdrop, how about leaving police work to trained police?
    1
  7600. Dewdrop, I'm not the one claiming they're "doing it wrong" while knowing absolutely nothing. That's YOU doing that! How do you think this works anyway? You think all of those cops on the scene, all of the attorneys afterward (including the family's), etc., can't find the problems you can? And, by the way, the US Supreme Court ruled on this on June 27, 2005. Police are NOT required to protect/save others. Not that I am saying this is relevant to this case. The reason for the delay in rendering aid wasn't due to the Supreme Court ruling, but it was to secure the scene. But, I'm just outlining yet another way in which you demonstrate not to understand the topic.
    1
  7601. You can see a grainy image of him pulling the gun and pointing at the officer at 0:08 if you go frame by frame. And, you see the gun more clearly at 5:02 laying on the ground next to a 2x4 piece of wood.
    1
  7602. Yeah, no sense of decency at all. It's more important to produce viral videos, no matter how ridiculous or false the story is. In this case, at least they tried to paint her in a positive light. I mean, they didn't mention her felony term in prison, her million other arrests, stealing cars, drug and alcohol charges galore, failures to appear, judgements for other thefts, etc. Instead, they call her a real estate agent, despite that she hadn't sold a house in over a decade. They show a few seconds of the landlord and neighbor interviews, but, they left out the ones where they said she was a "dancer" (yeah, that kind) at the local club, and "entertained" parades of paying men in her apartment.
    1
  7603. How?
    1
  7604. There are mountains of proof. The most recent evidence comes from both India and China, each of which released their orbital photos of the Apollo 11 landing site in 2022, which shows the lander in the exact same position and placement that all of the prior evidence and photos show.
    1
  7605. Pffttt. WHAT??? COVID **IS** the problem. Without COVID, none of this would be required. What ARE you talking about?
    1
  7606.  @NoNameReflection  My the problem? An illiterate person who can't tell the difference between "you're" and "your" has the knowledge about $1.9 trillion dollars that nobody else knows? Good gods, the arrogance.
    1
  7607.  @NoNameReflection  You can repeat your stupidity until the cows come home. But, without stimulus, a lot more collapses besides the individuals who are on the brink. It affects everyone. I'm sorry you're too dumb to understand economics. But, that's your problem (notice the correct use of the word "your"). Yes, COVID *IS* the problem. Do you think we'd be in this situation if not for COVID?
    1
  7608.  @NoNameReflection  It results in inflation. And, what's going to "back it up" is a faster recovery than other nations that don't take the same measures. At this point, it's a worldwide race to see which countries can get their economies back intact fastest. The flipside is to create deflation coupled with an economic standstill and devaluation of properties. We're already creating a bit of a price bubble with housing as it is. No stimulus means devaluing EVERYONE, including you.
    1
  7609. Is that what you'd do if it was a guy cranking it at a playground? Go up and warn him before you call the police?
    1
  7610.  @PanhandleFrank  I thought he meant to warn before calling the police. But, yeah, that's the problem when someone doesn't spell it out. Yes, he doesn't understand an infraction vs. a crime.
    1
  7611.  @therealzilch  Your quoted ranges are for Apollo 11 alone. Other missions got hotter. I'd elaborate (and did so), but, YouTube doesn't like facts. My responses are banned.
    1
  7612. And, you believe she thought she was alone, why? Because she said so, while trying to cry her way out of her millionth arrest?
    1
  7613.  @stusue9733  No, what I'm going to do is ridicule myself for being wrong. I don't know if it's obvious, but, I really try very hard to be accurate with everything I write. When I'm wrong (thankfully not very often, but, it happens), yeah, I really beat myself up over it. Not joking.
    1
  7614. Well, I was going to disagree with you. But, since you used emojis, your argument became so much more powerful and irrefutable and convincing. Sorry that I don't have enough expertise in the topic to compete with emojis. I'm not qualified to use them yet.
    1
  7615. blue forest: TAWANDA CROWELL VS PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC. - 12/8/2021- D38- ORDER OF DISMISSAL (FINAL) WITH PREJUDICE. Why in the world are you trying to say the case wasn't dismissed? Where are you getting this nonsense? Yes, sorry, it was. And, yeah, guess what, in high crime areas, cops get complaints for just about everything. It's almost standard now that there are a million complaints for so much as a traffic ticket. Sorry, but complaints just don't mean anything any longer. There are entire organizations that file hundreds of complaints every day against cops they have never even met, just to make trouble. So, spare the world your "the cop had 25 complaints" thing. There's no shortage of attorneys also, who, the moment they begin defending their client, immediately file a complaint against the officer. Any cop besides Barney Fife and Andy Griffith in Maybury is going to have tons of complaints. And, if you were correct, tell us, why was the lawsuit against Publix, and not against the police? Why was no lawsuit filed against the cops at all? What do you know that her own attorney didn't? You clearly don't even know how to look up a case, since you said you didn't think this case was dismissed (yes, it was). So, what kind of legal expertise could you possibly have?
    1
  7616. TAWANDA CROWELL VS PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC - 12/8/2021- D38- ORDER OF DISMISSAL (FINAL) WITH PREJUDICE
    1
  7617.  @blueforest4589  Hilarious!!! Sorry, but "dismissed with prejudice," by definition, means that it CANNOT be filed again. What you're outlining would be a case that is dismissed without prejudice, or just plain re-filed. Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?
    1
  7618.  @keithcollingridge4472  You must provide ID and cooperate on a basic level. You are correct in that she doesn't have to actually assist in the case, nor provide a receipt. But, she must identify herself, and cooperate at least on very basic principles, such as NOT obstructing/obfuscating, and NOT resisting arrest.
    1
  7619.  @keithcollingridge4472  You have no understanding of this. You have to ID if under investigation. I'm not explaining this a million times.
    1
  7620.  @blueforest4589  Hilarious!!! Before, you said it wasn't even dismissed. Then, you found out it was, but you said that she was going to re-file it. Then, you found out that "with prejudice" means that she can't re-file it. So, now, your latest version of the story is that she's appealing it. Right. Sorry, but when each posting is different than the prior one, you're just making stuff up as you go along.
    1
  7621.  @blueforest4589  I also now notice that your original posting that claimed that the case wasn't dismissed is now gone. Clearly, you deleted it. So, let's recap: Your first claim was that the case wasn't even dismissed. I then corrected you, demonstrating that it was, and you deleted your posting. Your second claim was that her own attorneys requested to have it dismissed, so they could re-file it. I then corrected you because, not only doesn't it work that way, but, it was dismissed "with prejudice," which means it cannot be re-filed. So, you came back with your third claim, which was that they were going to appeal, which is not even close to the concepts you presented in your first two claims. We're done here, right?
    1
  7622.  @keithcollingridge4472  Hilarious!!! Sorry, but no. You need to identify yourself during an investigation once the police give their reasonable suspicion. Stop pretending you know things you don't.
    1
  7623.  @blueforest4589  Still pretending, huh? Look, I'm not your problem here. You keep changing your own story. You delete your comments after being embarrassed about being completely wrong. And, all you're doing is digging your heels in, and still insisting to be right, when you are the one who couldn't get your story straight if your life depended on it. So, here's what you need to do: just call up the woman's attorney and tell him that he did it all wrong. Tell him that the case wasn't dismissed. Tell him to appeal. And, tell him that he should have sued the cops instead of the store. I'm sure he'll appreciate your legal expertise on the matter. I sure don't.
    1
  7624.  @keithcollingridge4472  And, it's blocking my reply. So, you might see it in your notifications, but, it doesn't show up in the thread. Bottom line: I cannot help you. You need to call the woman's attorney and just tell him that he completely botched the case, and he sued the wrong parties. Clearly you know the law better than he does.
    1
  7625.  @keithcollingridge4472  Good grief. No. That's not what qualified immunity is. That means that you can go after the police department as a whole, but not the individual officer. And, for the most part, that's what you'd want in a case like this. Which would you rather sue? The police department, funded by an entire city, plus insurance? Or, an individual cop making $70,000 per year? Keith, I just cannot help you. You keep pretending to know things you don't even remotely come close to knowing. And, you've made it abundantly clear that you have no interest in the answers to your own questions. As for being in the right, sorry, then she'd have won her lawsuit against the store, and would win an even bigger lawsuit against the police department. But, she lost her lawsuit against the store, and never even filed one against the police. The charges were dropped because she had her receipt. She was clearly guilty of failing to ID (obstruction), obfuscation, and resisting arrest. But, in all practicality, it's very difficult to make secondary charges stick when the primary charge is dropped. So, she got lucky.
    1
  7626.  @blueforest4589  Nice try. You're continuously wrong, but, you just don't care. I will remind you, you are the one who deleted your messages, and kept changing what you thought happened here. Not me. You originally claimed that the case wasn't even dismissed, remember? Then you changed your story two more times. And, now you're spewing a new pile of gibberish.
    1
  7627.  @blueforest4589  Sorry, I'm done here with you. You can spin your wheels until the cows come home, pretending that you've known stuff all along that you didn't know. But, anybody can scroll up and piece together what you've been saying, even with the fact that you've deleted some of your messages. You have the credibility of OJ at this point.
    1
  7628.  @charlottecramer3221  And, you're proud to spew this gibberish? This makes you happy to post stuff that makes no sense? Um, no. Sorry, doesn't work that way. There is no responsibility to watch videos. And, she obviously didn't know her rights, because she refused to identify herself (illegal, and is arrestable all on its own), obstructing and obfuscating, and resisting arrest. She has no rights to those things. And, the Taser was used because she resisted arrest. That is the correct use. As for innocent until proven guilty, you have forgotten the most important part of that phrase: IN A COURT OF LAW. You apparently want the cops to wait to arrest people until after they have been proven guilty in a trial. Sorry, that's completely backward. On what planet would that ever work? How can any cop ever arrest anybody if the standard is that, first, the person needs to be proven guilty? Why even have a court system, if it worked the way you're asserting? Um, no. Sorry, an arrest isn't a conviction, it's just an arrest. And, the cop has absolutely no burden to prove someone guilty first. Who are you to complain about the justice system, when you have made it completely clear that you have absolutely no idea how the justice system even works? Her own attorneys never sued the police, by the way. Now, why would that be, if you were correct about all of this stuff? What do you know about the justice system that they do not? Why would they only sue the store for $50,000 (and they lost badly, she got $0.00, but, at least they tried to sue the store), when they have a 7-figure rights violation case against the city/police? Explain that?
    1
  7629. Well, for the original suspicion of theft, but on top of that, refusing to identify, obstruction and obfuscation, and resisting.
    1
  7630. Huh? The arrest video wasn't seen by anybody until 1.5 years after she was already dead. She wasn't even slightly humiliated from its release, because she wasn't alive when anybody saw it.
    1
  7631. Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  7632.  @eventcone  Henry Hurt. Not Gene Kranz.
    1
  7633.  @eventcone  To address the other part of your question, I don't know if it was a real quote, or just a movie embellishment.
    1
  7634. Well, 99.99% of the media coverage never even happened until the arrest video was released on November 24, 2023. She was long dead by then. So, nobody really "ruined" her (other than herself). As for your suit, well, I don't think you can win on the basis of Inside Edition running a story. They're slimy as all getout, sure, because this story is massively inaccurate, but, it's just barely true enough for them to be able to say that they didn't outright lie. I don't think you have a suit, frankly.
    1
  7635. Well, women don't typically steal cars either, yet, this woman in this video went to prison for exactly that. Women also don't tend to abandon 6 month old sons, yet, she did exactly that also. I don't think this was a typical woman.
    1
  7636. No. Self defense is the firearm, not the Taser. The Taser is to force compliance. And, you have missed the point entirely. He didn't use the Taser to force her to show a receipt. That's ridiculous. He used it to force compliance for her arrest. Anybody who resists arrest, whether it's for suspicion of theft, or murder, or tax evasion, or holding a garage sale without a permit, whatever, will get Taser'd if they don't comply. And, she made it quite clear that she wasn't going to comply.
    1
  7637.  @wayne9777  Yeah, sure, I guess they just use a Taser as a defibrillator.
    1
  7638.  @wayne9777  And, given that you cannot even spell it, forgive me if I don't find you very impressive when it comes to understanding it.
    1
  7639. Mark, who ever told you that the Apollo spacesuits were pressurized to 14.7 PSI? Hint: they weren't. They were pressurized to only approximately 3.5 PSI.
    1
  7640. Hilarious!!! Sorry, but you're just plain wrong. The suits were always designed for 3-4 PSI. I have no idea where you got a different notion, but, that's your own problem.
    1
  7641. Pfftt. I'm not the one who thinks that NASA retroactively went back and changed the specifications of the craft and suits. That's YOU who thinks that. As if none of the 7,000 engineers at Grumman, or the hundreds at Hamilton Standard, or the hundreds more at Playtex, ever noticed that NASA "changed" the specifications years later. And, none of them ever realized that 14.7 PSI would cause oxygen toxicity. And, instead, they just kept engineering and building suits and PLSS backpacks and craft that had the wrong pressure, and simply never even noticed that NASA went back and changed the numbers. Sure. And, you think you're qualified to give me advice? Hilarious!!!
    1
  7642. You are too comically wrong to even deal with. Sorry, your phenomenal story about how thousands of people never noticed that NASA changed the specifications years later is just too laughable to even fathom. And, the notion that the thousands of engineers somehow overlooked oxygen toxicity is just icing on the cake. And, like all nuts, you just keep changing topics. No, I'm not going down your rabbit hole.
    1
  7643. And, again, all you do is change topics. Sorry, as I said, I'm not chasing you down your rabbit hole. If you think you have anything to say on Apollo, publish it in aerospace journals. That's how it's done. Not in YouTube comments. Crack, meet pot.
    1
  7644. The police BLOCKED the release of the arrest video for 2.5 years. Nobody saw it while she was alive. But, they cannot block it forever, and eventually had to release it due to FOIA. What more do you expect?
    1
  7645. Dewdrop, the police didn't release the arrest video until 2.5 years later. She was long dead by the time it was released.
    1
  7646. What an outstandingly stupid comment. Um, silly fool, there's no shortage of criminals in the USA. The USA has the highest rate of incarceration of any 1st world country. We have the highest high school dropout rate in our inner cities. We have the highest gang ratio. We have the highest illegal immigration rate on the planet. The list goes on. The prisons aren't struggling to find criminals. And, the percentage of the budgets spent on police/courts/etc., isn't the cause of criminality, it's the RESULT of criminality. What the fuck is wrong with people like you, such that you're soooooooo opposed to blaming criminals for their crimes? No mention of that, huh? Is it the criminals' faults that they killed people?? Naw, it's because of "the system" - right? Pffttttt.
    1
  7647. Not that I'd want to spit on her grave, her loss is tragic enough. But, I also wouldn't shift blame upon "the world." She made her choices. She abandoned her kids because meth was more important to her. She continued to steal from Walgreens immediately after this incident. If there's one message that others should learn from this is to take responsibility, it's up to each individual to make something out of their lives. It's not worth throwing everything out the window for a drug.
    1
  7648. What are you talking about?
    1
  7649. Well, it's not quite 100% open to be broadcasted. Like, in this case, the police held the arrest video private for 2.5 years. She was already dead 1.5 of those years by the time they released it. They had kept it private because it was an open investigation. But, 1.5 years after she died, they can no longer block its release.
    1
  7650. Because this "news" (not news) story doesn't mention what actually happened. It would ruin this "hit piece" story that they're attempting to portray. But, if you read the lawsuit, you'll find that they went to the pool bar in the afternoon, left, and then went back to the pool after it was dark and everyone was gone. Before you accuse the resort of being highly negligent, you need to answer your own questions. Like, c'mon, this "news" (not news) story seems to paint the picture that two teens just passed out drunk in a crowded pool bar. But, does that even make sense? Like, there wouldn't be a dozen patrons seeing it? Bartender? Nobody? No, of course not. None of that would make sense. Hence why I read the lawsuit in the first place, and it tells you 100 things that this "news" (not news) story will never say (ruins their fake narrative).
    1
  7651. What do you propose instead?
    1
  7652. A) The witness version doesn't match this little innocent version she's portraying while she's attempting to avoid getting arrested for the millionth time. This is especially true because one of the "audience" captured this incident on video. B) The arrest video wasn't released to the public until she was already dead for 1.5 years. Learn something about the Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  7653. Again, she suffered ZERO shame from the release of the arrest video, because she was dead before anybody ever saw it. Secondly, why do you think this arrest had anything to do with her suicide? Because Inside Edition said so? It's trash news. Why would you believe a word of it? If she was so shameful about being arrested, you'd think she'd have committed suicide long before, because she had an arrest and prison history a mile long. She did prison time for felony car theft. She had numerous arrests and judgements for various thefts, alcohol and drug problems, failures to appear in court, etc. And, let's face reality here: after all of that, it's pretty difficult to get a straight job. So, according to her landlord, her profession was, well, one of those words that's banned from YouTube comments, ya know, it involves cash transactions with lots of men. Her own family doesn't believe this arrest had anything to do with her suicide. Why do you? (Oh, wait, because Inside Edition said so.)
    1
  7654. Yes, and in a different interview, the father basically said that his son knew someone was in the car, and went to go find out who. Do you suppose that the attorney told him between those two interviews that it was a very bad idea to admit that Mark knew someone was in the car?
    1
  7655. Apollo 17 was in December of 1972.
    1
  7656. But, the Freedom of Information Act doesn't make those kinds of specifications. Once a case is closed long enough, and there's a legal FOIA request, the cops don't have much of a choice. But, you're talking about embarrassment? Um, you do know she was dead for 1.5 years before anybody saw the arrest video, right? You cannot embarrass someone who is dead already.
    1
  7657. Certain pieces of evidence are day, proof is night, further proof is proof, and trying is not at night lies.
    1
  7658. Well, sure, writing that message is one way to demonstrate that you didn't read the arrest report. She was reported by multiple people. One of them recorded the incident, and gave a copy of the video to the police. It didn't match her version about nobody being around. To the contrary, it was a very loud and public act in view of multiple people including children. If she wasn't making "public beach" content, I'll eat my hat. Why'd you believe a single word out of her anyway?
    1
  7659. Not likely. The kids' phones probably would have allowed them to triangulate their last known positions.
    1
  7660. Um, WHAT? Do you know ANYTHING about legal grounds for firing? You haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about. Everything you said was pure babble.
    1
  7661. So, the video taken by one of the "audience" and showed to the police wasn't proof?
    1
  7662. Waiving? Hilarious. Did someone arrest the flags and ask them to waive their rights?
    1
  7663. Were you intentionally trying to get every single sentence incorrect? Or, was that by accident? 1) She wasn't humiliated by posting the arrest video online, because nobody ever saw it until 2.5 years later. Arrest = July 1, 2021. Suicide = March, 2022. Arrest video released as a result of a legal FOIA request = November 24, 2023.
    1
  7664. 2) The police handled the arrest correctly.
    1
  7665. 3) Multiple people called the police. One even got the incident on video, and showed it to the police.
    1
  7666. 4) The police were called because the actual version of this story doesn't match what she is trying to say while attempting to avoid her millionth arrest. The witnesses said it seemed that she was intentionally doing this in front of people. And, the video (I haven't seen, but is described in the police report) showed a very loud and public act in view of multiple people including children.
    1
  7667. 5) Making a long story short, she abandoned her family and her real estate career around a decade ago to lead a "wild" and "off the rails" (her family's words) life of crime and drugs. She ended up serving a felony prison term for stealing cars. Her arrest record is a mile long for multiple crimes, including drug and alcohol charges. She had multiple judgements against her for various other thefts. Her methods of dealing with it all seemed to be to simply not show up at court, and to keep trying to change her name to evade the police. With that history, it's tough to get a real job. So, according to her landlord, she was a stripper who worked at the local club. Apparently, she decided to put on one of her shows at the beach this day, rather than at the club. Don't believe me? Start by looking up her arrest record, and the interviews with her family and landlord, and then come back and tell me if you think this was some suburban soccer mom who thought she was alone on the beach.
    1
  7668. So, you're going to avoid answering the questions, and then pretend to have expertise you clearly don't have?
    1
  7669. So, rather than answering the topic, and addressing the responses to your own original questions, or any return questions, you search for a silly reason to avoid it. Dewdrop, if you didn't want responses to your own questions, why did you ask?
    1
  7670. For once, they were trying to kill OJ, instead of OJ trying to kill others.
    1
  7671. Yes, that type of "exposure" in front of children is an aggravated misdemeanor. And, yes, they explained it.
    1
  7672. You clearly do not understand the difference between an infraction and an actual crime.
    1
  7673. Is that really how this goes for you? Just pretend you understand the law better than the police and courts?
    1
  7674. Typical "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake" argument.
    1
  7675.  @subasthapa8323  Were you TRYING to prove me correct with your amazing irony? Or, were you so out of touch with reality, that you inadvertently proved me correct, and had no idea you were doing it?
    1
  7676. Lots of people say what you're saying. But, I have yet to see anybody offer a coherent suggestion about what exactly the cops should have done differently.
    1
  7677. All arrests = cuffs. And, you don't know the difference between a crime and an infraction.
    1
  7678. Who went out of their way to embarrass her? "They" (the cops) didn't release the arrest video until 1.5 years after she died. And, even then, it was probably the result of a Freedom of Information Act request (mandating them to release it).
    1
  7679.  @marybailey7881  "It would at least leave a slight crater." I would argue that you don't know what a "crater" means, then. But, yes, there was plenty of evidence of the surface being blown by rocket engines. I mean, you're not going to get a "slight crater" on a landing like Apollo 15's for example. And, I am assuming even YOU wouldn't expect a "slight crater" there. But, for other missions, yes, a slight dip in the regolith is expected, and that's exactly what you see in the photos. "The dust would not be still present in enough quantities ,directly under the landing craft for foot prints to embed themselves in." Huh? Are you under the impression that there are footprints underneath the landers? What? Why would you think such a thing? Dewdrop, you clearly haven't actually looked at the photos yourself. Instead, you watch conspiracy videos that tell you what the photos have or don't have in them. And, you swallow it hook line and sinker. Tell me I'm wrong?
    1
  7680.  @vernonfrance2974  Well, that's what happens when your only source of input is conspiracy videos that lie to you. Nobody who looks at the photo archive says what you're saying.
    1
  7681. And, what should he have done? Bodily manhandled her to the ground instead?
    1
  7682. So, in your mind, they couldn't go to the moon on Apollo 11 in July, 1969 for some reason, but, they could go on Apollo 12 in November, 1969? Why? What changed between July and November, in your mind?
    1
  7683. So, you ask a question. And, you couldn't even wait one sentence to get the answer. Bravo. Why'd you post this message at all? It's clear that you don't want answers to your own questions.
    1
  7684. "There is a radiation belt that surrounds Earth so its impossible to get through it" Who says? Why would you believe that it's impossible? Did a conspiracy video tell you that?
    1
  7685. "Why does NASA have one of the biggest movie stages in the world?" Why can't you tell the difference between a rocket craft manufacturing plant and a movie stage? You saw a photo of a big building, therefore it's a movie stage inside? Because some random nobody online said so?
    1
  7686. Yeah, that's probably not bad advice. But, in this case, it wouldn't have mattered. One of the people who called about this incident recorded it, and gave a copy of the video to the police. Needless to say, it doesn't match her sob story about nobody being around. Plus, with her long criminal record and open warrants, she was getting arrested either way.
    1
  7687. "2) Why didn't anyone ask how it was possible to put large amounts of fuel in the lunar module." Huh? How much fuel do you think it needed? Have you done the math? And, what exactly is your argument here? Do you think the 7,000 engineers at Grumman forgot to put enough fuel in the craft? "If not thousands, then hundreds of liters." So, basically, you haven't done the math, and you're just spewing out whatever you feel like spewing out. Your own "calculations" have a range of hundreds to thousands (a factor of 10). How would you like it if your employers said, "we're going to pay you a salary of hundreds or thousands a week"? You're ok with that, right? You don't know how much money you're going to make, within a factor of 10. But, yeah, in your mind, it's just fine to accuse thousands of people of being criminals, based upon a loose estimate of "hundreds or thousands"? Is that how this goes? Do you even know how to do the math? I'm guessing not. Oh, but you opened by claiming that people are thinking the wrong way, and directing others in the wrong way. Have you looked in the mirror? You're directing people to just spew garbage about how much fuel is needed, without lifting a finger to calculate it, and directing people to just assume that the 7,000 Grumman engineers who built the thing... forgot to put enough fuel inside. That's your position here. "If we know that divers can spend about 2 hours under water with two bottles of oxygen, let's imagine how much 3 astronauts spent in three days on the moon plus the time of arrival and departure." Dewdrop, Apollo craft are not scuba tanks. They don't just expel a vast majority of the oxygen in every breath, like in scuba. The Apollo craft were giant rebreathers. You don't have the foggiest clue, and should stop pretending you do. "Pilot cabin and equipment. Water and food. We see that there is no room for that in the lunar module." So, you think the engineers forgot to include food. And, you refuse to read the schematics for yourself. Bravo. "If we compare the size of the module and the man, we will see that the module is no longer than 6-7 meters. It doesn't even matter if it's a little longer, because we also have to put jet engines there." Dewdrop, jets don't work in space. You don't know what you're talking about. "Where is so much liquid oxygen, fuel, equipment, pilot's cabin and other nonsense that they drove to the moon." Read the schematics. "It is simply IMPOSSIBLE to put in that little module." Yet, you think it used jets (which don't work in space, because you need rockets), you think they used scuba tanks, and you think the engineers forgot to include food. "Imagine a small bus and try to fill it with all these things and you will see that it is not possible." We don't have to "imagine" anything, dewdrop. We can read the schematics. "3) If the camera and film are to be believed, there is not "enough" dust even when taking off." Why not? How much dust should there be? And why? "4) Looking at the video of the takeoff, the force of gravity would certainly exceed 10 g and that would either kill the crew or make them unconscious.?" Wrong. 3500 pounds of thrust, 2000 pound craft. That's not 10 Gs, dewdrop. And, if you want to compare to a video, then, do the math. Measure the distance and time. Demonstrate mathematically that it's 10 Gs. What are you waiting for?
    1
  7688. How big exactly are you expecting? Like, how much of the sky in degrees of angular size?
    1
  7689. So? Have you done the math yet?
    1
  7690. Yeah, I hear you. You know you're getting old when 36 seems like a young girl.
    1
  7691. So, basically, you didn't read what I wrote before you replied about what I wrote. Oh, you're a pure genius alright.
    1
  7692. What in the world are you talking about? The store employee Anna identified that woman, and told the cop that she thought the woman didn't pay. He was on duty AT THE STORE, because it's a very high crime area, and the store gets robbed constantly. Nobody had to call him, because he was already there. You are making this stuff up as you go along.
    1
  7693. So, because you don't the answers to your questions, this means it's fake? Things are only real if you understand them, huh? Brain surgery? Fake. Neutrino detectors? Fake. Atom smashers? Fake. Nice job asking questions while making it 100% clear that you don't want the answers. Nice job coming to conclusions while not knowing anything about the topic. You're a true hero.
    1
  7694. So, in response to me pointing out that you asked questions about topics you know nothing about, without actually wanting answers, what do you do next? You spew another topic you know nothing about? Is that how this goes? Why are you pretending to understand things you clearly do not?
    1
  7695. You clearly do not understand a couple of things here: 1) It's not his mother. That's not what "baby daddy" means. 2) You don't let the guy's accomplice near the gun. C'mon man.
    1
  7696.  @michaelstillman1171  Criminal.
    1
  7697. I haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about, and neither do you.
    1
  7698. You never saw any video of her while she was alive. July 1, 2021 = arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released.
    1
  7699. Huh? She walked out on her family (including a husband, a 6 month old son, and another son) and career more than a decade ago to live a life of crime and drugs. She did a felony term in a Florida prison about 6 years ago. She had a million other arrests. Stealing cars, drugs and alcohol, failure to appear, other thefts, etc. What "job"? Her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the gentlemen's club. Neighbors said she did "extras" for cash in her apartment. And, sorry, but the arrest video wasn't released until 2.5 years later, and nobody saw it while she was alive, so, what "shame" did she really suffer from it?
    1
  7700. You win the most ironic nickname of the week award. "Factsmatter" while knowing absolutely nothing about the facts.
    1
  7701. Why? Would you prefer the "innocent soccer mom gets arrested by evil police and can't stand the shame" version that Inside Edition (where facts don't matter) is putting forth? Truth hurts?
    1
  7702. Dewdrop, she never registered for anything, because she never showed up to court for this arrest, and she kept evading police and even tried to change her name to keep evading police. She hasn't had a job in real estate in more than a decade. And, her husband offered to take her back after prison, but she didn't, and wanted to keep living her life of crime and drugs. Is there any point that you'll stop pretending you know things you don't?
    1
  7703. It's not a technology issue. The USA was not lacking any technology required to go to the moon in 1969-1972. Sorry, you don't get to just quote-mine (out of context) three words once spoken by one astronaut, and then assume you know what you're talking about. You clearly do not.
    1
  7704. Yes, of course it was on video. Multiple people called the cops, and one woman recorded it. And, the cops saw that video, and described it in their police report as a very loud and very public display in full view of multiple people, including children. Tell me, though. If it was a man at a playground doing the same thing, would you still recommend just leaving him alone? Just "turn around kids, we'll go to a different playground." That's it? Leave the guy to keep on doing it?
    1
  7705. Congratulations on knowing absolutely nothing, yet again.
    1
  7706. The arrest video wasn't released until after she was already dead 1.5 years. She had her day in court. She won. She wasn't convicted. And, she suffered ZERO shame from the arrest video.
    1
  7707. And, you still won't answer my original question. You know, maybe it's time that you stop pretending you know things you don't.
    1
  7708. Well, she did sue the store for exactly that, but she lost badly.
    1
  7709. You don't need to trust a single said by the USA about Apollo to know that Apollo went to the moon. Dozens of countries (including enemies) have confirmed Apollo in dozens of ways. The most recent example is that both China and India individually sent their own orbiters to the moon, and those two orbiters returned photos of the Apollo landing sites, showing the landers exactly where LRO showed them, and exactly where the original mission photography showed them. As a matter of fact, India's photos even had better resolution than the USA's orbiter sent back in 2009, which also returned photos showing the landing sites. So, anyway, the point is, you can sit there and pretend your silly beliefs are somehow justified as "reasonable doubt." But, sorry, it's not. It's still nothing but ignorance and incredulity, just the same as the rest of the crackpots.
    1
  7710. Did you block me, or is YouTube blocking me?
    1
  7711. Yup, YouTube is blocking me. I'm trying to tell you my comment is there, and how to see it. But, YouTube won't allow me to do so, and blocks every attempt I make at telling you how the comments work. Someone else will need to try to tell you how to see the comments.
    1
  7712. Trying again: view the video, sort comments by newest first, then find this thread.
    1
  7713. And, yes, you're quite paranoid and illogical. The fact that YouTube's comments section works in silly ways isn't your fault, nor mine. But, I have no other IDs on YouTube. And, even if you didn't see my first comment (which you should have in your notifications, if nowhere else, and you can see if you sort the comments properly), it doesn't change the fact that you use ridiculously wrong "logic," and you ignore input that goes against your opinions. It doesn't matter if I tell you that countless countries have confirmed Apollo in numerous ways, or if someone else tells you. The fact remains that you have never actually analyzed these "reasonable doubts" you claim. In 50 years, sorry, but there isn't any "reasonable" doubt. The only doubt comes from misinformation spread by charlatans, that is easily debunked with even a slight bit of scientific scrutiny.
    1
  7714.  @critthought2866  I see my first posting in an incognito window when looking at the thread without using the link that includes comments.
    1
  7715. Yeah, go right ahead, keep on avoiding looking at the evidence, and keep pretending I'm the problem, not you.
    1
  7716. Stop insulting me while I accuse thousands of people of being criminals who would be thrown in prison for the rest of their lives if I was correct!!! Stop insulting me for listening to silly videos made by charlatans, and avoiding looking at the actual evidence. Dewdrop, are you ever going to bother addressing China and India, each of which sent their orbiters to the moon, and released their photos of the Apollo landing sites, showing the landers exactly where LRO showed them, which is exactly where the original mission photography showed them? No, of course not. You have "reasonable doubt" that the conspiracy videos gave you. Who cares that not a single one of those video makers ever submits any of their physics defying evidence and calculations to any actual science and engineering journals (the real places you'd find objections to Apollo, not in some videos on YouTube)? No, none of that matters. Just stop insulting me while I stick my head in the sand.
    1
  7717. How many people are involved with this fraud you're accusing everyone of committing? How'd they launch 3 secret moon rockets without anybody noticing? Those launches were visible and audible for hundreds of miles. It took 3,000 people to get one of those things off the ground on launch day. But, you're proposing that we managed to launch 3 of these secret unmanned moon missions to put 3 reflectors on the moon, and nobody saw them, and nobody said a word? How many thousands of people were involved with developing the secret landers used to deploy these robots that installed the reflectors? Or, hmmmm, you didn't think of any of that, and you just feel like denying Apollo, and want to wash it all away with "robots did it"?
    1
  7718. Huh? He's dead.
    1
  7719. Ray, you've been answered already. But, keep in mind, one "day" on the moon is a month on Earth. They were never there in the super-hot temperatures, and never there in the super-cold temperatures.
    1
  7720. They offered both of them a plea deal. Take life imprisonment, no death penalty, in exchange for a guilty plea. The man took the deal. The woman (despite already confessing TWICE to participating in the murder) decided not to take the deal, and wanted to go to trial instead.
    1
  7721.  @nezumikorner7023  And, that's relative to what happened in these cases, how? These women were both active participants in the murders. They set out ahead of time to commit the murders. The one female specifically arranged it, and now is trying to claim that she didn't know what the grave was dug for?? You believe that? And, how about after that crime, when she kept calling the banks, trying to get the dead people's ATM cards reactivated, pretending to be the dead woman?? Does that sound like someone who wasn't a willing participant in the murder? Also, how about the other woman, who confessed TWICE to actively participating in the murder of the wife... who went there specifically to help perform the murder, then recanted? Anyway, look, to answer the core of your question, though, the answer is YES, both of us are murderers if I handcuff the victim FOR THE PURPOSE OF AIDING IN THE MURDER, if if you are the one who pulls the trigger. If you and I plan a murder together, and commit that murder together, we are both murderers, despite who actually pulled the trigger of the gun.
    1
  7722.  @nezumikorner7023  Your interpretation of my tone is incorrect, yes. But, no problem. Tone is impossible to understand in writing sometimes. As for how certain someone can be... well, when people tell the same story 10 different ways, sorry, their credibility is lost. And, as for her claim about not knowing what the grave was for... yeah, sorry, that's just too ridiculous for me to swallow. I get the point you're making... that nobody can say anything with 100% certainty, but, the claim about not knowing what the grave was for... when SHE was the one who arranged the entire murder... no, I cannot even count the number of 9s that would be needed in the 99.999~% certainty. It's ridiculous beyond belief. Sorry, but I blame people for their actions. I am perfectly willing to play to the rules of "beyond a reasonable doubt" (which is the standard in a murder trial)... but to claim that she didn't know why the grave was dug... nope, not even going to let you have that one. Guilty.
    1
  7723. The highest resolution camera currently in orbit around the moon is India's Chandrayaan2's. "ISRO Chandrayaan2’s photos of Apollo 11 & 12 landing sites" will show a couple of photos.
    1
  7724. So, you asked for photos. You denied that the photos existed. I told you how to find them. You said it didn't work. I told you again how to find them. Now, you're saying that India's space agency released cartoons instead of photos. Is that really your position here?
    1
  7725. Multiple people reported this incident. I'm sure they're well aware never to trust a single thing on Inside Edition.
    1
  7726. Multiple people reported it. One person recorded it. I fail to understand your point.
    1
  7727. Is what what my taking from this? Engrish not you languages?
    1
  7728. No, dewdrop. There were at least TWO separate people who called. Read the police report. Why do you want to defend this ridiculous convicted felon so much anyway?
    1
  7729. Freedom of Information Act. To boost ad revenue to Inside Edition and others like them.
    1
  7730. So, you think they should see stars in the daytime? Huh?
    1
  7731. Wait, what? How would YOU have handled it? This was textbook. What do you know that every single firearms training course in the country doesn't know?
    1
  7732.  @richardboyd9670  That's an answer to my question, how?
    1
  7733.  @richardboyd9670  That's an answer to my question, how?
    1
  7734. If you watch the highest resolution copy available, and pause at 0:08 and go frame by frame, you can make out the guy pointing the gun straight at the officer's head. And, as has been pointed out (and you acknowledge), the gun is more clearly visible on the ground at 5:02 next to a 2x4 piece of wood. And, sorry, but a balaclava mask during a Kentucky summer is for warmth? Um, no.
    1
  7735. "I mean ... carjacking?" Um, yeah. He was wearing a balaclava ski mask in the middle of a Kentucky summer, opened the car door, and pointed a gun straight at the cop's head... I'd say it's a carjacking, yes. "who tries to steal a suspicious occupied car, parked in some dodgy woods" Mark Jaggers. "One could speculate the cops took out the cooking competition for the ones who had them on the payroll" I don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, and neither do you. "nice entrapment" Dewdrop, "entrapment" means to coerce someone into doing something they wouldn't ordinarily do. Sitting in a car isn't entrapment. Mark took it upon himself with no coercion to slap on a balaclava ski mask, and wield a gun. "also strange how no one renders first aid until it is to late" First of all, seriously, learn to read and write. Good grief. Secondly, did you really expect Mark to survive with a .40 to the upper chest, when he stopped moving and talking about 20 seconds later? He was gone, man. And, third, a cop must first secure the scene, BEFORE rendering aid. Why? Because if not, the cop might be the one needing that aid. Already, within a few seconds, the screaming woman showed up. How many more people were going to crawl out of the woodwork? There's no way to know. The carjacker just pointed a gun at the cop, and as far as the cop is concerned, one person just showed up instantly, and more people may be on their way, with no way to know if any of them are armed. And, this is especially true because you hear the screaming brother demanding to know which cop shot Mark. Tell me, if the brother had shown up a minute sooner, that you think the scene was safe, can you? See, rendering first aid is the correct thing to do, but, only once they could have some assurance that the scene was covered by enough cops to prevent another shooting.
    1
  7736. "NASA "lost" all the original data" Ridiculous nonsense. Who told you such a silly thing, and why would you believe it?
    1
  7737. And, the dewdrop deleted his comment about Apollo not having enough fuel to make it to the moon. Shocker.
    1
  7738. The video wasn't shown to the public until long after she died. Nobody bullied her over the arrest video, because nobody saw it while she was alive. And, when it was released (2.5 years after the arrest), it was the result of a FOIA request (no choice). As for accountability, how about holding her accountable for her own actions? No?
    1
  7739. Oh, come on, get real. Go up and talk to her while she's cranking it in front of people?
    1
  7740. Huh? Who made money off of her that bullied her?
    1
  7741. Congratulations on missing the point entirely. Bravo.
    1
  7742. You can see the gun at 0:08 if you go frame by frame, and again at 5:02 on the ground next to a 2x4 piece of wood.
    1
  7743. Good grief. What in the world are you talking about? Why don't you mention the fact that if cars were sold at or below MSRP, all that happens right now is that rich people gobble them all up, and sell them 2 days later on the used market for massive markups themselves? That hurts consumers even worse!! You're stuck with a used car instead of new, and had to pay the $20,000 markup to some guy who bought up half of the dealer inventory, and now you have to pay used car finance percentages instead of the lower new car percentage. If these dealers and manufacturers didn't raise prices to what the market is paying, then the vultures get all of the money. You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
    1
  7744. So, in your mind, it was a "leak"? Not a simple FOIA request? And, huh? The arrest video wasn't released until 2.5 years later. Nobody saw it while she was alive.
    1
  7745. It's one of the things they do during all arrests.
    1
  7746. Um, no. Not even close. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. You cannot humiliate someone who is already dead. Nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive. And, almost zero news outlets even mentioned her name until long after she was dead. Welcome to Inside Edition, where facts don't matter.
    1
  7747. Wow. I mean, just plain wow. First of all, if you don't believe she had more items stuck into that coat than the hat and gloves, well, I don't know how to help you. But, her "honesty"? Sorry, but there has never been an honest drug addict. She went right back to stealing from Walgreens after this incident, and was eventually tossed in jail for it. She later died of overdose.
    1
  7748. How many steps through the 12 step program can you make it through? I'm guessing you can't get to step 3 before falling off the wagon again.
    1
  7749. Attempts to get off of drugs or alcohol.
    1
  7750. Lost them? And you would believe that, why?
    1
  7751. "if we actually did go out want to do that or was to see if there were stores of gold or some ancient known or material and see if the soviets were spying on us or getting resources or alien tech" Tech is actually want see there ancient known Soviets getting if out or stores were spying alien if dollars and Soviets see gold.
    1
  7752. "they could've sold world hunger with just 3 missions how sad." Dewdrop, the only solution to hunger is to educate and train people to be productive. If you just throw money at hunger, sure, you buy a few more weeks, but, then the hungry people are just hungry again. It's not sustainable. But, if you put together programs that give people a means to be productive and earn money themselves, then entire economies can grow. So, um, I dunno, maybe a massive government exploration program that employs 400,000 people for a decade, giving them a lot of experience in new and upcoming technologies, springing up cities in its wake, trickle down industries as families move into new areas that need development, education, commerce, etc.... Can you think of any programs like that?
    1
  7753. So, you don't understand anything about the topic, but, you want to pretend you do. But, you have no interest in the answers to your own questions. Sure. Right. You're a real hero.
    1
  7754. "The Earth is much, much larger than the moon." Yes, it's 50x larger in volume. But, that's only around 3.5x larger in diameter. You really don't visually notice the difference between 0.5 degrees in angular size vs. 1.75 degrees, unless compared side by side.
    1
  7755. "fill your field of vision" Ridiculous. You clearly haven't done the math on that.
    1
  7756. "this video of CGI needs to remain truthful to the Apollo 16 footage" This video is talking about Apollo 11, not Apollo 16.
    1
  7757. "Instead we see a tiny grey disc thats half obscured by the moon." And, you don't understand the phases of the moon (or, in this case, the phases of Earth as viewed from the moon). No, the moon didn't obscure any view of the Earth on any Apollo mission.
    1
  7758.  @DeputyNordburg  "How could it be half obscured by he moon?" He doesn't understand the phases of the moon. He thinks when you see a quarter moon, it's because the Earth is blocking some of the light. He doesn't know the difference between the phases of the moon and an eclipse. So, he's applying that same "logic" (broken logic) to seeing the Earth from the moon, thinking that seeing a partial Earth is because the moon is eclipsing it.
    1
  7759. Well, this is what happens when someone isn't bright enough to excel at academics, isn't big enough to excel at sports, doesn't have a lick of respect for others, and was raised to be a punk.
    1
  7760. No other country was willing to spend that kind of money on going to the moon. The Soviets came relatively close (financially). However, when they kept blowing up their N1 moon rockets over and over, and realized that they were going to have to scrap that design and start from scratch, they had already lost the race, and decided not to keep pouring that kind of money into making the 10th manned trip to the moon. Since then, not a single other country on the planet has ever had a space program budget that could sustain the likes of Apollo.
    1
  7761. For a country just starting from scratch? Name the country first.
    1
  7762. Chinese labor is really cheap, and the state just takes whatever it needs in terms of intellectual property and land and materials. They also have a decent head start because they already have rocket manufacturers, launch facilities, etc. And, they're facing east into the sea (a great advantage vs. landlocked countries or ones facing west/north/south into the sea). But, China isn't going to reveal their exact budget allocated for crewed moon missions. So, my guess: $50 billion.
    1
  7763. Huh? Who said anybody is going to Mars?
    1
  7764. I haven't got the foggiest clue what you're talking about, and neither do you. If you want to see if Mars missions are funded, you read the list of funded programs by congress, and see if Mars missions are on that list. "Hearing it" somewhere means nothing. I heard somewhere that psychics talk to dead people. It doesn't mean it's true.
    1
  7765. Shouldn't have been arrested? Huh? With her million other arrests, and felony prison term spent in Florida, and open warrants? Um, yeah, sorry, but she's getting arrested for an aggravated misdemeanor like this.
    1
  7766. When did they start giving warnings or fines for aggravated misdemeanors? You're the legal expert here, not me, so, can you explain?
    1
  7767. Where are you getting this nonsense? A cop must have "reasonable suspicion" in order to stop you and investigate. He had that, and he articulated it to the woman. Yes, the cop asks for ID, and you must legally provide it, or you must provide enough information (name, address, birthdate) so that he can look you up. You are also not allowed to obstruct or obfuscate a police investigation (she did both). She can remain silent, and she's not legally obligated to provide a receipt when asked, that's fine. But, the cop is allowed to ask for it, and she must live with the consequences if she chooses not to give it, and that might include getting arrested. Why would you even bring up the responsibility to prove guilt? Do you think that happens at the side of the road? No. The proof is for the courtroom. Can you even imagine a society where a cop cannot even arrest someone until guilt is proven? How could that even work? You're basically demanding that the cop must be the judge and jury before there's even a trial. Good grief. Your entire concept is completely backward. No, we do not want police to be judge and jury. We want them to establish reasonable suspicion, and probable cause, and that's it. Proof of guilt or innocence comes later. In your replies, you claim that police have admitted it to people in these comments (that no ID is required)?? Huh? So, your "authority" is whatever people in the YouTube comments say about whatever some police told them? Really? Um, no. I'd be shocked if any police ever said that someone under investigation of a crime is not required to provide ID, because that would defy everything known about every police investigation ever performed. It's more likely that police may have said that someone doesn't have to provide ID unless the cop can articulate the reasonable suspicion. That would be correct. But, the cop in this video DID articulate it. And, after that, this woman refused to provide ID (which she is legally required to do), which is obstruction, and she then continued to obstruct and obfuscate, and eventually resisted arrest. But, hey, you don't have to take my word for anything. Instead, just explain why her own attorney didn't file a lawsuit against the police? Can you? He filed one against the store, right? They asked for $50,000 from the store. It was thrown out of court with prejudice, but, at least they tried to sue the store. Yet, no lawsuit against the police? If it worked the way you think it works (sigh), then they would have an extremely strong case, right? So, where's the lawsuit? What do you know that her own high profile attorney doesn't know?
    1
  7768. It's blocking my reply from being seen. Who knows why? YouTube's algorithms have gone bananas lately. You can see it in your notifications, but not by viewing the thread. So, I'll keep this shorter, and maybe it'll get posted. You're wrong. You're dramatically wrong. And, I don't know anything about what a former FBI agent says, nor do I care what people in YouTube comments claim. The procedure is to identify reasonable suspicion (which he had), and to investigate. She is to provide ID, and NOT to obfuscate and obstruct (which she did). That's how this works. She can be arrested just for obstructing and obfuscating, let alone the original crime he was investigating. If she had cooperated with the legal procedure, instead of jumping off the deep end, sure, I'd bet the cop would have been willing to go back into the store before making the arrest. But, that didn't happen, because of her own actions, not because of his. Now, why won't you answer a single question or challenge I put forth? Why do you just repeat the same nonsense? Why didn't her own high profile attorney agree with you, and sue the police? Why?
    1
  7769. And, it's still blocking my replies. So, I cannot help you. Your ship has sailed out to sea, never to return, because you live in a fantasy world. And, you refuse to answer a single question or challenge.
    1
  7770. You never saw a question? I asked a dozen questions in my original reply. You refused to answer any of them. Thanks for proving that you aren't actually reading them. Bravo. Your Nobel Prize is in the mail.
    1
  7771. They don't give warnings for aggravated misdemeanors. And, sorry, but she WAS one of the hardened criminals you're referring to. Stealing cars. Other thefts. Drugs and alcohol. Failures to appear. A felony term in a Florida prison about 6 years ago. A million other arrests. Open warrants. What more do you want here? You didn't fall for the "innocent soccer mom gets busted by evil police" story, did you? Sorry, but, "convicted felon who can't stop getting arrested, gets arrested yet again, and commits suicide a year later for unrelated reasons" doesn't go viral.
    1
  7772. Because, in media, it's not about DOING your job, it's about how many people you can get to follow you.
    1
  7773. Yes, they figured that out in the early 1960s. That's 60 years ago. The early Van Allen belt "readings" (not really readings) from the late 1950s painted the wrong picture about the radiation. They didn't even have real meters. They literally just took a Geiger counter, put it inside a small chamber with air (so sound could be heard), launched it up into the inner Van Allen belt, and recorded the clicking sounds. That's the extent of their knowledge of the Van Allen belts at the time, and it looked pretty difficult, perceiving the radiation levels to be far higher than they actually were. By the early 1960s, they launched further into those belts, discovered both of them, had more sophisticated meters, etc., and determined that it wasn't as bad as the early couple of probes indicated. Yes, still, it's not something you'd want to hang out in. The inner belt is fatal in a week or two, which is why missions like ISS, shuttle, Mir, Skylab, etc., have avoided going into them, because those missions would be there too long. But, yeah, it's no problem to go through quickly. Why are you so behind the times? Did a conspiracy video tell you the Van Allen belts were a problem for Apollo?
    1
  7774.  @occhamite  "No, the solved the radiation problem by racing through EDGE of the Van Allen Belts" Most of the time. But, like, for Apollo 14, they went straight through the middle. And, on the return trips, they tended to come back a lot closer to the middle than on the voyage outward. It doesn't matter that much. Even right through the middle was still only about 1 rad. That's not all that bad. "IN A WELL-SHIELDED SHIP." For electrons in the outer belt, sure. Aluminum does a decent job. For the protons in the inner belt, well, aluminum does help, of course. It's far better than being outside the craft, that's for sure. But, yeah, protons are around 2,000x more massive than electrons. And, aluminum isn't really going to be something I personally would say is "well shielded" against protons. Shielded, yes. Well shielded, no. But, well, I guess everyone has their own ideas about what "well shielded" would mean.
    1
  7775.  @occhamite  None of that is going to do much more about proton penetration than the aluminum hull itself. I was specifically addressing the "well shielded" comment against the inner proton belt. Protons are a lot like high velocity neutrons, the only thing we can shield them with is more mass.
    1
  7776.  @occhamite  Yeah, but the original topic was about the proton penetration of the Van Allen belt(s). I put plural just because there are two of them (or sometimes three). But, the inner belt is the dangerous one, because it consists of mostly protons. Anyway, here's the discrepancy: I was focused on just the literal protection against the protons in the inner belt, because I was addressing the topic. You're talking about general terms, covering a myriad of different types of radiation. I wasn't "arguing," I was clarifying.
    1
  7777. Well, they probably know better than to trust a single word out of Inside Edition (where facts don't matter).
    1
  7778. A) Get real. Nobody is going up to someone in the middle of cranking in public to have a conversation. Would you go up to some guy in a playground? B) We employ police to deal with crimes. That's why we have them.
    1
  7779. kalleknudsen71: Yeah, no response to butchtropic, huh? Sure. You assert that the Van Allen belts are an insurmountable hurdle, yet there isn't a physics PhD, or radiobiologist, anywhere on the planet who agrees with you. All of the evidence shows that the Apollo astronauts would/did experience about 1 rem per hour while in the belts. But, since you disagree, just cite your sources, do the math, and submit it for scientific peer review. I mean, this is the thing about you morons... you pick and choose what to believe... NASA says there are Van Allen belts, you blindly accept what NASA says. NASA says how much radiation, and what type of radiation, is in those belts, you blindly reject what NASA says. NASA says that the Van Allen belts are dangerous, you blindly accept what NASA says. NASA illustrates how the aluminum hull of the Apollo capsule was adequate shielding, you blindly reject what NASA says. You morons blindly accept anything you think helps your delusional case, and blindly reject anything that hurts your delusion... even from the identical same source of information.
    1
  7780. OK, on what basis? The FOIA requests must be honored. How do you propose preventing that? And, how do you find whoever published it? Their channel is gone now.
    1
  7781. Proof? Like the video taken by one of the "audience"? Like the statements given by the different callers? Like the fact that she admitted it (well, partially anyway)?
    1
  7782. I agree. But, at least the poor woman was long dead before the press covered the story. Her only "shame" for this incident came after she was dead.
    1
  7783. I realize the scale is massively different than the example in the video... but, for me, I'd be pretty embarrassed to have the literacy level of a 2nd grader. Yet, apparently, there's no shortage of people (i.e. you) willing to advertise it to the world.
    1
  7784. Huh? So, your contention is that they shouldn't arrest someone for committing a crime? What in the world? And, why these police? Why not any of the other police for her million other arrests?
    1
  7785. What original video, and when?
    1
  7786. Um, not even close. The big publicity didn't even happen until she was already dead for 1.5 years. That's when the arrest video was made public... 2.5 years later, which was also 1.5 years after she died. Freedom of Information Act. And, sorry, but if she didn't experience shame from putting on a public display at a beach, it's pretty doubtful she'd be shamed about a video that wasn't released until after she was dead. Body-cameras took the video, by the way.
    1
  7787.  @mrs.dontmindme6542  Wrong. Her family doesn't think her boyfriend/client did anything. They think it was suicide, as do the cops and medical examiner.
    1
  7788. Well, thank you for showing your dishonesty immediately. All deniers are dishonest. But, most of them pretend they're honest. You have announced in advance that you cannot be convinced. In other words, no matter how much evidence is presented, you have decided, in advance, that it doesn't matter to you.
    1
  7789. Yes, but there's a practical notion of mentally ill, and he certainly qualifies... but, there's a legal definition of mentally ill, and he doesn't qualify for that.
    1
  7790. What would you have used for a thermal blanket instead?
    1
  7791. She was a convicted felon who spent time in a Florida prison, and had a million other arrests. With that history, it's difficult to get a straight job, and her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club. One of the audience recorded this incident, and gave a copy of the video to the police. Needless to say, it didn't match her version about a discreet act with nobody around. It was a loud and public act in view of multiple people including children. If she wasn't making "public beach" content, I'd eat my hat.
    1
  7792. Pffttt. Someone's brains are washed out alright. Yours.
    1
  7793. If it went this far, and is in jury deliberation stage (final stage), and Cosby's attorneys haven't brought that up by now, I'd assume that it doesn't apply.
    1
  7794. Can you name any media that covered this story while she was still alive?
    1
  7795. "If I was on the moon I know I would have taken a pic of the sun" Yes, dewdrop. There are many photos of the sun taken from the lunar surface. Who told you they didn't take any photos of the sun? Was it a conspiracy video? Did you try looking at the photo archive yourself? "mars, or Venus." Yes, dewdrop. They took a few photos of Venus. I don't think there are any Mars photos, though. Mars is far more dim than Venus. "But no" Yes, dewdrop. You don't get to say "no" when you won't lift a finger to go look for yourself at the archives. "he took pics of his footsteps he said sunk an inch but pics show them raised an inch." I haven't got the foggiest clue about whatever it is you're trying to say, and neither do you. "C-mon man" No, YOU c'mon. You opened by talking about telescopes seeing the flag. You were corrected a couple of times, because it's not mathematically possible to take any moon flag photos with any telescope on Earth in existence today. And, what did you do? You ignored it, and changed topics. Why? Why is it SOOOOO difficult for you people to ever just admit you're wrong about something? No? You can't do it? You can't bring yourself to say, "oh, sorry, I didn't realize the type of telescope it would take for that, I guess I was wrong"? No? All you can manage to do is ignore it and change topics? And, then, you tried to change topics again in this message. Good gods. Are you PROUD to have a brick wall in your head?
    1
  7796.  @critthought2866  They took a lot of pictures of the sun.
    1
  7797.  @critthought2866  There are plenty of photos directly at the sun. AS12-46-6762 is a fine example.
    1
  7798.  @williammann9176  Yes. And, I agree, it's doubtful Shepard knew Venus would be on the photos.
    1
  7799. YOU SAID: "All that tainted Alcohol was dumped and discarded after this incident" == Really? And, you know this, how? The lawsuit never mentioned anything like that. What do you know about it that the family themselves don't know? I sure hope you went to them with this inside knowledge you must have, to assist them with this additional evidence that wasn't mentioned anywhere in their lawsuit, right? Why are you on YouTube comments with this amazing revelation, rather than talking to the Mexican authorities, who have never found this resort to have any tainted alcohol in any inspections prior to this incident, during this incident, or after this incident? YOU SAID: "and your in Mexico" == My in Mexico? What does that mean? YOU SAID: "so good luck ever getting justice there, good luck, Bring all your own Alcohol there" == And, how EXACTLY does that work? Do you intend to drive to Mexico? How do you get all that much alcohol onto the plane? Do you want them to check dozens of bags? (There's a limit to how much you're allowed to bring on a plane, you know.) Anyway, I want to thank you for sharing your massive expertise on these subjects. Obviously, you must know more about this topic than the entirety of the experts, the Mexican authorities, the doctors who analyzed these teens and didn't find any tainted alcohol (methanol) in their systems, etc. It's because of wonderful people like you, sharing your infinite expertise, that YouTube comments is definitely a more reliable system of education than any university on Earth.
    1
  7800.  @SeahawksBamBamKam  So, THAT is your answer? What's wrong with you?
    1
  7801.  @bradleyrex2968  Um, ok, but, he's commenting on whether the nylon flag would be intact TODAY (the subject of the video).
    1
  7802. There is no helping people who are proud to be stupid.
    1
  7803. Huh? Which news media?
    1
  7804. Schmitt. Not Smith.
    1
  7805. No. This was 2.5 years ago. She's been dead 1.5 years.
    1
  7806. And, he was a double murderer. All three were guilty.
    1
  7807. Almost zero media covered this story until long after she was dead. There were a couple of obscure blog posts about the arrest, but, 99.99% of the social media attention didn't happen until the arrest video was released on November 24, 2023 (she died two years ago). So, no, it didn't cause her suicide. And, let me get this straight... she just got finished putting on a public display in front of multiple people, including children, and you think her bathing suit in a restaurant was embarrassing to her? Putting on the public show wasn't embarrassing? But, a bathing suit in a restaurant was? Dewdrop, do you even know what she did for a living? No, not Inside Edition's reference to her career from a decade ago in real estate. That was long gone when she walked out on her career and family a decade ago in favor of her life of drugs and crime. Her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club. Her neighbors said she did "private" cash encounters with numerous men in her apartment. Yet, you think she was embarrassed by wearing a bathing suit? She was a convicted felon who spent time in prison in Florida about 6 years ago, and had an arrest record a mile long for various other stuff. I'm pretty sure she was used to cuffs by then. And, sorry, but the restaurant was the path back to the police cars, not much of a choice there. But, you keep on your crusade, ok? Just keep pretending you know things you don't.
    1
  7808. Oh, and by the way, multiple people called the police. One of them even managed to record it, and showed the video to the police. Needless to say, it didn't match her version about being a quiet act with nobody around. They said it was intentional, and in view of multiple people including children. But, hey, you keep on believing nonsense spewed by convicted felons, ok? I'll stick with innocent bystanders and police.
    1
  7809. Central timezone (Houston).
    1
  7810. No.
    1
  7811. You can get a citation for an infraction. For a crime, you get arrested. Learn the difference. Secondly, she didn't suffer any shame from the arrest video, because nobody saw it while she was alive. Third, she left her family behind around a decade ago to live a life of drugs and crime. They moved on without her long ago.
    1
  7812. Motion blur when most things were stationary? A true genius you are.
    1
  7813. Were you typing this as you were looking into the mirror or something?
    1
  7814. Well, if you carefully listen to the story in this video, and if you go investigate what the family claimed in their lawsuit, and read the other reports available, there's actually no direct connection to tainted alcohol and this particular resort. In this video, for example, they had to stoop to talking about tainted alcohol found at OTHER resorts. Why didn't they find other reports at this particular resort? Where were all of the other victims at this resort? Why aren't there any reports of methanol found in this girl's body? Why didn't the authorities ever find any tainted alcohol at this resort, before, during, or since? Even the family's own lawsuit cannot draw a direct connection to tainted alcohol. It seems that the best they can muster in their lawsuit is to claim that other resorts bought tainted alcohol, therefore this resort must also be doing it. And, despite that there have been no prior reports of tainted alcohol at this resort, the family is suing the Florida based booking company that made the reservation at this 5-star resort, claiming that they should have known this resort served tainted alcohol, and therefore should pay them for their daughter's death, because they booked the rooms. I don't know about you, but my opinion is that this is not an indicator of a strong case, but an indicator of a weak case. And, I mean, above all else, there's the 0.25 alcohol level found in the blood. And, what exactly happened between when these two were drinking at the pool at 3:00, and when they went back to the pool after dark, 4-5 hours later? If the boy "blacked out" after one drink, such that he can't remember anything that happened for the next 5 hours, how was he coherent enough to even function for those 5 hours at all? Why didn't the alcohol affect any other guests that way? Personally, I cannot bring myself to believe a word out of the boy, because it just doesn't have any ring of truth for me. To me, this seems like a story about a couple of excited youngsters who drank too much in their first day on vacation, something tragic happened, and now they're grasping at straws to blame anybody but the two who drank too much... my opinion anyway.
    1
  7815. Except, one of the audience took video, and showed it to the police. It didn't match her version about nobody being around. Plus with her mile long arrest record, prison history, and open warrants, yeah, she was getting arrested, make no mistake about it.
    1
  7816. Was it addiction to banned substances? Is that what did this to you?
    1
  7817. Well, I suspect I'm on your side... maybe... (?). But, I confess I really don't understand what you're attempting to say. Almost all handguns are semiautomatic. So, why wouldn't you want to democrats to know this? I just don't get it. Sorry.
    1
  7818. I think you're in the wrong video.
    1
  7819. Do you want Skilling in jail the rest of his life?
    1
  7820. A) This video is only about an hour long. There is no video that can address every possible question that every single person on the planet would ever ask. They picked a sampling of the popular arguments, and answered those. If you're not happy with that, sorry, but, what EXACTLY did you expect them to do? Should they have contacted YOU before making the video, to make sure YOUR questions are answered? B) Unanswered questions aren't evidence. You seem to say that if you don't know the answers to your questions, this means Apollo is fake. Sorry, but that's just "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." Dewdrop, the rest of the world, you know, the SANE ones, wait for answers to their questions before coming to their conclusions. The rest of the world, the sane ones, do not think that questions are evidence, because questions are just questions. Do you believe that NASA has people on staff waiting to answer questions from people who don't understand the topic? C) The "weak argumentation" is from the people who think Apollo was fake. They offer silly quotes taken out of context, and a long series of "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake" claptrap, and a bucket of easily disproven lies.
    1
  7821.  @occhamite  Yes, there are dozens more reasons. But, with the nuts, they can't digest more than a few sentences at a time.
    1
  7822. 1/6th gravity results in a "hang time" of 2.5x longer. (There's a square function in that formula.) Looks pretty correct to me for 1/6th gravity. I've actually done the math on about a dozen different objects that were thrown/dropped/whatever, and it always came back correct for being on the moon. Have you done the math on that clip you're looking at, or, did you just assume you were correct without actually trying to back it up with math? And, are you honestly under the impression that not a single one of the Earth's billions of people over the past 50 years has ever calculated whether the gravity was correct in the videos?
    1
  7823. Are you allergic to math?
    1
  7824. Yes, dewdrop, one of my degrees is in mathematics. But, since you don't understand it, there's little point in doing the math for you in a YouTube comment. You don't have the capacity to tell me if I'm right or wrong. Also, you have refused to answer my questions. So, I'm certainly not wasting time answering your math quiz, when we both know it won't have any effect whatsoever on your nutty beliefs.
    1
  7825. No, dewdrop. I told you, I'm not playing your silly game. You refuse to answer anything I asked, then, if I equally refuse to do your little math quiz that you don't even understand yourself, you don't get to declare victory.
    1
  7826. Are you even capable of answering questions?
    1
  7827. I'll take that as a "no."
    1
  7828. I think one of the many real enemies of mankind is the wicked drug culture that ruins so many minds. I've never partaken any such thing myself, but, I've watched it turn many normal people into people like you. Rather sad.
    1
  7829. Handled by who with more discretion? The police managed to keep this arrest video from being public for 2.5 years. It was probably a legal FOIA request that made it public, which was still 1.5 years after she died.
    1
  7830. Really? What do you know that none of the jurors, judge, attorneys, and investigators know? You do know he planned the murders in advance, right?
    1
  7831. And, he went back repeatedly to get the gun. Hence, he intended to USE IT. It only takes a second to turn and shoot.
    1
  7832. Was there some sort of point here?
    1
  7833.  @RodneyHaltom  Wait, so you opened your comment thread by asking about the Van Allen belts. You then made a follow-up comment about the Van Allen belts: "there is no way anyone could get through them." Now, you're saying you don't believe they exist? Good grief. Better watch out, dummy, you're only one step shy of being a flat Earther. And, if you cross that line, you've doomed your brain to never being able to return to reality.
    1
  7834.  @RodneyHaltom  IF any of you moronic "flat Earth" people had any courage whatsoever, you'd go fly on an east/west plane between Australia and South America, which gets you to your destination in a time that isn't possible on your flat Earth model without going speeds that would rip the wings off of the plane. If you had any courage, you'd charter a boat to circumnavigate Antarctica. If the Earth is a globe, it should take about 18-20 days to make it around. If the Earth is flat, it will take you about 80 days. Dummy, basic geometry proves you wrong. But, as I noted, once you believe the Earth is flat, you're pretty much doomed to be a moron for the rest of your life. You're already past the point of no return.
    1
  7835. Staking out a house, waiting for a completely unrelated different gunman involved in an unrelated shooting.
    1
  7836. It's pretty ridiculous... people blame the cops. They had no choice but to arrest her. The video of the incident doesn't match what this woman is claiming while she's trying not to get arrested. The report says that the video showed a loud and public act in view of multiple people, including children. And, if it was public enough that people took video, that means it hardly was a private little secluded thing with nobody around. There was plenty of cause to make the arrest. Then, people blame the cops for releasing the video. But, what choice did they have, if it was a result of a legal FOIA request? Once a case is over long enough, they can't block FOIA requests any longer. The dates Inside Edition will never say: Arrest = July 2021. Suicide = March 2022. Arrest video made public = November 2023. But, hey, they have viral videos to produce, right?
    1
  7837. Blinking? Like through an atmosphere? Of course not. Also, did you expect to see stars in the daytime?
    1
  7838. The driver is fine. His father was found in a lake. Apparently, the driver killed his father and put him in the lake right before this chase.
    1
  7839. Why? Because the astronauts didn't see Earth resting upon a giant space turtle?
    1
  7840. And this was your edited version? How much of a mess was the first version you posted?
    1
  7841. The irony.
    1
  7842. How is that the cop's fault? What do you think he did wrong? The store thought she may have stolen stuff, and identified her to the cop. The cop investigated, only to be met by this lunatic woman with total obstruction and obfuscation, refusing to identify, and resisting arrest.
    1
  7843. I hope Trump gets thrown in prison for the rest of his life. But, that being said, you are a complete idiot. Trump's own words were "isn't it sort of like" and "we won." He clearly wasn't taking a legal "double-jeopardy" position. He was saying that if he won the legal processes before, he'll win again, and made a loose comparison. Sorry, but there are a million valid points that people can bring up. But, this video is outlandish, and only damages your own viewpoint by making YOU look like the one who is out of touch with reality.
    1
  7844. Yes, if it happened that way. I'd argue that if she had cooperated on that very simplistic level you're advocating, it probably wouldn't have escalated to the point that she'd get arrested. But, we'll never know, because that's not what she did. She screamed and shouted and refused to provide identification, obstructing and obfuscating, and resisted arrest. So, yeah, she dug her hole, then jumped right in it, which is probably one of the many reasons her lawsuit was tossed out the window. But, yeah, it would have been interesting if she had simply remained silent, and submitted to the investigation, and if an arrest had still occurred, would the lawsuit have gone differently? Hmmm, I'd like to say it wouldn't go any differently, and it would still be thrown out of court, but, I really wouldn't be very confident about making that claim. It sure would have helped her odds a lot more if she did what you're saying.
    1
  7845. Doubtful that this particular arrest really mattered that much anyway. With all of her prior arrests, her time in prison for stealing cars, all of the legal judgements against her for various thefts, the warrants for her arrest for many failures to appear in court, and the long history of drug and alcohol related offenses, this one extra incident probably didn't matter all that much.
    1
  7846. So, the woman said she thought she was alone, in an attempt to avoid her millionth arrest and potentially going back to prison again, and you believe her?
    1
  7847. For the exact same reason that you can't fly any airplanes at mach 7, yet, the X15 did it in the 1950s and 1960s. For the exact same reason that you can't fly in a supersonic airliner carrying 100 passengers at mach 2 for 3000 miles, yet, they did it decades ago in the Concorde. For the exact same reason that there are no mach 3 spy planes today, yet, the 1960s SR71 did it. This isn't a 1969 Ford Mustang, where you can just change the spark plugs, put some fresh gas inside, and take a ride. It takes an entire program staffed with tens of thousands of people to get a moon rocket off the ground. And, once that technology gets retired, there's no way to get it back without a massive undertaking to build everything.
    1
  7848. Why didn't James Van Allen agree with you? Why don't any of the aerospace engineers on the planet know this? When NASA tells you that there are radiation belts, you believe them? When NASA tells you the level of radiation in them, you don't believe them?
    1
  7849. Countries park darkly on why of the side.
    1
  7850. "So why not return to the first site with some life footage and end the debate once and for all." Arizona State University's LRO camera, China's Chang'e camera, and India's Chandrayaan camera, have all taken photos of the first landing site from lunar orbit. They can see the landers. Some photos are good enough to see additional details such as foot paths and a bright spot laying on the lunar surface exactly where the flag had been standing (probably meaning the bright spot is the flag laying on its side in the dust). None of that has convinced any deniers, because the deniers just keep moving the goalposts. What makes you think they'd suddenly accept new footage, when all they do is deny all footage that goes against their delusions?
    1
  7851. "But if they died, crashed, or could not get off the moon" Yet, radar tracking from dozens of countries say they did. And, how far gone do you have to be such that you'd believe they could put an Apollo sized lander on the lunar surface, but, somehow conclude that the engineers forgot to include a way to get back? What EXACTLY do you think is wrong with the Apollo lander (as represented) that it couldn't get back into orbit?
    1
  7852. "The fact that no other country has sent any of their men and women to the Moon says a lot more than words can." Yet, you're using words. The answer is that no other country has been willing to spend that kind of time and money. What's wrong with that explanation?
    1
  7853. "no WOMAN has ever supposedly pushed to have one of their own to land on the Moon" Good gods. Are you PROUD to know absolutely nothing? Yes, dewdrop. Many women pushed to get women into the astronaut corps.
    1
  7854. "Elon will make the Woman the first one on the Red Planet." Wait, what? You think NASA is dishonest, and Elon is the honest one? That's like calling Mr. Rogers a liar, and recommending listening to Charles Manson instead.
    1
  7855. What? Shoplifters get arrested daily.
    1
  7856. Did a conspiracy video tell you that?
    1
  7857. Huh? None of the video views cost her life. Nobody saw the arrest video until a couple of months ago. She's been dead for 2+ years.
    1
  7858. Not specifying who the "he" is... can't spell to save your life... all caps... let me guess, you're a Nobel Prize winning physicist, right?
    1
  7859. The Soviets even sent a lander (unmanned) to chase Apollo 11, land nearby it, to pick up rocks and beat Apollo 11 back to Earth. They tracked BOTH craft (Apollo 11 and their lander) all the way to the moon (as did the USA, and tracking stations around the globe). The Soviet lander ended up crashing. But, nonetheless, Apollo 11 was actively tracked all the way to the moon. And, radio telescopes around the globe were aimed AT THE MOON to receive the radio signals. That cannot be faked. And, Apollo 11 left a laser reflector on the moon. That can't be faked either.
    1
  7860. Well, Smoking Gun published that obscure article, yes. But, "all who had a hand in publishing the recordings of the arrest"? What does that mean? What did they have to do with her death? Nobody saw the arrest video until 2.5 years later, which was 1.5 years after she was already dead.
    1
  7861. Huh? What don't you understand here? The video was never seen by anybody in the public until 2.5 years later. That's 1.5 years after she died. The police kept it private until they could no longer do so. The Freedom of Information Act can only be blocked if there's an ongoing investigation. But, 2.5 years later, which is 1.5 years after she's dead, the police can no longer block it.
    1
  7862. Wrong. Nobody saw the video until November 2023.
    1
  7863. Hey, what a fine detective you would make. Um, errr... wait... the arrest video WAS kept private until 2.5 years later, which was 1.5 years after she died. Manslaughter? You can't kill someone again who has already been dead 1.5 years.
    1
  7864. Secondly, with her long criminal history, time served in prison, arrest record a mile long, etc., she probably felt like she had better try to cry her way out of it before they realized who she was. Had she been silent, they'd surely look her up.
    1
  7865. First, one of the "audience" recorded it and gave a copy of the video to the police. Needless to say, it didn't match her version of a quiet act with nobody around.
    1
  7866.  @Ashley-cx6ff  YOU SAID: "Uh girl, it could have been something that was put in their drink. Ever heard of a thing called getting roofied? I hate it when people start to judge when they've only heard part of the story." == Sure, you always need to wait for the entire story. But, where's any evidence of that either? If she had been "roofied," why didn't the "news" report that from the hospital's blood tests? You're just as guilty of blind speculation as anybody else.
    1
  7867.  @katiegurl7139  YOU SAID: "Shut the hell up someone put something in their drink or alcohol was tainted!" == According to who? The "news" story made no actual connection to that. They said that this particular resort had no history of tainted alcohol, and stooped to referring to other resorts and bars. And, in this very busy 5-star resort, where's the neverending flow of other guests with the same problem? YOU SAID: "You wouldn't be saying this if it was your family" == Well, look, from what I've read of the lawsuit, it seems extremely weak. They haven't been able to make a solid connection between tainted drinks and this hotel. Their main assertion just seems to be that the hotel should have done a better job, without really being able to name anything very concrete that the hotel did wrong. you're disgusting!" == No, YOU are disgusting. You have absolutely no basis to slander this hotel, yet you claim to positively know that someone put something in their drinks?? So, you're a witness in the case, then, right? You're not just basing it on this "news" (not news) clip, which had to stoop to naming OTHER resorts/bars with tainted alcohol, because they couldn't find evidence of it at this particular hotel either, are you?
    1
  7868.  @Ashley-cx6ff  YOU SAID: "yes it can [raise blood alcohol level]. Get your facts straight. Funny how you claim to hate people who has an IQ of a toddler when you're a perfect example yourself, hypocrite." == Name one medical journal article that says "roofies"/Rohypnol raises blood alcohol level. Name ONE. What's your source for this? Frankly, I think you DO have the IQ of a toddler, and that YOU are a hypocrite. You're saying he should get his facts straight? OK, where are YOUR facts that Rohypnol increases blood alcohol levels? It isn't alcohol, so why would it increase blood alcohol levels? If you look at studies of people given Rohypnol, you'll find that many of them have 0.0% blood alcohol level. How is that possible if it increases blood alcohol levels? Oh, or are you just another YouTube idiot who refuses to admit when she's wrong?
    1
  7869.  @minxymoo2325  YOU SAID: "Um this has happened to MANY people." == At this particular resort? Name one other. YOU SAID: "So many people have gone to Mexican resorts and passed out after drinking the alcohol." == Yes, when someone drinks to the point of a 0.25 blood alcohol level, yes, they can pass out. YOU SAID: "It's not a coincidence that they've all passed out at resorts after drinking alcohol." == Yes, when someone drinks to the point of a 0.25 blood alcohol level, yes, they can pass out. YOU SAID: "It's tainted and Mexico resorts are covering it up." == OK, fine, so what? Where's the connection to this particular resort? Is your "logic" (sigh) that if some other resort down the road has done it, then this particular resort does it? By the way, your neighbor a few doors down from your trailer park was convicted of murder, therefore you are a murderer. YOU SAID: "Then why does it happen so often?" == It does not happen often at this particular resort, which is why the "news" (not news) story had to stoop to naming other resorts/bars to make their story sound plausible. YOU SAID: "Just Google tainted alcohol in Mexico. Hundreds of American tourists have passed out shortly after drinking alcohol at so many resorts." == Your neighbor down the street is a murderer, therefore you are a murderer. YOU SAID: "Tainted alcohol is cheaper and there's no way to prove it was tainted" == So, when the "news" (not news) story talks about the endless of gallons of tainted alcohol they're finding at other places (never at this particular resort), please tell me how they are proving it? YOU SAID: "so it's not bad for business since no one will know and dipshits like you will say they didn't taint it." == As opposed to dipshits like you who says it was tainted based on no evidence? YOU SAID: "Do you even know what the IQ of a toddler is? You sound dumb as hell." == It's an EXPRESSION.
    1
  7870.  @starskeymaid  YOU SAID: "It shows how many stupid people are out there" == You're one of them. YOU SAID: "all 288 people who like your post." == So, the people who agree are stupid, and you're the smart one??? Pffttttt. YOU SAID: "3x the legal limit to drive or operate a motor vehicle. This is far from what would cause blacking out." == Wrong. There are a million studies saying you're dead wrong. Here's just one of the million links you can find to counter your ridiculous assertion. The girl had a blood alcohol level of 0.25, right? That's more than 3x the legal limit of her home state of Wisconsin (0.08). https://www.sahealth.sa.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/public+content/sa+health+internet/health+topics/health+conditions+prevention+and+treatment/alcohol/blood+alcohol+concentration+bac+general+information QUOTE: "A BAC of .15 - .30 g% will put you at high risk with likely effects to be inadequate breathing, unable to walk without assistance, loss of bladder control and possibly loss of consciousness." == So, yeah, 0.15 through 0.30 can cause unconsciousness. This was a 20 year old girl, and her blood alcohol level was 0.25, which was at the upper level of that range. YOU SAID: "Mexico has tons of great people, unfortunately the way the Mexican people allow the cartels to dictate what goes on in that that country is sad." == And, that is relevant to THIS resort, or THIS incident of a drunk girl drowning, HOW??? HOW is your comment even remotely related to this incident??
    1
  7871.  @starskeymaid  YOU SAID: "ok, I was dramatic" == No, you were an asshole who claimed that anybody who didn't agree with you is stupid. YOU SAID: "but going from "possible unconsciousness" to her brother also passing out face down in the pool." == But, he's not talking. How do we even know how it happened? It was after dark at that point. The person who found them didn't go running to anybody IN THE POOL to rescue them, they ran to someone else to report it. Why do you suppose that is? Was it because this was a hustle and bustle busy daytime pool with bartenders serving drinks, and a hundred people who just ignored the bodies laying in the pool? Or, was it because IT WAS AFTER DARK AND NOBODY ELSE WAS IN THE POOL AT THAT TIME? YOU SAID: "I have been a bouncer" == Then, you, among anybody else, should know that sometimes people drink too much. YOU SAID: "and had significant history with family alcoholism." == Then, you, among anybody else, should know that sometimes people drink too much. YOU SAID: "Plenty of experience from alcohol." == Then, you, among anybody else, should know that sometimes people drink too much. YOU SAID: "Why has there been so many blackouts at Mexican resorts?" == How is that relevant to THIS resort? You're doing EXACTLY what this stupid "news" (not news) article is doing. You're basically saying that, because the bar down the road served tainted drinks, THIS resort served tainted drinks. Yeah. And, your neighbor is a murderer, therefore YOU are a murderer. And, your other neighbor robbed a bank, therefore YOU robbed a bank. I mean, good grief, I've been to my fair share of resorts in Mexico. Guess what, most of the "blackouts" I saw were because PEOPLE DRANK TOO MUCH WHILE ON VACATION. And, look, I'm not denying the problem of tainted alcohol in Mexico. But, I also cannot ignore the fact that this "news" (not news) article couldn't even muster up another example of tainted alcohol at THIS 5-star resort, and they had to stoop to citing tainted alcohol at OTHER bars/resorts in order to make their point. Sorry, when "journalists" (not journalists) need to stoop to that level of shoddy reporting, such that they need to make their point by trolling around to other resorts in order to implicate this one, yeah, sorry, I can't blindly swallow that claim. YOU SAID: "This doesn't happen this many times without there being fire. Lots of lots of smoke." == So, if there's smoke in the house a mile down the road, YOUR house is burning down. Yeah. Nice logic there. And, why do you not even acknowledge the 0.25 blood alcohol level being high enough to make someone go unconscious? You made that accusation. I refuted it. And, you're going to sweep it under the rug and just call yourself "dramatic"?? Hey, a girl DIED here. This is a sad thing. It's no place to show the level of disrespect you're showing, by just calling everyone (but you) the "stupid" ones, and then saying that a blood alcohol level of 0.25 cannot cause unconsciousness (even though it can, and does). YOU SAID: "Did you watch the whole report?" == YES!!! YES!!! Unlike you, I actually dig into things BEFORE I post my opinions. I watched this report, and dozens of others. I read the entire 24-page lawsuit. I read the reports about the blood alcohol levels. I read the reports of the drug tests. I read the reports of where/when it happened, when they went to the hospital, when they transferred her to a Florida hospital, etc. I read the reports of her heart (organ donor) is now beating inside a young black man who needed a transplant, else he was a week or two away from dying, and her heart was a close enough match to save his life. YES!!! I read everything I could find BEFORE I posted my opinions. Did you? And, I'll tell you, I watch these "news" (not news) reports with a skeptical eye. I mean, instantly, when you realize that they didn't find any tainted alcohol at this resort, and had to stoop to finding tainted alcohol in OTHER places, yeah, you instantly know it's a very weak "news" (not news) article. And, the US lawsuit that was filed against the travel agency??? Did you read that thing??? They're asserting that the travel agency knew that this 5-star resort served tainted alcohol, and therefore shouldn't have booked the vacation for them, and they are suing the travel agency for the death of their daughter. And, inside that 24-page lawsuit, they didn't even directly connect tainted alcohol to this resort. The closest link they could create was the concept that this resort ordered alcohol from some of the same suppliers that other resorts did (oh, big surprise, what a shocker). I mean, look, in my opinion, when the family is resorting to suing the travel agency for the death of their drunken daughter, asserting that they should have (or did) know that this 5-star resort poisons its guests (with no direct linkage/history to this resort poisoning guests), yeah, frankly, I don't find that to be an indication of strength of their case... I find it to be a WEAKNESS of their case. And, look, call it a pet peev of mine... but if the best the "news" (not news) article can find to represent a video of this girl's personality is at 7:02 in this video, with her gyrating around like a drunken party girl, yeah, sorry, I have a difficult time at the human level of relating to the concept that this was an innocent girl poisoned by the big bad evil 5-star resort that gave her bad alcohol. That video clip (the only video of her shown here) just makes her look like a drunk, at least in my eyes. Sorry. Maybe I'm too old and cynical to see what other people see in that video. But, yeah, believe me, the video is just anecdotal anyway. I go on the EVIDENCE (which is very weak). What do you base YOUR opinions on? Are you going to sit here and tell me that I'm the stupid one, and you're the smart one?
    1
  7872. And, Gene Cernan led a fairly normal life. He could go to the grocery store. He could fly on regular airlines. He could go to a movie. He could go out in public without 24/7 bodyguards. Armstrong couldn't do any of that. The man got ambushed every time he stepped foot in public.
    1
  7873. Huh? How would you classify India's landing of a probe on the moon 54 years after the USA landed people on the moon to mean the USA is "getting beaten"?
    1
  7874. A few years ago, a "look but don't touch" law was passed to preserve the Apollo 11 and 17 sites as historical monuments. However, there is no real way to enforce such laws, because the moon isn't any particular country's property. So, they basically said in the law that no government money would be given to any company/individual who has the intent of messing with those two sites. It'll be a long time before anybody goes to the moon without government funding, so, that's about the best they could do.
    1
  7875. a) Nobody cares about your experiences. We all have been suspected of stealing. It's no big deal. You show your receipt, you thank them for being diligent about trying to catch thieves, you go about your day. There's no reason to feel frustrated or humiliated. b) Good gods, what in the world is going on with your writing skills? I mean, I've seen some adults who can't write a sentence, but, wow!!! I mean, just plain wow!!! I think my kids could write better at the age 6 than you can. Sheeessssshhh.
    1
  7876. Yes and no. Leuders selected that monstrosity. But, now that she's gone from NASA (surprise surprise, she took a job at SpaceX after selecting them for the lander), they have contracted Blue to build a more traditional lander for $3.5 billion. So, maybe that huge monstrosity will go to the moon, or maybe not. My money is on Blue's smaller version.
    1
  7877. Well, one of the witnesses recorded it, and showed the video to the police. Between that, and her prior arrests and open warrants, there wasn't any chance of avoiding being arrested. And, if she had shown up for this incident's court date, then maybe, yes, this could easily be negotiated down to an infraction, a little counseling, and it would be over. But, she didn't show up. To answer your other question, Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  7878. Who exactly "shammed" her? You cannot even spell it. What do you think you know about it?
    1
  7879. Well, maybe. But, what does that have to do with this video? "Media" didn't get involved until she was long dead.
    1
  7880. Because nobody in the public ever saw the arrest video until 2.5 years later. She was long dead already.
    1
  7881. Why do you not understand? Nobody saw this arrest video until long after she was dead.
    1
  7882. Just give it up, dewdrop. You fell for a silly spoof video. Just be a man and admit it. Stop being a child.
    1
  7883. You're clearly the legal expert here, not me. So, can you explain when they started giving warnings for aggravated misdemeanors like this? And, other than a couple of obscure blogs nobody has ever heard of, no media even touched this story until long after she was dead.
    1
  7884. Huh? She immediately started stealing from Walgreens again after this incident. It probably embolden her, because, hey, she got away with it, she probably had more in that jacket anyway, they didn't press charges, and the cop bought her the hat and gloves. And, as for making her case even worse, well, she died by making her case worse (drug habit), so, I really don't quite understand about how you can say she didn't maker her case worse. I'd say abandoning her kids for meth and dying IS making it worse.
    1
  7885. No, it's actually backward from that. They'll often show incriminating videos against the police early. But, for stuff that incriminates someone in the public, they usually won't release it until well after the case is closed. In this case, she was dead 1.5 years before the arrest video was released.
    1
  7886. There were two layers of boots. The air-tight boot, integrated with the suit, which they used inside the craft, and the outer "overshoe" that they strapped on the outside when they were going outside to do a moonwalk. With the exception of Cernan's overshoes which were brought home and are at the Smithsonian museum now, the rest of the overshoes were tossed out the door and left on the lunar surface.
    1
  7887. Just wondering, would you say the same if it was a man at a playground?
    1
  7888. Multiple people reported her, not just the one family. And, yeah, sorry, but when someone decides to put on a public show like this, it shouldn't be shocking that people would report it. If it was a guy cranking at a playground, would you be making this comment?
    1
  7889. "why haven't they again tried to send someone on the moon." They tried 7 times, and succeeded 6 times. "USA never leave to occupy places anywhere" Not true. But, what in the world does this even mean, pertaining to the moon? How would they leave people there? What ARE you talking about? "then why have they never thought of landing on the faar side of the moon" Of course they thought about it. But, communication is very difficult. Radio doesn't penetrate through the entire moon, you know? And, there are no Lagrange points on the other side of the moon. So, covering the communication with satellites would require a whole bunch of them. It's a lot safer and easier to just land on the side facing Earth. Maybe if they were going to do 100 landings or something, they'd do something on the far side. But, with only 6 landings, there were plenty of places that gave them a lot of knowledge while also staying on the side facing Earth. "having so much technical advancement over the years." Why do you think technology means anything in this context? They either had enough technology, or they didn't. Why would they need more technology to make it viable?
    1
  7890. Huh? She did exactly that. She lost, badly. It was thrown out of court, and she's been barred from ever filing it again.
    1
  7891. Exactly. It's a wonderful thing to help people. The officer did a wonderful thing. But, maybe she'd be alive today if he arrested her and put her into prison.
    1
  7892.  @kennym3492  WOW!!! Lower the dose of whatever you're on. Good grief.
    1
  7893. @butchtropic YOU SAID: "Then you make a 200% meaningless point about an Iphone being far superior to an Apollo computer...AND?, how does that make Apollo "fake"?" == Yeah, tell me about it. These conspiratards keep making these ridiculous comparisons, as if they're supposed to mean something, when they mean absolutely nothing. All that matters is whether the Apollo computers could do the job, or not. It doesn't matter whether the Apollo computers are better than today's computers. No sane person expects them to be. But, not a single one of the conspiratards has actually done the calculations about their own assertions. The M.I.T. Ph.D scientists (who designed and built the computers) knew how many processes per second were required, and built the hardware/software accordingly ("software" is a relative term, in this case, but whatever). None of the conspiratards ever actually look at the processes required, and then the processing power of the computers, and how the operating systems actually worked. Nope. It's doubtful that any of them even know how the computer even operated. In their minds, it's good enough to just say, "an iPhone is better, therefore Apollo is fake." They're idiots, every single one of them. And, the ultimate irony is that NASA would have flown the Apollo missions without the computers in the LEM and CSM, if they had to. As it turns out, M.I.T. didn't get the computers ready in time for NASA to make proper training and preparations, so NASA resorted to making the M.I.T. computers completely redundant with the alternate methods of guidance (ground based radar tracking, and onboard star sightings and sextants). As it turned out, M.I.T. did get the computers ready for flight time, but only after NASA already completely built in redundant methods of guidance. So, yeah, they'd have flown without the computers if they needed to. And, every crew was trained in getting to/from the moon without the computer at all. If the computers had failed during the mission, they were prepared to fly the thing all the way to the moon manually, using ground-based radar tracking and their onboard star sightings and sextant. So, when the idiots complain that the computers weren't good enough, they are not only incorrect, they're MASSIVELY incorrect, and massively ignorant on top.
    1
  7894.  @ann_onn  FYI: sometimes it helps to open threads in a different browser. Also, sometimes you can see invisible comments by just following the link to the video itself, not including the comment part of the link, and then scrolling through the comments to find the thread. That will sometimes expose the invisible comments. And, yeah, sometimes the comments are just blocked, and the only place you'll ever see them is in your own notifications, with no workaround. YouTube's comments are a mess right now.
    1
  7895. Good gods. Is that really how your mind works? You won't believe something that happened 9 times (9 manned trips to the moon), until it's done a 10th time? What kind of "logic" is that? Why doesn't evidence actually matter to you? Why should someone do it a 10th time before you're willing to believe the prior 9 times? Let's face reality here: all that has happened in your mind is that you watched some conspiracy videos, and you've decided to believe every word they told you, hook line and sinker, without lifting a finger to fact-check any of it. Meanwhile, you ironically claim that the SANE people are the ones who are blindly believing what WE are told. Um, no. The evidence is what determines what's true or not. And, your little list of garbage you regurgitated from conspiracy videos isn't evidence. It's a bunch of intentionally misrepresented nonsense. If those makers of those dishonest videos ever had any ACTUAL evidence to present, the last place you'd ever see it would be in a conspiracy video. They'd be submitting their evidence in the science and engineering journals. They'd be getting congressional hearings. There'd be prosecutions and trials of all left alive today who participated. Other countries would sue the USA for defrauding them of billions of dollars in aid provided to Apollo. It wouldn't be something you'd see in a conspiracy video made by a taxi cab driver, or a warehouse worker. It only takes a little bit of fact-checking to determine that all of those things you mentioned are laughably wrong. It's quite clear that you have no understanding of the topic. And, let me get this straight... you think Musk wouldn't lie? Huh? The man who bilked billions out of Solar City investors by lying and saying that there were hundreds of installations, when there were ZERO? The man who stood in front of a bunch of houses with the investors and said that they all had solar roof tiles, when not a single house had them, and the solar tiles didn't even exist? The man who claimed the hyperloop tube was a vacuum, yet, in the videos, you see dust lingering in the air inside those vacuum tubes? (Dust cannot linger in the air if there's no air.) The man who refuses to release the weight of the Tesla Semi? The man who promised full self driving robo-taxis about 5-6 years ago? The man who said he founded Tesla (he didn't), and when the real founder agreed to sell him his shares of Tesla in exchange for the first car produced, Musk kept the car for himself instead. Then, when the original founder was going to get the courts to make Musk give his car back, Musk launched the car into space so the rightful owner could never have it? THAT guy is the one you want to trust? I mean, good grief, you refuse to accept evidence for Apollo, while simultaneously thinking Elon Musk won't lie to people? I wouldn't know how to be more disconnected from reality than you are. I really wouldn't. You are about as far out there as anybody could get.
    1
  7896.  @ann_onn  He didn't buy shares in exchange for the first car. The first car was just part of the overall agreement. I will see if I can find articles about it, but, frankly, this is just something I've known about for at least a decade (the dispute over the first car), and then Musk later launched it into space so the guy could never have it. In actuality, Musk gave the guy the 2nd or 3rd car, which was a crash test unit that Musk had repaired and then handed it to the guy instead of the first car. They hated each other. It was an intentional insult.
    1
  7897.  @ann_onn  Yes, I've always known you to express very level-headed opinions. And, yes, without reference material, I accept that it would be difficult to blindly swallow that Musk launched that car into space that rightfully belonged to one of the original Tesla founders. As I explained, it's not as if I can just produce articles without doing some homework, I merely remembered this stuff from articles and interviews from over a decade ago, and their constant feuding, and eventual argument over the first roadster. But, your request for more information is a fair one. But, before I try to hunt stuff down, can you confirm/deny that you agree that the rest of what I wrote about Musk and his lies is accurate? I'm happy to put in some effort to confirm the stuff from over a decade ago, but, not if it means that I'm going to have to go through the same effort for every single thing I typed.
    1
  7898.  @ann_onn  Ugh, and my latest reply isn't visible. I'll try to divide it up and see why it won't post.
    1
  7899.  @ann_onn  Good grief. This YouTube censorship is driving me nuts. I still can't get my reply to be visible. I'll try re-writing again. Sorry that this will come in many pieces... not my fault that YouTube blocks half of the stuff people write nowadays. Anyway, I asked you to confirm other things before I was willing to do homework on this item. I thought about it again, and realized you deserve better than that, and I apologized for demanding you acknowledge other things first.
    1
  7900.  @ann_onn  The information about the original founder receiving a crashed car instead of the first car off of the line (which is now in space) came from Martin Eberhard in his 2009 lawsuit against Musk. I will grant you, I first found out about the dispute over the first Tesla production roadster before I read the lawsuit. It was in articles and interviews. And, that led me to reading the lawsuit itself. So, it's not as if I first read the lawsuit, then saw the interviews and stuff. It was the other way around. Or, at least I think it was, based on my 13 year old memories anyway.
    1
  7901.  @ann_onn  I was able to find a video called "DEBUNKING ELON MUSK Pt2 (1080p)" that outlines some of this stuff in the first 7 minutes. But, the narrator in that video says that Musk gave the Tesla founder a test car that happened to have crashed, while I said it was an actual crash test car. There's a difference, but, maybe my 13 year old memories are to blame. Either way, however, Musk kept the first car for himself, and launched it into space when it seemed that the founder might finally get the courts to seize the car and give it to him. Too late now, it's never coming back to Earth... at least not in our lifetime, and not without burning up.
    1
  7902.  @ann_onn  Anyway, please let me know if you can read the several messages I posted. I wouldn't want to leave you hanging with messages that you can't see. I can substantiate the claims more than this, with more time. I no longer have a Lexis Nexis ID, so it makes some things more difficult. But, I'm sure I can manage. Let me know if I provided enough for you to find the lawsuit yourself, or if you need more info.
    1
  7903.  @ann_onn  Well, at least according to what I recall from the stuff I read/saw, the founder doesn't think the car launched into space was a 2010 model, and that Musk claimed it was from 2010 in order to avoid the fact that he was actually launching the first car. And, while the money aspect of the lawsuit was settled, he still wanted his rightful car, and now will never get it.
    1
  7904.  @ann_onn  I'll make another reply (in addition to the one a few minutes ago). I cannot prove that the roadster in space is the first one. Musk claims it was a 2010. The contention is that he launched the first one into space so that the rightful owner can never have it. I doubt anybody can ever prove it at this point. But, with Musk's track record of lying every other sentence, his credibility is very low in my book. But, I respect you, and always have. If you want to trust that a 2010 model was launched instead of the first car, that's your prerogative. The rest of what's been presented is more than enough to demonstrate that Musk is not even remotely trustworthy, and, I've only listed the tip of the iceberg. I do not want a debate over whether that one car is the first off of the line, or a 2010 model, to get under your skin. I'm happy enough with the other 90475389754937 items that Musk has lied about, and you can have the notion that the car in space isn't the one the original founder wants to have, because I cannot prove it.
    1
  7905.  @ann_onn  Yeah, once again, you're just going to argue for the sake of it. I have no idea why, but, that's what you're going to do.
    1
  7906.  @ann_onn  Let's face reality here: you knew absolutely nothing about the topic on any level until I mentioned it. You thought the stuff I said about Musk taking the first car away from the rightful owner was unbelievable in first place, until I provided you the evidence. I already said I cannot say for sure about the car in space, because I cannot prove it. But, yes, I do recall the rightful owner was still pursuing getting it back, and that he thinks the one in space is actually his car. I really don't know what more I can tell you. With Musk, you can trust him about as far as you can throw him. The man lost his marbles long ago, if he ever had any to begin with.
    1
  7907.  @ann_onn  I gave you the court case. Sorry that I cannot copy and paste it. Go look it up.
    1
  7908.  @ann_onn  My point is that you knew absolutely nothing about the fact that Musk took the car in the first place.
    1
  7909.  @ann_onn  Did you read the Tesla founder's lawsuit yet?
    1
  7910.  @ann_onn  I'm just confused at this point. I don't really know what you don't understand. The lawsuit said that the first car off the line was supposed to be the founder's car, but that Musk took it. Two messages ago, you asked me for the evidence that Musk took the car.
    1
  7911.  @ann_onn  I also wonder if some of my responses have been shadow-banned (you can't see them), because I thought I filled in all of the holes a couple of times now.
    1
  7912.  @ann_onn  In the event that you were not able to see all replies: 1) The lawsuit against Musk said he took the first car, which was rightfully the founder's car. 2) I cannot prove the car in space was the same one, but, interviews with the founder and/or articles (can't recall exactly) say that he believes the car in space is the first car, and that, yes, Musk did it to spite him. 3) Yes, I believe Musk is very capable of doing ridiculous things just to spite people. The man has lost his marbles. And, you can see it through the million lies he keeps telling, and his legendary random acts of firing people in elevators, declaring that SpaceX is on the brink of bankruptcy, and that everyone must work for free on Thanksgiving holiday else get fired, firing half of the Twitter staff immediately, and, forgive the run-on sentence, but, yes, I know people who used to work at my company that got jobs at SpaceX instead, and have told me firsthand that the internet stories about his tyrannical style of management are very true. 4) All that aside, I was willing to just grant you that I don't know for sure if the car in space is the first car, and you're welcome to believe it's a 2010 instead, and that I didn't want an argument with you. I am happy enough with the million other blatant lies under Musk's belt that confirm that he's not trustworthy, and you can believe whatever you want about that one item.
    1
  7913.  @ann_onn  No, the lawsuit said he was supposed to get the FIRST car. Musk demanded to keep it instead. The 2nd car was a compromise. But, the lawsuit states that he didn't get the 2nd car either. And, what he got was something made after the 2nd car, which was crashed. And, Musk gave the 2nd car to a friend, and gave the founder the crashed car, with a certificate falsely claiming it was the 2nd car. We are done here.
    1
  7914.  @ann_onn  As I said, I'm done here. It's pretty clear to me that you just want to keep kicking me in the teeth over insignificant nonsense, and I'm not playing this game with you. I already said repeatedly that I was going on 13 year old memories, and that they were subject to some fogginess, but that the general spirit was accurate. I listed a bunch of Musk's lies, but could continue writing an entire 65 volume encyclopedia of all of them. But, for whatever the reason, you have chosen this silly car issue as the one to focus on. I told you I may not have gotten every single detail correct, and I couldn't prove which car was in space. But, you can't let it go. So be it, that's fine. And, it's only my great respect for you that I've continued this far, and it's that same respect that I will respond to this latest comment. But, then, I'm done. I'm not going to invest more time in one tiny detail about the parade of nonsense Musk produces. But, since you really want to know, and you apparently didn't read the lawsuit (but you're accusing ME of not reading it), here you go: It's right after the section of the lawsuit where they outlined that Musk lied about having degrees that he didn't actually have. "Eberhard was originally supposed to receive the first production Roadster. However, Musk, aware of the car's value, insisted on getting the first production value. In compromise, Eberhard agreed that he would receive the historic second production Roadster." "Despite the negative, disparaging, and blatant lies promulgated by Musk, Eberhard's main focus after his resignation remained seeing the Roadster come to fruition. He patiently waited as it was delayed again and again." "Eberhard learned, however, that in breach of his agreement with Eberhard, in early February 2008, Tesla Motors had already built the second - and maybe the third and the fourth - production Roadster prior to building Eberhard's Roadster, which was supposed to be the second vehicle off the line. Tesla Motors sold the second production Roadster, intended for Eberhard, to a friend of Musk, Antonio Gracias, in blatant breach of its written agreement with Eberhard." "Eberhard learned that his new car, now three months overdue, had been crashed...." ".... almost completely totaling the vehicle." He also attached the certificate that Musk gave him saying it was the 2nd production car, when, in actuality, that was a lie. Anyway, sorry I didn't fully cut-n-paste the entire section of the lawsuit, but, as I said, I no longer have a Lexis/Nexis ID, and all I have is a PDF without cut-n-paste privileges. So, I typed it by hand. Yes, I originally messed up a few of the details. But, the spirit of what I said is still correct. And, Eberhard continued to pursue getting the first Roadster. And, I recall seeing interviews or articles saying that the founder thinks the one launched into space was indeed that first car, despite that it was represented as a 2010. For the last time, no, I cannot prove it. And, I already granted you that my memory was foggy on some of the details. But, the overall spirit was still correct. Musk took the car that was supposed to go to the main founder. He then gave him a crashed car instead. And, even then, it wasn't even the 2nd car, but one that came later. If you want to kick people in the teeth, go after the hoax nuts. I'm no longer going to sit here and dwell on a couple of minor errors I made on a single one of Musk's volumes of lies.
    1
  7915.  @ann_onn  Thanks for proving you didn't read the lawsuit.
    1
  7916.  @ann_onn  Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo Case No. CIV484400 Martin Eberhard v. Elon Musk et al Document 1
    1
  7917.  @ann_onn  And, thanks for proving you didn't even read my reply in full. I outlined about the 2nd car. You apparently ignored it without reading my reply... just like a hoax nut.
    1
  7918.  @ann_onn  To be more accurate than my prior message: Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo Case No. CIV484400 Martin Eberhard v. Elon Musk et al Document 1 Section 2G - starting at paragraph 117. NOT A BLOG. Now, quit acting like a moon hoax nut and actually READ MY REPLIES, not just brush off facts in favor of your predetermined conclusions.
    1
  7919.  @ann_onn  As I said, you obviously didn't read the lawsuit, nor did you read my replies, and you accused me of getting those lines from a blog. I'm not playing any more games with you.
    1
  7920.  @ann_onn  Spare me. YOU are acting like a hoax nut. You refuse to actually read what I wrote. And, then you accused me of getting stuff from a blog, when I gave you line-by-line quotes from the lawsuit itself. Eberhard did NOT say he got the car he was promised. He said in the lawsuit (that you refuse to read) that he was originally supposed to get the first car. Musk bullied him and he compromised (exactly as I said, but you refused to read) that he agreed upon the second car. And, the lawsuit itself says that he DID NOT GET THE SECOND CAR EITHER. This is ridiculous. I don't know why you fail to understand simple concepts. Well, I actually do know why, it's because you're not actually reading my replies, because I outlined this repeatedly, yet, you still don't get it. Instead, you think I am quoting from blogs, when I gave you the EXACT words from the EXACT lawsuit that you obviously refused to read.
    1
  7921.  @ann_onn  And, I will add, because Eberhard didn't get the 2nd car either (the one he compromised for, but Musk gave to a friend of his instead), Eberhard later pursued getting his rightful first car again.
    1
  7922.  @ann_onn  And, just like hoax nuts, you downright refuse to ever admit being wrong. You accused me of getting the quotes from a blog, not from the case itself. I gave you the exact case, with the exact section, with the exact paragraph number, and still, you won't admit being wrong. I already admitted that I mixed up a few of the details about this, because, as I said, I was going on 13 year old memories. About a dozen messages ago (and repeatedly since then), I confessed to making a couple of errors about the minor details. Not you, though. You can't admit being wrong about ANYTHING, just like a moon hoax nut.
    1
  7923.  @ann_onn  Well, I'm not explaining it again. If you disagree, take it up with your own inability to read the exact quotes I gave you. And, deal with the fact that you are just like hoax nuts, in that if things contradict your predetermined conclusions, you literally get disabled and cannot even accept input.
    1
  7924.  @ann_onn  Just in case some of my messages get blocked, I will, out of respect for you over the years, quote again directly from the lawsuit that you refuse to read: "Eberhard learned, however, that in breach of his agreement with Eberhard, in early February 2008, Tesla Motors had already built the second - and maybe the third and the fourth - production Roadster prior to building Eberhard's Roadster, which was supposed to be the second vehicle off the line. Tesla Motors sold the second production Roadster, intended for Eberhard, to a friend of Musk, Antonio Gracias, in blatant breach of its written agreement with Eberhard."
    1
  7925.  @ann_onn  Thanks for proving that you didn't read the other messages.
    1
  7926.  @ann_onn  Let's recap a few things: 1) I clarified repeatedly about the 1st car vs. 2nd car. You just keep intentionally obfuscating/ignoring what I've written. 2) I clarified that not only didn't he get the 1st car (the original agreement), but that he didn't get the 2nd car either (the second agreement), and that Musk lied and told him he was receiving the 2nd car, when it wasn't the 2nd car. He received a crashed car instead, which was something like 3rd or 4th or 5th in production (exactly as the lawsuit says). You said the lawsuit doesn't say what it says. 3) I've given you direct quotes from the lawsuit. You accused me of getting them from a blog, not the lawsuit. 4) I gave you then name of the case, the state/court, the case number, the document number, and the exact section/paragraphs I quoted from. You refuse to admit you were wrong about your notion that I got this info from a blog. 5) And, every time I've attempted to clarify, all you've done is shuffle the cards and repeat the same silly stuff over again. We're done here, right? I mean, I don't really want to accuse you of too much, but, it's quite clear that you are behaving EXACTLY like a moon hoax nut, refusing to read what I've written, refusing to accept facts that dispute your predetermined conclusions, and absolutely positively NEVER admitting being wrong. Not ever. I gave you direct quotes from the lawsuit, NOT A BLOG. But, you can't deal with it. You aren't delusional about the moon landings, but, you're clearly quite delusional about Musk.
    1
  7927. Wow!!! And, you know all of that by watching Inside Edition's trash news? Dewdrop, multiple people called the police for this incident. One witness said that the woman went up and down the beach and it appeared that she intentionally chose to plop down in view of others. Someone else got the incident on video, and showed it to the police. The arrest report describes it as a very loud, and very public act, in view of multiple people including children. I'm sorry if that differs from the story as given by the convicted felon who began her drug and crime spree about a decade ago, went to prison, and came out and continued her drug and crime spree exactly where she left off. But, I tend to believe police and innocent bystanders more than I trust the word of felons who were trying to avoid their millionth arrest by saying, "I didn't do it." I cannot claim to know why she chose to put on this show, but, she was certainly used to it, because according to her landlord, she was a stripper at the local club. I guess that makes sense, given that it's probably very difficult to get a straight job after her mile long felony and arrest record. For all I know, maybe she was on something at the time, and forgot she was at a beach and not the club where she worked. But, no blame goes to the people who called the police. Blame goes on the criminal. And, by the way, her suicide had nothing to do with this arrest. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released to the public. I'm sorry if Inside Edition doesn't spell it out, but, ya know, "soccer mom gets busted" is far more viral than, "convicted felon commits another crime."
    1
  7928. Thanks for demonstrating that you didn't read my reply.
    1
  7929. Yup. I was once at a huge dinner at a convention hall, seated next to Gene Cernan (last man on the moon). Black tie affair. Around 1000 people. Casual conversations. Nothing crazy. Then, about an hour in, Neil Armstrong comes into the room and sits down about 3 feet behind me. Total mayhem. Bodyguards had to hold the people back. My wife and I nearly got knocked to the ground by the madmen pushing to get closer. Nobody paid attention to the guy right next to me who walked on the moon for more time than any other astronaut, but, for Armstrong, the room went nuts.
    1
  7930. No, common sense would be to actually want answers to questions.
    1
  7931. Um, no. The arrest video wasn't made public until she was already dead for 1.5 years. You didn't see it before she died.
    1
  7932.  @kevinerbs2778  No, dewdrop. The Freedom of Information Act disagrees with you. Stop making up stuff about topics you don't understand.
    1
  7933. Kathleen, in your vast expertise about aerospace engineering, why are you complaining about the thermal blanket foil? What would you have used instead?
    1
  7934. Congratulations. You're the 1 millionth person claiming they could have handled it better, but refusing to say how.
    1
  7935. McDonnell Douglas didn't build the capsule. It was designed and built by North American Aviation. Nice try though.
    1
  7936. It's grainy, but, you can see it pointed at the officer's head when the door opens. It's much more clear on the ground at 5:02 in the video, next to a 2x4 piece of wood, though.
    1
  7937.  @stusue9733  Are you a jumper?
    1
  7938. Well, that's what happens as a result of an aggravated misdemeanor. And, as for "help," well, maybe if she had bothered to show up in court, they could have negotiated this down to a minor infraction and provided that help. But, as usual (for her) she didn't show. And, no, it didn't lead to her suicide a year later.
    1
  7939. Yes. But, at least the poor woman didn't have to suffer any consequences from the "news" (not news).
    1
  7940. Well, perhaps if you watched the entire video, rather than this edited copy, you might understand it better. He was under no obligation to watch cameras before arresting her. And, as he tried to explain, and she ignored (as did you), the arrest at that point was going to happen regardless of the theft charges. He asked for her ID and/or name numerous times (mainly in the full video version, only once in this edited version). Florida is a "stop and identify" state (as most states are). This means that she is required by law to provide identification, else she can be arrested for that reason alone. She also obstructed and obfuscated in other ways (also illegal). So, the original suspicion of theft, at that point, wasn't even the main issue that got her arrested. Then, she added resisting arrest to the charges. Your notion that she doesn't have to show police anything after leaving the store is wrong. Yes, she must show ID in any "stop and identify" state. You'd be correct only in the states that don't have those types of laws.
    1
  7941. Oh, gee, I dunno, maybe she went in with her gun drawn because they had been chasing this guy for kidnapping two people right before this incident? Maybe it was because he had just also attempted to accost more people in an office and hold them hostage? Or, maybe it was because they just witnessed a bus load of people evacuating in fear, and the bus driving waving for help? I'm sorry that you're too stupid to understand these things, and you'll just jump to conclusions based on your own ignorance. But, hey, I guess that's why you're the laughably dumb person you are. No, dummy, most Americans do not "worship guns and killing people."
    1
  7942.  @23879988  Let me get this straight, you opened by calling typical Americans gun worshipers and people who want to see others getting killed. And, now you wonder why I call it how I see it? Thanks for confirming (in your reply) how amazingly dumb you are.
    1
  7943.  @23879988  2nd reply in a row, because I just realized that you're probably too stupid to understand the irony. YOU are the one who just accused "typical" Americans (so, basically, a majority of 327 million people) of "worship of guns and killing people." Now, you're accusing ME of "hatred"?? Um, no, dummy. You're expressing hatred of hundreds of millions of people. I'm correcting your stupidity.
    1
  7944. Swirling is knowing what was back then, and organizes looks like because would have such.
    1
  7945. Well, how exactly he knew they were coming is a bit of a mystery. I've heard that someone tipped him off. I've heard that they always came on holidays. But, whatever the method, he very certainly knew they were coming.
    1
  7946. Well, there's a bit of an irony in asking for that. Last year, congress passed a law stating that they would not fund any private missions to return to either the Apollo 11 or Apollo 17 sites. One would assume that this also means they don't intend to fund any public missions to those sites either. Their motivation is to treat the Apollo 11 and 17 sites as historic monuments. It's a "look but don't touch" mentality. And, I think they know that if anybody goes to those sites, they're going to touch them. And, well, nobody owns the moon, so, they actually can't control what any private industry ever does, nor what other countries do, so, again, they can only say that there's a law now that no such mission will ever get any public funding. But, they didn't apply that law to Apollo 12, 14, 15, and 16. So, I suppose this means that you can get a government subsidy to send a mission to those sites. Or, one of those sites can be a public program someday. Or, of course, they could always just repeal the law.
    1
  7947. YOU SAID: "I´d love to hear them explain how they got through the Van Allen radiation belts." == Pffttt. No, you wouldn't. You obviously PREFER ignorance. YOU SAID: "NASA has said they didn´t even know they existed until 12 years after they went to the moon." == That is outlandish. They discovered the Van Allen belts in 1958. They shot many probes into (and through) the belts long before sending people. They sent Apollo 6 (unmanned) through the belts and back. YOU SAID: "And their computer didn´t have near the power of a cell phone. I can only conclude...no one went to the moon." == Oh, so it's a computer processing problem then? Alright, here's what you need to do: calculate the amount of processing power that is required to go to the moon, then explain that the Apollo computers didn't have enough processing power to do the job. Then, explain why nobody at MIT, Draper Labs, or Raytheon, ever realized that the computers they designed and built to go to the moon, couldn't actually do the job that they designed and built them to do. Sorry, dummy, but you don't get to just accuse thousands of people of being criminals because you feel like it. If you think the computers were inadequate to do the job, CALCULATE IT!!! QUOTE: " The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight. The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months' duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure. A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week. However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable. The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense. James A. Van Allen" END QUOTE So, internet dummy, please explain what qualifications you hold, such that you think you understand the Van Allen belts better than James Van Allen??
    1
  7948. Huh? Multiple people called. One of them recorded it, and gave a copy of the video to police. Needless to say, it didn't match her version about a quiet act with nobody around. To the contrary, it was an intentional act, probably for her to promote herself by recording "public beach" content.
    1
  7949. And, you do know she was a convicted felon who spent time in prison. Stealing cars. Other thefts. Drugs and alcohol. Etc. And, you do know that her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club, and her neighbors said she did "extras" for cash in her apartment. You know all of this, right? How does that bode for the credibility of the woman in the video? Why would you trust her, instead of the police and innocent bystanders. How is it "harassment" to arrest someone for the millionth time for committing a crime?
    1
  7950. I normally don't engage flat Earthers. Or, I suppose I should say I don't knowingly engage. But, the little picture of a flat Earth with the north pole in the center... I couldn't resist. If any single one of you people actually believed what you claim, you'd book flights on any of the hundreds of flights in the southern hemisphere, which would be impossible on your pancake. Take Qantas QF27 as an example, from Sydney to Santiago. It's 7,000 miles on a globe. On your pancake with the north pole in the center, it would be about 20,000 miles. Yet, every day, hundreds of people routinely fly that distance in about 12.5 hours. This is perfectly consistent with going an average of about 560 mph, the speed of airliners. But, if you want to go 20,000 miles in that amount of time, you need to average 1,600 mph, a speed that would rip the wings off of any airliner, and is well beyond the capability of the the airframe or engines. That's outrunning F22 Raptor fighters, outrunning Concorde supersonic airliners, and just about anything else in the sky. And, it would burn far more fuel than the airliner could even carry. One of the few airplanes that is even capable of going that fast is the F15, but, those things can only sustain that for a couple hundred miles. And, no aircraft in existence can go 20,000 miles without refueling. Not one. Anywhere. Yet, none of you people will ever just book one of those flights to prove your pancake is wrong. Nope. You'll sit there on YouTube, ignoring all input, and pretending to know things you don't. But, to actually just hop on a single flight that proves your pancake isn't correct? Nope. You won't do it. Will you? Too married to your delusions?
    1
  7951.  @aok4418  You know, among the parade of ignoring all input, deleting your threads, refusing to answer questions/challenges, and then demanding that other people should answer you (while you refuse to answer anybody else), and having your mind set sail into the sunset by believing multiple people are actually one person... one of the truly ridiculous OTHER things in dealing with you is the fact that your English is so crippled. I'll cut the slack if your native language is something else entirely. But, if your native tongue is English, man, seriously, you can't read or write better than a 2nd grader. It's downright painful reading any of your hundreds of posted messages because I need to translate from 2nd grader English into real English. Are you an English speaker natively, or not?
    1
  7952. You are correct, she didn't legally need to provide the receipt. However, a store or police are allowed to ask for one. And, if you choose not to provide it, you must be prepared for the consequences that include the possibility that you will be arrested. As for probable cause to arrest, sorry, but he had that. The store employee said she saw the woman go through without paying. She was wrong, but, that provided the reasonable suspicion to investigate. After that, the woman refused to ID herself (which she is required by law to do), and continued to obstruct and obfuscate (which you can be arrested for right there, regardless of whether you're guilty of the original theft crime). In total, there's plenty of probable cause for the arrest. But, you don't have to take my word for it. Her own high profile attorney didn't sue the police. He sued the store for $50,000, and of course, that lawsuit was thrown out of court with prejudice. But, he never even filed a suit against the police. Now, why would that be? If anything you said was true, the stronger case would be against the police, not the store, right? So, what exactly do you think you know about this, which her own attorney didn't know?
    1
  7953. What kind of drugs did this to you?
    1
  7954. 4) If memory serves (from reading the lawsuit): They arrived at about 1pm, and started drinking in the pool at about 3pm. He "blacks out" after a couple of drinks (his claim in the interviews). But, the drowning happened after dark, at about 7:30, when someone spotted a couple of bodies in the pool and reported it to a hotel employee (no, not anybody in the pool). The lawsuit doesn't specify if anybody else was in the pool at that time. But, it sounds (reading between the lines) like the two drunks went back into the pool after hours, when nobody else was there. 5) The drinking age in Mexico is 18. YOU SAID: "Sad situation but blaming the resort is a stretch." == I can't find the lawsuit against the resort (probably because it was filed in Mexico, and I don't know how to look that up). But, the one filed in the USA against the travel agency is available to read. They are suing the travel agency, asserting that the travel agency knew this 5 star resort served bad alcohol, and booked the trip anyway, thus are responsible for the girl's death. In the lawsuit they filed, the best "connection" they can make to tainted alcohol is that this resort purchased alcohol from the same supplier as a different resort did, which had tainted alcohol. If you ask me, that's a ridiculously weak link. They make no claim in the lawsuit that this particular resort ordered any tainted alcohol, only that some other resort did. And, it baffles me to understand how the travel agency is supposed to know the alcohol purchasing history of the 5-star resort. I mean, is it customary in the travel agency business to require that the travel agent research what alcohol the hotel purchases? And, if the cops didn't find any tainted alcohol in this resort's history, how is the travel agency supposed to know about it? If the strongest link they can produce is "the resort down the road used the same supplier," so what? Who said the supplier doesn't also supply better quality alcohol? Anyway, time will tell, I guess. But, if you ask me, the fact that they waited 22 months before filing the lawsuits, and they are blaming the travel agency... yeah... sounds pretty outlandish. The blood alcohol was at 0.25 according to the articles. Did the travel agency make the 20 year old girl drink to the point of a 0.25 alcohol level?
    1
  7955. Killing someone in self defense is not the same thing as killing someone for being an idiot.
    1
  7956. Spare the world your drama. Anybody who cries "George Floyd" every time an arrest happens is extremely weak and has nothing to offer. By that logic, police should never make an arrest. THIS arrest was 100% valid.
    1
  7957. YOU SAID: "If you pay people enough and threaten their lives, they'll keep any secret. We will find out soon that the landings never happened. All everyone only saw was a film." == Bullshit. Astronauts were paid diddly squat. And, as for threatening them, don't be so stupid. These were men who had ice in their veins, defying death for a living. You think they could threaten Neil Armstrong? He flew 78 combat missions. He was shot down behind enemy lines. He nearly got killed in his Gemini mission. He had to bail out of one of his hundreds of LLRV/LLTV flights, about 1 second before it crashed. He flew the X15 rocketplane deathtrap numerous times. Oh, but they're just going to threaten him, and oh, ok, he'll just comply? Bullshit. And, the same goes for almost all of the rest of the astronauts, most of whom had very similar histories, most of whom were military. I mean, good grief. Do you think anybody on the planet could ever threaten Admiral Alan Shepard, and live through it? I'll tell you EXACTLY what he would have done if he seriously had his life threatened. He'd have shot whoever threatened him (if there is a realistic threat of his life, then it's self defense), and then gone straight to the press. That's what he'd have done, and so would most of the others. And, hey, dumbass, how do you think this EXACTLY goes anyway? You're a young aspiring college student who wants to be an engineer and NASA administrator someday. You go get degrees. And, more degrees. You go apply at NASA, because you want to contribute to the American adventure of space travel. Then, they tell you it's all a hoax, and now your job requirement is to go kill astronauts who don't go along with the hoax? Is that how this goes, in your mind? Good gods, you're dumb.
    1
  7958.  @moonlandingneverhappened1019  YOU SAID: "Countries who received pieces of "moon rock" said they examined them and they turned out to be petrified rocks from earth." == Bullshit, you idiot. You are, once again, intentionally distorting a story to suit your delusion. About 20-25 years ago, the children of a dead 1940s Prime Minister tried to sell a "moon rock" that they said their father had been given by NASA. Nobody purchased it. It was the wrong color. It was FAR too large (NASA had never given out that size before). There was no NASA plaque that came with it. It wasn't encased in Lucite (like every other sample had been). Nope, nothing about this sample was correct. And, what was their "evidence" that it was real? They had a crinkled laminated piece of paper that said it came from NASA. The kids never had any success in selling it, because it was too unbelievable to anybody who looked at it. So, they took it to the local museum to "donate" it (undoubtedly claiming a massive tax incentive). The museum didn't know what to think of it. But, after all, these were the kids of a dead 1940s Prime Minister, so, they took it on blind faith that it was real. They contacted NASA, who said there was no record of ever giving that old Prime Minister a moon rock. He had been out of office from a decade or two by the time the moon landings happened, so why would they ever give him one? But, NASA said that the museum could send the "moon rock" to them, and they'd try to take a look. The museum didn't do it. Instead, they stuck it in a drawer for 14 years. Then, after all that time, they decided to put it on display. Someone in the crowd was a professional geologist and instantly spotted that this wasn't a moon rock, and alerted the museum. And, the rest is history. Now, you idiots are claiming that this is some sort of evidence against NASA... why? How is NASA even involved? NASA never gave them that moon rock. The evidence is laughable, and doesn't match ANY other moon rock ever seen. Oh, but you idiots think this is NASA's fault, huh? So, if some kids of a dead Prime Minister say they have a Rolex watch for sale... nobody buys it... there are too many things wrong with it to believe it's real... so they donate it to a museum... how is this Rolex's fault? Do real Rolex watches magically all cease to exist, because some dishonest kids tried to sell off a fake Rolex? This is the exact problem with you idiots. You just swallow ANYTHING that suits your delusion. ANYTHING, no matter how ridiculous. The museum doesn't even believe this was NASA's fault, and blamed themselves for not getting it checked out. Nobody believed those kids when they tried to sell it, oh, but now, you imbeciles believe EVERY WORD out of them? YOU SAID: "If they brought back 800 lbs of rock the Eagle would never been able to "take off" from the surface of the moon." == Wrong. It would have taken off just fine, there was plenty of thrust. But, they probably wouldn't have had enough energy to rendezvous with the command module, and would have likely run out of fuel before getting there. So what? Why do you think this is evidence against Apollo, you utter fucking moron? Nobody claimed that all 850 pounds of moon rocks were brought back on ONE mission, you stupid fool. They brought back some rocks on EACH mission, with a TOTAL of 850 pounds. And, yes, they had enough fuel for that. If you doubt it, hey, be my guest, and calculate it yourself. If you find that the entire world is incorrect about their rocket fuel calculations, and you can disprove Apollo simply by the amount of rocks they brought back, you'll win a Nobel Prize, hands down, for rewriting every rocket equation ever used for the past 100+ years, and for disproving Apollo mathematically. Good luck with that. YOU SAID: "Take a good look at Devon Island, it's a good location for filming." == Nope, it was filmed ON THE MOON. YOU SAID: "Please do your own research, and keep an open mind." == Oh, the hypocrisy. You know NOTHING about this subject. NOTHING. NOTHING at all. Your "logic" is crippled beyond belief. Your "opinions" fly in the face of all known science on the topic. There isn't a rocket scientist or aerospace engineer who agrees with you. There isn't a geologist on Earth who agrees with you. You swallowed that utterly dumb "petrified wood" story, which the museum itself doesn't even believe happened the way you're claiming. No, dumbass, you don't have an "open mind" yourself. You are a delusional moron, who believes ANYTHING to support your delusion, regardless of how hilariously false. Don't tell ME to "have an open mind," you dumbass. You've opened your mind, and your brain fell out. YOU SAID: "Why can't we see the lunar landing sites on something that's only 249,000 miles away, Saturn is 746 million miles away? We were able to see Saturn with a 15" telescope that we ourselves owned." == Correct. Saturn is HUGE. The stuff on the moon is tiny (by comparison). Oh, but you go right ahead and calculate the size of lens you'd need to see the stuff on the moon. Let me know how that works out for you. But, of course, we all know you don't have the foggiest clue how do to that. So, I'll tell you the answer. The lens would need to be over a QUARTER MILE in diameter. A QUARTER MILE, you utter moron. Yeah, go right ahead, buy a telescope with a quarter mile lens on it. I'm sure they sell them at Walmart. You can set it up in back of your trailer park. I'm sure nobody would mind.
    1
  7959. @butchtropic YOU SAID: "The exposure from a week long trip plus the travel through the VAB's amounted to less than a chest X-ray, FACT. " == No. It was more like 4 full body CT scans.
    1
  7960. My guess is that you're talking about Armstrong's crash in the LLRV? Yeah, 13.5 months before the mission (round up to 14).
    1
  7961. I doubt this arrest was any different than all of the rest of her arrests. If her mile long history of drugs and alcohol, various arrests, her prison term for stealing cars, her multiple judgements against her for theft, her numerous failures to appear in court, etc., didn't bother her, then I don't know why one more arrest would matter all that much to her.
    1
  7962. So, yes, your claim is that the 7,000 Grumman engineers forgot to include oxygen for the voyage, and nobody in history noticed until you. That IS your claim.
    1
  7963. Something tells me that your mind gets blown rather easily.
    1
  7964. Well, you seem to be able to read and write at a 4th grader level, unlike most of the people who think the way you do, who read and write at a 2nd grader level. I guess you did a couple more years in school before you dropped out than most of the people who share your opinions. But, you apparently still don't understand how the law works. If this woman's abhorrent behavior is admirable to you, I'd hate to see how badly you behave in life. And, no, sorry, she doesn't know her rights at all. If she did, she'd know that she lives in an identify state (like most states), where you are required by law to provide identification during a police investigation, and it's an arrestable offense not to provide it, under the obstruction laws. Yet, she repeatedly refused. She'd also know that obfuscation is a crime. And, she'd know that resisting arrest is also a chargeable offense. But, hey, you just keep pretending to know things you don't. I'm sure it'll serve you very well when the handcuffs are on you next time.
    1
  7965.  @WalkingFree-eo8mc  Dewdrop, how many of those dollars (prior to 2019's Artemis program) were allocated for manned moon missions?
    1
  7966. Pfftt. Yeah, perfect law. Like, how about Deuteronomy 22:28 - where it spells out that a raped virgin needs to marry her rapist for the rest of his life? Yeah, great law there. Right. Sure. Man rapes virgin girl, virgin girl gets punished for it.
    1
  7967. Yeah, leave those guys alone when they're doing the same thing at the playground. It's none of your business.
    1
  7968. Yeah, leave guys alone when they're at the playground doing the same thing that she was doing.
    1
  7969. Huh? Which video? The video of the incident itself has never been released due to graphic content. The arrest video wasn't released until 2.5 years later, long after she died. And, it was released due to the Freedom of Information Act. I fail to understand your suit...????
    1
  7970. Compensate the victims? Can you even imagine the result of such a concept? So, all I need to do is have an anonymous buddy under a fake ID harass my kids online, and then I get paid?
    1
  7971. Who told you there was any such picture?
    1
  7972. Where did you see such pictures? On a conspiracy video that lied to you?
    1
  7973. "and I'm sure you got every picture" Yes, I already told you that. "hell you where probably on the thing" No, I was too young at that time. "are you saying you think these are fake pictures" Dewdrop, you haven't named the photos you're talking about. I can't read your mind. All I can say for certain is that you have absolutely no understanding of the topic (nor of the English language, for that matter). "if so then they can fake it can't they" Sure. Photos can always be fake. But, I'm not the one who asked the silly question but won't respond about where you saw these photos. I asked you who told you that there were photos like that. Others asked for more clarity also. You refuse to give it, other than to tell people (in broken English) to watch videos. You know, most people (the sane ones) would be able to respond about where they saw such photos. Most people (the sane ones) would be able to answer questions. Not you, though. Nope. You refused to answer anything asked of you, won't name where you saw these photos you're talking about, and instead, you proudly display your 2nd grader level of command over the English language, declaring that every single expert on the planet for 50+ years was unable to find this amazing "evidence" you think you found. Now, what'll it be, dewdrop? Did you watch a silly conspiracy video that told you there were such photos? Or not? Are you ever going to reveal the source of these mysterious photos?
    1
  7974. Dewdrop, you haven't answered a single question I asked. And, I'm sorry that you don't understand how YouTube works, but, if you posted a link to something, nobody can see it but you.
    1
  7975. "you haven't asked an intelligent question" Mainly, I asked where you saw such photos. What's wrong with you? It's not "intelligent" to ask where you saw the photos you're talking about? And, I also asked why you ask questions when you make it clear that you don't want answers. You refuse to address it. "and you're right I don't have all the answers" You haven't answered ANYTHING!!! Good grief. "nor do you you have no more proof it's real" Of course there's a ton of proof that it's real. But, you haven't asked for it. You asked about photos taken of the craft from outside while landing. I've been trying to address that. But, it's like trying to talk to an earthworm about politics. A one-way street. Asking you where you got the notion there were any such photos has been an impossible task. You refuse to answer. "it's fake" But, dewdrop, you don't know anything about the topic.
    1
  7976. Dewdrop, if you're posting links, again, you just don't understand YouTube. Nobody can see them besides yourself. Good grief. This is like teaching calculus to an earthworm. You just aren't capable of understanding very much. I really can't help you when it comes to the limitations of your own intellect. But, good gods, get this through your skull: you cannot post a link if you expect anybody else to see it. You can name a video and a timestamp, and I can go find it. But, most links are banned in most comments.
    1
  7977. Exactly how far gone are you? Your reading and writing skills are at basically a 2nd grader's level. You ignore all questions, refusing to answer. You say you're posting your "evidence," and I don't know if you're posting links or not, but you refuse to get it into your head that nobody can see links besides yourself. You've been asked repeatedly where those photos you're talking about came from, but won't answer. I seriously doubt you graduated high school. And, let's not pretend here, you're quite obviously not the brightest bulb. Yet, you sit there and pretend you're in the superior position? We are 25+ posts into this thread, and you have not yet told anybody where to see these photos you're talking about, dewdrop. If you have attempted to post a link or something, again, for the 3rd time, nobody can see it except for you. Now, are you going to explain these photos you're talking about, or not? Quit pretending you have the high ground. Quit accusing others of not being able to see things you can see. Provide the evidence you're talking about, or just quit posting. And, while you're at it, frankly, I don't even believe you're reading the answers to your own questions. So, can you prove you're even reading this message by writing "green" at the beginning of your next reply? Otherwise, I'll know you don't read the messages before you reply to them.
    1
  7978. You agree with each other, therefore you are both the same person. Right?
    1
  7979.  @aok4418  YOU are the one who claimed everyone who corrected your pile of gibberish was the same person, dewdrop. Do you not understand the irony?
    1
  7980.  @aok4418  So, when I say that it's ironic that you you think I'm multiple people... by accusing you of being multiple people... you still don't get it? Good grief.
    1
  7981. Content why means ? kidding on oder odor and all unusual Vids that Graphic at all... or and
    1
  7982. I'm sure they'd push the issue if it was a public place. But, on private property, you leave when you're told, or you're trespassing and can get arrested.
    1
  7983. Pffttt. That's not how it works. But, you go right ahead and keep making stuff up. That's what YouTube comments are for, right? To pretend to know things you don't know?
    1
  7984. His "point" was that because Rittenhouse made some off-handed comment about wishing he had a gun when he didn't, this somehow translates to being a murderer... even though the video quite clearly shows Rittenhouse under attack by armed rioters. So, if someday I say that I wish I had a gun when some punks were committing crimes, does this mean that, for the rest of my life, I should never defend myself, because that would mean I'm actually a murderer? Because, that's what this prosecutor is trying to say.
    1
  7985. It's worse than that. It's the hypocrisy while doing it. He keeps telling judges that they don't know what they're talking about, and that he knows the law better than they do. But, simultaneously, he says that he doesn't understand the nature of the charges against him, along with a million other things he says he doesn't understand. Of course, in reality, he understood the charges and everything else just fine, but, toward the end of the trial, he was looking for another mechanism to delay and try to cause a mistrial. And, "I don't understand, and you're not explaining it to me" looked like an option. (It wasn't going to work, but, he hoped.)
    1
  7986. What exactly do you think they did that was overkill?
    1
  7987. Incorrect. She is required by law to show ID.
    1
  7988. Dewdrop, you can make out the grainy outlines of him pointing the gun if you go frame by frame as the door opens. And, you can see the gun more clearly on the ground at 5:02 next to a piece of 2x4 wood. All parties in the lawsuit, including Mark's family, have agreed that he wielded the gun. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
    1
  7989. "I am unable to locate any officially issued report of the incident from the Department of Justice, including the forensic report and the ballistic analysis." Dewdrop, why would there be any such report? Who would analyze the ballistics of the bullets, and why? Nobody is questioning where the bullets came from. The police officer shot the carjacker. That's not even in question. They do ballistic analysis when they don't necessarily know where the bullets came from. Good grief.
    1
  7990. "Furthermore, there appears to be a firearm located under a red bag, which seems to have no connection to the victim" Dewdrop, the victim was the cop who was about to be shot by the carjacker. And, as I said, the gun is in plain view on the ground next to a 2x4 piece of wood, not under a red bag. Are you intentionally trying to avoid looking at it?
    1
  7991. "and raises concerns regarding the potential fabrication of evidence." What in the world are you talking about? His own attorney (family's lawsuit) acknowledges that the carjacker pulled the gun. His own family says the carjacker pulled the gun. You can make out the grainy outlines of him pulling the gun. And, there's a gun laying in plain view on the ground just seconds after the shooting. If you can't see it at 5:02, look at 1:50. Are you honestly sitting there, claiming that the cop magically "planted" the gun a couple of feet from the carjacker's hand just moments after the shooting?
    1
  7992. Stop pretending you know things you don't. Good grief.
    1
  7993. "Lawyer stands against accounts of LMPD officer involved shooting" - at 1:53 in that video, his own attorney says that the carjacker had his gun out. NOBODY (besides you) denies the gun, dewdrop. NOBODY. Your mind is clearly out at sea, never to return to normalcy. The cop successfully defended his life against a carjacker who pulled a gun on him, and you are accusing him of murder.
    1
  7994. I now see what you meant by the red bag (which they brought when giving medical aid to the carjacker). Dewdrop, as I said, the gun can be seen in the exact same spot at 1:50 in the video, long before the red bag arrived. And, all parties in the lawsuit have agreed that it was the carjacker's own gun.
    1
  7995. Is this a joke? This video demonstrates exactly why high capacity magazines ARE needed.
    1
  7996.  @davy1458  You obviously are completely oblivious to the facts of this particular case. You seem to be under the impression that this man was merely defending himself and his home (the same that you or I would). And, that's why you refused to address a single question or challenge I put forth. You ignored every word. Smith KNEW these teens. The girl was a daughter in a family Smith had been feuding with for years. Her cousin, the boy, used to work for Smith. After getting robbed a couple of times, he installed cameras, and figured out who was robbing him. But, instead of going to the police with his evidence, nope, instead, he planned to kill them. He established their pattern. He knew they were coming that day. He parked his car far away, so they wouldn't know he was home. He retrieved two tarps from outside, and brought them inside (this is on video), and placed them next to where he planned to kill them. He unscrewed the light bulbs so they couldn't turn on the lights to see him inside. He then sat in waiting with two guns, and rehearsed (on tape) what he planned on doing and saying. He rehearsed what he was going to say to attorneys and police and friends. He said on that recording that he planned on shooting in the left eye. (Remember, the teens didn't even get to his house yet, he was planning this.) When the teens got there, only the boy came in first. He shot and killed the boy, yelling "you're dying" while doing it. Then, he gathered up the body within a few seconds with the tarp he had ready, moved it to the other room, and waited around 20 minutes for the girl to come in. He shot her once or twice, but his gun jammed. She was crying in pain on the ground, so Smith apologized for not killing her faster. He then went up to her, and put two bullets directly into her left eye from point-blank range. Later, he went back and put another bullet through her chin, just to make 100% sure she was dead. (He said in his confession that he had no intention of letting her live.) Then, he said "cute." And, he kept the bodies for 24 hours before calling the police. The girl was found with her shirt open (make of that what you will). Yes, intruders take their lives into their hands, and risk getting shot, if they break into houses. But, Smith went MILES past "self-defense" in this case. These were premeditated murders. And, that's why literally EVERYONE disagrees with you, all the way up to the US Supreme Court, who denied his appeal. If anybody breaks into my house by surprise, I'm defending my home the same way you are. I'm armed, and will use lethal force if I fear for my life, or that of my family. But, Smith wasn't in that position. He didn't fear these teens. He knew them, hated them, and wanted to kill them. If I was in his shoes, I'd have gone to the police with the evidence. I'd have set up a "sting" with the police there to capture the teens in the act. I wouldn't intentionally want to kill a couple of teens (one of whom was still under 18) for the crime of theft. I know the line between murder and self defense. Smith went a mile and a half past that line.
    1
  7997.  @davy1458  So, you're proud of being stupid? Alright, enjoy your eventual and inevitable prison term.
    1
  7998.  @snnnaaaaaakeeeee4470  Well, fine. But, even better, how about just calling the police as soon as he installed the cameras and knew who was doing it. Instead, what happened? He was robbed a couple of times, reported it to the police, but, there was no way to know who was doing it. Then, after he installed the cameras and knew who was doing it, he never called the police again, and, instead, decided to murder them. Or, ok, if he wasn't going to do that, alright, he knew the kids were coming that day, he could have called the police and said, "I have identified the people robbing me, and their pattern, they're coming today again, please send a cop to wait inside with me, and catch them in the act." Any of those things would be a million times better than planning two murders.
    1
  7999. This is a joke, right?
    1
  8000. You clearly don't want the answers you're pretending to ask for. Stop pretending.
    1
  8001. What? What is this babble? YOU SAID: ".2 something is high but not enough that either should have passed out" == Well, it was .25 to be specific. And, different people have different tolerance levels, of course. But, yes, .25 is quite high enough to believe that people will pass out. YOU SAID: "face down in a pool let alone both of them." == Well, that's where the shoddy reporting comes in, and inconsistent stories. Their own lawsuit, filed by the family, states that the brother was splashing around in the pool, and NOT face down. YOU SAID: "A person may pass out in a lounge chair while being inactive but not in a pool while being active!" == Well, I'm sure glad the world has people like you, who know everyone on Earth's exact tolerance for alcohol, without ever having met them. YOU SAID: "Clearly something was slipped to them." == Um, what? At 0.25, you think anybody needs to "slip them" something in order to believe they were fall-down drunk? YOU SAID: "But it will be difficult if not impossible to prove it was tainted alcohol provided by the hotel." == Yes, especially since that particular 5-star resort has a 100% clean record, never once in their history having been found with any tainted alcohol. And, with no report of any methanol in their bodies, it sure doesn't support the idea that it's tainted alcohol. Also, no other guests suffered from any tainted alcohol. YOU SAID: "I wonder if both were slipped the date rape drug by someone." == Then, wouldn't you think the blood tests would show that, and that's what the lawsuit would say? YOU SAID: "Abby for the obvious reason and Austin to get him out of the way so the perpetrator could take advantage of Abby." == What perpetrator would that be? She couldn't have been face down in that pool for more than a few minutes. Within 6 minutes, you're brain dead, and your body completely stops functioning. She was still alive. Her brain functions were greatly reduced, but she was alive, meaning that she probably was that way for a good amount less than 6 minutes. And, if someone took advantage of her, why isn't the family even saying that? What do you know about this case that the family doesn't know? Did you run a medical rape kit on her, without the family knowing, and you can confirm evidence of someone taking advantage of her? Or, are you an internet clown who likes to spew out baseless accusations that come from your own ignorant ass?
    1
  8002. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    1
  8003. Your "reasoning" is "legit" while you say the rockets were made of Legos, and spacesuits were made of sheets? Oh, pure genius, you are, you are.
    1
  8004. Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  8005. No harm either.
    1
  8006. Well, at least nobody knew about it until long after she was dead.
    1
  8007. Bingo. Especially because Inside Edition decided to make two rounds. They knew darned well that she's been dead for years. But, they decided to release one round of videos, while not mentioning she's already dead. Then, in the 2nd round, they post the "update" that she's dead, and let people believe the 1st round caused it.
    1
  8008. "You've never heard of Artemis, Orion, the Israeli, Russian, Japanese and Indian recent lunar lander's; never heard of Peregrine, and Odysseus,? The Chinese space program? There's currently a space race going on between many of the developed nations. Where have you been?" Dewdrop, he said there's been MORE INTEREST in developing aircraft than flying to the moon, and he's correct.
    1
  8009. "You're demonstrating you're ignorance" I am demonstrating I am ignorance? Dewdrop, if you're going to accuse the other person of ignorance, it really backfires when you cannot even spell your words correctly in that very sentence.
    1
  8010. "Telemetry and trajectory." Yes, dewdrop. And, the 1960s computers could do that too. You haven't named anything that pertains to going to the moon for which a modern computer makes all that much difference. "Computers aren't important for measuring the fuel capacity, pressure and temperature of the fuel in the rockets and at what rate the fuel is being consumed?" Strawman. I didn't say they didn't use computers. I said that advancement in computers is fairly irrelevant in the bigger picture of going to the moon. There's nothing about computers that we have been "waiting for" to go to the moon. Modern computers do not make the task any easier, nor really change the amount of effort or money required.
    1
  8011. "It was retired"? You're joking. Or you're living under a rock. Never heard of Artemis? Orion? NASA's plans to send men back to the Moon? Retired?" The guy asked why we cannot do it today. It's because all of that technology was retired. It's still being built back. We're not 100% there yet.
    1
  8012. So, you modify the definition of aeronautics, you accuse me of ignorance while you can't spell the words you're using, and you delete your comments? Yeah, we're done here, right dewdrop?
    1
  8013. So, now you're deleting your spelling errors and trying again? Hilarious!! Look, dewdrop, you don't know what you're talking about. Stop pretending you do.
    1
  8014. Like I said, we're done here. When you feel compelled to lie constantly, there's really no point here.
    1
  8015. Huh? Which video? The video of the actual incident has never been released. And, the arrest video wasn't released until 2.5 years later. Nobody saw it while she was alive.
    1
  8016. Huh? Read her rights BEFORE arresting? What? Called for a supervisor? In Jacksonville, the murder/felony capitol of the state? "Calling all cars, calling all cars, stop investigating murders and violent crimes, we have a woman here who is upset because the store thought she stole a piece of chicken and some bread, drop everything, I need help here. Mayday! Mayday!!" Sheeeessshhh. Get real here. Sorry, but the woman caused this herself when she refused to ID (required by law), obstructed, and obfuscated. Soooooo sorry if you're upset from just a silly human error. Personally, when I'm stopped, I just provide my receipt and thank them for trying to reduce theft, to keep everyone's costs lower. We ALL pay for theft in the form of higher prices, and I appreciate it when the store employees try to control that better. Yes, sometimes a mistake will be made. But, it's better than never stopping anybody.
    1
  8017. Where'd you hear it? On the internet? Everything on the internet is true. Nobody has ever lied on the internet.
    1
  8018. No, that's not the lesson. She did pay for her goods. She had her receipt. The better lesson here is to identify yourself when a police officer stops you in a lawful investigation (you are required by law to do so). The other part of the lesson is to NOT obfuscate and obstruct the investigation. And, the final part is to NOT resist when a cop tells you you're under arrest.
    1
  8019. Doubtful. It received nearly zero coverage until the arrest video was released (which was long after she was dead). And, the couple of articles that did cover it while she was alive were hardly considered "blast."
    1
  8020. This is a well understood reaction from people incapable of ever admitting being wrong.
    1
  8021. No, you're not a crackpot at all.
    1
  8022. Dewdrop, if all you're going to do is reject the words of James Van Allen when he talked about the Van Allen belts, what is your purpose here? If James Van Allen's own words couldn't convince you that you don't understand the Van Allen belts, why are you asking questions at all? Clearly, you have determined, in advance, that you don't want answers to your own questions. So, why'd you ask them?
    1
  8023. Why do NONE of you blind followers of Inside Edition ever check the facts? Arrest = July 1, 2021. Suicide = March, 2022 (unknown date). Body found = March 31, 2022. Arrest video released = November 24, 2023. There cannot be blood on anybody's hands because of an arrest video that nobody saw until 1.5 years after she died.
    1
  8024. Yeah, the entire planet's community of aerospace engineers and physicists are all wrong, and you're right. Sure.
    1
  8025. She was embarrassed for what, exactly?
    1
  8026. No, in the US, proof of guilt is for the courtroom, not for the side of the road. At the side of the road, the burden is only "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause." There is no burden of proof at the side of the road. You are apparently advocating a system where you first need to prove guilt, before you can even interrogate somebody. I wouldn't even be able to imagine such a system. Tasers aren't for self defense against violence. Tasers are for forced compliance. The woman resisted arrest. She made it very clear that she wouldn't submit to being arrested unless forced to do so. Therefore, he used the Taser.
    1
  8027. Huh? Are we watching the same video?
    1
  8028.  @Dr.Dabber  "innocent until proven guilty" If you're talking about the first guy, yes, he was ARRESTED, not convicted. "the officer pulled up with an allegation and aggressively started what should be an investigation" Gee, known repeat felons, drug dealers carrying guns and wads of money around, yeah, let's investigate. What did they find? Wads of money, piles of drugs, and multiple guns. "with one perp running" Wielding a gun. "and the other being detained." Rightfully so. "my issue is with the first officer and the first perp where the officers is clearly lying about the guy resisting" On what planet? You can hear him resisting!! All of that grunting and struggling and yelling at the officers. And, he continued all the way to the car, where he kept pushing and kicking and refusing to stay inside. Do you think these are first time criminals here? Do you think they don't know to say, "I'm not resisting" (while they resist)? I just love how you trust the bad guys, and think the good guys are the ones doing wrong. The bad guys are known repeat felons with guns and piles of drugs that they're dealing. Oh, but, they weren't resisting. Sure. What planet do you live on? "and adding multiple charges just because that is the way cops are used to treating citizens." Again, on what planet? "the police are directly negatively impacting the community" So, let me get this straight... the drug dealing felons carrying guns around aren't negatively impacting the community. It's the COPS who are the problem? "with behavior like that and its a disgrace to the badge and oath that they swore too." When you learn English, let me know. Shy of that, all I can say is that you clearly didn't finish high school.
    1
  8029. Dewdrop, if the officer stopped and focused on aid immediately, then there's a good chance that he's the one who would end up needing that very same aid himself. Secure the scene first. Get plenty of cops onsite. Otherwise, he could end up like Mark. As it was, a screaming banshee arrived seconds later. A screaming brother a couple of minutes after that. Who's to say how many others may have been waiting for the cop to put his focus on aid, and then would pick up where Mark left off. In retrospect, yes, he probably would have been safe to render aid more quickly. But, that's not the best procedure in a situation like this, with too many unknowns about how many more of Mark's friends are going to come onto the scene. Secure the scene first, render aid second.
    1
  8030. What shame would that be? A couple of obscure blogs that nobody has ever heard of? And, if "shame" was an issue for her, maybe she chose the wrong career path, eh? (Her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club.) And, maybe she shouldn't have plopped down at a public beach and put on a show for bystanders (including children), huh?
    1
  8031. Well, it wouldn't have mattered anyway, because one of the witnesses recorded it, and gave a copy of the video to the police. Needless to say, it didn't match her sob story about "nobody was around." And, yeah, with her extensive criminal record, felony time spent in a Florida prison, and million other arrests, you'd think she'd know by then not to talk. But, my best guess is that she figured that being silent would be a 100% guarantee that they'd look her up and find all of the open warrants, but, by trying to cry her way out of it, there'd be a 50/50 chance that they'd let her go before looking her up.
    1
  8032. So, you're just going to double down on pretending to know things you don't?
    1
  8033. The lunar surface has about an inch or two of loose dust (varies depending on location), then, underneath, is a compacted layer of regolith. Sometimes it was rocky, sometimes not. There's no significant amount of water on the moon, it's virtually a dead dry rock, so, I'm sorry that I'm drawing an instantly false equivalence here... but... here goes... the layer underneath the dust was basically like clay. As I just said, no, it wasn't clay, because clay requires moisture. But, for the purposes of what you're describing, clay is a good enough analogy to make the point. It wasn't 20 feet of loose dust or something. So, flagpoles would go in an inch or two, then require a lot more work to get them to go further. Sometimes they had to hammer it down. Sometimes they could get the pole to penetrate the compacted material by just twisting while pushing.
    1
  8034. So, you cannot actually name something you find convincing in a video YOU posted... and, the only real reply you've made (of any substance) is a link to a video posted by a known charlatan, showing a guy who was basically "confessing" about Apollo, even though he wasn't even alive during Apollo, and his only information comes from and 2nd hand nobody. How far down the drain have you flushed your brain away?
    1
  8035. Oh, another hoaxer who can't spell better than a 2nd grader. I'm shocked.
    1
  8036.  @occhamite  You can never be sure, but, I think he's on our side. I think he's laughing at the notion that the denier dewdrops think they built that massive rocket NOT to use it.
    1
  8037. "Regarding the 1000s of photographs, you exaggerate about the number" Um, no, dewdrop. He's not exaggerating about the photos. He was wrong about thousands of hours of 16mm film video. I don't know why he'd have written that. It's wrong. But, yes, they took about 7,000 photos from the lunar surface, and I have copies of every single one of them (short the reel left on the lunar surface by mistake, which nobody has copies of). They also took about 110,000 photos from lunar orbit.
    1
  8038. "shaky camera could take photos of such clarity" Have you looked at them? There are literally about 1,000 photos that are so bad that you can't even make out what's in them, or they're so out of focus or exposed incorrectly that it rendered the photos useless. There are a couple thousand more that are pretty marginal. They're ok, but have lots of problems. Hundreds of photos in a row on Apollo 16, for example, had a huge smudge across each and every shot, because some junk got into the camera when they changed film canisters and it got onto the inside of the lens. None of you people ever complain about those, because it ruins your narrative about the photos being too perfect. And, in your case, you don't even know they exist.
    1
  8039. I cannot help people who are proud to know nothing.
    1
  8040. Yeah, the father changed his version of the story a couple of times. In one interview, he said that Mark knew someone was in the car, and went to go find out who it was. In another, he said that definitely knew that Mark didn't think anybody was in the car. Gee, do you suppose he consulted the attorney in between the two interviews, and the attorney told him that it was really bad for their case if Mark knew someone was in the car? And, hmmm, Mark died about 20 seconds after getting shot. How would the father know ANYTHING about what his son was thinking?
    1
  8041. Doubtful. They made millions in ad revenue from making this viral.
    1
  8042. Huh? It was a suicide.
    1
  8043. @Robin Hammill Good grief. Sorry, you're wrong. Florida is an identify state. She refused 100x (mostly in the longer version of this video, while this one cuts off the first half). Refusing to identify is an arrestable offense all by itself. You are correct in that she doesn't legally have to show a receipt, but, the rest of her actions were clearly illegal (refusing to ID, obstruction and obfuscation of a police investigation, and resisting arrest).
    1
  8044. I think she stood up for whatever she believed would result in a larger lawsuit. Hence why she repeatedly asked to be Tased and arrested: I think she was trying to make it more dramatic, because she thought she'd get a bigger payout than if she just complied. And, why do you keep begging the question. Sorry, but the cop DID have stuff on her. There was the original suspicion of theft, which her behavior just added to. There were also the obvious crimes of refusing to provided identification, obstruction and obfuscation, and then resisting arrest added on top. Sorry, but you don't just leave someone alone if the store tells you someone stole. How do you think this goes? The store paid money to have that cop there that day. Do you think their employees are going to say, "hey, we think that person stole something, can you check it out?" And, the cop is supposed to say, "nope, sorry, not good enough." Of course not. Yes, if a store employee thinks someone stole, that is reasonable suspicion to proceed to investigate.
    1
  8045. North Korea threatens to shoot missiles at Guam (a US owned territory, where we have a major US military base), and the press is harping on Trump for saying he'll attack them for doing it?? Good grief. Guam is practically a 51st state. You don't even need a passport to go to/from Guam. Their currency is US dollars. They have a person representing Guam in the US Congress. The USA's government officially oversees Guam's local government. Yet, the press is acting as if Trump is butting in where he doesn't belong, and that we shouldn't threaten North Korea when they say they're going to shoot missiles at Guam??? If they threatened to shoot missiles at California, would the press still be harping on Trump for saying he'll attack them for doing so?
    1
  8046. Akbar Ravi: I wouldn't even know how to respond to the utterly illiterate gibberish you spewed. How is a single word of your reply relevant to a single word I posted?
    1
  8047. Sorry, as bad and un-dateable as she is, your rationalization for lack of dating is ridiculous. Do you not drive a car, because sometimes there are car crashes? Do you not eat food, because sometimes it causes food poisoning? The only people who don't date are the ones who are completely asexual, or people who can't get dates.
    1
  8048. Do you ever get tired of pretending to know things you don't? Just stop. You KNOW you have no understanding of radiation. Quit pretending you do.
    1
  8049. I can't quite tell who you're blaming? The hospitals for making sure they have a mechanism to get paid? Your insurance company for not setting up a payment path with foreign hospitals, so the hospitals don't feel the need to take a deposit? Who? What EXACT mechanism would you propose to fix this problem?
    1
  8050. Freedom of Information Act. How can the police stop it?
    1
  8051. Where can someone find one of these "low tech telescopes" to see any items left by humans on the moon? Can you name one?
    1
  8052.  @SakuraKinomoto-rs2ue  You clearly don't know the difference between distance and resolution.
    1
  8053. The 1950s and 1960s X15 was an airplane that went mach 7. We don't have anything close now. And, you expect me to believe we did it 60 years ago?
    1
  8054. Yes, it's disgusting to form an opinion on one "news" (not news) story. No, I read the lawsuits, toxicology reports, police reports, etc. That's how I came to my opinions. How did you? You didn't watch one interview and blame the hotel, did you?
    1
  8055. Yes, a public beach. And, sorry, your analogy is just incorrect. And, she should have been pretty used to being arrested by that point in her life.
    1
  8056. Also, why did you even ask questions if you didn't want answers? You clearly planned on rejecting the answers before you got them. So, what are you even doing here?
    1
  8057. Yes, dewdrop, did you not read a single word I wrote?
    1
  8058. So, that's it? You asked for explanations, you got the explanations, and now you're just going to ignore it all and run for the hills?
    1
  8059. Can you please explain when police started giving reprimands for misdemeanor crimes? I thought they only had that level of discretion for an infraction, not a crime. But, you're clearly the legal expert here, so, I defer to you....
    1
  8060. Huh? Bezos and Branson at least have enough faith in their own product to ride in it. Musk knows better than to ride in his. But, you want to "be positive" and think that there's some sort of private/commercial market to use that monstrosity to go to the moon?
    1
  8061. Except, she was dead for 1.5 years before any of this was ever on YouTube. I mean, you don't trust Inside Edition, do you?
    1
  8062. The obituary said he died peacefully. Yes, literally, it said that.
    1
  8063. Open investigation vs. closed.
    1
  8064. You clearly know nothing about photography, so, stop pretending.
    1
  8065. "Didn't the space craft orbit the moon?" Yes. "wasn't it then on the dark side?" What don't you understand here, dewdrop? I spelled it out the best I could. The problem is that words can't match a diagram to show you the geometry. The "dark side" only means the side not facing the sun. But, if the Earth is still in view when on the dark side, then it's still not dark enough to see the Milky Way. So, let me lay this out more clearly: A) The craft needs to be on the other side of the moon relative to the sun, otherwise it's too bright. B) Simultaneously, the craft needs to be outside of the line of sight with the Earth, because the Earth's reflected light would still make things too bright to see the Milky Way. Being in the dark side of the moon relative to the sun isn't good enough. It needs to also be shaded from the Earth. C) Then, if those two conditions are met, the craft also needs to be facing the Milky Way if you expect astronauts to see it. I asked you if this was the case. I mean, I could look it up, but, it would take time, because the angles to face the Milky Way change a little bit every day of the year. So, I'd need to hunt down each mission's dates, where the Milky Way was in the sky, and then the sun angles relative to the moon and Earth for each of those dates in the mission, then calculate whether the craft was ever under those exact conditions. I asked you do to that part. "Your arguments show a certain brainwashing." I am brainwashing you by asking you to do the geometry and homework to find out if seeing the Milky Way was even a possibility? What's wrong with you? Hey, dewdrop, if you didn't want answers to your question, and didn't want responses to your comment, why did you post at all? Good grief. Do you see why it's impossible to even deal with you nuts? You ignored virtually everything I wrote, only responding about one component. Next time, dewdrop, if you think they should have seen the Milky Way, do the geometry, show the angles for it, and try again. Don't just sit here and say something is "odd" when you know nothing about the topic, or even if it was possible to see the Milky Way on any of the missions. Sheeeessssshhh.
    1
  8066.  @bradleyrex2968  The dewdrop wasn't even talking about individualized stars, he's talking about seeing the Milky Way, which is very difficult to do. I myself have only seen it a few times.
    1
  8067. So, that's it then? Pretend you know things you don't? And, if anybody tells you how to lay this out yourself and do the geometry, you run for the hills, call it "brainwashing" you, declare "CAP," and that's all? And, you're PROUD of your ridiculous behavior?
    1
  8068. Did she know the Clinton's what?
    1
  8069. Really? She put on a show in front of multiple people including children. And, you're worried that she was "shamed"? Who shamed her, and how?
    1
  8070. Given that you don't know the difference between "aid" (verb - administering help) and "aide" (a person whose job is to be an assistant), I seriously doubt your expertise on the topic. But, humoring you, what would you have done differently? Administer aid immediately, thus putting yourself in a position to be focused on the carjacker, rather than waiting for enough backup to come to secure the scene? What would happen to you, if you did what you wish, and another couple of guys crawled out of the woodwork to continue where the carjacker left off? Would you then be the one that needs aid?
    1
  8071. Are you REALLY under the impression that thousands of trained geologists can't tell the difference between a moon rock that was brought back in a sealed container, vs. a moon rock that screamed through the atmosphere? Seriously? That's like saying you can't tell the difference between a new car that rolled off of the assembly line 10 minutes ago, vs. one that has been hit by a train at 85 mph and exploded. Good grief. And, dewdrop, gee, please explain why the moon rocks were tested by countless geologists from around the world, and were found never to have been exposed to oxygen or moisture. Can you?
    1
  8072.  @michaelstillman1171  Well, that's what I meant by not knowing the difference between a phone number and a date. But, as for what she (the original poster) was thinking... well, I doubt she was thinking at all.
    1
  8073. That would be very nice, and I absolutely cannot stand that half of my messages are shadow-banned. But, we all are subject to the user agreement, which specifies no lawsuits. It'll take some sort of violation of free speech action to get it to rise above the user agreement and get a lawsuit going (which is long overdue, and needed, because that's definitely what they're doing).
    1
  8074. Yes, I agree. I just wouldn't know how to stop it, what with the Freedom of Information Act. But, at least the one saving grace is that the woman was long dead when the video was released. She wasn't alive to suffer any shame from it.
    1
  8075. No. That channel was deleted. I doubt we'll know who it was. But, what is he/she accountable for, exactly?
    1
  8076. They must release it as a result of a legal FOIA request. But, not for open investigations. In this case, however, the case had been closed for a long time. The video was from 2.5 years ago, and she was already dead for 1.5 of those years, so, they cannot continue to deny FOIA requests, and had to release it. But, the "good" thing is that, at least nobody saw the video while she was alive.
    1
  8077. Welcome to Inside Edition, where facts don't matter.
    1
  8078. They were 9mm hollow point rounds, which do not penetrate a truck very well.
    1
  8079.  @iamasexybiietch6966  YOU SAID: "calling someone dumb over defending their stance on a controversial topic, what is that exactly?" == Hey, if someone cannot tell the difference between capital punishment after having been granted trials and appeals, and having been found guilty by juries and judges.... vs. cold blooded murder... yeah, that person is dumb. There is no comparison. And, the only "controversy" is about capital punishment itself. There is no controversy about whether capital punishment is the same as cold blooded murder.
    1
  8080.  @iamasexybiietch6966  What the fuck? Did you even READ the comments before commenting yourself? Good fucking gods, what an idiot. This whole thread is an idiotfest, including you. READ WHAT SHE WROTE, YOU FUCKING IMBECILE. She wanted the officials who perform the capital punishment EXECUTED ALSO. All the rest of what you wrote is just plain dumb. Good gods, look who you're defending before you defend her. Sheeeessshhh. And, I use the format I use because stupid people tend to erase their messages after they are exposed as being stupid.
    1
  8081.  @differentlyrome9732  How proud of being an idiot are you, exactly? So, you are ANOTHER person who cannot distinguish between a cold blooded murderer, and someone who works for the state and performs capital punishment? Hey, dummy, guess what, in a SOCIETY, the rest of that SOCIETY doesn't have to adhere to the concepts YOU are outlining. Nobody cares what YOU think. Only YOUR god can decide these things? Um, hate to break it to you, but your god hasn't decided much of anything. There are tens of thousands of gods that mankind has created over the centuries. You didn't mention which one yours was. But, it really doesn't matter, because NOBODY's particular god has done very much about these things. So, yeah, sorry, but SOCIETY has to make decisions about how to deal with members of that society who have decided to go around killing other people. Oh, but YOUR particular god must decide about whether to execute a convicted murderer? Oh, I see. What if someone else's god says to execute them? What if someone else's god says that person shouldn't even be locked up for life? What if someone else's got says to let them be released from prison? What if someone else's god says to sacrifice them by throwing them into a volcano? See, dummy, the thing is, everyone has a different version of their particular god, and everyone claims that they know exactly what that god wants them to do. This is why, as a SOCIETY, we have a separation of church and state. Gods don't get to make those decisions, because nobody can actually agree on what the tens of thousands of different gods are going to say about it.
    1
  8082. Well, according to her landlord, she was a stripper at the local club. According to her neighbors, she also did "private" cash transactions in her apartment with numerous men. One of the witnesses recorded her on the beach and showed the video to the police. It didn't match her version about a quiet discreet act with nobody around (the story she was telling as she was attempting to avoid her millionth arrest, and probably was worried that she might end up back in prison again). So, what you propose might be quite possible/probable.
    1
  8083. Culprits? Um, do you even entertain the notion that the "culprits" were the drunken kids themselves, for drinking far too much, then sneaking back into the pool hours later when it's dark and nobody can see them?
    1
  8084. And, you'd believe that lunar orbiters have that kind of resolution capability, why?
    1
  8085. You should not make murderers into heroes, in your mind.
    1
  8086. How? What do you mean?
    1
  8087. Flagged for spam
    1
  8088. I try to make it a rule never to engage a flat Earther. Literally every claim they make is wrong, and I could reply to every claim and demonstrate why it's wrong. But, I won't. They never listen anyway. And, those kinds of people are too far gone to be saved. But, for this one claim, I can't help myself. Quote: "Space is said to have a neg 17 torr vacuum. That's a vacuum number so powerful that only scientist and mathematicians can fathom." No, dewdrop. You clearly dropped out before taking high school math. 1x10 to the neg-17 is NOT negative. You simply don't know how numbers are written. You believe that it's this amazingly large negative number, right? But, no. 1x10^-17 is 0.00000000000000001. (It means there are 17 decimal places AFTER the zero.) In other words, it's extremely close to ZERO. It's not a large number. It's not a negative number. It's not a powerful number. It's an amazingly small and insignificant number. Any scientist of mathematician would simply point out that you have no idea how numbers are written. If I told you my hair is 1x10^-17 inches long, would you think I'm the hairiest person who ever lived, making Princess Rapunzel look like she's bald? Or, would I be the one who looks bald?
    1
  8089.  @therealzilch  I couldn't see my longer reply. So, I posted just a couple sentence snip from the long reply into a short one. Can you see both? I talked about the fact that he doesn't understand what 10 to the neg power means.
    1
  8090.  @therealzilch  Here's a snip from my other reply that may or may not be showing up. 1x10 to the neg-17 is NOT negative. You simply don't know how numbers are written. You believe that it's this amazingly large negative number, right? But, no.
    1
  8091.  @therealzilch  Yeah, it's gotten worse though. I see it in one browser, but not another. (Both are incognito.) Then, I waited, and it re-appeared in the browser that couldn't see it after a refresh. Then disappeared after another refresh. Right now, it's back again.
    1
  8092.  @therealzilch  I'm just never going to understand this censorship. Change one or two words, no problem. And, it's not like there's anything offensive. I've mentioned it before, but one of the keywords they blocked was "breathe," and any message that contained that word was banned instantly for a few months (now fixed). Seriously, I don't see a purpose in this level of random censorship.
    1
  8093.  @therealzilch  I have also read that channel owners can ban certain keywords. Inside Edition bans the mention of other tabloid journalism sources on their channel.
    1
  8094. Thanks for proving you don't read responses, or understand math.
    1
  8095. Huh? Nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive, so, how could it have caused her suicide? It wasn't released until 2.5 years later, and she was long dead by then.
    1
  8096. No need to shoot him? Huh? What would you do if there was a gun pointed directly at YOUR head? Invite the carjacker for tea?
    1
  8097. Wow, what a productive and wise posting. How about a suggestion?
    1
  8098. All of those doctors are working on curing cancer, while no doctors work on Alzheimer's. All of those engineers work on making computers faster, while no engineers work on building new airplanes.
    1
  8099. A) Multiple people called the police, not just one family.
    1
  8100. B) Your claim that each person has done this is laughably wrong. One of the "audience" recorded this incident, and showed the video to the police. It is described in their police report as a very loud an public act, in view of multiple people, including children. Sorry, but, I don't know anybody who has put on this kind of display in front of an audience at a beach.
    1
  8101. D) You wanted to be her friend? Let's see... mile long legal history, felony prison term for stealing cars, numerous drug and alcohol charges, multiple judgements against her for various thefts, drug and alcohol charges galore, numerous failures to appear in court, with open arrest warrants, attempts to change her name to evade the police, left her family behind, including a husband and a 6 month old son, to live a "wild" and "off the rails" life (her family's words, not mine), etc. And, let's face reality here, it's not easy to get a straight job as a convicted felon with all of those arrests still pending. So, according to her landlord, her "career" was, well, ya know, one of those words that you can't use in YouTube comments... involves cash transactions with lots of men... ya know.
    1
  8102. E) You believed the woman? Why? She was trying to get out of her millionth arrest. So, you're going to take her word for it, about this quiet little discreet act, instead of taking the words of the police and witnesses?
    1
  8103. Good grief. It's blocking some of my postings.
    1
  8104. Yes, very brave to take her in for a night. She's lucky if the repeatedly convicted thief didn't rob her blind.
    1
  8105. Yes, right after they secure the scene and getting plenty of officers on the site.
    1
  8106. Yet, you cannot name a single thing they should have done differently. Typical.
    1
  8107. Well, I can't tell if you're being serious, or just mocking. But, when you buy a home in an HOA, yeah, that's exactly what it means. You need to make your house/property look the way the HOA agrees upon.
    1
  8108. Well, she didn't steal, and had her receipt. It seems that she was just so offended that the store thought she might have stolen, that she got upset enough to cause problems in order to provoke a lawsuit.
    1
  8109. Huh? What shadows are wrong? The one in the visor (a mirror image?)?
    1
  8110. I confess that I don't quite follow what you're attempting to say. Too many don'ts and dos and I just got lost in the double negatives. But, to answer the general spirit of it, this arrest video wasn't released until long after she was dead. Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  8111. Huh? I think you fail to understand the issue here. The issue isn't that it's an EV, the issue is that it's a pickup truck. And, that violates the HOA agreement. And, therefore, his beef isn't with the HOA itself, it's with his own neighbors. The correct way to resolve it would be to clear out his garage of whatever junk is preventing him from putting the truck inside it. Move the truck inside. Then, make a motion to the homeowner board to change the rules, and then everyone votes.
    1
  8112. The media is to blame for what? And, you have your facts wrong. One of the witnesses said that she had been walking up and down the beach, looking for a place to do this, then plopped right down near a family with children. So, no, the family didn't "just keep on walking" because they weren't walking. The woman was. And, if you're claiming that the multiple people who called the police shouldn't have done that, well, tell me, if it was a man at a playground putting on a show in front of children, would you say the same? Just mind their own business, don't call the police?
    1
  8113. Translation: I don't know anything about this, and I just got done saying that people should mind their own business, but, I'm going to point blame and stick to my position.
    1
  8114. The video was not released to the public until she was already dead 1.5 years.
    1
  8115. Good grief. You cannot even formulate a coherent sentence. Why would you believe your opinions matter?
    1
  8116. I want to be clear here: the original question is quite a valid one, if the person doesn't understand relativity. It's very common to believe that if you shoot a laser at the moon, there'd be no hope of hitting the target and seeing the bounce-back, because of the Earth's spin, and because of the moon's motion, and, for that matter, the motion of the solar system through the galaxy. Relativity, however, answers almost all of those issues. See, relativity isn't just Einstein's model (which we know is wrong). Relativity also explains things at a very basic level about why all of the atomic clocks come back wrong when they were aboard the space shuttle, and why you can shoot a laser at the moon, and it'll come back and hit your receiver, instead of needing to place the receiver a half mile down the road (to accommodate the Earth's rotation and the round trip time) The shortest version of this is that the laser itself is moving along with the Earth's movement, thus, the trajectory of the beam on the Y-axis isn't actually a straight line to where it's aimed, because the laser on the Y-axis already has movement on the X-axis. Or, making this even more simple, it's why you can be inside an airliner going 500 mph, and toss a ball to your friend a few seats over, and the ball isn't smacking someone 5 rows behind you. The ball already has the 500 mph motion in the forward direction when you threw it. Yes, technically, this is a simplistic subset of relativity. The Earth' surface goes about 1,000 mph at the equator due to the rotation of the Earth. So, if you shoot a laser at the moon while on the equator, and you don't get the reflection back for 2.6 seconds, then you might think that you'd have a difficult time even hitting the mirror on the moon, but, even if you do hit it, the bounce-back would hit the Earth about 3/4ths of a mile to your west. Yet, this doesn't happen. And, that's because the laser itself retains the 1000 mph motion toward the east while in transit to/from the moon. Yes, this is, believe it or not, a subset of relativity and how it works. Yes, relativity gets far more complicated once you factor in time and gravity and stuff. But, on a very simplistic level, relativity also explains basic mechanical motion.
    1
  8117.  @stusue9733  No. I've gotten that same ad. It's a computerized version of Trump's voice peddling $100 gold bars for the cost of postage. I'm shocked that YouTube allows this ad to be shown.
    1
  8118.  @stanmurphy3638  Just FYI: the ad said in small print that Trump's voice was made in a computer, not an impersonator. But, I haven't seen that ad lately. Maybe YouTube finally ripped it down?
    1
  8119.  @stanmurphy3638  Yes, I was just being a stickler for detail.
    1
  8120. And, you're just realizing this now?
    1
  8121. Huh? I didn't say what would "never happen." I asked you questions about building a colony, and how much of the federal budget it would take to accomplish it. You didn't answer.
    1
  8122. Well, Artemis' budget started at $30 billion. After they roped in a few of the prior development costs, and added a gateway, and made horrific choices with the lander, and other "normal" out of control spending, they're now projecting it to be about $90 billion. And, for that, they expect 2 or 3 landings for a few weeks each. So, how much do you think it would take to build a colony? Power facilities, housing, farming facilities (a huge greenhouse), communications arrays, construction equipment, medical facilities, landing and liftoff facilities, plumbing and water treatment, food storage, etc.? Can you give an estimate about how much money you think "isn't all that expensive"?
    1
  8123. First of all, have you done the math on reusable craft? There isn't the return on investment that you're pretending. Even reusable boosters are barely cost effective once you factor in all of the factors, let alone any kind of reusable moon craft. And, in order to do what you're saying, you're now asking roughly another 60,000 pounds per landing, and that's for the same meager payload. Wouldn't it be much more cost efficient NOT to reuse?
    1
  8124. Secondly, as I just explained, Artemis is expected to cost (once it's all done) about $90 billion for 2 or 3 landings. But, now you're saying $500 billion for a COLONY? I estimated that it would take about 5,000 landings to build everything it takes to support a colony. So, you're estimating how many landings? About a dozen?
    1
  8125. How about asking your god to make the pandemic go away instead of a resistance?
    1
  8126. Another aspect is that the new Tesla 4680 battery will help to make quick charging more possible without degrading the battery as much. However, it seems to me that all of those extra metal connectors inside the battery cells will cause them to weigh a lot more than existing batteries. So, while the new batteries will help bring the charge times down, I think it'll come at the price of being even heavier (even less cargo).
    1
  8127. A) Those weren't his words. You have added a few of your own words to twist the story. B) Did you watch the entire interview? He talked about his lunar mission both before and after this "we didn't go" comment. So, how does this work, in your mind? He said he went to the moon, then he said "we didn't go," then he said he went to the moon again. Do you suppose it's even remotely possible that you might be taking some words out of context? No? You're going to hang your hat on the notion that he decided to "confess" to an 8 year old? Really?
    1
  8128. Huh? What in the world are you talking about? The store requested and paid to have that cop on duty at that store, for exactly things like this. Now, you want him NOT to do his job? And, is that really the world you want to live in? Stealing one bag of groceries is just fine, but several bags is too much?
    1
  8129. Huh? You're under the impression that she was innocent?
    1
  8130. Florida is a "stop and identify" state. Most states are. So, you're wrong. If this happened in some of the states that aren't that way, then you'd be correct.
    1
  8131. And, I'm guessing a little too much "attention" as a child from Daddy or an uncle.
    1
  8132. I will add, congress was NEVER on Trump's/Pence's/Bridenstine's schedule. They funded Artemis at a pace that would put people back on the moon by about 2028-2030. Read the White House OMB reports, where Bridenstine was already preaching the 2024 deadline (Trump's 2nd term, had he gotten one), and then begging congress to increase the pace of funding. (They turned it down.) See, programs like this have an optimal efficient speed of implementation. Put 1 person on the job, it'll take several million years for him to design and build everything. Put about 50,000 people on the job, and it'll take about 10-12 years. Put 450,000 people on the job, and you can cut the time down to about 8 years, but, you're spending 9x the money to only chop 2-4 years off. Congress is/was aiming for the optimal spend rate, not the maximum spend rate.
    1
  8133. Huh? Whatever "documentary" you watched was incorrect.
    1
  8134. I understand the sentiment. But, the first order of business is to secure the scene. And, frankly, yeah, the guy was gone, and the rest was just a formality. A chest hit like that? Stopped talking about 20 seconds after getting hit? Stopped moving 10 seconds after that? Turning more white than he already was? Yeah, sorry, but no compressions were going to help.
    1
  8135. Dewdrop, the police blocked the release of the arrest video for 2.5 years. Nobody saw it while she was alive. But, after the investigation was closed for that long, they could no longer block the Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  8136. Stop blindly believing deceptive videos made by Inside Edition. Good grief. The arrest video wasn't made public until 1.5 years after she died.
    1
  8137. Multiple people called. One of them recorded it and gave the video to the police.
    1
  8138. No "leak" is required. The Freedom of Information Act makes the video public property. But, you don't even understand the timeline in the first place. This arrest = July 1, 2021. Suicide = March, 2022. Arrest video released = November 24, 2023.
    1
  8139. Huh? What exploitation was that? Nobody saw the arrest video until after she was dead. None of this went viral until a couple of months ago.
    1
  8140. Yes. It was all over the internet months ago. She died two years ago. Good grief. Pay attention.
    1
  8141.  @marksprague1280  Well, the largest lens ever constructed was around 4 years ago, at 5 feet in diameter, and costed $168 million to build. I'd say we're a long way off from mile wide lenses. You could try for a mirror instead of a lens, but, those aren't as good, and don't have the clarity of a lens, and, still, a mile wide is a tall order either way.
    1
  8142. Conclusion first, ask question second. Right, you're really honest. We all know that the third step is to run for the hills, so, run away now, dewdrop.
    1
  8143.  @finaoo1167  I'm not sure what you don't understand. He came to his conclusion first, he asked a question second, and now he will run for the hills.
    1
  8144.  @finaoo1167  You are wrong.
    1
  8145. No. You are confusing the concept of public property like a sidewalk, with publicly owned facilities. And, I can make this point very easily by some analogies. Go try to enter Area 51 under the notion that it's a publicly owned facility, therefore you're allowed to be there. Go try to walk into the mayor's office, and refuse to leave when asked, because you think it's a public facility and you're allowed to be there. Count how many seconds it takes before you're locked in the city jail. Go try to walk into the White House, and tell them that you're a taxpayer, and therefore you have a right to be inside that building. See how that goes for you. Go try to walk into a judge's private chambers at a local courthouse. Tell the judge that you're a taxpayer, and you have every right to be in that facility because it's owned by the public. See how that works out. (Note: I'm not actually suggesting you do those things. I'm just making a point in a graphic way.) What the school board did was wrong. But, they DO have the authority to trespass someone. I hope the guy who was arrested gets a ton of money in a lawsuit. And, I hope that every board member is kicked out of office. But, like it or not, they had the authority to trespass the man.
    1
  8146. Well, that was almost certainly what she wanted. However, it backfired, because even her own attorneys didn't see a case against the police. They only sued the store (and lost, and rightfully so, but at least they tried to sue the store). They never even tried suing the police.
    1
  8147. Encouraging it? Perhaps we can blame media a bit. But, frankly, I don't like deflecting blame. I just blame the person doing it.
    1
  8148.  @therealzilch  Just FYI, most missions went around the thick parts. Their trajectories allowed the moon's gravity to help pull them back toward the center line through the rest of the traverse. But, Apollo 14 went right smack through the middle of the belts. It was the only mission that the astronauts received over 1 rad.
    1
  8149. First of all, yes, it's easier to go to the moon than to fake radio signals and radar tracking from numerous countries. We still today don't know how to fake such things. Secondly, there's only so much people can fit into a single video. If your particular hobby horses weren't addressed, so what?
    1
  8150. The hood ornament also operated that way so that they wouldn't break in car washes.
    1
  8151. Um, ok, what wording would you use for the fact that they stopped trying?
    1
  8152. Flake indeed.
    1
  8153. Then please explain why so many different countries confirmed Apollo in so many different ways across multiple decades?
    1
  8154. Not only is it true that he kept the bodies for 24 hours before calling the police... but... he said "cute" on his audio recording after killing them, and the next day, the girl was found with her clothes open and exposed. I'll let you figure that one out for yourself.
    1
  8155. Why don't any of you denier care about EVIDENCE?!!?!? Why? Why is it always a "logic" (using that term loosely) thing? Why should the veracity of Apollo be dependent upon what future generations do or don't do?
    1
  8156. I hear ya. But, let's face reality here. A .40 through the chest, and the guy turned white and stopped moving 20 seconds later? Yeah, he was gone.
    1
  8157. Well, that was your mistake for calling it a "news outlet." This is tabloid journalism at best, certainly not news, and never has been.
    1
  8158. OK. Just out of curiosity, are you aware of any Thunderf00t videos that didn't age well? I confess I haven't watched them all. But, for those I have, I haven't spotted any that don't still stand up today... except maybe the one about being sued for using someone else's video. I tend to wonder if he lost that one. I kind of assume he did, because I think he's the type of person who would be making a "victory" video if it had gone his way.
    1
  8159. Well, I think you missed the point of the Starlink video. But, whatever, I can't go that deep in a single comment. As for how well this video will age, well, I must ask if you understand the main point? The main point is that the truck is probably so heavy that Musk doesn't want to reveal its weight, because that will deter purchases, because they won't be able to haul very much cargo. If you need three Tesla trucks to haul the same weight as a single regular diesel truck, the entire concept of saving money is thrown out the window. The secondary point is that if it takes an eternity to charge these trucks, no trucking company will want them, because trucks don't make money if they have to sit there for hours/days just to get charged up. As for the weight of the barriers, how would we even know how much they weigh? He won't say!!! Jersey style? What? How would we even know? For all we know, they're hollowed out. But, I'm not making that accusation. I figure they probably are "normal." But, to assert that we know how much they weigh is silly. The man has had YEARS to give the weight of the truck. YEARS. And, he refuses to do it. He just won't tell anybody how much that thing weighs, thus he is forcing the world to make estimates like this. Doesn't that mean anything to you? Every other truck manufacturer on the planet will give the exact weight of the truck, down to the pound. But, we can't even get a ballpark figure from Musk.
    1
  8160. Well, you can find anything "hard to believe" if you feel like it. It doesn't change the fact that, as long as Musk refuses to reveal the weight of the truck, everyone must continue to make these estimates based on the known weight of batteries, and approximations of what's shown in the video. Every other manufacturer on Earth publishes the weight of the truck. Musk doesn't. And, like it or not, batteries are darned heavy. From an energy standpoint, it takes about 100x more weight in batteries than you get from standard gasoline or diesel. Literally. Not kidding. You can look this up. A lithium ion battery carries about 1/100th of the energy per pound than gasoline. You have also missed the point about driving slow. (Maybe Thunderf00t missed it also.) The point is that they probably had to really crack down in order to get 500 miles out of it. It's like when you're trying to get maximum mileage out of your car, so you turn off the AC, turn off all accessories, never exceed 45, feather the gas pedal lightly, test it when the wind is to your back, try drafting other cars, etc. Basically, the point is, they had to milk it. As for the stock price not matching the actual value of the company, you can say that again. This is what a cult is all about. Tesla has existed how long? 50 quarters or so? How many were profitable? Like 4 of them? Can you see the next tulip?
    1
  8161. Yes, it's called energy density. Go learn about it. As for your mocking, sorry, but you can play games all you want. I'm not playing. Go buy tulip stock if you want. And, if you don't know what that means, sorry, but you know absolutely nothing.
    1
  8162.  @Victor-vj5ds  So, you believe the truck loaded with batteries is less heavy than a regular truck? And, you quote megachargers (when there are only around 5 in existence)? Do you wonder why Thunderf00t would quote the supercharger figures, when there are only a handful of megachargers, and there are about 5000 superchargers?
    1
  8163. No. The Soviets put two of them on the moon with unmanned probes. However, in order to believe the USA did the same with unmanned probes, the consequence is that you must believe somehow that they managed to sneak off 3 secret moon launches to do it. It took about 3000 people to get one of those moon rockets off the ground (even the "smaller" ones that would just carry probes, not necessarily even a Saturn V), and the launches were visible and audible for a hundred miles. So, now you have to explain how they managed to launch 3 secret probes without anybody knowing it. And, it would take countless more engineers to design and build a completely different kind of lander capable of carrying them and robotically deploying them. Then, you'd need to explain why the LRO images, the images from China's orbiter, and the images from India's orbiter, all show Apollo landers at those sites, and not this completely different kind of lander made to carry and deploy reflectors rather than people.
    1
  8164. "Of been" isn't a verb. And, with the exception of one obscure blog post on a site I've never heard of, nobody put any of this online until the arrest video was released (which was 1.5 years after she was already dead). She destroyed her own life long before this incident.
    1
  8165. Yes, dewdrop, the moon has gravity.
    1
  8166. Huh? Based on the Monte Carlo? Um, no. The Monte Carlo is a W body.
    1
  8167. It's not required. But, mainly, the reason is because she had already committed other arrestable offenses, mainly obstruction and refusing to identify.
    1
  8168. Nice speech. Now, the only relevant question is whether THAT PARTICULAR RESORT had any of those 235 gallons you're talking about. Honestly, I can't figure out which side you're on.
    1
  8169. No, you do not understand what happened here. This story NEVER made the news while she was alive. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released due to FOIA. The news wanted two viral rounds for the price of one. So, they posted the story in late November and early December, omitting the fact that she was already dead. That way, they could post the "update" a few weeks later that she had died, and pretend that the first round caused the second round, producing two viral videos about the same story. The reality is that this arrest had nothing to do with her death, at least not in any large part. It was just another arrest in her pile of a million arrests.
    1
  8170. Why? Did you know her?
    1
  8171. Well, not exactly appropriate for this particular incident, but, another "lesson learned" is that all of this legislation (and attempted legislation) to limit magazine capacity to 6 or 7 shots is a really bad idea. It took until the 7th shot to even land a hit. And, after 12 shots, both of them were still not stopped. If they had been two armed attackers (instead of this crazy neighborhood feud over snow), 12 shots was still not enough to stop them.
    1
  8172. No. The arrest video didn't get released until 1.5 years after she died.
    1
  8173.  @nicsandee123  So, basically, you're PROUD to know absolutely nothing. Bravo. But, you know, I'll never understand why you people are sooooooo happy to advertise your idiocy to the entire world.
    1
  8174. Yes, it was ruined long before this arrest.
    1
  8175. When did they start issuing fines for aggravated misdemeanors?
    1
  8176. You don't think they had the technology? Alright. What EXACT technology did they lack? Don't just say "technology" as if it's supposed to mean something. Name the technology you think they lacked. And, then explain why none of the thousands of engineers working on that technology ever realized that they failed to make it work.
    1
  8177. If she had been blessed by a god, you'd think he'd give her a brain, rather than just getting lucky and avoiding one trial.
    1
  8178.  @michaelstillman1171  The retroreflectors absolutely did require humans on the surface. There was no mechanism to deploy them without humans to carry them, place them, and aim them.
    1
  8179.  @michaelstillman1171  She's talking about the Apollo reflectors. She's saying that humans went to the moon, and placing those reflectors there was part of the reason we know it was real. You're saying that the Apollo reflectors didn't require humans. I'm not sure why you've seemingly switched sides when responding to her... other than maybe you didn't understand she was on your side... but, the point is, the APOLLO reflectors required humans.
    1
  8180.  @michaelstillman1171  Fair enough. But, in order to believe the Apollo reflectors were placed there with unmanned landers, you'd then need to explain how they pulled off 3 secret moon launches without anybody noticing, and who built the completely different reflectors/landers.
    1
  8181.  @michaelstillman1171  Yes, you're right, it would be entertaining. I've had those discussions before, as a matter of fact. Paraphrased: those 4 or 5 NASA administrators who somehow knew that Apollo couldn't go to the moon (despite that all of the 450,000 people who worked on it thought it would work) had to put 3 reflectors on the moon. They couldn't do it on Apollo missions, because those never left low orbit. So, those 4 or 5 guys secretly constructed 3 additional moon rockets without anybody knowing, and managed to sneak them off the ground, even though they could be seen and heard for hundreds of miles. They also designed and built 3 separate landers that could soft-land on the moon, and robotically deploy retroreflectors. Yes, this was an actual portrayal (paraphrased) that a nut offered to explain the reflectors.
    1
  8182. I wouldn't encourage threatening violence, but, after a national news story like this, I highly suspect she will get a lot of threats. I wonder if she'll call the police.
    1
  8183. No, he needed to secure the entire scene. He had a screaming woman who may have been armed. Another guy in the distance yelling about who shot his brother. And, he had no idea if there were more guns or people. If you don't secure the area, someone else might come out with another gun and try to do the same thing the first guy tried to do.
    1
  8184. Well, not her kids... don't know if that makes it better, or worse.
    1
  8185. Kendall, before I answer literally about where the rocks are (most of them are in Texas at the space center facility made to house them, but, there are many others in different places), your tone indicates that you think they didn't bring back rocks? Am I understanding you correctly? Do you literally think they never brought rocks home?
    1
  8186. So, you sobered up from your holiday partying, and edited your train wreck of a posting, eh? Dewdrop, yes, this is just a CGI video made by an amateur just speculating about what the site might look like after 50+ years. Yes, he put the Earth in the front window, which wasn't a feasible place to put it in reality. On the real mission, they could see the Earth through the top window, but not the front windows. So what? Why does the veracity of Apollo depend on what some guy on the internet rendered in his computer?
    1
  8187.  @francofonnese  That's your answer? Did you read more than one sentence?
    1
  8188.  @critthought2866  I see them if sorted by date, but, not in notification links. Three of my comments are missing when viewed that way, which makes me believe the original poster probably cannot see them unless he sorts by date also.
    1
  8189. I think there's plenty of compassion, probably too much. But, that's irrelevant to the concept of accountability.
    1
  8190.  @marksprague1280  Yet, still, Stalin knew about the bomb before Truman. And, Stalin even knew about the success of the first test before Truman told him a couple of days later.
    1
  8191. Was there an actual question you had?
    1
  8192. No "effects" needed. It's a field sequential slow-scan RCA camera. It results in red/blue/green "rainbowing" for any fast moving object in frame.
    1
  8193. First of all, of course she was going to be arrested. Why do you think otherwise? Secondly, you have a serious timeline problem with what you're saying. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. Suicide = March, 2022. Arrest video released = November 24, 2023. So, no, her suicide didn't come after people saw the arrest video, it came before.
    1
  8194. Why? Do you even understand the amount of evidence that they had for premeditated murder? It was a landslide. The guy 100% planned ahead of time to kill those two teens. Yeah, the teens were criminals, and I won't cry about their deaths. But, that doesn't justify premeditated double murder.
    1
  8195. Huh? The police didn't post it. It's called the Freedom of Information Act. The police blocked the release of the video for 2.5 years. She was long dead before anybody saw it.
    1
  8196. But, almost no media covered this story until long after she was dead. So, um, no.
    1
  8197. The landing was filmed from inside the lander, looking out the right window. This same camera was used to film from the window as Armstrong climbed down the ladder, and walked around, and later when Aldrin came out also. But, the live TV was from the TV camera mounted to the MESA outside the craft (you can look that up). When you know this little about the topic, you're not in much of a position to "LOL" when you don't understand something.
    1
  8198. So, putting on a show in front of multiple people including children is "didn't do anything in public"?? Huh?
    1
  8199. Here's the issue: you chose to blindly believe (a) some woman in a minute long video, rather than the police and innocent bystanders, and (b) Inside Edition (where facts don't matter). Time to raise the bar a bit, huh?
    1
  8200. Yes, I agree. But, at least she wasn't alive to know anything about this being posted on the internet.
    1
  8201. Agreed 100%. The only silver lining is that it didn't get plastered on the internet until 1.5 years after she died. At least the poor woman wasn't embarrassed by the release of this arrest video, since it wasn't released until 2.5 years later, and she was long dead by then.
    1
  8202. Huh? For 40 seconds maybe.
    1
  8203. OK, but, the police prevented the release of the arrest video for 2.5 years. And, she was dead for 1.5 years by the time it was released. Once a case is closed that long, they cannot block a legal FOIA request any longer.
    1
  8204. Well, I guess, technically, you're correct. If you looked into a powerful enough telescope. But, are you under the impression that there are any on Earth that are powerful enough?
    1
  8205. You don't think that the multiple witnesses, one of whom recorded it and gave the video to the police, had anything to do with it also?
    1
  8206. The carjacker pulled out a gun and pointed it at the officer's head. Yeah, I'd say the cop needed to react quickly.
    1
  8207. YOU SAID: "I’m on the fence with this. I find it weird that we have never went back." == Then you truly do not appreciate the undertaking that Apollo was. It took over 400,000 people a decade of their lives to accomplish it. It took today's equivalent of $150 billion in hard costs, and another $50 billion in soft costs (tax breaks to contractors, free land, free international support, etc.). And, what did they get for all of that effort/money? They put 12 men on the moon for a few hours each. That's about $16 billion per person. There's nothing else like it in history. Egyptian pyramids cannot compare. Circumnavigating the Earth cannot compare. The deepest sea dives cannot compare. Nothing compares. Nothing. In the height of Apollo spending in the 1960s, the US government dedicated about 5% of the entire federal budget to NASA, and they sank almost all of it straight into Apollo. WARS have been fought for far less. And, nowadays, NASA's budget is around 0.5% of the the federal budget, and they are required to spread that money over hundreds of programs. I mean, seriously, you can find it weird if you want. But, this only means that you have no concept of what kind of undertaking Apollo was. History has never seen anything else like it. YOU SAID: "Just think of the marketing campaign if we went on a regularly basis." == I have no idea what you're talking about. YOU SAID: "You will have the moon rise with a big McDonald’s logo or Taco Bell logo on it." == Excuse me? Do you have any concept of how big that would need to be, in order to see it? How big do you think the moon is? The moon's surface is about the size of Asia. From a distance, an entire city in Asia would just be a dot. If you expect to be able to see a corporate logo on the moon from Earth, you'd be talking about something that would need to be a thousand miles across. Good gods. No wonder you're "on the fence." You have no understanding of these things. Good grief. YOU SAID: "Why is space x having failures on practice landings" == Because they're not as good as Grumman or McDonnell Douglass. And, because it's a lot more difficult to land a very tall object (high center of gravity) in an atmosphere, vs. a short and stubby object where there are no winds or atmosphere to get in the way (the moon). YOU SAID: "but yet nasa did it in the 60’s." == Correct.
    1
  8208. Who did the police hurt, and how?
    1
  8209. I guess if you don't understand it, it must be fake.
    1
  8210. Dewdrop, I'm not playing this ridiculous game with you. You could get your answers very easily if you'd search for them. But, you clearly don't want the answers to your own questions. Stop pretending.
    1
  8211. Dewdrop, you're clearly not seriously asking anything. You're pretending. I'm not playing your game.
    1
  8212. "Has anyone that actually worked within NASA or any politician that was involved in the space program 60 some years ago ever come forward stating that it was faked?" No. "Take for example Area 51 and Bob Lazar, the most Top Secret facility known at the time but still someone from within the operation came forward." And, you'd believe him, why? Good grief. I get your original point, but, what a terrible example. Bob Lazar claims that he has a physics degree from MIT, yet "they" erased all records of it. In reality, he's a convicted criminal who went to a junior college to study electronics. He can produce no records of ever renting an apartment near MIT, paid tuition to MIT, made any phone calls to/from MIT, bought a single meal at MIT, used a credit card to purchase anything at MIT, took flights to/from MIT, can't name any students he attended classes with at MIT, cannot name a building or room in which he attended any of those classes at MIT, and not a single student or professor at MIT has ever come forth to say that they remember him. How do you erase bank records without completely throwing off the balance at the bank? Why is his name not on any graduating class at MIT? Did "they" somehow erase the graduating ceremonies too? How is it that nobody can corroborate this story of his about attending MIT? And, since when does MIT admit people from junior college into their post-grad physics programs, especially ones who graduated in the bottom quarter of their high school class? And, Bob Lazar said that he fears for his life (yet, decades go by, and nobody has killed him). And, sorry, but if anybody leaks top secret information, they get prosecuted. That's what happens. They don't go on TV and talk about it, they get thrown into prison. And, sorry, but anybody who actually spent the time and money to get a degree from MIT in physics doesn't just roll over and say, "they erased my records" and leave it at that. They SUE MIT. That's what they do. If you spent a small fortune, and years of your life, on getting a degree from the world's most prestigious science and engineering university on the planet, would you just say, "oh, ok, they erased it, I'm going to just go about my business now, no big deal"? Or, would you sue to get it back? I'm sorry if you find Bob Lazar even remotely believable, but, that's really your problem. You started off so strong, then went down the Bob Lazar avenue? Good grief.
    1
  8213. Has it ever occurred to you that it wouldn't actually matter about hair or eyes or skin, and BEHAVIOR is what matters? Your victimhood attitude is ridiculous. The woman in this video was asked 100x to give her ID or state her name. Florida is an identify state, which means that's required by law, and is an arrestable offense to refuse. The woman refused anyway. You're correct in that she isn't legally required to show a receipt, but, she IS required to ID, she's not allowed to obstruct/obfuscate, and it's also illegal to resist arrest. Are you actually sitting there and defending the actions of this lunatic woman? Maybe you should look at yourself as the problem. I certainly wouldn't care one bit if she had blonde hair and blue eyes, I'd think the same of her no matter what. You on the other hand, sure seems that you don't follow your own rules. What would you be saying about her if she had blue eyes and blonde hair? Would you actually condone her outlandish behavior? Do you think she's a model citizen or something?
    1
  8214. And, you believe she was alone, why? Because that's what she said while trying to cry her way out of her millionth arrest? What about the multiple callers who said otherwise? What about the one who recorded it, and gave a copy of the video to the police? It doesn't match her version about nobody being around. What reason do you have to trust a single thing she says? She was a convicted felon with a prison term under her belt, and countless arrests and convictions. You find her trustworthy?
    1
  8215. But, the arrest video wasn't released until November 24, 2023. This incident was from July 1, 2021. Her suicide was March of 2022.
    1
  8216. Jim, you can barely read or write at a 2nd grader's level. Why would you think you understand this topic better than the entire world's experts?
    1
  8217. Huh? Who even knew about it?
    1
  8218. I've explained this before, and you always just ignore it. No DATA was lost. You keep saying it was data. It was not. "Telemetry" includes audio and video, not just data. That's what was lost, just two video tapes. And, those were two BACKUP video tapes from one mission. The primary copies have never been lost. But, you'll just ignore it and keep spewing the same gibberish over and over, as you've always done. You have decided, in advance, that you will not accept any input.
    1
  8219.  @tat2zz68  You're not the brightest bulb, eh?
    1
  8220. And, this house was just listed for sale 6 hours ago.
    1
  8221.  @verycool1833  I'm not quite sure what you're questioning. The exact house in this video just hit the MLS listings for sale about 13 hours ago.
    1
  8222.  @verycool1833  Well, he says in this video that he doesn't live there any longer, and now he's in LA. He says this is only his "vacation" house now. And, whether you question it or not, it's on the MLS for sale. You can also find it on Zillow.
    1
  8223. Well, I agree, the arrest video shouldn't have been made public. But, I just don't know how to stop such things, what with the Freedom of Information Act. But, sorry, I also don't know why you advocate such a suit, because the arrest video wasn't made public until she was already dead 1.5 years. And, it's not defamation, nor anything close to defamation. As for not cooperating with the police, yeah, but, it's doubtful that it would have mattered. Multiple people called the police. One in the "audience" even video recorded the incident, and showed the video to the police. They describe it in their arrest report as a very loud and public display in view of multiple people including children. I fully realize that this doesn't match the woman's version. But, I tend to trust things witnessed by multiple people and caught on video... more than I trust the words of a woman trying to avoid getting arrested. I think she was going to get arrested whether she said anything to the police or not.
    1
  8224. Who "throughout the nation" even knew about this incident while she was alive?
    1
  8225. We seem to have a timeline problem, and Inside Edition sure isn't going to tell you the timeline (ruins their fake story): July 1 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. That's when it went viral and was covered by the news. Before then, a couple of obscure blogs mentioned the arrest (no video though), but, nothing of real consequence.
    1
  8226. Again, what news station do you believe even covered this story when she was alive? Why do you believe what you believe?
    1
  8227. Apparently, I need to spell this out for you. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. That's when the news covered it.
    1
  8228. The arrest video was kept private for 2.5 years. Nobody saw it until long after she was dead.
    1
  8229. Do you own a sword?
    1
  8230. She paid, but she refused to show the receipt until after she was arrested.
    1
  8231. Georgia doesn't have such a registry. But, it was certainly illegal for her to possess as a convicted felon.
    1
  8232. Huh? Do you think they weren't aiming?
    1
  8233.  @mikeh7153  Congratulations on knowing nothing.
    1
  8234. I know you're incapable of answering questions. I know you know absolutely nothing about firearms. I know you like to post gibberish on the internet.
    1
  8235. Huh? So, is it your position that this cop, who was on duty at that store for the exact purpose of catching shoplifters in this high crime area, should have disregarded his own duties, and not chase potential shoplifters? What?
    1
  8236. Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  8237. Multiple people called the police. Why should they feel ashamed for it?
    1
  8238.  @porytlim8508  Again, dewdrop, nobody saw the arrest video until she was dead 1.5 years.
    1
  8239. Why? Were you going to sue her?
    1
  8240. No. I believe that's Mitchell on Apollo 14. See the big dish on the left? Only Apollo 12 and 14 had that, and Apollo 12 didn't have TV video. But, if you're talking about a few seconds later, yeah, I think that's Dave Scott from the MESA cam.
    1
  8241. "Your" an id86t if you can't spell "you're." (IDx intentionally misspelled to avoid comment block.)
    1
  8242. You're a conspiracy theorist if you spew the garbage you're spewing. You're a conspiracy theorist if you swallow every single drop of claptrap spewed by conspiracy videos.
    1
  8243. Yeah. Another "handled badly" comment from someone who won't say how to handle it instead. And, yeah, with her long criminal history, you'd assume she would know to remain silent. But, my guess is that she was hoping to cry her way out of it before they looked up her open warrants. Remaining silent = 100% odds that they'll look her up. Cry her way out of it = 50/50 chance of getting out of there before they knew who she was.
    1
  8244. A conspiracy video says it, you blindly repeat it. Bravo! True hero.
    1
  8245. Says who? Ted Cruz? Have you read the breakdown of where the money is going? 21% goes straight into the immediate relief checks. That alone demonstrates that Cruz is wrong about saying 9%, right out of the gate. Then, there's the extension of unemployment benefit relief, the COVID relief allocated for local states/municipalities, additional COVID testing, COBRA healthcare premium payouts, etc. It's outright insanity to claim that 9% will go to relief and the rest will go to pet projects. Just looking at the bill and getting out your pocket calculator will tell you 9% is wrong. Look, I don't like the crazy pet projects they're sticking on this thing either. But, to regurgitate this crazy "9%" nonsense makes you sound ignorant.
    1
  8246. "other ppl noticed that the film was slowed down and when speeded up a bit kicked up dust was falling at perfectly normal earth speed." Yes, dewdrop. Virtually all of the 16mm film was "sped up." This is because they very rarely ran it at 24 frames per second, because it runs out of film in a couple of minutes when they do that. So, they recorded almost all 16mm footage at 12 FPS or 6 FPS. I accommodated for this for you by telling you the title of one of them that's speed corrected. But, you didn't bother reading, remember? So, don't come back to me now with this film speed problem, when I already addressed it by pointing you to a video that was speed-corrected. I'm sorry if you know nothing about Apollo's photography, but, it's all listed in the mission logs, and none of the rest of the world has a difficult time understanding the 16mm film speeds. They almost always announced the film speed before doing the recording, and you can find it all in the mission transcripts. You can either make the adjustment yourself, or you can just go watch the copies that adjust it for you.
    1
  8247. "the one that gets me the most was the "lunar rover" business - that and the fact that they can't do it anymore" Well, you made it very clear that you don't understand a lick about the topic. So, NOTHING should "get you." People in your position shouldn't form any conclusions whatsoever. But, instead of studying Apollo the normal way, you have done nothing but watch a bunch of conspiracy videos that lie to you, and you have decided to believe them all, hook line and sinker.
    1
  8248. "And how everything worked so flawlessly" Is this a joke? Apollo 13 EXPLODED IN SPACE HALF WAY TO THE MOON, dewdrop. Good gods. Could you be any more delusional? Apollo 11 missed its landing spot by 4 miles. The entire S-band communication system broke on the Apollo 16 lander, and they ended up using backup communication the entire time. Apollo 15 smacked the moon so hard on landing that it crumpled the engine bell, and nearly could be called a crash landing, and was right on the limit of the launch angle criteria, such that it was a near disaster. Apollo 12 was hit twice by lightning. Apollo 12's TV camera fried out within moments of being turned on, and there's literally ZERO TV from the Apollo 12 lunar surface. Apollo 14's docking collar had so much ice buildup that they nearly couldn't dock the two craft, then, the landing radar froze up, and the landing computer had to be put into abort mode because the switch flaked out. They never even reached their primary objective (Cone crater) on that mission either. I could type for hours here. But, the mere fact that you could say that everything worked flawlessly while one of the ships exploded half way to the moon... you are beyond all hope.
    1
  8249. "they lost the plans and the notes and crazy nonsense like that" Yes, that **IS** crazy nonsense. A conspiracy video told that lie to you, and you believed it hook line and sinker. Have you even looked at the archives for yourself? (No, of course not.) You want the entire wiring diagram for the miles of wires in the lunar module? Just download it. You want the exact microwave frequencies of every component in the Apollo communication systems? Just download it. I even pointed you to one of the familiarization manuals to explain the increased efficiency of the lander engines to accommodate the rover's weight (which you undoubtedly refused to read, because you didn't even read my responses). It's all there, dewdrop. None of the plans are missing. Oh, but a video lied to you and said otherwise, so, you'll just blindly believe anything it tells you. Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, dewdrop. That's one of the main archives. It will take you 10 years to go through the terabytes of data, plans, schematics, photos, and videos that you think are all missing. When you're done reading those, come back, and I'll give you the next archive that will take you another 10 years to read.
    1
  8250. "There used to be very many videos about this online. They disappeared all of them." Yes, dewdrop. Lots of conspiracy videos get removed. The makers of those videos get tired of being wrong all the time and remove them. Or, they commit a million copyright violations and get banned. Or, whatever. Stop believing that YouTube University is a real thing. It's not. Go to the actual sources, not to YouTube videos that lie to you, then complain when those ridiculous videos end up deleted.
    1
  8251. "Here's another little one, about Mars." No, dewdrop, I'm not reading your Mars story. That's all you people ever do. Duck, dodge, change topics. Duck, dodge, change topics. No. If you can't muster up the courage to read my responses about Apollo, I'm not going to do you the courtesy of reading your Mars complaints.
    1
  8252. Well, it's not impossible that he could eventually see some trouble. But, since the grand jury didn't indict him, he's most likely never going to be indicted. As for civil penalties, well, who knows, maybe the boy's family will sue. But, I'd tend to think that'll go nowhere. You're not often going to find anybody willing to award damages to the family of this lunatic who broke into a home, and the homeowner has the right to protect his family.
    1
  8253. Who did?
    1
  8254. Um, ok, this is just a CGI animation. I don't think he even intended to include any of the photos. I fail to understand your point.
    1
  8255. 2) They used film designed to be used in space. Do you think Kodak was unaware of where their film was going to be used? And, you don't understand thermodynamics, so, don't pretend you understand these "extreme temperatures" you mentioned.
    1
  8256. 3) Incredulity gets you nowhere.
    1
  8257. 4) Yes, with a virtually infinite supply of money, they can keep schedules.
    1
  8258. 5) Yes, there are thousands of beautiful photos. There are also thousands of horrible photos. What's your point? And, you obviously aren't aware that, yes, some of the cameras/lenses had viewfinders. Not all of them, but, yes, some did.
    1
  8259. 6) The requirements for Artemis are not the same as the requirements for Apollo. This is like complaining that they had to reinvent airplanes. Yes, the Wright Flyer couldn't carry hundreds of passengers. They had to reinvent the airplane to do it. And, yes, if you want long duration missions at the lunar south pole, the requirements are dramatically different than Apollo's, and require reinventing.
    1
  8260. 7) Is this a joke? China took photos of all 6 of the Apollo landing sites with their Chang'e orbiter, and they are available on their government space program website. India took photos of the Apollo landing sites, including rover tracks, landers, etc. with Chandrayaan-2. "ISRO Chandrayaan2’s photos of Apollo 11 & 12 landing sites" is a fine example of a couple of shots. And, there have been dozens of other 3rd party confirmations via dozens of different methods.
    1
  8261. 8) Unmanned probes could put reflectors on the moon, but, now you have to explain how they managed to sneak off 3 secret moon launches without anybody noticing, and you have to explain why none of the thousands of engineers who designed and built these secret probes have ever come forth. And, you have to explain how they managed to get those three extra moon rockets off the ground without anybody noticing. Those things could be seen and heard for hundreds of miles. And, it typically took about 3,000 ground personnel to launch them. That's a lot of people you need to keep quiet.
    1
  8262. 9A) Is outright false. NASA lost two BACKUP video tapes from one mission, and announced that in 2006. And, since then, the dewdrops who make these silly videos you've been watching keep multiplying what they say is lost. It's ridiculous.
    1
  8263. 9B) Downright silly. Yes, you need to be a geologist or geology student to "check out" (get NASA to send you) moon rocks. Yet, you're complaining that they want to verify stuff before blindly sending you a moon rock? Really? Imagine if you had your way, and nobody ever had to justify checking out the moon rocks. Just imagine if you got what you're asking for. Would there be any remaining rocks at this point? How can you possibly even be serious? Hundreds of rocks are checked out every year by geologists from all around the world, and you are complaining because it's not an open door for everybody to check out the rocks with no justification?
    1
  8264. 10) So what? What man rated booster would you use to go higher, after the Saturn V was retired? Why is this even a complaint? Nobody has flown an airplane at mach-7 since the X15 was retired in 1968. Does this mean the X15 didn't exist? Nobody has flown 100+ passengers at mach 2 for 3000 miles since the Concorde was retired. Does this mean the Concorde didn't exist?
    1
  8265. 11) This is one of the many reasons I know you're not actually studying Apollo. You're watching videos that lie to you, and you just gobble it up like Christmas dinner, never lifting a finger to fact-check anything. Yes, dewdrop, they had the Carruthers UV telescopic camera on the surface of the moon and took hundreds of star photos, yet, you're complaining that they didn't take star photos and didn't have a telescope? They also took hundreds of star photos from lunar orbit, which is a lot more useful than taking them from the lunar surface (the Carruthers camera shots were essentially useless). And, yes, they took hundreds of photos of Earth, not "only a handful."
    1
  8266. Yeah, typical disappearing comments lately. In order to see them all, you need to sort by date and scroll to this thread without using the notification link.
    1
  8267. Civilized human beings don't deflect blame away from criminals like you do.
    1
  8268. Not the brightest bulb, eh Allen?
    1
  8269. So, let me make sure I understand your viewpoint here... you think cops should wait to be shot at first? And, you want them to use Tasers against guns? And, you think Tasers work from 75 feet away? Do I understand you correctly here?
    1
  8270. I would guess that he was. But, I haven't read any articles on this. Do you know that he wasn't?
    1
  8271. Agreed, but, just verifying here, you do know that the arrest video wasn't released until 1.5 years after she was already dead, right?
    1
  8272. Oh? Like your high school graduation?
    1
  8273. No, she walked up and down the beach looking for somewhere to put on a show, plopped down in front of multiple people (including children), and did exactly that. I'll eat my hat if she wasn't making "public beach" content for her fans.
    1
  8274. Um, are you merely talking about gyroscopes? Yes, they had them.
    1
  8275. Well, you can pay attention to the video, in which they already explained that they didn't charge him.
    1
  8276.  @stusue9733  Eventually, with enough people reporting his comments as spam, he's going to get himself banned. But, FYI, you're going to get banned also. The terms of use state that you cannot spam comments with repeating the same thing over and over, thread after thread. If you keep cutting and pasting the same "buy me a ticket on a supersonic airliner" comment, without so much as changing a few words, you'll be banned also. Frankly, I have already been partially banned a few times, likely due to repetitive posting of "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake."
    1
  8277. Dewdrop, multiple people called. And, sorry, but you don't get to make the laws. Society does. And, society has decided that putting on a show in front of children is illegal.
    1
  8278. Have you noticed that the bible tries to divert people from the holy words of Poseidon? For the love of Poseidon, can't you see that you're being MANIPULATED by the bible's word/ideologies? Have you noticed that Poseidon tries to divert people from the holy words of the Bhagavad Gita? For the love of Krishna and Vishnu, can't you see that you're being MANIPULATED by Poseidon? Have you noticed that the Bhagavad Gita tries to divert people from the holy words of the Tripitaka? For the love of Buddha, can't you see that you're being MANIPULATED by Krishna? Have you noticed that the Tripitaka tries to divert people from the holy bible? For the love of Jesus, can't you see that you're being MANIPULATED by Buddha? Bottom line: sorry, but Apollo (the moon program) has nothing to do with religions. There's no way to "manipulate" each and every religious belief by sending people to the moon anyway. The answers are in the EVIDENCE, not in your holy book of your choice, or anybody else's holy books of their choices.
    1
  8279.  @savingus5329  YOU SAID: "I doubt anyone did anything to the drinks . You CAN die from alcohol poisoning... like .... I dont get why they are saying there was a deeper meaning." == Yeah, tell me about it. The best this "news" (not news) article can do is to say that OTHER resorts/bars have been found with tainted alcohol, but not this one? They even said that this particular resort has no history of ever finding a single drop of tainted alcohol, while others have a gazillion gallons of it found. Yet, they created this obvious hit-piece against the resort, trying to manufacture some sort of connection between tainted alcohol and the resort?? Where is there a speck of evidence for it?? A drunken 20 year old girl is evidence that they give out tainted alcohol at this 5-star resort? Sorry, but ABC "news" is simply not to be trusted when it comes to "stories" like this one. When they need to stoop to telling stories about OTHER bars/resorts that have a history of tainted alcohol, and they cannot create a single plausible link to this particular resort giving tainted alcohol, sorry, but this "story" should never have been aired.
    1
  8280.  @karenmccann8644  YOU SAID: "Yes a person can die of alcohol poisoning but not after to drinks or two shots that's ridiculous." == Yes, it IS ridiculous, which is exactly why you shouldn't believe it. Even the brother said he has no idea how many drinks he had. Why do you believe the girl only had two drinks?
    1
  8281.  @shelbyroselaganelli  YOU SAID: "She wasn't even drinking age" ==== Wrong. In Mexico, the drinking age is 18. YOU SAID: "paren'ts fault for allowing their 20 year old to drink. I get it, she was a year away from legal but still. Obey the law." ==== Do you obey laws from where you are from? Or, do you obey laws from where you are at the moment?
    1
  8282. The cops DID handle it as privately as possible. They took her away from the restaurant for questioning. And, they kept the arrest video private for 2.5 years (which was 1.5 years after she was dead). What more do you want? And, by the way, with her felony prison term, and the fact that this was her millionth arrest, I hardly think that one more arrest was really going to matter that much.
    1
  8283. What original video? The one taken by the witness on the beach? As far as I know, it was never posted anywhere.
    1
  8284. Yet, you won't say exactly what "trouble" they should be in, nor why?
    1
  8285. So, on your planet, the Freedom of Information Act doesn't exist?
    1
  8286. The video was released under a legal FOIA request on November 24, 2023. What's your complaint?
    1
  8287. Your reply was that they shouldn't have arrested her? (Yet, either YouTube deleted that reply, or you did, because it's not visible any longer.) Yes, arresting her was correct. Multiple people called the police. One witness recorded the incident, and showed the video to the police. Needless to say, the video didn't match her version of a discreet act with nobody around (the story she told as she was trying to avoid her millionth arrest, and didn't want to go back to prison again). Not only that, but, with her mile long arrest record, and failures to appear in court, there were open warrants, so, she was getting arrested no matter what.
    1
  8288. You clearly haven't watched the arrest video. They quietly took her away from the restaurant, outside the view or earshot of others, to question her, and tell her why they were there. Yet, you're saying they didn't? Go watch the entire arrest video before you pretend to know things you don't. The police were quite polite and professional. You don't believe the arrest video should be released? Well, dewdrop, that's not up to you. I already told you in a prior posting that it was released from a FOIA request. You declared that the police should be in big trouble. So, how does your personal opinion about what should or shouldn't be released result in cops getting in trouble? The law says that the video belongs to the public, and mandates that police release it once enough time has passed after the investigation was closed. It is a felony for the police to violate the Freedom of Information Act and refuse to release the video. Yet, you want them in "big trouble" for following the law correctly?
    1
  8289. And, now you want a suit over this for wrongful death? Dewdrop, how about a suit for libel against you instead? This arrest was July 1, 2021. Her suicide was in March of 2002. The arrest video was released on November 24, 2023. So, how can the arrest video be responsible for her death, when she had already been dead for 1.5 years before anybody saw it?
    1
  8290. Look in the mirror. You'll find everything wrong with the world looking right back at you. You pretend to understand things you don't. You refuse to understand things, even after being told. And, you have a clear hatred for police bleeding through every word you type. And, not that it matters for anything that's been said here, but, just as a side note, I'm sure you're unaware that, according to her landlord, she was a stripper at the local club. According to her neighbors, she also did "private" encounters in her apartment for cash with numerous men. And, yeah, with her long arrest history, time served in prison, judgements against her for various crimes/thefts, drug and alcohol charges, etc., it's pretty difficult to get a straight job after that, so, what the neighbors and landlord say make sense, and what the witnesses at the beach said also makes sense. Nothing you say makes sense.
    1
  8291. Why? Are there classes at the range to teach you how to make 9mm hollow point pistol rounds penetrate a truck?
    1
  8292.  @tr5398  Huh? What ARE you talking about? What in the world? The criminal had just murdered his father and threw him into a lake right before this chase. The cops identified the truck, and pursued. The driver kept wildly shooting at the cops the entire time. Even after the cop rammed his truck, he still kept shooting and shooting. How would you have handled it differently? You DON'T think that the cops should just keep shooting until something penetrates the truck? Just let the driver keep shooting, and don't shoot back? And, they DID hit the guy!!! They hit him in the shoulder, the arm, the butt, and the chin. But, yeah, those 9mm hollow point pistol rounds don't have a lot of energy to begin with, let alone after penetrating a truck or glass, so, he was treated at the hospital and released. Yet, you don't think they hit him at all? Do you intentionally just randomly make comments that mean absolutely nothing? Good grief. You're a bigger waste of time than the shooter in this video.
    1
  8293. Dewdrop, "trust" was in your opening sentence. Now you're saying "trust" isn't even a part of the equation. Good gods. You deniers couldn't stay consistent to save your lives.
    1
  8294. "One thing that baffles me is the claim that NASA lost all info related to the moon landings… sorry, impossible to buy that." Yes, that would be ridiculous. So, why are you baffled by it? It's another false claim by people who want to deny the moon landings. "the fact that we never went back" Yes, Apollo costed (adjusted for inflation) about $16 billion PER PERSON who walked on the moon in hard costs, and another approximate $7 billion or $8 billion in soft costs. That's, again, per person who walked. Sorry, but that's not very economical. And, once the program was canceled by congress, nobody really wanted to fund it again. Tell me, though, do you think the X15 was fake? It's been about 60 years since anybody has flown mach 7 in an airplane. NASA retired that program about 60 years ago. Does that mean it was fake because it hasn't been done again? How about the SR71? It's been decades since anybody has flown mach 3. Does that mean the SR71 never happened? Why should the veracity of the Apollo program be based upon how soon someone does it again? Did Magellan not sail around the world because it took 50 years before that was done again? Did nobody dive the deepest ocean depth (Mariana) in 1960, because it wasn't done again for another 60 years or so? If you're going to base your opinions on how quickly someone does something again, well, I guess the great pyramids don't exist either, right? It was about 4000 years between when those were built and when anybody ever built something that big again. " in 2023 it is hard to get internet signal in the middle Of the ocean here on earth so HOW could they possibly transmit LIVE TV SIGNALS flawlessly from the moon back to earth in 1969 ??" I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    1
  8295.  @01mustang05  What in the world are you talking about? You are required by law to comply with lawful orders, such as providing ID, and getting out of the car to be arrested. You're comparing that to slavery?
    1
  8296. You clearly have zero firearms training, and are in no position to hold the opinion you do. First of all, if you pause at 0:08, and watch frame by frame, you will see that the bad guy had the gun pointed straight at the officer's head. Sorry, but if someone points a gun at my head, I'm not going to hope to hit a leg. I'm shooting back, and fast, right at center of mass, or right back at the guy's head. Secondly, do you have any idea about how difficult it is to hit a leg? Thirdly, ok, suppose you get a leg hit. Guess what? That doesn't do anything to neutralize anybody. All you've done is take away their option to run away, and increasing their desire to shoot you. They still have a gun, and can still shoot back. You've now made matters WORSE, not better. Fourth, you want people to aim at moving arms? Let me ask you, have you ever even fired a gun? Spare the world your opinions based on watching TV. Sorry, but, when you watch a 1970s TV show, and the good guy has 6 bullets and hits 6 bad guys in the legs, and all of the bad guys just stop and surrender, and then go on to live long lives afterward, yeah, sorry, but that just doesn't happen. You live in a fantasyland, and I seriously doubt you've ever even held a gun, let alone fired one, let alone have any real training. So, forgive me if I don't treat your "expertise" about how cops should handle criminals with any respect.
    1
  8297. OK, proud graduate of YouTube University School of Law, what exactly did the police have no legal right to do?
    1
  8298. Hilarious!!! She had a criminal record a mile long. She did a felony term in a Florida prison about 6 years ago. She had been arrested a million time before and after. Frankly, my guess is that she was trying to talk her way out of it because she had open warrants, and hoped that she could whine her way free before they looked her up. Oh, and by the way, the audience took video of the incident, and gave it to the police. So, yes, there's plenty of proof. And, it didn't match her version about nobody being around.
    1
  8299. Um, ok, what will you do when you find them?
    1
  8300. Why would you possibly believe that all telemetry has vanished? Did a YouTube conspiracy video tell you that? Why believe it?
    1
  8301.  @JayVee-d  The missing two backup video tapes are considered telemetry. Telemetry isn't just data, it's also voice and video. So, yes, in NASA's reports about the missing two backup video tapes, they call them "telemetry tapes."
    1
  8302. Except virtually no organizations, including Inside Edition, ever published anything about this story until long after she was dead. She experienced nearly zero shame from this.
    1
  8303. Huh? And, you want the cops to get into a shootout unarmed? What in the world are you talking about?
    1
  8304. Raymond, how old are you? You have the literacy level of a 7 year old.
    1
  8305.  @stusue9733  You have to view the video fresh, not directly link to the thread, and sort by newest.
    1
  8306. Yes, like I said, if you said you're wrong, you're the only one who can see that message.
    1
  8307. You know that one photo with the guy on the right? It's got some gray stuff on it. The reflection of the red stuff from the left proves you wrong.
    1
  8308. There are no viable solutions that are affordable... not without redefining the word "affordable" anyway. Oil is dominant because of its low relative cost.
    1
  8309. Well, maybe she should have thought of that before putting on a show in front of multiple people including children. And, if she was so vulnerable to shame, why does her landlord say she was a stripper at the local club? That's a strange career choice for someone who feels so much "humiliation," huh?
    1
  8310. Huh? By the time she wanted to go back into the store, that ship had already sailed. Remember, this video picks up from the middle, not the beginning. She already had been refusing to identify, and obstructing/obfuscating. He can arrest her for those things alone, regardless of whether the theft happened or not. You are correct in that she's not required by law to show a receipt. The receipt is for her protection, not for the store's protection. However, if she chooses not to do so, this doesn't entitle her to do the rest of the stuff she did in this investigation, and she must be prepared and willing to be arrested as a consequence. As for reasonable suspicion, yes, he articulated it multiple times. A store employee said that the woman didn't pay. As it turned out, the store employee was wrong. But, that makes no difference with regard to whether the cop had reasonable suspicion. A store employee reporting a theft is reasonable suspicion. Don't hold the reasonable people in shame. Hold yourself in shame for having the writing skills of a 6 year old. Good grief. Who can even understand you? It took me 2-3 passes to cut through the thick layers of pure gibberish.
    1
  8311. isn't Jack's on tape rocket...lieig yo say cracker. Tells u , went looking noway they forever :text-green-game-over:
    1
  8312. You have misunderstood the point. The USA doesn't want this every day. But, the issue is that the USA is well past the point of no return. With hundreds of millions of guns in circulation, there's simply no way to gather them up, and there's no way to make criminals turn them in. If you ban guns today, the only result is that criminals will have more of them, and law abiding citizens will have none. I mean, yes, this shooter bought his guns legally. So what? If they were illegal, do you think he wouldn't have bought them anyway? Do you believe that if his guns were illegal, the shooter would just stay home instead of going on this rampage? Like, he was ok with committing multiple murders, but, he didn't want an extra charge for having an illegal gun? If you have an actual solution that would work, hey, share it with the world. But, everyone I've ever seen who makes comments like yours actually thinks that banning guns would have a positive effect. But, the exact opposite is true. It would make things worse, much much worse.
    1
  8313.  @peopleareajoke  I have no understanding of what you're attempting to say.
    1
  8314. Photos are flag, spectrum of sun passing think so, beauty is rows, same as earth there, no
    1
  8315. He came close. But, becoming a NASA astronaut was extremely competitive. Who shouldn't have been selected instead of him? Yes, he had a bachelor's engineering degree from Arizona State University. But, to name a few examples: Aldrin had a doctorate degree from MIT in orbital mechanics. Schmitt had a doctorate degree from Harvard in geology. Cernan had a master's degree from the Naval Postgraduate School. It's a shame on US history that all astronauts were white. However, the reality was (at that time) that Dwight was the best qualified they had, but, his qualifications were weak when compared to the astronauts that were chosen.
    1
  8316. I asked a question. If they accepted Dwight instead of one of the other astronauts, which one do you think they should have dropped?
    1
  8317. Well, maybe if she bothered to show up in court, she could have gotten the rehabilitation you're talking about. But, she didn't.
    1
  8318. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video made public (Freedom of Information Act). Inside Edition never published ANYTHING while she was alive. So, no, it didn't drive her to do anything.
    1
  8319. So, you posted a message expressing doubts about the moon landings, but, won't specify what the doubts are? So, in your mind, the conclusion about whether 450,000 people were participating in the biggest fraud in human history or not... is decided by a coin toss? So, the instant someone asked for more details, you switch topics to trans stuff? I mean, was there a point you were trying to make? What's the purpose of this thread? Just to announce to the world that you are tossing a coin? You don't care about the evidence? Just an announcement to the world that you're tossing a coin, and no other details are even relevant to you?
    1
  8320. Huh? You're talking about people who propose a THEORY about what they consider to be a *CONSPIRACY*. What would you call that person? And, sorry, dewdrop, but NASA isn't military.
    1
  8321. Wrong. He is changing to a woman on the INSIDE. You've got it backwards. On the outside, he/she/whatever still has testes and a penis.
    1
  8322. Well, d'uh. The same would be true of any civil case. No attorney is going to take on a civil case against ANYBODY who can't actually pay.
    1
  8323. So, you blame the police for wearing their mandatory body cameras? And, you blame them for obeying the Freedom of Information Act? Wow. Um, just a tip here: your hatred is showing.
    1
  8324. Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  8325.  @LuanChuppi  Really? Which photo catalog numbers? What was "fake" about them? How was it determined? Do you know these things? Or, did a conspiracy video just tell you AI said it was fake, and you just blindly believed it because it aligned with your predetermined conclusions?
    1
  8326.  @gives_bad_advice  "he does not strike me (yet) as hardheaded" Can't spell. Repetitive (asks who was taking pictures repeatedly). In a video with a title that calls the moon landings into question. False information. Repetitive (asks who was taking pictures repeatedly). Doesn't respond to any replies to his own questions. Doesn't bother to even ask Google any of his "questions." Repetitive (asks who was taking pictures repeatedly). Sorry, I'm not on your side this time.
    1
  8327. And, let me get this straight... you believe THEIR words?? The juries, judges, lawyers, law enforcement, etc..., they're all wrong, and you believe THEIR words?? You think the JUDGES need to be sentenced? You are one hell of a gullible asshole, aren't you? Hey, while you're believing the words of convicted murderers, please explain the two confessions that were later recanted. Explain that.
    1
  8328. Well, video is part of most arrests nowadays. And, the video wasn't released until 1.5 years after she was dead. And, what is your plan for this suit of yours when [whoever] says "Freedom of Information Act"?
    1
  8329. You do know she was a convicted felon who spent time in prison, and her landlord said she was a stripper, right? Afraid of exposure?
    1
  8330. Well, perhaps if you graduated 2nd grade, you might learn to read and write well enough to understand concepts better than you do. She was NOT correct in every way. She is required by law to provide ID (she refused), she is required by law NOT to obstruct or obfuscate (she did both). And, she is required by law to comply to an arrest (she resisted).
    1
  8331. Well, there are certainly many aspects of the "official" statements about the Apollo program that I do not believe. For example, I do not believe that Neil Armstrong merely came up with his first words on the surface of the moon while sitting in the LEM, just before he went outside (which is the "official" claim). His own brother stated that Neil Armstrong told him those words before the mission, and asked him what he thought about them. And, that makes more sense to me than the idea that Neil Armstrong would just "wing it." Also, when Gene Cernan crashed his helicopter and nearly killed himself while preparing for Apollo 17, he said that NASA was getting ready to call it an engine failure (there was no engine failure). So, yeah, there are certainly small aspects of the Apollo program where the "official line" isn't correct. No argument there. But, unless you have specific examples (like the couple that I just gave), your comment is fairly useless.
    1
  8332.  @joeycook6526  My point is that without specific examples, I don't really know what "value" there is in pointing out that not everything the government says is true. The conspiracy nutjobs use one "non-truth" as a reason to disbelieve *everything*. (Again, yes, we are on the same page.) As for the 3 laser reflectors left on the moon by Apollo, yes, I've operated one of the laser ranging facilities that bounce those lasers off of the moon. No, I'm not arguing with you.
    1
  8333. Again proving that people with "awake" or "truth" in their nicknames are seeking the exact opposite as their nicknames would indicate. Dewdrop, who's delusional? China? They released their orbital photos a few months ago. India? They did the same with their orbiter. Arizona State University? They have been photographing the Apollo landing sites since 2009, and have hundreds upon hundreds of photos from just about every possible sun angle. None of those are artists' drawings, dewdrop.
    1
  8334. Do you mean like the mission photos?
    1
  8335. Yes, I believe the maker of the video got confused between the 3rd from the bottom rung, vs. the 3rd from the top rung. I also noticed that the laser reflector is not pointed at Earth, and is pointed the wrong direction. But, these are nitpicks. There are probably a bunch more mistakes, but, whatever.
    1
  8336. Well, she eventually got it reduced to a life sentence. But, I mean, she confessed twice to participating in the murder, changed her story a few times after that. Why shouldn't she get a death sentence if the jury found her guilty?
    1
  8337. I don't think you understand the process. The cop's job isn't to determine guilt or innocence. That's up to the courts. The cop's job is to determine if there's enough evidence to make an arrest. The store employee said she went through without paying. The woman then refused to identify herself (which she is required by law to do). And, she kept arguing a bunch of nonsense instead of cooperating. It's true that she isn't required to present her receipt to the cops, however, if that's the choice she makes, then she has to be willing to face the consequences of possibly being arrested as a result. The courtroom is where all of the proof would be presented. The side of the road isn't the courtroom. The cop just determines whether there's enough probable cause to make an arrest, or not. The cop doesn't have to be correct, that's left up to the prosecuting attorney.
    1
  8338. I understand about the news station. But, I have no idea why you'd make that comment about the police. What would you have done differently?
    1
  8339. The restaurant was the pathway between the beach and the front where the police cars were. And, sorry, but with her mile long arrest record, I'd think she'd be used to it by then.
    1
  8340. Hilarious!!! You read and write as if you flunked 2nd grade, yet, you think you understand these concepts better than the attorneys? Absolutely amazing. Um, no. Doesn't work that way. There is no obligation to escalate to a different officer. She can request it, but, nobody said anybody has to provide her one. This is especially true in Jacksonville, the murder/felony capitol of Florida. I mean, c'mon, get real. "Help, drop everything you're doing to investigate those serious felonies and murders, and come here to help me with a woman who is upset because the store thinks she stole a piece of chicken and a loaf of bread." Sheeeessssshhhhh. And, even her own high profile attorney disagrees with you, because they never sued the police, nor even claimed that the police did anything wrong. They sued the store (and lost badly, but at least they attempted to sue the store). But, they never filed anything against the police. If anything you said was true, why wouldn't her attorney also sue the cops? Did you call him up and tell him he's doing his job wrong? I don't suggest you try to write to him... ya know... he probably wouldn't be able to understand any of the 2nd grade level gibberish you spew... but, you can call him, right?
    1
  8341. That's probably good advice. But, the police had the video taken by the audience.
    1
  8342. There are SIX laser reflectors now. India's latest attempt to put a reflector on the moon was successful. However, from my understanding, the sixth is too small to be of much value to lasers on Earth. Lasers from lunar orbits can get a reflection. But, I don't know that there are any Earth-based lasers that can get enough reflection from it to actually register any significant amount of photons.
    1
  8343. It's called the Freedom of Information Act. And, there's no mechanism for your suit. But, FYI, it wasn't released until 2.5 years later. Nobody saw it while she was alive.
    1
  8344. Well, let's face reality here, his life of freedom was over when he murdered his father and threw him into the lake. This chase and shootout is nothing in comparison.
    1
  8345. You can see an airplane flying at 35,000 feet just fine. Can you see a bacterium stuck to its wing? (That's literally the same ratio as you're asking for.)
    1
  8346. You clearly have absolutely no understanding of converging shadows. Dewdrop, have you ever bent down really low then looked down train tracks toward the horizon? They converge, right? The train track on your left looks like it's diagonal toward the right. The track on your right looks like it's diagonal toward the left. They converge in the distance. Yet, you know very well that they're parallel. That's how perspective works. And, shadows work exactly the same way. "Converging shadows." Look at "images." You'll see tons of examples. Or, even better, go outside into a wide open plain with just a few tall trees, and watch the shadows converge on the horizon, exactly as the Apollo photos do. Good grief. It's like you're PROUD to know absolutely nothing.
    1
  8347. The video was released 2.5 years later. That's 1.5 years AFTER she died. Stop trusting Inside Edition.
    1
  8348. How the wonder family reports to I?
    1
  8349. Well, you are asking, rather than declaring, so, I'll answer. Any firearms training course will tell you not to shoot at legs, and always shoot at center of mass. Legs are remarkably difficult to hit, especially if you're under a lot of stress. It's difficult enough to hit legs while you're calm at the range, but, in a life threatening situation, your aim becomes even worse. Furthermore, contrary to what you see in movies, leg hits don't often stop someone. There's a lot of muscle and flesh in there, and if you're lucky enough to land a hit, all it does is cause pain, but does not always stop someone. Your best chance in a leg hit might be to catch the knee perfectly. However, that's a very small target. Every firearms training course in the country will tell you never to shoot at legs/arms/head, and just shoot at the center of the chest. Yes, this unfortunately means that it can often result in death. However, the purpose isn't to cause death, the purpose is to protect yourself and your family by stopping the attacker. Your odds of stopping an attacker by shooting at legs are low, but your odds of stopping an attacker by shooting at the chest are a lot higher.
    1
  8350. It's the definition of the word "tragedy." Yes, nobody (sane) would ever WANT this outcome. But, when you don't know if the intruder has a firearm himself, you have to pick which possible outcomes you want to bet on. Sad outcome #1 = the intruder gets shot. Sad outcome #2 = you don't defend, and the intruder is armed and your family gets shot. Sad outcome #3 = he breaks in, sees your gun, he runs away, and will stalk your daughter again in some other time/place. Which one would you choose to bet your life on?
    1
  8351. So, you think that these Christian parents have been blessed by Allah? That's how this goes in your mind?
    1
  8352. Freedom of Information Act. Yes. But, they didn't release it until 2.5 years later. She was already dead a long time before the arrest video was released.
    1
  8353. Well, rather than ask YouTube commenters, why didn't you look up why she went in with the gun drawn? She did that because they had been chasing this guy for kidnapping. He ran, and then tried to accost people in an office and hold them hostage. He ran again, onto this bus, and they chased him again. They witnessed the bus being evacuated by people in fear of this guy, and the bus driver was waving/calling for help. Oh, but she's the dumb one for going in with her gun drawn? It's her fault, not the kidnapper's fault? Sorry, Teddy, YOU are the dummy here.
    1
  8354. True, but she is required by law to show her ID, and to cooperate in a police investigation at a very basic level. She refused repeatedly.
    1
  8355. Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  8356. Huh? Who told you that the USA doesn't know how?
    1
  8357. "and stop this excuse of lack of funds" Pffttt. What's 2+2? But, don't say 4. I want to know what 2+2 is, but, if you answer 4, I will reject it. Good grief, dewdrop. If you don't like the lack of funding, take it up with congress. Decade after decade since Apollo, NASA and presidents have presented proposals to congress to return to the moon, but congress never funded it (until 2019, when they funded the Artemis program). Don't sit there and complain that you don't like the reason. Are you under the impression that NASA can just decide on its own to go to the moon? You're not aware that congress funds every dime of NASA's programs? And, if they don't grant the funding, the program doesn't happen? You don't know this?
    1
  8358. Wow, with logic like that, who could argue?
    1
  8359. Well, the release of the arrest video was probably because of a legal FOIA request. But, at least the police managed to keep the arrest video out of the public for 2.5 years, which was 1.5 years after she died. So, the poor woman didn't suffer any public embarrassment from the arrest video. And, sleep peacefully? What's your allegation here? The police shouldn't abide by the legal Freedom of Information Act requests? Frankly, I think you don't have the foggiest clue.
    1
  8360. Secure the area first, administer aid second. Any other way could end up with a cop who needs the exact same aid.
    1
  8361. What civil rights do you think were violated here? And, please explain why you blame the cop? Not even her own attorney thinks the cop did anything wrong, and they didn't even sue the police. They sued the store (and lost). But, at least they tried. But, they knew there was no case against the cops at all, so they didn't even file a case. Why would that be, if thinks worked the way you're pretending?
    1
  8362. Freedom of Information Act doesn't determine anything about "public interest."
    1
  8363. My guess is that she was making "public beach" content, but got reported, and was trying to cry her way out of her millionth arrest.
    1
  8364. First of all, she suffered nearly zero bullying or shame over this, because almost no media outlets covered this until the arrest video was released a couple of months ago. Secondly, multiple people called about this incident. One of them recorded it and showed it to the police. Needless to say, the video didn't match her version.
    1
  8365. You don't really expect me to reply to your snide comment, do you?
    1
  8366. "Snide" isn't a noun, dewdrop... at least not in the context I used.
    1
  8367. "So like … Why haven’t we had Rovers revisit and Continue to Inspect the Luner Landing site" Spend billions of dollars to go back to a site they've already been? Why? Wouldn't it be a better use of money to go somewhere new?
    1
  8368. "As well as the Rest of the ENTIRE MOON SINCE THEN !?!?" Huh? How many thousands of rovers are you talking about now? Do you think the moon is the size of a small town in Kentucky or something?
    1
  8369. "it still wouldn’t shut up the conspiracy theorists" You are correct. They have decided, in advance, to reject all evidence for Apollo. They reject the evidence during the missions. They reject the evidence after the missions. They reject the orbital photos taken by China's orbiter, India's orbiter, and Arizona State University's camera on LRO (orbiter). They will simply reject photos from a rover also.
    1
  8370. "but I’d love to see Hi-Def Pictures of the Moonscape and Earth" Have you looked at the LRO photos? The entire moon has been mapped out.
    1
  8371. "EVEN FROM THE DARK SIDE OF THE MOON" What's the dark side? All "sides" get equal light. Did you get your education about the moon from a Pink Floyd song?
    1
  8372. "Like you’re telling me we have Rovers sending back Active Video and Pictures From FKING VENUS" Good gods. No, dewdrop, there are no rovers on Venus. There have never been any rovers on Venus. We (mankind) only have a few photos from the surface of Venus from decades ago, and no, they didn't come from rovers. And, there is no video.
    1
  8373. "and MARS BUT NOT OUR MOON !?!" Take it up with congress. They decide what to spend money on, or what not to spend money on. Tell your local representative that you want to spend billions of dollars on a moon rover to go visit the Apollo sites to take photos/videos that you already acknowledge that the deniers will reject anyway. See how that works out.
    1
  8374.  @Dave-bq6gy  Yup, like the F35... it's going to keep ballooning. Welcome to government.
    1
  8375.  @Dave-bq6gy  "I'm sure it will need to be postponed however, oh... by another 5 years maybe. Then another 5 years, and so on." Naw, they'll do it between 2028 and 2030. And, the original $30 billion will become $90 billion. It's still way short of Apollo's $300 billion (adjusted for inflation) in hard costs, and another $150 billion in soft costs and international support. The irony is that congress never even intended to do it by 2024 (the date Trump and Bridenstine kept pushing). Congress never funded it at a pace to ever meet that date, and said so. So, when NASA keeps saying that they'll do it faster, it's nothing but silly hype. Congress paced the funding to put them on the moon between 2028 and 2030. And, yes, they keep needing more money (like all government programs that deceive people about the actual costs just to get the program approved, then beg for more money later).
    1
  8376. And, you have proof of this claim, right? For 50+ years, every single space agency on Earth, staffed with the virtual entirety of the world's experts, believe the exact opposite that you believe. But, you can prove they're all wrong, right? That's why you've come to YouTube with this claim, rather than the worldwide journals on astronomy, cosmology, aerospace engineering, etc., right? A YouTube comment is how you've chosen to announce that the world's experts are wrong, because, yeah, sure, that's exactly how you'd do it.
    1
  8377. Huh? The police managed to keep this arrest video out of the public for 2.5 years. But, eventually, they can't block legal Freedom of Information Act requests if the case is closed for too long. And, given that she was already dead for 1.5 years by the time the arrest video was made public, I fail to understand your point. Who exactly needs training? And, what training would you give them exactly?
    1
  8378. Of they really? Of warnings of for aggravated of misdemeanors of? Of you understand of difference between of infraction and of misdemeanor? Of police of do not of have that level of discretion of for crimes as of infraction of.
    1
  8379. Of you of aware of audience recording of the incident of? Of it doesn't of match of her sob story of nobody of being around her of. Of it showed of a loud of event in front of multiple of people including children of of. Why of you believe of her? Because of she said of so as she of was of trying to avoid her of millionth arrest of?
    1
  8380. Yes, Jen, this is quite common for delusional people. It's actually part of the very definition. You can be shown that every single input "fact" you've fallen for is wrong, but, you'll still believe that you've come to the correct conclusion anyway. Sane people are the opposite. If a sane person learns that all of the input facts are wrong, he/she will realize that the conclusion is probably wrong also. But, you'll remain proud to ignore all input that goes against your delusion anyway.
    1
  8381. So, what would you do, instead of use the Taser? Would you manhandle her to the ground instead? She made it 100% clear that she wasn't going down without a fight. In my opinion, the Taser was the gentler of the two options. But, hey, you obviously must know more than I do, so, please elaborate, what would you do instead?
    1
  8382. Yes, the Gish Gallop is one of their weapons of choice. I was always more of a Corvette guy than a Camaro guy. But, the Camaro is my son's favorite.
    1
  8383. Well, if it's any consolation to you, that clip of the flag blowing upon liftoff was borrowed from Apollo 14. It wasn't Apollo 17's flag blowing. I'm sure Apollo 17's flag blew also (but, not as much, because it was much further away from the lander). But, they couldn't use Apollo 17's liftoff footage because Jack Schmitt couldn't get the 16mm camera running in time for the liftoff, and the first few seconds are missing.
    1
  8384. So, a convicted felon with an arrest record a mile long says she thought she was alone, and you just blindly believe her? Why? How about the witnesses who say otherwise? How about the video they took of the incident, showing that she was in view of multiple people including children?
    1
  8385. What you're missing is that this was a crafted media story, no more, no less. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released due to FOIA. The media wanted two viral rounds for the price of one, so, they released the story in late November and early December without mentioning that she was already dead. Then, they released the story again with the "update" that she died, and created misleading videos to pretend that the cause was the media attention.
    1
  8386. What shame do you think she really suffered from this? And, why do you blame the police?
    1
  8387. Well, congratulations. Every sentence you wrote was wrong. Let's start by correcting your lack of understanding about the police video. The police kept it private for 2.5 years. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. That long after the investigation was closed, they could no longer block a legal FOIA request. Yes, she had been a realtor in the past. But, she gave up that life about a decade ago, when she decided to ditch her career and her husband and two boys (two different fathers) to lead a "wild" and "off the rails" (her family's words) life of crime and drugs. She served some time in prison for stealing cars. She had multiple judgements against her for various other thefts. And, she had an arrest record a mile long for various drug and alcohol charges. It's rather difficult to get a straight job after all of that. So, according to her landlord, she was a stripper at the local club. Interviews with neighbors also state that she did "one-on-one" cash transactions also, ya know, can't be stated in YouTube comments, right? Anyway, she didn't show up for court (seems like her normal way of dealing with all of her arrests, because she had a long string of open warrants for failure to appear). But, nearly zero media covered this story while she was alive. So, again, what shame do you think she really suffered from this? And, why do you blame the police?
    1
  8388. She got THREE lawyers, one of whom is quite high profile. And, none of them saw a valid case against the police, and no such suit was ever even filed. They tried to sue the store, but, it was tossed out of court, and she has been barred from ever filing the suit again, and rightfully so. You either have no understanding of what happened here, or you're painfully wrong about basic police procedure.
    1
  8389. Legal history a mile long. Served a prison term for stealing cars. Multiple judgements against her for various thefts. Serious drug and alcohol issues, and additional arrests for it. Abandoned her family, including a 6 month old baby, so she could go "wild" and "off the rails" (her family's words). Numerous failures to appear in court (including from this incident), with open arrests. Attempts to change her name to evade the police. According to her landlord, her "profession" was, well, ya know, one of those things some women do when they can't get a real job, but YouTube blocks the words from being posted. Yes, totally delightful.
    1
  8390.  @soloshotfirst1118  Love your nickname. (Yes, honestly.)
    1
  8391.  @michaelstillman1171  Are any of their arguments ever NOT lame?
    1
  8392. Yes, his body was found next to a lake.
    1
  8393. "Why did Americans spend so much money to go to the moon" It was a cold war. Going to the moon was mainly an effort to display technological and industrial dominance to the Soviets. They were very close to a real war, and, in order to prevent that from happening, they figured that a message of dominance would make the Soviets back off, and possibly prevent a nuclear war that would cause the loss of tens of millions of lives, leaving giant craters where cities used to be.
    1
  8394. "A scam would solve everything, no need to invest money, no need to calculate the risks, the success rate is 100%" Absolute nonsense. The Soviets and dozens of other countries tracked the Apollo missions with radar and radio telescopes. Anybody in the world could point their dishes at the moon and receive Apollo's audio broadcasts. Three countries were capable of receiving the video broadcasts. Spain could see the SIVB fuel dumps and the Apollo 13 debris field using their telescope (the largest at that time). 450,000 people worked on Apollo for a decade of their lives, and if any one of them figured out it wasn't real, there's the risk that they'd reveal it. The list goes on and on. Being found out as a scam would do far more political damage. The success rate of fooling that many people at that scale is 0.00%.
    1
  8395. Um... I don't understand. She was a convicted felon who served prison time for stealing cars, and had an arrest record a mile long from the last decade of her drug and crime spree. She had multiple judgements against her for various thefts. She had numerous failures to appear resulting in open warrants (including for this very arrest in this video). So, I really don't quite understand this notion of innocent targets and freed guilty people??
    1
  8396.  @noname-by3qz  Pffttt. And, every other "drop in the bucket" ever offered by any of you people has collapsed just as easily as your petrified wood "drop in the bucket." A "moon rock" was given to the Dutch art museum as a donation (almost undoubtedly for the tax write-off). The art museum did nothing whatsoever to verify its authenticity. They contacted NASA, who said they had no record of ever giving that rock, but, they'd be happy to examine it if the museum sent it to them. The museum didn't bother, and, instead, accepted it, and stuck it into a drawer for 14 years. When they finally decided to display it, it was immediately recognized as a fake, being the wrong color, wrong size for any sample ever given to any nation, wrong texture, and wasn't encased and mounted to the NASA plaque that was given with all of the authentic "Good Will Samples." Instead, it included a bent-up laminated card that could be printed at any office supply store on Earth. The museum itself doesn't believe it came from NASA, and they blame themselves for accepting a donation without verifying it. I asked why you think it came from NASA, when the museum itself doesn't even believe what you believe. And, you have refused to answer. Instead, now, you just brush it away, calling it a "drop in the bucket." But, yeah, every other drop ever offered by you nuts has failed just as miserably as this drop fails.
    1
  8397. There are 7,000 photos taken on the lunar surface. Yes, sometimes shadows do strange things with oddly shaped rocks, or things that aren't standing perfectly straight up. So what? You can go through every single one of the photos, and never find any true fault with the shadows. Sure, some people who don't understand it will say that the shadows are wrong. But, they're a bunch of fringe people who simply don't know what they're talking about. Geometry proves them wrong.
    1
  8398. Just wondering... if your god "blessed" the woman, why did she die so young?
    1
  8399. Huh? Explain radiation belts in a YouTube comment? How? That's a bit like, "teach me calculus" in a YouTube comment. Anyway, sorry, I can't teach you in a single comment. But, here's a descent start in learning about the Van Allen belts: QUOTE: "The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight. The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months' duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure. A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week. However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable. -- James A. Van Allen"
    1
  8400. Well, there's a massive irony in your spelling of "eliquantly" (your spelling). You can't spell words yourself, but you expect the general population to be eloquent? And, as for your claim itself, well, they've had years to rehearse this pile of nonsense that they're spewing. And, since this is a Diane Sawyer hit-piece against "the system," and not honest journalism, who knows how many times they actually said these lines? This could have been take-20, for all we know.
    1
  8401. The original video? You mean the video of the woman taken by the witness at the beach? As far as I know, that video hasn't been seen by anybody outside of the witnesses and the police. Or, did you mean a different video?
    1
  8402. Don't pretend you're entitled to respect, dewdrop. YOU are the one accusing thousands of people of being criminals who would get a lifetime in prison if you were correct. And, you're doing this on the laughable basis that you don't understand anything about the topic, and like to feel good by accusing others.
    1
  8403. "I didn't receive notification" Spare me. You had received plenty of notifications in other threads, and ignored every time when you were proven wrong.
    1
  8404. "the "astronauts" to all confirm that they didn't even notice any stars" No, dewdrop. The astronauts saw stars just fine from lunar orbit while on the night side. From the lunar surface, no. But, there was one astronaut who said he tried blocking out light and to see stars from the lunar surface, and said he may have seen a couple of them. But, no, not like a night sky. You are cherry picking a few quotes, and intentionally taking them out of context.
    1
  8405. "considering that this idea was not corrected from the other two "astronauts."" Let me guess, you're talking about the answer to whether they saw stars IN THE SOLAR CORONA IN SPITE OF THE GLARE? Right? That's the quote you're abusing. But, you don't know what the solar corona is, nor what the glare was, nor when they could or couldn't see it. So, you omitted those words from your mind, and all you heard was "did you see stars?" Right? See, dewdrop, the astronauts were addressing specific conditions. They weren't saying they never saw stars.
    1
  8406. "at 21:36, we can see stars in the image" Maybe those are stars. They're awfully borderline. But, notice anything about the image? It's quite exposed, showing the brownish lunar surface, barely in sunlight, and only a small crescent Earth. Clearly, that frame used very long exposure times. Yes, dewdrop, they took many star photos by using long exposures. So what? There are even better star images than that one.
    1
  8407. "a photo of the moon, the earth, and the stars in the background. Why did the camera pick this up, but the "astronauts" couldn't see them?" Dewdrop, who said the astronauts didn't see them? Maybe they did. The astronauts had no trouble seeing stars on the night side of the moon from lunar orbit, and said so. The only reason you think they said they "never saw stars" is that you have intentionally taken quotes out of context.
    1
  8408. "Instead of admitting your obvious fault" Oh, the irony. Dewdrop, he wasn't at fault. You need to look into the mirror to find the one at fault. The astronauts saw stars just fine from the dark side of lunar orbit. They didn't see stars from the light side of lunar orbit, or from the surface (except by using optics). Yes, there are in-between conditions. It's not like stars just instantly poof into view, and poof out of view. During the transition between day and night, the lighting conditions change, eyes adjust, they change camera settings, etc. The photo you're talking about is obviously during one of those transitions. So what?
    1
  8409. How do you explain why South Korea, China, India, and LRO (lunar orbiters from 4 countries) have photographed the Apollo landers on the moon? Are they all "in on it"?
    1
  8410.  @willoughbykrenzteinburg  You might have to watch in higher resolution. There are a few faint dots. Again, they might be stars, as that photo is clearly being taken with long exposure, and just as night is becoming day. Some of the transition photos had stars that were a lot more distinct than this example. Or, maybe they're just little photographic artifacts. I don't know, nor care. I'm happy enough saying they're stars.
    1
  8411.  @willoughbykrenzteinburg  I wasn't accusing you. I was just spelling out details, and suggesting that you watch at maximum resolution. And, as for digital sensors, well, there were digital sensors in whatever did the scan of that photo, so, who knows?
    1
  8412. 8 minute commercial
    1
  8413. First of all, "their" is a real word. You should learn to use it. Secondly, what exactly do you think the police did wrong?
    1
  8414. Yet, you still can't name what you think they did wrong.
    1
  8415. He murdered "only" one person prior to this chase... his own father. And, he had been shooting at police the entire time. Also, did you not see him firing shots at the police even after the cop smashed into the truck?
    1
  8416. But, she never suffered from the arrest. She wasn't convicted and did no time for it. And, the arrest video wasn't made public until 1.5 years after her death.
    1
  8417. Huh? They don't put dead people in jail.
    1
  8418. Who was harsh? And, well, I certainly can't speak for her, but, I'd assume her felony prison term for stealing cars was the dark time in her life.
    1
  8419. Well, yes, sort of. I mean, she had an arrest record a mile long, served prison time for stealing cars, lots of drug and alcohol problems, multiple failures to appear in court, judgements against her for various thefts, tried to change her name so the police couldn't find her, and then this arrest in the video. But, you say it like it's a bad thing?
    1
  8420. A) You clearly know nothing about pressure. B) You clearly know nothing about math. 10 to the minus [whatever] power isn't a big number, it's a tiny number. The pressure on the moon is so close to zero that they have to write it in large looking numbers, but, it's to the NEGATIVE power. Like, you do know that 10 to the minus 100 power is 0.00000001 (with a lot more zeroes that I didn't write), right? You see big numbers, but you fail to realize that those big numbers are illustrating that it's closer and closer to zero. C) Did you REALLY believe you spotted this "gotcha" that every aerospace engineer on the planet somehow overlooked?
    1
  8421. But, dewdrop, the cops prevented the release of the arrest video until 1.5 years after she died. And, how is it "defamation" in the first place? You're clearly the attorney here, not me, so, can you enlighten me on this amazing legal knowledge you have?
    1
  8422.  @sesquashtwo  Hey, I'm not the one claiming that the courts/judges got the law wrong. That's YOU doing that. I'm irrelevant. I mean, yes, I know the law a billion times better than you, quite obviously. What you're saying is pure gibberish. But, you don't have to trust me for any of it. You can go get an education on how these things work all for yourself, and you can then understand why the courts have already tossed the case out, and why her own attorneys never appealed, and why they never even filed a case against the police (well, that last thing wasn't so much directed at you, because you didn't say they should file a case against the police, but, I'm just including it as part of the blanket statement).
    1
  8423.  @sesquashtwo  You did say the court got it wrong, because you said the court victimized her. She wasn't even accused of theft, it never got as far as an accusation. He was investigating, not accusing. She chose the Taser. If you were in those shoes, are you telling me that you'd resist and ask to be Tased, as she did? I'm not saying the cop Tased her because she asked to be. He'd have done so whether she requested it or not. But, let's face reality here, once under arrest, you either comply, or you're going to be Tased into compliance, or you will be tackled into compliance. Those are the only choices. Publix never filed a complaint. Publix never went further than asking the police officer to investigate the woman for possibly stealing. You don't know what you're talking about. And, sorry, but she doesn't deserve a dime. It's not abnormal to make a simple mistake and think maybe someone stole something. The fact that you are saying that the court should have awarded money... is confirming exactly what you are trying to deny now. You said above that you're not saying the court got it wrong, and now you're saying the court should have awarded money. So, the court didn't get it wrong, but the court got it wrong? You don't see the self-contradiction in your own words? Yes, you're darned right that I'm talking down to you. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Yet, you think YouTube is a place for you to pretend to know things you don't know.
    1
  8424.  @nothgiel84  YOU SAID: "there is a report tht states...HUMANS HAVE NEVER ventured pass the Van Allen Belt." == Pfftt. Oh, ok. There's a "report" of that, huh? Who reported it? Conspiracy video makers? YOU SAID: "so unless we sent aliens...who landed on the moon?" == Armstrong, Aldrin, Conrad, Bean, Shepard, Mitchell, Scott, Irwin, Young, Duke, Cernan, and Schmitt. YOU SAID: "Show me a link with a video from the moon in this century...FROM ANY NATION.....I'll wait.." == How about China's moon rover video? But, what does this have to do with Apollo? What ARE you talking about? Why didn't you answer any questions I asked? Everything went in one ear, and out the other, and now you want me to answer MORE things? What's wrong with you? Why should I answer new things, when you're not even paying attention to prior things? And, again, what do videos from this century have to do with Apollo? What does one have to do with the other?
    1
  8425. @j carlton YOU SAID: "Man this stuff all lies." == Why? What exactly do you know about it that no experts anywhere on Earth know about it? YOU SAID: "They were just trying to find out how to orbit nuclear bombs." == When? In the 1950s? What does that have to do with Apollo? YOU SAID: "They never reached the moon." == They reached the moon many times with unmanned probes, and reached the moon 9 times with humans inside, and landed 6 of those times. YOU SAID: "You think they went there for just three hours and decided there was no good reason to go back?" == This is a joke, right? Are you honestly under the impression that there was only one moon mission? Good grief. No, dummy. You are referring only to Apollo 11. Apollo 11 was the first landing. They didn't want to take any chances. So, they landed in the most wide open area of the moon possible, they only did one short moonwalk, gathered up some samples, performed some experiments, took some photos and video, and then went home. Every mission afterward did more and more and more on the moon. By Apollo 17, they were doing 3 EVAs (moonwalks) for nearly 8 hours each, driving the lunar rover about 20 miles to various exploration sites. The fact that you don't know that there were more missions after Apollo 11... it's ridiculous that you even think you know enough to form an opinion. You thought there was only one landing, yet, you feel comfortable accusing thousands of people of being criminals??
    1
  8426. She was a drug addict who abandoned her children to get high. "Nice person"?
    1
  8427. Nobody claimed that he had probable cause from the store employee saying the woman went through without paying. And, sorry, the rest of what you wrote is incorrect also.
    1
  8428.  @Knightstruth  Wrong again. The legal requirement for detaining is reasonable suspicion, not probable cause. But, hey, you've been wrong in every other sentence you've written, so, why stop now, right? Just keep on pretending you understand concepts you don't. That's what YouTube is for, right? For people like you to pretend?
    1
  8429. You have misunderstood. It weighed 6 million pounds, but, the rockets in the first stage produced 7.5 million pounds of THRUST. Does this clear it up? You want more thrust than weight, or you cannot even get off the ground. Side note: each F1 engine produced 1.5 million pounds of thrust (x5 engines).
    1
  8430.  @EmilyTienne  What cruelty? What do you mean?
    1
  8431.  @EmilyTienne  Dewdrop, the arrest video was kept private by the police until she was already dead 1.5 years. Arrest = July 1, 2021. Suicide = March, 2022. Arrest video released = November 24, 2023. Your hatred shows every time you post a message.
    1
  8432. After hours? No.
    1
  8433.  @dansv1  I always keep a browser open that isn't logged into YouTube, so that I can check to see if my posts are visible. I'll post something. Then, I'll load the screen from a window that's not logged in, to see if I can see my own posting. It's not 100% reliable, because sometimes, even then, different browsers behave differently, and posts are visible for a while then disappear. But, I manage to catch about 90% of the time that my posts are blocked.
    1
  8434. What ARE you talking about? Did you think this pile of gibberish you just wrote was supposed to make sense to anybody else?
    1
  8435.  @TheDiftofz  You said "goes after parents getting their kids into college cheaply." Well, this video is about Lori Loughlin's scandal, in which she paid half a million dollars to cheat the system, and bribe individuals, etc. to gain admission to a school that charges $80K per year per student for tuition and expenses, plus all of the other "donations" that would be required along the way. At what point do you consider them to be "parents getting their kids into college cheaply"?? You CANNOT be talking about Lori Loughlin or her husband (the topic of this video), because they did the exact opposite of "getting in cheaply." They will have invested about $1.5 million into this fraud. So, yeah, I asked what in the world you are talking about? Some other parents, I assume? Which parents are you talking about?
    1
  8436.  @TheDiftofz  ana, You clearly lack the education that you're complaining about. You cannot form a coherent thought. You are saying that Lori Loughlin's $1.5 million dollars was "getting her kids into college cheaply." You're barely literate. And, your entire "argument" has nothing to do with reality. She committed crimes. She is being prosecuted for those crimes. She bribed people. She falsified records. Her children displaced other students who were qualified, while hers were not. They lied to the university. They lied to the public. They are raising their children to learn that using power and money to lie and cheat someone else out of an education is the "right" thing to do. All of their acts have been very illegal. And, for you to distract/dodge all of that, and complain about Chinese intellectual property behavior... what in the HELL is wrong with your brain?? How much more illegal activity does Lori Loughlin need to commit before you'll understand that she's not a nice person? With your "logic" (sigh), someone can commit a theft in California, and you'll blame China for it. Good gods, go back and get the education that you're complaining about.
    1
  8437. It also doesn't help to record the incident. Not only does it demonstrate the huge gaps in time between shots, but, it makes it really clear that it was premeditated.
    1
  8438. Huh? What are you talking about? The driver murdered his father right before this chase, then he went on this rampage, shooting at the cops, driving like a maniac, risking even more lives. How EXACTLY are you proposing the cops should act? What should they do instead? Please enlighten the world, with all of your vast training in this topic, what EXACTLY you think they did wrong?
    1
  8439. Huh? It's hard to understand your point. Are you under the impression that this man DIDN'T plan these killings ahead of time? You have a 45 with you? Alright. Do you also park your car a quarter mile away, to make it seem like you're not home? Do you also rehearse on tape a couple of hours before someone breaks in, what you're going to say to friends and attorneys and police? Do you also say (on tape, ahead of time) that you plan on shooting someone "in the left eye," then shoot them twice in the left eye? Do you also go outside (visible on tape) right before the killings to get two tarps to use as body bags, and place them in your house exactly where you plan on them? Do you disable the lights in the house, so the intruders cannot turn them on and see you? Smith did all of those things, and more, demonstrating that he planned these killings ahead of time.
    1
  8440. And post it on the internet.
    1
  8441. Loaded with chips. They said they're not going to get 500 miles out of it if loaded with Pepsi.
    1
  8442. Well, I don't think she should have committed suicide. But, I fail to understand why you're saying that what happened to her was wrong. (?)
    1
  8443. "There is no such day on the moon as on Earth, because there is no atmosphere. During the day there is a glow of the atmosphere on earth, because of this we do not see the stars." No. We don't see stars because of the quantity of sunlight during the day, drowning out the light from the stars. I'm not sure about this "glow" you're talking about. "on the moon, so the stars should always be visible" No. There's a concept called "dynamic range." Human eyes (and cameras) cannot see stars during a time when there are bright lights. They don't have that kind of range. "and much brighter than on Earth." About 8% brighter than stars seen from Earth on a perfectly clear night. I wouldn't call that "much brighter," but, yes, brighter by a bit. "There are no stars for a simple reason - it would be extremely difficult to simulate them and it would be easy to check the forgery - by superimposing a real photo of the starry sky." But, dewdrop, they took 125 photos of the stars from the Carruthers UV telescope/camera. And, they took bunches of star photos from lunar orbit also. Why haven't you used those photos to disprove Apollo? What are you waiting for? "There would be errors and discrepancies." Yet, for 50+ years, nobody has found any. "the simulated stars would need to be placed a few miles away from the shooting. because when shifted sideways, it would be seen that the stars are nearby and narrow relative to each other, as any two points on the wall approach when you look at them and move away to the right or left." Yet, later in this thread, you acknowledge that taking photos of the stars doesn't work that way. Good grief. "there are a lot of photos of stars on the ISS and they are very bright." With very long term exposures taken at night. "What prevented you from taking such photos from the moon?" Nothing. They did exactly what you are pretending they didn't. "Fly to the moon for a week" I'm not sure what you mean. The longest surface stay was 74 hours. "to put the camera on a tripod" Like the Carruthers UV camera? "and shoot along the horizon." Why? Those long term exposures would turn the horizon into a huge white blob. The typical time it takes to expose stars on film is about 30 seconds. If you take a photo of the lunar surface in the daytime for 30 seconds, you're not seeing anything besides a blob. "The astronauts had portable video cameras." Video cameras? Why is that relevant? How do you expect to see stars in a video camera? I mean, even with extremely sensitive film, the best you could hope for would be about a 4 second exposure to make stars appear. How do you take video when each frame must be exposed for 4 seconds? It's not video at that point, it's just a photograph. Good grief. Go learn something about photography, dewdrop. You don't know what you're talking about? Even the few photographers who try to claim that the moon landings were faked... do not use this argument. "Didn't they want to take a panorama, each other, a ship, a view from the mountains" Of course. Haven't you seen them? There are dozens of them. "a view of the sky." Most of the time, they were photographing the moon. The sky wasn't a priority. "If you think that the stars are not visible in the photos because of the exposure, take your smartphone and take a picture of the starry sky. they may not be visible." Correct. They're not. "You need a lot of endurance. And take and turn on the video recording. And you can see them perfectly" Pfftt. When you feel the need to lie to support your delusions, your mind is even further gone than I thought. There are some apps that can start to capture stars with a smartphone, but, they typically require a 30 second exposure. Stop pretending. Good grief.
    1
  8444. No, dewdrop. I'm not answering your new question after you avoid answering every single one of mine. No. I challenged and questioned every single bit of your silly butchery of the topic, demonstrating that you haven't got the foggiest clue about this subject matter. In one ear, out the other, ignore it all, refuse to respond to a single bit of it, and ask a new question? No.
    1
  8445. Pffftttt. When you couldn't manage to answer a single question or challenge I put forth, what did you do? You attempted to change topics and asked a new question. Then, when I refused to allow you to change topics, what did you do? You declared that I wasn't worth your time (then why'd you ask me more questions, if I wasn't worth your time?), and then you declared victory and ran for the hills. Sorry, dewdrop, but you're not fooling anybody. Frankly, I'll never understand why people like you ask any questions at all, given that you repeatedly demonstrate that you don't want the answers.
    1
  8446. Did your brains fall out of your head? WHAT? This isn't an issue of the US Constitution. The issue is that the proper authorities of the facility asked the guy to leave, and he refused to leave. Therefore, he was trespassing. The cops didn't arrest the guy for speaking. The cops arrested the guy for trespassing. Now, of course, I hope the guy who was arrested sues the school/board, as well as every other parent of a child in that school should sue the school/board, and I hope they get a lot of money for their ridiculous actions. But, none of that is the issue when it comes to trespassing. The cops MUST trespass a person if the proper authorities of that building ask the person to leave, but the person won't leave. What EXACTLY would you do if it was your home or something? If someone won't leave your home, and you call the cops to have the person removed, and the cops said, "well, we agree with what this guy is saying, so we're not going to remove him from your home." (?) I realize a school is not a home. But, when it comes to trespassing, it really makes no difference. The school board has the authority to trespass someone, and the cops must do it. The rest is up to the courts. And, like I said, I hope the guy who was arrested gets a huge amount of money out of the school/board. But, the cops themselves don't get to make that decision. People like you are quite disgusting, you know. You encourage violence against police who are doing their jobs EXACTLY CORRECTLY.
    1
  8447. Well, she did sue. She lost badly, but she tried. As for showing the receipt, you are not legally required, but, it makes life a lot easier just to show it. In all "stop and identify" states, you are required to provide ID. She did not, and that's an arrestable offense all on its own.
    1
  8448. "it's my choice if I want to believe it or not" So, you are refusing to actually address my questions/challenges. Instead, you're just going to stick your head in the sand and stick with your nonsensical opinions based on nothing? Rejecting Apollo isn't like rejecting chemistry or calculus or something. I mean, if you want to stick your head in the sand and say that calculus doesn't exist, and there's no way to integrate mathematical formulas, well, it's an insult to humanity, but, you're really only making a mockery out of yourself. Apollo's not like that. To deny Apollo is to not only reject the work done by 450,000 people for a decade of their lives (4.5 million years of human effort), but, you're actively accusing some sizeable chunk of them of being criminals who would be sent to prison for their entire lives for the crimes you're accusing them of. It's offensive and rude. And, it's based on NOTHING.
    1
  8449. Oh, well, with the number of drug charges she's had, yeah, most likely she was the main consumers on that beach.
    1
  8450. How do you "bully" a dead person?
    1
  8451. Based on your reply, I can only say this again: Well, if you don't understand it, and it doesn't make sense to you, it must be fake. Anything you don't understand is fake.
    1
  8452. So, you watched the first half of the video, and not the second half?
    1
  8453. Huh? Blame the victim, not the criminal?
    1
  8454. Or, you could stop believing nonsense like Inside Edition, and look the dates up for yourself. Arrest = July 2021. Suicide = March 2022. Arrest video made public = November 2023. The police didn't "cause" anything to her. She was a troubled woman with an arrest record and a drug problem. Sorry if you believe silly stories like this one.
    1
  8455. Store policy is not law?? Um, ok, but it IS law that you cannot steal. And, the law says that a person needs to ID themselves, and comply with an officer when he says "you're under arrest." You don't get to resist. So, don't play this "law" card. She didn't actually steal, but, she violated other laws during this investigation. Cops are under no obligation to go watch videos. The cop determines whether there's enough evidence for reasonable suspicion of a crime, and performs the arrest. Anybody can present whatever evidence they want in the courtroom, videos, receipts, whatever. But, the cop only needs to determine whether or not there is enough reason to make an arrest. If she doesn't want to present her receipt, that's fine, but, then she needs to be prepared to be arrested.
    1
  8456.  @TheCheshier88  Good grief. No, that's not what hearsay means. "Hearsay" would be something like if the store employee heard a rumor that the woman stole, but didn't witness anything herself whatsoever. The store employee's words were not hearsay, there were a direct account. How much could you possibly think you understand about this topic, if you cannot even get the definitions of your words correct? And, let's pretend that you were correct, and a cop can never arrest someone if a store says the person stole... when COULD a cop ever arrest someone? Also, you're so out of touch with reality that you fail to even realize that she DID sue the store, and lost. The court threw her case out, with prejudice (which means she cannot even try again, that's how bad her case was). And, even her own attorney knew darned well that there was no case against the police, and he never even filed a suit against them. Why? Why do you pretend to understand topics you do not? What possible purpose is there in what you're trying to say here? It's clear that you don't have any understanding of this topic on any level. Why pretend you do?
    1
  8457. Well, she quit real estate about a decade ago when she left her family and career behind to go on a drug and crime spree. She even continued the drug and crime spree after she got out of prison.
    1
  8458. (cont again) And, how do you know that the bible was cannonized correctly? When the council was voting on which books to put in, and which books to take out (mainly based on which ones made it look like "prophecy" was fulfiled), are you sure they all voted correctly? What about when they voted on whether Jesus was just a prophet or a god himself? Are you sure they voted right? What about the book where Judas was the good guy? Voted out. What kind of god leaves these things up for vote anyway?
    1
  8459. Huh? What are you talking about? If you adjust for inflation, Apollo costed about $300 billion in hard costs, and around $100 or $150 billion in soft costs and international support. That's somewhere around $450 billion (again, in today's dollar). Artemis is now in progress with a budget of about $35 billion. Yes, that's because it's a lot easier now.
    1
  8460.  @randyschissler5791  It's not easier or cheaper now? Then why is the Artemis budget a tiny fraction of Apollo's? There's vastly less R&D required now. They are building upon the prior knowledge now, making it quite a bit cheaper. In the 1960s, there was no prior knowledge to build upon. But, if you're referring to the SpaceX Starship monstrosity, well, you've got me there. SpaceX hasn't learned a thing from history, and have chosen to reinvent the wheel, and make the exact same mistakes that the Soviets made... with the irony that Musk even seems to brag about the fact that they're modeling the failed N1.
    1
  8461.  @stusue9733  What's to be "torn" about when it comes to SpaceX? It's run by a conman.
    1
  8462.  @stusue9733  Of course, my reply to you was blocked. Good grief.
    1
  8463. Did you flunk out of economics class? The money spent on the space program DOES help the people on the planet. Weather satellites are used to predict storms. GPS satellites help to pinpoint locations on Earth. Energy sensing satellites are used to detect solar activity, radiation in space, etc. Communications satellites. Etc. And, even if you don't want to see moon or Mars missions, those program employ people. See, whenever people like you say that the money should be used to feed hungry people, and you ask those people (maybe you also) how, they inevitably say to just hand out food/money. The problem is that this isn't a sustainable model. The best way to help starving people is to EMPLOY THEM. If all you do is create a system of free handouts, you're not actually fixing the problem. A day later, the people are hungry again. More handouts. A day later, they're hungry again. More handouts. Then the people like you would be saying, "Hey, why are we just giving away free handouts endlessly? Shouldn't we give these people jobs, and make them work, and get something productive back, and these job skills would make them more marketable and self-sustaining in the long run!??!!" You people are absolutely amazing. So, when they spend money on government programs that result in employing 450,000 people (like in Apollo), everything from highly educated engineers, down to the person pushing a mop, that's what they're doing. They're feeding people. Those people get jobs, feed their families, gain work experience that can be used to get better jobs later, etc. But, here you are, arguing to stop that, and go back to the endless cycle of free handouts?? Do I understand you correctly?
    1
  8464. Dewdrop, the arrest video wasn't released until 2.5 years later, long after she died. Secondly, she was a convicted felon who served time in a Florida prison about 6 years ago, and couldn't stop getting herself arrested both before and after. Her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the gentlemen's club. Thirdly, one of the "audience" recorded it and gave a copy of the video to the police. It doesn't match this story about nobody being around. If she wasn't making "public beach" content, I'll eat my hat.
    1
  8465. So, why'd you post anything if you were going to get angry if you get replies?
    1
  8466. Well, did your god bless the woman before she died?
    1
  8467. Blame everyone except the criminal, right?
    1
  8468.  @danighere4180  Yeah, I'd say this arrest, plus her other million arrests, and her felony term served in a Florida prison, makes her a criminal.
    1
  8469. Then explain her extensive arrest record, the felony prison term she served in Florida about 6 years ago, her multiple judgements/convictions, and her open warrants.
    1
  8470. You didn't really fall for an Inside Edition story, did you? Facts don't matter to them, only ad revenue matters. They get more views from the "innocent soccer mom gets busted by evil police" version than the "convicted felon who can't stop getting herself arrested gets arrested again" version.
    1
  8471. Um, so, you want to repeal the Freedom of Information Act?
    1
  8472. I don't know what you mean. It was a Freedom of Information Act request. What does the badge cam have to do with being accountable for anything?
    1
  8473. I don't know what you're talking about, and neither do you. Nine landings? All we needed to know?
    1
  8474. Oh, you're definitely an authority on police policies, I see. I mean, why aren't you running every police department in the country? Someone just pulled a gun on you, and you shot him. He's still alive (at least at that point), and you don't know if he has another gun or weapon. You've got a screaming woman coming up to your right who might be armed also. You've got some crazy guy screaming in the distance about how his brother got shot, asking who did it. And, who knows how many others may be lurking, waiting to do you harm? You have no idea at that point, because the scene isn't secure yet. Oh, but stop right now, and give first aid. Have him hold your gun for you while you're doing it.
    1
  8475. Well, given that her neighbors say she was a "dancer" (yeah, that kind) and did "private extras" with parades of paying men in her apartment, she was most likely making a video for her fans, and showing her face probably helped her.
    1
  8476. He said "had," not "hadn't." But, yes, with the accent, it sounds a little bit like "hadn't."
    1
  8477.  @donsheffler  I don't think you get it.
    1
  8478.  @donsheffler  Good gods, just go watch the clip again. Good grief!!!! He didn't say what you think he said.
    1
  8479. A) Given that your other comment says it's zero gravity, um, yeah, I hardly think you know ANYTHING about this topic. B) Are you under the impression that the thickness of the dust layer must be 100% identical all across every square inch of the moon? C) The video clips of the rover driving actually came from Apollo 15 and 16. As far as I can recall anyway, they never ran the 16mm camera while driving the rover on Apollo 17. Different dust conditions exist just a hundred feet apart from each other... let alone hundreds of miles between one landing site and another.
    1
  8480. Some additional facts that Inside Edition has no desire to tell: Arrest history and prison time for stealing cars and public drunkenness. Long history of additional theft, legal judgments against her, and failure to appear in court, attempts to change her name to evade being served/arrested. Was once a real estate agent, but, no real sales in quite some time. Living on welfare. Failure to pay rent. Suspected actual income from, ya know. This arrest = July 2021. Suicide = March 2022. This arrest video made public = November 2023. She suffered zero shame from the arrest video, because nobody saw it until she was dead for 1.5 years. Her own family doesn't report that the suicide was the result of this arrest, but, rather a history of drugs and alcohol. Does this paint a different picture than the Inside Edition story that asks questions, but never gives answers?
    1
  8481. Oh, and, one of the members of the "audience" recorded the incident with her cell phone, and showed it to the police. It's described in the police report as a very loud display in front of multiple people including children. And, the audience reported that it appeared that she was walking around, looking for a spot to do this, and it seemed that she chose specifically a spot that was visible. Inside Edition doesn't tell you any of that either. And, she had long since abandoned her own family and kids, years before this beach incident. This is why she was missing for so long with nobody even knowing she was already dead. Many of her own family, including her husband and one of her sons, did not attend her funeral. Her own family said that she had gone "wild" and "off the rails" years before, and lived a life of drugs and alcohol.
    1
  8482. Dewdrop, you very clearly know nothing about the stuff you're pretending to know. And, the irony is that you think the world's experts have been "duped" while you know "the truth" (which you got by watching conspiracy videos that lie to you).
    1
  8483. Well, he didn't just argue with his dad, he murdered his dad. (I guess I need to say "allegedly" until the court case is over.)
    1
  8484. Good grief. If you watch the highest quality copy, and you go frame by frame as the guy is opening the door, you can make out the gun pointed directly at the officer's head. You also see at multiple points in the video that the gun was on the ground next to a 2x4 piece of wood. Two such times you can see the gun are at 1:51 and 5:02. If an armed guy pulls your car door open, wearing a balaclava mask in the middle of a Kentucky summer, and points a gun at your head, I'll be sure to call YOU "trigger happy" if you defend yourself.
    1
  8485. "As A former lawyer I saw police...." Right. A lawyer who can't write a sentence without a million grammatical errors? And, you're going to slander COPS? Lawyers in general don't exactly have a squeaky clean reputation, dewdrop. I'll put cops in general up against lawyers in general any day of the week when it comes to integrity.
    1
  8486. Let me get this straight, I gave you the exact timestamps where you can see the gun, and someone else also did so before I did, and you still can't find it? How about this, dewdrop: STOP PRETENDING!!! Good gods.
    1
  8487. I agree. But, just checking here, you do know that almost nobody covered this story until after the arrest video was released (November 24, 2023). She was already dead for more than 1.5 years by that point.
    1
  8488. You do know that you're the one who started this thread, right? You do know you're the one who asked the initial questions, right? And, when you got replies, you brushed them off and declared that you're still not convinced. You also declared that you had a lot more points to offer (but didn't offer them). I find it rather hilarious, after you're the one who initiated all of this, that you're now backing away and saying you don't know anything, nor care to know anything. It's as if your "scroll up" is broken, and you don't even know what you typed above.
    1
  8489. I haven't got the slightest clue what you're now talking about, and neither do you.
    1
  8490. Oh, I think I get it now. You don't know that YouTube blocks a lot of postings. And, you never double-check to see if yours can be seen by anybody besides yourself. Right?
    1
  8491. Read the thread with an incognito window (not signed in). Find out if your own postings can be seen by others.
    1
  8492. Great job deleting your comments. You're a true hero.
    1
  8493. You're clearly the legal expert here, not me. So, can you explain when they started giving warnings for aggravated misdemeanors like this? And, can you explain why police should ignore the bunch of open warrants from her million prior arrests?
    1
  8494. "The young man was protecting his neighborhood." How does carjacking someone protect the neighborhood? "Just did it wrong." How would you have done it? "Someone who jumps to unintelligent conclusions, like you I guess." Hey, dewdrop, he wasn't the one who labels an attempted carjacking as "protecting the neighborhood." That's YOU. "You don't find a car parked in your neighborhood with someone just hanging out all day suspicious?" He asked you a question, dewdrop, and you just completely sidestepped it. The young man walked up to the car wearing a balaclava ski mask, pulled out a gun, and pointed it directly at the driver as he opened the door. He asked you if that behavior is suspicious of a carjacking type behavior. Don't turn the question around back at him. Answer it. If you don't think he was performing a carjacking, why was he wearing a balaclava mask in the middle of summer in Kentucky, wielding a gun, and pointing it at the driver of a car as he opened the door? "I'm guessing you don't live in a house. Are you homeless?" How did you go from talking about the 21 year old carjacker to asking someone else if he's homeless? Hey, dewdrop, if a suspicious car is in my neighborhood, I call the police. I have never, and will never, go up to the car with a hooded mask and point my gun at the driver. Your tacit hatred of the police bleeds through every word you type. You're so desperate to justify the behavior of clear criminals that you'd defend the actions of this thug who was clearly trying to perform an armed carjacking, that you're trying to twist and turn, and refuse to address very basic challenges to your ridiculous position.
    1
  8495. So, you refuse to answer anything I asked. Bravo.
    1
  8496. The facilities that bounce lasers off of the Apollo reflectors on moon are massive, usually occupying two or three buildings. Just take "APOL - Apache Point Observatory" as one example. It costed around $100 million to build, and costs about $10 million per year to operate. If you think this is material for kids' science classes, I'm afraid you're quite mistaken. Kids sometimes take tours of the facilities. But, that's a far cry from what you're claiming.
    1
  8497. Yeah, just keep doubling down on your nonsense. Be my guest.
    1
  8498. It's nonsense that you think that children operate lunar laser ranging facilities. Stop pretending to understand things you do not.
    1
  8499. Well, there's a solution to that. You can open up your own police training academy. And, you can train the police on how to make their 9mm hollow point pistol rounds penetrate a truck and glass. Meanwhile, you can do the same for regular citizens too. Did you see at 2:10 in this video? The driver shot a bunch of times, point blank, and the rounds couldn't even break the windshield. With your expertise in firearms, you can train the police and the public on how to make those 9mm rounds defy the laws of physics, and penetrate things that they cannot penetrate. What are you waiting for? I mean, I'm just a nobody. You're a firearms training expert.
    1
  8500.  @ozzieone16  Then why aren't you crusading to get the Freedom of Information Act repealed?
    1
  8501.  @ozzieone16  Search again. Look at the actual meta data and the fact that the bodycams were "updates" to the articles.
    1
  8502. Gee, if it's so obvious, why can't any country on Earth that has a space agency find anything wrong? Why is more and more evidence pouring in every year that goes against your ridiculous viewpoint?
    1
  8503. Oh, and if you think that guy was going to survive a .40 through the chest when he clocked out 20 seconds after being hit, sorry, you're not very in touch with reality.
    1
  8504. YOU SAID: "If we would’ve keep going we might have already had a space station to substain life in space ." == Well, I'm not sure what "substain" is supposed to mean. But, what do you think the ISS does? YOU SAID: "Maybe even have families along with other there." == It's far more expensive than you realize. No. We're nowhere close to families. YOU SAID: "But then again they don’t want us to know what really goes on in outer space." == Oh? What goes on that they haven't told us? You're acting like you know something that the rest of the world doesn't know, right? YOU SAID: "They like keeping us under their thumb." == And, how EXACTLY does sending Apollo missions to the moon "keep us under their thumb"? What ARE you talking about? YOU SAID: "other wise why would they not show what the astronauts really saw on the moon what is the big Secret." == And, you believe that more was seen there, that the astronauts have never told us? Like what? Do you have an example? YOU SAID: "Or maybe they are to scared to actually go back." == Pfffttt. Astronauts were chosen among thousands of qualified applicants, and none of the ones that went to the moon feared much of anything. None of the ones slated to go back to the moon on Artemis are afraid of it either. What ARE you talking about?
    1
  8505. It's even more sad that you'd trust a single thing on Inside Edition.
    1
  8506.  @ryanc6337  Huh? Until WHAT happens to him? Until he also tries to carjack a cop at gunpoint, like Mark tried? What?
    1
  8507. Yeah, what's wrong? Can't a guy just go to the playground and crank in front of the kids when he wants to? Crazy country arrests people for putting on a show for the kids.
    1
  8508. This is YOUR thread, dewdrop. If you don't like replies, don't post anything.
    1
  8509. Dewdrop, I'm not the one defending someone who put on a show in front of kids. You don't have the high ground here.
    1
  8510. Is that where you learned to do these things in front of kids? I've never been to church.
    1
  8511. Well, maybe. But, let's face reality here for a minute. The woman weighed 86 pounds at the time of her death, and was on welfare, and couldn't make her rent payments. This was the path she was on. I certainly cannot say that I knew her (I didn't), but, I also know not to just blindly trust media stories designed to generate ad revenue. It sounds like her life may have been going downhill for a while. I mean, how do her two teenage kids go 12 days and not even know she was dead, unless they were already estranged to some degree (another sign of her life taking a bad turn)? I'm definitely with you on the notion that her arrest video shouldn't have gone public. But, personally, I can't attribute her suicide to one incident like that.
    1
  8512. Really? And, you think YouTube comments is the place to display this? How about refuting it in the science journals on lunar geology? Demonstrate how/why the thousands of experts are wrong, and you're right.
    1
  8513. She has a right not to show the receipt. But, this is Florida, an identify state, and she is required to show ID. The rest of what you wrote is just such a complete mess, I don't even know how to start. Seriously, in what grade did you drop out of school? By the look of it, I'd guess 2nd grade.
    1
  8514. Well, then let's clear up one thing: she suffered nearly zero humiliation from this. One obscure blog post mentioned this arrest on a site I had never even heard of. But, no major media covered it until the arrest video was released, which was 2.5 years later, and she was long dead. And, if none of her prior million arrests, nor her felony term in prison, ever fazed her, it's doubtful this one more little arrest would have mattered all that much.
    1
  8515. Huh? He had just murdered his own father and threw him into a lake. He then kept shooting at the cops all throughout the chase, and even after they rammed his truck. How would you have handled it, if not shooting back? And, the guy didn't die, so, this "shoot to kill" comment of yours is rather ironic.
    1
  8516. Name the EXACT technology that was lacking at the time. Don't just say "technology" and expect it to mean something. Name PRECISELY which technology wasn't good enough. And, then, explain why none of the thousands of engineers who were working on that particular technology during Apollo never noticed that the equipment they designed and built, couldn't actually do the job that they designed and built it to do?
    1
  8517.  @shillseeker9538  Anything in orbit is going at least that fast. Orbit had been mastered long before Apollo.
    1
  8518.  @shillseeker9538  Um, dummy, you can go outside and track any of the visible satellites, you know. You can use radio to track the GPS satellites. You can see many of the satellites with your bare eyes in the correct lighting conditions. And, their trajectories are published, and you can get one of your conspiracy friends to cooperate with you to prove yourself wrong. Just look at the trajectory of a large satellite, like the ISS, when the lighting conditions are correct to see it, and then stand directly under that path. Get a conspiracy friend of yours to stand in a place about 500 miles away that is also along that same trajectory. You watch when it passes directly over your head. Then your idiotic friend can watch when it passes directly over his head. And, you can use basic "distance = rate x time" calculations to determine how fast it was going. Guess what, it comes out to 17,000 mph. Every single time. This is basic physics. Distance = rate x time. (Rate = velocity.) If you don't believe it's going 17,000 mph, then what are you waiting for?!?!!? This is remarkably easy to demonstrate. Why are you on YouTube instead of proving it?
    1
  8519.  @shillseeker9538  Dummy, what's wrong with you?? Distance = rate x time. Go out there and DEMONSTRATE IT!!! Do exactly what I said. You will have mathematical proof that the ISS is being faked, if you can simply demonstrate that it cannot cover the distance of 17,000 miles in the period of an hour!!! Why are you on YouTube?!?! Mathematical proof of your position awaits you!!! You'll be famous!!! Worldwide, if you can demonstrate that the ISS is being faked, because it's not going the speed they say it's going, you can single-handedly bring NASA to its knees!!! You'll be on paid appearances on talk shows all around the world. You'll get million dollar book deals. You'll be on university lecture circuits for $70,000 per week for YEARS to come!! Your name will go down in the history books!!! Why bother with YouTube when you can demonstrate that the ISS isn't going 17,000 mph?? Don't you realize how amazingly significant that is?? You will spearhead senate investigations that will eventually result in imprisoning thousands of NASA officials and engineers for fraud!! This is amazing news!!! And, just think, I'll get to say I knew you when you were just a moron on YouTube spewing utter garbage... I'll be so proud.
    1
  8520.  @shillseeker9538  Stop changing topics!!! I'm not going to sit here and respond to ever-shifting topics. You said the ISS isn't going 17,000 mph. I offered you a mechanism to prove it!! Why aren't you doing it?!?!
    1
  8521.  @shillseeker9538  YOU SAID: "you’re going to keep replying to me because it’s your job to do so." == What drugs did this to you? How far down the toilet have you pissed your brain away, if you think people are paid to point out how stupid you are? Anyway, dummy, I'm still waiting. I offered you an iron clad method of proving the ISS is not going 17,000 mph. Distance = rate x time. This is fundamental mathematics. Yet, you refuse to address it. All you do is change topics. Why? Why won't you address the "distance = rate x time" formula?? Why not? This formula is BY DEFINITION true. It simply cannot be untrue. Distance = rate x time BY DEFINITION. 17,000 mph means that it's going 17,000 miles in an hour. That's the definition of "mph," right? So, with some simple 6th grade math, you can prove your point. Why won't you?
    1
  8522.  @shillseeker9538  Distance = rate x time. Why do you keep avoiding this?? Distance = rate x time. As for "because it's your job to do so," good gods, what drugs are you on? What's wrong with you? How paranoid delusional do you have to be in order to believe people are paid to reply to you on YouTube?? What drugs did this to your brain? Good gods, go to rehab instead of wasting your time on ridiculous conspiracies. Good grief.
    1
  8523.  @shillseeker9538  Dummy, I'm not listening to you changing topics. No, I'm not watching your stupid video. Distance = rate x time. You keep avoiding this obvious issue. Why won't you use distance = rate x time to prove your point? If you think the ISS is not going 17,000 mph, you can use the "distance = rate x time" formula to prove it!!! No, I'm not going to let you change topics. Use that formula to PROVE IT.
    1
  8524.  @bisser6969  YOU SAID: "calling people names" == Pffttt. "Shill Seeker" is an absolute moron who believes that millions of people have been committing a massive fraud on the public, and that nothing has ever gone into space. He refuses to address simple mathematics. And, yes, I'm going to call him names. He is accusing millions of people of fraud. YOU SAID: "instead of considering therapist your self" == I'm not the paranoid delusional idiot who can't do math. YOU SAID: "is a bad idea. PRECISELY the technology missing at the time was the computer capable of landing the lunar module" == Oh, perfect then. So, the computer wasn't capable? Great. All you need to do is provide your calculations to say that the computer wasn't good enough. Provide your mathematical calculations outlining the exact amount of memory and processing power that was required in order to do it, and why. And, then explain why none of the PhDs and engineers at MIT and Raytheon ever noticed that the computers they designed and built to control the lunar landers were not good enough to do the jobs that they designed and built them to do. Why were they unaware that they didn't build the computers good enough? Write it all up into a scientific paper, and submit it for scientific peer review. THAT is how you prove your point. Your Nobel Prize is in the mail, I can feel it. YOU SAID: "and balancing the module going down" == Balance was achieved via a gimbal, you moron, not the computer. You don't even know which components did which task. YOU SAID: "with baby compressed air thrusters is even more si fi." == Dummy, the thrusters didn't work via compressed air. They were RCS rockets that burned N2O4 and Aerozine 50. YOU SAID: "4 jets are nowhere close enough, 8 would be maybe possible" == Well, it's a good thing they had 16 then, right? YOU SAID: "with 4 working all the time and 4 more working on deviations of the weight distribution of the module." == The GIMBAL did that, you moron, not the thrusters, and not the computer. You have confused descent with ascent. The ascent engine didn't have a gimbal, and used the RCS thrusters to do the tasks you're talking about. The decsent engine had a GIMBAL, you moron. You don't even know how these components worked. And, yeah, without a gimbal on descent, sure, it would be awfully difficult for the RCS thrusters to manage weight distribution and corrections. The entire LEM's descent + ascent stage were far far far far more massive than just the ascent stage. But, the ascent stage was about 34% of the mass of the ascent stage + descent stage together. So, yes, the thrusters were more than adequate to manage just the ascent stage. So, yes, on ascent, they didn't use a gimbal. You have confused ascent with descent, you ignorant jackass. Stop accusing thousands of people of fraud, based on your ignorance!!! People like you are pigs. You spit in the faces of the 450,000 people who made Apollo happen, based on your absolute ignorance about how this equipment worked. You accuse thousands of them of being criminal frauds who would get a lifetime in prison for their crimes. And, why?? Because you don't know how many thrusters the lander had? Because you don't realize that the descent engine had a gimbal? How would you like it if I paraded all over the internet and called you a child molester, based on a complete mis-identification of who you are, and my complete ignorance about any facts? That's EXACTLY what you're doing with Apollo. You know NOTHING about the topic. But, you're accusing thousands of the people involved of being criminals would would be imprisoned for life for bilking billions of dollars out of countless countries, to commit the greatest fraud against humanity in history. And, you do this because you don't know the descent stage had a gimbal, and you got it confused with the ascent stage. Nobody likes jackasses like you. Absolutely nobody. YOU SAID: "Do not be like dumb liberal( please notice that, i did not call you dumb), and just call names where logic fails to support facts." == Facts??? You don't even know which parts did which job. Good grief, what is it with you utter idiots that you think you understand aerospace engineering better than aerospace engineers?? Morons. You're all morons.
    1
  8525.  @johnirving3084  A) They sent 9 manned missions to the moon, 6 of which landed. If that's not going back, what do you think is? B) I asked the original guy in this thread to name the evidence that he would expect and accept. I realize you're not him, but, the point is, if you're going to respond to me, why can't you answer the simple question I asked?
    1
  8526.  @johnirving3084  And, you're PROUD to believe complete nonsense? Another denier who can't answer simple questions.
    1
  8527. Because the situation wasn't secure yet. They had no idea if she also had a gun, if the guy who was shot also had another gun/knife on him, if others were about to approach with guns, whatever. Secure the environment first, render aid second, else you might have cops that need just as much aid as the criminals.
    1
  8528. YOU SAID: "How can a town council declare a meeting unlawful." == By ending the meeting, and asking everyone to leave. If they refuse, then it's an unlawful meeting, and anybody who refuses to leave is trespassing. YOU SAID: "Who the hell do these people think they are?" == The school board? Who do they think they are? Well, I'm sure they think they're righteous "woke" people. But, in reality, of course, they're deluded maniacs who need to be thrown out of office immediately. YOU SAID: "And why did the cops violate the people's civil rights?" == There is no civil right to commit trespassing.
    1
  8529. You wouldn't by chance be a drug addict, would you?
    1
  8530. Huh? Doing something better? Like what? The store requested and paid for this cop to be there, because they suffer a lot of losses due to shoplifting. So, should he have gone somewhere else? Huh? Yes, the receipt was legit.
    1
  8531. Well, she had the receipt. But, I suspect that she was starting to say she doesn't because her entire purpose here was to escalate "can I see your receipt" into a lawsuit. She practically begged to be arrested and Taser'd. But, I figure she probably realized that outright lying about not having a receipt would weaken her lawsuit, so she stopped saying those words.
    1
  8532. She suffered nearly zero humiliation, because there was nearly zero coverage of this story until long after she was dead. A couple of obscure blog posts commented on this arrest (no video, just comments), and that was all, until the arrest video was released on November 24, 2023. That's when it went viral.
    1
  8533. Why would you believe she thought nobody could see her? Because she said so, as she was trying to cry her way out of her millionth arrest? Here's a clue: criminals often try to say "I didn't do it" or worm their way out of being arrested. This shouldn't be surprising.
    1
  8534. It's amazing to me about what people will believe from a 1 minute video from Inside Edition (where facts don't matter). Oh, what a wonderful sweetheart she is. She didn't mean to do it. Those evil police arrested her for nothing. Meanwhile, the reality is that she was a convicted felon who walked out on her family and friends more than a decade ago to live a life of crime and drugs, ended up doing a prison term in Florida, got arrested countless times before and after for various crimes, and, according to her landlord, was a stripper at the local club, and her neighbors said she did "private extras" for cash in her apartment. One of the audience at that beach recorded this incident, and gave a copy of the video to the police, and it didn't match this version about nobody being around. But, what a sweetie who was so humiliated!! Inside Edition says so.
    1
  8535. So, you asked to talk about the liftoff. You got about a dozen replies. But, you refuse to talk about the liftoff? Were you born with this amazing defect and disability? Or, was it drugs that did this to you?
    1
  8536. Yes, he had a gun, pointed it directly at the cop's head as he opened the door (grainy, but, you can make it out). And, you can see the gun on the ground at 5:02.
    1
  8537. Again, you're the same guy who said rockets can't work in space, while quoting the very laws of physics that dictate that they can/do work in space.... And, you also claimed that the Cold War never happened, and secretly the Soviets and USA were friends deceiving the entire world. Sorry, you don't get to assume anybody can take you seriously after those claims.
    1
  8538. And, please explain what would happen if an officer in this situation hurried to render aid, can you? What do you think happens if an officer focuses attention on aid, rather than surroundings? You already saw in this video that a screaming banshee and a screaming brother arrived on the scene seconds later. How many more might have been waiting to take over where Mark left off? How long does an officer live in his career if he routinely does what you recommend?
    1
  8539. I asked Jim Lovell one day while he was at my office about why anybody approved the use of that tank after they boiled off the oxygen and ruined the wiring. He said it was because nobody knew the history of that tank until after it exploded. It wasn't until later that they figured out what had happened. This goes against any notion that they rigged it.
    1
  8540. That will undoubtedly be one of the many charges he faces.
    1
  8541. Naw, even though she had a mile long arrest record, this particular incident would have been negotiated down to a minor infraction with no real consequences. And, I'd hardly think this charge was a "heavy weight" on her, when compared to her felony prison term about 6 years ago.
    1
  8542. Wow, you must be on some serious drugs to have your brain mangled that badly!! YOU SAID: "Yes, they have begun to declassify patents from the 1970s for anti-gravity propulsion and crafts that used them." Um, what? Are you under the impression that if something is patented, that it automatically means that it actually works? Um, no. History is riddled with armies of patents for things that never worked. A patent doesn't mean that anybody has ever checked to see if it ever worked. A patent is just a way of filing something, so that you can sue someone for using your inventions. I mean, take US patent # US20030197093A1 - a wormhole generator that will make you travel across the universe instantaneously. And, all you need to do is arrange a few circles and triangles in a certain pattern. Do you think that works, merely because it was patented? Good grief. Lay off the drugs.
    1
  8543. You don't know anything. The cops didn't release the arrest video until 2.5 years later, which was also 1.5 years after she was dead. And, how do you suppose they can block a legal Freedom of Information Act request after the case was closed for that long? They can only block them for open investigations.
    1
  8544. Tim already said this, but, how do you explain why the Soviets didn't send a single manned mission into space while the US sent the entirety of all 10 of the manned Gemini missions into space? Not one single Soviet manned mission in all of that time. Not one. You don't think the US surpassed the Soviets during that entire program?
    1
  8545. Oh, goodie. Another Monday morning armchair quarterback. Just what the world needs.
    1
  8546. Wrong again, "unite" - as has been explained to you a million times, you ARE required by law to identify yourself during a police investigation of a possible crime. Someone's "history" has nothing to do with anything. And, yes, for the millionth time, he articulated the suspicion. They dropped the case because of the practicality that it's very difficult to get a jury to convict someone of the secondary crimes, when the initial crime is dismissed. It doesn't mean she's innocent. She's clearly guilty of failure to identify (obstruction), obfuscation, and resisting arrest. But, without the initial theft charge, the reality is that a jury isn't going to convict her of those other crimes, no matter how guilty she obviously is. Charges get dropped all the time. Prosecutors like to have 100% track records of getting a conviction out of a jury, or a plea. They're not often going to take the 50/50 chance of getting a conviction on something when the initial charge is dropped.
    1
  8547. The footage wasn't "leaked." It's called the Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  8548. What do you propose instead? Tackling her to the ground?
    1
  8549. The video wasn't released until 2.5 years later. Nobody saw it while she was alive.
    1
  8550. Lots of words. But, the words you're lacking are ones that you think will outline an actual law that would make a difference. Sorry, but you, and the speaker in the video, have said absolutely NOTHING. Until you propose laws that would actually have the effect you want, you're just blowing hot air.
    1
  8551. Congratulations on failing to understand the words you're using. A conspiracy theorist is someone who proposes that a conspiracy happened. i.e. If you believe that the government conspired to deceive the world into believing moon landings took place, while actually never sending people to the moon, then, yes, you are a conspiracy theorist. Nobody says YOU are the one conspiring. Good grief.
    1
  8552. What? I simply will never understand why so many people can't view this video, and instantly realize that the entire first half has been cut off. I mean, if it's not painfully obvious that this version of the video starts in the middle, well, there's really not much hope for you. Go watch the full version, good grief.
    1
  8553. And, tell the world exactly what you would be saying if the cop administered aid right away, ignoring his surroundings, not securing the scene first, and someone else (like the baby mama, or anyone else who might show up) would shoot the cop? Would you proclaim that you loved that the cop got shot, because he was administering aid to a criminal instead of securing the scene and getting plenty of backup?
    1
  8554. Of they should of stayed of in school of? Of are you of really of saying that of the entire planet of aerospace engineers of can't do of the math that of you can of of? I did of the math of in engineering of classes of in college of of. Of YOU of pass of the 6th grade of?
    1
  8555. Yeah, don't blame the criminal. Blame the innocent people. And, hey, I wonder, if it was a man at a playground, would you just bring your kids to a different playground? Or, would you call the police?
    1
  8556. You clearly don't feel guilty for your misplaced hatred of the police. Why should they feel guilty for properly doing their jobs?
    1
  8557. Well, the "beta" part of your nickname is correct anyway.
    1
  8558. Because that's not what actually happens. The USA is long past the point of no return. When you have hundreds of millions of guns in circulation, it's far too late to just say, "now you can't have them." All that would result is that the criminals would have millions of guns, and the good guys would have zero. Crime would go completely out of control.
    1
  8559. Why? What did the hotel do wrong? Do you believe this ridiculous story? Why do you suppose the "news" (not news) had to stoop to talking about tainted alcohol at other places? Why didn't they mention that this resort has never been caught with tainted alcohol? Why didn't they mention that nobody else who drank that same alcohol got sick? Why didn't they mention that the teens went back to the pool after dark when it was closed, and that's when this incident happened? Do you suppose that it's a standard media hit piece? Did you bother to read the lawsuit, which makes no actual connection to tainted alcohol? How about the lawsuit against the travel agency for booking this 5 star resort for them? Do you think they're responsible for "tainted alcohol" at a resort with absolutely no track record of ever having tainted alcohol? Why didn't they find any methanol in her blood, if the drinks were tainted with methanol? Do you really believe the claptrap this "news" story (not news) is feeding you? Do you want to buy a bridge I have for sale?
    1
  8560. Dewdrop, no, you don't get to backtrack like that. YOU brought up Webb and Hubble. YOU did that. Neither of those telescopes would have even the remotest chance to render any images like you're saying. So, don't pretend that you were only saying "like Webb or Hubble," because, that's equally as ridiculous. Webb and Hubble can't do it, and neither could anything LIKE Webb or Hubble. Furthermore, you made a claim that there are satellites that could see matchbook covers. Not even close. The very best satellites render images that have individual pixels about 1 foot by 1 foot square. So, unless you're talking about some crazy clown matches that are 14 feet tall or something, no, you're not seeing matchbook covers from any existing satellite. No, you do not get to be completely wrong about everything you type, then pretend I'm the problem. You don't know anything.
    1
  8561. Hilarious!!! Sure, dewdrop, sure.
    1
  8562. Yeah, Mr. I Have Top Secret Clearance And Have Seen Photos Of Matchbooks From Orbit. Sure you have. Sure you have. Funny that it would be in violation of everything known about the physics of light. Dawes' limit and Rayleigh's criterion? Nope, those don't exist. Because Mr. Top Secret Clearance says otherwise. Sure, dewdrop, sure.
    1
  8563. Huh? Who should be, besides herself?
    1
  8564. Huh? What do you think is dirty?
    1
  8565. The police did nothing wrong. If the school board trespasses people, then the police must arrest. If they didn't arrest, then they wouldn't be doing their jobs. Nope, the real problem is the school board itself for even invoking the trespass in the first place.
    1
  8566.  @nevsart5884  YOU SAID: "so how can the board hold a public meeting until 7.00pm then out of the blue declare the area private" == They shouldn't do that. But, that's not the cops' choice, that was the board's choice. YOU SAID: "an area that is PUBLIC property and the board and the police are there to serve the PUBLIC but instead arrest the PUBLIC for…………… attending a meeting" == Wrong. He was arrested for trespassing. If the board ends the meeting early, and asks the cops to trespass someone, then the cops have to ask the person to leave. It the person doesn't leave, the cops must arrest the person. YOU SAID: "invited by the board" == Hence why I think the entire board must be booted from their positions, and I hope this school/board gets sued, and I hope the parents in that town get a nice 8-figure settlement (divided amongst them, of course). YOU SAID: "or was it free speech they were arrested for?" == What don't you understand here? He was arrested for trespassing. YOU SAID: "A blind person can see there’s something very wrong here……….. If you can’t see it, I would question your sanity!" == Good grief. YES!!!!!! YES!!!!!!! YES, dummy. There's a lot very wrong there. But, none of what was wrong was done by the cops. The cops are not judge and jury. They are to make one decision, and one decision only... is there enough cause for arrest? That's it. That's the only thing they can decide. If the elected board trespasses an individual, and the person won't leave, then the cops MUST arrest. That's their job. From there, it's handed over to the court system. And, I hope the parents sue the board/school, and that all of those people on this board are booted, and that they get so shamed that they must leave town, and never serve on another board again. And, the school/board should pay huge financial penalties for what they did. But, you're sitting there expecting cops to decide guilt/innocence. No. That's not how the legal system works. Cops do NOT decide guilt or innocence. Cops decide whether there's enough evidence for arrest, or not. And, yes, when the board asks someone to leave, and the man won't do it, and the board asks the cops to trespass the guy, yes, the cops must arrest. I'm sorry you don't understand how the law works, but you shouldn't use your ignorance as a method to promote your hatred of police. I mean, good grief, you don't even know what the charges were (despite that it was explained in the video).
    1
  8567. HA!!! Good one. I doubt most people get the reference, though.
    1
  8568. Yes, I agree, and won't live in an HOA community. But, those people chose to do so. Therefore, in spirit, they have yielded their rights to make their own choices about how their house and grounds appear, and waived that right to the HOA. The only real solution is to petition to get the HOA rules changed, and get the members of the community to vote on it.
    1
  8569. The news and police did WHAT?
    1
  8570. Really? THAT is your objection? You don't know how the camera worked, therefore the work done by 450,000 people for a decade of their lives is fake? And, you're PROUD to announce this ridiculous opinion to the world?
    1
  8571. It's called the Freedom of Information Act. Who exactly is 100% to blame? Who's "they"?
    1
  8572. Not the brightest bulb, eh?
    1
  8573. So, you can't muster the ability to answer a simple question?
    1
  8574. So, you're PROUD of not being the brightest bulb.
    1
  8575.  @gmw3083  You know, the first step toward curing your problem is to admit you have a problem. Only then, will you be able to begin to kick your drug habit that is ruining your mind.
    1
  8576.  @gmw3083  Just lay off the drugs, ok?
    1
  8577. Good grief. Does that even make sense to you? Do you REALLY believe that an Apollo 11 moonwalker "confessed more than once" and not a single person anywhere on the planet ever did anything about it? No congressional hearings? No prosecutions. No front page headlines? Nothing? Absolutely positively nothing happened after confessing to the largest fraud in the history of the world? That's how you think this goes? Or, did a conspiracy video (made by someone just as clueless as you are) tell you he "confessed," and you just swallowed it without checking?
    1
  8578. 1) They weren't strangers. He knew them, and they had stolen from him before. 2) He placed his car away from the house so they wouldn't know he was home. 3) He unscrewed some of the lights so they wouldn't turn on, even if they flipped the switch. 4) He ran a recording device while he waited in the basement, clearly he knew they were coming. 5) Before either one of the teens arrived at his house, he rehearsed on that recording device what he was going to say to the police after he killed them, including "in the left eye" (he later shot the girl in the left eye). I repeat: hours before the teens even got there, he rehearsed, on tape, what he was going to tell the police about shooting them. 6) He had a tarp ready for the bodies. 7) He gathered up the bodies, and put them in the other room so they wouldn't ruin his carpet. 8) He didn't call the police until the next day. 9) After killing the first thief, he then sat quietly waiting for a long time for the other thief to arrive, then shot her too. 10) Her shirt was found opened, make of that what you will. 11) After shooting the girl in the torso, she was still alive and incapacitated, yet he didn't want her to live (his own words), and wanted to make sure she was dead (his own words), so put two bullets into her left eye (exactly as he had said on the prior recording), and then waited, and then shot another bullet under the chin up into her brain (his own words). 12) While waiting for the criminals to arrive, he was armed with two different guns, one of which was a little bit faulty. 13) After he shot one with the faulty weapon, it wouldn't fire again. So, he literally apologized to the criminal (who was still alive) for not successfully killing right away, and switched guns for the fatal shots while the criminal was on the ground.
    1
  8579. Of been of yes, there of was of video. One of the of audience of took video of the of event and of showed it to of the police. Of read the of police of report to of find out.
    1
  8580. As opposed to what? Tackling her?
    1
  8581. Yeah, if she was armed, he'd use a firearm, not a Taser. A firearm is to defend against armed attackers. A Taser is used to force compliance. I notice that you refused to answer the question. That's what always happens when people like you are wrong. You try to change topics rather than answer a point-blank question.
    1
  8582. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Tasers have ZERO effect on pacemakers. And, are you seriously suggesting that multiple cops would result in any different result? They'd still need to manhandle and tackle her out of the car, but now you want more cops to do it. The Taser is the far less aggressive option. Stop making stuff up as you go along. You clearly have ZERO training in this matter.
    1
  8583. And, she wasn't Tased for theft, she was Tased for resisting arrest. Good grief. It makes absolutely no difference what the original crime was, whether shoplifting, or murder, or jaywalking, or tax evasion, whatever. If you resist arrest, you're going to either get manhandled into the cuffs, or Tasered into the cuffs.
    1
  8584. Well, your feelings are wrong.
    1
  8585.  @Enigma-gu6iw  No. YouTube's algorithm and Inside Edition's filters blocked me.
    1
  8586. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. Suicide = March, 2022. November 24, 2023 = arrest video made public. So, um, no.
    1
  8587. Well, you truly sound like a great guy (not a joke). But, I wonder if it would have made a difference. After this act of kindness by the cop, and leniency by the store (not trying to get her arrested, letting her go), what did the woman do? She immediately continued stealing from Walgreens. And, eventually died from her meth habit. Apparently, meth was more important to her than the two kids she abandoned. So, as wonderful as your attitude is, and as much as you'd offer to help, I truly wonder, if dealing with someone like her, would it have ever made a difference?
    1
  8588.  @fuckyoutube9305  Enjoy your eventual and inevitable prison sentence.
    1
  8589.  @eagle_klaw_  It's just not that simple. Your logic only works for surprise break-ins.
    1
  8590.  @eagle_klaw_  As I said, your logic doesn't apply if you know they are coming, and plan out a murder, rather than simply calling the police. As you can see, this man is in prison because of exactly that. And, this was escalated to the appellate court, the state supreme court, and even the supreme court of the USA (who rejected his appeal on its merits). Literally, there isn't a court in the country that agrees with you. The jury disagrees with you. The judges and prosecutors disagree with you. Everyone. Why? Because YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PLAN OUT A MURDER. If you are reacting to someone breaking into your home by surprise, I'm right there with you, and I'd probably put a whole bunch of .45 hollow points into those people, because I'd be in fear of what those people were there to do... kill/harm my family. But, if I had months of these same people on video breaking into my home, and if I knew they were coming on a certain day, I wouldn't set a trap to murder them, I'd CALL THE POLICE.
    1
  8591.  @tb8654  How much do you know about this case? I'm guessing not very much. There's a difference between being prepared for surprises, vs. planning two murders. Do you even know what happened here? Smith knew they were coming. He rehearsed (and recorded) what he would say about it, hours before it happened. He even said on this recording that he would shoot "in the left eye," and then, hours later, he walked up to the female and shot her twice in the left eye, exactly as he said he was going to do. He prepared tarps for their bodies, once again, hours before they arrived. He got two guns ready, disabled the lights in the house, and sat waiting for them to arrive in the exact spot next to the tarps he prepared ahead of time. One of his guns jammed when he was killing the girl, and he apologized to her for not killing her quickly enough. He kept the bodies for 24 hours before calling the police. He said "cute" after he killed the girl, and then they found her the next day with her clothes ripped open and she was exposed (make of that what you will). I could go on for hours to explain this. He planned those killings. Make no mistake here. And, he lost his case hands down, because there wasn't a single jury member, judge, attorney, or police officer who thought he was innocent. Then, it went in front of the appellate court, the state supreme court, and the Supreme Court of the USA, each of which denied his appeals on merit. Do not get me wrong, I'm armed, and I would take whatever actions are required to defend myself and my family. But, if I knew someone was coming to rob me, I wouldn't plot out their murders, I'd call the police and bust them in the act.
    1
  8592.  @tb8654  You do know there are video recordings of him going to get the tarps for their bodies, just about 1-2 hours before they arrived, right? You do know that he recorded himself just 1-2 hours before they arrived, rehearsing what he was going to say about the murders, right? You do know he parked his car a quarter mile away, so they wouldn't see that he was home, right? You do know he disabled the lights in his house, so they wouldn't even turn on if you flipped the switch, right? Does this sound like a routine day to you? Or, does it sound like he knew they were coming? (Hint: yes, he knew they were coming.) I'm not sure why you refuse to let any of that sink in, but, try. Seriously, try. Who does any of those things, unless they know that the teens were on the way there? Do you keep the lights disabled in your house? Do you keep two tarps to use as body bags at the bottom of your stairs? Do you sit in a dark room with two guns aimed at a stairway? Do you keep a recorder going in your house? Also, I didn't mention this before, but, the boy came in first, and Smith killed him. Smith then immediately gathered up the body into the tarp he had ready, sat back down, and then waited about 10 minutes with the two guns aimed at the stairway, waiting for the girl to come in. How would he have known to do that, if he didn't know she was coming? He didn't sit there and wait for a 3rd person to come 10 minutes later. He knew exactly how many people were coming, and exactly when. Honestly, I really don't know why you find this so difficult to grasp.
    1
  8593.  @tb8654  I will add, as if the above wasn't enough... how did Smith know to get two tarps? He didn't get one tarp ready. He didn't get three tarps ready. He got exactly two tarps ready, which happens to be the exact amount of tarps he needed. I'll also add, you do know that he had been feuding with the girl's family for years, right? The boy (her cousin) also used to work for Smith, until he suspected he was stealing, and booted him. These weren't two strangers, you know. These were two people he knew, and hated. And, once he recorded them stealing from him, did he call the police ever again? No? Why not? He went to the police the first couple of times (before he knew who was doing it). But, hmmmm, the moment he installed his video recorders, and knew who was stealing, did he go back to the police with that evidence? No. Instead, he planned their murders. Sorry, but you cannot do that.
    1
  8594.  @MonoBromatic  Positive, reassess.
    1
  8595. All of those "why" questions, yet, you never once asked why armed rioters intending to harm Rittenhouse should be called "victims"?
    1
  8596. Sorry, deleted my message, responded in the wrong thread.
    1
  8597. The video taken by the "audience" was never released. The arrest video was released 2.5 years later, long after she was already dead.
    1
  8598. Huh? He was hit multiple times. But, of course, those little hollow point 9mm pistol bullets don't carry much energy after going through the truck (for the few that even made it through). So, they were only minor wounds as a result. Do you think you could do better?
    1
  8599. Wow. Just wow. So, when the bible talks about how to brand slaves, under what conditions you can keep them forever vs. let them go, and how hard you're allowed to beat your slaves... that's the "perfection" of your god? How about when the bible says that a raped virgin must marry her rapist, and can never divorce? That's "perfect" to you? And, the tower of Babel and Noah's flood, which we now know never happened, your god leaves these confusing/wrong stories, and you call it "perfect"? Right.
    1
  8600. To answer you directly, the board ended the meeting, and asked everyone to leave. When they refused, it became an unlawful assembly, and the board trespassed anybody who refused to leave. As for removing the board members from their positions, yup, I hope they get sued into oblivion, get kicked out of their board positions, and never serve on another board for as long as they live. But, like it or not, they do have the power to end a meeting, and to trespass people who refuse to leave.
    1
  8601. Yes, he articulated his suspicion. He was told by the store employee Anna that she left without paying. That is plenty of reasonable suspicion. And, who ever said suspicion was a crime? I fail to even understand the purpose of that sentence. Nobody on Earth claims that suspicion is a crime, so why do you think you need to remind people of that?
    1
  8602.  @edbigtruck  What in the world are you talking about? Good luck on your next arrest.
    1
  8603. Yeah. When you see a guy cranking at a playground with kids, just leave him alone.
    1
  8604. Well, multiple people called about this incident. One of them recorded it, and gave a copy of the video to the police. It doesn't match the "nobody was around" sob story she's telling as she's attempting to get out of her millionth arrest. Why do you believe her anyway? A convicted felon who served time in a Florida prison, with a criminal record a mile long, says nobody was around. The witnesses say she plopped down in front of multiple people (including children) and put on a show. And, you'll go right ahead and believe the criminal over the innocent bystanders who recorded it?
    1
  8605. Oh, and this was an aggravated misdemeanor, yet, you think she shouldn't be arrested for it?
    1
  8606. Did you want to try to ask your questions again when you're sober? Nobody can understand a word of this.
    1
  8607. And, you should learn to read and write.
    1
  8608. Well, social media didn't get involved with this incident until 1.5 years after she was already dead. So, sorry, but she ruined her own life.
    1
  8609. He has that much time on the floor to say all of these emotional things, and point fingers. Yet, he didn't mention a single word about what an effective law would be. It's already illegal to kill people. It's already illegal to bring a gun into a school. What other things does he propose to make illegal, which would actually result in the criminals being unable to commit the crimes? Sorry, 10 minute speeches that play on emotions, yet don't offer a single word of actual effective measures, are worthless.
    1
  8610. Write it up, dewdrop!! There are dozens of recognized journals around the world that specialize on radiobiology, particle physics, cosmology, etc. Why aren't you writing up your calculations about the Van Allen belt radiation? No radiobiologist on the planet thinks the Van Allen belts would have much consequence on the Apollo astronauts. So, why aren't you publishing your numbers to teach the entire world where they got it wrong? What are you waiting for?
    1
  8611. Well, not this time. She went right back to stealing from Walgreens after this act of kindness, and eventually was tossed into jail for it. She died of an overdose.
    1
  8612. Just checking here: you do know that this wasn't all over the internet until long after she was gone, right? July 1, 2021 = this incident. March, 2022 = no longer alive. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. Only then did it go viral.
    1
  8613. Your tone seemed to indicate that you bought into this silly fake story crafted by Inside Edition, so, I was merely making sure you knew about when/how it happened. As for this video being their last memory, well, at least this story tries to paint her in a positive light. In reality, she was a convicted felon who did prison time and had a million arrests, and had abandoned her family (husband, 6 month old son, another son) more than a decade ago to live a life of crime and drugs. And, according to neighbors, was a "dancer" (yeah, that kind) and did "private extras" in her apartment with a parade of paying men. I'd think you'd be happy that this Inside Edition story is how she's remembered, rather than the truth.
    1
  8614. What mainstream media even published this story while she was alive?
    1
  8615. Please copy this thread on every application you make to medical school.
    1
  8616. But, nobody saw this footage until she was dead 1.5 years.
    1
  8617. Huh? Other than a few people on a couple of obscure blogs that nobody has ever heard of, who even knew about this until long after she was dead? And, sorry, but her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club. If she has trouble being embarrassed by exposure, she picked the wrong career.
    1
  8618. On what planet?
    1
  8619.  @IndyandJazmin  Well, if the carrier is carrying illegally, there will be charges. But, if you carry legally, there's no problem with what happened here.
    1
  8620. Viral videos make money. But, what do you mean by "continues"? Almost all of these channels that covered this incident only did so after she was already dead. She suffered nearly zero shame for this incident while alive.
    1
  8621. Isn't it about time you stopped copying and pasting the same incorrect nonsense about Chang'e 6? There were no Apollo missions that ever went to the Apollo Basin, dewdrop. The Apollo Basin is on the far side of the moon, dewdrop. There were no Apollo landings on the far side. Nobody ever expected to find Apollo remnants there.
    1
  8622. If it was an infraction, police have the discretion to give just a warning. But, this was a crime, not an infraction. And, what reason do you think this one arrest was the reason she committed suicide? None of her other million arrests caused her suicide? Just this one?
    1
  8623. There is no requirement for a police officer to check cameras. The officer just needs to determine if there's enough reasonable suspicion of a crime, and if there's probable cause to arrest. There was plenty of both. Proving the case happens in a courtroom, not the side of the road. There's no requirement that the cops be correct 100% of the time. As a practical matter, though, if the woman had just cooperated, provided her ID as asked (which she is required by law to do, but refused), and been more civil, yeah, I'd think the cop would have been fine with going back into the store to check things out better, before arresting. But, she didn't do that. Instead, she failed to ID, was non-cooperative the entire time, and resisted arrest.
    1
  8624. So, let me make sure I understand you correctly? You think the officer shouldn't have used the Taser, and, instead, should have done something else? Is that what you're saying? If so, please tell me what EXACTLY you think he should have done instead? Manhandle her? Forcefully pull her out of the car and onto the ground? Do you think that course of action is better than a Taser? I mean, he repeatedly warned her that he was going to use the Taser, and she just kept saying he should go ahead and do it. She made it quite clear that she wasn't going to cooperate in any way. So, please explain, what EXACT course of action would you suggest?
    1
  8625.  @kevinordonez3445  I never said she stole anything. She had her receipt, she just refused to give it. But, you're obviously not interested in responding to any things I'm actually saying, and now you just want to change topics. Sorry, but I'm not playing your game. You said that he shouldn't have done what he did. I asked specifically, TWICE, what he should have done instead. You refuse to answer. So, we're done here. If you're going to stick your head in the sand and pretend you know things you don't, I have no more time for you.
    1
  8626.  @kevinordonez3445  You don't have to believe anything I said. Believe her own attorney, and his actions. Believe what the courts decided. I'm irrelevant.
    1
  8627. "that a laser reflector proves that man has been on the moon" Those three reflectors are pieces of evidence in the mountain of evidence. "must mean that we also went to mars cause there are several cars there" Well, to believe that unmanned missions put the reflectors on the moon would mean that people would have to think that they managed 3 secret launches, and built 3 secret landers, with 3 secret deployment mechanisms. Moon rockets are visible for hundreds of miles (and audible, for that matter). So, for the deniers to think that there were secret unmanned missions to put reflectors there, they'd have to explain how nobody noticed that there were 3 missing moon rockets, and somehow nobody in the public noticed a rocket sitting on the pad for a couple of months, then disappears without anybody seeing the launch. And, given that it takes about 3,000 people to get a moon rocket off the ground, those 3,000 people would all need to remain silent. "I believe we went" Congratulations. "I just don't like the argument" Well, it's pretty clear that you don't understand it. "or why usa have ruled that landings sites are a no fly zone" They would like to preserve the equipment at the Apollo 11 and 17 landing sites as historical monuments. But, nobody owns the moon. So, all they could do is declare that no private company that intends to disrupt any of the equipment at the Apollo 11 or 17 site will receive any government funding to do so. There is no such "no fly zone." That's ridiculous. "and saying that it was impossible to fake just because 400 000 people worked at nasa is like saying that the army has no secrets from all its soldiers" Ridiculous. Dozens of countries tracked the Apollo missions with radar and radio telescopes. Backyard amateurs all around the world could point their dishes/Yagi at the moon and receive the audio. It has nothing to do with the 400,000 employees. "thy could easily have built the thing and sent it up in earth orbit, and only a few people on the top would have known about it" Wrong. Not even close. Oh, but keep on pretending to know things you don't.
    1
  8628. Dewdrop, you secure the area first, otherwise the cops need the exact same medical aid that the carjacker needed. There was no way to know who else might be jumping out of the woodwork, wielding guns.
    1
  8629. Well, I agree. But, at least she wasn't harmed by social media while she was alive.
    1
  8630. No. She had the receipt, but, foolishly chose not to show it. And, instead, she refused to ID, and resisted arrest.
    1
  8631. What you've witnessed is nothing more than a carefully crafted story to garner two viral rounds instead of one. She has been dead for two years. The arrest video was only released, however, on November 24, 2023. In order to get two viral rounds, the "news" (not news) stations created the story in late November and early December, but didn't mention that she was already dead for a long time. Then, after a few weeks, they re-released the story and gave the "update" that she killed herself, and let the viewers falsely believe it was because of the first round of videos.
    1
  8632. Huh? What's a "guilty coincidence"? And, how would you have handled it better? And, "innocent"? Huh? She ADMITTED IT!!! And, one of the audience recorded it, and gave a copy of the video to the police. What more do you want here? She was a convicted felon with a criminal record a mile long, and a term spent in a Florida prison, and you're here saying she was "innocent"? Why? Because you believe Inside Edition (where facts don't matter)?
    1
  8633. So, you're extremely proud to know absolutely nothing. Yes, dewdrop. Dozens of countries tracked the Apollo missions with radar and radio telescopes. These countries also included ENEMIES (i.e. the Soviets and Cuba). You don't get to change topics and create a false equivalence, simply brushing it under the rug in blanket denial. Still today, you can visit some of those tracking stations in other countries, that will proudly tell you that they tracked the Apollo missions. So, spare the world your delusional notion that the only thing people know about Apollo is whatever NASA says. There are mountains and mountains of evidence for Apollo that come from 3rd party sources, including enemies, that have absolutely nothing to do with anything NASA says.
    1
  8634. "you’re not IN space dude!?" Film exposure works the same whether in space or not. "You can’t tell me you wouldn’t see ONE star" That's called incredulity. "that they had the technology to send someone to the moon in 1969 I just find that really hard to believe." That's also called incredulity. But, sorry, "technology" means nothing on its own. So, you must name the exact technology you think they lacked, then explain why none of the thousands of engineers who worked on that technology ever realized that the stuff they built wouldn't do the job that they designed it to do. Can you? "To have video and radio conversations I just can’t see it." So, you believe that the thousands of radio engineers around the world who worked to build the DSN to make the Apollo communications possible... all simply didn't realize that it wouldn't work? And, YOU know better? "Cell phones didn’t appear till decades later." Huh? The first car phone networks emerged in the 1940s. By the 1960s, car phone coverage was pretty good. They didn't call them "cell phones" yet, but, that's basically what they were. And, what does that have to do with Apollo communications? Are you under the impression that they used cell phones?
    1
  8635. Pffttt. So, you believe that? He says they're wiping out his existence, and you just swallow that story? HOW could anybody do that? I mean, Bob Lazar claimed to go to MIT, right? Well, even if they could magically figure out how to delete the records, why can't Bob Lazar show a diploma? Why can't he produce any professors or classmates that knew him? Why can't he show a canceled check for rent at an apartment there? Why can't he produce a plane ticket to fly there/back from his hometown? Why can't he show a credit card statement that shows he bought some books there, or a meal, or ANYTHING? I mean, what happened? Did the government hack every bank Bob Lazar ever banked with, and delete his checking accounts, credit cards, etc.? Did they hunt down and kill all of his classmates and professors (and somehow nobody noticed that all of those people are gone now)? Why can't Bob Lazar say where he lived when he was attending MIT? Give an address? Tell anybody who his landlord was? Oh, but, meanwhile, people from his junior college where he took a couple of electronics classes remember him. I guess Bob Lazar is the first MIT student in history to also attend an unaccredited junior college, eh? Oh, and let's not forget his felony record also. I suppose the government manufactured that? How'd they pull that one off? Did they produce fake police officers and fake judges and fake district attorneys in order to create a fake felony record?
    1
  8636. YOU SAID: "They proved the facts of tainted Alcohol." == They "proved" that tainted alcohol exists. They "proved" that some resorts/bars in Mexico order tainted alcohol. But, there's been ZERO solid connection between tainted alcohol and the particular resort involved here. There's no record of any tainted alcohol being found at that resort. There isn't a history of other affected visitors of that resort. The "news" story had to stoop to talking about visitors of OTHER resorts who had tainted drinks, because, apparently, they couldn't find any others at THAT resort. So, what's your point? YOU SAID: "You people don’t actually know what the real reason she passed away." == She drank too much and drowned. YOU SAID: "All I know is that none of you have respect for the young girl or her family." == Mighty bold claim there. YOU SAID: "It could be very well she was served bad alcohol. But It could also be that she over drank her self." == Which of those two choices is more likely in your mind? YOU SAID: "The girl was literally floating in the pool. A “5 Star “ resort should not let a young girl float around in a pool." == Was the pool even still open? This apparently happened after dark, according to the timing in the lawsuit. I have been trying to find out what the pool's operating hours were a couple of years ago (when this happened), but haven't found that information yet. It's extremely weird that, at a busy 5-star resort, two people could be drowning in a pool and nobody would notice. My first guess is that the pool was closed, and the two drunks went back in anyway, when nobody was there. But, I can't back up that claim with any facts. The lawsuit doesn't mention it either. So, I'm really just basing my guess on deductive reasoning about the time of day, and the fact that nobody saw them until it was too late.
    1
  8637. I don't really watch Dave Rubin, therefore I'm very confused here, and quite out of touch. Isn't this the same guy who, around 10 years ago, was on the Young Turks as off-the-rails-ultra-lefty who would have bought into this type of race gibberish that he's now opposing? I fully admit that I'm 10 years behind the times with this guy, so, I'm in no position to make any assumptions, but, did this guy do a complete 180 during that time?
    1
  8638. You arrest on probable cause. And, he had plenty. Basically, this just means the cop decides if it's likely that a crime happened, or not. And, the main problem was that the woman refused to provide ID (an arrestable offense right there), obstructed and obfuscated, and then made matters worse by resisting.
    1
  8639.  @lanceray674  No, "reasonable suspicion" is the criteria for questioning. "Probable cause" is for arresting. But, hey, nice try on pretending to understand things you don't. As for cooperating, yes, you do have to cooperate. I'm not saying you have to assist the cop. But, in an "identify" state, you must present identification, and comply on a very basic level (no obstruction, obfuscation, or resisting). Requesting to see the receipt is not a search. It's just a request. She was charged with refusing to ID, which IS a crime. And, she added resisting arrest to the charges. By the time she asked to go back into the store, it was too late. She had already been refusing to present ID about 100x (mostly in the longer version of the video, not this one that picks up in the middle). With that obstruction and obfuscation, she was being arrested either way, and the original theft charge didn't matter. He tried to explain this, but she didn't listen (neither did you). She already sued the store, and lost so badly that she has been barred from ever filing the suit again. No lawsuit was ever filed against the police, because her own 3 attorneys didn't see anything wrong with what the cop did. But, again, hey, bravo on pretending you know things. Great job. You're fantastic at this.
    1
  8640. Did you even watch the arrest video? They politely took her away from the restaurant in order to grant some privacy so people couldn't see and hear what was being said. The only "exposure" she had was when they had to take her back through the restaurant because it was the pathway to get her to the police cars. Then, the police kept the arrest video private until 2.5 years later. She was long dead before anybody saw it. What would you suggest they do differently?
    1
  8641. Yes, hence why she kept on stealing from Walgreens immediately after this incident, abandoned her two kids, and died from meth. I'm betting she had more stolen stuff in that jacket, too, and only gave up the gloves and hat to gain sympathy.
    1
  8642. Yes, an ironic jumbling of the words. But, can you believe there are actually people out there who tried to use this sentence against him?
    1
  8643. One of the audience took video and gave a copy to one of the three cops dispatched to the scene. There were multiple callers also.
    1
  8644. How'd they manage that miracle of physics? Inside Edition never reported anything until she was dead for 1.5 years.
    1
  8645. The cop did articulate his suspicion. Why would you think he didn't? Yes, you're required to ID yourself in an investigation. Her own attorney didn't sue the police, which he would have done, if a single word you said was true. If all of those rights violations actually happened, they'd sue the cops for 7 figures, and settle on about 1/2 a million. But, nope. The attorney only sued the store for $50K (and lost badly). So, tell me, in your amazing legally trained wisdom, why did her attorney only shoot for a $50K case against the store, if he had a 7-figure case against the cops? Did you call her attorney and tell him he did his job wrong?
    1
  8646.  @michaellomax7991  Wrong. Florida is an identify state. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. And, once again, you have proven the same thing that every single other person in this video has proven, who shares your opinions: not a single one of you can read and write past the level of a 2nd grader.
    1
  8647. Smoking Gun didn't have the video. They just reported the arrest on a blog. The video was released 2.5 years later via a FOIA request.
    1
  8648. Well, that's the picture Inside Edition paints. But, reality is quite different.
    1
  8649. YOU SAID: "Classics America Law enforcement" == What do you mean by "classics"? Is there more than one? Why is this plural? YOU SAID: "White man gets killed they pick up a random black guy sticking him in jail" == RANDOM?!?!!? Are you on crack? They found his gun, which matched the gun used on the victim. They found his DNA on the bandana that the gun was found within (thus demonstrating that he wasn't merely "framed" as he claimed, but actually had possession of the murder weapon). He had a long felony conviction history, including numerous armed robberies and carjackings, and even had plead guilty to one of those many offenses, just 6 days before the murder. His family's version of where he was during the murder doesn't match his own version, nor his then-girlfriend's version. It seems that, once again, his family and girlfriend just automatically lied about his whereabouts, because, yet again, he was being arrested. Jones is just "random" to you? That's "random"? YOU SAID: "knowing most racist people will just believe the cops." == It's not about race. It's about the evidence. YOU SAID: "Jones didn't do this, and people who think he did have no idea of the concept of the two Americas that exist in this country." == You can pretend that "America" is the problem until the cows come home. But, prosecutors, judges, police investigators, and a jury convicted him beyond a reasonable doubt. And, his appeal efforts failed miserably at all levels. YOU SAID: "The Justice System in Oklahoma will never admit they were wrong, they will let him rot in jail before they admit that they failed him." == Really? And, you think YouTube comments is the correct forum to present your case? What evidence do you have that "the justice system" was at fault here? Why would you believe you understand this case better than the attorneys, jurors, and judges (both the ones that handled his cases, as well as the appellate judges)? What do you know that they don't? Have you presented this evidence of yours to the defense attorneys? Why would YouTube comments be the place to present this evidence?
    1
  8650.  @BlackShogun1  YOU SAID: "you guys are all the same.. Same Fake youtube accounts just to jump in comment rooms." == Have you lost your mind? How is this a "fake account"? I wouldn't even know what a fake account on YouTube is. It's my account. I've had it for numerous years. Are you on crack? What's "fake" about this account? Why is YOUR account "real" and mine is "fake"? YOU SAID: "You have no idea what America is and has been historical. You live off of racism, and stereotypes and you're on team neocon and when America shows itself to be broken your job is to deny its brokenness because you can't handle the truth." == Sorry, your silly race baiting doesn't work on me. You don't just get to scream "racism" every time you feel like it. When racism is an issue, I'm on your side. When racism isn't an issue, I'm not going to make it one. In this case, race has nothing to do with it. EVIDENCE is what matters. YOU SAID: "After the Capitol Riots, we see you dude all of you. It's over." == Ahhhhh, the tactic of the defeated. If you are asked questions you cannot answer, just change topics. What in the world do "capitol riots" have to do with a murder that happened in 1999?? Are you even capable of sticking to the topic? Is that within your mental processing capacity? YOU SAID: "you have no idea what's going on in this country." == Oh, but YOU do, huh? This makes you able to know that a 1999 murder wasn't actually committed by the person who was convicted of it? Again, you said that the man in prison was grabbed by police AT RANDOM (your claim), and thrown into prison. That's how low you have stooped. The fact that the murder weapon was found in his home doesn't matter to you. The fact that eyewitnesses saw someone fitting his description doesn't not matter to you. His long criminal conviction history of equivalent carjackings and armed robberies doesn't matter to you. Nope. None of that matters to you. Evidence doesn't matter to you whatsoever. You know what's going on, and I don't. YOU SAID: "Yes, classic American Racist Law Enforcement.. Historically...now and then." == Oh, quit your crying. This man had his day in court, and was found guilty by a landslide. You can't even bring yourself to address a single question or challenge I put forth. Not one. You ran for the hills, failing to answer a single question or challenge I put forth. Not one. And, instead, you just sat there and declared victory. What a clown. And, then you linked another unrelated case?? What ARE you talking about? What does your link have to do with this particular 1999 murder? Why would you think problems in one case have anything to do with another? Even if you found examples of people convicted wrongfully, who cares? Does this mean EVERYONE is convicted wrongfully? Is it simply not possible, in your mind, that the person pertaining to THIS video is actually guilty? You claimed he was innocent. I asked about your evidence for this, and what you knew that the investigators, prosecutors, judges, and jury, didn't know. You wouldn't answer. Nothing. In one ear, out the other. Change topics. Duck, dodge, avoid. Change topics. Declare victory. Change topics. Duck, dodge, avoid. Change topics. I know you have no intention of answering these questions either... which is yet another reason to conclude that you're the clown you apparently are displaying yourself to be.
    1
  8651. Yeah, when you see a guy at a playground cranking it in front of children, just mond (your spelling) our own business, and let him do his thing.
    1
  8652. Congratulations on managing to misunderstand literally everything. You want them to go check cameras before asking the cop to stop the woman? You don't think she'd be long gone by then? And, nobody even got as far as accusing her of stealing. They were INVESTIGATING the SUSPICION of stealing. I truly have no idea why people like you have such a difficult time with such basic concepts.
    1
  8653. That video has never been released due to graphic content. The Freedom of Information Act required the release of this video, but, the video of the "incident" itself is still protected due to the content.
    1
  8654. How do you humiliate someone who is already dead?
    1
  8655. "You bet your life I am."
    1
  8656. Thanks for proving you're not even reading the responses. I kind of suspected that was true, given your parade of arrogant ignorance. But, now that you've proven it, I know exactly where you stand.
    1
  8657.  @01mustang05  How many times does it need to be explained to you? Florida is an identify state. Not only did the officer ask her to identify herself in this video that starts in the middle, but, he asked her a hundred times in the longer version. Yes, if you are in an identify state, you must provide your ID if stopped by the police doing an investigation of a possible crime.
    1
  8658. Well, with her long criminal record, felony term spent in a Florida prison, million other arrests, I'd hardly call this a "first time offense." And, sorry, but recording is normal now. The arrest video was not released until 2.5 years later, though, which was long after she was already dead. And, sure, they could have treated it as a mental health issue, had she shown up in court (which she didn't).
    1
  8659. Huh? What "troll" even knew about this before she was dead?
    1
  8660. Huh? You obviously know nothing about how these things work. If a store employee tells a cop that someone stole something, this is what's called "reasonable suspicion." The cop is obligated to investigate. During such an investigation, the person IS legally required to provide ID, or verbally give enough information for the cop to use the computer to identify her. Failure to do so is obstruction. You are 100% correct when you said she is under no legal obligation to provide a receipt or help the investigation. She's welcome to remain silent. However, those choices come with the potential price of being arrested. And, yes, that's fine, an arrest is just an arrest, not a conviction. But, not only did she obstruct by failing to provide ID, but, she didn't just remain silent, and obfuscated instead. There is no legal requirement for a cop to get a supervisor. Why would there be? Do you think that supervisors are required to perform a routine arrest? And, the cop also has every right not to have his investigation cluttered by bystanders who want to jump in the middle for no reason. I mean, good grief, it's like you INTEND for every word you write to be incorrect. Sheeesshhh. And, by the way, you don't have to take my word for it. If anything you said was true, her own attorney would have sued the police, right? She and her attorney sued the store, right? They lost their lawsuit, and she will be getting $0.00 from the store. But, they felt their case was strong enough to at least try to sue the store. Well, they didn't feel they had any case whatsoever against the police, so they never sued the police. What do you know that her attorney doesn't?
    1
  8661.  @dangerzone6481  Why do you go from message to message making this same ridiculous claim? You are required to identify yourself, by law, during a police investigation. If the police has reasonable suspicion of a crime (which he did), then you must provide a state issued ID card, or verbally give enough identification so that you can be looked up in the computer. Where do you get this silly nonsense that you think otherwise? And, let's pretend you're correct (you're not, but, just hypothetically), why do you suppose the woman's high profile attorney didn't sue the police? Do you think you understand the law better than he does? How do you explain that? Why didn't they sue the police for violating her rights?
    1
  8662. In other words: all evidence for Apollo is false, no matter how much there is, no matter which countries produce it. You have defined a condition in your mind that makes it literally impossible to ever even offer you evidence, because you've decided, in advance, to reject it. In the last 3 years (your own term), dozens of countries have continued to use laser ranging on the Apollo reflectors on the moon every single day, and India and China have both individually photographed the lunar surface at Apollo landing sites using their own orbiters, which show the landers in the exact spots that LRO shows them, as well as the original mission photography shows them. But, all you're going to do is say that India and China both joined the scam 50+ years later, and none of the laser ranging experts on the planet know how their own equipment works, right?
    1
  8663. They went to the moon 9 times, and landed 6 times. If that's not doing it again, I don't know what is. And, how long must congress perpetuate an expensive program before you believe it? Apollo ran from 1961 through 1972 for the moon program, and through 1975 for the applications program. Is a 15 year long program not enough for you? What EXACTLY do you think they were supposed to fly to the moon with, after Apollo was retired?
    1
  8664. Freedom of Information Act. After this much time has passed, and long after she's dead, yes, the police can no longer block the release of the video.
    1
  8665. Well, first of all, I know English isn't your first language. So, thank you for trying to write in English. I'm sure your English is better than my ability to write in your language. But, that being said, it's still very difficult to understand exactly what you are trying to say. YOU SAID: "for what nasa produced such films ??" == Which films? YOU SAID: "You have 100 times better technology now than on 1969." == As measured how? Chemistry hasn't advanced 100x over. Rocketry hasn't advanced 100x over. Rocket engines today still have basically the same level of efficiency as rocket engines from the 1960s/1970s... perhaps a few small improvements, but nothing anybody would say is 100x better. Computers are billions of times more powerful, sure. But, computers themselves do not mean that the rest of the technology is 100x better. So, I don't know what EXACT technology you're talking about. YOU SAID: "Just go back and put a man on the moon." == Do you have any idea how much that would cost? Are you going to pay for it? YOU SAID: "Put a telescope like Hubble on the moon." == For what? Hubble works where it is now. Being on the moon wouldn't make Hubble work better. And, they will launch the James Webb telescope in a couple of years anyway. What would be the point of one on the moon? YOU SAID: "Show us a stair not visible from Earth." == I don't understand. The James Webb telescope should be able to see more stuff. What is the purpose of a moon based telescope? YOU SAID: "Stop kaking start doing real flight on the moon." == I don't know what this means. YOU SAID: "Once again. If somebody spent 150 bilions of dollars on program then shall continue it." == No, it was because they were spending that much money on it that they DIScontinued it. You are completely backward. YOU SAID: "If you believe that USA spent 150 bilion of dollas just to show Russia that they are better then " I don't think you have thought this through."" == Well, they got some good science out of it, employed a bunch of people, advanced technologies, but, yeah, they basically did it to show the Soviets that they were better. It was mainly a political statement during the cold war. It was a way of saying, "if you mess with us, we will beat you, just like we beat you to the moon." YOU SAID: "There is 1000 posiibilities to use flight on Moon in 1 condition . If they ever been on Moon." == Again, I realize that English isn't your first language. But, I really can't understand what you're trying to say. YOU SAID: "How about base on Moon" == A BASE?!?!?! I mean, they spent $150 billion (in today's dollars), plus another $50 billion in soft costs, tax breaks to contractors, free land giveaways, and free international support. The total Apollo cost in today's dollars was actually closer to $200 billion. And, they stretched the program about as far as they could, and only managed to put 12 men on the moon, in tiny aluminum cans, for a few hours each, and brought back a total moon payload of about 850 pounds worth of rocks. In order to put BASES on the moon, the infrastructure would need to be thousands of times more than any Apollo mission could ever carry there. HOW do you propose to build bases there?? Good grief. YOU SAID: "and next flight to Mars ??" == Which is relevant to the moon, how? YOU SAID: "If somebody spent 1500 bilions and then have no idea what to do next then it is sure that he just wasted this money." == They spent it to beat the Soviets to the moon. There were many various ideas about what to do next, but none of them ever got funded. YOU SAID: "The never been on the moon and only produce propaganda movies to keep people stupidfied. I will not beat it. I do not have a billion budget.. You have brain and only you can use it or listen propaganda if you prefer. By." == You're a moron in any language.
    1
  8666.  @michaelstillman1171  I don't think you understood his point.
    1
  8667. Yeah, what are the odds that a 20 year old and 23 year old drank themselves into a stupor while on vacation?
    1
  8668. Do you mean literally film? The astronauts could only "film" each other with the 16mm DAC. But, any time you see both astronauts in frame, it's from the TV camera, not a film camera. The TV camera on Apollo 11 was a black and white Westinghouse, placed by the astronauts, and didn't move, and couldn't be controlled. Apollo 12's TV camera got burned out seconds after turning it on. Apollo 14's Westinghouse was similar to Apollo 11's, and couldn't be controlled, except it was in color instead of B&W. Apollo 15/16/17 used an RCA color TV camera, which could be remote controlled once it was mounted to the rover and had its dish aligned. Apollo 15 also used the color TV camera to capture the deployment of the rover, and wasn't controllable at that point in time, not until they mounted it to the rover. But, after that was successful, they deemed it not necessary to set up the camera to do that again on Apollo 16/17, and simply didn't have live TV until the rover was assembled and the camera was mounted.
    1
  8669. But, she refused to provide ID about a hundred times (go watch the full video, not this edited copy). Florida is a "stop and identify state" (as most states are), which means that she legally must provide ID if being investigated for a possible crime. Failure to provide ID is an arrestable offense. And, the cop tried to explain, but she ignored (as did you) that the original suspicion of theft wasn't even relevant at that point, because she was being arrested either way. About the shoplifting, yes, they'd have to prove it in a court of law. But, in order to arrest, all you need is probable cause (and he had plenty). Sure, as it turned out, she didn't steal. But, that's fine, she'd have won in court. So what? It doesn't change the fact that it was a good arrest. Don't believe me? Well, go take it up with her own three attorneys, who never even mentioned any such concept that it was a bad arrest, nor did they sue the police at all. They sued the store for accusing her (and the store won the lawsuit, not the woman).
    1
  8670. What in the world are you talking about? You're barely even literate. And, the cop did nothing wrong here.
    1
  8671. Good grief. Just go back and finish the schooling you obviously dropped out of.
    1
  8672. A) Freedom of Information Act. What do you propose they do? B) At least nobody saw it while she was alive.
    1
  8673. Sorry to rain on your parade. But, you clearly have the timeline all wrong. Arrest = July 1, 2021. Suicide = March, 2022 (exact date not known). Body discovered = March 31, 2022. Arrest video made public = November 24, 2023. Went viral = December, 2023.
    1
  8674. Oh, and it wouldn't have mattered if she admitted anything or not. One of the "audience" took video of the incident, and showed it to the police.
    1
  8675. Of course there was proof. One of the audience recorded it and gave a copy of the video to the police. And, sorry, but the police did their jobs correctly. She's to blame for her own actions. Stop blaming others.
    1
  8676. There are dozens of hours of video footage from the 6 landings. Would you care to be more specific in your question?
    1
  8677. Um, ok. And, when she was busted for stealing cars, should she say that same thing? "I wasn't hurting anybody." Does that work?
    1
  8678. Have you read the arrest report?
    1
  8679. I completely agree in principle, that if he's manufacturing the numbers, and artificially making them too low just for YouTube hits, that's a bad thing. But, let's face reality here, with the exception of Thunderf00t's butchery of how copyright laws work, he's got a mighty strong track record of being correct. Musk's Hyperloop WAS an amazing joke that could never succeed. Promises to make intercontinental spacecraft to replace airliners (for the same price per ticket) are ridiculous. The robot that's going to revolutionize life as we know it was just a guy in a spandex outfit. The Vegas tunnel is a bad joke, and cannot move the amount of passengers per hour that the city contract said it should. Twitter is worth a tiny fraction of what Musk paid for it (and he had to borrow the money to do it, sooooo, let's see how much those lenders are willing to tolerate). So, if Thunderf00t incorrectly guessed at the weight of the cargo, well, it's bad, but, let's face the facts: Musk isn't exactly providing numbers so that nobody has to guess. Every single truck manufacturer on the planet reveals the weight of the truck, and the price of the truck, as well as every other stat. Not Tesla, though. Nope, they're taking orders, and making promises, without revealing the most important factors. If Thunderf00t guessed wrong, it's still Musk's fault for even making people guess in the first place.
    1
  8680. "How did they get through the radiation belt" By going quickly.
    1
  8681. We are done here, right dewdrop? You've thrown in the towel, right?
    1
  8682. Dewdrop, the Soviets flew two dogs in and out of the inner belt for 3 weeks (about half of the time in the worst of it). They lived a normal lifecycle afterward. You're worried about 15 minutes? How about STOP PRETENDING TO UNDERSTAND SOMETHING YOU DON'T!!??!!
    1
  8683. "They Live" is a documentary.
    1
  8684. Yup. But, she's had a million other convictions prior to this arrest. So.....
    1
  8685. Yeah, but, that's why they open the video by asking the question "was she shamed?" (then never answer it). That way, they can twist the story however they want, and if anybody goes after them for painting an inaccurate picture, they can say, "we were only asking questions, we take no responsibility for the accuracy of the answers, because we never provided any answers."
    1
  8686. Well, sure, if he actually knew what he was talking about. But, since he doesn't, and his economics are all wrong, I'm afraid I disagree with you. This is an unintentionally deceptive and wrong video.
    1
  8687. Really? Is that how this goes? You're going to tell the officers that "they're doing it wrong"? YOU know better? So, dewdrop, an armed maniac wearing a balaclava mask crawls out of the woodwork and tries to kill you. A screaming banshee shows up 10 seconds later, trying to get closer to the firearm the maniac dropped. You've got a screaming brother in the background a couple of minutes later. Are you going to change your focus during all of that and render aid? Or, are you going to watch your surroundings, keeping an eye out for any more people crawling out of the woodwork, attempting to pick up where Mark left off? Secure the scene first, dewdrop. Get plenty of cops onsite. THEN render aid.
    1
  8688. Didn't you understand the tone of the video? Innocent soccer mom was arrested by evil police, and she killed herself over it. Accountability isn't even mentioned in the story, so, we're supposed to blame evil police. All hail Inside Edition!! (where facts don't matter)
    1
  8689. Um, ok. How? What mechanism do you propose to take his guns?
    1
  8690. Well, that's a step in the right direction. But, you're still out in left field.
    1
  8691. There were a couple of obscure blog posts while she was alive. But, the arrest video wasn't released until 2.5 years later (1.5 years after her suicide). That's when everything went viral. So, there was virtually zero public shaming.
    1
  8692. I'm not playing this game with you, dewdrop.
    1
  8693. Yes, dewdrop, you are obviously playing silly games.
    1
  8694. Blurring the black eye? Multiple ads just 3 minutes in? Thanks, I'll just thumbs down and skip.
    1
  8695. Yeah, deceptive journalism. The arrest was in July of 2021. She committed suicide in March of 2022. The arrest video was released in November of 2023. So, they publish the arrest video, then, a few weeks later, publish that she committed suicide, pretending like the release of the arrest video was the cause. In reality, she was already dead for 1.5 years before the video was ever made public. They know this. They just don't care. It gets more viral if they pump up the notion that the arrest video was the cause of the suicide, rather than being honest from the start and say that the arrest had nothing to do with the suicide.
    1
  8696. "Is the Eagle Lander launch platform still there?" Yes.
    1
  8697. "Maybe they could get a powerful enough optical scope to zoom in on the landing area and take more photos?" From Earth? You'd need a telescope with a quarter mile wide diameter to see the lander's bottom stage (launch platform) at Atari 2600 level graphics. Not much detail, but, you could start to see the basic shape and know what it was. If you want details, now you're talking about a telescope multiple miles wide. And, you'd have to solve the problem of atmospheric distortion. For now, the best camera in orbit around the moon is on India's Chandrayaan-2. It has taken photos of this landing site. Check it out.
    1
  8698. "Would be up-to-the-minute proof they're still there." Doesn't matter. India's Chandrayaan-2 has taken photos showing the landers. China also with its Chang'e orbiter. Arizona State University's LRO camera has been up there since 2009 taking photos of the landing sites (hundreds of photos). The deniers just reject it all as fake anyway.
    1
  8699. "Who said anything about doubting the moon landings?" Well, when you're asking for proof that the lander's descent stage (launch platform) is still there, yeah, that implies that you doubt it is.
    1
  8700. So, why does India's orbiter see it?
    1
  8701. Oh, you're one of THOSE people, eh? Pretending you just can't see what those landers are. Right. Sure. And, the LRO photos of the Apollo 15 landing site, showing the rover tracks that 100% identically match the mission photography... yeah, you just can't manage to make out what's in the photos, right?
    1
  8702. The family is prepared not to get much from the hotel. So, they're also suing the Florida company that made the booking. It's their fault for not knowing that the alcohol was tainted, and should never have booked that 5 star resort that has never had a single instance of tainted alcohol in the past, and none was found in any routine inspections either, but, this one bottle was tainted, therefore, the booking company should have known this, and it's the booking company's fault. After all, the lawsuit says that this 5-star resort bought some of its alcohol from the same suppliers as some other hotels bought from, and those other hotels have been caught with tainted alcohol sometimes. The booking company was supposed to know the alcohol behaviors of unrelated hotels, and then investigate the common suppliers, and tell this family that they shouldn't book this trip. $millions.
    1
  8703. Indecent exposure in front of minors is an aggravated misdemeanor.
    1
  8704.  @mynineandi  Oh, get real here. Yeah, the officer said "I didn't see her check out," but, obviously he was merely repeating the words Anna told him. Sheeesssshhhh. And, you really think he literally meant HE didn't see her check out?
    1
  8705.  @mynineandi  Ridiculous. "I didn't see her go through the register" is what the cop was repeating that Anna said to him, not what he himself was saying. Sheeessssh. Between this thread, and the other comments you make in other threads, you're making it quite clear that you have a predisposed hatred for cops. Nothing you say makes any sense, to the point that you're completely unable to even interpret basic sentences correctly.
    1
  8706.  @mynineandi  You replied a bunch of gibberish to the other guy, but, I'll answer it anyway. A store has the right to ask for proof of purchase. This isn't a violation of your rights if they do that, nor is it a violation of your rights if they ask a police officer to investigate a potential crime. They are under no obligation to be correct 100% of the time. Yes, sometimes they will ask for a receipt from someone who actually has one. It happens. They do not need to go back and review security tapes, check transaction logs, check inventory, etc., before asking a police officer to stop someone. By then, the person would be long gone. And, as I told you in the other threads, the courts and her own attorney have already determined that you're wrong. The court threw her lawsuit against the company out the window with prejudice. And, her own attorney knew there was absolutely no case against the police, because they did nothing wrong. Are you really going to sit there and excuse this woman's actions based on a couple of sentence you didn't understand about what the cop said? (1) He was repeated what Anna told him when he said, "I didn't see her go through." The "I" was repeating the words Anna spoke, not meaning that the "I" was actually himself. And, (2) Yeah, he misspoke about not having access to the security camera tapes. He probably meant that he's not REQUIRED to review them. But, whatever, it doesn't matter. All you've got is a single misspoken sentence? And, in your mind, this justifies the actions of this woman in this video? Huh? Get real here. This had its day in court, and she lost badly. And, as I said, her own attorney disagrees with you, and never filed a case against the police.
    1
  8707.  @mynineandi  We're done here. Your mind has been completely lost. There was no violation of her rights. And, her own attorney disagrees with you about that. You clearly do not understand anything about this topic, as has been made quite clear in the many postings you've made in these threads.
    1
  8708. Yes, but, Google is your friend. And, you can also read her mile long arrest record for various crimes, police reports, and her felony conviction and term served in prison for stealing cars, etc. You can also learn that the timeline was: July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video made public. And, you can read interviews with her landlord stating that she was a stripper at the local club, and neighbors said she also did "private" cash transactions out of her apartment with numerous men. Her own family says it was drugs and alcohol that were her main problems, which you can confirm by reading her arrest record for drugs and alcohol (in addition to the other crimes). Yes, it's pretty unlikely that this particular arrest would have much of an effect on her suicide almost a year later. It seems like a drop in the bucket.
    1
  8709.  @randyschissler5791  I've never accused you of asking a silly question before... but....
    1
  8710. Can you even name any "legacy media" that posted anything whatsoever about this story while she was alive? (Hint: no, you can't, because it got virtually zero press until 2.5 years later, and she was long gone by then.)
    1
  8711. Thanks, I was only aware of a couple of obscure blogs. Yes, there were a few more articles. But, I reject the notion that those caused her ultimate decision a year later. I'd say that her own family knows better, and they said that this particular arrest had nothing to do with it. They said it was her long history with drugs and alcohol, and her choice to abandon any semblance of normalcy, and to live a life of crime instead, which led to her final choices. After all, she didn't make that choice after spending her felony term in prison, nor any of her other million arrests. And, let's face reality here. Her neighbors said her "career" was as a "dancer" who did "private extras" for parades of paying men. She was probably making "public beach" content for her fans. The little bit of press she got would only help her career, not hurt it.
    1
  8712. Yeah, keep on believing your own bullshit, and pretending you know stuff you don't know. Ha. How laughable. Everyone thinks they're legal experts, but in reality haven't got a clue.
    1
  8713.  @teresa67factoid95  You are absolutely wrong. The bounce-back received anywhere else on the moon is nothing like the bounce-back received by the reflectors. And, you can know that they are man made reflectors because they use cube corner angles, meaning they will bounce the light back to the exact angle that it came from. You cannot get that with naturally occurring rocks or dust. You can get the same level of bounce-back simultaneously in the USA, Spain, UK, Russia, China, Japan, Australia, etc. (anywhere on the planet that has a clear line of sight to the moon from one of the laser ranging facilities). That cannot happen without a man-made cube corner mirror reflecting array. Sorry, you simply have no idea what you're talking about. And, there isn't an engineer or technician who designed/built/operated any of the laser ranging facilities anywhere on the planet who agrees with you.
    1
  8714. I'm not aware of any new Japan satellite taking any such photos. But, maybe you mean China's and India's? Take a look at Chandrayaan2’s photo of the Apollo 12 landing site. Pretty nice.
    1
  8715. Bingo.
    1
  8716. Good grief. Learn the facts. Nobody saw this video until she was already dead for 1.5 years.
    1
  8717. The flag was blown over according to Buzz Aldrin, who saw it get blown over. And, LRO images show a bright spot on the lunar surface exactly where the flag was, further confirming that it got blown over. And, good gods, you cannot be serious... no gravity? What in the world do you think keeps the moon intact, if not the moon's gravity? What do you think causes tides on Earth, if not the moon's gravity?
    1
  8718. Then, (a) you live in the wrong state, and (b) even there, if someone draws a gun and points it at you, you are allowed to shoot first if you can.
    1
  8719.  @Tim22222  There's no radioactivity in the Van Allen belts. Good grief. In order to have radioactivity, you need big and unstable atoms that eject neutrons. The Van Allen belts consist of loose protons and electrons. No neutrons to eject. No atoms even, let alone big ones. The Van Allen belts are loose ionic particle radiation, not radioactive radiation.
    1
  8720. And, you believe that because Inside Edition said so. Bravo!
    1
  8721. Apollo was only funded by congress with the caveat that there would be no patents, no trademarks, no copyrights, all material would be open... and press access needed to be guaranteed, for literally every live feed. Else, congress would not agree to fund it. NASA followed through on exactly that, giving press the front row seat throughout every step.
    1
  8722. YOU SAID: "But how was the footage at 22:09 acheived ? How did the camera get there ?" == It was borrowed from Apollo 14. See that large S-band dish on the left? Those were only deployed on two missions (Apollo 12 and Apollo 14). Apollo 12's TV camera broke almost immediately, so that clip isn't from Apollo 12. It's from Apollo 14, and it's the 2nd EVA. They deployed the TV camera on the first EVA. What you're seeing is descending the ladder on the 2nd EVA. YOU SAID: "And at 23:20 the wind got up." == He's handling the flag. What did you think would happen? It would just stay stiff? It's just a nylon flag. When being handled, it moves MORE without air resistance than with air resistance, not less. YOU SAID: "And given the size of the module, I take it the Rover was strapped to the roof rack ?" == Well, you could just simply search for this, couldn't you? "Lunar rover deployment" will show you tons of animations, practice runs, and even a live deployment on the moon on Apollo 15. I mean, what is the alternative? Do you think the thousands of engineers who worked at Grumman, Boeing, and General Motors, all simultaneously forgot to make the rover and lander fit together? Really? Like, they just built these things, and "OOOooppss, we forgot to make it fit!!!! Hey, wait a minute, Apollo must be fake!!!!" No?? That doesn't happen??? Why do you suppose not?
    1
  8723. Actually, the Soviets DID comment, and congratulated the USA. They were tracking the missions with radar and radio telescopes too (just as dozens of countries were). And, China released their orbital photos of the Apollo 11 landing site, showing the lander exactly where it's supposed to be. So, when you say "Nothing! Nada!" - it's actually the other way around. The Soviets and China have confirmed Apollo, not remained silent.
    1
  8724. Well, I don't know the facts, so, I'm just going to take a guess here... I imagine "parents" is incorrect. I'd be surprised if Daddy didn't disappear before he was born.
    1
  8725.  @extravagantpanda7962  Not exactly correct. NASA doesn't choose what to do with its money. Congress does. NASA *DID* want to continue Apollo, but, congress cut it short.
    1
  8726. So, the cashier, who did her job of watching out for shoplifting... she's a problem? She even said she wouldn't press charges if the woman simply returned the items. But, the employee is the problem here? Not the thief?
    1
  8727. My sure theif is dead? Is that even English?
    1
  8728. 3rd party evidence.
    1
  8729. Um, no. Not even close. Multiple people called the police. And, the most important one was a woman who took video of the incident, and showed the video to the police. The report describes the video as a very loud, very public event, in full view of a crowd of people including children. I'm sorry if you blindly believed a woman who was trying to avoid getting arrested again. But, that's really your own issue. The police had no choice but to make the arrest, given the circumstances.
    1
  8730. An upper chest hit like that? When he says his last words 20 seconds after being shot, and stops moving 10 seconds after that? No, man, I'm sorry, as nice as your sentiment and hope sounds, it's just not reality. No amount of aid was going to save him.
    1
  8731. YOU SAID: "No stars in the back ground." == In the background? Like, there's a brightly lit lunar surface in the foreground, and no stars in the background? That's what you mean? Of course not. If there were stars in the background when there's a brightly lit lunar surface in the foreground, then that would mean the photo was fake. You can't properly expose stars onto the same photograph as you properly expose a bright surface. Photography 101. You can't do it on Earth, and you can't do it on the moon either. YOU SAID: "don't know who took the photo." == Well, you're not exactly explaining what you're talking about here. Are you talking about the famous "Blue Marble" photo? Schmitt took it. I'm not sure why the editors of the video don't know that. But, anyway, the same thing happens for photos of a brightly lit Earth. You can't get an exposure of a brightly lit Earth in the same frame as exposing stars. Photography 101. Just to dumb this down (oversimplified), when you're talking about exposing brightly lit objects onto film, vs. exposing stars onto film, you're basically talking about a 1/60th of a second exposure vs. a 4 second exposure. You can't have it both ways within the same photograph. Even modern digital cameras can't do it... without some pretty fancy software tricks. YOU SAID: "you spend all that money to go up to space but don't take a photo." == What are you talking about? You just said they took the photo. Yeah, the editors of the video didn't know who took it (for some strange reason). But, you just looked at the photo, now you're saying they didn't take the photo. YOU SAID: "surely that was the whole point!!! Of gong there.." == No, the main point of going there was to demonstrate to the Soviets that we will beat them in anything we put our minds to. It was a political statement during the cold war. It was a method of expressing technological, engineering, and industrial dominance. It was a method of trying to prevent the cold war from turning into an actual war. Yes, there were other purposes too, such as raw exploration. But, that wasn't the main purpose. YOU SAID: "a Hollywood film production from start to finish" == Wrong. YOU SAID: "You haven't given me any evidence.. its Google that you've given as evidence .." == No. He gave you instructions on how to find the answers about film exposure for yourself. YOU SAID: "childish fear mongering brainwashing mainstream Media programming.. not evidence!!.." == How is learning about how film exposure "fear mongering" or "brainwashing"? What ARE you talking about? This is ridiculous.
    1
  8732. Great job. You don't know the definitions of the words you use, yet, you scream at the wind anyway.
    1
  8733. PART 1: YOU SAID: "Dear Rockethead7" == Are you too dumb to hit "reply" in the other threads you've started already? YOU SAID: "If you read my response, you can see that I am in no way impuning the integrity of the thousands of Americans who toiled for years on the APOLLO project." == Um, no, dummy. You're wrong. You have stated that the technology to communicate with people on the moon didn't exist during Apollo. Simultaneously, you claimed that everyone did their jobs. As I explained (but you ignored), this means that you are contradicting yourself. If you think the thousands upon thousands of people who designed and built Apollo's communications network had failed to produce a system that could communicate with people on the moon, this means that you are saying that they did NOT do their jobs. Also, you are saying that they're too stupid to even realize that they failed to produce a working communications network. You're saying that the people who designed and built that billion dollar communications network were unable to correctly operate the equipment they designed and built. And, frankly, the same goes for any other piece of the technology you're accusing them of failing at... not just the communications equipment. Somehow, you think YOU understand these systems better than the people who designed and built them, because you think they failed to build systems that could do the jobs they built them to do. No, you don't get to spit in the faces of thousands of people, then pretend you're not spitting in their faces. YOU SAID: "Like the Manhattan project which produced the first atomic bomb?" == I've forgotten, which conspiracy video was it that made that comparison to the atomic bomb? I mean, do you think nobody knows you're watching conspiracy videos and regurgitating their claims? Do you think we can't tell? Dummy, we all know you lack the intellectual capacity to come up with anything on your own. So, just name the conspiracy video and timestamp, and I can respond to the REAL source of the argument. I know that your 6 remaining brain cells don't have the capacity to come up with any arguments on your own. YOU SAID: "as well as most other gigantic projects, APOLLO was significantly compartmentalized, separated and segmented such that many of them may not have known what it was exactly that they were working on, or the scope of the whole project." == Pftttt. Yet, Stalin knew about the atomic bomb program before Truman knew. Stalin even knew before Truman about the success of the first nuclear explosion at Trinity. YOU SAID: "Only a few people at the core would have to have been actively involved in fraud." == Wrong. That's insanity. Take, for one example of many different possible examples, the tracking of Apollo to/from the moon. There were facilities all around the world, operated by many countries, that tracked Apollo missions to and from the moon, using radar and radio telescopes. Guam. Hawaii. USA mainland. Canary Islands. Madagascar. Ships in the Indian Ocean. Ships in the Pacific Ocean. Multiple stations in Australia. Spain. UK. Turks and Caicos. The list goes on. The Soviets tracked Apollo also, using their global network of tracking stations and their partnering countries. They even sent Luna 15 (unmanned) up to the moon a couple of days before Apollo 11, and had it wait in orbit around the moon for Apollo 11 to arrive (tracking both craft the entire time). Their intent was to land Luna 15 on the surface of the moon in the Sea of Tranquility while the Apollo astronauts were still on the surface. Then, they wanted to grab some samples, and race Apollo 11 back home with the first lunar samples, and steal some of the spotlight from USA. Again, they tracked both craft the entire time with radar, as did the USA and its allied countries. As it turned out, the Luna 15 craft crashed into a lunar mountain because they rushed the mission too much, and made mistakes. But, it doesn't change the fact that many nations tracked both craft (USA's Apollo and Soviet's Luna). Dozens to hundreds of people were involved at each tracking station, and there were dozens of total tracking stations, including tracking stations operated by our enemies. MIT and JPL were involved in designing the tracking/communications systems using radar and radio telescopes. None of those people hold your opinion that any of this was falsified. None of those people think that the technology didn't exist at the time (your assertion). What do you know that they didn't know? I've asked you this repeatedly. You fail to answer. You won't answer a single question or challenge to the remarkable stupidity you keep spewing. No, sorry, dummy, you don't get to claim that a few people would know, and the entirety of the rest of the program were unaware. That's what your favorite conspiracy videos claim. But, it's dead wrong. For YEARS after people left the moon, they continued receiving ALSEP data from the Apollo packages that were left on the moon. To this day, dozens of facilities around the world use the Apollo reflectors left on the moon every single day. Japan's JAXA/Selene orbiter has confirmed Apollo. China's orbiter has confirmed Apollo. The Soviets confirmed Apollo. Arizona State University's LRO has confirmed Apollo. The 850 pounds of lunar material brought back from the moon by Apollo have been examined by thousands of geologists worldwide, for 40 hours per week for the past 50 years, and not a single one of them has ever claimed the lunar material has been falsified. Spain took long distance photography of the SIVB fuel dumps around the moon during Apollo (they had the biggest telescope on Earth at that time). Anybody on the planet with good enough equipment could aim their dishes at the moon during Apollo missions, and receive Apollo's audio broadcasts. Sorry, dummy, this is ridiculous for you to claim that only a few people would know "it's fake," and be able to dupe the thousands upon thousands of people involved with all of these aspects. I mean, hell, LRO has been up there since 2009, and has been sending back hundreds of photos of all of the Apollo landing sites to Arizona State University. Are all of those professors and students working on LRO in on "the hoax" also? They received 400 GB of data and photos yesterday, and every day prior, for the past 10 years. Is all of that being falsified by just a few people? How'd they get them do to that? Most of the administrators and key people during Apollo are DEAD!!! How did they get new generations of administrators and engineers to keep threatening to kill anybody who tries to reveal "the hoax"?? How do they get these university students to participate without spilling the beans? They aim their dishes at LRO, receive Gigs of data and photos, see Apollo equipment in those photos, and what? Someone comes along to threaten them into silence? Hundreds of students and professors at Arizona State University have been duped into participating in a "hoax" from 50 years ago?? What ARE you talking about? No, dummy, you do not get to make the claim you're making. You don't know ANYTHING. And, I've only scratched the surface here.
    1
  8734. PART 2: YOU SAID: "That said, methinks you do protest too much." == What an amazing hypocrite. If I give you answers to the questions YOU ask for, you complain that I'm writing too much?? In one ear, out the other. If I gave you one-word answers, you'd just blindly reject it for not being enough information. If I give you detailed information, you also blindly reject it because you say I'm "protesting too much." You are a complete psychopath. And, you are a hypocrite for claiming that you're actually interested in answers to your own questions. You clearly are not. You PRETEND to want answers, but, when you're given the answers, you ignore them. Then, you claim the answers are "protesting too much." YOU SAID: "APOLLO was a hugely intensive and massively expensive project, and it features prominently in American History. As such it deserves careful, independent and objective study. For NASA to deny it open study is a shame and a travesty. We paid for it. We worked on it, and we deserve to know everything there is to know about it." == Hey, jackass, I answered this THREE TIMES already. You are ignoring that answer. The information *IS* available, you nutbag. Sorry that your favorite conspiracy videos lied to you and told you the information is gone. But, as I, and others, have told you, it's not missing. You clearly aren't even reading the replies to your own questions. YOU SAID: "If those studies determine that it was a fraud, so be it. If, instead, it proves that we accomplished a virtually impossible task with only 8 track technology, that's also an amazing discovery." == You have no idea what you're talking about. YOU SAID: "Scientific method is designed to let the evidence speak for itself. So, let's have the data, and let's make this an open, independent and truly scientific search." == What an asshole. You were told where to find TERABYTES of information. Information that it would take many days at high speed downloading speeds to even acquire, and YEARS to read through once you downloaded. But, within 3 hours of someone giving you the website for you to begin looking at this information you're claiming is all "lost," you rejected all of it, and you're still pretending that it's lost. There are TERABYTES of information on that website, asshole. No, you don't get to sit there and pretend you haven't been told where to get it. And, that website is just the beginning. Even MIT's website has a lot of information about the tracking network they helped design and build. When you're done with the millions of pages of information on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal website, you can proceed to MIT's website. That should take you about 4-5 years to read through. So, no, asshole, you don't get to pretend the information isn't out there.
    1
  8735. Um, I think you don't know what "baby daddy" means.
    1
  8736. Why do you believe her when she claims she thought nobody was around? Do you always just take the criminal's word for it?
    1
  8737. That's your evidence? Some guys talking in the control room?
    1
  8738. What does the LAPD have to do with anything that happens in Tybee Island, Georgia? And, dewdrop, the video was released as a result of a legal Freedom of Information Act request. But, it didn't cause her death, because it was not released until 2.5 years later. She was long dead before anybody saw the video.
    1
  8739. Well, yes. What he did was very nice. And, it's not his fault. But, the irony is that if he had arrested her, maybe she'd still be alive today.
    1
  8740. Her suicide had nothing to do with this incident.
    1
  8741. You think the only thing she did wrong was resisting? Um, how about obstruction and refusing to ID during a police investigation? How about obfuscation? How about just overall acting like a maniac instead of a civilized human being?
    1
  8742. I presume you're attempting to joke. Someone died. Show some respect.
    1
  8743. So, you're saying that it's unfair that Buffet HAS more money than a secretary? Are you fucking kidding me?
    1
  8744. So, basically, you're accusing people of 2nd degree murder? THAT is your logic here? Based on what? Where's your evidence for this kind of accusation?
    1
  8745. Oh, come on man, you've been on YouTube for a thousand years. You know EXACTLY what's going on here. But, then again, maybe not... every time I've run across you before, yeah, you've always been pretty.... um.... slow. So, let me explain it for you, just like I've had to explain very simple concepts for you before, in terms that any sane child should be able to understand: see, woman got mad, woman wanted to turn "can I see your receipt" into a payday lawsuit, woman makes things difficult so woman can sue, woman thinks getting Taser'd and arrested is going to make her case stronger. Woman lost her case, but, let's face reality here... we all know she wanted to get Taser'd and arrested, right? She even ASKED for it.
    1
  8746. Yeah, the coroner reported that she was down to 82 pounds, which included the implants. So, that's in the 70s without the silicone.
    1
  8747. Yeah, that does look pretty strange for the Westinghouse camera. Did you cross check that clip against the original footage to determine if it was just a documentary editor's artistic license, or if it was really part of the original TV signal?
    1
  8748.  @Peterkramer929  "19:53 white light coming in from the window" == As opposed to what? I don't understand what you think the problem is? "21:38 again (btw scattering of sunlight is not possible in both cases) It should be black." == Pfttt. WHAT? Why would sunlight not be able to scatter? What ARE you talking about? "21:27 and next minute: why is the command module below the l.lander?" == Orbital mechanics doesn't work the way you think it does. I'm not going to sit here and explain orbital physics it to you. But, if you think it's such a problem, please explain why the entire world's aerospace engineers and physicists have never spotted this "issue" you've spotted? "22:33 and 23:47 spotlight on the moon" == The sun is a spotlight? "25:22 clear line between foreground and backdrop, also spotlight again" == Yes, it's called a "horizon." What EXACTLY do you expect a horizon to look like, if not a "line between the foreground and the mountains that rise up beyond the horizon line"? Please explain? What SHOULD the horizon look like, if not what you see in the images? "28:58 outside of shadow in spotlight" == Again, the "spotlight" is the sun. What do you think sunlight SHOULD look like, if not a bright light? "30:11 and before that: corner of the flag blows up: movement is initiating from the loose corner = wind" == The flag was being handled. Why shouldn't it move? What wind? What do you mean "loose corner"? The flag was rolled up into a tiny little roll for months. Yeah, it's going to be crinkled and bent. Did you expect it to magically just straighten itself out? Have you never opened a fresh set of sheets for your bed, and it's got crinkles still from being in the packaging for months? Why are you surprised when the same thing happens to a nylon flag? I do not understand your "beef" here? "31:24 sun is way to large in the visor." == ENGLISH!!! I'm literally waiting for you to tell me where the visor is going. I have to go back and realize that it's just a product of your illiteracy. Good grief. "The spherical shape should make everything look much smaller." == Well, that might be correct for normally lit objects. But, the sun is very bright, and the effect is to make the image "bleed out" in photography. Go take a normally exposed photo of the sun yourself, or a reflection of the sun in a mirror. It will look much larger than it actually is. That's just due to the physics of light and chemistry of the film. "31:42 glue wouldn't hold because of temperature." == What temperature would that be? Do you think they had temperature probes on literally everything? Or, do you simply not understand thermodynamics in a vacuum? (Methinks it's the latter.) "sun in visor is way too large." == Again, maybe you'd be correct if they had set up the camera to actually try to capture the sun. But, you're just showing how little you understand about photography. The irony is that if the sun was "the correct size" in the reflection, then this would mean that Apollo was fake. The only way you're going to prevent the spot from looking brighter than it was is by taking a very short exposure. But, then everything else would be super dark. You can't properly expose bright objects and simultaneously expect the sun to be the "correct" size. There WILL be a bleed-out effect of the light and chemistry on the film. You wish you found these "gotchas," but, in the massive irony that happens with all conspiratards, your "evidence" backfires in your face with the most entry-level understanding of the topic. "32:31 two or three suns in the visor?" == Yeah, glare and lens flare is funny that way. JJ Abrams made a career of intentionally inducing weird flare like that. Most movie directors have the gaffers go around and prevent that kind of glare, and have the camera guy use angles that don't generate that effect. But, he has them go around and intentionally cause those weird double/triple/quadruple exposures/angles in his films. Search for "JJ Abrams Lense Flare Compilation" (the poster of that video spells just as badly as you do) and look at all of those effects. Light shows up completely on the other side of the image. He even gets someone's hand to show up on the film completely detached from his body. No, he doesn't use CGI to do it. He uses actual photography. These are photographic effects. And, it happens especially often with bright lights. It happens with routine everyday photography on Earth also. But, you don't complain about it, or even probably notice it. Yes, light bounces around inside lenses (especially very bright lights), creating a secondary "light" to show up in the final product. It happens. But, when it happens on Earth in routine videos/photos, I'll bet you don't scream "FAKE" about those. But, if the same thing happens on Apollo, yeah, you're very quick to label it as fake. "38:24 sound through vacuum" == No, sound through the suit. If the sound was from outside, that would mean it was fake. The microphone is INSIDE the suit, not outside. Yes, it can sometimes pick up sounds through the suit. That's because sound is just vibrations. The vibrations can conduct through almost anything, not just air. "41:55 spotlight follows astronot" == White suits reflect light. Surprise surprise. "We agree on where they were:" == No. "The earth has atmosphere and scatters sunlight." == You don't know what you're talking about. You're barely literate. You clearly have never stepped foot into any university classroom on any of these subjects. You don't understand basic photography. You don't understand the difference between convex and concave. You don't understand what a "horizon" is. Good grief. What do you think you know about light scattering that the entire planet's experts have all universally missed? Did you even graduate high school? "Glue on tape wouldn't work in hot temp." == WHAT "hot temp" would that be? Good gods. What temperature do you think the glue is, and why? "Further I think you only pretend not to see the spotlights" == Reflections and bright spots in photographs work EXACTLY that way. That's what happens. You obviously have spent as much time in university photography classes as you've spent in university physics classes (zero).
    1
  8749.  @Peterkramer929  YOU SAID: "hite light coming in from the window" == What is "hite light"?? I have no idea what you're talking about, and neither do you. YOU SAID: "X Its space right: NO atmosphere means NO scattering, just blackness." == Light still comes through a window!!! A window can scatter light just fine. Good grief. YOU SAID: "X Not an answer, I've read many books on apollo, it's never even mentioned why the CM would have a lower orbit. Doesn't make any sense." == Again, I'm not going to explain orbital mechanics to you over a YouTube comment. Entire PhD programs are involved with orbital mechanics. So, I'm certainly not going to be able to explain such advanced physics over a YouTube comment. But, the very short story is that higher = slower. And, if you're setting up to be lower on the other side of the moon (like 1/2 hour later), you need to be higher when you're on the opposite side. And, thirdly, the distances we're talking about are absolutely insignificant in the images you're talking about. Those distances are nothing compared to the 60 miles that they are soon going to descend. I also asked you to explain why no aerospace engineers anywhere on Earth for the past 50 years have spotted this "problem" you think you've spotted. You ignored that question, of course. YOU SAID: "X There is a spotlight (as a lighted area) that shouldn't be there. MANY pictures have this problem." == That's just how photography and light works. Surprise surprise surprise. YOU SAID: "X It's not a horizon" == Yes, it is. YOU SAID: "its a line that divides foreground and screen. Like in 29:53: where the screen is much closer." == It's closer because they are closer to that mountain in the background!!! The drove the rover around 20-25 miles across the entire mission, going very far away from the spot where the initial photograph was taken. Good grief!!! I mean, this is just silly at this point. You conspitards are always complaining that the backgrounds look too similar to you. Then, when they travel to a highland closer to one of the mountains in the background, it looks different, and you complain about that. You're psychotic. When you feel like it, you complain it's too similar. When you feel like it, you complain that it's too different. Good grief. But, you know, there's a solution to this. Japan's JAXA/Selene lunar orbiter has confirmed all of this Apollo photography in a level of detail that simply wasn't available in 1969-1972 (except by going to the moon). They use 2D and 3D imaging, and they have confirmed all of this background stuff looks exactly as it is supposed to look. If you have a beef with it, take it up with Japan. YOU SAID: "X It SHOULD be evenly lit." == No, not always. It depends on angles and photography. Sometimes it will look evenly lit, sometimes it won't. Go take some university photography classes, good grief. YOU SAID: "X Just study the movement of the flag a few times, sound off, different speeds: the loose corner starts first. Especially in the last half second before it gets dark you can see that. Try holding a flag and let the loose corner blow up first." == I have absolutely no understanding of what you're attempting to say, and neither do you. YOU SAID: "X Good pictures without this light-bleeding have the exact same problem sun loo large. Just make a picture of a reflected sun in a helmet visor: the sun will be MUCH smaller." == Depends on the settings. Take some photos with certain settings, it'll glare out to cover the entire helmet. Take photos with a much shorter exposure, and it'll look smaller. YOU SAID: "X Radiation will make everything around 100 degr C in just a few hours." == Good grief. No. And, I mean, this doesn't make any sense at all. In your fantasy where the radiation makes everything go from -100 (negative) of the lunar night to +100 C in the lunar morning, after just a few hours, that's a 200 degree (C) swing within a few hours??? How many is "a few hours" in your mind? Why would it just stop heating, if that's what you think? Why stop at 100 C? A day on the moon from sunrise to the following sunrise is around 708 hours. Half of that is daytime. So, that's about 354 hours in the daytime. If "a few hours" heats everything from neg-100 degrees to pos-100 degrees (C), a 200 degree swing in temperature (C), then why would it just stop there? I mean, yes, stasis could be reached, of course. But, if it's THAT fast (like you're claiming), then there'd be no reason for it to stop heating at 100. It would just keep getting hotter and hotter. Remember, 354 hours in sunlight!!! You think it's 200 degrees (C) hotter within a few hours, right? What do you think would be happening for the remaining 350 hours? Why isn't the moon completely MELTED!?!?!?! If you think everything will heat up by 200 degrees (C) after just a few hours, that would include the surface of the moon, right? So, why wouldn't those rocks just keep on heating? If the rocks heat up by 200 degrees (C) in just "a few hours," then what would happen to those rocks after 354 hours in the sun??? Sheeeessssshhhh. By your model, the moon should basically be liquid by the afternoon!!! (Sigh.) Um, no. It doesn't get that hot that fast. The surface of the moon doesn't reach those super-high temperatures until the lunar afternoon (long after the astronauts left). Good grief. You have no understanding of this topic. YOU SAID: "(also interview with Armstrong where he admits that temperature)" == What ARE you talking about?!?!!?!? Armstrong wasn't even on a lunar rover mission, let alone using tape/glue. When did he "admit" any such temperature. The surface temperatures during his lunar mission were about 3 or 4 degrees (C) during his mission. Sheeeeesssssssshhhh. You are massively ignorant. I don't know what interview you're talking about, but, I'll bet you're taking something he said out of context. That's a conspiratard's greatest skill... intentionally taking things out of context. YOU SAID: "X again just do it. Modern footage of spacewalking astronots also show a very tiny sun." == Depends on the settings, type of camera, type of film, lighting conditions, etc. YOU SAID: "X Definitely NOT flare. It changes position when the helmet moves." == Yes, lens flare. What do you think happened? They had a second "spotlight" that they moved around like crazy every time the astronaut moved his head? Good gods, what nonsense. YOU SAID: "X Highly unlikely: sound DAMPENS through first rubber and then flesh. It only transmits through harder materials. It's also a CLEAR sound, not muffled." == Wrong. YOU SAID: "X You honestly think that spotlight on the ground is a reflection of the suit????" == Yes. This is well understood. YOU SAID: "(100 degr C)" == THEN WRITE UP YOUR CALCULATIONS AND SUBMIT THEM TO A SCIENCE JOURNAL!!!!!!!!! What ARE you waiting for!?!?!?! See, dummy, this is why you people have been relegated to YouTube comments (no scientific scrutiny). None of your insane claims can withstand scientific scrutiny. None. All of you conspiratards just spew this garbage into YouTube comments because you don't understand the topic, and you like to pretend you do. How many university classes have you taken on thermodynamics? And, get real here. Why do you think there are no aerospace engineers on Earth making these same complaints? Why didn't any of the 450,000 people who worked on Apollo ever say, "hey, wait a minute, why do we even bother including tape in the mission, because there's no way tape would ever survive the temperatures anyway"?? Why didn't any of them notice this "gotcha" you've spotted? Good grief. This is why you nutbags are on YouTube comments. That's where crackpots go with their anti-Apollo gibberish when they know nothing they claim will ever make it through scientific scrutiny. YOU SAID: "X you seem willfully blind." == Complete hypocrisy. You are a barely literate, and extremely ignorant, massive fool, who thinks that the entirety of the planet's experts are too dumb to realize tape won't work on the moon. You don't understand what a "horizon" is. You don't understand thermodynamics. And, I seriously doubt you've stepped into a single university classroom covering any of these topics, physics, photography, aerospace engineering, chemistry, etc. You appear to be a high school dropout, given your level of literacy. Yet, you think you understand these things better than the entire planet's experts. Dunning-Kruger. Good grief. Hey, dummy, start with the temperature argument. There are dozens of very reputable science journals that you could use to submit your 100-degree (C) arguments to. Just do those calculations. Show that the radiation of sunlight should heat up tape to 100 degrees (C) within a few hours!!!! Why are you on YouTube!?!?!?!?! Good grief.
    1
  8750.  @Peterkramer929  YOU SAID: "Why do apollo proponents always sound so immature:" == As it turns out, nobody likes ignorant people who use their ignorance as a mechanism to accuse thousands of people of being criminals who would get a lifetime in prison for the crimes they're accusing them of committing. It's mighty rude. YOU SAID: "will be my last post here." == Yeah? Which thing stumped you? Your silly "100 degree (C) in a few hours" notion, where I pointed out that, if you were correct, the moon would be melted because the lunar daytime is 354 hours long? Is that why you're running for the hills now?? Can't stand to have your ignorance scrutinized? Declare victory and run away? YOU SAID: "I just meant (White) light." == Oh, ok. My answer still stands. A window will scatter light just fine. YOU SAID: "Try to figure out for yourself why that's impossible. hint: no atmosphere" == Many things can scatter light, dummy. Not just an atmosphere. A window will do the job just fine. YOU SAID: "When I said a few i meant 30/60 hrs." == FINE!!!!!! After they put the tape on the fender, they didn't need 30-60 more hours!!! Good gods!!! How long do you think they were out there?? I mean, you're still wrong. It still won't heat up that fast. But, even if it did, they put the tape on the fender on EVA 2. They were only on the lunar surface another 30 hours (approximate) after that, then went back into the lander, and they were done for the mission. So, even in your fantasy, that's still well within the 30-60 hours before reaching the temperature you're talking about. You're STILL wrong!!!! Good gods. EDIT (correction) - they put the tape on the fender on EVA 1, but, they replaced it on EVA 2 about 20 hours later with clamps and paper. YOU SAID: "I experienced myself in the outback in Australia freezing(-1 or -2) to 35 degr in only 10 hrs." == And, you think that applies to tape on the moon in a vacuum, why??!?!!? YOU SAID: "You could certainly reach 100 degr in say 30h." == As I said, what ARE you waiting for!??!?!!? DO THOSE CALCULATIONS AND SUBMIT THEM TO A SCIENCE JOURNAL!!!!!! Calculate the thermodynamics of melting glue on a piece of tape, given the cross section of sunlight of the surface area of the tape relative to the typical sun angle on a fender, and DO THE MATH!!! Only crackpots and idiots use YouTube comments with this anti-Apollo nonsense. You people have had FIFTY YEARS to write this stuff up in scientific terms to prove your point. But, somehow, no, that never seems to happen. And, once again, I asked repeatedly, and you keep ignoring it, WHY DO YOU SUPPOSE THAT ACTUAL SCIENTISTS ANYWHERE ON EARTH DON'T AGREE WITH YOU!?!??!!?!? WHY?!?!?!! Do you believe you understand this topic better than the entire planet's experts? Why won't you answer? YOU SAID: "On the moon the ground cannot ged rid of the heat by convection so it will heat up faster than here." == Absolutely wrong. Radiating heat is far slower than heat due to contact with air/water/whatever. In a vacuum, heat transfer is SLOWER!!! You are completely BACKWARD!!! And, any child understands this. Which will make you cold faster? If you stand in 0 degree (C) air? Or, if you jump into 0 degree (C) water? It's not even a close comparison. Water will make you cold far faster than air. That's because water is more dense than air, and there's more conduction of heat between something that dense and your skin, vs. less dense and your skin. In a vacuum, there's NO contact with air/water. The only mechanism for heat transfer is radiant. That is extremely slow. Google "heat transfer" and read up. Again, all you're doing is proving that you don't have the slightest understanding of physics... yet, you think the entirety of the planet's physicists are too dumb to notice these silly things YOU notice. Dunning-Kruger galore. YOU SAID: "(and fast equil indeed, also because of very low albedo)" == You don't get your cake and eat it too. You can't claim something heats up super fast, but then claim that it stops heating super fast also. If you're saying that the low albedo is the mechanism for it to heat up fast, you don't get to claim that the low albedo is going to simultaneously make it quickly reach an equilibrium. Those are contradicting concepts. If it heats up fast, it reaches equilibrium SLOWER. If it heats up slower, it'll reach equilibrium FASTER. Good grief. Once again, as usual, you are just plain backward. YOU SAID: "I meant an interview w Armstrong where he said that the moon (ground) was considerably hotter than boiling water." == Sure, but not until the afternoon. I mean, all you'd need to do is go look at the surface temperature readings from his mission. It was much closer to FREEZING water than boiling water, on his mission. The surface temperatures during Apollo 11 were just a few degrees above the temperature water freezes. If there's some sort of interview of Armstrong talking about the temperatures on the moon, ok, fine, maybe he said that the surface reaches high temperatures. But, he certainly never said it ever happened while any astronaut was there. He may have been talking about the temperature readings of his EASEP package (left on the surface of the moon, transmitting reading back to Earth long after he left), or similar stuff from the ALSEP packages from later missions. But, he wouldn't have claimed that the surface temperatures were that hot when he was there. Again, you conspitartards are constantly taking things out of context to suit your delusions. And, although I don't know the exact quote you're talking about, I think it's a pretty safe assumption that you've taken it out of context.
    1
  8751. @Andre YOU SAID: "But this is an easy one." (about orbital mechanics) == We are dealing with a man who doesn't understand what a horizon is. I don't think he's going to understand orbital mechanics, no matter how easy we can attempt to make it for him.
    1
  8752. @Andre YOU SAID: "It's hard to tell what he really meant." == Of course. But, he's certainly not going to clarify. Or, if he does, it'll just be more of a mess. So, I just take it upon myself to give the answer to my best guess for what he meant (which is about the same as your interpretation). I probably granted too much credit to begin with. But, whatever, it's not as if these Gish Gallopers are really paying attention anyway.
    1
  8753. And, this mess was your edited version? Who filmed when the landed? (sigh) Dewdrop, can you name any footage from outside the craft during the landing? What ARE you talking about? And, in another posting, you claimed that there was a lot of evidence on your side. Yet, all you can manage to mention is this silly list of questions that make no sense? There is no footage of the landing from outside the craft, dewdrop.
    1
  8754. I think you have misunderstood. I think the officer was saying Anna (the store employee) said, "I didn't see her pay" (paraphrased). He said "I" because he was repeating what Anna was saying, not literally meaning that he himself didn't see her pay. Like, if I tell you, "my wife said, 'I'm going to get my nails done.'" I'm not saying I'm getting my nails done. I'm saying that my wife said, "I'm getting my nails done."
    1
  8755. Ok, but how do you stop it from getting out? The arrest video wasn't released until 2.5 years later, long after she was dead. I doubt she was humiliated by the couple of obscure blogs that mentioned her arrest.
    1
  8756. Good grief. What in the world are you even talking about? You think only 20K people worked on Apollo? Heck, 50,000 internationally alone worked on Apollo, let alone the 400K in the USA. 7K engineers worked on designing the lunar module. I mean, this is just ridiculous. The only 20K number I'm aware of is the 20K that worked on the launch facilities. And, to assert that the contractors didn't know what they were working on is just plain ridiculous. Quit lying in every post you make. Good grief.
    1
  8757. Huh? Are you watching a different video and then commenting on this one? Where is the "police murder" in this video? The driver is fine. But, his father is dead, of course. The driver killed his father right before this chase, and threw him into a lake. Are you claiming that, magically, somehow, the police killed the father and threw him into a lake? What? Not the brightest bulb, eh?
    1
  8758. Still not the brightest bulb, eh? Still spewing nonsense? Still didn't watch the video before commenting? Did you not see, at 2:14, the driver is shooting out of his window directly at the cop? What do you propose the cops do instead of shooting back at him? Invite him for tea and crumpets? The guy had murdered his father, and then got into this chase, shooting at the police the entire time. And, guess what, the very second that he jumped out of the passenger door, threw his gun away, and laid down on the ground, the police stopped shooting back at him. Are you proud of yourself? I mean, I realize you can't do much about your intellect (lack thereof). But, I mean, seriously, why do you bother even trying to pretend you know things you do not? Does this make you happy to accuse police of doing things they didn't do?
    1
  8759. Yes and no. They definitely tried on their suits. But, if you are asking if they wore the same suits out there when doing the ground training, driving the prototype rover, practicing gathering rock samples, etc., well, the answer is no, those were not the same suits. They had different cooling mechanisms. They didn't use full weight backpacks. Etc. And, they didn't want to wear out the real suits.
    1
  8760. If someone does a FOIA request, how can the police prevent the footage from getting released?
    1
  8761. Huh? What media ended her life? This arrest video was never put into any media until 2.5 years later, which was 1.5 years after she died.
    1
  8762. I think you do not understand the term "baby daddy."
    1
  8763. Um, dewdrop, watching conspiracy videos isn't "studying" or "research."
    1
  8764. Artemis won't be ready to take people to the moon by 2023. Probably more like 2024 or 2025. It has a lot less funding (relatively) than Apollo had.
    1
  8765. "This doesn't look like a car jacking." If this doesn't look like a carjacking, I guess I'd never know what a carjacking looks like. "Why were the cops just sitting on what looks like a private road?" So, you don't know the facts of the case, but, you think you know enough to second guess everything? Huh? They were staking out a known criminal's place (unrelated to this incident), because he had warrants. "I'm think the thought they were thugs getting ready to rob him." You'm think the thought wrong. "May be drugs they were investigating, but not a car jacking" Again, when you don't know the facts of the case, I really don't understand why you feel these random speculations of yours have any merit. "I'm disputing "Carjacking" No way is this a carjacking." Yet, you repeatedly express that you don't even know what's going on. Your understanding of this case is worse than your understanding of how to read and write in English (which is already pretty horrendous). "Undercover cops do not execute arrest warrants." Hilarious!! "Now I think from what I see is drugs." Now think English you not. "The getto girl and her "baby daddy" were probably dealing." Well, your wild speculations mean zero. But, who deals by storming up to a car door, wearing a ski mask in the middle of summer, yanking it open, and pointing a gun at the head of the driver? And, how is that type of action any different than a carjacking? At that point, I dare you to make a distinction between a carjacking and dealing. (And, that's assuming that anybody "deals" that way in the first place, which is ridiculous.) "They saw an unfamiliar car with 2 men in it, they're paranoid and thought they were about to be robbed by other drug dealers." So, they stormed up to kill them? "The undercover cops were probably there on a recon mission" Maybe they were selling Girl Scout cookies? I mean, if you're just going to make stuff up as you go along, asserting a bunch of nonsense you know nothing about, why stop there? Just keep making up more scenarios. Maybe they were from the Church of Latter-day Saints, and they were recruiting new members? "or The cops may have been there to inform a raid team." Or, maybe they were staking out a known criminal for unrelated crimes, and this bozo and his girlfriend went there to carjack them. "I'm not condemning the cops at all. . But no way was this a botched carjacking nor were they there for another matter" This is what happens when someone on YouTube is simply incapable of ever admitting being wrong about anything. You opened by asking why they were there, because you didn't know why. Someone told you why. But, you had already decided you knew better, and you're incapable of ever being wrong.
    1
  8766. YOU SAID: "You would want to be really gullible to think man walked on the moon in the late 60's" == What? Gullible? Like the entirety of the planet's space agencies? Like the entirety of the physics and aerospace engineering community world wide? YOU SAID: "with the same TEC that is in an old flip phone," == Um, no. YOU SAID: "and they say we haven't got the Technology to go back" == Well, we don't. We have the knowhow. But, the equipment itself, and all means to manufacture it, were retired almost 50 years ago. YOU SAID: "are you for real?" == I think it's quite clear that the other person was mocking you. YOU SAID: "You think that tinfoil "landing" carft landed on the moon?" == There was no tinfoil. And, yes, six of them landed on the moon. YOU SAID: "Also they lost all the data," == That's ridiculous. Why would you believe that? YOU SAID: "they gave Holland "a moon rock" but the Dutch aren't silly and had the moon rock tested and it was nothing more than petrified wood." == Wrong. NASA gave nobody a petrified wood rock. The Dutch ART MUSEUM accepted a rock without verifying it. They even contacted NASA to ask if the rock was real, and NASA said they had no such record of the rock, but would analyze it if they sent it to them. The art museum didn't take them up on the offer, and instead, stuck it in a drawer for FOURTEEN YEARS. It was instantly spotted as a fake when they finally put it on display. The nation's science museum had both of their genuine lunar samples on display for decades. Why would you believe this claptrap? If a museum accepts a fake Rolex watch as a donation, does this mean that there are no genuine Rolex watches? No? So, why would a fake moon rock be any indication of what the rest of the planet's moon rocks consist of? Don't you think the other hundreds upon hundreds of rocks would have been looked at if they found out that a Dutch sample wasn't real? No? The rest of the planet's museums are too stupid to check on their samples? No? A Dutch art museum got a fake rock as a donation, didn't lift a finger to verify if it was authentic or not, and now this means that the entire planet's samples are fake too (but nobody ever checked)? That's how this goes, in your mind? YOU SAID: "Why all the lies?" == I dunno, why do you and others like you keep lying? YOU SAID: "Let's not forget NASA have said in recent interviews that when they figure out how to get through the Van Allan belt then they can go to the moon." == That's ridiculous also. You are butchering a quote about TESTING THE ORION CAPSULE. Yes, they wanted to test the Orion capsule in 2014 before ever putting people inside. They did the same on Apollo 6. They sent an unmanned Apollo capsule through the belts and back before ever putting people up there. It passed the tests. They wanted to do the same thing for the Orion capsule, and did so. Why are you still quoting from that old video? The Orion capsule passed the tests soon after that video was made. Why are you calling it a "recent" video? YOU SAID: "I thought they already went to the moon." == Oh, so testing the Orion capsule shouldn't be done? That's how this goes? If they wanted to test the wings on a 747 airplane back in 1969, would you have said, "hey, we already have WWI biplanes, those wings have been tested, why do we need to test new wings?" No? It's not a good idea, in your mind, to test newer computers, new spacecraft, new mission parameters, etc., before putting people inside? YOU SAID: "Also 20 years later at live Aid they had trouble televising that all around the world at the same time but you think they were able to televise the moon landing all around the world at the same time in the 60's from the moon, come on man" == So, let me get this straight... in your mind, once they televise something from the moon, never again in subsequent history is anybody on the planet ever allowed to have a communication problem, otherwise the moon landings were faked?? That's your "logic" here? After the moon landings took place, the entire planet must have every communications broadcast from that point forward go flawlessly, never a single interruption allowed, otherwise the moon landings were fake?? THAT is how your brain operates?? Lay off of the drugs, you moron.
    1
  8767. No, your best bet is to just make life easier and show the receipt. But, sure, if you want to fight a crusade instead, you are correct, she's welcome to stay silent, and not provide a receipt. However, like most states, Florida is an "identify" state, which means that somebody under investigation by the police is required to provide ID. She was asked 100x, but refused. (Go watch the whole video, not this one that has been edited down.) That's an arrestable offense all on its own, as part of the "obstruction" laws. Add obfuscation, and resisting arrest, and you've got 3 charges in addition to the original suspicion of theft.
    1
  8768. First of all, why would you believe she thought she was alone? Because she said so to the police when she was attempting to get out of her millionth arrest? And, sorry, but, she ruined her own life about a decade ago. You don't get to blame the police for doing their jobs correctly. She was a convicted felon who served time in prison, and had an arrest record a mile long for other things, including drug and alcohol charges, and numerous failures to appear in court. This one little arrest was just a drop in the bucket.
    1
  8769. Cover all arguments? How long do you want the video to be? Has there ever been any documentary ever created that addresses literally every single thing? The Soviets didn't "expose" anything. They tracked the Apollo craft to the moon and back, and congratulated the USA. You have no understanding of the topic.
    1
  8770. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. So, no, this didn't lead to her suicide.
    1
  8771. Huh? The police? They got multiple calls for this incident. They dispatched 3 officers to handle it. One of the "audience" recorded the incident, and gave a copy of the video to the police. It doesn't match her sob story about nobody being around. They questioned her, and she admitted to the main act (though, it's pretty clear that she was trying to downplay what was going on). They performed the arrest. They then prevented the arrest video from being released for 2.5 years. Nobody saw it while she was alive, thanks to the police blocking its release. But, 2.5 years later, with her long gone, they could no longer block the FOIA requests. I fail to understand your issue here?
    1
  8772. It's a well known effect called pareidolia.
    1
  8773. OK, and what happens to your suit when they point out that they didn't release the arrest video until 2.5 years later, and that she was long dead by then, and it was the result of a Freedom of Information Act request when they did? Then what? Do you think your suit has any grounds?
    1
  8774. Was it addiction? Is that what did this to you?
    1
  8775. On Apollo 17, they were surrounded on 3 sides by very distinct mountains. This makes navigation a lot easier, because they always knew where they were in relation to those mountains. Also, these were experienced pilots. Pilots are always very aware of their N/S/E/W orientation. And, the sun is always a good reference point. They knew the sun was always to the east on every Apollo mission. And, as was pointed out to you, they could always follow their rover tracks if they needed to do so. As a matter of fact, they sometimes went back on the same tracks they went out on (depending on the mission plan for that particular EVA).
    1
  8776. Huh? How did the government shame her?
    1
  8777. But, they didn't shame her, dewdrop.
    1
  8778. Of course they arrested her. Why wouldn't they? Multiple people called to complain. One in the audience even took video and showed it to the police. Needless to say, it wasn't this quiet little act with nobody around that the woman is pretending. It was a loud public display in view of multiple people including children. Plus with her long arrest record, the term she spent in prison before, and open warrants, yeah, she was getting arrested. As for releasing the arrest video, yes, it's called the Freedom of Information Act, dewdrop. It would be a felony for them NOT to release it. But, the police did successfully block the release until 2.5 years later. She was already long dead before anybody saw the arrest video. But, eventually, once the investigation is closed long enough, they have no choice. Oh, but you keep on pretending to know things you don't.
    1
  8779. Multiple people called about this incident. One in the audience even took video and showed it to the police. Needless to say, it wasn't this quiet little act with nobody around that the woman is pretending. It was a loud public display in view of multiple people including children. Plus with her mile long arrest record, the term she spent in prison before, and open warrants, yes, of course, they arrested her. As for releasing the arrest video, yes, it's called the Freedom of Information Act, dewdrop. But, the police did successfully block the release until 2.5 years later. She was already long dead before anybody saw the arrest video. But, eventually, once the investigation is closed long enough, they have no choice.
    1
  8780. Multiple people called about this incident. One in the audience even took video and showed it to the police. Needless to say, it wasn't this quiet little act with nobody around that the woman is pretending. It was a loud public display in view of multiple people including children. Plus, she was a convicted felon who served time in prison, had an arrest and judgement record a mile long, and open warrants. There was no real choice but to arrest her.
    1
  8781. As for releasing the arrest video, yes, it's called the Freedom of Information Act. But, the police blocked the release until 2.5 years later. She was already long dead before anybody saw it. After the investigation was closed that long, they had no choice but to release it.
    1
  8782. They didn't release the arrest video until long after she was dead, dewdrop. And, it was the result of a Freedom of Information Act request. What else would you propose they should do?
    1
  8783. Huh? They arrested her because it was warranted to do so. But, she wasn't convicted, so, she suffered no consequences from the arrest. How did this arrest ruin her life? The arrest video wasn't made public until 1.5 years after her death. So, I have no idea what you mean.
    1
  8784. But, as I said (and you ignored), the arrest had nothing to do with the suicide.
    1
  8785. You can't go to the moon if congress doesn't allocate the money to do so. Congress decides what to spend the money on, not NASA.
    1
  8786. Dewdrop, you just can't help yourself, eh? You keep posting pure nonsense.
    1
  8787. He was "investigating" a car by walking up with a balaclava ski mask in the middle of a Kentucky summer, pulled out a gun and pointed it at the driver's head? That's how you "investigate" a car?
    1
  8788.  @mistyrainbowsystem  YOU SAID: "especially when one of the guys won life just because he had money... how fair is that? how possible is that? I mean - it's the same crime they did! we talk about the same situation!" == Well, you, of course, need to start with the realization that it's (yet another) manufactured/edited/crafted tear-the-heartstrings bullshit "news" (not news) piece, and that you shouldn't trust Diane Sawyer as far as you can throw her. Once you get that through your head, the rest of the chips fall in place rather easily. See, money had nothing to do with why the man got a different sentence than the woman got. Both the male and female murderers were offered plea deals: life imprisonment, no death penalty, in exchange for a guilty plea. The man took it. The woman, despite having already confessed, TWICE, to actively participating in the murder, decided to recant the confession, and decided to fight it in court. She got her trial. The jury found her guilty. She was given her sentence. Don't expect Diane Sawyer to say a word about that. This entire "women in prison" series appears to be full to the brim with half-truths, obfuscation, massive editing, and stories custom-tailored to make the prison system look like it's to blame for all of the problems in the world. Personally, I think ABC even goes as far as downright lies. But, well, it's tough to draw the line that far, so, I'll let you judge for yourself.
    1
  8789.  @mistyrainbowsystem  YOU SAID: "still it's stupid to plead guilty and get a lighter sentence so whatever" == Oh, what a genius legal mind you must have. Here we have a legal system that is set up to give the opportunity for criminals to plea and negotiate a sentence, rather than fighting every single case in a lengthy/expensive/risky court battle... which works 90% of the time (literally). Criminals get a chance to save their lives from the death penalty. The state gets to lower the risk and massive costs of year-long trials. But YOU think it's a bad idea, huh? I guess you want every single case to go to trial instead, huh? So, you want to put criminals in a position that there is no opportunity to simply offer a guilty plea, huh? Good gods. Hey, dummy, just stick with asking questions. The minute you express opinions... you're making an ass of yourself.
    1
  8790. 1) They weren't strangers. He knew them, and they had stolen from him before. 2) He placed his car away from the house so they wouldn't know he was home. 3) He unscrewed some of the lights so they wouldn't turn on, even if they flipped the switch. 4) He ran a recording device while he waited in the basement, clearly he knew they were coming. 5) Before either one of the teens arrived at his house, he rehearsed on that recording device what he was going to say to the police after he killed them, including "in the left eye" (he later shot the girl in the left eye). I repeat: hours before the teens even got there, he rehearsed, on tape, what he was going to tell the police about shooting them. 6) He had a tarp ready for the bodies. 7) He gathered up the bodies, and put them in the other room so they wouldn't ruin his carpet. 8) He didn't call the police until the next day. 9) After killing the first thief, he then sat quietly waiting for a long time for the other thief to arrive, then shot her too. 10) Her shirt was found opened, make of that what you will. 11) After shooting the girl in the torso, she was still alive and incapacitated, yet he didn't want her to live (his own words), and wanted to make sure she was dead (his own words), so put two bullets into her left eye (exactly as he had said on the prior recording), and then waited, and then shot another bullet under the chin up into her brain (his own words). 12) While waiting for the criminals to arrive, he was armed with two different guns, one of which was a little bit faulty. 13) After he shot one with the faulty weapon, it wouldn't fire again. So, he literally apologized to the criminal (who was still alive) for not successfully killing right away, and switched guns for the fatal shots while the criminal was on the ground.
    1
  8791. The child was in the back seat of the car. The two criminal parents (one of whom is dead now) were committing a carjacking. And, the cops let him lay there because they had to secure the scene first.
    1
  8792. They put 180 dogs through vacuum chamber trials to determine exactly what point it starts to kill them, vs. how long they can survive. It's better than using humans, but, you can pretty much assume that the physiological reactions would be pretty equivalent. Why do you have "no doubt" that they've killed people doing this?
    1
  8793.  @turbsifc1974  So, you're accusing them of killing people... based on absolutely zero evidence... bravo!!
    1
  8794. Well, you're absolutely right in that providing the receipt is the easiest and friendliest way to resolve it. But, technically, by law, she is not required to give the receipt. She is, however, required by law to provide ID (she refused), and may not obstruct/obfuscate/resist (she did all three). She is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and doesn't need to prove her innocence. However, the law requires a base level of cooperation during an investigation, and she refused to do that.
    1
  8795. Great job trusting the words of a drug addict attempting to avoid being arrested.
    1
  8796. Huh? There are no lunar satellites that can see the small stuff depicted in this video. But, three lunar orbiters (LRO, China's Chang'e, and India's Chandrayaan) have photographed the landing sites in enough detail to see the landers, foot paths, rover tracks, etc. I'm not sure what else you're asking for?
    1
  8797. "How can you travel to a place and know how to prepare for the conditions if you've never been there" Two methods: 1) Send unmanned probes first. 2) Incrementally. Each mission does a little more than the mission before it, gradually working your way up to a landing. "they definitely faked the moon landing" So, like all of your ilk, you came to your conclusions before anybody could answer your questions. What was the point of asking questions if you weren't going to wait for the answers? "and they even made movies tellin us this what more proof do we need" Do you really want to know all of the proof? Or, like your last question, did you already come to your conclusions before getting the answers? "I guess believe everything your told" So, the minute you got an answer to your question, you brushed it away? Again, why did you ask the question if you didn't want the answer? And, good grief. Don't you find it even slightly curious that the people who reject Apollo are the ones who read and write at a 2nd grade level? Sheeeesssshhh. You can't form a sentence. You can't spell. You don't understand punctuation. You clearly never graduated high school, and I have pretty significant doubt about middle school. You know you're not the brightest bulb. Why would you believe you magically understand this topic better than the world's aerospace engineers? "the people that worked closed to nasa in this documentary don't even believe it was real" Really? Who was that? Marcus Allen, a photographer so inept that he didn't even realize that the cameras detached from the spacesuits? Bill Kaysing? A writer (not an engineer) who left Rocketdyne before the first F1 rocket engine was ever launched, yet complained that the F1 couldn't do the job it was designed to do? Really? 400,000 Americans and 50,000 people internationally worked on Apollo. And, the best you can muster is a crackpot photographer and a nut pretending to be an engineer who wasn't even involved with the Apollo program? "I guess you don't believe Bill Casing or Marcus Allen" You can't even spell. What in the world do you think you know about this topic? "and they faked it" How? Please explain how they bluffed the world's radar tracking stations in friendly and enemy countries? Can you? "sorry but I don't believe everything on the internet" Yeah, just the stuff that aligns with your predetermined conclusions, huh? "So why haven't we went back" Huh? You were corrected on your silly gibberish. So, you just change topics? Why? Another question that you'll ask, but ignore the answer? "I'm just asking questions" But, dewdrop, you don't want the answers!!! What's wrong with you?
    1
  8798. Yeah. Interesting how the arrest video came out 2.5 years after the incident. And, nobody mentioned that she was dead. Then, the story that she was dead came out a couple of weeks later. In reality, she was dead for 1.5 years already by the time the arrest video was made public. Funny how "news" (not news) stories like this will manage to skew the facts in order to force the public to jump to false conclusions, all so their videos go viral. Incident = July of 2021. Suicide = March of 2022. Arrest video was made public = November of 2023. Yet, the "news" story is trying to paint the picture that the release of the arrest video had anything to do with her death?? Why? Why would you believe what you believe? Because a video told you?
    1
  8799. She was a convicted felon who spent time in a Florida prison about 6 years ago, and had a million other arrests before and after. She has zero credibility.
    1
  8800. What a train wreck. These comments are a train wreck. The exact reason she was at the bottom of the shaft has not yet been stated. We don't know if she fell down the shaft during the ride, after the ride, before the ride, or anything. We don't know if the locking mechanism wasn't working. We don't know if the girl somehow got out of her restraint. We don't know if she met the height/weight requirements. We don't know how she got past the ride vehicle itself and ended up at the bottom of the shaft. Yet, people in these comments will say just about anything that they think of, including wondering if the girl had a heart attack (and somehow ended up at the bottom of the shaft). Is nobody willing to just wait to find out the details about why the girl was at the bottom of the shaft, before coming to conclusions??
    1
  8801. Huh? How is that response even remotely close to being "proof"? Good grief.
    1
  8802. The police PREVENTED the release of the arrest video for 2.5 years. Nobody saw it while she was alive. What more do you want from them?
    1
  8803. Good grief. This video's comments is an idiot parade. Alright, can you outline EXACTLY how the cops violated the 1st and 4th amendments, by arresting him for trespassing?
    1
  8804. Well, a couple of articles I read said that his father was a convicted felon with a prison history... so....
    1
  8805. Don't you think they'd have tested for that? Why isn't the family making that accusation, yet internet heroes (who know nothing about the case) think they know better?
    1
  8806. Do you know what a crime is, vs. infraction?
    1
  8807. First of all, multiple people called the police for this incident. One person took video, which the cops said did not match this woman's description of a quiet little discreet act where nobody was around, but, was a very loud and public act in view of many people including children. Secondly, I wonder, would you feel the same if it was a man at a playground. "Oh, don't worry kids, we'll just leave and go to a different playground. Let the man do his thing." Is that how it would go, in your mind?
    1
  8808. Multiple people called about this incident. One of them recorded it and gave the video to the police. Needless to say, it doesn't match this version about "nobody was around." The witnesses said that she wandered up and down the beach, and plopped right down in front of people to do this.
    1
  8809. She was a convicted felon who served time in prison about 6 years ago. She had a million arrests, both before and after. Stealing cars. Other thefts. Drugs and alcohol. Failure to appear. Etc.
    1
  8810. Her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club. Her neighbors said she also did "private" cash transactions in her apartment. And, her family said she walked out on her husband and 6 month old son (and another son) a decade ago in order to live a life of crime and drugs.
    1
  8811. I find nothing she says credible at all. I tend to believe innocent bystanders and police before the words of a convicted felon. You apparently believe the opposite.
    1
  8812. I find it far more probable that she was making "public beach" content than blindly believing her sob story as she's attempting to avoid her millionth arrest.
    1
  8813. So, you started a comment thread on an open comment forum, making ridiculous claims about a topic you do not understand in the slightest, and you wonder why people would ask you to back up your claims with evidence? Dewdrop, backyard ham radio operators had been bouncing radio signals off of the moon since long before the Apollo program even began, using the moon as a radio reflector, talking to people half way around the world via radio "moon bounce" (or "EME"). If backyard amateurs could do it with a 20 watt radio, why would you believe it would a problem for the world's experts in communication funded by billions of dollars using dishes bigger than houses? Why are you pretending to know things you do not?
    1
  8814. "computers back in the 60’s were not like they are today" So what? What makes you believe that the computers in the 1960s weren't good enough to do the job they built them to do? What do you know about computers that IBM, Raytheon, and MIT / Draper Labs (the people who designed and built the computers used on Apollo) didn't know? They all thought the computers would do what they built them to do. What makes you think you understand it better? And, why is it relevant? You do know that they were prepared to go to the moon without computers, right?
    1
  8815. So, you came here to pretend to know things you do not. And, when challenged, you're "done arguing," and you'll run for the hills while declaring victory.
    1
  8816. You claimed radio cannot make it to the moon, and that computers couldn't do the job the engineers built them to do. That's hardly "making a point" (other than the point that you have absolutely no understanding of the topic, and you love pretending you do).
    1
  8817. "I’m not declaring anything" Dewdrop, you declared that radio couldn't make it to the moon, and that the technology didn't exist, and that the computers couldn't do what the engineers built them to do. Why are you now denying you declared what you declared?
    1
  8818. 50 years is saying technology is thousand go morning NASA did it if you always should be tonight when lies are ago on you say
    1
  8819. I'm pretty sure that was the point. "Public beach" video content is very popular.
    1
  8820. It's even funnier that you don't know what the belts are called, nor that there's more than one of them, yet, you pretend to know things you don't. Dewdrop, if you don't know what the Van Allen belts are, and you think they're called Van Ryan's belt (wrong name, wrong quantity), what could you possibly understand about them that the entire planet's experts don't?
    1
  8821. Sure, dewdrop, sure. Keep on pretending. Everyone believes every word you write.
    1
  8822. My still taking it out of context? What does that mean? Was that your 2nd grader's vocabulary level of trying to say, "you're"? What difference does it make if it's a beach or playground? Either one was a display in front of children. So, answer the question. Would you say the same if it was a man at a playground?
    1
  8823. Nice try about text-to-speech. Even that's not correct, because it would be speech-to-text. And, I don't buy a single word of it.
    1
  8824. Nobody bullied or humiliated her into suicide. Arrest = July 2021. Suicide = March 2022. Arrest video made public = November 2023. She suffered no shame from the arrest video because nobody saw it until she was dead for a long time. And, sorry, but you know darned well that you'd say differently about a man at a playground.
    1
  8825. Did you read the police report? Multiple people called the police. One woman in the "audience" even recorded the event on her cell phone, and showed that video to the police. They describe it in their report as a very loud and very public act in front of multiple people, including children. One of the witnesses told the police that she had been pacing up and down the beach, then decided to plop right down in front of a family including children, and perform. I'm sorry this doesn't match the words spoken by a woman with a mile long record of arrests and prison time for stealing cars, public drunkenness, other kinds of theft, changing her name to evade police arrests/serving notices, and all kinds of other judgements against her. But, yeah, I think I'll stick with the innocent public who didn't do all of those things, and even got this event on video.
    1
  8826. Well, I wouldn't know, I wasn't there. But, if the brother was found face-down in the pool, he couldn't have been that way too long and lived.
    1
  8827. Yeah, that certainly looks like one of the photoshopped versions. The first thing to go is green. Greens get dulled out when passing through the atmosphere and into space, and to have that level of green in the photos looks like they had to edit the greens back in. It's also likely a composite photo. But, why should you base your opinions on what some random video maker put in there? The officially published photos are labeled about whether they are photoshopped, or composites, or original. "The blue marble" is the most famous photo of Earth, as taken from Apollo 17. You'll find multiple versions of that photo also, from the dull colored ones to the ones with the colors enhanced. The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal site has them labeled accordingly. There are bunches of photos from EPIC/DSCOVR also. Go look at those. You weren't under the impression that your favorite flat Earth videos are telling the truth, are you?
    1
  8828. So, you didn't see the hole and the shattered glass of the window from the bullet that went through it? Good grief.
    1
  8829. Links are not permitted. Is it THAT hard to find without a link?
    1
  8830. "Low earth orbit" No, dewdrop. You don't get to change what you said after the fact.
    1
  8831. "focus now is on sending humans beyond low-Earth orbit to Mars" So, you KNOW he was talking about Mars, and you've somehow twisted this to mean Apollo was fake?
    1
  8832.  @aok4418  Yes, dewdrop. And, they're talking about going to MARS!!! The exposure for a week is vastly different than exposure for 1+ years.
    1
  8833. If it's accomplishments you're interested in, then worship Armstrong's chemists.
    1
  8834. Oh, because the convicted felon who spent time in prison, and had a million prior arrests, says that she didn't think anybody was around. Let's believe every word. Or, hmmm, maybe the witnesses who recorded it on video might have a point, eh? People WERE around, including children.
    1
  8835. The charges were dropped because she had the receipt after all, even though she didn't want to provide it. She got a very high profile attorney to represent her, and they sued the store for $50,000. The court threw her case out "with prejudice" (which is a legal term that means the case was so bad that she is never allowed to re-file the case). They never filed a case against the police, of course, because there is no case to be had, the police didn't do anything wrong.
    1
  8836. Yeah, that's the problem with criminals: they don't hang out with saints. This is why criminals are often out'd by other shady folks. Andreu isn't sqeaky clean, but she isn't a criminal. Anyway, what would you do if you found out randomly that YOUR trust in someone was misplaced? Let's take your own situation. You find out that your trusted friend was actually a criminal and a cheater, who is going around destroying other people's lives. You find it out in a weird setting, but do you keep quiet?
    1
  8837. Huh? How quickly you forget the cases where cops are convicted. But, let me just ask you, do you think it's a 50/50 ratio or something? Did it ever occur to you that, maybe, just maybe, the reason there's not much footage of cops doing something wrong, is because, a vast majority of the time, the criminals are the ones who do something wrong? This isn't a coin flip here, you know. The criminals are the bad guys, remember? The cops are the good guys. Yeah, there are some bad apples in every profession on Earth, including cops. But, get real here, most of them do the right thing.
    1
  8838. Well, it's really difficult for convicted felons to leave the country, at least legally. So, I doubt she was going anywhere. I don't know the details, but, she might not have even been allowed to leave the state.
    1
  8839. Bingo. She lost the lawsuit, though, so it backfired.
    1
  8840. Because a crime was happening, so, yes, one of the "audience" captured it on video to show the police. Why is this difficult to understand?
    1
  8841. Pause at 0:08 in the video and go frame by frame. The criminal pulls the gun out as he is walking to the door of the car, and points it directly at the cop's head as the door is opening. You do not know what you are talking about. Nobody cares about your wartime experience, when you're using as a tool to demean someone who just barely saved his own life against an armed attacker.
    1
  8842. Well, maybe of she should of thought of that of before of putting of on a show of in front of the public (including of children) of at the beach of of. That's of an aggravated misdemeanor of.
    1
  8843. And this mess was your edited version? How bad was the first version you wrote?
    1
  8844. Huh? Self defense isn't murder, no matter who it is, cop or not.
    1
  8845.  @dgdave2673  I did the math. Maybe you should read my posting in which I did the math, before asking me to do the math. But, since you said it was "incoherent," I take it that you can't do the math.
    1
  8846.  @deanhall6045  Faking it would be far more difficult, for a million reasons. Like, would you care to explain how they "faked" the radar and radio telescope tracking? Dozens of countries (including enemies) used radar and radio telescopes to track the Apollo missions to the moon and back. Do you think that can be faked? How?
    1
  8847.  @deanhall6045  "Explain how Humans went through the Van Allen radiation belt first." By going quickly. It takes a week or two in the inner belt before getting a fatal dose. You don't know what you're talking about. "No one tracked anything" Huh? Dozens of countries tracked Apollo, dewdrop. Again, you don't know anything.
    1
  8848.  @deanhall6045  "the only country that could send back images was here in N.S.W Australia." No. The DSN consisted of Australia, Spain, and Goldstone, USA. Those were the 3 countries with dish arrays set up to receive video transmissions. But, audio could be received by any country facing the moon. "The 'Dish' was controlled by CIA" Not even close. "The excuses for not being able to track it are listed" Track what? Are you confusing radio video signals with radar? Again, you don't know anything.
    1
  8849.  @deanhall6045  " Kelly Smith NASA lecture and let him explain to you how humans cannot go through the Van Allen Belts. Not me, him." Dewdrop, do you think nobody has seen that silly little video made for children? It's a hallmark of you people who don't know anything. He was talking about needing to test Orion before putting people inside. Yes, some of Orion's mission profiles could include longer stays in the Van Allen belts, or perhaps even to extended missions to Mars, etc. Orion's electronics could be vulnerable to particle radiation, and it requires beefier shielding than prior craft. They wanted to test it in the belts unmanned before putting people inside. And, they did that in 2014. Why are you quoting from a decade old video, which talked about the Van Allen belts for about 30 seconds, and then assuming you know more than the entire planet's experts? Good grief. Dewdrop, I myself have done the calculations back before you were born. I know exactly how much exposure risk the astronauts would have. You undoubtedly don't even know what type of radiation we're talking about here. Good grief. Sorry, you don't just get to take 30 seconds from a video made for children then pretend you know more than the entire planet's aerospace engineers and radiobiologists. But, if you do think that, then be my guest. Do a writeup. Publish in a journal on radiobiology. Show your calculations and conclusions. I promise, I'll be your first rebuttal, just let me know which journal you publish in.
    1
  8850.  @FuhrerOrban  And, you'd believe they never took a shot at Earth, why? Did a conspiracy video tell you that, and you never looked for yourself? I mean, good grief, on one of the Apollo 11 film rolls, there must be 90 or 100 shots of the Earth in a row. And, of course, every other mission took some photos of Earth. Obviously, you have never looked at the archive yourself.
    1
  8851.  @ZionistZooTube  "MORE amazing is they lost 1,000 priceless tapes of the events" Wrong. They lost 2 backup tapes (the primary copies were never lost). But, none of you people can read or write. The article stated that they may have lost those two backup tapes by accidentally mixing them with over a thousand other tapes from that era. But, no, the thousand+ tapes were not valuable at all. The only two of value were the two backup tapes that they were looking for. But, again, reading comprehension isn't your thing. So, you don't understand it. "and the 4 FOOT of LEAD shielding" There is not a single aerospace engineer on the planet that would ever use lead as radiation shielding for Van Allen belt radiation. Not one. Why? Because lead causes Bremsstrahlung secondary radiation for that type of exposure. But, you're not an aerospace engineer. A conspiracy video told you that lead was required, and you just believed it. Sorry, dewdrop, but, if you think you understand aerospace engineering because you watched conspiracy videos on YouTube, you don't. The only thing you're exposing here is your extreme gullibility to swallow any nonsense that you believe supports your delusions. "what CGIs could do back then." CGI in the 1960s? Before there even existed a computer capable of rendering CGI? Sure. You're a real genius alright.
    1
  8852. Well, they probably know better than you do about trusting anything you see on Inside Edition.
    1
  8853.  @linanicolia1994  YOU SAID: "it is likely why the girl drowned and was brain dead before they could recover her." == Yes, they said there was very little brain activity. And, she died a few days later. YOU SAID: "Someone should have fished them out." == Yes, someone did. YOU SAID: "You let them drink to oblivion" == So, it's the resort's responsibility to run blood alcohol tests on their legal adult guests? Is there a resort anywhere on Earth who does that? YOU SAID: "and when they pass out, face first in the water, you do not get them out?" == They did get them out. YOU SAID: "In the US, the last bartender that allows people to drive drunk to their car is guilty of manslaughter. Should be the same in Mexico." == This isn't a bar. This is a resort. Nobody was driving anywhere. You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Where are you getting your insane notions from? What possible reason do you have to believe anything that you believe?
    1
  8854. Huh? The video wasn't released until 1.5 years after she died. You don't know what you're talking about.
    1
  8855. Like your high school senior year?
    1
  8856. But, no media aired this arrest until 1.5 years after she died. So, um, no.
    1
  8857. A) There's no shortage of this behavior in any state. B) This happened in Kentucky (red state).
    1
  8858. What channels on YouTube covered this while she was alive?
    1
  8859. Well, her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club. I highly doubt she'd lose her job over being exposed in public.
    1
  8860. The first part of your sentence is correct (according to her landlord and neighbors). But, the second part is wrong, it was a suicide.
    1
  8861. But, there was nearly zero media exposure until long after she was dead.
    1
  8862. Well, at least part of your nickname is accurate.
    1
  8863. Huh? Who do you think humiliated her? And, how?
    1
  8864. The police blocked the release of the arrest video until November 24, 2023. She died 2 years ago. How is her death on them?
    1
  8865. Huh? 9mm hollow point pistol rounds don't penetrate a truck very well. Most rounds didn't even go through the glass. The only couple of hits that went through to hit the guy barely even had enough energy remaining to break the skin. He even got hit in the face with one round, and all it did was leave a little bruise looking spot.
    1
  8866. Well, that's what she asked for in the lawsuit. But, she's getting $0.00, because the case was tossed out of court, as it should be.
    1
  8867. And, it's hard to believe that a company like Walgreens would invest in a fake blood testing machine. But, they did. And, it's hard to believe that tons of prestigious investment firms would give billions to Bernie Madoff, who never made a single trade with any of that money. But, they did. I wonder how Pepsi feels today, by the way. After waiting 5 years instead of 2 years for these trucks, they expected that this December "delivery" event would hand them 15 trucks (with a couple hundred more down the road). As little as 6 weeks ago, they still told the press that they'd get those trucks on December 1. But, nope. They aren't getting them, are they? Tesla is not selling any of them yet. This "delivery" event is nothing of the sort. It's still in prototype stage, and they haven't gotten approval to sell them. And, as Thunderf00t has been saying, I personally think that they don't actually want to sell them anyway, because these trucking companies are in for a real shocker when they find out that they can't charge them quickly, can't go very far, and can't carry very much.
    1
  8868. That's some impressive libel. Got any evidence?
    1
  8869.  @williammann9176  No Saturn V ever failed to the point of the loss of the craft. The SLS didn't fail either. And, sorry, but yes, we can learn today from the failures of the past. But, the main annoyance is that Musk KNEW the Starship launch would be a failure, and did it anyway. He throws away taxpayer and investor money like it's candy, and is more interested in making a spectacle than in actually running a proper rocket program.
    1
  8870. Religious reasons? I don't understand. Which religion has a holy book that even mentions vaccines?
    1
  8871. People aren't not going to help when not down, especially not when they couldn't not talk.
    1
  8872.  @davonel126  "you can surely send a probe to the landing site with a high resolution camera and take pictures" Spare the world, seriously. You obviously do not mean what you're saying. Orbital probes from 4 different countries have spotted the Apollo landers on the lunar surface. Don't pretend that you'd suddenly be convinced by photos from closer. You'll still deny them, insisting that it's CGI. Tell me I'm wrong.
    1
  8873.  @lorinlazarescu2520  YOU SAID: "I will answer to you... because they never reached the moon :)" == You're an idiot. Of course they did. YOU SAID: "there are many questions which NASA does not want to answer ;)" == How do you think this works? Do you think NASA staffs a hotline of tens of thousands of Apollo experts to answer the tens of thousands of ignorant idiots who would call up to ask stupid questions? How/why EXACTLY do you expect them to answer stupid questions? Who EXACTLY is supposed to answer idiots who think the moon landings didn't happen? And, what difference would it make anyway? If they did staff tens of thousands of people to answer questions, would you start believing the answers?? No, you'd just deny the answers anyway. You're an idiot. That's how idiots work. YOU SAID (when asked to explain the laser reflectors on the moon): "these are not related to the moon" == So, you're claiming that the laser reflectors on the moon are not related to the moon?? What a dummy. And, you wonder why NASA doesn't bother answering questions from people THAT stupid?? Laser reflectors on the moon are not related to the moon??? Good gods. Lay off the drugs, you moron. Look at what they've done to you.
    1
  8874. (part 2) I don't know what has happened to the public between the time I was born and now, and why the public's image of company owners is so negative. We work our whole lives to build something, taking enormous financial risk, always paying employees before we pay ourselves. If/when we fire someone, it's always because of good cause. Good employees are so hard to find. Why would we fire a good one when we have one? Over this? No way. I'll bet this idiot does a million other bad-judgment things.
    1
  8875.  @DeputyNordburg  The bounces are not merely more accurate, but there are orders of magnitude more photons returned. Failing to know the difference between a bounce from a random section of the moon just consisting of dust and rocks vs. a bounce from hitting a reflector would be like failing to know the difference between a 4-seater speedboat and an aircraft carrier.
    1
  8876.  @DeputyNordburg  Take a look at some of the return graphs for with reflectors and without.
    1
  8877.  @DeputyNordburg  Well, it's not like I've ever operated one of those laser ranging facilities... errr... wait.
    1
  8878.  @DeputyNordburg  And, no, that's not the source of the variability.
    1
  8879.  @DeputyNordburg  I am not saying that the words you copied are wrong. They are correct. I'm not sure what you don't understand here.
    1
  8880.  @DeputyNordburg  Is it possible that you've misread my initial response? "The bounces are not merely more accurate, but there are orders of magnitude more photons returned." Like, maybe the word "merely" is throwing off your interpretation of what I meant? I was saying, yes, it's more accurate, but, I was ADDING the fact that are orders of magnitude more photons. And, as has been pointed out by the other guy, it's actually the added photons that make it more accurate.
    1
  8881.  @DeputyNordburg  There's no hope here. You're not paying attention.
    1
  8882. Good grief. Nobody says that the goal was more photons returned. The goal was more accuracy. But, this was achieved by having more actual lased photons reflected. You are deliberately not paying attention to what John says, and what I'm saying. I operated the one at McDonald Observatory back in the mid-80s. I don't know which one John operated, and I don't care. The science is the same, even if the lasers now are better. You made the statement that the variable lunar landscape is the reason for the variable readings. That's not correct. That's a drop in the bucket next to all of the false positives. You'd send a pulse to a spot without a reflector, and usually get nothing back. You'd get something back about one in 10 pulses. But, often those were not actually getting something "back" anyway, and were merely a random photon that was close enough in wavelength to register. You'd have to use some mathematical modeling to get a good enough approximation for which hits were "real," vs. which hits were false positive. With a reflector, however, you get photons back on virtually every pulse you send. You can't help but get the false positives also, but, those are drowned out by massive amount of actual hits. As I have said repeatedly, this is more easily understood by looking at the graphs. Wiki "Lunar Laser Ranging experiments" and see one of them. Now, imagine that very same graph, except it doesn't include the very dense line of tons of hits from the reflector, and that's what the graph looks like when you aim at a random spot on the moon that doesn't have a reflector. Almost all of those random dots on the graph... that aren't part of the main line... are false positives. They were not actually reflected. A random photon of the correct wavelength (or close enough anyway) found its way into the receptor, and registered a hit. The only ones that were actual hits are the ones you find on that very dense line, which is, again, orders of magnitude more than the number of actual hits from a random spot on the moon. I have no desire to battle someone on the side of the good guys, which you are, but, you haven't got the slightest understanding of this topic, and should stop pretending you do. No, I'm not going to go look up some article somewhere that tells people how to make the calculations, and counts photons for you. I'm telling you how it works. Take it or leave it.
    1
  8883. Pfftt. Really? You think that the law works that way? You think the officer needs to prove the case at the side of the road? Um, no. The officer's job/duty is to arrest someone if there's reasonable suspicion of a crime. He doesn't need to 100% prove anything at the side of the road. He needs only to determine if there's enough evidence to justify reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed. The store employee "Anna" told the officer that the person went through without paying. The officer stopped the woman, who refused to offer a receipt. She then refused to provide ID or identify herself (which is required by law if a police officer is doing an investigation). And, then she resisted arrest. I'd say that's more than enough for reasonable suspicion of a crime. Sure, if she lost her receipt, then she could say so. But, that's not what she claimed. She said she has the receipt, but refused to show it. Anyway, you'd lose such a lawsuit. An officer's DUTY is to arrest you if there's enough reasonable suspicion. The officer doesn't need to prove anything. That's what the courts are for. You have dramatically misunderstood the law, and, you apparently believe that the side of the road is the same as a court. It's not. The side of the road is where the officer decides whether there's enough evidence for reasonable suspicion of a crime. And, the courts are where proof is provided. You don't get to sit there and sue someone because you think the side of the road is the same as a court.
    1
  8884.  @bhzard  Pffttt. So, you think the store should never ask a cop to stop someone until after they build their case? Amazing. You're quite amazing. Absolutely amazing. Good luck with that.
    1
  8885. Oh, so you worked at a store, therefore you understand better than I do. Right. Sure. You've already been proven wrong, and it doesn't make any difference what I say about it. The court has spoken, because they threw her lawsuit out the window, because she has no case whatsoever.
    1
  8886. You might understand it better if you learned to read and write better than an 8 year old.
    1
  8887. Thoes atomik new what really go on whol plan on JFK actor too creat atenshun boms Japan only control film footuge there was few tops just like plan compartment dun were fake!!!
    1
  8888.  @yassassin6425  Alex Jones believes Apollo went to the moon, by the way. But, your point is well understood.
    1
  8889. That's ridiculous. The police do not make those kinds of decisions. Like it or not, the board CAN trespass people. And, yes, the cops have to trespass them, if they refuse to leave. Your hatred of the police is completely misguided and misplaced.
    1
  8890.  @HeartlandFamilyDesigns  YOU SAID: " your assumptions are completely incorrect. I love the police." == Yet, apparently not THESE police. YOU SAID: "I think based solely on the tape and not being there in person, that the sheriff was incorrect in what he did." == Wrong. The board trespassed the man. The police must ask the man to leave, and if he doesn't, they must uphold that trespass. YOU SAID: "The gentleman said that they were allowed to be there until 7pm. He then said that he was arrested at 5:45." == Fine. But, the board asked him to leave. If I throw a party at my house, and I say it'll last until 11pm, and I change my mind and end it early, you must leave my house, else you are trespassing. YOU SAID: "They were suddenly trespassing on public grounds?" == Irrelevant. You are confusing a public sidewalk with a building that happens to be owned by the public. Yes, trespassing applies to public buildings also. Officials in a publicly owned building can trespass people. It happens all the time. YOU SAID: "It looks like the school board didn't like what they were being told and decided to close early and run away." == YES!!!! YES!!!!! The pathetic cowardly board members, who should be booted out of office, CLOSED EARLY!!!! Hence, anybody who refuses to leave, is trespassing. YOU SAID: "Personally if I were there gentleman I probably would've taken it outside if there school board left." == There school board? There? What? Did you mean "their" school board? What? YOU SAID: "I don't know the rules in the area" == Obviously. YOU SAID: "BUT there is a right to free speech." == The man wasn't arrested for speech, he was arrested for TRESPASSING!!!! Good grief. Look, you obviously don't understand some very basic concepts here, so let me give you an analogy. If the man, hypothetically, was buck naked when he was speaking, and the cops arrest him, are you going to say he was arrested for speech? Or, are you going to say he was arrested for public nudity? Do you understand? My point is, speech has nothing to do with why he was arrested. He was arrested for TRESPASSING. YOU SAID: "Is that the gentleman getting tackled? I don't see where that's called for (I'm guessing not all of the tape was shown). Crap like this shouldn't be settled like this. Humans needs to start acting like grown ups and not 3 year olds." == Yes, and the man should have left when asked, and sued the school board, along with every other parent in that school who should join him in the lawsuit against the ridiculous school board. THAT is how to handle these things. Good grief.
    1
  8891.  @HeartlandFamilyDesigns  You said the police need to be sued. You are wrong. Your position on that particular matter is wrong. Your position about the board is correct.
    1
  8892.  @HeartlandFamilyDesigns  They didn't have a right to be there. The officials asked them to leave. Spare me your mocking tone. You don't know what you're talking about, and your ignorance bleeds through every word you write. See, this is the thing about YouTube comments... people like you feel as though your ability to write a message... somehow makes you correct. Like, your ability to write it down, makes you an authority. You can sit there all day long and say the cops were "doing it wrong." But, notice anything?? Nobody, and I mean NOBODY in the media is even claiming that the arrest was wrongful. They don't say it in this media clip. They don't say it in other media clips. Nobody. And, you got your facts wrong in the first posting. You thought they were arrested for something constitutional, remember? You didn't even realize they were arrested for trespassing (not a constitutional issue). But, whatever, like most YouTube commenters, you're simply incapable of ever being wrong. Every opinion you ever express is correct.
    1
  8893.  @HeartlandFamilyDesigns  YOU SAID: "the guy said he had a right to be there exercising his right to free speech, that is what I'm basing my opinion on. That's it." == Well, congratulations for admitting that you are so one-dimensional, so focused on ONE thing, that you fail to understand why he was trespassing. Dummy, he wasn't arrested for free speech!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How many times have you been told this??? What IS wrong with you? Did you not understand the public nudity analogy?? I don't think you did. If the man was naked in public, you'd be one of those idiots saying he was arrested for free speech, instead of realizing that he was arrested for public nudity. YOU SAID: "I actually said more than once that my opinion is based on what I saw." == And, you're wrong. You saw wrong. You interpreted wrong. He was arrested for trespassing, not for speech. YOU SAID: "I never said that I was the end all be all in authority of the situation." == Obviously. YOU SAID: "I also said that I assumed this was the entire story." == Did you fail to hear the part of the story where they clearly said he was being arrested for TRESPASSING??!? Not speech!!!!?!?!? YOU SAID: "What is getting you so upset?" == Because you're a brick wall. Nobody likes a brick wall. YOU SAID: "An opinion can't be wrong, it's an opinion." == An opinion can't be wrong?? With that, I will not bother with you again. This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read in my life. If your opinion was that 2+2=97, your opinion can't be wrong? What?? YOU SAID: "You on the other hand seen very triggered by something." == Just illiterate brick walls who don't understand anything whatsoever. YOU SAID: "It still makes me smile when I see that you are so all knowing that you know when someone else's opinion (you might need to Google that word) is wrong. That's not how life works." == Oh, yes, I really need a lesson in how life works from a barely literate internet clod who thinks opinions can't be wrong, who doesn't understand what trespassing means, and who is only capable of focusing on one aspect of a story, ignoring all of the details. Yes, please teach me how life works.
    1
  8894. Secure the scene first, aid second. Else, you have a cop who needs the aid also. One guy crawled out of the woodwork with a gun, a screaming banshee arrived seconds later, who's to say how many more would crawl out of the woodwork if/when the cop focused on aid instead of securing the scene?
    1
  8895. So, you insist NOT to understand.
    1
  8896. So, you insist NOT to understand.
    1
  8897. I'm not the one actively trying NOT to understand.
    1
  8898. I'm not the one saying that they're "doing it wrong" while not understanding the first thing about procedures and training, dewdrop. That's YOU. How do you think this works? You think a YouTube keyboard warrior like you knows better than every trained professional in the video?
    1
  8899. There are photos from lunar orbit from Arizona State University's LRO camera, India's Chandrayaan orbital camera, and China's Chang'e-2 camera that show the landers on the lunar surface. It doesn't matter to the deniers. No amount of photos convince them. They just keep increasing the number of countries and people that participate in "the deception."
    1
  8900. Are you talking about the Blue Marble photo?
    1
  8901. Well, then you'll be relieved to know that the police had nothing to do with it. Arrest = July 2021. Suicide = March 2022. Arrest video released = November 2023. It was probably the result of a legal FOIA request. And, since the case was long over, and she was already dead, the police had no choice but to release the video. So, whew, I guess this means you'll be dropping those murder charges, right?
    1
  8902. So, let me guess: for you, ANY explanation is made up, right? This is because your mind was made up before you got any explanations. Or, can you actually name an explanation you'd accept?
    1
  8903. Infraction vs. crime.
    1
  8904. How does the media "bully" someone who isn't even alive?
    1
  8905.  @TexMex421  RCA was not involved with the TV cameras until Apollo 15. The ones on Apollo 11 were from Westinghouse (the same manufacturer as the ones inside the command module).
    1
  8906. By keeping the film inside the aluminum and silver canisters. A vast majority of the radiation that affects film is LIGHT. That's actually how film works to begin with. It's exposed to light radiation, which causes a chemical reaction on the film, producing an image. All cameras, on Earth or on the moon, keep film inside containers to block light (except when the shudder opens on the camera). For Earth, the containers are/were usually just plastic film role containers that you insert into the camera. For the moon, they were also worried about reflecting a bunch more energy, so, instead of just plastic, they also encased them in aluminum and silver. But, from your wording, I suspect you've been listening to conspiracy videos that present a greatly misunderstood representation of the radiation.
    1
  8907.  @Dave-bq6gy  "Satellites orbiting 300 miles above the earth can show the detail of my garden furniture even through the earths distorting atmosphere." Not even close. "There's this thing called Google Earth, take a look, it's free" Take a look at the Google Earth FAQ pages where they tell you that they use low flying airplanes to produce those images. Usually about 1,200 feet (that's below skyscraper height). Good grief. Then you had the audacity to blame the other people who informed you of this? Like, it's THEIR fault you didn't read the FAQ?
    1
  8908. There must be 1000 commenters saying those exact words. Funny that almost none of you ever say what they should have done differently.
    1
  8909. Pure nonsense. The officer was told by a store employee that she saw the woman go through the checkout area without paying. That gives the officer enough cause to investigate, and question the person. When the woman refused to provide a receipt, that's enough reason for the officer to investigate further. And, when the woman refused to identify herself, she committed a crime right there, regardless of whether she was also guilty of stealing. And, resisting arrest is just the icing on the cake. I fail to understand why you can blame the officer one bit. You can blame Publix for getting the facts wrong, sure. But, I don't see how the officer is to blame. And, you can blame the woman for failing to identify, and for resisting arrest. Her $50,000 lawsuit against Publix was thrown out (as it should be). Ironically, she'd probably have a much stronger case against Publix if she would have cooperated with the police.
    1
  8910.  @julianherbert1956  Congratulations on proving you didn't bother reading what I wrote before replying. Publix isn't going to settle anything. Her case was thrown out of court with prejudice. Publix owes her nothing. If you cannot be bothered to read my reply before you declare that I'm wrong, then I cannot help you.
    1
  8911. You truly have a habit of not reading replies before answering, huh?
    1
  8912. If you don't bother reading anything before you respond, how do you think you're in a position to think ANYTHING about what I've said?
    1
  8913. So, you just wanted to hear yourself talk. You want everyone to read what you have to say, but you're not open for anybody to respond. Bravo.
    1
  8914. And, the media was supposed to provide that help?
    1
  8915. Huh? What EXACT Apollo "data" do you think is lost? And, why would any of this "data" be required to go back?
    1
  8916. There were NINE manned missions to the moon, six of which landed. The rest of the Apollo manned missions were in low Earth orbit (i.e. Apollo 7, Apollo 9, Apollo-Soyuz, and the Skylab Apollo applications program missions).
    1
  8917. Freedom of Information Act. How do you prevent its release? And, they didn't release it until long after she was already dead. So, I don't know what you're talking about, and neither do you.
    1
  8918. Well, she's not their mother, but I get the point.
    1
  8919. You might have a better shot of understanding things if you went back to grammar school and learned English.
    1
  8920. A) Musk doesn't ride his own rockets. He knows better. B) What do you think Starship is?
    1
  8921. First, secure the scene and get backup. THEN administer aid. Any other method could end up with cops that need the exact same aid. When someone points a gun at a cop and a screaming woman is right behind, who knows how many others might be coming. Safety first.
    1
  8922. They still didn't know how secure the location was.
    1
  8923. Oh, do go on. Don't stop there. You're on a roll.
    1
  8924. Huh? The footage was broadcasted and distributed to thousands of media outlets around the world, many of whom recorded it. If anybody changed the footage since then, there would be hundreds or thousands of copies out there that would easily show the differences. How far gone are you? I mean, good grief. My family was an early adopter of the VCR. I don't think we had one in 1972, but probably by 1974. I used to record all of the Apollo stuff on TV back in those days. Furthermore, you could send away for the original videos from NASA. I mean, sheeessshhh, what is wrong with you? Look at how you have to twist and turn and come up with imaginary silly conspiracy junk to make your predetermined conclusions fit. YOU are the one asserting CGI here, dewdrop. You're wrong. You're laughably wrong. Just accept it and move on. Stop trying to find reasons to make yourself believe silly things.
    1
  8925. Huh? So, what are you proposing? Never stop a criminal unless they steal more than $2000 worth of stuff? What kind of world would that create?
    1
  8926. Huh? The Freedom of Information Act says the exact opposite.
    1
  8927. Well, you could start by reading the Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  8928. They dropped the charges.
    1
  8929. Sorry that you blindly believe everything you see. Arrest = July of 2021. Suicide = March of 2022. Arrest video made public = November of 2023. I'm sorry you blindly eat up any garbage Inside Edition feeds you. But, yeah, the reality is that the release of her arrest video had absolutely nothing to do with her suicide.
    1
  8930. A) That's not how aggravated misdemeanors work.
    1
  8931. B) What about her extensive criminal record and open warrants? No? Just let her report on her own?
    1
  8932. The arrest video was released due to FOIA 2.5 years later, after she was long dead. Nobody saw it while she was alive.
    1
  8933. No. A real journalist would first get the dates straight. July 2021 = arrest. March 2022 = suicide. November 2023 = arrest video made public.
    1
  8934. Starting your drunken weekend a little early? What camera shot at what cop? What are you talking about?
    1
  8935. Really? Which media would that be?
    1
  8936. I think you don't understand the term "baby daddy."
    1
  8937. Huh? How'd they get so many dozens of countries to participate, including enemy countries like the Soviets?
    1
  8938. I'm not sure why you'd believe that those were the only items she was stealing in that bulky coat of hers... especially given that she went right back to stealing from Walgreens after this incident. But, it makes little difference now, because her drug habit killed her.
    1
  8939. How pathetic are you? Rittenhouse was "hunting"? Yeah, those armed rioters who were trying to harm him... yeah, sure looked like "hunting" to me. Right. Sure. Sorry, dewdrop, your extreme biases are showing. Thankfully, you'll never be more than an internet crank making comments on YouTube.
    1
  8940. So, you think her three attorneys didn't know what they were doing? Um, no. I think that they only sued, asking for $50,000, because they knew they had almost no case, and they were hoping that a low number would just bait the store into a quick settlement, rather than a long and expensive legal battle. The store didn't take that bait, probably because they knew that settling would just bring out a million more people just like her, trying to provoke a bunch of useless lawsuits. So, the store took the longer route, and the woman's case was dismissed, and she will be getting $0.00. I think if she requested 6 or 7 figures, it would have ended in the exact same way.
    1
  8941. Perfect nickname.
    1
  8942. Wrong. He should have called the cops months before, as soon as he knew who was repeatedly robbing him. Or, minimally, he should have called the cops on that day and asked them to come help them catch the teens in the act.
    1
  8943. You obviously don't have the slightest understanding of this case. And, given your nickname, you don't understand anything about the shape of the planet you live upon either. Do you REALLY think that the entirety of the police, district attorney's office, judges, jury, appellate court, state supreme court, and US Supreme Court, all do not understand this case, but YOU do? Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. The reason Smith is in prison is because he murdered two teens. It wasn't an act of self defense, like you'd get from the failed robbery you're implying. He PLANNED the murders. He went a million miles past the line between self defense and murder.
    1
  8944. Can you elaborate with timestamps in the video? I'd like to see exactly what you mean, but I'm not sure.
    1
  8945. Thanks for the link! Much appreciated.
    1
  8946. Huh? Sue the media, well, I'm no legal expert, but, I'm not 100% sure what the basis would be. But, sue the police? Huh? What do you think the police did?
    1
  8947. Um, no. That wasn't her son. You need to understand the term "baby daddy."
    1
  8948. Poseidon already acknowledged the moon landings.
    1
  8949. YOU SAID: "Why can't these guys just walk on the moon instead of hopping" == They all tried various types of walking/hopping around. Sometimes they hopped. Sometimes they walked. Sometimes they ran. They all tried to get comfortable with whatever worked best for them in those pressure suits with the big life support backpack. YOU SAID: "like they are being lifted by wires?" == There are no wires. YOU SAID: "Sure he is lighter weight on the moon but on earth a lighter weight kid wouldn't float bounce like that, he'd just walk exactly like a man." == Wait, what? Are you under the impression that the physics are the same, but you're just lighter on the moon? Um, no. With 1/6th gravity, you're lighter, but, there's more to it than that. The gravity is actually pulling you down much more slowly than on Earth. And, strap a big backpack on, and a pressure suit, and that changes a lot of stuff with it (center of gravity, range of motion, etc.). YOU SAID: "And when the astronaut fell over forwards he seems to be hoisted up a bit before the movie just cuts off." == No, but with everything lighter than on Earth, it takes less effort to push up with his arms. YOU SAID: "Can nasa show him walking" == Have you bothered to watch all of the hours of video, rather than just documentaries? YOU SAID: "instead of him appearing to be hoisted up and lowered?" == That's not what it looks like. It looks like an astronaut in 1/6th gravity. YOU SAID: "The astronaut said he loves this hoisted bounce looking walk." == No, the astronauts never said they were hoisted. But, yes, many of them liked the bouncing. YOU SAID: "Why can't he just walk?" == Have you bothered to watch all of the hours of video, rather than just documentaries? YOU SAID: "Why cut the camera just before you could show him pushing himself up with bended knee and one foot in front of him like all humans get up,on the moon as well?" == Have you bothered to watch all of the hours of video, rather than just documentaries?
    1
  8950. Also, there were tracking stations run by dozens of countries around the world, not just the one you worked at.
    1
  8951. Huh? The cop was told by the store employee that she left without paying. The woman was then very non-cooperative, and refused to show a receipt. Yes, that's plenty of reasonable suspicion of the crime. You were correct when you said she's under no obligation to assist the investigation. However, she is required by law to ID herself in such an investigation, and to comply if told she's under arrest. This has been proven a million times over, the 5th amendment doesn't allow you to refuse to identify yourself or resist arrest. And, for you to conclude that this woman (and you) somehow know more about this system than trained police, prosecutors, and the judges involved in this case, is ridiculous. You say the entire system is corrupt... well, ok, yeah, either that's true, and the entire system is the problem, or, maybe, just maybe, you simply don't know what you're talking about, huh? I mean, the woman's own attorney never even filed a lawsuit against the police here, the only lawsuit was against the store. Now, is that because her own attorney was corrupt too, or, is that because he knows the law better than you do, and knows that there's no case against the police?
    1
  8952.  @liqwid2372  Sounds nice and all, but, not even her own attorney agrees with you. Yes, I'm aware of probable cause and reasonable suspicion. 1) He asks repeatedly for her name at about 0:58 in the video. She refused to give it. And, I think it's pretty obvious that he asked for her ID also before the video begins, because he mentioned at 1:42 that she wouldn't give him her ID. She didn't respond by saying, "Wait, you never asked for my ID before, here it is, I'll give it to you now." Nope, instead, she said, "Because I don't have to." So, yeah, it's pretty clear that he had been asking for the ID before the video starts, not only because of what he said, but, also because of her own response. You have the right to remain silent, and you are under no obligation to help a police officer with an investigation, but, you ARE required to identify yourself, either with an officially issued ID, or by providing enough verbal information that an officer can look you up. 2) She's more than willing to cooperate with a proper investigation? Huh? How is failing to identify being willing to cooperate with a proper investigation? How is resisting arrest being willing to cooperate with a proper investigation? And, c'mon, if what you're claiming was remotely true, she'd have just produced the receipt. I find it extremely comic that anybody can look at this video and even remotely suggest that this woman was "more than willing to cooperate" in any context at all. 3) A warrant to turn over a receipt? There is no such concept. You can get a warrant to search, or a warrant to arrest, but, there's no such concept as a warrant to turn over a receipt. There can be a court order to turn over a receipt, but, that's not a warrant. Again, you are demonstrating a complete failure of understanding what any of this means. 4) Yes, she has the right to see the evidence against her. That's what the courts are for. But, at the side of the road, the cop is just determining if there's enough reason to arrest her, or not. 5) She wanted to use her 1st amendment right? Um, ok. But, what does that have to do with her statement at 1:48, accusing the cop of profiling her? I mean, how does that even make sense? The store employee told the cop who to chase down. He didn't have anything to do with selecting her. The store selected her, and asked the cop to investigate. So, how would her accusation even make sense? Um, no. I don't think she was interested in expressing 1st amendment rights. I think she was more interested in throwing around baseless accusations, and fighting the legal process altogether. 6) Um, yes, the cop had every right to ask for a receipt. What in the world are you talking about? I mean, sure, she doesn't have to provide it. She's welcome to go through the court system instead. That's fine. But, for you to sit there and say the cop doesn't have the right to ask to look at a receipt? Good grief. You have absolutely no understanding of any of this, and it shows with every sentence you type.
    1
  8953. Nosy? The woman plopped down on a public beach and put on a loud and X rated show in front of a family with children. Good grief. Or, did you actually believe her when she said she didn't think anybody was around?
    1
  8954. Yeah. Sure. Next time you hear about some guy dropping his pants and going to town at a playground, be sure to tell all of the parents to just look the other way, and never call the police.
    1
  8955. Do you have any understanding of this case, beyond what the drug addict was claiming as an attempt to avoid getting arrested?
    1
  8956. Freedom of Information Act. Good luck with that suit.
    1
  8957. What? The police? What did they have to do with your complaint?
    1
  8958. Did you not watch the entire video?
    1
  8959.  @neilsnelling5447  "The ascent stage still needed to be able to reach escape velocity in order to rendezvous with the Apollo CM which was in orbit." No. The ascent stage didn't get to escape velocity. You said it yourself. Orbital velocity only, not escape velocity.
    1
  8960. And, you believe that, why? Because you watched a one minute story on Inside Edition (where facts don't matter)?
    1
  8961. Did your god bless the woman in this video when she died? It seems your god blesses people who don't need blessing, and leaves others to die, huh?
    1
  8962. Sure. The evidence is what actually matters.
    1
  8963. Yup. As far as I'm concerned, he was the "perfect" speaker. If you asked him a question, he always answered it in the exact amount of detail that you'd want. If someone asked him an entry-level question, he'd answer it in very basic terms. If you wanted a more detailed engineering answer, he could give you the engineer's answer in great detail. He could scale his answers up or down, based on his "read" on the person he was speaking with. And, he was razor sharp at knowing his audience. I, too, met him a number of times over the years. I've met most of the moonwalkers a bunch of times. You'll get the most raw information from Buzz Aldrin. Ask him a question, you'll get a 1/2 hour answer (which is great). But, Cernan (before he died) and Schmitt would also give you tons of information if you ask for it. And, Cernan was probably the best at putting everything in human terms.
    1
  8964. This is a very nice presentation, and I wouldn't know enough about the topic to disagree with anything said... except... 30:45 in the video... I'll make an argumentative comment about this: It's very natural to charge more money to buy direct than to buy from indirect vendors. This is extremely common in many industries. The reason is because no distributers will touch a product when the original vendor/manufacturer is selling for less money. Distributors do not want to compete with the very partner/vendors they're selling. If I make bicycles, for example, and I have a website to sell my bicycles, but, I'm not getting many sales that way, I can go to bicycle dealers and ask them to sell my bicycles. Are they going to do so? Well, if I sell my bicycles to them for a price that allows them no margin, or low margin, and they basically have to sell my bicycles for the same price as my own website, they will tell me to go away and get a clue. They have no motivation whatsoever to sell my bicycles when they are forced to compete with ME. Why would they ever partner up with me at all? Who would ever take that deal? So, what happens is, I agree to keep selling on my website to consumers if I want, but, I can never sell for less than a certain dollar amount. And, I sell the bikes to the bike dealers for less money, allowing them to have a fair markup and to make some money for going through the trouble of buying and selling and servicing my bicycles. The bike dealers NEED that price advantage vs. having a consumer buy direct from me, otherwise, they're just showing my bikes to consumers, and then the consumers will go buy them directly from me instead of via the dealer. It's probably the same in the wine industry. Why would a wine dealer ever want to sell someone's wine if they have to compete with the original wine manufacturer? Anyway, this is the only point at which I think you've presented an unfair picture of what's going on. I don't begrudge O'Leary or any other wine manufacturer for selling to distribution channels at a lower price. I think that's good business to do so.
    1
  8965.  @commonsenseskeptic  Thank you for your reply. I'm not 100% sure I understand. It seems you're repeating my exact point. Do I misunderstand? By the way, I totally love your videos.
    1
  8966. Who do you think humiliated her? And, how can she get counseling without showing up for court?
    1
  8967. You're not under the impression that Musk would do test runs for moon missions without NASA funding it, are you? And, huh? You want NASA to spend money to prove the cultists are wrong? I mean, NASA funded LRO, and Arizona State University built and maintains the camera, which has returned hundreds of photos of the landing sites since 2009. That never changed anybody's mind. The cultists aren't listening to input, and don't want input. Why waste public time and money to prove something to people who will never look at the proof?
    1
  8968. I will try to post a link in a minute. But, warning: often YouTube blocks them.
    1
  8969. Nope, can't post the link, YouTube blocks it. "arizona state university LRO apollo sites" You'll have to take it from there.
    1
  8970. So, let me make sure I understand you correctly here: you BELIEVE the convicted criminal thieving drug addict when she said she wasn't given her prescribed meds? Really? You don't think she knocked out the entire 10 day supply in 1-2 days to get high, and then claimed she wasn't given the drugs in the first place? That's what you believe? Why? Because the convicted criminal thieving drug addict said so? Would you like to buy a bridge I have for sale?
    1
  8971. Whatever. I don't think you are correct, but it doesn't matter either way. As far as I'm concerned, if she didn't use them, she sold them. You simply cannot trust a word a drug addict says. And, beyond that, let's get real here. Do you think the "news" (using that word pretty loosely for an obvious editorial piece like this, which is about as far from "news" as you can get) people would just take her word for it? Do you think they just let her say "they didn't give me my meds" without going to them and asking "why didn't you give her the meds?" Why don't we see that part? Is it because the answer was, "good grief, she says that every time, you can't trust these drug addicts... here we have the records of her meds being given to her"?? Is that why they don't show that part? Again, why in the hell would believe her? What POSSIBLE reason do you think there is for them not to give her the meds she was prescribed? You haven't heard the old saying, "How do you know when a drug addict is lying? - His/her lips are moving."
    1
  8972. Good gods, you're such a gullible twit. A goddamned drug addict criminal says she didn't get her meds, the "news" station doesn't show you what happened when they went and asked why (d'uh), and you just believe it anyway. Good grief. You're obviously beyond hope. So, here's what you need to do: give all of your money to a very trustworthy relative, and all you should ever control yourself is pocket change. That trustworthy relative should be in charge of every significant amount of money you ever make, because you're clearly too gullible to be trusted with your own money. If you blindly believe the claptrap nonsense told by a multiple-conviction drug-addict felon, yeah, that might not cost you any money now, but sooner or later, if you're THAT stupid, a con artist is going to dupe you out of every dime to your name. Good grief.
    1
  8973. WOW, just wow. These two commentators just spewed out ramblings based on warped logic, bad math, and non sequitur conclusions. Sigh. They normally report pretty well, but this time, they really missed the mark. "8x the population"? "8x the number of criminals now"? Sigh. The INCREASE rate is 8x higher than the increase population rate. That is a massively different number. "Corrections officers make more than educators"? Sigh. So wrong. So very wrong. Total misinformation.
    1
  8974. I agree. But, somehow, I think you're unaware that the BS comes from the makers of the conspiracy videos you've been watching.
    1
  8975. Search for "Lunar rover deployment" and you'll see a million videos and documents, including the Apollo 15 deployment of the rover on the moon.
    1
  8976. No. It isn't.
    1
  8977. The path back to the police cars was through the restaurant. But, c'mon, with her mile long record of her prison sentence and million arrests, I'd hardly think another arrest would ruin her. Seems like she did a fine job of ruining her own life long before this one more arrest.
    1
  8978. Pffttt. Yeah, I loved the part when the narrator harps on the "missing telemetry tapes" and even highlights the report that says that the tapes that were lost were BACKUP tapes. She even highlighted that very sentence (and the rest of the report mentions that they were backup tapes about a dozen times). Yet, she still thinks that "all tapes" were lost? She HIGHLIGHTED one of the sentences stating "backup tapes" and then instantly ignored what she just highlighted. Good grief. And, you trust that person, why?
    1
  8979. You are correct. Other methods of propulsion that are faster than traditional rockets are not yet developed enough to say that "we have them." I mean, well, a contained nuclear explosion would be faster than rockets. But, right now, we really don't "have" that in reality. It only exists on paper. And, there are a few other propulsion systems that have been proposed from time to time. But, again, it's currently just on paper, not in reality yet. But, as for missions to Mars, well, I think everyone knows that, using rockets, you're basically looking at missions that are months/years long, with extremely long traversal times. You could do it faster, of course, even with rockets, by making the craft really really really huge, with enough fuel/oxidizer to keep on accelerating, even once past escape velocity, then throw the "brakes" on (rockets pointed in the opposite direction) to drop into Mars orbit. But, such ideas are rarely taken seriously. It's just too expensive to build something THAT big. And, it's just easier to tell a crew that they have to deal with a long voyage, than it is to spend a trillion dollars building rockets THAT big.
    1
  8980. Huh? The laws DO protect people in this situation, and did so here. The Freedom of Information Act allows/mandates the release of the video, but, not during an open investigation. This video was not released until long after the case was closed. July 2021 = arrest. March 2022 = suicide. November 2023 = video made public.
    1
  8981. You don't even realize you're contradicting yourself. Yes, it's illegal for "any loon" to carry around a loaded gun without a permit. Are you going to make it double-super illegal? Now the criminals will abide? You already acknowledged that they're going to get guns anyway. So, what EXACT law are you proposing? I mean, this is the thing about your complaints: they don't actually contain a suggestion for an actual law that would actually do what you want it to do. You (and the speaker in this video) love to whine and complain, but, neither you, nor he, offered any solutions.
    1
  8982. Nice try to backtrack.
    1
  8983. Hilarious!! You do know that one of the "audience" took video of the incident, and showed it to the police, right? You read the arrest report, and know that the video shows her in the act, in front of multiple people including children, right? I guess it was all fake CGI, manufactured in the 5 minutes between when all of the people called the police, and when they arrived, huh?
    1
  8984. But, firstly, no YouTube channels ever posted anything about this until long after she was dead. And, what does the family do when the "news" channels simply say "Freedom of Information Act"? How would you win the suit?
    1
  8985. Really? Those are the only two possibilities? It's not possible, in your mind, that two young adults got absolutely ripping drunk on their first day of a vacation, and one of them died as a result?
    1
  8986.  @effortlessawareness8778  YOU SAID: "Both passin out in the pool?" == But, they didn't both pass out in the pool. See, this is what happens when you trust what a "news" (not news) hit piece tells you. And, get real here, do you REALLY believe the boy can't remember anything? Did you read the lawsuit? I did. The actual incident took place 4 hours after the supposed "black out" he talked about, after dark when everyone was gone. He was found splashing around in the pool (not passed out). And, yes, she was found face down in the pool (yes, passed out). YOU SAID: "when you get that litty your gettin out of tge water because u wont feel good." == Again, the drowning took place FOUR HOURS LATER. Read the lawsuit. YOU SAID: "You will throw up before you pass out. and you wont pass out with a snap of a finger youl feel funny get out of the pool and lay." == So, ok, I understand now, you just blindly believe everything you see on TV. Sure. Can I sell you a bridge?
    1
  8987. It's called "wishful thinking." There are soooooo many people who WANT to believe their delusions are true, that they latch themselves onto anybody who tells them a story that bolsters the delusion. Evidence doesn't matter. Logic doesn't matter. Credibility doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that someone makes a claim to support what they already believed in the first place, and voila, the person who made the claim is now a hero.
    1
  8988.  @rishikantsingh7659  YOU SAID: "Don't you think that out of billion of galaxy there won't be one similar to earth ." == Earth isn't a galaxy. But, if you're asking if there's life elsewhere, well, sure, probably so. What difference does that make? How does that make Bob Lazar's ridiculous claims credible? YOU SAID: "Why humans are so distinct from other animals ?" == Chromosomal mutations pertaining to brain functions that other animals don't have. YOU SAID: "Don't you think it's the result of alien experimentation ?" == Do I think that human beings are a result of alien experimentation? No. YOU SAID: "And have you wondered why alien sightings suddenly increased after the atomic bomb tests ." == Pfffttt. Source? And, don't you think that, with all of the massive amount of cameras constantly running, we'd have something better by now, rather than grainy FLIR images of birds flying through the parallax effect from F-18s? Or, weird looking heat signatures of ordinary things that look unordinary in the infrared? YOU SAID: "So anything is possible man ." == What does this have to do with Bob Lazar???? Good gods. How does anything you just asked make it magically believable that Bob Lazar is telling the truth about ANYTHING!!?!!?!?! Why can't any of you nutbags ever answer this? None of you ever do. You avoid it. Your entire model of "logic" is "I want to believe UFOs are aliens from other planets, Bob Lazar tells me that's the case, so I believe him." That's entirely your logic here. Good grief. That's EXACTLY how people end up believing in Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, psychics who talk to dead people, unicorns, thousands of various gods, and any other claptrap you can dream up.
    1
  8989.  @rishikantsingh7659  YOU SAID: "But what caused the Chromosomal mutations ?" == Mainly insertions and frame shifts. YOU SAID: "For a supposedly intelligent beings . Why are humans so murderous killing each other over nothing ? Does not it seems like an evil experienment ?" == No.
    1
  8990. For what crime?
    1
  8991. Why in the world are you asking questions if you know in advance that you're immediately going to reject the answers? Good grief. That's why dealing with you people is impossible. Not a single one of you asks honest questions. Not a single one of you wants answers. "the USA prints trillions of dollars" Irrelevant. Artemis has a budget. Congress sets the dollar amount each year. "What standards are you talking about? Why is the mission different?" Huh? You don't know the answer to that already? Yet, you call it "lame" anyway? How can you determine if it's lame or not, if you don't know anything about the topic? Let's see. Nitrogen environment instead of pure oxygen. Staying for weeks/months instead of just 70 hours. 50 to 100 moonwalks per mission instead of only three. Landing at the poles (wasn't possible for Apollo). Carrying big experiment packages, and lots of them, not just 100 pounds of small experiments. 4 people on the lunar surface instead of 2. The list goes on and on. Stop pretending, dewdrop. You don't know anything, and you shouldn't be proud of that. This is like asking "why do we need to design and redesign jumbo jets when we had 2-man biplanes already?" And, then you call the answer "lame" before anybody gives you an answer.
    1
  8992.  @soriac2357  Now you're making stuff up. The real thing that happens when you challenge deniers to explain why no other moon rocks were discovered to be petrified wood is THEY RUN FOR THE HILLS.
    1
  8993. So, you copied and pasted an article written by a moon landing denier. The story has stuff wrong in just about every sentence. But, you believe it, right?
    1
  8994. They're probably well aware that this is Inside Edition (where facts don't matter), and that this incident had nothing to do with her suicide a year later.
    1
  8995. The cops took her away from the restaurant to question her, so that nobody could see/hear what was going on. They then blocked the release of the arrest video for 2.5 years. She was long dead before anybody ever saw this video. What EXACTLY do you believe the cops did to contribute to anything?
    1
  8996. Well, her own attorney disagrees with you. They sued the store for $50,000, and lost miserably. It was thrown out of court with prejudice. A police officer needs reasonable suspicion to perform an investigation. He got that when the store employee said the woman left without paying. During that investigation, the woman is legally required to provide ID, or to verbally identify herself with enough information for the cop to look her up (name, address, birthdate). She refused to do either, hence why her own attorney knows she doesn't have a case against the police.
    1
  8997. So, basically, you didn't read a single word I wrote.
    1
  8998. TRANSLATION: "I can't answer your questions or challenges, so I changed topics instead. And, stop picking on me while I accuse thousands of people of being criminals who would get thrown in prison for a lifetime if I was correct."
    1
  8999. So, after I just got done pointing out that you refused to address a single question I asked, and all you do is change topics... what did you do? You refused to address a single question I asked again, and changed topics again. Oh, you're a true genius alright.
    1
  9000. Dan, just quit pretending. You have no understanding of the topic. So, stop pretending you do.
    1
  9001. Yes, you are correct. I have no respect for people like you, who insult thousands of people, calling them criminals, based on NOTHING, while asking to be treated with respect.
    1
  9002. Video of the Earth rotating? Huh? You do know that the Earth rotates once every 24 hours, right? You know what a "day" is, right? Why is it that you nuts keep asking for this ridiculous thing, as if none of you can do basic math? In order to even see the Earth's rotation to the point that you'd recognize it, you'd need to point the video camera at the Earth for hours at a time. Did you REALLY believe they'd sit there with the camera pointed at Earth that long? Or, ya know, maybe they wanted to use that time to take video of the astronauts working at each of the rover stops, eh? You're just plain wrong about your atmosphere comment. Sorry, but if this is the best you can do for evidence that they "should have" (but don't), you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel. And, sorry, but the more relevant question is about whether you even know what evidence they DO have. Do you?
    1
  9003. Well, they should have taken the deals they were offered. They were offered the same deal that the men were offered. They took the deal, the women didn't. And, as for "accomplices," well, I don't know exactly what you think that means, but they were both active participants. Or, wait, are you saying you blindly believe convicted murderers based on what's said in a highly rehearsed 5 minute "news" clip? The attorneys, judges, juries, who studied the cases for months, they got it all wrong, and the statements made by convicted murderers in a 5 minute fluff "news" (not news) piece... that's what you're going with?
    1
  9004. They didn't release the video until 2.5 years later. That's 1.5 years after she was already dead. She suffered no shame from the release of the video, because nobody saw it until long after she was dead. And, the answer to your question is the Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  9005. YOU SAID: "Vaccine patent protection waving is a good move to make ," == Pffttt. Who says? YOU?!?!?! You just said, "waving" instead of "waiving." You don't even know how to SPELL what you're asserting!! What could you possibly know about it? YOU SAID: "because it will certainly help poor countries, and helping poor countries is the same as helping rich countries or helping every country in the world" == What in the world are you blabbering? How does helping a poor country result in helping rich countries? How is it NOT just stealing from rich and giving to poor? And, why would it "help" anybody to basically destroy future vaccines from happening at the speed that the COVID vaccine happened at? Who's going to pour billions into research and development of a drug, if the government is just going to basically swoop in and give your hard work away for free? If they do this, and waive (not "wave" - good grief) patent rights, you can basically forget about any big drug company bothering to develop vaccines in the future. The next pandemic will sweep through the world, and nobody is going to do a thing to stop it, because if you deny a company's ability to get their money back from billions of dollars of investment, that company will never do that again. YOU SAID: "I said last year that the human health problem could never ever locally or nationally nor regionally solved , but it could be only globally solved , simply because as long as there is still infection of the deadly RNA pathogen in any part or any country of the world , the danger of a resurging of global spread of new and more dangerous variants of the deadly virus would obviously be possible" == Um, yeah, soooooo, why do you think it's a good idea to give away the intellectual property rights?? Shouldn't that mean you OPPOSE giving away intellectual property rights? If/when a new strain runs around the world, and needs a different vaccine to deal with it, who's going to develop the new vaccine. You're basically guaranteeing that a company will not be paid back for future vaccines. So, you'll quickly find that every manufacturer of vaccines will simply get out of that business altogether. Make no mistake about this, giving away intellectual property rights is basically THEFT. These drug companies don't make money on the basis of just manufacturing someone else's drugs. They make money on the intellectual property rights. Look at Akorn as an example. As soon as they stopped developing new drugs, and decided to just focus on manufacturing generic drugs (no intellectual property rights), what happened? Where are they now? BANKRUPT!!! They were billions in debt, and eventually had to just dissolve the company and was taken over by their creditors for pennies on the dollar. Do you think that same thing can't happen to every other drug company, if the government can just step in and steal the intellectual property rights away from drug manufacturers? YOU SAID: "By speeding up vaccination of all human population of all countries in the world as fast as possible, it can help reduce the rate of mutations of the deadly virus, and therefore it will make it less difficult to stop and put an end to the pandemic for all to return to a normal life sooner" == Fine, then those countries need to PAY FOR IT!!!! We cannot just hand out free vaccines to the world. Put the poorer countries on a long term payment plan if you have to, but, sorry, you can't just expect drug companies to just give away billions of doses of drugs for free. YOU SAID: "Pharmaceutical companies should not be allowed to take the global human health problem as an opportunity to make huge profits out of human health tragedy" == So, you want to bankrupt them instead, and basically make sure they never again invest money into future vaccines. Oh, you're a real genius. Look, silly fool, we are not talking about Martin Shkreli, who bought up the rights to specialized drugs, then jacked up the prices by a +50x multiplier. Instead of $13 per dose, he charged $750 per dose. No. We are talking about long established drug companies charging reasonable profits for putting in the time and money to quickly develop new drugs. Now, you want to just take that away from them? Why? Because it saves lives? Um, ok. Why just these drugs then? Why not insulin? That saves millions of lives too, you know. Why not all of the heart medications that prevent people from coronary disease and heart attacks? Those drugs save millions of lives. Should those drug manufacturers give away the rights those drugs for free also? Where do you draw your line in the sand? Hey, crazy maniac, I have news for you... if you take away a company's ability to make money from life saving drugs, guess what, THEY WILL STOP DEVELOPING NEW LIVE SAVING DRUGS!!! YOU SAID: "because it is inhumane, disgusting, and prolonging the pandemic and suffering of every country in the world when they try to do so" == Good grief. Spare the sob story. Nobody is saying that these countries are going to be denied the drugs. They can go on a payment plan. Quit your dramatic hatred, and show a little gratitude. These companies developed these vaccines in record time, faster than anything in prior history. And, now you want to steal their hard work, give it away for free, and call them inhumane and disgusting for doing it??? Talk about biting the hand that feeds!!! YOU are the disgusting one here, you're just not intelligent enough to realize it. YOU SAID: "The main purpose of every human is to put an end to the pandemic as soon as in every way possible , but not to to prrolong it for greedy capitalist pharmaceutical companies to make profits on their fellow kind's deaths and suffering" == These companies have made it their purpose to develop drugs to save people... and you're spitting in their faces and accusing them of the opposite??? Again, YOU are the disgusting person here. You are encouraging theft. You are slandering the people who poured the last 18 months of their lives into tirelessly working around the clock to save the world from this pandemic, accusing them of being the "bad guys." And, for what? For making the vaccines, then not wanting to bankrupt themselves by giving it away for free? For not wanting to set a precedent that would make it impossible to expect companies to develop vaccines in the future, because that intellectual property would just be stolen from them anyway? You have got to be one of the most delusional and insane people I've seen on the internet in a long time.
    1
  9006. Sure, and, it could have been reported with a lot less respect. Like, they could have brought up her long legal history, her prison term for stealing cars, her judgements against her for various thefts, her arrests for alcohol and drugs, her many failures to appear in court and open arrest warrants, the fact that she left her family behind to go live a wild life, including a 6 month old boy, and maybe even mention her "profession" as her landlord described it (which can't be posted in a YouTube comment, but, ya know, it involves cash transactions with men). I'd say, in the bigger scheme of things, yeah, they could have been a lot more disrespectful than this.
    1
  9007. Dewdrop, Inside Edition never touched this story while she was alive. They never aired a story on it until November, 2023. She died TWO YEARS AGO.
    1
  9008. Sure. But, expert knowledge and lots of understanding says the opposite.
    1
  9009. So, you only watched the first half of the video then?
    1
  9010. "China's moon mission continues to progress." China has already published photos of the Apollo 11 landing site from one of their orbiters, showing the lander on the surface, exactly where it's supposed to be. "It's necessary for the US govt to once again send Americans to the moon to prove that it indeed didn't lie." Why would that matter? The deniers will just reject those missions also.
    1
  9011.  @lennyloup  Spoken (written) like someone with absolutely no understanding of the topic.
    1
  9012. English leearn ensted ov pertendng too no ting u dun't know nuffnin bout. Maybez den u mite understood sttuf.
    1
  9013. Naw, they probably know darned well that Inside Edition's version of this story is heavily modified, nowhere near accurate.
    1
  9014. OK, on what basis?
    1
  9015. The cop was staking out a completely different house trying to catch a completely different criminal about a completely different shooting. The carjacking was coincidental.
    1
  9016. A) Freedom of Information Act. B) July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. Bravo on pretending to know stuff you don't.
    1
  9017. Well, "respect" the man, um, ok, yes, sure. But, I certainly don't respect the ACTIONS of the cop. The driver had just attempted to murder a woman on the road, and was clearly trying to attempt it again with a concealed draw as he was exiting the car and trying to stay behind the car door. Yet, the cop never had his firearm drawn, risking his own life and that of the other cop/s on scene. The cops were lucky, no more, no less.
    1
  9018. The landlord did.
    1
  9019. You don't have to "just believe" anybody. The evidence for Apollo comes from dozens upon dozens of countries, over decades upon decades, in numerous forms. Please name the evidence you'd accept and expect? I mean, don't just sit there and make posting after posting in thread after thread, claiming that you don't believe photography because photography can be faked. Yes, photography can be faked, which is why photography isn't the best evidence. I mean, you'd have to explain how they "faked" 110,000 orbital photos, 7,000 surface photos, and about 80 hours of video, but, whatever, photography can be faked. The absolute best evidence comes from elsewhere. So, don't just whine about how you refuse to believe it. Name the evidence that you'd expect and accept.
    1
  9020. And, I've asked you in this thread and others about what evidence you'd expect and accept. Yet, you won't say. I think that's because the answer is that there isn't any evidence you'd ever accept. Your delusion has taken over your mind to the point of no return, and there is no input anybody could ever give you that can pull you back to reality.
    1
  9021. But, the public didn't see the arrest video until she was already dead for 1.5 years
    1
  9022. That's the view out of the lunar lander's LMP window (right window) during the landing. There's a 16mm film camera mounted right above the window, looking out/down.
    1
  9023. Yes, but she lost that suit, and got $0.00. Sooooo, it wasn't really all that effective.
    1
  9024. The laws need updating, that's for sure. I agree that in the modern world of cameras all over the place, and relative ease of posting them publicly, we need new laws. 50 years ago, you needed to own a TV station or newspaper to publish someone's face publicly. Today, you just need a smartphone and a YouTube account. However, like it or not, there's no assumption of privacy while in a public place. And, yes, she's dead now.
    1
  9025. Well, he took the deal they offered. He accepted a life sentence in exchange for no death penalty. But, she decided (after confessing twice) to reject the deal, and go to trial, and was found guilty. So, anyway, please explain what you find so disturbing? She was the one who stupidly rejected the deal.
    1
  9026. Well, how would YOU deal with the highest crime rate of first world countries? You don't think we should build places to put the criminals?
    1
  9027. "You only need one question to believe it's true or fake." Yeah, but then you asked the wrong question. Dewdrop, whether or not they went back to the moon after Apollo was over has nothing to do with whether or not Apollo happened. Why should the veracity of Apollo be based upon what future generations do or don't do? Do you use that logic for everything? Magellan sailed around the world first, right? Well, that wasn't repeated until 50 years later. Trieste dove to the deepest ocean depth first, right? That wasn't repeated for 50 years. Does this mean those events didn't happen? The question you should have been asking is "what does the evidence show?" THAT is the one question that matters the most. But, you deniers never ask that question. Nope. You're not interested in the evidence, you only want to commit slander/libel. That's the only thing that interests you, and you won't touch the evidence with a 10 foot pole.
    1
  9028. Huh? What embarrassment or shame did she suffer from this posting of this video? She's DEAD!!! I mean, don't get me wrong. I don't think they should have posted the video either. But, I also know that you cannot shame or embarrass someone who is dead.
    1
  9029. Was it meth? Is that what did this to you?
    1
  9030. Multiple people called the police for this incident. One of the "audience" even recorded it, and showed the video to the police. Needless to say, it doesn't match the version she's telling about a quiet and discreet act with nobody around. That, plus the fact that she was a convicted felon with an arrest record a mile long, and had open warrants, um, yeah, I think they were going to arrest her no matter what. Plus, do you know the difference between an infraction and a crime? There is no "warning" for this offense. But, you keep on pretending you know things you don't, ok? It's great entertainment for the sane people in the world.
    1
  9031.  J Calhoun  And to carry more stuff, experiment packages, rocks, tools, etc.
    1
  9032. "the landing module took off to dock with the craft that goes round the moon? Impossible as the moon surface is too soft!" Huh? Who told you such a silly thing?
    1
  9033. "One side of the moon is always facing the sun" No, dewdrop. That's ridiculous. What do you think causes the phases of the moon? You can see over the period of a month that what you're claiming is wrong. Just look up.
    1
  9034. Freedom of Information Act. You need to go to school.
    1
  9035. No "leaks" required. It's called the Freedom of Information Act. And, the arrest video wasn't released until 1.5 years after she died.
    1
  9036. And, you would believe she was alone, why? Because the convicted felon said so as she was trying to avoid her millionth arrest?
    1
  9037. But, technology wasn't the reason for her destruction. According to the family, drugs and mental health were the reason. And, sorry, but the bodycam footage wasn't released until 1.5 years after she was dead. That's one fact that Inside Edition will never tell you, because it doesn't help their viral videos. They'd rather ask questions, but not provide the answers, and make viral videos out of misinformation.
    1
  9038. Pfftt. "Scientific content." As if you'd know what that was.
    1
  9039. "trying to learn" Sure, dewdrop, sure. That's why you opened with laughy emojis and comments about concrete on the moon. Everyone who wants to learn things does exactly what you're doing. Sure.
    1
  9040. What don't you understand here?
    1
  9041. Since you're apparently unaware that YouTube blocks external links (you might be able to see them if you post them, but, nobody else can see them)... I tried to explain it, but, you're just not understanding... I've taken the liberty of looking it up. India's is: "Chandrayaan-2 apollo 11" - Images. Want more? You'll find the same stuff for China's images. And, of course, Arizona State University has hundreds of images on their site, from their LRO camera. But, again, if I post links, they will be blocked.
    1
  9042. And, that's it then? You found the links? Then nothing else? No comment about whether this means you now accept Apollo? You stated that you would believe it when other countries confirm it. Other countries confirmed it in many definitive ways over the past decades, and I provided you only the most recent example. You refused to answer my questions. And, now, you refuse to acknowledge that you essentially got what you asked for. No, not down to the letter of what you asked for, but, in the bigger spirit of things, it's essentially the same thing. Other countries have provided very definitive proof of the Apollo moon landings. But, you still refuse to answer a single thing I asked, and still refuse to acknowledge whether this has changed your opinion. Typical nut.
    1
  9043. Indecent exposure in front of kids is an aggravated misdemeanor.
    1
  9044. Because he'd just blow it up.
    1
  9045. Yeah, a 19 year old with absolutely no expertise, whose dad paid $250,000 for the ride, is a "mission specialist," not a tourist. No, that wasn't to avoid the insurance claims or anything. Nope, totally legit.
    1
  9046. Before her death, who said any such thing?
    1
  9047.  @User_1dashzero  You're not helping anything with this pile of gibberish you're spewing.
    1
  9048. Delusional moronic statement of the day: "Whoever wins is best because they won... what steroids they take is meaningless."
    1
  9049. Huh? The ones that show the Apollo landers on the moon?
    1
  9050. So, no arrests can ever be made until... Donald Trump something?
    1
  9051. Yet, you can't manage to name a single thing incorrect?
    1
  9052. Well, then you'll be happy to learn that this video was never made public until 1.5 years after her death (which was 2.5 years after the arrest). Of course, Inside Edition will never tell you that, because they're more interested in ad revenue from viral videos that paint the wrong picture.
    1
  9053. Yeah, I agree, and wish videos like this would never be released. But, 1.5 years after her death, I don't think they could block its release any longer. Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  9054. Um, yeah. This is a fake computer rendering. Did anybody say otherwise?
    1
  9055. What do you suggest? Should he have tackled her to the ground instead of using the Taser?
    1
  9056. Multiple people called to complain about this incident. One of the "audience" even recorded it, and gave the video to the police. Needless to say, the video didn't match her version about a quiet act with nobody around (the story she was giving while attempting to avoid her millionth arrest). The only thing that "singled her out" was the show she decided to put on at the public beach. She was a felon who served time in a Florida prison about 6 years ago, and had an arrest and judgement record a mile long. Stealing cars. Drugs and alcohol. Other thefts. Failure to appear in court. You name it. And, with her lengthy criminal history, it's difficult to get a straight job, so her landlord and neighbors said she was a stripper at the local club. So, sorry, but, I think I'll stick with the words from innocent bystanders and the police.
    1
  9057. Huh? Are you under the impression that felons obey the laws? As soon as he gets out of prison, do you think he's not going to go acquire an illegal gun?
    1
  9058. Well, sure, there are a million fake moon rocks out there. So what? You're not under the impression that NASA had anything to do with that rock you're talking about, are you?
    1
  9059. Well, the saving grace is that she didn't suffer from any of the media platform humiliation. She died about 1.5 years before the arrest video was made public.
    1
  9060. I think it's raccoonteering, right?
    1
  9061. Yes, that's been done, of course.
    1
  9062. Well, just being a stickler for detail, it's true that Apollo 12 didn't have a rover, and this video is just plain wrong. Without going to the archive photos right now to confirm, just at a glance, that image looks like Apollo 15 to me. It seems that's Hadley Rille, with St. George crater on the side of the mountain behind. I could look up the exact photo, but, not worth it at the moment. As for JAXA/Selene, sorry, but that craft/camera didn't have the resolution required to see the rovers (nor even the landers). I think you've confused LRO imagery for JAXA/Selene imagery. Or, the video makers aren't making it clear enough for when they switch from one to the other.
    1
  9063. Wow! Say it ain't so!
    1
  9064. How do mask wearing policies (that are meant to protect EVERYBODY) related to specific policies in Germany (that targeted specific groups of people)?
    1
  9065. Held accountable for what? Doing their jobs correctly?
    1
  9066. And, if you knew English, you'd write better. "Of took"? What does that mean? And, I guess her own attorney didn't know the law either, because he never even sued the police. He sued the store, sure. It was thrown out, but at least he tried to sue the store. But, he didn't even try to sue the police. Why would that be? Did he not "of know" the law "of like" you?
    1
  9067. You have your order of events wrong. This arrest = July 1, 2021. Suicide = March, 2022. Arrest video released = November 24, 2023. Publicized to millions = November 24, 2023 through today. She took her own life long before anything was publicized to millions.
    1
  9068. The general rule is to blur for open investigations, and don't blur for closed ones. Since she's been dead more than 2 years, I think it's safe to say the investigation is closed.
    1
  9069. First of all, your hatred bleeds through every word you type. Secondly, sorry, but the number isn't 99%. That's ridiculous. Third, I mean, not that I blame the officer here, but, there's a certain irony in the fact that she might still be alive today if the officer HAD arrested her.
    1
  9070. Well, why aren't you calling up her three attorneys and telling them that they don't understand the law as well as you do? What are you waiting for? What good is a YouTube comment to share your massive legal expertise? But, you know, if you're going to make an argument about understanding the law, ya know, you should probably not say things like thinking the Taser was used because of the suspicion of theft. The Taser was used to force compliance upon someone who was resisting arrest. She made it very clear that she wasn't going to be arrested without a fight, and that he would have to Tase her before she would comply. The initial crime makes no difference. It wouldn't matter if she was suspected of murder, or tax evasion, or failing to get her garbage can in from the curb before 6pm (a weird law in some cities). If she resists arrest, she's going to get the Taser. You might need to be aware of that, before you go on your crusade.
    1
  9071. And, with the flag and patriotic eagle for the extreme irony. Timothy McVeigh considered his acts very patriotic also.
    1
  9072. No, they said they wanted to test Orion in the belts before putting people inside. Orion is a different craft, with different mission parameters, and different electronics. Yes, they wanted to test the craft in the belts before putting people inside, just like they tested the Apollo 6 craft in the belts before putting people inside. And, Orion had its first test in the belts in 2014, and the second test last year. Why is this an issue for you? You didn't get the entirety of your understanding of the Van Allen belts by listening to about 30 seconds of comments in a video made for children, did you?
    1
  9073. What are you talking about? He wasn't arrested for speaking. He was arrested for trespassing. The police don't get involved with free speech. And, there is no right to assemble in a school. You have no idea what you're talking about.
    1
  9074. Yeah, not much of a choice, though. Witnesses had it on video. And, if she had stayed silent, then there would have been no way to avoid them looking her up. With her mile long criminal history, I'm sure she'd have known not to talk to police by then, but, staying silent guarantees they'd find her open warrants.
    1
  9075. It is blocking my posts if I try to give the names of the people who called, but, it's all in the arrest report.
    1
  9076. Multiple people called the police. One of them even took video of the incident. The report also describes the video, which doesn't match the story told by the stripper in this video (who was also a convicted felon who served prison time for stealing cars, and had an arrest record a mile long for various other crimes, judgements against her for other thefts, numerous drug and alcohol charges, and open warrants for her arrest). She claims it was a quiet and discreet act with nobody around (as she's attempting to avoid her millionth arrest). But, the witnesses stated to the police that she wandered up and down the beach, and specifically chose a spot in view of people. I'm not sure why you would choose to trust the criminal instead of the police and the innocent bystanders. And, I'm not sure why she did it in the first place. But, after her criminal history, yeah, it's difficult to get a straight job. So, her landlord said that she was a stripper at the local club. Her neighbors said that she also did "private" encounters for cash out of her apartment with lots of men. So, frankly, I don't think she had any shame at that point. And, she certainly wasn't all that humiliated either. She had plenty of experience getting arrested. And, except for a couple of blog posts on obscure sites I've never heard of, no media even covered this story until the arrest video was released 2.5 years later. She was long dead before anybody saw it to "humiliate" her. Sorry, did Inside Edition fail to give the facts? Sorry.
    1
  9077. The only accountable person is herself. Don't blame others for her own actions in life.
    1
  9078. Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  9079. There's still an open investigation. But, for the woman in this video, the investigation was long closed. Freedom of Information Act. Learn it.
    1
  9080. She was seeking $1 per volt? (Her lawsuit was for $50,000, which she lost, but, that's what she was asking for.)
    1
  9081. You might consider looking into the facts of the case. Castle doctrine applies to self defense. But, what Smith did was nowhere near self defense. He planned the murders in advance.
    1
  9082. Well, with the exception of a couple of obscure blogs, it WAS kept quiet until long after she was dead. But, my guess is that she was on that beach recording for her "career," and public attention was what she was seeking. (You do know she was a convicted felon with a million arrests, and her landlord and neighbors say she was a stripper at the local club, right?)
    1
  9083. Yes, and I'm just scratching the surface.
    1
  9084. Huh? Did you not watch the video?
    1
  9085. I will never understand how people can watch a video and miss the point so badly.
    1
  9086. You didn't see a weapon? You can see it at several points in the video, one of which is at 5:02 on the ground next to a piece of 2x4 wood.
    1
  9087. What do you think would happen if the officer instantly started with CPR? A screaming banshee arrived in about 10 seconds. A screaming brother arrived a minute later. The carjacker had just come up and pointed a gun in the officer's face. How many others might have been waiting in the woodwork to pick up where Mark left off? Wait for backup. Secure the scene. Pay attention to surroundings. Render aid AFTER plenty of cops are on the scene. Do it that way, or you end up like Mark, and you're the one needing aid.
    1
  9088. "Just opened the car door" - yeah, with a gun pointed at the officer's head, wearing a ski mask in the middle of a Kentucky summer.
    1
  9089. "no sign that he was trying to jack anything" - Are you PROUD to be this far gone? Seriously? His own family acknowledges the gun, as does his family's attorney. Their story changed a few times, but, the gun was never in question in any version they tried to present. In one of the versions they tried to tell, Mark was going to take the car and joyride it because that's what a TikTok video told him to do. Of course, that version changed to a different version later. But, whatever. The fact that you cannot tell that this was an obvious carjacking says more about you than it does about Mark or his family. Guy goes up to a car, opens the door, points a gun at the occupant, while wearing a balaclava ski mask, and has his backup driver 10 seconds behind him... yeah, not a mystery for anybody who is sane.
    1
  9090. "Body camera video shows undercover LMPD officer fatally shoot suspected carjacker WLKY News Louisville" shows you more clearly.
    1
  9091. Yes, dewdrop. You can see the weapon IN THIS VIDEO, as well as the one I referred you to, which circles it for you. Thanks for proving you didn't read anything I wrote.
    1
  9092. I seriously want to know, just how far gone are you? Are we talking about institutionalized? Just some recovery programs? Certified? What?
    1
  9093. Fullplate100, yes, you're right, she isn't required by law to show the receipt to the cop. However, in an investigation with enough reasonable suspicion of a crime, she is required by law to identify herself (she refused), and to cooperate (which she didn't), and not resist arrest (which she did). If she doesn't want to show a receipt, sure, that's fine. However, this also means that she must be prepared for the notion that she might end up being arrested as a result. It's not the cop's job to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. It's the cop's job to determine if a crime may have been committed. After that, it's up to the courts.
    1
  9094. Well, there's no assumption of privacy on a public beach. But, I'm confused. I didn't know that the video taken by one of the witnesses was ever made public.
    1
  9095. Let me guess, you watched that laughable "documentary" full of nonsense called "Who Killed the Electric Car?"? Sorry, but oil companies didn't kill the electric car. Legislation didn't kill the electric car. GM didn't kill the electric car. Ford didn't kill the electric car. Toyota didn't kill the electric car. Only ONE THING killed the electric car, and that was the cost. Even today, it still costs double to buy an electric car than its gas equivalent. Eventually, yes, electric cars will surpass gas cars for similar cost. But, we're not there yet. And, that's the true reason that the electric car has a difficult time in the open marketplace. The only countries that see significant electric car penetration in the marketplace are ones that put such high taxes on gas and gas cars that it becomes more economically competitive to buy electric, by inducing such a high penalty on gas. Open marketplaces won't see that happen for many years to come. As for the moon "only meant to fill us with pride and pick our pockets," well, that sounds all special and fuzzy to crazy people. Sure. But, the real motivation to go to the moon was to win a significant cold war "battle." The race to the moon was an expression of cold war dominance. It's like a peacock spreading its feathers, or dogs showing their teeth when they growl, or an ape beating its chest. It was a way of demonstrating dominance. It was a political message to the Soviets. "If you mess with us, we will beat you, we will always beat you." And, many people feel that Apollo helped to prevent a cold war from turning into a real war, and saved millions of lives in the process. That was the intent of Apollo. It wasn't to "pick pockets." I mean, there's an old saying that "hindsight is 20/20." I'm not so sure that's correct, in situations like this. Well, you have the luxury, in hindsight, to know that the cold war never escalated into a real war between the USA and Soviets. But, do you know what would have happened if not for Apollo, and the arms race, and the other political "teeth growling and chest beating"??? No. We don't know. Hindsight ISN'T 20/20 for stuff like this. We very well may have ended up in WWIII if not for Apollo. Maybe. Maybe not. We don't know, but, that's what Apollo was meant to do: prevent WWIII before it happens.
    1
  9096. @UCg-E9hsta5N2Gj26vvDKGBg Look, just lay off the drugs, and go seek some mental health care. You could really benefit from that.
    1
  9097. Pfftt, and now you're deleting your messages?? I'm done here.
    1
  9098. What in the world are you talking about? You say you've become a denier... why? Because you don't know how phone lines can be connected to a radio? Because you don't know how the cameras worked? Are you a denier of brain surgery because you don't understand that either? Do you deny atom smashers can smash atoms because you don't know how they work? Anything you don't understand must be fake?
    1
  9099. Huh? Which media do you think humiliated her to death? One cryptic obscure website that I've never heard of? Other than that, the viral media frenzy never happened until the arrest video was released, which was long after she was dead.
    1
  9100. But, you just accused others of a crime. I'm asking you who you think committed that crime, and what the crime was?
    1
  9101. Yeah, when the man at the playground cranks in front of kids, just mind your own business and let him keep doing it every day.
    1
  9102. Um, ok, you say that like it's a bad thing. (?) What do you think the police did wrong?
    1
  9103. No, I'm not joking. I seriously don't know what you think the police did wrong.
    1
  9104. Dewdrop. The arrest was July 2021, and was completely justified, which you'd know, if you read the report. She committed suicide, completely unrelated to the arrest, in March of 2022. The arrest video was made public in November of 2023, probably as a result of a legal FOIA request. The release of the arrest video had no bearing on her suicide, because it was 1.5 years AFTER she died.
    1
  9105. There were two layers of boots. The regular boot layer (in this video), and then there was the boot "overshoe" that you see in photos on the moon. The boot "overshoes" were left on the moon.
    1
  9106.  @codetech5598  "But that is exactly what NASA claims to have done with Apollo 8, which was not only the first manned flight of the Saturn V" Yeah, dewdrop, but, they launched Saturn Vs before that. With Artemis, they had never launched an SLS before. How can you fail to understand this so badly? "but the first time any man (or dog or monkey) ventured beyond LEO (250 miles above Earth)" February 22, 1966, two dogs were launched 562 miles up into the Van Allen belts to study the long term effects. You do not know what you are talking about. "and headed out past the Van Allen Belts 250000 miles to the Moon." Yes, because the command module had been tested in prior missions, both manned and unmanned. "The second unmanned test flight of the Saturn V rocket was Apollo 6 in April 1968." So, you ARE aware that they flew Saturn Vs before Apollo 8. Now, you're pretending that SLS should be tested on its first flight with people onboard? Good grief. "There were serious problems with oscillations in the engines which caused the second stage engines to shut down and the third stage restart to fail." Yes, and they knew what the problems were, and fixed them. "NASA claimed to have fixed the problems in the Saturn V engines, but did not perform any unmanned test." So what? If they had the same problems again on Apollo 8, they'd come back home. "Instead, in December of the same year, Apollo 8 sent a 3 man crew up in the Saturn V rocket. Not only was that the first test of that rocket with people aboard, but the rocket left Low Earth Orbit for the first time in history and orbited the Moon." There's always going to be a first time with people onboard. I fail to understand why you think this is an argument. There will ALWAYS be a first manned flight. But, your analogy to SLS was basically acting with incredulity that they wanted to test SLS unmanned. Yeah, just as they tested the Saturn V unmanned first. "There is deadly radiation in Space once you get into and beyond the Van Allen Belts. NASA and other space agencies are quite aware of this problem to human space travel beyond LEO and are searching for ways to provide proper shielding. That is the purpose of the test mannequins." And, what's your point? "To be clear: No humans have traveled more than a few hindered miles above the Earth. Apollo 8 did not send people to orbit the Moon, and Apollo 11 did not send people to walk on the Moon. No humans have been to the Moon." You don't know what you are talking about, and you are wrong. "Artemis will be the first, if they solve the problem of shielding against radiation." So, you ignored the prior reply someone gave you, and you're still asserting the same gibberish? "NASA and other space agencies know that Apollo could not have sent men to the Moon due to deadly radiation, and now you know too." Nonsense. Every space agency on the planet acknowledges Apollo.
    1
  9107. Yes, you need to slow it down, but, he was grabbing the gun out of its holster. He even got it out, but, didn't get as far as lifting it before getting hit himself. That's why it wasn't in the holster when they dragged him out, and was on the floor of the car.
    1
  9108. "I can understand just trying to keep warm." Sure, and what else was in that bulky coat that was still bulky after the showed the gloves and hat? You don't actually believe a hat and gloves was all she was stealing, do you? "It is amazing the lengths a person needs to go just to survive." Well, when they blow all of their money on meth, yeah, it's a little tougher to survive. "What's more amazing is the lengths people go to protect the interests of rich capitalist and conglomerate corporations" Huh? What does that have to do with anything? How does that sentence relate to anything in this video? The store clerk said that she wasn't even going to press charges. And, what happened as a result? The woman in the video kept stealing from Walgreens immediately after this incident, abandoned her kids, and died of meth. What in the world does any of that have to do with "rich capitalist corporations"? They didn't make her steal. They didn't provide her with the meth that killed her. They were the victims here.
    1
  9109. @@stormybutnot Congratulations on avoiding every single point and question I posed. I realize that you weren't the original person who posted this thread. But, if you're going to say something bad about any of my comments or questions, it might help if you answered them. But, of course, you won't. You just want others to have undeserved sympathy for thieving drug addicts. Sorry, but if she was the slightest bit ACTUALLY sorry for her actions, she wouldn't have gone right back to stealing from Walgreens immediately after they gave her a break. She also wouldn't have abandoned her two kids in favor of her drug habit. Just because she was a pretty girl, doesn't mean that I'm going to condone her choices in life, or have sympathy for thieves.
    1
  9110. I don't think that's true in Georgia. It varies by state. And, it makes no sense. An arrest isn't a conviction, it's just an arrest. I'm sure you meant CONVICTION, not just arrest, because you're innocent until proven guilty. But, it doesn't matter in this case. She gave up that career more than a decade ago to live a life of crime and drugs. And, if you're correct, and I'm wrong, ok, that's fine. Then she lost her license long before, with a million other arrests, and time spent in prison.
    1
  9111. Yes, in theory. But, for all practicality, this is easily negotiated down to a minor infraction, even with her long criminal history.
    1
  9112. Who told you that? Was it a conspiracy video? The only people making the claim that all of the landers' feet were dust free are the people who listen to conspiracy videos. Nobody who looks at the photo archives themselves make that claim. Yes, many were free of dust (and why not?). But, some were not, because, yes, they had dust in them. But, conspiracy videos won't show you those.
    1
  9113.  @occhamite  Or, you can look at Apollo 14, where one of the footpads is almost submersed in dust.
    1
  9114. Oh, what a surprise. The nut can't read or write better than a 2nd grader.
    1
  9115. The police never publicized anything. They kept the arrest video private for 2.5 years. Nobody saw it until long after she was dead.
    1
  9116. And, you know this, how? Even this "news" (not news) story is unable to connect this 5-star resort with tainted alcohol, which is why they had to stoop to talking about OTHER resorts that have tainted alcohol. Every inspection in the resort's history has found no tainted alcohol. There were no other guests who suffered from tainted alcohol. But, YOU know better? YOU do? How?
    1
  9117. Would you believe it? Or, would you just claim it's CGI, like dewdrops claim all of the orbital photos are CGI?
    1
  9118. I'm having a hard time really understanding what you're asking. Are you talking about a Kinescope?
    1
  9119. What would have justified it? Waiting until the criminal shot the cop in the head?
    1
  9120. I don't know who "InHisCare" is supposed to represent, but, whoever he is, isn't doing a very good job caring for you. You're a mess.
    1
  9121. I'm not sure what you mean exactly. He said he wants to regulate (probably ban) semiautomatics (full stop, in general), not just rifles. I don't think he ever even used the word rifle, did he?
    1
  9122. It goes further than obstruction. Assisting someone after a murder would be accessory.
    1
  9123.  @ivandelabanque1806  I have asked you a million questions, and you refuse to answer any of them. Now, you want me to answer your questions?
    1
  9124. Huh? Bodycam footage is hidden when there's an open investigation. This particular bodycam footage was not released for 2.5 years, which was also 1.5 years after she died. She suffered ZERO public shaming for the bodycam footage.
    1
  9125. That is absolutely wrong. There is no requirement for proof at the side of the road. You are innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW. It doesn't say you are innocent until proven guilty at the side of the road. I mean, could you even imagine if it worked the way you're pretending? If you had to prove the case before you could arrest someone, when could you EVER arrest someone? The cop isn't the judge and jury. The cop just needs reasonable suspicion and probable cause, not proof. Good grief. You are setting up a system in your mind that couldn't even work in your own imagination.
    1
  9126. Evidence for search? Sorry, but "can I see your receipt" isn't a search, it's a request. Bully her into compliance? Huh? She is required by law to provide ID during a police investigation, but she refused, which is an arrestable offense on its own. And, you have a mighty loose definition of the word "bully." Performing a lawful police investigation isn't being a bully, it's just doing his job. And, sorry, she didn't offer to go back into the store to look at cameras until after she had already obstructed/obfuscated, refusing to ID, screaming and yelling. And, yes, Tasers are used to force compliance onto those who refuse to comply. What exactly is your impression of what a Taser is for?
    1
  9127. Again, you seem to confuse a search with a request. And, you fail to understand which action triggered which event. And, you don't know the definitions of the words you use. Furthermore, I suspect you haven't watched the entire video, and all you've watched is this edited down version, which is missing the entire first half of the encounter. Yes, a store employee stating that she thought the woman may have stolen something IS evidence. Testimony IS evidence. And, yes, that's enough for suspicion to investigate. You are just plain wrong. The store paid to have that cop there that day, because this is a high crime area, with lots of theft, and it would just be ridiculous for the cop to refuse to investigate a possible theft. It just doesn't work the way you think, and there's nothing else I can say about that. Yes, when a store employee identifies a person who might have stolen something, yes, those words ARE evidence, and yes, the cop must stop the individual and investigate. That's his job. The woman isn't legally required to provide the receipt. However, there's no harm in asking. It's not "bullying" to do so. It makes things a lot easier to just comply. But, the officer asked for the receipt and ID a hundred times before this particular video version even starts, and continued to ask for those things in this video also. If the woman chooses the "crusade" instead of just providing the receipt, that's fine, that part isn't illegal. She has the right NOT to show a receipt. However, she does not have the right to not show her ID. By law, in Florida, and in most of the rest of the USA, you are required to provide ID if being investigated for a possible crime. If you don't have a state issued ID with you, you must at least give your name, your address, birthdate, etc., so that the police can look you up in the computer. If you do not provide ID in either a card or verbally, that's an arrestable offense right there, and it doesn't even matter what the original crime was or wasn't. This is why the cop tried to explain to her that the original suspicion of theft was irrelevant at that point, because she had already committed other crimes (refusing to ID, obstructing and obfuscation, and eventually resisting arrest also). The Taser is to force compliance. She was being arrested, and refused to comply. It doesn't matter what she's being arrested for. She didn't get Tased because she wouldn't provide a receipt. She got Tased because she resisted arrest. It would be the same if she was being charged with murder, or theft, or jaywalking, or failing to bring her garbage can in from the curb before 6pm (a weird law in some cities). If you resist arrest, you're going to either be tackled into submission, or Taser'd into submission. He chose the less violent one. Lesson to learn: You probably should just show your receipt, it makes life a lot easier. But, if you choose to crusade instead of doing so, you need to know if you're in an "identify" state, or not. If you're in an identify state, you're going to get arrested if you refuse, regardless of the original crime. And, don't resist arrest, ever. If you're innocent, it'll be dismissed.
    1
  9128. It was probably the result of a legal FOIA request.
    1
  9129. Open investigations vs. closed.
    1
  9130. And, by "basic research" - you mean you read my reply to your original posted message, which told you all of that stuff, and now you've deleted that message and posted a new one.
    1
  9131. Public property. And, even if you were correct, sorry, but the solution isn't to walk up to the car with a ski mask on and a gun in hand. Call the police.
    1
  9132. Really? What media do you think even published anything about her before her death?
    1
  9133. Doubtful. I don't think she understood the word "embarrassed."
    1
  9134. "Incredible"? Like, literally cannot be believed? Or, you just mean that word casually?
    1
  9135. What proof would you expect and accept? There are mountains of evidence, far too much for a YouTube comment. But, every time one of you deniers is offered the evidence, you just reply with "nuh uh" and run for the hills. For example, one piece of evidence out of the millions of pieces of evidence is the fact that India published photos of some of the Apollo landing sites taken by their Chandrayaan-2 lunar orbiter. You can see landers, foot paths, shadows of the flame deflectors on the landers, shadow of the Apollo 12 flag (still standing), etc. They found those landing sites exactly where the US said they landed, and the photography matches the original mission photography. So, yes, that's one piece of proof out of the millions of pieces of proof. Do you accept it? Or, are you just going to reject it as "India joined the conspiracy 50 years later for some reason"?
    1
  9136. Huh? Why not just look at the photo archive yourself? Start with AS11-40-5899 and go from there.
    1
  9137. I blaming you it's not knowing story whole and conclusions it's jumping too.
    1
  9138. Money from a viral video, yes, that was the outcome they wanted.
    1
  9139. Those craft that fly to the edge of the solar system weighed less than 2,000 pounds. This is the "payload" of the rocket. Apollo's command module, service module, and lander, weighed about 100,000 pounds. The payload is literally 50x that of the rockets you're trying to compare with.
    1
  9140. Wrong. She is required by law to show her ID (she refused). And the ship had sailed already before she asked to go back inside to review the cameras. By then, she had already obstructed/obfuscated (illegal), and the cop even told her that the theft charges were not even relevant at that point in time. Her own high profile attorney didn't agree with you, and didn't sue the police. Why? Because they did nothing wrong. As for complaints, sorry, but those are just complaints. Cops get a million of them nowadays. People file complaints constantly, even for just issuing traffic tickets. There are entire organizations who go around filing police complaints, even cases where they file over 100 complaints in a single day against cops they have never even met. Complaints mean nothing. It's the results of those complaints that matter. Congratulations on being wrong in every single sentence you wrote.
    1
  9141. I'm sure there's a gap in understanding because your native language isn't English. Maybe you should try to post this in your native language and let others just use a translator. But, as for 3 or 4 spaceships going through the Van Allen belts, well, there have been hundreds of unmanned craft that have done it. And, 9 manned craft have done it. So, I really don't understand your reference to 3 or 4 craft, or just 1 or 2 craft.
    1
  9142. What in the world is wrong with you? Why do you think you understand Apollo AT ALL? No, I'm not going to sit here while you change topics. If you don't even know how many missions went to the moon, and you thought only one manned mission (Apollo 11) went to the moon, why do you feel capable of even forming an opinion? Why won't you answer? Don't just spew garbage you saw in a conspiracy video. Explain what you believe you know, that the entire planet's experts don't.
    1
  9143. So many wrongs in what you're writing. 1) Multiple people called the police, one of whom took a video of the incident, and showed it to the police. The police report says that this was hardly a discreet act that nobody saw, but, rather was a loud and very visible act in the public's view. 2) The arrest video wasn't made public until 1.5 years after she died, and had absolutely no relevance to why she killed herself. 3) The Smoking Gun article was published (no video), but, it wasn't a big viral thing. It was fairly minor. This woman had a heck of a lot of other stuff going on in her head, and it's unlikely that the word "shame" was even part of her vocabulary. 4) Embarrassment from the video had nothing to do with her suicide. She wasn't even alive when it was released. 5) Sue law enforcement? For what? They managed to keep the arrest video from being released for 2.5 years. It was probably a FOIA request that finally got the video. 6) Cruel and unusual punishment? So, if a man decides to put on a similar public display at a playground, and gets arrested, is it "cruel and unusual punishment"? What a standard you're setting. 7) You have absolutely no understanding of what happened here. Congratulations.
    1
  9144. But, dewdrop, the video DOESN'T claim that the arrest video was released before she killed herself. It's all a big word game. They ask questions, but don't provide the answers. It's all made for gullible people who swallow anything they present, while technically not outright lying. Just look the dates up yourself if you don't believe me. The arrest was July of 2021. Her suicide was March of 2022. The arrest video was made public in November of 2023. I'm sorry if you'd rather be one of the folks that they target with Inside Edition silly stories like this, but, hey, maybe you'll buy a bridge I have for sale?
    1
  9145. There's a fundamental difference between a company that overpromise and underdelivering due to slowdowns, vs. KNOWINGLY/INTENTIONALLY overpromising and underdelivering.
    1
  9146.  @swirlingbrain  Get real here. Solar Roadways KNOWS they are lying. There are a million reasons to know this, but, this culminated in the fact that they shoveled all of the snow off of their "roadway" and then posted a photo stating that the roadway's heaters cleared themselves of the snow. Musk KNOWS he's lying, and this was proven in court for the Solar City Tesla scam, which it was deemed he'd be personally liable to pay billions back to investors for his fraud (the real reason he sold $6 billion in stock a few weeks ago). Holmes knew she was lying, which was just proven in a court a couple of days ago. I could list more reasons we know these are blatant lies, rather than just slipping timelines, but, you clearly don't care. You have decided in your own mind that facts do not matter.
    1
  9147.  @swirlingbrain  Sorry if you can't tell the difference between willful fraud and corporate incompetence. But, thankfully, the courts can.
    1
  9148.  @swirlingbrain  We are done here. You don't know what you're talking about. And, now you're putting words in my mouth. I answered your question, now you're changing topics. I'm not playing these games with you.
    1
  9149. Well, there's not much the cops can do about legal FOIA requests. But, the "good thing" (minor consolation, but, whatever) is that they don't have to release the video until the case is long closed. They can keep it private if there's an ongoing investigation. And, in this case, the police managed to keep the video private for 2.5 years. That's 1.5 years after she died. So, at least the poor woman didn't suffer any humiliation from the arrest video. Nobody saw it until she was long dead.
    1
  9150. Well, you clearly know nothing about what it would have taken to fake it.
    1
  9151. So, basically, your argument is "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake"? Who cares what YOU find "unconscionable"? Dewdrop, in order to fake it, they'd have had to somehow bluff the dozens of countries tracking the craft with radar and radio telescopes (including enemies). And, somehow, they'd have to leave Apollo-sized landers on the lunar surface that would be detected by future generations like China's Chang'e that photographed Apollo landers on the moon, and India's ISRO Chandrayaan2 that photographed Apollo's landers. Or, are you going to argue that the dozens of countries (including enemies) were all "in on it," and that India and China decided to join "the deception" 50+ years later? And, sorry, but your "logic" doesn't work about having troubles with unmanned probes somehow negates Apollo. I mean, I could try the same "logic" with airliners. The Wright brothers started powered flight 120 years ago. They had hundreds, maybe thousands, of flights before having a single fatality. Yet, 120 years later, we have Boeing 737s falling out of the sky. Why? Because it's apples and oranges. That's why. Dewdrop, the way things work for unmanned craft is that they don't really care to make them 100% reliable. It's a math equation. They can build 50 unmanned craft and hope some of them land successfully, or they can invest the same amount of money in building one unmanned craft that has a million different mechanisms to make it more reliable. They elect for the former, and always have. The Soviets had the same philosophy. They had failure after failure of unmanned probes to the moon. But, they didn't care. The USA and Soviets were launching those things pretty much monthly. They could burn years and billions of dollars trying to perfect unmanned probes to the point that nothing would ever go wrong. Or, they could fling those things up there very frequently for a fraction of the cost, and if some of them crashed, oh well. You can buy a lightbulb for about $450 that never burns out. Or, you can buy a 12 pack of bulbs for $20 that, yes, burn out sometimes. That's the philosophy behind unmanned moon probes. Nobody is saying those things are man-rated. And, nobody promises 100% success. And, why does any of this matter? Why doesn't the EVIDENCE matter to you? Why is it always a "logical" argument (using that term loosely)? "I expect XYZ to happen, otherwise Apollo was fake"? You never once just asked for the evidence for Apollo. Nope. You want to "logic" your way into disbelief. It's ridiculous.
    1
  9152.  @randyschissler5791  I've never heard of Apollo 2, nor Apollo 3, for that matter.
    1
  9153. Huh? What rights of hers did he violate?
    1
  9154. Side note: for Apollo 12, Conrad left one film magazine in the camera before tossing it out the door. So, we're actually missing 100+ photos from that mission.
    1
  9155.  @marksprague1280  Yes, and though this is irrelevant to Apollo, Concorde only lasted as long as it did because they were in those multi-year contracts with government subsidies, and neither France nor the UK could back out. It lost money on every single flight, kept in the air only via those subsidies, and they kept trying to reduce costs to make the program self sufficient (never successfully). And, eventually, they used a crash and overall age of the aircraft as the mechanism to finally bail out of the program and end it. Apollo had no such obligations, and congress had the power to end it unilaterally, and did so. The Soviets had a supersonic airliner very much like Concorde, but, they instantly recognized that it was going to be a loser (financially), and bailed out immediately. Concorde remained as a historical anomaly of a failed program bolstered by contracts and politics.
    1
  9156.  @marksprague1280  Well, one correction: Apollo did have contractual obligations to the contractors. But, I meant that they didn't have the same type of international obligations and inability to end the program, like Concorde had.
    1
  9157. Well, at least they never released the video of the incident itself. And, at least the arrest video wasn't released until long after she was dead.
    1
  9158. THEY CANT GET HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA NEVER
    1
  9159. Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  9160. Huh? I mean, you're only really correct in a very small way. Mostly, you're incorrect. But, what's your explanation?
    1
  9161. Why do you believe she wasn't aware that she was being watched? Because she said so, as she was attempting to cry her way out of her millionth arrest? Blur = open investigation. This investigation has been closed a long time.
    1
  9162. "I'm a an Educated man" Oh, now this is hilarious. You read and write like a 2nd grader. You don't properly spell, punctuate, capitalize, etc. You have a very difficult time even communicating your thoughts, because half of the things you write don't make any sense. "Look at the details." WHAT details? "Didn't I see something about a secret place." WHAT secret place, about WHAT topic? Oh, but you're educated? And, you deny that we know how to measure the distance to the moon, even though there are several mechanisms to know the distance quite accurately. What possible education do you even think you have?
    1
  9163. So, with multiple people complaining, a video of the incident itself, you'd let her go instead of make an arrest for the misdemeanor she committed? And, what of her open warrants from her million other arrests? Naw, just forget those, right? I'm glad you're retired, because you couldn't have been very good at it.
    1
  9164. The arrest video was released 2.5 years later, as the result of a legal FOIA request. She was long dead before anybody saw it.
    1
  9165. Huh? First of all, she was dead for 1.5 years before anybody saw the arrest video, or any other video about her. Secondly, Freedom of Information Act. Oh, but you go right ahead and pretend to understand things you don't.
    1
  9166. Yet, when I post in this video about the difference between infractions and crimes, my posts get banned. Yours goes right through, no problem.
    1
  9167. But, the police kept the arrest video private for 2.5 years. She was long dead before any "bullying."
    1
  9168. It's Inside Edition. Trash news.
    1
  9169. I know this video is more about the car itself than the dealership that loaned it... but I cannot help but point out that the dealership was a scam. They kept the money for the cars they sold on consignment (basically stealing the cars and pocketing the money). The owner of the dealership was charged with 51 counts of grand theft and tax fraud. The buyers of the cars were not able to register them (because they were essentially stolen). Millions of dollars in lawsuits are still ongoing, but, it's unlikely that anybody is going to get their money back. The dealership claimed company bankruptcy, and the owner claimed personal bankruptcy. Somehow, he made the $8 million bail they set on him, though. Pretty impressive for a guy who is bankrupt.
    1
  9170. She destroyed her own life more than a decade when she walked out on her family, including her 6 month old son, and another son, in order to lead a life of drugs and crime. And, your timeline is all wrong. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. There was no constant embarrassment from this arrest. She probably suffered a heck of a lot more from all of the rest of her arrests, and her felony term served in a Florida prison around 6 years ago. Welcome to Inside Edition, where facts don't matter.
    1
  9171. Yes, I agree. But, if there's one saving grace, the poor woman didn't suffer any embarrassment from the video going public.
    1
  9172. Of course. She admitted it. And, one of the audience recorded it and gave a copy of the video to the police.
    1
  9173. He had a son. Soooo... kinda too late to say he didn't pass his genes along.
    1
  9174. YOU SAID: "Here we go with cops- scumbags!" == You are ridiculous. The cops didn't do anything wrong. YOU SAID: "Instead cops do arrest school board who actually violated people’s rights they arrested innocent !" == You don't get arrested for that. You get sued for that. You don't know what you're talking about. YOU SAID: "That cops acted not as a honest American citizens but such as a low life prostitutes!" == What EXACTLY do you think they should have done? YOU SAID: "They followed those who pays them $money. he $money is their guidance, not the Constructional guidance. Scumbags!" == You have no idea what you're talking about. They followed the law.
    1
  9175. So, what changed? Was it drugs? Stroke? Severe head impact?
    1
  9176.  @wildcat8882  Is your cell phone connected to the Parkes Radio Telescope? Once again, what happened? Was it drugs? Stroke? Severe head impact?
    1
  9177. You can go buy a 2 or 3 foot dish right now, and a 100 watt radio, and bounce radio signals off of the moon, and use this "moon bounce" to talk to someone half way around the world. It is done by backyard amateurs every single day. This has been done since many years before Apollo ever went to the moon. If any backyard amateur can send a radio signal to the moon and back, why are you so surprised that they could send a radio signal to the moon by using something like the Parkes Radio Telescope? Why do you keep changing topics? What rock changed shapes? What are you talking about? The landings were filmed from inside the window of the lander. No camera man was there. Why would you say that? This is just plain ridiculous.
    1
  9178.  @wildcat8882  So, you went back and edited your comment. What rocket changed shapes? What are you talking about?
    1
  9179.  @wildcat8882  How is this an answer to any question/challenge I put forth? What ARE you talking about?
    1
  9180.  @DemonDrummer  Sorry, but, as politely as I can possibly put this, you sound like one of them. They accuse me all the time of being paid, or a bot, or just the same person across multiple accounts, or whatever else. And, for you to repeatedly (as you've done in many threads) accuse them of the same in reverse, just makes you sound like them. There's no shortage of gullible people who buy into every conspiracy that they can get their hands on. There's no shortage of those people who make postings on the internet. These are people who are PROUD to know nothing. Or, more accurately, they're PROUD to pretend to know things they don't. And, they exist in the millions. Yet, you go around and accuse them of having dozens of accounts and are often just one person posting as many. Well, that does happen. I've seen it. Once in a blue moon, one of them will post a reply using the wrong account by mistake, and expose that they're the same person using at least two different IDs. But, most of the time, it's just another crackpot in a sea of crackpots.
    1
  9181. And, what exactly is the point of "knowing Jesus" if carjackers who pull guns on cops are "saved eternally"? If someone who lives a pure life, but doesn't "know Jesus," are they doomed for all eternity. But, the carjacker is "saved"?
    1
  9182. Why? What EXACTLY should the police have done instead?
    1
  9183.  @globalcitizen995  Wrong. If the administrators trespass the person, the cops must trespass the person.
    1
  9184. "there is Zero telescopes that can see that area - because it's 100% FAKE" Dewdrop, there's a concept called "optical resolution" in physics that you don't understand. Photons too close together cannot be seen by any telescope because, by the time they arrive, they're not even intact because they interfered with each other. This is called the Rayleigh criterion, or Dawes' limit. The only way around this is a bigger telescope to capture photons far enough apart. To see the basic shape of an Apollo lander, it would take a quarter mile wide lens. To see details, you're talking about a lens that is literally miles across.
    1
  9185. "Gas cannot form a sphere shape inside of a vacuum. That's impossible in physics." Write it up and submit it to science journals, dewdrop. There's a Nobel Prize in it if you're right (despite observed reality).
    1
  9186. "that gas would leave Earth and you would die. Again, thanks to the real physics of the 2nd law of thermodynamics." This is just plain silly. You think thermodynamics is somehow in conflict with gravity? What?
    1
  9187. "Earth is measured flat via elevation angles from celestial bodies using celestial navigation." Dewdrop, celestial navigation only works on a globe. What's wrong with you? Good grief.
    1
  9188. In direct response to her question about why they didn't go BACK. He talked about his mission a million times before that interview, a million times after that interview, and even talked about his mission DURING that interview. But, you're going to intentionally take one sentence out of context, and pretend it's a "confession"? Oh, you're a real hero.
    1
  9189. She chose to put on a show in front of multiple people including children. That's a misdemeanor.
    1
  9190. Well, you could simply read the arrest report for that information. But, I warn you, reading it will also shatter your delusions about what happened here. She was a convicted felon who spent a term in prison and had a million other arrests. More than one person called about this incident. And, one of the witnesses recorded the event and gave a copy of the video to the police. It doesn't match her sob story about nobody being around. To the contrary, it sounds like she was making "public beach" content, but got reported, and was trying to cry her way out of her millionth arrest. Her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the local gentlemen's club, and neighbors said she did "extras" for cash in her apartment. Still mad at the people who called?
    1
  9191.  @Donn3rMC  Didn't you read his obituary? It says he died peacefully. Yes, it literally says that.
    1
  9192. Yeah, like all of those guys at the playground. They get overwhelmed, watching the kiddies, nice beautiful day, and the next thing you know, they get punished for it.
    1
  9193. Well, there was no ordinance banning thongs at Cocoa Beach. There was such an ordinance at this particular beach. I mean, I agree, they probably need to change the ordinance. We don't live in a country that requires women to be covered from head to toe. But, be that as it may, according to the ordinance, the police were correct in asking her to leave.
    1
  9194. Really? How? And, what do you propose? The police aren't supposed to arrest someone who commits a crime?
    1
  9195. No other nation has spent the kind of money the USA has spent on space travel. Back in those days, yes, the Soviets spent a lot also. But, yes, they gave up on going to the moon after they couldn't get their N1 moon rocket to work, and they had lost the race anyway. So, they moved their focus to space stations and Venus probes. But, some countries are working on missions to the moon in the next decade or so.
    1
  9196. Well, the police blocked the arrest video's release for 2.5 years. She was dead for 1.5 of those years. They could no longer block a legal FOIA request after it's been closed for that long. What do you propose they do to continue to block its release?
    1
  9197. Of posted of didn't happen until of 2.5 of years after of the incident of of. Nobody of saw the arrest video of while she was of alive. Of the Freedom of Information Act of dictates of the public's right of access to of arrest videos of of.
    1
  9198. Sure, but, you've missed the point. The point was that the conspiracy crowd doesn't understand the topic. But, can photos be faked? Sure. Does that mean they were faked? Absolutely not. I've never considered the photographic evidence to be the best evidence in the first place. Yes, it's strong evidence, but, like you said, it can be faked. The rest of the evidence is the real strong stuff that couldn't have been faked (except if you believe dozens of countries for decades are all out to deceive you).
    1
  9199. Dutch, if you didn't want answers, why did you ask questions? I swear, not a single one of you nuts is capable of being coherent for even a minute.
    1
  9200. Because their opponents are too stupid to spell correctly.
    1
  9201.  @VinceAdamsTraining  Hilarious!!! I'm a gun toting right-leaning person who happens to hate the stuff that this school board is doing. But, I also know that when the people on the right come across as illiterate clowns, there's no way to ever make a dent on the left.
    1
  9202.  @VinceAdamsTraining  "Tough love" is not a concept that's right or left. If you want to be taken seriously, learn to spell. Be a man. Admit it wasn't spell check. Why would spell check change "their" to "there"? It makes no sense, and I reject your claim outright. This is especially the case when your subsequent comment was not exactly literate either. You can call me "mean" all day long. But, you're the one trying to blame spell check for your own mistakes. Don't make excuses. I'm on your side, whether you know it or not.
    1
  9203. Thanks for the confirmation that my posting is visible. YouTube censorship has been messing with my postings lately.
    1
  9204. Well, everything you said is true... except the part that says, "Now this happened, what a tragedy." Her suicide was 1.5 years before this arrest video was ever made public. Don't just trust the cleverly worded Inside Edition story that is twisting what happened here. They do it for ad revenue. "Junkie with an arrest record and no job and a mountain of mental health issues turns to selling her body by the hour, and eventually destroys her life" doesn't go viral. But, "a young and healthy real estate agent embarrassed by a YouTube video commits suicide" goes viral and results in bunches of ad revenue.
    1
  9205. Huh? You do know they overturned the verdict, and let him out of prison, right?
    1
  9206.  @declangaming24  What in the world are you talking about? How is this an answer to why you say he's in prison? What? Oh, never mind, you're clearly on something.
    1
  9207. "carry that much fuel to complete the 240k miles back to earth?" Um, this isn't Battlestar Galactica. You don't need to keep burning fuel with turbos to get from point A to point B. In reality, you coast most of the time. "I hope it's true that the US landed on the moon" No, you very clearly hope the opposite. "but there is a good chance it's fake." Why? Because you think the thousands of engineers forgot to put enough fuel in the craft? Because you don't understand anything about how rockets work? "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake" seems to be your only argument. "I SAW IT ON TV SO IT'S REAL!" No. The video/photographic evidence is the weakest form of evidence. I mean, yeah, it would be mighty difficult to fake 80 hours of video, 7,000 photos from the lunar surface, and 110,000 photos from lunar orbit. But, ultimately, ok, those things can be faked. The much stronger evidence is all of the 3rd party confirmation of Apollo.
    1
  9208. "What kind of thrust would it take to land on an alien surface NEVER SEEN BEFORE?" You need as much thrust as the craft weighs, and, technically, a bit more. The descent engines on the Apollo landers could produce up to 10,500 pounds of thrust. The landers weighed approximately 33,500 pounds (depending on the mission) in Earth's gravity. They burned about 18,000 pounds of that weight (fuel and oxidizer) during the descent. Adjust for lunar gravity, and the net weight was around 2,600 pounds. This varied a bit from mission to mission, but, you get the idea. 10,500 pounds of maximum thrust is more than enough to land 2,600 pounds. And, during the final phases of the landing sequence, the thrust was throttled down to match the weight.
    1
  9209. "What kind of thrust would it take to leave this alien surface" The lunar weight of the ascent stage (again, depending a bit on which mission) was about 1,950 pounds. Remember, they leave the descent stage and lots of other stuff on the lunar surface, and only lift off with what they need. The ascent engine produced 3,500 pounds of thrust. But, again, I don't know why you're asking this, because you already made it painfully clear that you understand NOTHING about Apollo or rocketry.
    1
  9210. "One way or another that type of thrust takes fuel....a lot of it." And, you think that the thousands of aerospace engineers forgot to include enough fuel. Right. Sure. And, you "hope it's true that the US landed on the moon"? Yet, you think that none of the world's aerospace engineers ever realized that they didn't have enough fuel? Really?
    1
  9211. "I don't care about the gravity issue." Hence why you're not an aerospace engineer.
    1
  9212. "The lunar module just doesn't appear to have the capacity." Is this a joke at this point? Seriously? 7,000 engineers worked on the lunar module design. Are you honestly going to sit there and think that all of them forgot to put enough fuel in the craft? And, by the way, you didn't even realize that the descent engine was separate from the ascent engine. And, you apparently didn't realize that the lander didn't come back to Earth. That's how little you understand about the topic. Yet, you're honestly sitting there and making the claim that YOU are capable of doing this math (without actually doing it), but the 7,000 engineers who designed and built the thing couldn't do this math? And, for +50 years, not a single aerospace engineer on the planet has ever noticed what you think you're noticing?
    1
  9213. See, it's like a skyscraper. How much work would you have to do to throw a 100 pound rock onto the top of a skyscraper? OK, you've done that work. Now, it's on the skyscraper roof, right? Chop the rock in half, leave half of the rock on the skyscraper, and toss the other half over the edge of the skyscraper. How much work did that take? All you needed to do was lift 50 pounds over to the edge of the skyscraper and push it off the edge. But, to get the 100 pounds up to the top of the skyscraper, you needed an enormous cannon, right? Same for Apollo. To lift the 100,000 pounds (total weight of the different craft) to the moon, it took the Saturn V and 5 million pounds of fuel/oxidizer. To get back, all they needed to do is bump the little remaining craft out of lunar orbit, and let it "fall" back to Earth using Earth's gravity.
    1
  9214. "and fly back to earth" Well, dewdrop, they didn't come back in the craft they landed in. All you're doing is proving that you still don't even understand the function of any of these craft.
    1
  9215. Um, ok. But, except for a couple of obscure blogs nobody has ever heard of, none of the "splashing on the internet" even happened until long after she was dead.
    1
  9216. Well, here in the USA, if someone puts on a public show in front of children at a beach, they get arrested... especially ones with extensive criminal records like she had.
    1
  9217. Just don't hold your breath for 2024. Congress still hasn't funded enough money to make it by that deadline.
    1
  9218.  @OwenTaylorhasleftcookies4u  Um, sounds like a nice effort. But, claiming the survival rate was 5% is outrageous. You cannot convince the silly deniers by making that kind of claim.
    1
  9219. Hilarious!! Gotta love YouTube, the land where people can just go pretend to be people they are not.
    1
  9220. The moon landings absolutely were a stunt. 100%. There's no doubt there. The Apollo program was a stunt to display technological dominance over the Soviets. And, yes, they successfully landed on the moon 6 times. The problem is that people think that because it was a stunt, it was fake. Sorry, that's wrong. Apollo was real, AND it was a stunt. As for shifting funds, huh? When has the government ever even needed an excuse for money or fund-shifting if they decided to go into wars? If they wanted to go to war, they'd go to war with or without the shifting of any funds. Your claim makes no sense.
    1
  9221. Sorry, dummy. YouTube University isn't a real thing. Just because YouTube videos tell you that spaceships burn up in cosmic radiation, doesn't mean it's true. We have over 400 satellites in orbit in the Van Allen radiation belts right now, some of which have been in operation for 30+ years. They're not burning up. You can track them yourself, you know. You can calculate the angles yourself. You can calculate the distances yourself. It's not hard. So, if those satellites can operate in the belts for many years, why do you believe it's not possible for Apollo to go through in a couple of hours?
    1
  9222. Well, the police prevented the release of the arrest video for 2.5 years. But, since she was dead for 1.5 of those years, they could no longer block the release due to FOIA. What more do you think they could have done?
    1
  9223. But, the news outlets never even touched this story until she was already dead for 1.5 years. How can they be held accountable for her suicide? Time machine?
    1
  9224. As a general rule, open investigation vs. closed.
    1
  9225. I do believe that doctors perform surgery, with, can't remember what it's called, a "scalpel" or something like that, not really sure. But, brain surgery? No way.
    1
  9226.  @therealzilch  Yup.
    1
  9227. Why? What should they do differently?
    1
  9228. It's not harassment to request to see a receipt and her ID. It's the cop's job, and rightfully so. The store employee (also named Anna) told the cop that she thought the woman went through the register without paying. That's the reason he stopped her. And, c'mon Anna. Let's get real. You cannot even spell "hearsay" correctly. What could you possibly know about it? Hearsay doesn't apply to this situation to begin with. Cops can use hearsay all day long when investigating possible crimes. It doesn't hold much water in a courtroom, but, second hand information is a very good way to dive deeper and eventually acquire better evidence. But, this isn't even hearsay. The store employee reported to the cop what she saw with her own eyes, not what someone else saw. Her words aren't hearsay. And, like I said, hearsay doesn't even come into play at this point, but, I'm just spelling out that you're wrong on every level.
    1
  9229.  @annakaye1629  I have absolutely no respect for people who thumbs up their own comments. And, your supposed grasp of English has no relevance upon the gibberish you spewed. It's not "harassment" to ask for a receipt or ID, no matter which language. You clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
    1
  9230. There are 5 reflectors on the moon (3 from Apollo), or 6 if you include the one put there recently by India (but, the 6th isn't for use to bounce back to Earth, it's for use by satellites around the moon). No, there are no radio amateurs who can bounce lasers off of the reflectors on the moon. You have confused lasers with radio. And, go take a look at the laser ranging facilities used to range the moon. No amateur on Earth owns one of those facilities.
    1
  9231. So, you opened by saying BS fake? THEN you ask your questions? Don't pretend that you're really interested in answers, when you come to your conclusion first, and then ask questions second. And, sorry, but you have ZERO understanding of thermodynamics and temperature. This is evident from the start, when you quote 260 degree temperatures. The moon doesn't get that hot until the lunar high noon. All landings took place early in the lunar morning. You seem to think that the sun comes up, and BING, it's 260 degrees. No. Not even close. It's a slow and gradual rise. There's a special kind of irony when you take the numbers provided by NASA when they suit you, but, you ignore the time of those numbers provided by NASA. When they said the surface temperature reaches 260, you readily accept it. When they tell you when those temperatures happen, you ignore it. They always landed early in the lunar morning when the surface temperatures were still below zero (F). From then, sure, it slowly heats up. But, they were never there for the extremes you're talking about at high noon.
    1
  9232. "The suits are pressurized. Why didn't they blow up like a balloon." Because of two reasons. (1) The suits were 24 layers. 21 layers of the main suit, and then 3 layers of the inner garment. Most of those layers were not all that expandable. Think of it like a bike tire. When there's no pressure, sure, it's pretty flat. But, once you get the thing to about 15 PSI, it pretty much doesn't expand after that, all the way up to 110 PSI. Unless you're touching the tire to feel the pressure, you really can't visibly tell the difference between 15 PSI and 110 PSI. The tire just doesn't keep expanding. Same concept for the Apollo suits. Once they were pressurized even a little bit, that was it, they're done expanding. Most of the layers just didn't expand past the shape you see in the photos. And, the layers that did expand were well restrained by the layers around them. (2) The pressure inside the suits was between 3 PSI and 3.5 PSI. Unless you're Alan Bean, and yeah, it was probably a bit higher when his pressure release valve got stuck. Anyway, 3 PSI is not a lot. It was pure oxygen, so, they had to keep the pressure pretty low to avoid oxygen toxicity. It's not as if they operated at Earth's sea level pressure of around 15 PSI. It was around 20% of that pressure.
    1
  9233. "Heat radiates even in a vacuum. I'm not saying it didn't happen but I am skeptical of it." And, you think none of the engineers knew about heat? Yes, heat radiates, and heat gets absorbed. It's an equilibrium. Sunlight shines on stuff, and it heats up. At the same time, the stuff is radiating that heat. The net temperature is related to how much heat is being absorbed, vs. how much heat is radiating. If there's more energy coming in than going out, yes, this means the object is getting hotter. If it's radiating more energy than it's absorbing, that means it's getting colder. So what? You seem to be applying these terms randomly, without really understanding the relevance.
    1
  9234. "Show me evidence of a thermometer on or being held by an astronaut." The "thermometers" to measure temperature inside the suits were inside the suits. They didn't "hold" them. And, the ones that measured surface temperatures were in little probes that they inserted into the lunar "soil." They dug little holes, put the probes into those holes. I wouldn't call them "thermometers" exactly, but, yeah, close enough. They were powered by solar panels on the EASEP for Apollo 11, and powered by the radioisotopic (nuclear) generators for the rest of the missions with the ALSEPs. If you want to see them doing it, then yeah, some of the missions had the camera running while they were setting those up, and you're welcome to go hunt it down. I'd normally do that homework, but, I have very little faith that you really care all that much about watching them insert probes into the ground, and more often, the "show me this" and "show me that" comments are just made to make others go off and do busy work for a topic the deniers intend to ignore anyway. "sewn with needle and thread. Hence they had thousands of tiny holes in each layer." Yes and no. The main purpose of those outer layers was to squeeze shut the inner layers. Layer 18 was a Neoprene coated nylon layer that was not stitched. And, 19 was a more flexible version of the same. Once zipped up, it squeezed those layers to create quite a good seal. But, yeah, all of the suits leaked anyway. Who cares? Do you ever go scuba diving? You know how 90% of the first stages just constantly leak little tiny amounts? Yeah, Apollo suits were like that. They had slow leaks. Nobody cares. They had enough oxygen for about 7 hours (in the later missions). Leaking 1 or 2 % isn't all that big of a deal. It shortened their supply by a few minutes, and was factored in to the plan. It's a drop in the bucket next to the "waste" of the venting from the porous plate sublimators, the purge/pressure release valves, etc. I'll never understand why so many people think these things had to be 100% air tight or something. It's not like that. They vent. They breathe. They leak. 99% was good enough. "Pressure goes from high to low." In a pure oxygen environment, you cannot operate at Earth's atmospheric pressure, or you get oxygen poisoning. Oxygen is about 21% of the Earth's atmosphere. That's the amount of oxygen the human body expects. So, they ran the suits at about 20%-25% of the pressure of Earth's atmosphere, so the human body would be breathing about the same amount of oxygen that they got on Earth. "So a pressurized flexible suit would expand in a vacuum." Do you really not know that there are materials that flex, but don't expand? Look at a child's balloon made of Mylar. It flexes. But, once it's at the full shape, it really doesn't expand any longer. You can keep adding pressure all you want, but, the balloon doesn't get any bigger. This is different from a rubber balloon, which will just keep getting bigger and bigger until it pops. But, a Mylar balloon flexes without getting any bigger. Same for the Apollo suits. Ironically, some of the layers are Mylar. But, really, except for the Neoprene layers, the rest of the layers of the suits really didn't expand, even though they're flexible.
    1
  9235. "They typically block or erase everything I put on here." Yeah, my ratio is about 50%. About half of my messages get blocked, and I need to reword or whatever to get them to post. And, sometimes, if I post a lot, it just blocks me for 24 hours just because the algorithm says to block me. I'd love to see them get sued for blocking free speech. But, who knows? It's part of the user agreement that we get what we get, and can go fly a kite if we don't like it.
    1
  9236. Dewdrop, there was no rover on this mission.
    1
  9237. I'm pretty sure you're trying to extrapolate that from the tiny scrape of moon dust that sold for $30,000, right? As far as I know, it's the only lunar sample ever sold to the public (legally anyway). You're talking about the piece of scotch tape that pulled some dust off of Dave Scott's suit, and the tape was sold at a charity auction for $30K, right? Well, first of all, charity auctions tend to drive prices up to begin with, because people pay more money in the name of charity (especially if tax deductible). Secondly, supply and demand. If you bring back a mountain of moon dust, this devalues the moon dust. If there's only one sample of dust available on the open (legal) market, then the price is higher. But, at no point does it mean that a few flakes of dust selling for $30K means a tablespoon would sell for billions.
    1
  9238. Let's not blame the criminal. Let's blame the honest people, right?
    1
  9239. This is just plain silly. Many of them reported unknown objects. It's the ones that believe those unknown objects are aliens... yeah... those guys do a fine job of discrediting themselves.
    1
  9240. Nope. Other than a couple of obscure blogs nobody has ever heard of, this story wasn't seen by anybody until long after she was dead. And, you do know her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the local gentlemen's club, right? If she gets embarrassed from exposure, she sure picked a strange career path. But, I imagine she didn't have many choices after her extensive criminal history.
    1
  9241. No, she wasn't.
    1
  9242. Except, one of the audience recorded it and gave the video to the police.
    1
  9243. Well, you could read the arrest report, you know. You don't just blindly trust Inside Edition, do you?
    1
  9244. It's public info, dewdrop.
    1
  9245. So, you haven't bothered to read the police report, yet, you think *I* am confused?
    1
  9246. Well, the son killed the father and threw him into a lake. So, when fleeing in the truck, the son also started shooting at the police.
    1
  9247. Oh, wow, I thought that warnings didn't apply to crimes, and they only applied to infractions. Please, with your massive legal expertise, can you explain when the cops started giving warnings for crimes? All my life, I thought only infractions could have warnings. And, also, with your massive legal expertise, can you explain how much good it would do to deny the whole thing when one woman in the "audience" video recorded the incident with her cell phone? The cops described that video in their report as a very loud and very public display in full view of multiple people. I realize that it doesn't match the quiet and secluded version as spoken by a woman trying to avoid being arrested. But, hey, doesn't an actual video override what the woman says? You're the legal expert here. So, please explain?
    1
  9248. Well, nobody broadcasted the arrest video until 2.5 years later, and she was long dead by then. It wasn't made public until 1.5 years after her death.
    1
  9249. You are completely backward. The school board had the authority to trespass the guy, and the cops, therefore, must arrest him for trespassing. But, the problem is the school board themselves. I hope they all get kicked out of their positions. But, again, you're just plain backward.
    1
  9250.  @Tim22222  Well, he was awfully disliked among the other astronauts. But, I'm nitpicking.
    1
  9251. Your nickname has the word "patriot" in it. Timothy McVeigh considered himself extremely patriotic also.
    1
  9252.  @Tim22222  Basically, in a small nutshell (without going into a massive 7 hour long thing), he's a sovereign citizen. If you don't know anything about what that means, well, all I can tell you is that it's another group of massively misinformed people, a lot like the moon landing denier cult... who think what they do/say is good, when it's actually criminal.
    1
  9253.  @Tim22222  Or, oh, wait, you meant Aldrin?
    1
  9254.  @Tim22222  Sorry, I thought that you were referring to my Timothy McVeigh comment for some reason. My bad. I didn't put 2+2 together when I saw this response. Yes, putting it mildly, Aldrin was very disliked. That's why he never got a command. That's why Slayton nearly pulled him off of Apollo 11. That's why, ultimately, he got Armstrong and Lovell as commanders (the only two that could probably handle the guy). But, if you ask me, Aldrin was probably largely misunderstood. All of Aldrin's behavior was for the better, however, his tact didn't exist, and he stepped on a lot of toes, and definitely acted superior. It's part of having a mild form of Asperger's (which he obviously does). He's amazingly intelligent, but, interfacing with people isn't his strong point. Slayton kept him on Apollo 11 because he was the best man to have on that mission if there was ever a problem that would result on needing onboard calculations to save the crew. Aldrin was the man to do it. But, Slayton was never going to give him a command, nor was he going to let Aldrin step first, because he just didn't like the guy, and felt that he'd be a bad representative of the first steps. Also, you can't really be a good commander/leader when everyone around you refuses to follow. Personally, well, I like talking to him. That man will give me information like you couldn't even imagine. I'd ask him a question, and get the 1/2 hour answer (that most people would never want, but I love). I also understand his mentality. I know he never means to insult people, it just happens anyway. I'll give you an example. I was having breakfast with him at an astronaut event (I am not an astronaut, I'm nobody, I was just attending the event). Lovell came up to our table and asked to sit with me, my wife, and Aldrin. Yes, of course, please join us. I got the impression that those two hadn't talked in a long time, and Lovell was being friendly to his old Gemini partner. Well, this was about 11 years after the Apollo 13 movie by Ron Howard. And, Aldrin dives into that movie, telling Lovell all the things he got wrong (Lovell was the technical advisor on that movie). Lovell was basically speechless, except just saying "that's not how I remembered it" (many times). The irony is, of course, I think Aldrin was right, and Lovell was wrong about his own mission in those technical details. But, that's not the point here. The point is that Aldrin was basically torching Lovell. And, given that the movie came out 11 years prior, well, he clearly hadn't seen the guy in that many years, if this is just coming to the surface now at a breakfast table. Anyway, the "conversation" was basically all Aldrin. I didn't say much of anything (a rarity for me). My wife didn't say much either, outside of "hello" and a couple of nice comments. Lovell remained virtually speechless. I mean, again, don't get me wrong here, I'm an admirer of Aldrin (and Lovell), but, I completely understand why Aldrin wasn't very well liked. Why was he doing this? Because Aldrin cares about accuracy and the facts. He didn't hold malice toward Lovell, but, you might think so from the conversation. Anyway, I've met him a bunch of times, and most of those times, things didn't go that way. It's been mostly just me asking questions, and him being a human encyclopedia of answers. He somewhat regrets punching Sibrel (in certain ways). He still knows everything about Apollo down to every switch and wire. And, if you're just interfacing with him for information, he's wonderful. I don't know how difficult it would be to befriend him, though. The other astronauts couldn't (or wouldn't) do that.
    1
  9255.  @Tim22222  Yeah, now that you know it, you'll never hear an astronaut interview again the same way when they talk about Aldrin, and you can tell that they're tiptoe'ing around what they say. Many of the astronauts even wrote about it in their books.
    1
  9256. You need to see the entire encounter, not just the cut-up version.
    1
  9257. What do you the justice system did to cause her death?
    1
  9258. No. The point isn't that the medications were used while driving. The point is that she was heavily medicated IN COURT, and unable to function, unable to coherently accept a plea deal, unable to show up on time, unable to interface with judges and attorneys, etc.
    1
  9259.  @regenia8738  She was intoxicated for the crash itself also, yes, but not the same drugs/reason.
    1
  9260. So, if you were a cop, you'd decide for yourself whether to arrest someone for a crime? I thought police could only use personal discretion for infractions, not for crimes. I thought that if there's probable cause for a crime, we don't want our police to be the judge and jury, and we want the courts for that. But, you're clearly the legal expert here, not me, so, please explain? Oh, and by the way, one of the witnesses took video of the event, and showed it to the police. And, the witness said that she had been pacing up and down the beach, looking for a location to do this, then specifically chose a spot in view of multiple people including children. Her landlord said that her "profession" was, well, one of those things that we're not allowed to type on YouTube comments... ya know... one of those places involving lots of dollar bills that mostly men go to... where they put on a lot of shows. I suppose after her mile long arrest record and her term in prison for stealing cars, it was pretty difficult to get a real job.
    1
  9261. So, you're not a cop, but, you're going to double down and continue to pretend to understand things you do not. Sure. Right.
    1
  9262. It's called the Freedom of Information Act. Check it out sometime.
    1
  9263. Fiero = 42 points, Allante = 43 points? I think it's time for a new rating system.
    1
  9264. Um, ok, what choice did they have with a legal FOIA request to do so? At least they were able to prevent the release for 2.5 years, right? Nobody saw it while she was alive.
    1
  9265.  @David-hi9rp  Yes, I know this. I was opening with a little friendly ribbing about not knowing what you're talking about (about the mentality of flat Earthers).
    1
  9266. Or, putting it another way, I was trying to be funny. I guess I failed.
    1
  9267. Huh? Please explain exactly how the cops messed up?
    1
  9268. Well, your opinions don't matter. She was getting arrested because she committed a crime.
    1
  9269. I wonder, is that what you'd say if it was a man at a playground?
    1
  9270.  @wolfenergy4219  Killed her by OD? Is that 9mm OD? Or, .22?
    1
  9271.  @wolfenergy4219  Nonsense.
    1
  9272.  @wolfenergy4219  Because the cause of death was a bullet.
    1
  9273. When are you going to stop pretending you know anything about the topic?
    1
  9274. Good grief. What IS wrong with you?
    1
  9275. The video wasn't made public until 1.5 years after she died. So, um, sorry, no.
    1
  9276. Or, you have fallen for Inside Edition trash news, and her suicide had nothing to do with this arrest. I mean, why this arrest anyway? Why not her million other arrests? Why not while she was in prison? Why now, with this one insignificant arrest? This would easily be negotiated down to a minor infraction. Nobody in the public would be aware of it.
    1
  9277.  @nebtheweb8885  No, actually, the flag did move a couple of times (very slightly) without touching it. It was probably due to the PLSS backpack offgassing nearby. But, it also could have been static charge. Also, the flag moved quite a bit on Apollo 14 when the astronauts were still in the LEM (offgassing of the lunar module, including one they they opened the purge valve before the 2nd EVA, and the flag moved a lot).
    1
  9278.  @indianarmylover1726  The flag isn't moving because of any air. The flag is moving because it's being handled. Did you expect a flag to be stiff when being handled?
    1
  9279.  @h.dejong2531  "We can measure the weight of the moon by measuring its orbit." Nope. A 10 pound object will orbit at the same altitude and velocity as a 10 million pound object. The way we know the mass of the moon is via gravimeters (including Earth-based ones, but, the ones orbiting the moon are better). We also corroborate that data by examining the bending of starlight around the moon, and by trying to calculate the barycenter of the Earth/moon system (which is not easy to do). This also ties into how much the Japan laser reflector satellite changes orbital height with the moon behind it, as well as with the moon on the other side of the Earth (it moves a bit due to the moon's gravity). Then, we can talk about the tides, but, that type of measurement is really difficult also. Ultimately, the absolute best evidence for the mass of the moon isn't by measuring the moon's orbit, but, by measuring the orbit of satellites that orbit the moon. That's the best possible evidence of all.
    1
  9280. Which mission, and which camera view are you asking about?
    1
  9281. What is wrong with you? You can see the gun on the ground at 5:02 next to a 2x4 piece of wood. You see the gun pointed directly at the officer's head at 0:08 if you go frame by frame. The attorney for the family said he was armed. The carjacker's father said he was armed. They talked about the gun during this video. But, you have the audacity and temerity to claim that he was unarmed? Watch out, nuckruker, your hatred is showing.
    1
  9282. She was dead 1.5 years before anybody saw the arrest video. They kept it private as long as they could.
    1
  9283. Huh? What do you think the cops did wrong here?
    1
  9284. Dewdrop, nothing was ever implied about this video being real. It's obviously CGI. Spare the world your silly fantasies.
    1
  9285. Yes, it's a legal thing. But, that's because they don't want 120k pound trucks/cargo on the roads all the time, because that causes more wear and tear than the roads were designed to handle. Right? To haul oversized loads, don't you need specialized permits, escort cars, extra taxes/fees per load, and specialized scheduling? It costs far more per pound to haul an oversized load than a regular compliant 80k pound truck/cargo, right? I'm asking, not telling.
    1
  9286. So, in other words, it's not practical to try to operate the Tesla as an oversized load, right?
    1
  9287.  @jackfeng1988  Yeah, but the point is, the Tesla Semi is probably around 60,000 pounds, not 35,000. That many batteries are crazy heavy.
    1
  9288. You will find lots of photos of most of these things on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal site. For the really small and obscure items, well, they didn't necessarily take photos. So, some of what he shows won't be found in the photos.
    1
  9289. Well, that's not a difficult bet to win. This is a civil case (money), not a criminal case (prison).
    1
  9290. Wow, I don't think I've ever seen so much backward garbage before. YOU SAID: "Going to the moon was scoring a goal after the game has ended." == No, the Soviets' accomplishments in space were scoring goals before the game even started. YOU SAID: "The Russians was first in space, first animals in space, first humans in space." == Correct. But, once the USA got going, the USA passed the Soviets quite well. During the entire USA manned Gemini space program, for example, the Soviets literally didn't send a single manned flight into space. Not one. The USA launched 10 manned space missions in Gemini from March of 1965 to November of 1966. The Soviets didn't launch a single manned rocket during that entire time, not one, nada, zip, nothing, until April of 1967. For over TWO YEARS, the Soviets stayed on the ground. So, spare the world this "game is over" nonsense. YOU SAID: "The stadium was already empty when the moon goal was scored." == Hilarious!!! The Apollo 11 moon landing and moonwalk was the most watched television broadcast of all time (at that point anyway). I honestly can't tell if you're joking, or what? And, if you think the Apollo 11 moon landing wasn't a big deal, then, why did the Soviets send Luna 15 probe up there to meet the Apollo 11 craft around the moon, with the intention of landing while the astronauts were still on the surface, and racing Apollo 11 back home with the first lunar samples? Why would they bother? I mean, it ended up crashing into a lunar mountain, because it was a rushed mission, and they made some mistakes. But, nonetheless, if the game was over, why were they trying to steal some of the spotlight? Also, how do you explain the N1 rockets they built and the lunar landers they built? They flew 4 of their own lunar landers in space, you know, getting prepared to send them to the moon. And, they kept building N1 moon rockets, although, they kept exploding. They even tried to launch an N1 moon rocket a mere 2 weeks before Apollo 11 launched. It exploded. But, nonetheless, if the race was over, why did they keep trying to win the race? YOU SAID: "It is cheaper and safer to do the exploring with unmanned rovers why would we spend that much money to do it again?" == What does this have to do with your original point? Good grief.
    1
  9291. They never blasted anything until long after she was dead.
    1
  9292.  @DanPerissinotto  No, dewdrop, there is no "proof" that the hundreds of LRO images of the Apollo landing sites, taken from virtually every sun angle possible, are "real." But, in order to believe they're fake, you need to believe that thousands of people were in on it, decade after decade after decade, from friendly and enemy countries, and not a single one "spilled the beans," and that all of these various countries that have decided to participate... also have a 100% perfect track record of hiring staff that is willing to go to their graves without ever revealing "the secret."
    1
  9293.  @DanPerissinotto  In order to believe the LRO images are fake, you need to conclude that the dozens of professors and students working on it at Arizona State University (the people who manage that camera) are all "in on it," or have been duped. And, you have to believe that somehow there has been a generation by generation passing down of the torch of people who have been determined to keep magically hiring tons of people willing to perpetuate a lie, never once finding a person who said "no."
    1
  9294.  @DanPerissinotto  Furthermore, since India and China have now released their orbital images (just in the past few months) of some of the Apollo landing sites, showing the landers in the exact same spots that LRO shows them, you'd have to believe that India and China have now decided that they want to join "the deception" decades later for some unknown reason.
    1
  9295. "USA, India, Russia, China, Japan, UK, it's not unreasonable to think they could all be in on a conspiracy together" a) Yes, that's exactly what you'd need to believe. And, yes, that's ridiculous. Look at how far down the drain you've flushed your thinking capacities away. You have outlined that, indeed, yes, you'd NEED the active participation of numerous countries over decades and decades, tens of thousands of people, never once with anybody spilling the beans. b) Your list of participating countries is extremely incomplete. Dozens of countries tracked the Apollo missions with radar and radio telescopes. Dozens use the laser reflectors. c) This is classic paranoid delusional behavior on your part. Just keep on increasing the number of participants until you think the entire planet is out to get you.
    1
  9296.  @DanPerissinotto  No, dewdrop, it's not that simple. You clearly don't understand the evidence. So, stop pretending.
    1
  9297.  @DanPerissinotto  Dewdrop, if you're not going to actually address anything I type, and continuously just seek to change topics in thread after thread, there's really no point here.
    1
  9298. Yet, you won't even name the evidence you expect and would accept. Sorry, dewdrop, you don't get to sit there and say "show me the proof." These are YouTube comments. There's enough evidence to write entire encyclopedias. But, it's 100% clear that you only have two criteria for your beliefs: (1) If it supports Apollo, it's fake, no matter how good it is, and (2) If it goes against Apollo, it's real, no matter how laughable. You know darned well that no matter what anybody offers you, you intend, in advance, to reject it. You've already said that you think numerous countries (including enemies) were "in on it." And, that's a direct result of the fact that you're aware that numerous countries have already confirmed Apollo. I mean, what's somebody supposed to offer you at this point? If I tell you that Madagascar tracked the Apollo missions, all you're going to say is that they were "in on it." If I tell you that Australia tracked the missions also with radar and radio telescopes, as well as received Apollo's audio and video signals while their dishes were pointed at the moon, you're just going to say that Australia was "in on it." And, when I tell you that hundreds of people were operating those dishes and electronics throughout the Apollo program (thousands of people worldwide), you're just going to say that somehow they were "compartmentalized" into somehow misreading what their equipment showed on their screens... as if the secret lizard people magically can plant "fake" radar bounce-back signals coming from the direction of the moon into dozens of countries' radar dishes, and not a single engineer anywhere in the world noticed it. Sorry, but all you've done is create a situation in your mind where nobody can ever offer you anything, because you know darned well, in advance, that you will reject it. Meanwhile, you chant "show me the evidence." And, you constantly change topics and refuse to answer any return challenges/questions. Sorry, but if you can't/won't name the evidence you'd even expect/accept, you don't get to sit here and demand that people give it to you. I have no intention of writing up an encyclopedia of evidence for you, and I seriously doubt anybody else would ever do it either. Your mind is closed to all input anyway. And, you are so far gone that you actually believe that the world's experts somehow can't understand silly things you think you can understand, and you think the entire planet is out to deceive you. That's how far gone you are. And, you denied GRAVITY in the other thread? What in the world is wrong with you?
    1
  9299. In Kentucky? My bet is that it's a .40.
    1
  9300. Freedom of Information Act. What do you propose to stop it? And, no, she didn't experience any shame over this video. It wasn't seen by anybody until after she was already dead for 1.5 years.
    1
  9301. "Me: why can’t the us spend the same amounts of cash on space like they do on the military. To go to the moon?" Because the moon is not much of a priority. Military is. I'm sorry you don't understand anything, but why are you using your lack of understanding as a method to slander everyone who worked on Apollo? Why can't you answer basic questions? "You: here is some random information about how they made it" Dewdrop, it's not RANDOM. You said that everything was lost, and nobody knows how it was done. I refuted that by showing you a site that has terabytes of the stuff you say is lost. "with technical jargon that I myself don’t know." Yes, dewdrop, I'm quite well versed in the technical stuff. It would take you TEN YEARS to go through the information. You denied it in TEN MINUTES. Don't pretend you even looked at it. "I will lick their junk and religiously take their word as gospel." Dewdrop, you clearly ignored the part earlier when I asked you to explain the evidence provided by other countries. You refused to even address it. Don't pretend that I take anybody's word for anything. "Me: you are pealing to authority" Dewdrop, you don't even know what that means. I refuted your claim that the data was lost. I wasn't appealing to anything. "instead of critically evaluating the information for your self. Using your own rationality." Hold on just a second here. YOU claimed the data was lost. You claimed nobody knows how to do it. I provided you tons of data, and manuals saying how it was done. You don't get to pretend you're rational. "And you claim not to believe in the moon landing or nasa or global warming and evolution." I never even mentioned global warming or evolution. Good gods. What IS wrong with you?
    1
  9302. Paul, are you under the impression that the sun comes up, and BING, it's instantly at one temperature until the sun goes down? How can you even think that way?
    1
  9303. So, that's how to handle aggravated misdemeanors? Just tell the person to leave? So, if it was a man cranking at a playground in front of kids, you want the police to just tell him to leave, nothing more?
    1
  9304. Another proud graduate of YouTube University Law School, huh?
    1
  9305. Well, this story was never on YouTube while she was alive. So, um, no, there was no humiliation from it. With the exception of a couple of obscure blogs that I've never even heard of, which posted an article about the arrest while she was alive, none of the big press covered a thing about this until long after she was dead. And, it's allowed because of the Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  9306.  @richardwalters9249  The arrest video wasn't released in ANY form until 1.5 years after she died.
    1
  9307.  @franklidgad  And, you're PROUD to know absolutely nothing?
    1
  9308. Why? What exactly is your assertion? What should they do differently?
    1
  9309. Yeah, but you're comparing apples to oranges. She wasn't embarrassed by the arrest video being viewed by millions of people, because none of those people saw the arrest video until long after she was dead.
    1
  9310.  @LetsUniteNow  He did articulate the reasonable suspicion. And, sorry, but Florida is an identify state. She is required by law to provide ID when asked by a cop during an investigation. He asked her for her ID a million times (go watch the whole video, not this one that starts in the middle), and she refused. And, sorry, but did you actually suggest that he get another officer? Are you serious? This is Jacksonville, the murder and felony capitol of the state. You want him to pull another officer off of their duties of working on much higher crimes, and ask to get help because an irate woman got upset because the store suspected she might have stolen a piece of chicken and a loaf of bread? Tell me you're not actually serious.
    1
  9311. Here's what happens when you immediately provide medical aid instead of securing the scene first: someone else comes up and picks up where the thug left off, shoots the cop, and then the cop needs the exact same aid that the original criminal did. Secure the scene first, or you end up like the guy who got shot.
    1
  9312. "One couldn’t talk long distance with some static." Listen to the Apollo 11 landing sequence. Tell me there isn't any static. Can you? (Hint: no. There was a ton of static.) "All I know is" You could have ended that sentence right there. "that the US.and Russia was on a race for the moon." Um, ok. "How they got through the Van Allen radiation belts ?" By going fast. "The mission to the moon took only 4.5 days" I'll just take Apollo 11 as the example, and the rest of the missions were pretty much identical (timewise). Trans-lunar injection was at 2 hours 50 minutes into the mission. Lunar orbit insertion burn was at 75 hours 49 minutes. That's 3 days and 1 hour. See what I meant about stopping before you started? "238,855 miles from Earth. They say 2,040 miles per hr. the craft was going." They were still inside Earth's atmosphere when going that speed, approximately 15 miles up, and still accelerating. They hadn't even dropped the first stage of the rocket yet. "Math majors here?" Well, one of my degrees is in mathematics, but, you don't need my education to know that you haven't got the slightest understanding of the topic.
    1
  9313. Let me guess, the lizard people told you?
    1
  9314. Anthony: "keeping the real agenda a secret would have been easy" This is beyond ridiculous. Dozens of countries tracked the Apollo missions. And, Apollo was verified by dozens of countries in other ways. People like you seem to think the only evidence for Apollo comes in the form of TV videos and photos. Frankly, the TV video and photography is nice evidence, but, is the weakest evidence. You clearly have no concept of what the evidence even is. But, even humoring your silly notion for a minute, can you explain, if 400,000 people thought the equipment was capable of doing the job they designed it to do, why not just go to the moon at that point? What possible reason would there be to fake anything, if the 400,000 people all thought the equipment was capable of doing the job they built it to do?
    1
  9315. Huh? What "fed" was even involved here?
    1
  9316. Really? They give warnings now for misdemeanors?
    1
  9317. "everything you were shown on news was animation" Let me guess... you're talking about the Buzz Aldrin interview on Conan's show, right? Conan said his family watched the Apollo 11 landing live on TV. Aldrin corrected him and said that couldn't happen, because the broadcasters played animations. Right? Dewdrop, Aldrin is correct. The LANDING sequence was just a bunch of animations by the news broadcasters, because there was no live TV during the landing. The landing was recorded on 16mm film, thus, nobody saw it until they got home and got the film developed. Live TV wasn't available until a few hours after the landing.
    1
  9318. "There is not even one picture of the earth!" Well, that's one way to demonstrate that you've never looked at the photo archive. Dewdrop, there are hundreds upon hundreds of photos of Earth taken during Apollo. This includes in transit to the moon, in lunar orbit, from the lunar surface, and in the return trip home.
    1
  9319. How much do you really know about the case?
    1
  9320. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. Suicide = March, 2022. Arrest video released = November 24, 2023. So, um, no.
    1
  9321. There's a formula for optical resolution. I normally don't recommend Wiki to learn things (way too many things are wrong), but, in this case, it's good enough. Optical resolution. Then, find the formula for calculating the size lens you need in order to see it. You'll need to be able to convert the angular size to radians, and of course, before you do that, you need to know enough trig to calculate the angular size. But, from there, the math is pretty straightforward. The formula only gives you the size lens you need to see something as a single dot, however. Therefore, if you want to calculate the size lens to be able to actually tell what you're looking at, you have to decide about the resolution you want before you enter it into the formula.
    1
  9322. Well, she eventually did exactly that. The receipt was provided shortly after this video ended (go watch the full video, not this edited version). Then, she hired three attorneys to sue the store, which they did. She lost badly, of course. But, she tried.
    1
  9323. Sure, if it's real. Funny that the truck that drove the 500 miles wasn't carrying those things. They just showed those things for the few clips. For all we know, they loaded up with a tiny battery pack capable of only about 10 miles, just to take those shots. Then, they load the full battery pack for the other clip of them going 500 miles with a light load. Or, maybe those concrete barriers have been hollowed out, or maybe they're Styrofoam painted to look like concrete. The point is, we already know that Musk uses deceptive practices to accomplish his marketing goals. He's done it time and time again. Why he wasn't imprisoned for the Solar City scam, I'll never understand. And, the same goes for the rest of his nonsense, like Boca Chica, and the fake Hyperloop "vacuum" tunnel (that wasn't a vacuum), and the fake robot doing tasks with jump-cuts and CGI editing. The man cannot be trusted. And, as long as he refuses to reveal the weight of the truck (and the price, for that matter), there's absolutely no reason to trust anything he shows in videos. The proof is in the pudding. Musk doesn't produce pudding. He produces videos about pudding. And, still today, we don't know the weight of the truck, and even Pepsi won't reveal it (undoubtedly they've been contractually obligated to keep it a secret). But, it's awwwwfffulllly telling that they said they're not going to haul any Pepsi for 500 miles. Instead, they're only hauling potato chips for 500 miles. And, if the numbers weren't tragic, why would they be a secret? Why? What possible reason would they have to keep the numbers a secret, unless those numbers were horrible?
    1
  9324. Well, I'm not sure who you're talking about here. The Smoking Gun published an article. But, it was pretty obscure, and had nothing to do with her death. This arrest video wasn't made public until 1.5 years after she died. So, I doubt you can say anybody was "accountable" for that. So, can you elaborate? Who needs to be accountable, and for what?
    1
  9325. Of this of incident was of July of 1 of 2021. Of her of suicide of was March of 2022. Of the of arrest of video of was released of November of 24 of 2023. Of never of nobody of saw of the video of when of she was of alive. Of you of wrong.
    1
  9326. You forgot the "un" ....
    1
  9327. Um, ok, liable for what exactly?
    1
  9328. Dawg, the man planned their murders long before they even arrived at his house, then carried out those premeditated murders. Maybe don't murder people, and instead CALL THE POLICE when you know someone is coming to rob you.
    1
  9329. Yes, and in a different interview, the father basically said that his son knew someone was in the car, and went to go find out who. Do you suppose that the attorney told him between those two interviews that it was a very bad idea to admit that Mark knew someone was in the car?
    1
  9330. Yeah. When a guy is cranking at the playground, don't worry, the kids have seen worse.
    1
  9331. Respect is earned. And, while it's nice that you've admitted you were wrong, sorry, I cannot help but point out that your "logic" was flawed from the start (as is your spelling). If you honestly considered someone swearing (or not swearing) on a bible as your main concern, it doesn't exactly command respect. History is full of millions of people who swear on bibles while lying anyway, and millions who won't swear on bibles but are telling the truth. Nobody in history has instantly vaporized into flames while lying to a bible. Your top criteria should be EVIDENCE, not whether someone put his hands on a book.
    1
  9332. THAT's what you got out of my posted message? No wonder you think the way you do.
    1
  9333.  @TheWokeFlatEarthTruth  Mitchell, not Shepard. Shepard died in 1998. Astronauts Gone Wild was in 2004. Also, Shepard was almost certainly an atheist.
    1
  9334. I'm sure it's way more than 10.
    1
  9335. It wouldn't be up to the police, it would be up to the prosecutors / district attorneys. And, yes, when someone points a gun at you, you are allowed to defend yourself.
    1
  9336. Well, she was guilty of that kind of theft also, so....
    1
  9337. Why? What would be the basis of such a lawsuit? What did the cops do wrong?
    1
  9338. Huh? She was dead 1.5 years before anybody saw this arrest video. And, sorry, you don't get warnings for crimes. You don't understand the difference between crimes and infractions.
    1
  9339. First of all, cops have that kind of discretion for an infraction (speeding, fishing without a license, parking in a no parking zone, etc.). They do not have that kind of discretion for a crime. In our society, we have empowered police to use discretion for infraction level offenses, but, not for criminal offenses. For crimes, we don't want police to be the judge and jury. We want the courts for that. You don't get a warning for a crime, but, you can get that for an infraction. Secondly, do you have any idea what happened here, beyond the 1 minute Inside Edition trash news story? Making a very long story short, she was a convicted felon with a prison history, and a mile long arrest record, and multiple open warrants for her arrest. For this incident, multiple people called the police, and one even took video. Needless to say, the video didn't match her version of a quiet act with nobody around. Quite the contrary. And, like it or not, her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club, and her neighbors said she also did "private" cash transactions in her apartment with numerous men. Lastly, the arrest video wasn't released until November 24, 2023. She died 2 years ago.
    1
  9340. "gravity doeesnt exist in space" "so mee stating simple physics" "planets asteroids and any other celestial object move at a constant speed" Good gods. Go take a physics class fer realz, instead of butchering the everliving daylights out of the topic. And, while you're at it, an English language class wouldn't hurt.
    1
  9341. The reason is because of the deal made in order for him to offer that testimony in the first place. Yes, he admitted what he did, on tape. But, the deal was that if he agreed to admit what he did, on tape, they couldn't use that admission in court. Then, years later, they used his admission to help get a conviction, and thus broke their agreement. Don't get me wrong, I think he deserves to be behind bars for the rest of his life. However, I point the blame at the people who made the deal never to use that tape, then they used the tape.
    1
  9342. First of all, how is that an answer to anything I said/asked? Secondly, he was hit with two rounds. Where are you getting this notion that he was hit by multiple weapons many times? Good grief. Are you actually PROUD to spew gibberish about topics you know absolutely nothing about? How about leaving police business to the police?
    1
  9343. I'm so sick of these fake computerized narrator voices. You even picked one that sounds like a stupid teen?
    1
  9344. Yes, the liars are the ones who read and write at the 2nd grader level.
    1
  9345. Enjoy your inevitable prison term.
    1
  9346. Freedom of Information Act. What do you propose the police do?
    1
  9347. Of she of probably of was making of "public beach" of content. She of was an of convicted of felon of who had of a million of other arrests of of. Her landlord of said she of was a stripper of the local club of.
    1
  9348. Only if you trust Inside Edition.
    1
  9349. And, this was your edited version?
    1
  9350. Um, ok, but, the funds were virtually limitless.
    1
  9351. Is that Darrell Brooks' spelling of "narcissist"?
    1
  9352. You do know that nobody ever saw the arrest video until after she was dead for 1.5 years, right?
    1
  9353. Says who? Inside Edition? Why would you believe it?
    1
  9354. There are many reasons. Can you specify a timestamp so I can explain it for the example you're talking about?
    1
  9355. It is refusing to post my reply, so, I'll divide it into smaller chunks.
    1
  9356. Antoine, what in the world is your problem? What's to laugh at? Why shouldn't I ask for him to clarify?
    1
  9357. The flags also moved sometimes without being touched at all. There are several reasons for that also. Like, on Apollo 14, when the astronauts were inside the lunar module, the flag moved around about 180 degrees, ending up completely facing the opposite direction. This was a result of the fact that the astronauts had just opened the purge valve of the lander, and oxygen rushed out of the craft and acted like a "wind," moving the flag, and then it just continued to spin on its pole mount until friction stopped it. Other times, the flags moved for a similar reason when the craft would exhaust off the spent gasses from the porous plate sublimators. Also, tiny "winds" were created when the astronauts' PLSS backpacks did the same from their porous plate sublimators (the mini versions). There were also various pressure purge valves on the suits, and the craft, etc., creating small "winds" when they'd open.
    1
  9358. What's your explanation? "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake"?
    1
  9359. Well, I tried to post other reasons, but, YouTube's new censorship apparently doesn't like technical discussions about physics, no matter how much I try to reword it. So, whatever. Figure it out yourself.
    1
  9360. When a flag is being handled.... Figure out the rest yourself, Antoine. Quit your silly "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake" position. With that "logic," you're going to end up believing 99.9% of human knowledge is fake.
    1
  9361. "your getting paid" My getting paid? What does that mean? Dewdrop, learn English. "I've read and studied PLENTY on this" Yet, you didn't know why a flag would move? How much could you have studied? "Do you honestly believe we had the communications technology back in the 60s to have crystal clear sound" Huh? Let me get this straight... first of all, you think the audio was crystal clear? Secondly, you think the thousands of people who built the DSN didn't realize it couldn't do what they built it to do? That's what you're saying? "And the video of them bouncing around, wouldn't the be bouncing a lot higher than some few inches off the ground lol.. to touch on the couple of the endless discrepancies." You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Spare the world your ignorance.
    1
  9362. Then I cannot help you.
    1
  9363. Went up to the car wearing a ski mask in the middle of a Kentucky summer, and immediately pointed a gun at the driver. No, of course he wasn't carjacking. He was bringing tea and cookies (at gunpoint).
    1
  9364. So, your position is that the armed carjacker wasn't actually a carjacker, because you think he was too smart to carjack in his own neighborhood? Right. He was on his way to winning a Nobel Prize in physics, I'm sure that's how smart he was.
    1
  9365. Well, since you put it that way....
    1
  9366. Why hasn't the bottom of the ocean been colonized?
    1
  9367.  @northstar1060  Pffttt. Sure. Against aliens?
    1
  9368. The arrest video was released on November 24, 2023. She died in March of 2022. That doesn't change anything you wrote, but, just making sure you know that.
    1
  9369. The video taken by one of the audience would have been plenty. It was just convenient that she also happened to admit it.
    1
  9370. Yeah, but that was staged by the media. This arrest = July 1, 2021. Suicide = March, 2022. Arrest video released = November 24, 2023. So, they showed the arrest video in late November and early December, but didn't mention that she was already dead for 1.5 years. Then, they came back around with an "update" that she was dead, and just didn't mention the dates, allowing people to falsely believe that the arrest video was the cause of the suicide.
    1
  9371.  @joekraft5913  Wait, what? Are you under the impression that the 2nd amendment's comments about a militia were meant to mean that people are allowed to own guns so that they can be part of that militia???? Is that really what you're saying?!?!?!!?!? Um, no. Not even close. Not by a mile. Not even on the same planet as what they were actually saying. The point was that they had just fought a war against a tyrannical government. And, in the USA at that time, the "militia" basically meant "military." The point they were making was that if the USA is going to have a "militia" (military), the average citizen has a right to bear arms to protect themselves from that very militia/military. The 2nd amendment was the US government's promise not to tell its citizens that they need to disarm, and thus never be able to protect themselves from the US government itself (and its armed militia/military). The meaning of the 2nd amendment is exactly the opposite as you think it is. On a personal level, I will be the first to say that I couldn't care less about the 2nd amendment's purpose, because I am not worried about the US government being tyrannical and slaughtering its own population. I wish the purpose of the 2nd amendment was about protecting yourself against criminals, because I'm a heck of a lot more concerned about that, than I'm concerned about protecting against our own military. This is especially true because we can no longer arm ourselves even remotely against what the military has today. We cannot own big 50-caliber machine guns, tanks, fighter planes, battleships, or nuclear bombs, etc. So, this idea that we're going to protect ourselves from our own military in a modern way is kind of silly, because it's nowhere near an even playing field like it was when the 2nd amendment was written. Back then, you were allowed to own muskets because the military owned muskets. Today, you're allowed to own a pistol, or maybe a small rifle, but, you will never be a match against our own military. And, again, I'm not really worried about our government going into murderous tyranny anyway. I'm a lot more worried that someone is going to tell me that I cannot carry my pistol into a bad neighborhood where people are shot every day, or that I cannot protect my family from intruders. The 2nd amendment doesn't cover my concerns. But, if that's the only thing that is protecting my concerns, yeah, I want to keep it in place.
    1
  9372.  @joekraft5913  Note: I'm not sure if I understood your position. It's possible that we already agree, and I misread what you were trying to say... yes? No?
    1
  9373. Um, ok, but, why is that relevant? The carjacker DID have a gun.
    1
  9374.  @matchit0419  You don't know what you're talking about. And, I can say that quite confidently, because EVERYONE (who matters) that knows anything about this case agrees with me, and none agree with you. The police investigators don't agree with you, the attorneys who prosecuted this case don't agree with you, the judges that handled this case do not agree with you, the 12 jurors unanimously do not agree with you, the appellate court judges do not agree with you, the state supreme court does not agree with you, and the supreme court of the USA does not agree with you. Every one of those appellate/supreme courts denied this man's appeal. Every juror found him guilty. And, not a single judge, attorney, or police investigator was on your side, with only one exception: the man's own defense attorney (who was PAID to take the other side). And, even in his case, if you listen to him, it's pretty clear that he acknowledges the problems with Smith's case, and didn't believe he was going to be able to get Smith out of prison. I am not sure if the president was ever given a request for pardon or not, but, if so, then we can add "president of the USA" to the list of people who disagree with you. Why? Because the concept of "self defense" is basically the line in the sand between when killing is justified, and when killing is not justified. And, Smith went miles past that line in the sand. He knew for MONTHS that those children were robbing from him. And, his hatred of them is what drove him to commit the murders, rather than just calling the police and turning them in. The boy child used to work for him. The girl child was the daughter in a family that he had been feuding with for years. This is the old Hatfield and McCoy concept. They hated him, and robbed from him. He hated them, and decided to plan two murders, and follow through on that plan. The correct course of action would have been to turn them into the police right after he installed the cameras and found out who was doing the crimes. But, no. Smith stopped going to the police after he figured out who was doing it. He preferred his bloodlust to civility, and now he's in prison for it. He then planned the two murders, and followed through on that plan. This is 100% clear, if you lifted a finger to find out anything about this case. I mean, do you think all of those judges and attorneys and jury members were all too stupid to realize that this was a simple self defense case? And, YOU know better? Or, if Smith wanted to catch them in the act, fine, he could have had the police with him on the day of these murders, and instead of killing them, simply have the police waiting in the basement instead of himself, and bust them in the act. But, instead, we have a man who was so thirsty for blood that he recorded himself killing them. He even planned ahead to put two tarps exactly where he planned on shooting them, so the bodies wouldn't ruin his carpet. And, he recorded himself saying he planned on shooting "in the left eye." Then, hours later, what did he do? He shot the girl twice in the left eye, exactly as he said he planned on doing. And, then he didn't call the cops for 24 hours. Instead, he recorded himself saying "cute" after killing the girl, who was found by the police the next day to have her shirt open and her body exposed. Figure that one out for yourself.
    1
  9375. They already have. A few months ago, they released their orbital photos of the Apollo 11 landing site, showing the lander exactly where the original mission photography shows it, exactly where LRO shows it, and exactly where India's orbiter shows it.
    1
  9376. Huh? Freedom of Information Act. How do you prevent the release of the arrest video if someone submits a legal FOIA request?
    1
  9377. I'm sure they despise you too. They're doing their jobs. You're hating them for it.
    1
  9378. It took two weeks for you to come back with that silly reply? I presume you were in jail.
    1
  9379. Did you look in the mirror while not wearing pants?
    1
  9380. Actually, this was nothing more than a choreographed double-viral "news" (not news) story. This arrest was from 2.5 years ago. Her suicide was in March of 2022. The arrest video was released to the public (FOIA request) on November 24, 2023. But, they wanted two viral rounds instead of one. So, they published the story about the arrest in late November, but didn't mention that she was already dead. Then, they released the "update" a few weeks later to say that she committed suicide, and asked "was she shamed to death over this?" But, of course, they don't answer their own question. The answer is no, this arrest had nothing to do with her suicide. But, "innocent soccer mom gets busted by evil police, commits suicide" goes double viral. "Convicted felon who can't stop getting herself arrested, gets arrested again, and commits suicide a year later for unrelated reasons" doesn't go viral at all.
    1
  9381. That's his accomplice/girlfriend, not his mom. I'm guessing you don't understand the term "baby daddy."
    1
  9382. Yes, the arrest was in July of 2021. But, her suicide was in March of 2022. The video was released in November of 2023. It had nothing to do with her suicide, contrary to what the sensationalist trash video makers want you to believe.
    1
  9383. No, his parents failed him. You don't speak for "society."
    1
  9384. Wisdom? Huh? He had a mother and father. And, they clearly gave the boy a horrible upbringing. So, spare the notion that "society" failed anybody here. All you're doing is deflecting blame. The blame goes squarely on the guy who performed the attempted hijacking, and his accomplice girlfriend. Second to that, the blame points at his parents for his lousy upbringing. Society is nowhere near this equation.
    1
  9385. Yeah, how "unreasonable" of me to blame criminals for their own crimes, and parents for bad upbringing, instead of shifting blame to nebulous "society" like you do.
    1
  9386. If there's any real threat, they use a firearm, not a Taser. Tasers are meant to force compliance.
    1
  9387.  @tundrasheep  Do you just make stuff up as you go along?
    1
  9388. No, you are making things up. This is ridiculous. There isn't a firearms training course anywhere in the country that says to use a Taser against any real threat.
    1
  9389. You're simply wrong. There's not much more I can say. But, you apparently don't want to take my word for it. So, here's what you need to do: call her high profile attorney, and find out why he didn't sue the police for misuse of the Taser. Not only do you think you know better than I do, but, you think you know better than her own attorney, and the two attorneys that assisted also. They sued the store, but, not the police. Now, why would that be, if you are correct about misuse of the Taser?
    1
  9390.  @tundrasheep  Did you do what I said, and called her own attorney and told him that he's wrong too?
    1
  9391. What does trespassing have to do with the 1st amendment? What ARE you talking about?
    1
  9392. Margie, I think you don't understand anything about our legal system. You get tickets for infractions. For crimes, you get arrested.
    1
  9393. The reason is called the Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  9394. Wow!! Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid. She was a convicted felon who spent time in a Florida prison about 6 years ago, and had a million other arrests. One of the "audience" recorded the incident, and gave a copy of the video to the police. It didn't match this "nobody was around" story. Her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the gentlemen's club. If she wasn't making "public beach" content, I'll eat my hat. But, you really bought into the "innocent soccer mom" version, huh?
    1
  9395. Dewdrop, the police didn't release her arrest video until she was already dead for 1.5 years. And, with the exception of a couple of obscure blogs that almost nobody has even heard of, no media even covered this while she was alive.
    1
  9396. Yes, dewdrop. And, the arrest video was released on November 24, 2023. She died two years ago. None of this was ever on YouTube until long after she died.
    1
  9397. Since you find timelines too difficult, let me spell it out. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide (unknown exact date, discovered March 31, 2022). Arrest video released = November 24, 2023. It wasn't until AFTER then that it hit YouTube.
    1
  9398. Just checking here: you do know that the arrest video wasn't made public until long after her death, right?
    1
  9399.  @texmex9721  Sunrise to sunrise is 708 hours. You're didn't account for the fact that the moon has moved its position relative to the sun during one raw rotation, and actually has to wait a little longer before the next sunrise. It's a little bit like the fact that the Earth actually rotates 366.25 times in a year, not 365.25. Its motion around the sun accounts for the extra actual rotation.
    1
  9400. Which answers DO you buy?
    1
  9401.  @alphabeta1337  Dewdrop, and, what about the dozens of radar and radio telescope tracking stations around the world, including enemy countries? Each one of those was staffed with a bit over 100 people to manage the radar and radio dishes, receiving those signals. Thousands of people, just in tracking alone. But, less than 50 people can fake that?
    1
  9402. Well, I largely agree with your conclusions. But you clearly don't know anything about this. She suffered nearly zero humiliation, because only a couple of obscure blogs even mentioned this arrest while she was alive. None of the big media outlets covered this story until after the arrest video was released on November 24, 2023 (she died more than 2 years ago). And, if she felt so much "shame" over this, then maybe she shouldn't have decided to put on a show at a public beach in front of an audience that included children. I mean, you didn't believe her sob story about nobody being around, did you?
    1
  9403. Well, I won't be as kind as the prior poster. You are painfully unaware of basic physics. If you are under the impression that the moon is outside of the gravitational field of Earth, then you know absolutely nothing. If you were correct about that, the moon wouldn't stick around, you know. It would be long gone, billions of years ago, drifting off to deep space somewhere. The Earth's gravitational field is what keeps the moon in orbit. So, the mere fact that you think that the Saturn V rockets ever left the gravitational field of Earth shows that you have no understanding of simple physics or rocketry. And, if you don't think there was enough fuel, or that there wasn't enough thrust, calculate it, and submit it to aerospace engineering journals. Explain that the F1 didn't actually produce 1.5 millions of pounds of thrust, and why you believe that. And, show that the chemical energy of the 5 million pounds of fuel and oxidizer couldn't do what the thousands of engineers designed it to do.
    1
  9404. Colm Farrel: You just don't get it, no matter how many times it's explained to you. You keep falling back on this notion that shill bidding results in getting "market price" for something. That is completely wrong. It's creating a FALSE market price. If the final bid on an item is $100 (with no shill bidding) then that IS the market price. There are reasons that shill bidding is illegal. There are reasons that it's against eBay's terms of service. That is because it's creating a FRAUDULENT "market value." It is downright fraud, period. And, when you sign up for an eBay ID, you must agree to the terms of service, which includes NO SHILL BIDDING. Even in your warped imagination, let's say hypothetically shill bidding is legal/moral, if it's against the terms of service, then people should not be doing it. You can't come to my house and smoke inside, even if smoking is legal. If you want to sell on eBay, you have to agree not to place shill bids. And, furthermore, imagine for a moment if that wasn't the policy... just imagine the consequence... every seller out there would shill bid the living daylights out of all every one of their auctions. Guess what, that would KILL the market. eBay is OBLIGATED to get rid of shill bidders, else, they'd lose every buyer out there.
    1
  9405. Colm Farrel: YOU SAID: "I do get it" == No, you cannot possibly "get it" and hold the warped opinions you hold. You clearly do not get it. YOU SAID: "and don't need it to be explained to me." == Well, you're correct in that I shouldn't have bothered to try to explain it to you. A dozen others tried, and it went in one ear and out the other. I don't know why I thought I'd get a different result. YOU SAID: "You keep falling back on" == What the hell? What have I "kept falling back on"? I just watched this video for the first time around 15 minutes ago, and made my very first post to you. How can my very first message be "keep falling back on"?? What ARE you talking about? YOU SAID: "the notion that whatever an item finishes at is its market value which is completely false." == Ridiculous. You clearly do not know what the term "market value" means. In the eBay market, if it's played by the eBay terms of service, that IS the eBay market value. There might be OTHER markets somewhere with different market values. There are geographic markets, online markets, physical markets, whatever. In the eBay market, playing by the eBay rules, the final bid (with no shill bidding) IS the eBay market value. YOU SAID: "And back to point 1 it wouldn't kill the market" == Good fucking gods, what a moron. Yes, it would absolutely kill eBay if the policy was to allow shill bids. The system can't work that way. Buyer distrust would be rampant. eBay's auctions (the mainline type they run, not the little spin-off types) were set up under a certain set of rules. Those rules were designed to inspire bidding confidence, under the assumption that your winning bid only has to beat the 2nd place bidder (assuming it's NOT a shill bidder). If they changed the rules, and made it so that shill bidding was allowed, I don't think I know a single eBay buyer who would ever bid on that style auction again. If that's how eBay wanted the auctions to work, they'd have set up the rules so that your $100 bid is $100, even if the 2nd place bidder was only at $10. It would function more like a live auction. But, that's not how they set it up. Under the rules they set up, NOBODY wants to be the winning bidder, knowing that the 2nd place bid was the seller himself. That's RIDICULOUS. And, frankly, with the fervor that you're using in defending this indefensible practice, frankly, I'm pretty convinced that you yourself must be a practitioner of this immoral activity yourself, and everything you're saying is most likely a deluded attempt to convince everyone (including yourself) that violating the rules of the game is a GOOD thing to do. It's ridiculous. If you want the style of auction where the top bid is just the top bid, then that's the style auction to go use (not eBay). If you want the style auction where bidder confidence is inspired, and buyers are protected from shill bidders, then use eBay. But, you don't get to force-fit your own desired auction style on an auction that isn't designed to operate the way YOU want. You don't like the rules of the game?? Don't play. Oh, but not in your universe. In your warped universe, it's perfectly acceptable to agree to terms of service, and then violate those terms. You're an idiot. YOU SAID: "because YOU Can't yes Can't force someone to outbid you." == Completely irrelevant. Whenever I've been the high bidder on stuff, I do it under the understanding that I only need to beat 2nd place. I know, in advance, that sometimes this might result in me paying my maximum price. But, most times, I don't pay my maximum price. I only pay a little more than 2nd place. Those are the rules. Those are the terms of service. But, if I was to find out that eBay allows shill bidding, essentially guaranteeing that I will always pay my maximum price, sorry, I wouldn't use an auction site like that. And, I know nobody who would. That's not how eBay is set up to operate. The entire eBay market is set up based on the rules of those auctions. If a seller doesn't like that some bidder out there might be willing to pay more, but doesn't, because the 2nd place bid wasn't high enough to force that 1st place bid up, then that seller doesn't belong on eBay. That seller should go to a different auction that uses the format he/she wants. Sorry, but a seller doesn't get to violate the terms of service to artificially force the price up, on the basis that they want every single dollar that the highest bidders are willing to pay, every single time, violating the terms of service in the process. YOU SAID: "And what part of I wasn't arguing that it was legal or illegal don't you understand?" == It is ILLEGAL for a reason. Shill bidding is FRAUD.
    1
  9406. Colm Farrel: Yes, I do understand. YOU are the one who doesn't understand things. You're a brick wall.
    1
  9407. Colm Farrel: Yeah, my beliefs are congruent with the laws, the eBay policies, common decency, etc. Your belief is that it's ok to SHILL BID your own auctions, artificially raising the prices for the seller, violating the terms of service, breaking laws (albeit I know that's not your point). Yeah, but *I* am the brick wall here. Yeah. I'll tell you what, dumbass. I'll post something on eBay for which nobody else (besides you) are willing to pay more than $10,000. You go there, bid $20,000 for it. I'll shill bid $19,500, forcing you to buy it for the absolute maximum you're willing to pay, violating the terms of service, common decency, and laws in the process, you pay an extra $10K more than you should have to if everyone followed the rules as they are designed. Then, with a smile, fork over $20,000 to me, double the eBay market value. Then, I'll believe a word you say. Until that happens, as far as I'm concerned, you're a brick wall who practices this immoral act, who has come here as an attempt to try to justify your own criminal behavior.
    1
  9408. Colm Farrel: You're completely clueless. There is no penetrating the brick wall that is your brain.
    1
  9409. Colm Farrel: YOU are advocating SHILL BIDDING. You do not get to claim the high ground. You do not get to claim that the other people are "brick walls" while you completely ignore everything said to you. You don't get to say stupid shit like, "do you just blindly follow laws" - after I already outlined that, even if it was hypothetically legal, it would still be wrong, and I outlined the reasons in detail... which you ignored completely, regurgitating a dumbass argument like "do you just blindly follow laws" after I said THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE as blindly following laws. You are a brick wall. I cannot talk to a fucking brick wall who advocates SHILL BIDDING. It's ridiculous.
    1
  9410. Colm Farrel: I will not communicate with a brick wall any further.
    1
  9411. Her term spent in a Florida prison and her million other arrests/convictions/judgements say "yes."
    1
  9412. In addition, it's flawed thinking that the media "controls" this (so to speak). I mean, yes, for many things in the media, yes, the media decides what narrative they want to put forth (political stuff, for example, which each media outlet has their obvious biases). But, for stuff like female murderers, hell, the media is just out to make money by giving the public what they want. Some sexed up trollup murders her boyfriend and then stages an elaborate cold-hearted alibi that is completely beyond belief, yeah, sorry, the "media" isn't forcing that on anybody. They either air it, or some other channel will. The public wants to see it. Meanwhile, 52 gangland shootings per week in Chicago, the public is tired of it, and the media can't force anybody to watch, so it doesn't get air time. Not the media's fault.
    1
  9413. Huh? Your wish was already granted. Yes, they don't release arrest videos for open investigations (except specific rare circumstances). This arrest = July 1, 2021. Suicide = March, 2022. Arrest video made public = November 24, 2023. The case was already closed because she was dead for 1.5 years.
    1
  9414. Of course they did blood tests. But, this "news" (not news) story is a hit-piece. Hence why they don't tell you that the blood tests didn't show any methanol. Hence why they had to stoop to talking about OTHER resorts that were found with tainted alcohol. Hence why they didn't mention that this particular resort had never been found with any tainted alcohol, not prior to this incident, during this incident, or after this incident.
    1
  9415.  @cathywiggins767  It's a catch-22. The idea is that, if you're underage, you are not held responsible for your own actions, including lying about age. I don't think there's really a good solution to this problem.
    1
  9416. What in the world are you talking about? They went to the moon 9 times, and landed 6 of them. One of those times was a failure (Apollo 13). So, sorry, but I completely do not understand what you're trying to say (and neither do you).
    1
  9417. So, 400,000 people designed and built the stuff needed to go to the moon, and as far as they're concerned, the stuff was capable of doing the job that they designed it to do. 40 people somehow thought that the stuff wasn't capable of going to the moon (why not?), therefore, 40 people fooled the 400,000 people, plus the rest of the people on the planet. Sure.
    1
  9418. Refusing to identify (arrestable crime), obstruction/obfuscation (arrestable crimes), resisting arrest (well, that comes after being placed under arrest, but, it's still a crime).
    1
  9419. So, like usual, nuts refuse to answer questions, and didn't really want answers to their own questions either.
    1
  9420. Inside Addition? Is that like the opposite of Inside Subtraction? And, sorry, but Inside Edition (spelled correctly) didn't destroy anything. They never covered anything about this story until 1.5 years after she was already dead.
    1
  9421.  @themetalchica  Enjoy your inevitable prison term.
    1
  9422.  @sebamadeuswolfgangkalishnikopf  Correct. So?
    1
  9423. Well, I don't think they'll ever release the video taken by one of the "audience" who witnessed the crime. But, you can read the police report that describes the video.
    1
  9424. So, your philosophy is to just let criminals commit crimes and never report it?
    1
  9425. Do you often go up to your own car while wearing a balaclava ski mask in the middle of summer, and point a gun at the driver's seat?
    1
  9426. Pfffft, yeah. Your gullibility back then can't be washed away that easily. And, your gullibility now is just the same. Do you REALLY believe it was an equal playing field? Lance's own teammates and support personnel said that it wasn't an even playing field, and that their team's chemists were better than other teams' chemists. It was NOT an even playing field, not even close. Stop your hero worship. Really.
    1
  9427. Of she? But, of one of the "audience" of recorded the incident and of gave of the copy of the video to of the police. It didn't of match her of sob story about of nobody being around of of. Between of the multiple callers of, and the of recording of the incident of, I'd of say they of caught her of red handed of.
    1
  9428. Putting on a public show in front of children is an aggravated misdemeanor.
    1
  9429. Yeah, with the number of times that she had been arrested, they probably had those made just for her.
    1
  9430.  @bradleyrex2968  China released one or two of them. They were on One Big Monkey's site a while back. But, it appears that page is gone now (maybe?). Anyway, if I cared enough to keep checking for other sources of the China photos, I would. But, they're not all that important to me, so I haven't spent the time on it.
    1
  9431. Huh? Let me make sure I understand you correctly here. You believe that if they abolished the 2nd Amendment, that criminals wouldn't have guns? How EXACTLY do you propose that works? Do you think the criminals will just turn in their guns? There are about 500 million guns in the USA. How many of those do you think would get turned in, if the 2nd Amendment got repealed? How did that go when the USA banned drinking alcohol? Did ANYBODY stop drinking? All that happened was that it created a black market for alcohol, and the crime lords ruled the industry. It didn't stop anybody from drinking, as there were openly understood "speakeasy" bars that regularly sold alcohol. They weren't even secretive. Everyone knew where to go, including the cops. Prohibition of alcohol had ZERO effect on stopping people from drinking. If they passed a law prohibiting gun ownership, do you honestly believe what you're claiming here? You really think the carjacker wouldn't have had the gun?
    1
  9432. I wonder if these cops will live long enough to go to trial. There are a few million people out there who will want to do the exact same thing to them.
    1
  9433.  @ronaldmathes5959  Yet, dewdrop, you've been unable to present a single shred of credible evidence to this effect. Sorry, but you don't get to just declare that the entire planet's 77 space agencies, staffed with the world's experts on the topic, are "refusing to accept reality." And, you think YOU know better? Why? Because you watched a 30 second clip of a video made for children, and from that, you think NASA "confessed" that they couldn't make it through the Van Allen belts? And, you know so little about the topic that you didn't even realize that there was more than one belt? So, you go from thread to thread to declare your expertise now?
    1
  9434. Ronald: Now, this is the funniest posting of the week. The "I have evidence but can't show you" argument? Pffttt. Sure you do. Sure you do. That's why you referred to the Kelly Smith video, right? Now it's "I found a video on Wiki"? Again, you don't have any understanding of the topic. I'm not your friend. I'm never going to be your friend. I do not befriend people who accuse thousands of people of being criminals on the basis of their own ignorance.
    1
  9435. "There was something w/ the frame rate that they couldnt live stream & they recorded it to tapes, & them uploaded it to satalites" Huh? Where are you getting this nonsense from? You cannot even spell "satellite" correctly. What could you possibly know about them? Dewdrop, the BACKUP tapes were lost, yes, the ones that were the wrong resolution and frame rate for standard TV. That's what was lost. Nobody in history had ever watched them. And, you clearly don't understand anything about TV broadcasting, so, don't pretend.
    1
  9436. Good grief, what ARE you talking about?? The cop didn't pull his gun until he was hanging from the side of the car while the convicted felon (who had THIRTY felony charges over the years) hit the gas and started to drive away while the cop was standing on the running board. I'd say that's a good reason to pull the gun. The bad guy could have taken the car up to 100mph with the cop hanging on the side, then fling him off and kill him. This was so easily avoided. Just don't pull away with a cop hanging on the side of the vehicle. But, tell everyone, what would YOU have done if YOU were the cop hanging from the side of the vehicle while the guy was trying to drive away? Would you just go along for the ride, and hope the guy with 30 felony charges doesn't fling you off at 100mph down the road? Or, would you try to stop the criminal before getting up to a lethal speed?
    1
  9437.  @thomasneal9291  Well, you hit a new record for posting stupidity. I don't think you could have packed more wrong/stupid things into just a few sentences if you tried.
    1
  9438. vishprasad06: If you REALLY believe that she didn't get her meds, then I would love to sell you some oceanfront property I have for sale in Kansas. In the meantime, ask yourself, how plausible is it that she didn't get her meds, vs. the probability that she's a lying thieving criminal drug addict prisoner that merely CLAIMED she didn't get her meds, in an attempt to get more meds. Ask yourself why the "news" station didn't go ask the administrators why the prisoner didn't get her meds (or why we didn't see that part of the "news" story)? Was it because they said, "of course we gave her the meds, but she's a lying criminal thief who constantly pretends she didn't get her meds, because those meds are powerful stuff, and she wants more free meds to get high off of, because she blows through her 10 day supply in 2 days." Is that why the "news" story just says "she said she didn't get her meds" - but never follows up? Why don't we see that part of the story?
    1
  9439. Freedom of Information Act. They can't block the release this long after she was already dead.
    1
  9440. Except for the fact that he already had kids.
    1
  9441. And, he said the same thing in his confession, telling the cops that he didn't want to give them a chance to live, he wanted to make sure they were dead, even after being incapacitated and no longer a threat. He just kept going back and shooting.
    1
  9442. So, one person's life isn't enough for you, huh? Someone kills your son or daughter, for example, but, oh, that's not good enough, they need to kill more, before it's worth it?
    1
  9443.  @simplycapricorn251  It depends on many factors. Some states don't even have the death penalty. So, if you shoot up a school in a state that has no death penalty, you're not getting the death penalty. And (another factor), in a state with the death penalty, very often, the prosecutor offers a deal to take the death penalty off the table, in exchange for a "guilty" plea. And, sometimes, a case goes to trial, but the jury won't agree on what to do, and they end up with a life sentence instead of a death penalty. It depends on the state, it depends on the cooperation of the defendant, it depends on the circumstances of the crime, etc. This is also exactly why we have the legal system we do, so that each criminal is examined, and each situation is examined, and the sentence can vary, based on circumstances.
    1
  9444. They protected the video from being released for 2.5 years. But, once an investigation has been closed long enough (she was long dead by then), they have no choice but to release it due to the Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  9445. The toxicology report confirmed THC.
    1
  9446. Apollo costed 4.5% of the entire federal budget at its peak (which was more expensive than the entire gross national product of 80% of the countries on the planet). And, for that, they managed 13 Saturn V launches, and 12 men walked on the moon for a few hours each. There was never another program in human history that spent that much money on a few voyages anywhere, let alone the moon. Just where/how do you see routine tourism in this? Rocketry doesn't scale up like airplanes do.
    1
  9447. Stop pretending to understand concepts you clearly do not. Spare me the "I don't believe it" thing. You don't know enough about the topic to believe, nor disbelieve. Don't pretend otherwise.
    1
  9448. I don't need a lesson in critical thinking from a guy who doesn't know anything about the topic. Your "logic" (sigh) that, because you don't know the answer to your question, it must be fake, is extremely flawed from the start. Let me know when you really want answers, and I'll give the answers. For now, you clearly do not. You're asking your questions under the laughable notion that there is no answer.
    1
  9449. Thanks for confirming that I was correct... you have absolutely no interest in the answers to the questions you pretended to ask.
    1
  9450.  @bargeman100  As opposed to?
    1
  9451. And, you believe that, why? Because she said nobody was around (as she was attempting to cry her way out of her millionth arrest)? You believe her? Why?
    1
  9452. If you pause at 0:08, and go frame by frame, you see the guy point the gun straight at the officer's head as the door is opening. Also, you see the gun on the ground at about 5:02 next to a 2x4 piece of wood.
    1
  9453. Well, she was not guilty of stealing. She had her receipt. But, yes, the rest of her actions were not excusable, and yes, she's obviously very ignorant about the way the law works.
    1
  9454.  @NinjaGaiden-z7t  Huh? Why do you think batteries didn't exist in 1969-1972? What ARE you talking about? And, now you're doubting film also? Dewdrop, it was 50 years ago, not 250 years ago.
    1
  9455. Until you actually google it. Ha, more laughable nonsense. YOU are the ignorant fuckpig who asserted something you knew nothing about, not me. It's not my job to educate you. Go fucking get educated yourself, you goddamned moron.
    1
  9456. Um, what? Do you even understand this case?
    1
  9457. She didn't take her life because of social media. Social media never even touched this story until long after she was already dead.
    1
  9458. No. It has been ruled a suicide. Yes, sometimes people live through gunshot wounds to the head (about 10% of the time). She lived long enough to stumble around a while, and eventually bled out.
    1
  9459. There are around 5700 photos taken from the surface of the moon on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal website. You can also find hundreds upon hundreds of images of the Apollo landing sites taken by LRO's cameras orbiting the moon for the last 10 years by keying in "LRO photos of Apollo landing sites" into Google.
    1
  9460.  @schex86  Yes, dummy, they did. You just don't know what you're talking about.
    1
  9461.  @schex86  Sure, dummy. Here are 125 of them. There are more also. But, instead of just blindly assuming that other conspiratards have told you correct information (they never do), you'll have to look FOR YOURSELF next time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s17Se8-CbgE
    1
  9462. Huh? What video are you even watching? What do you think is dirty here?
    1
  9463.  @wickedreelz5028  There are two types of people who will read your message: (1) the type who knows what you're talking about already, and will already agree with you, and (2) the ones that disagree with you, but will have no hope in hell of understanding any of the acronyms you used, nor understand what you are talking about on any level. Bottom line: your target audience has no hope in hell of understanding a single word you wrote.
    1
  9464.  @ApolloKid1961  This video is about Apollo 11. There was no rover on that mission.
    1
  9465. Congratulations! You're the millionth person to post that comment, yet failing to actually explain what you'd have done differently.
    1
  9466. Dewdrop, you clearly came here to share your vast legal expertise with the world, yet, you refuse to say how they should have done better?? And, *I* am somehow the problem?
    1
  9467. Why? C'mon. I think it's pretty easy to figure out that she wanted to escalate "can I see your receipt" into a massive payday lawsuit jackpot, complete with a Taser and arrest, and seemed to do everything in her power to make that happen.
    1
  9468.  @xelomigo7523  She's not saying anything to any judge at this point. Her lawsuit was tossed out of court, and she's been barred from ever filing it again.
    1
  9469. She kept asking the officer to use the Taser. This isn't difficult to digest.
    1
  9470. Huh? Who "blasted" her? An obscure blog nobody has ever heard of?
    1
  9471. You remember this from almost 3 years ago? I doubt it. This incident barely got any press at all until long after she died.
    1
  9472. Yeah, but that was all a media ploy to get two viral video rounds out of one story. The arrest video was released on November 24, 2023. She died in March of 2022. So, they showed the arrest video in round one, but didn't mention that she was already dead for 1.5 years. Then, a few weeks later, they released the "update" video to say that she was dead letting people believe that releasing the arrest video made her commit suicide. They will never reveal the actual timeline, because that destroys the false narrative they're creating.
    1
  9473. There were multiple callers. One of them recorded it, and gave a copy of the video to the police. I'm sorry if you blindly believed stuff you saw on Inside Edition (where facts don't matter), but, maybe this is a lesson.
    1
  9474. You clearly have no idea what happened here, do you? Did you watch the whole video, or just this edited version that starts in the middle?
    1
  9475. What in the world are you talking about? First of all, links are blocked. And, I have no idea what my toes have to do with anything. I think you have the same disorder that this woman has.
    1
  9476. Good gods, what is it about YouTube that brings out people like you?
    1
  9477. Do you actually think I'm going to sit here and entertain you? You have no idea what you're talking about, and all you're doing is wasting time, while you stick your head in the sand. I'm not doing your homework for you. If you want to behave this way, well, all I can tell you is that you're doomed to the same exact fate as the irate woman in this video.
    1
  9478. And you believe her sob story about being alone, why? Because she said so, as she was trying to avoid her millionth arrest?
    1
  9479. Multiple people called over this incident. One of them recorded it, and gave a copy of the video to the police. It didn't match her sob story about being alone. To the contrary, witnesses said it was an intentional act, and the video was a loud and public display in view of people including children.
    1
  9480. Why do you find her believable? She spent a felony prison term in Florida about 6 years ago. She had a long criminal history before and after that. Stealing cars. Drugs and alcohol. Failures to appear. Other thefts. You name it. But, you trust her?
    1
  9481. Her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the local gentlemen's club, and neighbors said she did "extras" for cash in her apartment. If she wasn't making "public beach" content, but got reported, I'll eat my hat.
    1
  9482. Family? You mean the husband, 6 month old son, and another son, she walked out on more than a decade ago because she preferred to live a life of drugs and crime? That family?
    1
  9483. Welcome to Inside Edition (where facts don't matter).
    1
  9484. Yeah, when you see a crime, don't call the police, because the criminal might have a family.
    1
  9485. What a convincing argument. If you don't see it, I guess it never happened.
    1
  9486. What in the world are you talking about? Have you never heard of the Artemis program? They had the next moon rocket standing on the launch pad, but had to pull it back to the VAB to avoid the hurricane last week. They're going to roll it back out to the pad for a moon launch in November. This first mission is unmanned, to test the craft. After that, they will send people. Good grief!!!! What's wrong with you?
    1
  9487. What in the world is wrong with you? Good grief.
    1
  9488. Well, when you only have a 3rd grade education yourself, naturally, you're going to think that way. Good grief.
    1
  9489. Blaming the victim?
    1
  9490. Do the world a favor, please. Place this on every job application you ever fill out. It makes the hiring process far easier.
    1
  9491. Dewdrop, you are off the charts ridiculous. You asked me questions. I answered. You refused to read the answers. You then asked me the same question again. Then, you asked new questions. And, now you're saying that you have no intention of paying attention to the answers. Dewdrop, why do you even ask questions if you know, in advance, that you intend to ignore the answers?
    1
  9492. Again, dewdrop, why do you ask questions, ignore the answers, then ask the same questions again, then declare that you have no intention of reading the answers? What's wrong with you?
    1
  9493. Huh? Let me make sure I understand you correctly, someone in the UK isn't allowed to make a documentary unless it happened inside his/her own country? Furthermore, sorry, there are no moon landing deniers who understand what critical thinking is. They parrot the nonsense they see in conspiracy videos, never lifting a finger to fact check a single thing they claim. They believe they're being "skeptical," but, all they've done is swap blind adherence to one belief with blind adherence to a different belief. None of them ever ask for the evidence. None of them are interested in why their nonsense is incorrect.
    1
  9494.  @occhamite  They took a bunch of star photos from lunar orbit with those Hasselblads. They turned out horribly though (blurry). It's difficult to hold the camera steady that long. The best shot I have seen of the stars from lunar orbit from the Hasselblads was "Solar corona 1 minute before sunrise on Apollo 15." Those blurry dots are stars. The ones from Apollo 11 couldn't even be recognized in any way.
    1
  9495.  @occhamite  Well, they wanted solar corona photos as the command module was entering and exiting the moon's shadow. Those were most of the Hasselblad photos that included stars. I pointed you to the best of those. But, yeah, some of the photos were just aimed at the stars anyway while in the shadow of the moon, and were horribly blurry, and I couldn't give you a "purpose" for them. But, they did it. There are a bunch from Apollo 8.
    1
  9496. You are backward. If he didn't trespass the people, he'd be violating his oath. You don't know what you're talking about.
    1
  9497. Correct conclusion. Wrong reasons.
    1
  9498. QUOTE: "The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight. The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months' duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure. A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week. However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable. -- James A. Van Allen"
    1
  9499. Yes, and the cost and manner was to fund the actual moon missions, and hire 450,000 people to get it done.
    1
  9500. So, they give citations for crimes now? I thought citations were only for infractions. Please explain? As for suing both, I'm not sure what you mean. Suing the woman in the "audience" who video recorded the incident? Or, sue the cops for the fact that they wear bodycams? You're not really explaining what you mean.
    1
  9501. Let me get this straight, dewdrop. YOU feel insulted by the replies? Seriously? You're accusing thousands of people of being criminals who would be thrown into prison for their entire lives if you were correct. But, if people respond with comments on an open comments forum, YOU are the one who is offended by being insulted here? YOU DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE TOPIC!!! You're in no position to accuse anybody of anything. You're feeling insulted because YOU ARE INSULTING.
    1
  9502. Huh? They took her away from the crowd in the restaurant to question her. How much more privacy do you think is normal for an arrest? And, if she's so shy, why was she putting on a show at the public beach?
    1
  9503. Technology isn't the issue, dewdrop. And, sorry, but your "logic" that you can't go today, therefore nobody did, is extremely flawed. The evidence shows you're wrong.
    1
  9504. There's a difference between self defense and murder. He crossed that line a million times over. Nobody faults anybody for self defense. But, there was no "defense" in this case.
    1
  9505. She was offered the same deal that the boyfriend was offered, life imprisonment with no death penalty, in exchange for a guilty plea. He took the deal. She rejected the deal, and was found guilty.
    1
  9506. YOU SAID: "Why we never went again to the moon again?" == Congress pulled the funding. After the race with the Soviets to the moon was won, they didn't want to keep pouring that kind of money into it. YOU SAID: "With today technology..." == Technology has nothing to do with why they stopped going. YOU SAID: "i call this '69 bullshit..." == So, before anybody could answer your questions, you already came to your conclusion. Why do you ask questions when you have no intention of waiting for the answers? YOU SAID: "being jealous on russian and then you "wanted to beat Russians" how pathetic is that motive to try to get to moon... sad" == Think whatever you wish, but, yes, that was the motivation. YOU SAID: "yeah. That's the argument. Am just asking logical question." == No, you're PRETENDING to ask questions. You have no intention of listening to answers.
    1
  9507. Well, then don't have kids (as you said you wouldn't). If my kids committed crimes (and lived, unlike Mark), I'd love and support them, but, I'd also make them own up to the crime, and take responsibility, and pay the price. Withdrawing love and support is the worst thing you can do.
    1
  9508. Yeah, when you see a guy cranking at a playground, let him alone, go look for zero dollar shoppers instead.
    1
  9509. So, what did they do wrong? You don't want them reloading when they run out of bullets?
    1
  9510. Huh? What are you talking about? He DID surrender. He threw his guns out of the window, jumped out of the passenger door, laid on the ground, and surrendered. The police then immediately helped him with his wounds, patched him up, took him to the hospital, where he recovered and is now doing fine, walking around, etc. This guy was shooting at the police, then, once he surrendered, those very same police immediately stopped firing back, and went up to him with a lot of concern for his health, reassuring him the entire time that they weren't going to let him die, and they'd take care of him, and that's exactly what happened. Where are you getting this nonsense?
    1
  9511. They were quite discreet, but, somehow, I think you were trying to be sarcastic.
    1
  9512.  @geoffbirchall7552  My fully boosted? What does that mean? Or, was that your barely literate attempt at writing "you're"?
    1
  9513.  @geoffbirchall7552  My smart? So, you still can't learn English?
    1
  9514. They found the father a few days later. The son threw him into a lake, and the body was found by another family member.
    1
  9515. Which video? The one of the incident itself? Or, the arrest video? The arrest video wasn't released until 2.5 years later (she was long dead). The video of the incident itself has never been released.
    1
  9516. ENGLISH!!!! Good gods. Do you really think anybody would care one bit about anything you write when the local 2nd graders write better than you do?
    1
  9517.  @gives_bad_advice  I'm not sure if I understand your question.
    1
  9518.  @gives_bad_advice  Just checking here, you do know that nobody in the astronaut corps liked him, right? Slayton nearly kicked him off of Apollo 11, but, he figured he was the best man for the job, whether liked or not. I'm not reflecting my personal opinion, just making sure you know about it... ??
    1
  9519. Well, almost correct. I'll add a few tidbits. What you're referring to is the Freedom of Information Act. And, yes, police can block a legal FOIA request if there's still an open investigation. And, that's what happened here. They blocked the release of the arrest video for 2.5 years. But, since she was dead for 1.5 of those years, the investigation was obviously closed for long enough that they could no longer block its release. So, the video was released on November 24, 2023. (This incident was July 1, 2021, and her suicide was in March of 2022.)
    1
  9520.  @schoolmaster1945  What's wrong with you? Jedi391 is absolutely correct. If the authorities within the school ask the police to trespass an individual, and the individual won't leave, then the cops MUST arrest. Do you think the cops can just make themselves the judge and jury? What EXACTLY do you think is supposed to happen instead? The correct action is to take the arrest, then sue the ever-living daylights out of the school/board. But, the cops did nothing wrong. Why would you declare "BS"?
    1
  9521.  @DeputyNordburg  Well, they took all of the film home on Apollo 11 (the subject of this video). But, Conrad accidentally left a film roll on the moon on Apollo 12. I'm guessing he just left it in the camera.
    1
  9522. What an amazing contribution you've made. Nobody on Earth for the past 50 years ever thought to aim a telescope at the moon, until YOU came along. Or, hmmm, wait, are you really under the impression that there's any telescope capable of seeing a flag from this distance?
    1
  9523. Well, a couple of obscure blogs posted about this arrest, but, no "news" or social media covered it until the arrest video was released 2.5 years later. She was long dead before any of this went viral. So, I don't think the family has a valid suit. And, why this arrest? Should the family go after anybody for the woman's other million arrests?
    1
  9524. I hope you're happy with yourself for pretending to know things you don't.
    1
  9525. Start with the fact that multiple people reported the woman. And, then go on with what the video of the incident showed, and tell me that ANYBODY would go talk to her.
    1
  9526. Is this a joke?
    1
  9527. The police blocked the release of the arrest video for 2.5 years. What more do you want?
    1
  9528. Oh, stop it, and you can put that in the refrigerator.
    1
  9529. Did you do it in front of an audience including children?
    1
  9530. Um, no, she didn't steal anything. She had the receipt, just refused to show it. But, you're right, she should never have put those children through this nonsense.
    1
  9531. Um, you do know that, in today's terms, the "regulated militia" is the military, right? Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines. You do know that, in today's terms, the "militia" that phrase is referring to means our armed forces, right? That phrase in the 2nd Amendment wasn't talking about armed civilians = militia. No. It's the exact opposite. The idea is that if we're going to have an armed military, then the individual civilians should be able to be equally armed. That phrase was about defending from oppression. They had just gotten finished with fighting a war from the oppression of the government that had armed military, while civilians weren't equally armed to defend themselves from the government. So, they wrote the clause into the 2nd Amendment to basically say that if the government military/militia is armed, then civilians should be able to be equally armed to defend themselves against their own government. It wasn't trying to say that the military/militia should be armed, because that much is already obvious, and, this amendment was part of the Bill of Rights (i.e. rights OF THE PEOPLE, not the military/militia). Anyway, you're backward. Not that I think civilians should have tanks and Patriot missiles, etc. But, a strict reading of the 2nd Amendment and its intended purpose would technically be that the civilians should have armament capable of defending from the country's own military. Anyway, from a practical standpoint, I'm on your side for the most part. Like you, I am armed, but, not with any kind of assault rifle. But, my message to you is that, if you're going to try to make this argument, you need to be aware that your understanding of the 2nd Amendment's "militia" clause is completely backward. That phrase wasn't saying that the militia can be armed, it's saying that the PEOPLE can be armed to defend against that militia.
    1
  9532. You still don't get it. I tried.
    1
  9533.  @michaelstillman1171  Bluto.
    1
  9534. Scott, let's get real here: you don't know what you're talking about. The only people complaining about radiation are the makers of conspiracy videos. You don't find radiobiologists complaining about it. You don't find astrophysicists complaining about it. You don't find particle physicists complaining about it. And, if you actually think you have calculated the statistical odds of anything regarding the radiation experienced by Apollo astronauts, you wouldn't be sitting here on YouTube. You'd be submitting your calculations to science journals on astrophysics, aerospace engineering, and radiobiology. Only crackpots think that YouTube comments is the place to display these calculations you're pretending to make.
    1
  9535. YOU SAID: "That’s so funny cause all the satellites have protection from it specially designed shields and protections." == Yes. The main vulnerability is the electronics. Even on Earth, the number-one cause of memory parity errors in computers or networking equipment is cosmic radiation, even through the atmosphere. The more miniaturized the electronics get, the faster and more powerful they are. That's the "secret" for why computers and memory are so much more powerful today than they were years ago. They are being miniaturized to the point that the electronic pathways are just a few atoms across. This is vastly different than Apollo, of course, which used wire ropes for memory (yes, literally). Gazillions of atoms across. Hit an Apollo computer with ionizing radiation, and nothing is going to happen. Hit a modern computer with ionizing radiation, and yeah, there's a chance of messing up the electronics and memory. What does any of this have to do with radiobiology? Why would you even bring up satellites, if your original argument pertained to biology? YOU SAID: "Crazy how you can burn at the equator in minutes but at the polls you can stay in the sun all day minus reflections from snow." == I fail to understand your point. Ambient temperatures matter also, you know. It's not just about how much sunlight hits you. Good grief. At the equator, your skin is hit with sunlight, and it's also so hot outside that there's really not much cooling going on. At the north pole, sunlight hits your skin, but, the surrounding air is so cold that it's not really allowing your skin to heat up very much. But, you are also underestimating the sunburn you can get. Sure, you're not going to get burned as much as when you're at the equator. But, yes, sunburns still happen. They tend to be a lot more red, and less "tan" in their effects. And, they take a lot longer to burn at the poles than at the equator. But, yes, it still happens. YOU SAID: "The magnetic protection is much greater at the polls." == Are you under the impression that photons are affected by magnetism? WHAT??? Good grief. YOU SAID: "If you can’t see that I’d you were on the others side of this belt and not need protection" == Do you want to try this sentence again when you're sober? Nobody can understand a thing you're trying to write when you're in this condition. That pile of words you just wrote... means absolutely nothing. YOU SAID: "your blind." == My blind? What does that mean? Is that your crippled attempt at writing "you're"? Dummy, forget these ridiculous conspiracies that you don't even understand. Just go learn to read and write, ok? I promise you, your life isn't going to be served with any positive purpose in going around, flinging ignorance everywhere, pretending you know things about space radiation that no particle physicist, astrophysicist, or radiobiologist, anywhere on Earth, has ever claimed. You clearly don't know the difference between one type of radiation and another. You obviously don't know the difference between ionic particles, vs. photons, vs. high velocity neutrons, or any other type of radiation. You lump them all together into one big concept, and you think you know things that you couldn't possibly know. Seriously. Just go learn to read and write. Start there. I'm not saying this as internet rhetoric. I really mean it. You need to work on literacy first. After that, if you take a few university courses on radiation, then maybe you can talk about this stuff. But, right now, when you can barely read and write at the level of a 6 year old, sorry, you're doomed never to actually understand these concepts you're pretending to understand.
    1
  9536.  @spikenomoon  Who told you that? A conspiracy video? And, you just believed it blindly? That's the thing about you conspiratards that's so funny. You think you're the skeptical ones, accusing sane people of blindly believing stuff. Meanwhile, YOU are the ones blindly swallowing anything a conspiracy video says. Can you name any actual Apollo engineers who thought those were the odds? Get real here. You're spewing nonsense. And, as usual for conspiratards, you completely abandoned your original argument when faced with the failure of your position, and changed topics instead. Again, dummy, just go learn to read and write. Be productive in the world. Make something of yourself. Quit trying to drag the world down to your level, rather than trying to better yourself.
    1
  9537. 1960? And, yet another dewdrop who doesn't understand digital zoom.
    1
  9538. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    1
  9539. Yup, Buzz Aldrin confirmed it. But, Buzz could spell "Apollo" and "Sentinel" correctly.
    1
  9540. Who? The driver? He's alive and well. His father, however, was found a few days later in the lake. (The driver killed his father right before this chase.)
    1
  9541. Yes, that's true. But, you aren't allowed to plan two murders ahead of time, then perform those two murders.
    1
  9542.  @gives_bad_advice  Yeah, the laughy face emojis definitely show genuine sincerity.
    1
  9543.  @critthought2866  Just FYI: The gimbaling of the descent engine wasn't for control/vectoring, but was for stability to keep the line of thrust straight through the center of mass. The only attitude control inputs were the RCS. It's just plain simpler that way.
    1
  9544.  @critthought2866  No problem. The gimbaling on the Saturn V itself was for steering (or, loosely, "vectoring"). So, it's easy enough to make assumptions about the lander. The main point you made was accurate, because the nut opened by saying that there weren't any other thrusters. Apparently, he's not capable of looking at simple photographs of the landers, easily seeing the 16 thrusters that he denied existed.
    1
  9545. I'm about as far from being a Zuckerberg fan as it gets. But, this badgering questioning style is nothing but political posturing. It's clear that he doesn't actually want answers to his questions, because he doesn't let Zuckerberg say 3 words before trampling over him again. If he didn't want answers, he shouldn't ask questions. The underlying truth is that it's very difficult to balance between allowing free speech on these platforms and preventing harm to children. Artificial intelligence just isn't yet at the point that it instantly knows the difference between an illegal harmful message and a legal free speech message. And, the fact is that if they set the filters too tight, they start to block lots of perfectly legal messages, and opens the door to having these very same senators badgering Zuckerberg for infringing on the rights of people to make legal postings, and also opens the door to make the platforms legally liable for the content people post. Maybe if the senator allowed Zuckerberg to answer the questions, rather than pretending to ask a question then talking over him before he can answer, he'd have had a chance to explain it.
    1
  9546. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released due to FOIA request. Sorry, but nobody saw the arrest video when she was alive.
    1
  9547. Who did this "humiliation" you're talking about? A couple of obscure blogs that nobody has ever heard of? And, if she was so sensitive to being arrested, maybe she should have thought of that before deciding to abandon her family and career 15 years ago to live a life of endlessly repeating crime and drugs, huh? She seemed to make it through her prison term in 2018 without harming herself. But, you think a couple of photos from 2021 that barely anybody ever saw... pushed her over the edge?
    1
  9548. Well, this wasn't her first arrest. She served time in prison about 6 years ago, and had an arrest record a mile long (before and after). But, yeah, her suicide had nothing to do with this arrest. Inside Edition just likes ad revenue. "Innocent soccer mom kills herself after evil police arrest her" goes viral. "Convicted felon who can't stop getting herself arrested, gets arrested again, and eventually kills herself a year later" doesn't go viral.
    1
  9549. Guy at a playground cranking with kids around. Police come. "I was stressed." "Oh, ok, have a nice day."
    1
  9550. How exactly would they get her consent? She's DEAD!!
    1
  9551. No. Arrest = July 2021. Suicide = March 2022. Arrest video made public = November 2023. (Most likely from a legal FOIA request.)
    1
  9552. No. I've done my homework. And, you're making stuff up. YOU show any date prior to November 2023.
    1
  9553. Why do you suppose it's viral NOW, rather than 1.5 years ago? Good grief. You just can't let go, can you?
    1
  9554. Yeah, when you see a guy at a playground cranking it in front of the kids, just go to a different playground. Mind your business.
    1
  9555. Oh, you're a real genius. YOU SAID: "So this shows that the police will do what they are ordered to do when the dictators say jump." == Nonsense. The cops were enforcing the law correctly. If someone won't leave when asked, they are trespassing. That's how the law works, and rightfully so. Would YOU want to call the police for someone who refuses to leave your house, have the cops come and evaluate whether or not you should have asked that person to leave, and maybe say to you, "nope, we're not going to take the person away, because we don't agree with your politics, so you're stuck, deal with it by yourself"? No? You wouldn't appreciate it? You'd say something like, "hey, cops are not here to voice opinions on politics, cops are here to enforce trespass laws, now get this guy off of my property." Oh, but if you agree with the politics, oh, ok, now the cops are the problem, huh? Good grief. Get this through your head: whether you agree with the board members and administrators or not, if someone refuses to leave when asked, that person IS TRESPASSING. The cops are not the judge and jury. The cops make the arrest, and leave the rest to the courts. That's how our system works. Don't like it? Go move to some 3rd world country where cops express their opinions with a machete. YOU SAID: "How do we back the blue" == Maybe by first understanding the laws? How about starting there? YOU SAID: "when their not on our side??????" == Oh, I see the problem here. You're illiterate, therefore you don't understand the laws anyway. "Their not on our side"?? Was that your crippled attempt at saying "they're"? Or, did you think "not" was a noun? What? You know, maybe if you knew how to read and write in the first place, you might have understood the laws by now also, huh? Dummy, the SCHOOL BOARD is the problem. The man was guilty of trespassing, whether it's a public facility or not. That's just reality. The correct course of action is for the man to sue the board/school for the garbage they pulled, and lobby to get the entire school board kicked out of office for failing to act in the best interest of the students. And, I hope he does that. And, I hope the rest of the parents do the same. But, don't blame the cops for properly executing their duties. Good grief. Such total ignorance.
    1
  9556. No, she was never shamed while she was alive. The media just wanted two viral rounds. So, they posted the arrest video (which didn't come out until 2.5 years later) and never mentioned that she was long dead by then. And then they posted the "update" that she was no longer alive, pretending that the first video caused the second video.
    1
  9557. What social media even covered this while she was alive?
    1
  9558. Nope. Not until 1.5 years after her death.
    1
  9559. Welcome to Inside Edition, where facts don't matter.
    1
  9560. Landings were filmed from the LMP window, with a camera mounted right above that window. Why is this so difficult for you? And, if you weren't going to wait for an answer to your question before denying the answer, why did you ask your question at all?
    1
  9561. Good grief. What is it about YouTube comments that makes so many people want to display absolute ignorance to the world? 1) The store is entitled to ask for proof of payment. No, they do not have to check security tapes and inventory/transaction logs first. That would be impractical, because by the time they do that, the person is long gone. It makes no sense when half of the people in this thread think that the store/cop needs to come up with 100% proof before stopping the woman. 2) The cop's duty is to respond and investigate when the store employee says someone might have committed a crime. The cop must stop the woman and investigate. 3) The woman doesn't have to show a receipt to the cop if she doesn't want to do so. However, she is required to identify herself (which she refused to do), and to cooperate with the investigation (which she refused to do), and, if arrested, is required to comply (which she refused to do, and resisted instead). If she wants to fight a crusade by not showing her receipt, that's fine, but, she still needs to comply with the investigation process, and always must provide identification. Refusing to do that is against the law. And, if she chooses not to show a receipt, that's fine, but, that also increases the odds that she will end up being arrested. It's her own choice. 4) There is no legal requirement that a cop be correct 100% of the time. The cop's job is to determine if there's enough evidence to make an arrest. It's not the cop's job to check security tapes, or go through register logs, or check store inventory records. All of that stuff comes later, when the prosecutor decides whether to pursue the criminal case, or not. The cop's job is just to make an arrest if there's enough cause to do so, and the rest is left up to the prosecutors, the courts, and the store. I fail to understand why sooooooo many people think that the process is to provide 100% proof at the side of the road, as if the cop is the judge and jury, and the side of the road is the courtroom. We don't want cops to be judge and jury. We don't want the side of the road to be a courtroom. The true irony is that the very same people who complain that the cop should be the one to go around and gather evidence and get 100% proof (basically turning the cop into the prosecutor, the judge, and the jury), are the very same people who object when police exhibit too much power. You can't have it both ways. You don't get to keep cops' power at a minimum, while simultaneously expecting them to be prosecutor, judge, and jury.
    1
  9562.  @e.mmacarr  What ARE you talking about? What does that have to do with anything?
    1
  9563.  @e.mmacarr  You have no understanding of how it works. None whatsoever. Yes, if the store says she stole, and the cop has reasonable suspicion of such, then, yes, he is supposed to arrest her. If it worked the way you're proposing, how/when could any cop ever arrest anybody? You do know an arrest isn't a conviction, right? An arrest is just an arrest. Nobody is guilty until it goes in front of a jury, or if they plead guilty in a deal.
    1
  9564.  @e.mmacarr  I cannot help people who are proud to be s%u@id.
    1
  9565.  @joshuagharis9017  Good grief. That's not what hearsay is. The store employee told him directly that the woman went through without paying. That's not hearsay. Hearsay would be if the store employee said she heard a rumor that the woman stole something, but witnessed nothing herself in any way. Beyond that, "hearsay" doesn't apply to this. But, whatever, it's clear you don't know what you're talking about. And, on top of that, "guilt" isn't established at the side of the road. That's for the courts. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court (or if the person makes a plea of guilty as part of a deal). The cop doesn't determine guilt or innocence, the cop just decides if there's enough evidence to arrest. Why do sooooooo many people use YouTube comments to pretend to know things they don't come close to knowing? When every sentence you write is incorrect, maybe you should be asking questions instead of asserting garbage, huh?
    1
  9566.  @lagoontoursbahamas6380  Is this a joke? You think she won the lawsuit? Um, no. The court threw her lawsuit against the store out the window with prejudice (which means the court also banned her from ever being able to re-file it). She will be receiving $0.00 for her lawsuit. And, even her own high profile attorney knew there was no case against the police, and never even bothered to file a suit against them. I mean, you were wrong from the first sentence you wrote. But, there's a special kind of comedic irony when you get your facts sooooo wrong that you think she won a lawsuit that she lost.
    1
  9567. 2) The statements given about a scuffle with a boyfriend 30 days earlier do not match with the medical examiner's report that states she was last known to be alive 12 days earlier. So, I'm guessing the scuffle had nothing to do with her death either, especially because nobody who heard the scuffle 30 days prior heard a gunshot.
    1
  9568. 3) There is no requirement to turn off the body-cam, regardless of the type of crime. There's always a risk that the criminal will do something during the arrest that needs to be recorded.
    1
  9569. 4) Her downward spiral started years earlier. She had lots of drug and alcohol issues, arrests, failures to appear in court, legal judgements against here for various thefts, and she did some prison time for stealing cars. Her family said she had gone "wild" and "off the rails" long before this incident. With her long history of failing to appear in court (which happened in this case also), and her attempts to change her name to avoid various arrests and judgements against her, yeah, it's not exactly unusual that this case never saw a courtroom before she committed suicide about 8 months later.
    1
  9570. 5) This arrest likely had nothing to do with her suicide, exactly for the reason you outlined. The only public exposure she had was on a cryptic tabloid site that I'd never even heard of. It's unlikely she suffered much consequence from it. And, the arrest video was never made public until long after her death. Nobody saw it while she was alive.
    1
  9571. 1) She was found with a wound through the chin, upward, and the bullet went into the ceiling. There is absolutely no evidence of anybody murdering her. Unfortunately, she lived and stumbled around for a while before bleeding out. But, that's not as rare as it sounds.
    1
  9572. Yes and no. During an open investigation, they can block the release of the arrest video. But, eventually, once the investigation is closed long enough, the Freedom of Information Act dictates that the video is public information. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released due to FOIA request.
    1
  9573. In this video?? Um, no. The flags in this video moved when being handled by an astronaut. What did you expect a flag to do? Stay stiff while being handled? But, yes, there are other examples (not in this video) of the flags moving due to the "air" blowing them. This is because the backpacks/suits/spacecraft were not closed systems. There were many different mechanisms that the suits/backpacks/craft used to vent gasses. And, yes, sometimes those vented gasses slightly moved the flags as a result.
    1
  9574. Pffttt. And, you're better? You can get 9mm rounds to penetrate a truck better than those cops?
    1
  9575. Shawn, sorry, but every single thing you're typing is pure gibberish. You clearly have no understanding of the topic. I'm glad you agree that the moon landings happened. But, sorry, you agree for the wrong reasons, because the rest of what you wrote is just plain wrong. There are no satellites that can see coins, or faces.
    1
  9576. You don't even know the terminology. Why do you think you understand this topic? You don't need probable cause to require ID, you need reasonable suspicion. He had that, and articulated it. You need probable cause to make an arrest. And, by the end of this encounter, he had that too. If you don't know the difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion, and what's required for an ID vs. what's required for an arrest, how can you possibly pretend you understand anything about this topic at all?
    1
  9577.  @lenordvaughan5036  They don't have to know a crime was committed. The cop stopped her to investigate. That's the entire purpose. Why would you think a cop would need to know a crime was committed BEFORE investigating. It's called "reasonable suspicion" of a crime. I explained this already. Why is this difficult for you? And, again, you don't understand the legalities here. You're required to give your ID if the cop articulates the reasonable suspicion. He did that. Multiple times. So, yes, by law, she is required to provide ID. Now you're sitting here saying that the police and courts have bastardized the system? Huh? Every statement you've made has demonstrated that you don't even understand the definitions of the words you use. How can you possibly pretend to understand the law better than the judges, police, and court systems overall? And, the "just cooperate" comment... I mean, yeah, she isn't legally required to provide her receipt, nor to provide assistance to the officer in the investigation. But, she must cooperate at a basic level, which means providing her ID (which she refused to do), and NOT obstructing and obfuscating (she did both). Yes, the police do have authority over citizens. That's part of how a society works. It's called policing by consent. The society elects officials and hires police, and those police have the authority to investigate crimes. How can you sit there and say that the police and courts have changed how the system works, when you fail to understand even the most basic principles. And, anyway, you don't need to take my word for it. Her own high profile attorney disagrees with you, and never even filed a suit against the police. If the system actually worked the way you're saying, then he'd have a very strong case, right? But, nope. He never even filed one, and sued the store instead. Of course, that case was tossed out of the court on merit (lack of). But, at least he tried suing the store. He didn't even try suing the police. How do you explain that? What do you think you know that her own attorney doesn't know?
    1
  9578. Officer still risk. Rescue come later. Others around might be weapon.
    1
  9579. Well, you might have a point if the investigation was still open, but, since she was long dead before the video was released, your complaint has no merit. And, what happens to your suit when they simply reply "Freedom of Information Act"?
    1
  9580. Dewdrop, stop asking questions while simultaneously making it clear that you don't actually want the answers. When you're serious about learning thermodynamics, I'm happy to help. Until then, I'm not wasting my time on someone who doesn't have the common courtesy to acknowledge getting answers to the first question.
    1
  9581. As I've told you before: go learn to read and write past a 2nd grade level, and the rest will all fall into place. You'll learn all about how to research stuff. You'll learn to actually digest what you read. Your reading comprehension levels would increase greatly. Rather than only understanding about 12% of what you read, you might get that up to 80% or 90%.
    1
  9582. Most likely, it was a FOIA request. I mean, they managed to keep the video out of the public's hands for about 2.5 years, or 1.5 years after she died. But, eventually, my guess is that someone did a FOIA request, and posted it on the internet. The original channel that posted it is gone now, so, I'm not sure if we'll ever know who/why.
    1
  9583.  @michaelstillman1171  And, it's blocking my reply, so, I'll try to shorten it. No, they claim it's because the Soviets somehow needed wheat from the USA, and nobody else would sell them any. Apparently, they could lead the world in space travel in the early 1960s, but, magically forgot how to plant crops and water them. In exchange for wheat, they agreed to be silent and pretend to lose the space race. Yes, I'm being serious, that's literally what the nuts claim.
    1
  9584.  @therealzilch  For decades?
    1
  9585. Freedom of Information Act. What do you propose to do?
    1
  9586. Correct.
    1
  9587. Probably yes. I mean, the video the audience took of the incident didn't match her sob story about nobody being around. To the contrary, it sounded a lot more like she was making "public beach" content.
    1
  9588. I don't know that I agree. Maybe. But, look at it this way. Artemis was approved by congress in 2019. Astronauts have been named and are in training right now. The SLS is in further development. Two more Orion capsules have been ordered. Bezos is building the landers. Yet, does anybody even know the names of the astronauts who will go to the moon on Artemis (unless Biden kills the program)? But, after Apollo, Neil Armstrong couldn't go out in public without being ambushed by press and fans. Did anybody bother Pete Conrad? Did anybody ambush Jack Schmitt? These were guys who could go to the grocery store, and nobody would know that they were men who walked on the moon. Today's astronauts slated to go to the moon aren't known by anybody either. So, I'm really not all that sure that the public cares all that much.
    1
  9589. Yeah, it happens fast, but, you can see it. Go frame by frame. As he approaches the door handle, you see him pull the gun out. And, at 0:08, just as the door opens, you see him point the gun straight at the officer's head. And, you can see the gun laying on the ground next to a 2x4 piece of wood at about 5:02 in the video. I realize the video resolution isn't ultra high def 8K, but, frankly, we're lucky today to have bodycam video at all. Those big 8K cameras, with the size lens they use, and the bigger memory and power consumption, yeah, not quite ready for bodycams yet. So, we're stuck with lower resolution until that technology comes along a little more. But, this lower res version is good enough to see what happened. I don't blame you for not seeing the gun at first. But, just out of curiosity, did you ACTUALLY believe there was no gun? The guy came up in an aggressive manner and yanked the door open, while wearing a ski mask in the middle of summer in Kentucky, I mean, is it THAT hard for you to believe that there was a gun also? They talked about the gun during the video. And, like I said, if you know where to look, you can see it. But, it seems you're trying to say there was no gun. Really?
    1
  9590. Pffttt. She did hire three attorneys, and none filed a suit against the police, because he did nothing wrong. They filed a minor suit against the store, however, but, she lost that lawsuit in dramatic fashion. Sorry, but you clearly don't understand anything about what happened here.
    1
  9591. Welcome to Inside Edition, where facts don't matter. She was a convicted felon who had been arrested a million times for various crimes, served a term in a Florida prison, and abandoned her career and family to live a life of crime and drugs. It's difficult to get a straight job after that, so, her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the local club, and her neighbors said she did "private extras" for cash in her apartment. The video taken of the incident itself (by one of the "audience") showed a very loud and public display in view of multiple people including children. But, you blame everyone else besides her, right? If she wasn't making "public beach" content for her fans, I'll eat my hat.
    1
  9592.  @Budweiser-gq6xv  Good gods. You're clearly still recovering from a drunken 4th. Come back when you're sober.
    1
  9593. They found his body next to a lake. Apparently, the driver threw him into the lake and he later washed up on the shore.
    1
  9594. Pffttt. Why? Because her lawsuit was thrown out, and rightfully so?
    1
  9595. Another proud YouTube University School of Law graduate, huh? Dewdrop, first of all, the timeline: July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. There was no "death by shame" over this arrest video, because nobody saw it while she was alive. Nobody "sold" the video. The police blocked its release for 2.5 years. But, eventually, they can no longer block a legal Freedom of Information Act request if the case has been closed long enough. How about stopping pretending you know things you don't? Is that too much to ask?
    1
  9596. Freedom of Information Act = despicable?
    1
  9597. Wow, you sure messed up your interpretation of what happened here. Sorry, but being Tased while resisting arrest is normal, and it's one of the reasons the Taser is used in the first place. It's to force compliance upon people resisting arrest, and is less aggressive and prone to injury than tackling someone to the ground. If you really think you can call that "brutality," then all that you're actually doing is demonstrating that you have no understanding of the topic on any level. And, while you're correct in that she is not required by law to show the receipt, it sure makes life a lot easier if she just did. But, ok, let's say she wants to go on a crusade instead of produce the receipt, alright, she is still required to cooperate on a very basic level. This means, in a "stop and identify" state (which Florida is), she must provide her ID. The cop asked for her ID or name a million times (mainly in the extended version of the video, not as much in this version that cuts out the first half). She refused. And, that alone is an arrestable crime. She further obstructed and obfuscated throughout the entire encounter (also crimes). And, she resisted arrest (another crime). But, hey, you don't have to take my word for it. Her own three attorneys didn't consider it "brutality," because they never even filed a case against the police. The police did nothing wrong. They filed a case against the store, but, she lost that case badly, and received $0.00. They did not appeal, because, again, even her own attorneys didn't see merit in doing so. Soooo, yeah, unless you think you understand the law better than her own three attorneys, I think it's pretty safe to say that your YouTube law degree has failed you.
    1
  9598. No proof? What about the video taken by one of the witnesses of the actual incident itself? And, sure, if she had bothered to show up in court, she could easily get the charges reduced. But, she hadn't shown up in court for most of her prior arrests, and didn't show up for this one either.
    1
  9599. Yeah, well, it's Inside Edition, after all. They're pushing the "innocent soccer mom" version of the story, instead of the reality of her prison term 6 years ago, her career as a "dancer" who did "private extras" with paying men, and multiple cases of theft, stealing cars, drugs and alcohol, etc. The "innocent soccer mom" story goes more viral than the "career criminal gets busted again" version.
    1
  9600. "Thinking about the technology NASA had when they first landed on the moon" OK, so, is this an acknowledgement that they had the technology, and that they went to the moon? You analyzed the technology enough to know that it actually worked as designed, right? "and today’s technology. You would think it would be much easier to send man back to the moon." Yes, and it is. When you adjust for inflation, Apollo costed about $300 billion in hard costs, and about $150 billion more in soft costs and international support. The current Artemis program to send people back to the moon has a budget of about $35 billion. Yes, there are also lots of soft costs, or costs buried in other programs, and I'm not actually certain about how much that amounts to. I've read speculation that it's about $95 billion if you extrapolate the real costs. And, being a government program, I'm sure the costs will balloon. But, it's still a fraction of the approximate $450 billion of Apollo. So, yes, it's easier to go back now. Far less research and development costs. But, as has been pointed out to you, rocket technology hasn't really changed all that much. Even the Artemis program is using 40 year old recycled rockets (not kidding) based upon a 50 year old design. "Something is very suspicious that they haven’t been back there." Congress wouldn't fund another program after Apollo (until Artemis anyway). Why is this suspicious to you?
    1
  9601. For whatever it's worth to you, that's why I opened my reply by asking.
    1
  9602. Who? Her family that she abandoned more than a decade prior to live a life of crime and drugs? Her husband and son who didn't even go to her funeral? Her fellow "dancers" at the gentlemen's club she worked at?
    1
  9603. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. Suicide = March, 2022. The arrest video was released on November 24, 2023. That's when all of the media publicity happened. So, how did it "lead to" her death 1.5 years prior?
    1
  9604. So, what's your point? No law and order, let's encourage chaos?
    1
  9605. Can you clarify what you're complaining about with the explosive charges? Which ones? Is there a timestamp in the video?
    1
  9606. Huh? Didn't break one law? How about the fact that Florida is a "stop and identify" state, which makes it illegal not to provide ID during an investigation of a possible crime? That's an arrestable offense right there, with or without the theft charges. How about obstruction/obfuscation? Refusing to ID is a subset of the obstruction laws. But, she did a lot more than just refuse to ID. How about resisting arrest? And, man, if you can't instantly recognize that this video starts in the middle of the interaction, there really is no hope for you. None at all. Any 3 year old can figure out that this video has edited out the entire first half of the encounter. Go watch a different version that has the entire thing, not this edited one. Sheeeesssssshhhh. And, how EXACTLY is the cop profiling anybody? The store employee Anna told the cop who to chase down. He didn't select her. The store did. And, from what I read, Anna was the same exact profile as the woman in the video. So, what ARE you talking about?
    1
  9607. Well, I think it's obvious that her main objective was to turn "can I see your receipt" into a payday lawsuit. Going back into the store was a late afterthought.
    1
  9608. What you might be missing is that Tesla is dropping prices like crazy due to lack of demand. No auto manufacturer is dropping prices more than Tesla. This results in an even bigger drop in resale value than just a "normal" depreciation. Why buy a used one when you can get a new one for the same cost or cheaper? Furthermore, with the Cybertruck, the issue is that it's being introduced at a massively high price, usually over $100K, because the first ones are "foundation" models and have a big upcharge for trivial things, and some are even paying a huge premium. That won't last. And, they're dropping their "full self driving costs" dramatically also, which means if you paid for it at the original pricing, you'll never get that back in trade, because it's far cheaper now. Yes, Tesla is devaluing the trade-in market by all of these practices, and this is well beyond the standard "dealers never give great trade values" argument.
    1
  9609. I was specifically addressing the "depreciation argument" you brought up. Tesla's depreciation after purchase is dramatically worse than any other car on the market, for the reasons I stated, plus more.
    1
  9610. Well, if you let them search you, then you wouldn't have much of a case. If they forcibly searched you, you might.
    1
  9611. YOU SAID: "nasa astronauts are freely saying they have never - I repeat - never left Lower Earth Orbit" == No NASA astronaut has ever said that (EDIT: except maybe when talking about THEMSELVES in particular... no NASA astronaut has ever claimed that Apollo never left Earth orbit). You are intentionally taking things massively out of context. YOU SAID: "as they haven't got the technology to by pass the VA belts" == What EXACT "technology" do you think is required? What EXACT "technology" is lacking? YOU SAID: "and the radiation of outer space" == What radiation? What type(s)? What quantity? YOU SAID: "also earths orbits protect us every second of every day from outer space meteors" == How does Earth's orbit protect us from meteors? What are you talking about? YOU SAID: "and other space particle - on the moon they hit the moon constantly because there is no atmosphere" == Constantly? What? Do you have any idea about how rare those impacts are? Um, nutbag, if there was some sort of constant rain of particles hitting the moon, guess what, we wouldn't be able to clearly see the moon, because clouds of particles would block the vision. And, let's just talk about how spread out those particles really are. Take, for example, the rings of Saturn... we've sent craft right through them, without hitting a single particle. Just because you can see those big rings, doesn't mean they're dense. Yet, you think there's a constant barrage of particles on the moon, which we can't even see? Um, what??? YOU SAID: "if a small meteor the size of a grain of sand hit and astronaut on the moon its speed would take it straight through him -dead instantly" == Depends. If it hit something vital, sure. But, if it passed through something non-vital, they were trained on how to deal with it. The suits had a self-sealing layer for small punctures like that. YOU SAID: "time to grow up folks - they faked it" == You have no understanding of the topic. YOU SAID: "there are thousands of mistakes" == Yet, scientifically illiterate morons on the internet are the only ones who spot these "thousands of mistakes" - while the worldwide rocket science community of trained experts cannot find a single flaw. YOU SAID: "and some were left by whistle blowers to show they never went anywhere near the moon" == Pfftttt. You apparently believe anything you see that supports your delusion, and reject anything you see that goes against your delusion. YOU SAID: "by the way it will take Nasa many years to solve the problems of manned flights in space" == There are manned flights in space right now. What ARE you talking about? YOU SAID: "Nasa's words not mine" == No. You are butchering the living daylights out of these words, which you clearly do not understand in the slightest.
    1
  9612. You truly are as dumb as people can get. Good gods.
    1
  9613. Which god? And, were you thanking that particular god when the woman in this video died?
    1
  9614. They should sue who? And, on what basis? What's the exact allegation?
    1
  9615. That was part of their plan. In actuality, she exited this world 1.5 years before anybody saw the arrest video. But, they wanted two viral rounds instead of one. So, they showed the news story without telling anybody she was long gone, and then they showed the "update" that revealed that she was, making people think the first round caused the second round. It's sneaky "journalism."
    1
  9616. She was the only one involved with her suicide.
    1
  9617. I realize how proud you are to know absolutely nothing. But, sorry, that's about all I can figure out from your message. Maybe you should post in your own language, because you're not very good at English.
    1
  9618. Well, in spirit, I definitely agree with you about the scruples of Inside Edition (lack of). But, I care even more about accuracy. And, the fact is, Inside Edition never published anything about her until long after she died... nor did any other news outlet. Other than a couple of obscure blog posts on sites nobody has heard of, nobody knew about this arrest until after the video was released on November 24, 2023.
    1
  9619. Huh? Irwin was a born again Christian who spent all of his time after his lunar mission promoting his religion. Aldrin made no secret of his religion. Bean was a Christian. Cernan, probably the best and most prolific overall speaker of the Apollo commanders, and the man who spent more time on the lunar surface than any other, almost never gave a speech or interview without mentioning his faith. If the goal was to "hide God" (whatever that means), they sure picked a funny way to do it. But, ok, let me ask you, how does sending people to the moon "hide God"? And, what kind of all powerful god even could be hidden by Apollo? Doesn't that make your god rather weak, if sending people to the moon hides him? I mean, I thought you types of guys were declaring that your gods were sooooooo powerful, yet, it seems like simultaneously you're saying those very same gods are sooooo fragile that sending people to the moon can "hide" them? I don't get it. What am I missing here?
    1
  9620. Of woud lern Engrish job had.
    1
  9621. Hilarious. And, you think that was the only problem?
    1
  9622. POLITICAL? What in the world? What is "political" about the fact that you read and write at the level of a 2nd grader?
    1
  9623. So, you're proud to be shtooop1d.
    1
  9624. So, you enjoy knowing nothing whatsoever. Bravo.
    1
  9625. Virtually nobody covered this story while she was alive, so, um, no.
    1
  9626. And, you think this happens from a few seconds with the visor up?
    1
  9627. Open investigation vs. closed.
    1
  9628. Dewdrop, I can provide you thousands of old ladies who hallucinate thousands of silly things. WHY WOULD YOU BELIEVE IT? Again, the hallucinating lady couldn't even get the time of day correct. Why would you trust a single thing she said?
    1
  9629.  @tamarafletcher7965  You are one extremely sick puppy. Go see a doctor. Now.
    1
  9630. Well, depends on what you mean by "true." Did she commit suicide? Yes. Was it because of this arrest? No.
    1
  9631. "Moon with a black background, in outer space full of stars ??" Huh? Are you under the impression that (a) they never took star photos, and (b) that you can expose stars in videos or with cameras set for exposing a brightly lit lunar surface? How about trying to take star photos yourself? Obviously, you never have. Nobody who takes photos of the stars would ever misunderstand this topic so badly. "Half a century later can't even get a man rocket off the ground," Wait, are you begrudging them the act of testing a new rocket before putting people inside? I mean, this is one of the most amazing dynamics of you hoax nuts: you people set up these impossible scenarios in your minds. If they sent people to the moon atop a brand new rocket system that had never flown before, you'd say, "FAKE!!! Are you telling me that NASA didn't even want to test the new rocket before putting people on it? Obviously, this isn't real." But, when they actually want to test a brand new rocket system without risking people's lives, using an unmanned mission, you say, "FAKE!!! They can't even send people and need to send an unmanned craft." It's ridiculous. Manned, unmanned, whatever, either way, you were going to call it fake. So, why do you bother? Back in the 1960s, they launched Apollo 4, Apollo 5, Apollo 6 (all with Saturn V rockets unmanned) before they ever sent people on top of a Saturn V rocket on Apollo 8. But, you're complaining that Artemis wanted an unmanned mission before a manned mission? "Scap nasa space x does a better job cheaper" Good gods. How do you think SpaceX does anything? Do you know where SpaceX gets most of its money? NASA. And, sorry, but they're not cheaper than any other rocket manufacturer can do it, despite Musk trying to tell you it is. He robs Peter to pay Paul (except it's legal in this case). He charges a fortune for NASA missions, using NASA's development money to build facilities and do the R&D. Then, he passes those savings on to the private sector. Do you know why/how he does that? BECAUSE THAT IS NASA's MAIN PURPOSE!!! The way NASA works is to fund development, using private contractors to do so. NASA has never built a spacecraft or rocket. They always contract it out. And, they contract SpaceX out, just the exact same way that they've contracted Rocketdyne, Boeing, Lockheed, etc., over the decades. Those private companies take the development money from NASA, pass on the knowledge to all of the aerospace engineering manufacturers, and then continue to build things for the private sector that are cheaper. I mean, good grief. Just because Musk pretends that SpaceX is some sort of magical company with engineers that are somehow different than the last 60 years of rocket engineers, doesn't mean you should believe it. If you don't think Boeing or Blue (or whoever else) could build equally impressive modern rockets as SpaceX, then I'm afraid you simply know nothing whatsoever about how the aerospace industry works. The only difference is that those other companies are run by SANE CEOs and executives. SpaceX is run by a monster with no critical thinking capabilities remaining, and a parroting puppet figurehead Gwen Shotwell, who go around and pretend that they're doing things that no other rocket company can do, and their cult fanbase laps it up. Frankly, I think Blue would have done it better than SpaceX. But, whatever, this is all going to fall on deaf ears, because you have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!
    1
  9632.  @DemonDrummer  Good grief, I'm sick of their silly censorship. I wouldn't even be able to guess what I typed that would be considered ban-worthy. Anyway, thanks for informing me. I wonder how I got a thumbs up, if it was banned. But, whatever, nowadays, who can really tell how they are doing things. It's a mess.
    1
  9633. One of the audience recorded the incident and showed the video to the police.
    1
  9634. Yes, I know that. But, your comment said that the cops didn't witness the act. My point was, yes, they witnessed it on video.
    1
  9635. The police report.
    1
  9636. Yes, well, the easier answer is simply not to commit crimes. But, anyway, yes, the video was apparently not very long. But, the witnesses said the incident itself was about 5 minutes. It sounds like nobody started taking video until toward the end, though. Still, it was enough for the cops to know that it happened.
    1
  9637. Wow, I don't think you could have gotten the facts more backward if you tried. The arrest video wasn't released until November 24, 2023. It was the result of a legal FOIA request. With the exception of very rare circumstances, police do NOT release the arrest videos while there's an open investigation. And, since she was already dead for 1.5 years, they could no longer block the release of the arrest video.
    1
  9638. So, you're saying that this was a misdemeanor, yet, you expected them to just talked to her and helped her get through the day? Huh? With multiple callers? After putting on a show in front of children? If it was a guy cranking at a playground, would you recommend the same?
    1
  9639. What made you think this led to her taking her life? She sure waited a long time (almost a year). And, what was so special about this particular arrest? She didn't take her life over her other million arrests. She didn't take her life over the term she spent in a Florida prison about 6 years ago. So, why THIS arrest?
    1
  9640. With all of her open warrants, you don't think they were going to arrest her either way?
    1
  9641.  @buy_my_bath_water  Seriously, I see you going from thread to thread to thread posting absolute nonsense. First of all, if an intruder breaks in, and if you are legitimately fearing for your life, or the lives of anybody in your household, firing blanks is the last thing you'd ever want to do. If that person suddenly whips out a gun, your blanks aren't going to help you, and you're probably going to end up getting shot. If YOU want to take chances with YOUR life, and load your gun with blanks, hoping that the criminal is going to just run, instead of coming right after you, fine, do that with YOUR life, but don't expect the rest of the world to do what you do. You have proven throughout these entire comments that you have ZERO understanding of this case, or proper firearms training, or how the legal system works for cases like this. Secondly, you KNOW that this wasn't relevant to this particular case anyway. The issue here is that Smith planned these murders IN ADVANCE. He wasn't the victim of a surprise intruder, nor did he really fear for his life. He knew they were coming, he planned to kill them, and he followed through on his plan. This is not the same thing as a "routine" home invasion.
    1
  9642.  @buy_my_bath_water  Congratulations on failing to understand anything... again.
    1
  9643. In front of children.
    1
  9644. Multiple people called the police for this incident. One woman video recorded it with her cell phone, and showed that recording to the police, who described it in their arrest report. They describe a very loud and publicly visible display. It hardly matches the discreet and secretive incident as spoken by a woman who is trying to avoid being arrested. But, there's a silver lining of sorts, in that this arrest video wasn't made public until 2.5 years later, which was 1.5 years after she committed suicide. So, the poor woman didn't suffer any public embarrassment from the release of the arrest video.
    1
  9645. Just curious... if it was a man at a playground, would you say that the parents should just gather their kids and go to a different playground?
    1
  9646. Huh? Who told you it was a vacant beach? The woman trying to avoid getting arrested? Why would you believe her? Multiple people called the police over the incident. One of the people even recorded the incident with her cell phone, and showed the video to the police. They describe it in their police report as a very loud and public event in view of multiple people, including children. I'm sorry if that doesn't match your viewpoint of blindly believing the woman who is trying to avoid getting arrested. But, here's a clue: "I didn't do it" is an awfully common claim, including from people who DID do it.
    1
  9647. Yes, I meant "I didn't do it" = nobody was around. I was paraphrasing. My point was that you're blindly trusting empty words spoken by someone who is attempting to avoid getting arrested. Yes, people were around. Else, how do you explain the multiple calls to the police, and the fact that one of the audience even took video?
    1
  9648. This was after she already headed for a different area. That's not the spot she did the act. And, yeah, the woman who recorded the incident was gathering evidence to show the police. My guess is that this was a new way for her to get her thrills. Her prior arrests were for stealing cars and public drunkenness. I guess this was her "next level."
    1
  9649. "It's because nobody's ever been there there's nothing left behind their" Oh, you're a genius alright. Did you graduate 3rd grade? You certainly don't read and write like you did. And, hmmm, conclusion first, eh? Ask questions second?
    1
  9650. "where's the space buggy" Dewdrop, there was no lunar rover on Apollo 11. If you don't know anything about the Apollo program, such that you don't even know one mission from another, why would you believe you understand it well enough to claim that the entire planet's experts are wrong?
    1
  9651. "how did they get that on the moon" So, you don't know how anything worked, but, again, you believe you know this subject better than the engineers who designed everything?
    1
  9652. "yeah we've been to the Moon in a tomato can back in the Stone age" Aww, you poor thing. Your stupidity is showing.
    1
  9653. "with all of today's technology and advances we haven't been back" Not since 1972 on any manned missions. So what? Why does that matter to you? Did Magellan's voyage around the world not happen, because nobody repeated it for 50 years? Why should the veracity of Apollo depend on what future generations do or don't do? Thus far, all you've asserted here is that you don't know how anything worked, therefore you're declaring it to be fake. Sorry, dewdrop, your assertions don't mean anything.
    1
  9654. "meteorites that fall to the Earth sure pass off as moon rocks well" Publish. What are you waiting for. Please go demonstrate that the thousands of geologists and geology students cannot tell the difference between a meteorite and an Apollo moon rock. Write up your findings into a geology paper, and submit it to any recognized geology journal on Earth. I truly will never understand why you people think a YouTube comment is the correct place to display your expertise. But, anyway, I'll get you started. Meteorites are found on Earth, mostly in Antarctica because of the snow/ice making them easier to find, and are well preserved. Now, the first part of your paper should be to outline how/why none of the Apollo rocks had ever been exposed to oxygen or moisture, if you're trying to argue that they were meteorites found on Earth. Are you going to do that?
    1
  9655. Stars: Did you expect to be able to see stars in videos during the daytime on the moon? Huh? Earth: Dewdrop, there are plenty of photos of Earth taken from the moon, and yes, they even took video from the rover (electric car) of the Earth several times during Apollo 17. But, if you expected to see the Earth while they were driving the rover, you clearly have no understanding of how the camera worked. The camera on Apollo 17's rover was TV-only, which didn't work while the rover was moving. And, Apollo 17 didn't have the 16mm DAC mounted to the rover like the prior missions did. Impossible to put it in the movie? Huh? You clearly haven't ever watched the Apollo videos. Take "Apollo 17 - 170:40 - 178:40" as an example. I know the video is 8 hours long, but, I chose that one because it shows the Earth in the first few seconds, taken by the very rover camera that you deny took video of the Earth. I mean, seriously, go learn something before you stick your head in the sand and deny reality.
    1
  9656.  @casanovafrankenstein4193  I think 30 feet was the "official" word, but, it looks more like 40 to me. Not 100% sure.
    1
  9657.  @cheesemanthe2nd  Um, yes, that's correct. So, in your mind, executing them is justified? The crime of theft carries the "justified" punishment of death?
    1
  9658. Why shouldn't he have been charged with murder? He planned the killings. It wasn't self defense. He knew they were coming. He got tarps ready for their bodies, and placed them exactly where he planned on shooting them. He rehearsed, on tape, long before they arrived at his house, what he planned on saying to the police and his friends and attorneys. He said he planned on shooting "in the left eye," and then, once the girl arrived, he shot her twice in the left eye. He placed his car far away from his house so that they wouldn't know he was home. He had his video cameras running, and could see them approaching the house. He said in his confession that he knew the girl was disabled and no longer a threat, but that he had no intention of letting her live, and proceeded to put three more shots into her head anyway. Why would you say this isn't murder? What EXACTLY do you think you understand about this case that none of the police, judges, jury members, or appellate court judges (who denied his attempt to appeal) know about this case? Please outline your legal expertise and personal expertise about this case, such that you feel qualified to say that all of those people are wrong, and you're right?
    1
  9659.  @tonygareth221  How is this an answer to anything I asked? Did you even read my return questions? Why would you ignore what I asked, and answer things I didn't ask? YOU SAID: "I don’t feel what he did was right" == OK, then what EXACT charge do you think he should have gotten? You said that murder was not the correct charge. OK, now you're saying that the man deserved some sort of charge (by saying he was in the wrong), but you haven't named the charge that you think he should have gotten?? What charge?!?!?!?!? Name the "correct" charge!!! YOU SAID: "BUT the bottom line is you do not go into someone’s home. That’s all there is to it." == No, that's not all there is to it. I'm sorry that your understanding of this situation and the laws is soooooooo one dimensional that you fail to even grasp these concepts, and you think that you can unilaterally declare "that's all there is to it" as if you understand the law better than all of the legal experts who worked on this case. But, that's your own problem. No, that's not all there is to it. YOU SAID: "At that point it’s his call as far as I’m concerned." == Yet, you cannot name the charge, as far as you're concerned?? YOU SAID: "But again, the planning and being able to take lives like that leads me to believe this guy may not be right in the head but you don’t go into peoples homes. Why can’t YOU and everyone else understand that ?" == Good gods. Do you REALLY believe that none of the police, none of the attorneys, none of the judges (arraignment, trial, and appellate), none of the jury members, or anybody else involved, understand things that YOU think YOU understand??? You cannot even answer direct questions!!! Why do you think YOU are the one who understands this stuff, and nobody else does?? What arrogance. What utter arrogance you have. Yes, I understand this. YOU are the one who doesn't. YOU SAID: "Tough situation, I’m conflicted" == Well, let me resolve that conflict for you. Your entire problem is that you are one-dimensional. This really is very simple. The teen criminals were guilty. The crazy shooter was guilty. See, one dimensional people (like you) want there to be an innocent party and a guilty party. But, real life doesn't always work out that way. Sometimes, ALL parties are guilty. Like, when you hear about gangland violence, where two rival gangs go around shooting each other. Both sides are guilty. Both sides did the wrong thing. Both sides deserve prison. Well, this case wasn't a gangland thing, but, it's basically the same concept. Guilty teen thieves were killed by a guilty premeditated murderer. Your "conflict" has now been resolved.
    1
  9660.  @tonygareth221  Yet, YOU are the one who cannot answer a single question or challenge to your position. Your position goes against every single expert who worked on this case, the judges, the prosecuting attorneys, the appeals court, the police, and every single jury member assigned. But, in your extreme arrogance, **I** am the "dumbass" here, not you???? Good gods. WHAT CHARGE SHOULD HE HAVE BEEN GIVEN, IF NOT MURDER, YOU EXTREME IDIOT?!?!?!?
    1
  9661.  @matchit0419  Good grief, you just don't get it. Again, as I stated in the other thread, this concept has been vetted through every possible court system, and literally NOBODY agrees with you. YOU SAID: "Can I enter your house and steal your stuff then?" == No. YOU SAID: "I mean killing a burglar is 'overkill' so it's free to me to come and steal your things right? Just give me your home address." == This is too stupid to be worth a reply. YOU SAID: "Making a point here, not actually a robber." == Your "point" is irrelevant and incorrect, and doesn't accurately reflect castle doctrine anywhere in the country. People are allowed to defend themselves with firearms from surprise attackers coming into their homes with unknown intent. You are not allowed to use this concept to plan two murders, and follow through on that plan. Castle doctrine does not apply when you know, in advance, that the children are coming. YOU SAID: "The point is, don't act so high and mighty" == I don't have to. Literally every single court system that could even possibly look at this case has already spoken. I'm just the messenger here. Castle doctrine outlines one of the lines between defending yourself and your home, vs committing murder. It's 100% clear that Smith went well over that line. YOU SAID: "we have a gun, a gun is a tool which is to deal with thugs faster than police ever can." == No. A gun is a tool which we may use to defend ourselves. It's not a tool that you can use (legally anyway) to plan and commit murders. YOU SAID: "The homeowner saw danger in his house and he used his tool and his constitutional right to fix the problem." == And, he went to prison for premeditated murder, which is exactly what should happen to him. And, you don't get to wave the constitution at me, when the ultimate arbiters of the constitution are the US Supreme Court, and they disagree with you on this matter (as well as the state supreme court, the appellate court, and the judges in this case, and the attorneys). Literally, the only legal professional who was ever exposed to this case who even comes close to your position was the defense attorney, who was PAID to take that position. And, even he doesn't go as far as the stuff you're claiming. YOU SAID: "A gun is a very handy tool if used correctly." == Yes. I am a gun owner myself. But, "using it correctly" doesn't include planning/committing premeditated murder. YOU SAID: "If they didn't enter his house in the first place they wouldn't of died." == Did I say otherwise? I mean, this is the core of what's wrong with your mind on this issue. You seem to think that there's always got to be an innocent party or something. It seems outside of your intellectual capacity to realize that ALL PARTIES were guilty. All three of them. The children shouldn't have been stealing. The gunman shouldn't have committed premeditated murder. I mean, your mind is so simplistic that you already outlined it above. You claimed that if I don't advocate premeditated murder, then the only conclusion you could fathom was that I advocate stealing instead. Ridiculous single-dimensional garbage. I never said the children were innocent. I'm saying that Smith IS GUILTY OF PREMEDITATED MURDER. Sheeeessssshhh. I'd hate to see you on a jury someday for a gangland shooting incident, while you're out there trying to figure out who the innocent party was... while NONE OF THEM are innocent. Again, this is a product of your personal inability to think past the concept of one party being innocent, and one party being guilty. Once you get past that silly notion, this will become far more clear for you. The children were guilty, and the gunman was guilty. You don't get to PREMEDITATE murder for the crime of theft. There's a line between self defense and murder. Smith went well past that line. And, every juror, every court member, and every possible avenue of appeals, all the way up to the Supreme Court of the USA are against your silly viewpoint. YOU SAID: "All he basically did was set up a plan" == Yes, and that's what made it premeditated murder. Castle doctrine (defending yourself and household) applies to REACTIONS to SURPRISE invaders. It doesn't mean you are allowed to plan ahead to kill people. YOU SAID: "to take out robbers, WHO ROBBED HIM MULTIPLE TIMES. Since clearly they wouldn't stop." == So, in your mind, the proper penalty for theft is murder? YOU SAID: "Clearly jail wouldn't help them anyway because they kept doing it." == Maybe, maybe not. But, they were children. We aren't talking about lifetime hardened criminals here. We're talking about two children who were drug addicts, and resorted to crime to pay for their drugs. Yes, it's entirely possible that they may never have changed their ways, and may have stayed criminals for the rest of their natural lives. But, it's also possible that children can grow up and change their ways. We'll never know in this particular case, will we? YOU SAID: "He did his neighborhood a service taking out a few criminals." == And, the courts did the neighborhood a service by imprisoning a murderer.
    1
  9662.  @matchit0419  At this point, it really is clear that you have no intention of digesting anything I've said. This man PLANNED these murders, and as I've said repeatedly, there isn't a court anywhere that agrees with you. None of them. No attorney (besides his own). No judge. No police investigator. No appellate courts. And, no supreme courts. No jurors. Nobody agrees with you. And, your illiteracy is undoubtedly why you are unable to understand these concepts. You clearly can't write well, which is a strong indicator that you can't read very well either. YOU SAID: "Just because he was PREPARED for them to enter doesn't mean it's premeditated" == Good gods, what ARE you talking about?? You don't think it was premeditated? You said it yourself when you said (in the other message) that he wasn't merely prepared, he PLANNED it. Before the children got there, he recorded himself rehearsing what he was going to say about the murders to his friends and attorneys. Before the children got there, he said he planned on shooting "in the left eye," and then later shot the girl twice in the left eye, exactly as he planned. He parked his car a quarter mile away, so it would appear he wasn't home. He unscrewed the lightbulbs from their sockets, so the kids couldn't just turn on the lights. Do you think he always parks his car that far away? Do you think he always keeps his lightbulbs unscrewed so the lightswitch wouldn't turn on the lights? No. Of course not. He PLANNED these killings. He recorded himself going outside, retrieving two tarps, and bringing them inside. He placed those two tarps exactly where he intended to kill them. If that's not premeditation, I don't know what is. YOU SAID: "The two teenagers chose on their own free will to enter his house unannounced and they paid the price for it." == And, this man planned two murders, and followed through on that plan, and he is now paying the price for it. YOU SAID: "Also I don't care if people agree with me or not, I don't care if you agree, I don't even care if my Mother agrees, it's my opinion." == Yes, you've made it quite clear. This just demonstrates that your mind is a brick wall, and you have absolutely no intention of listening to input. Any intellectually honest person would always keep his/her mind open for input and interpretation. Not you, though. Your mind has been made up, and you're not open for input. Bravo!!! YOU SAID: "If you think an opinion is right or wrong just because others "agree" with you. I got news for you, that's not how morality works." == Pfffttt. That's EXACTLY how morality works!!! As a society, we decide what's right and wrong when it comes to things like this. We've decided that defending your life with a firearm is acceptable. In some other countries, it's not. We've decided that there are different punishments for different crimes. In some older societies, killing people for theft was the proper punishment. In other societies (like ours) it's not. Vigilante justice isn't acceptable in our society either. YOU might think that children deserve to be killed for the crime of theft, but, thankfully for the rest of us, your opinions don't matter, BECAUSE NOBODY AGREES WITH YOU. YOU SAID: "You still haven't explained how it was premeditated murder either" == I'm not going over this again. You're obviously not listening. YOU SAID: "he just WAITED for them to do so. If they didn't CHOOSE to enter they'd still be alive." == You've made it quite clear that there's no part of your mind that even intends to listen to input, so I'm only stating this one more time (I've already spelled this out repeatedly). You are very clearly incapable of understanding the notion that guilty criminals can be killed by guilty perpetrators. You very obviously believe that there must be an innocent party. This is shallow and ridiculous, and completely out of touch with reality. There are lots and lots of crimes in which guilty people commit crimes against other guilty people. Gangland shootings. Mafia interactions. Corporate espionage. And, of course, this case of Smith and the children he killed. And, frankly, I'm pretty sick and tired of your pathetic attitude about wishing bad things upon me for taking the same side as literally every single legal expert who has ever looked at this case (besides the man's own attorney, who only sides with the man because that's what he was paid to do). You literally said that you hope these bad things happen to me, that's what kind of a person you are. I never said, "I hope you have children who are gunned down in a premeditated murder because your children stole." No. I have more class than that. I don't wish ill upon people, like you do. You are a largely illiterate, closed minded, intellectually uninformed internet clod who has NO UNDERSTANDING of what castle doctrine is, and what it isn't. No wonder you think the way you do. Your thought patterns are defective, and your attitude is downright evil. Enjoy your inevitable eventual prison sentence. I'm done here.
    1
  9663.  @matchit0419  You obviously aren't reading/digesting anything I've written at this point. I've already answered the things you keep asking again and again. If you can't bring yourself to have that level of courtesy, then I'm certainly not playing this ridiculous game with you. You don't get to wave the constitution at me, then say that you don't care about societal laws based on that constitution, then ignore the court systems whose primary job is to interpret and implement that constitution. You were very quick to wave around the constitution when you thought it supported your viewpoint. And, now that you know that it doesn't, as has been proven by literally every single court that could even possibly look at this case, now you've retreated to this concept that you can make up your own morality in a society, and you don't care what any court thinks. Well, that completely negates your original argument about the constitution, doesn't it? You don't get to sit there and wave the constitution at me when you're under the impression that it's on your side, then completely dismiss the constitution and go with your own personal version of vigilante justice when when the ultimate authorities of the constitution (the court system) disagrees with you. You have no class. You have no education. You don't understand the constitution or legal system. Your moralities are based on a pure evil concept that the crime of theft should be punished by the crime of murder. And, no, you don't get to hide behind this concept that the kids were guilty, therefore it's ok to plan to murder them, and follow through on that plan. And, I don't intend to have any further dialog with an evil person who wished personal harm upon me for TAKING THE SIDE OF EVERY SINGLE LEGAL AUTHORITY WHO HAS EVER ENGAGED ON THIS CASE!!! You don't get to gun people down for stealing from you. You're allowed to defend yourself with a firearm against surprise attackers. You are NOT allowed to plan to murder people for stealing. The mere fact that it took place inside his home has no relevance on his crime. You apparently think that it's some sort of magical panacea that the man is allowed to premeditate two murders if he knows the offenders are coming to his house. That is incorrect. What these two children did was wrong. And, what the gunman did was also wrong. And, they've all paid the price. You are obviously very incapable of mentally digesting the notion that a man can be guilty of murder, while simultaneously the children can be guilty of theft. It appears to be completely over your head to even imagine that guilty criminals can commit crimes against other guilty criminals. There's a reason that the jury unanimously doesn't agree with you. There's a reason that literally every single court disagrees with you. And, that's because you're wrong. Sorry that you've stuck your head in the sand, sticking your fingers in your ears, covering your eyes, and saying "lalalala" while I've tried to explain these concepts to you. But, you've already shown your true colors. You wish harm upon me for agreeing with literally every expert who has looked at this case? You want to wave the constitution at me, then negate yourself and go with your own brand of vigilante personal morality when that constitution backfires on you?? Oh, alright, we're done here.
    1
  9664. It was a piece of chicken and Hawaiian bread rolls. She didn't steal them, though.
    1
  9665. It's easy enough to miss seeing the gun. But, at 0:08, if you pause and go frame by frame, you see the guy pointing the gun straight at the cop's head. And, you see it again at 5:00 on the ground next to a 2x4 piece of wood.
    1
  9666. What do you mean by "it can't be proven?" There are mountains upon mountains of evidence for Apollo. What type of evidence would you expect, and accept, as proof?
    1
  9667. Huh? She wasn't shamed by the police video nor the "news" (Inside Edition isn't news, but, whatever), because the arrest video wasn't made public until 1.5 years after she was already dead. What exactly do you want them to be held accountable for?
    1
  9668. Dewdrop, the police were called by multiple people. One of the "audience" recorded the incident, and showed it to the police. They describe the video as a very loud and public act in view of multiple people, including children. Sorry, but that's an arrestable crime.
    1
  9669. And, sorry if her version of a discreet act with nobody around doesn't match what the video showed. But, yeah, why do you trust someone who was trying to avoid her millionth arrest?
    1
  9670. See, with her mile long arrest record, her felony prison term she served for stealing cars, the multiple judgements for various thefts, the repeated drug and alcohol charges on her record, and countless failures to appear in court (including for this incident), with open arrest warrants and everything, yeah, it's tough to get a straight job after all of that. So, according to her landlord, well, her "career" pretty much matched what happened at the beach, ya know, one of those words you can't type on YouTube, involving cash transactions with lots of men, right? So, yeah, frankly, I think I'll stick with the version of the story as told by the innocent bystanders who recorded it on video, and the police report, rather than the claims of the convicted felon with a mile long legal record who was trying to avoid getting arrested again.
    1
  9671. And, as I repeatedly explained to you already in other threads, nobody was trying to destroy her. The police blocked the release of the arrest video until 1.5 years after she was dead. But, eventually, a legal FOIA request can't be blocked once the case is closed too long.
    1
  9672. Nobody likes hatred, dewdrop. You should change your attitude.
    1
  9673. Thanks for proving you don't read responses to your postings in the various threads. The arrest video wasn't released UNTIL 1.5 YEARS ***AFTER*** SHE DIED, dewdrop.
    1
  9674. The arrest video wasn't released UNTIL 1.5 YEARS **AFTER** SHE DIED, dewdrop.
    1
  9675. The arrest video wasn't released UNTIL 1.5 YEARS **AFTER** SHE DIED, dewdrop.
    1
  9676. The arrest video wasn't released UNTIL 1.5 YEARS **AFTER** SHE DIED, dewdrop.
    1
  9677. The arrest video wasn't released UNTIL 1.5 YEARS **AFTER** SHE DIED, dewdrop.
    1
  9678. The arrest video wasn't released UNTIL 1.5 YEARS **AFTER** SHE DIED, dewdrop.
    1
  9679. The arrest video wasn't released UNTIL 1.5 YEARS **AFTER** SHE DIED, dewdrop.
    1
  9680. The arrest video wasn't released UNTIL 1.5 YEARS **AFTER** SHE DIED, dewdrop.
    1
  9681. The arrest video wasn't released UNTIL 1.5 YEARS **AFTER** SHE DIED, dewdrop.
    1
  9682. Apparently, people need to tell you things 100x before you understand. I'm not sure why you're so proud of this, but, I'm guessing you're blinded by hatred.
    1
  9683. I wouldn't know, I wasn't there, but since the actual incident happened many hours later, after dark, I imagine the bartender probably was at home by then. Just my guess.
    1
  9684. Reading these comments is an insult to humanity. This woman had a mile long arrest record, including serving felony time in prison for stealing cars, and other things. She left her family behind about a decade ago to live a life of crime and drugs. Her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club, and her neighbors said she does "private" encounters in her apartment with numerous men. She also had multiple failures to appear in court, resulting in open warrants. And, for this particular incident, multiple witnesses called, saying this was deliberate, and one of the audience even recorded it and showed the video to the police. Needless to say, it doesn't match her version of a discreet act with nobody around. It was very loud and public, in front of multiple people including children. Yet, people believe the woman? Blame the victims, right? Furthermore, July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = the arrest video was released. Nothing went viral until after that point. So, no, the arrest video didn't cause her suicide. Here's a clue, people: Inside Edition is trash news. Deal with it.
    1
  9685. I don't think that was her issue. According to her landlord, she was a stripper at the local club. Neighbors said that she also did "private extras" for cash in her apartment with a parade of various men. I'd eat my hat if she wasn't making "public beach" content, but, got reported, and was trying to cry her way out of it before they looked her up and found her million arrests and open warrants.
    1
  9686. Some people did believe that 1+1=2. Mam also some people not believe 1+1=2. I have opinion both mam thoughts are not right. Truth is coming, we should wait. A time with come when both 1+1=2 is true and false. Mams are waiting come open truth.
    1
  9687.  @bruce.of.Britain  Why haven't you actually tried looking for the photos you're pretending don't exist?
    1
  9688. Huh? What did the officer do wrong? Sarah Moss and her family saw the woman putting on a show on a public beach, and recorded it with their cell phone. They called the police, and showed the video to the officers, who wrote about it in their police report. They described it as a loud public display in full view of their family with children, that went on for a while (not the few seconds the woman is claiming). What would you propose the officer do, if not arrest her? As for "functioning member of society," well, I suppose anybody could have their own definitions of that term. But, at the time of her suicide, she was 86 pounds, estranged from her family, with tons of reports of drug addiction problems, and living on welfare, unable to make rent.
    1
  9689. Is this a joke?
    1
  9690. But, the arrest video wasn't posted to any media until long after she was dead. So, no, she wasn't humiliated.
    1
  9691. Huh? How would you propose he'd even know that?
    1
  9692. "Because we NEVER went there to begin with in 1969 mind you." The first manned trip to the moon was in 1968. The first manned landing was 1969. "The Space Shuttle blew up in 1985" 1986. "killing 6 Astronauts" 7, not 6. "including a School Teacher." She probably knew not to capitalize those words. "But they will have you believe that on 1 DAY in 1969" There were 2 landings in 1969, not 1. "not only did we land on the MOON driving 2 Moon Buggies around that Rock." There were 0 moon buggies in 1969, but, yes, there were 3 of them in 1971-1972, not 2. "But we also came back into Earth's Orbit" Huh? They never left Earth's orbit, dewdrop. The moon is in Earth orbit also, you know. "in Space Capsule the Size of an SUV that " Miraculously " didn't burn to a Crisp !" Ablative heat shield. "Smh...." What IS wrong with you? When every word you write is incorrect.... Oh, good grief, you'll never understand, why do I bother?
    1
  9693. "Not that far out of Orbit !" A) Apparently, you can't read. I clearly stated that they never left Earth's orbit. In one ear, out the other. B) So, the thousands of engineers who designed and built the command module all forgot to make the ablative heat shield thick enough? Is that what you're saying? "It can NEVER be PROVEN that we landed on the Moon in 1968" Dewdrop, I didn't say they landed in 1968. The only orbited in 1968. "1969." They landed twice in 1969. "6 or 7 Astronauts. 2 or 3 Moon Buggies." Do you even realize how backward you are? If you know so little about the program that you don't know how many missions there were, when they took place, how many astronauts were involved, etc., why in the world would you think you're in a position to decide what's been proven or not? "it can NEVER be PROVEN or DISPROVEN." What kind of proof would you expect, and accept? "Why have wee never been back with even more Advanced Technology" Because technology isn't the issue. "If it is the GREATEST Accomplishment to "Man Kind" Why do the Astronauts NEVER talk about it for more than 5 minutes." You have no idea what you're talking about. "1 PRESS CONFERENCE for 20 minutes 50 years ago." Again, you don't know anything. "NO ANNUAL CONVENTION Celebrating this Incredible Accomplishment" They have conventions all the time for all of the missions. Good grief. Dewdrop, just stop pretending you know things that you don't. Is it really that difficult?
    1
  9694. The medical examiner's report said that her body was down to 84 pounds, and that's including the implants, which he noted were protruding quite unnaturally due to the extreme emaciation. She was in the 70s without the implants. It appears she dove deeper and deeper into drugs and self-abuse as time went on.
    1
  9695. Yup, start with her choice to abandon her family (including a 6 month old son, and another son) over a decade ago, in favor of living a life of crime and drugs... continue to the term she spent in a Florida prison... and end with her career choice of being a stripper at the local club.
    1
  9696. Who is "they"?
    1
  9697. TRANSLATION: "I have no idea what happened here, I didn't watch the videos, but, the cops are always wrong, because I'm going to hate cops no matter what happens, and I think acting like a ridiculous animal is the right way through life." Of course, that sentence was too long for your attention span... so, you're not reading this either.
    1
  9698. Upper chest. You can see a bit of it as they raise his shirt high enough in a couple of spots in this video.
    1
  9699. Huh? Which video? The one taken by one of the "audience" who saw the event? Or, the police bodycam? And, what's the basis for the suit?
    1
  9700. Well, given your inability to know the difference between "too," "two," and "to," nor how to type a coherent sentence, I hardly think you're an expert on anything at all, let alone in telling police how to do their jobs. So, I'll put it this way to make it easy for you: Suppose you got your way, and the officer dropped down to focus on first aid instead of securing the scene and getting a bunch of officers onsite before doing that... let's say you got your wish... what do you think happens to the officer if another armed maniac came out of the woodwork to follow up where Mark left off? The officer is the next one to need that medical aid, right? Secure the scene first, dewdrop, THEN render aid.
    1
  9701. That's some mighty big libel you're committing there. Dewdrop, they didn't cause anything. She was dead for 1.5 years before Inside Edition ever ran the story at all.
    1
  9702. Who should examine them? YOU??
    1
  9703. Three of them.
    1
  9704. "which three" Apollo missions 15, 16, and 17. "and when" 1971 and 1972. "and where are they now?" Hadley Rille, Taurus Littrow, and Descartes. "how did they get it back to earth" They didn't. Why would they bother bringing a rover home? "i the thing that landed in the ocean" I the ocean things landed the in. "and how is it that it landed in the ocean?" As I said, they never brought the rovers back. "please give me facts" Here's one fact: you know nothing whatsoever about Apollo. Here's another fact: you're not fooling anybody with your fake questions. "and pictures because you are the moon guy." And, you're PROUD to behave this way?
    1
  9705. Oh. So, just not the brightest bulb, eh?
    1
  9706. My best estimate is about 10,000 people would need to be actively involved in deception back during the program, and about 2,000 in the decades since. And, this would also mean participation from partnering countries, and enemy countries, and indifferent countries, with a 100% success rate in nobody ever saying, "no, I'm not getting involved with that, I'm going straight to the press." And, I think about 15,000 more engineers would be required, not as active participants in deception, but, to be so incompetent at their jobs not to realize it.
    1
  9707.  @soriac2357  There was only one MESA per lander. It was always in quadrant 4.
    1
  9708.  @richardmathews5696  Well, I'll take you at your word. But, whichever teacher told you that... was dead wrong. The moon's gravity is about 1/6th of Earth's gravity. But, yes, there's still plenty of gravity to prevent rocks from floating away. Even asteroids have gravity.
    1
  9709.  @occhamite  There are lots and lots of them that have never been tracked down. And, it seems to be a theme that geologists (who don't get paid a heck of a lot of money, generally) who were nearing the end of their lives would request a moon rock to analyze, get those rocks, and they would "disappear," and the guys would die, and their families seem to have financial stability that people wouldn't normally expect from that career path.
    1
  9710. Huh? On what grounds?
    1
  9711. Dewdrop, the cops were called by multiple people about this incident. One of the "audience" even recorded the event on cell phone, and showed the police the video. Needless to say, the video didn't match her version of a quiet episode outside the view of others. They describe it as a loud and public act in view of multiple people including children. And, yes, I tend to trust the words of innocent bystanders who were able to capture video, and the police, before I trust convicted felons who served time in prison and have an arrest record a mile long. And, sorry, but, you clearly do not know the difference between an infraction and a crime. So, stop playing YouTube lawyer, and learn something before demonstrating this level of hatred.
    1
  9712. Because starting CPR and being focused on that is the surest way to make sure you're the one that needs the aid next. A guy crawled out of the woodwork with a drawn gun. A screaming banshee arrived seconds later. A screaming brother was in the background. Who's to say how many more were going to be around? Secure the area, get plenty of cops onsite, THEN administer aid. Otherwise, the officer is the one who will soon need the aid when another one crawls out of the woodwork while he's focused on CPR.
    1
  9713. Shocker. Another dewdrop who knows nothing, and thinks they didn't do things they did. AS17-140-21493. Is that high enough for you? If you look at the high resolution version, if you look above that big rock, off into the distance of the valley they're looking down on, that tiny gold colored thing is the lunar lander.
    1
  9714. How? You remember from 3 years ago? Or, you remember from a few months ago when they posted the story without mentioning that she was already long dead, so they could get a second viral round for posting the "update" that she died?
    1
  9715. First of all, why would you believe her death was due to this? Because Inside Edition says so? Secondly, why would you believe she didn't openly expose herself to a bunch of people? Because she said so while she was attempting to avoid her millionth arrest?
    1
  9716. No, this wasn't her first indiscretion. She was a convicted felon and served prison time for stealing cars, and had a mile long arrest record for other stuff. Correct: this arrest probably had nothing to do with her suicide, despite Inside Edition's attempts to skew the story to make it seem that way. She was never put on any registry, and probably wouldn't have anyway, even with her long criminal history. This would have probably been negotiated down to an infraction, had she shown up for court (which she didn't).
    1
  9717. "Mommy, what's that man doing over on that playground bench?" "Nothing, let's just go to a different playground, and let the nice man keep on doing it to others."
    1
  9718. They didn't air anything until 1.5 years after she was dead.
    1
  9719. Well, I imagine we're in agreement then. I thought you were blaming her suicide on the media... when the reality is that virtually no media even covered this until after she was dead.
    1
  9720. No telescope is large enough.
    1
  9721. The police video wasn't released until long after she died, you know.
    1
  9722. Yeah, this is Inside Edition, where facts don't matter. "Innocent soccer mom forced into suicide by evil police" goes viral. "Convicted felon who can't stop getting herself arrested, gets arrested again, and commits suicide a year later for unrelated reasons" doesn't go viral.
    1
  9723. You've made two comments in a row, both of them completely wrong. A store doesn't need to be 100% sure before asking a cop to stop someone. I mean, can you even imagine if the system worked the way you're pretending? Suppose you required the store employees to go review security video, register transaction records, inventory, etc., before anybody can get stopped. When could you ever stop anybody, before they're long gone? And, her own high profile attorney DID try to get paid. They sued the store for $50,000. The case was tossed out of court with prejudice (which means she's never allowed to file it again). Why? Because there is no case here. The woman caused her own problems here. The store and cops are not required to be correct in order to stop and question her. As it turned out, yes, she had her receipt. And, it's within her rights not to provide her receipt. That's fine. But, she is required by law to ID herself (she refused), and is required NOT to obfuscate or obstruct (she did both). She's welcome to remain silent (except for the fact that she must identify herself, of course). But, that's not what happened here.
    1
  9724. Pffttt. "Oh, I only committed murders because my boyfriend made me do it." And, THAT you find believable, huh? May I sell you some oceanfront property in Kansas?
    1
  9725.  @julia.kowalsky  Earth is flat? What the fuck are you talking about? Where'd that crap come from? And, sorry, but I have more respect for women than you obviously do. I respect them enough to blame them for their own actions. I respect them enough to hold them accountable for their own decisions. You, on the other hand, hate women so much that you don't even think they are strong enough to make their own choices in life, without a man choosing for them. I really don't like anti-woman sexists like you. Get lost, you moron.
    1
  9726. 1) There is no assumption of privacy while in public. 2) The police wear bodycams. That's just a fact of life. 3) The Freedom of Information Act released the video. But, that wasn't until long after she was already dead.
    1
  9727. Huh? Freedom of Information Act. Did you get your law degree out of a gumball machine?
    1
  9728. Dewdrop, you have no idea what you're talking about. I asked you to say what you would do if you were Webb. You're not even reading the answers to your own questions.
    1
  9729. "I'm not saying Webb could've defied a presidential order to resign" That's not how it works, dewdrop. The president just appoints a new one. "but as far as I've found, there is no evidence Johnson or Nixon forced him to resign." But, you don't know anything. And, spare the world your backtracking. You KNOW your original position was that he left office because of a conspiracy. You KNOW you had no idea that his position was appointed by the president, and that you had absolutely no clue that Webb would have been out no matter what. You thought it was a regular job that he could just stay in until he quit or something. Why is it that you people NEVER admit being wrong about ANYTHING? Why? Good grief. "Wiki says he left with Johnson, but any critical thinker would know, you don't eliminate the man who started the Moon Landing Program 1 year before you accomplish the goal." Webb was a democrat who was very vocal against Nixon. There is 0.00% chance that Nixon would keep him. You don't know anything. Nothing.
    1
  9730. As opposed to what? Being stiff as a board?
    1
  9731. Huh? How is that an answer to my question? Are none of you nuts capable of reading a question and providing an answer?
    1
  9732. What "original film"? As far as I know, the video of the event at the beach has never been posted anywhere.
    1
  9733. Sorry, when you said "original film," I thought you meant the video taken by one of the witnesses who called the police for the incident itself. And, yeah, as far as I know, that video has never been posted anywhere. As for the arrest video, it was released due to a legal Freedom of Information Act request on November 24, 2023. I fail to understand why anybody should be shamed for following the law correctly. If they didn't release it, that would be a felony. You seem to have your laws backward. But, why does it matter? Nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive. She died almost 2 years ago.
    1
  9734. Thousands of geologists from all around the world have tested the moon rocks. They had never been exposed to moisture or oxygen (i.e. they didn't come from Earth). And, they are 100% in alignment with the small samples brought back by the Soviets' unmanned probes.
    1
  9735. Thad Roberts got pretty intimate regarding the moon.
    1
  9736. I tell the cops if I'm armed. I tell the truth.
    1
  9737. Really? Her prison term in 2018 didn't drive her over the edge. But, a year after this little arrest, it tipped her over the edge? As for anybody in her life, well, according to her neighbors, she did have those parades of paying men in her apartment, and her fans at the strip joint where she worked, but, no, she left her family and friends about 15 years ago to live a life of crime and drugs. Nobody even knew she was "gone" for a month or more, because nobody checked on her until her rent was overdue.
    1
  9738. Is it meth doing this to you? Bath salts? Heroin?
    1
  9739. Well, it got blown over during liftoff. So, no, they weren't exactly going to go back and land and try to lift the flag back up.
    1
  9740. Because a video told you so.
    1
  9741.  @ApolloKid1961  Chang'e-2 could barely see the landers. SELENE couldn't see even a lander. The resolution wasn't good enough. You're correct about the others, though.
    1
  9742. Yet, scotty, I offered to give you a reply to your own request. I just asked you to clarify first. And, I asked a few questions asking you to substantiate your position. You ran for the hills, and refused to reply. Sorry, you don't get to claim "real science" is on your side, while you run for the hills and avoid answering simple things like that.
    1
  9743. Pfftt. So, you say not to trust reporters... while you trust reporters. The irony. Sorry for reality, but, that's what you get for trusting reporters. This video was not released until 2.5 years later. That's 1.5 years after she died.
    1
  9744. 5 feet, 8 inches. (Each probe.)
    1
  9745.  @ZigSputnik  Well, not big ones. But, yes, they did set off very small "bombs" (not really "bombs," but explosives, yes), for seismic experiments.
    1
  9746.  @troth6251  Um, ok. Isn't that what I just said?
    1
  9747.  @troth6251  YOU SAID: "You did, NASA crashed a rocket into the Moon followed by a satellite to detect if there was water on the Moon, they found there was . This happened about ten years ago." == How is this response relevant? Are you high on drugs? First, you "correct" me by repeating exactly what I said. Now, you're changing topics entirely.
    1
  9748.  @troth6251  You do know that he (the original poster of this thread) is talking about 28:14 in this video, right?
    1
  9749. The general rule is to blur for open investigations, and don't blur for closed ones. Anyway, when the media says "Freedom of Information Act," what do you think happens to your suit?
    1
  9750. How do you bully a dead person?
    1
  9751. So, a couple of hundred hits on a a couple of blogs nobody has heard about made her commit suicide? Why none of her other million arrests? Why not her felony term served in a Florida prison? No, it was THIS arrest, then she waited a year, then decided she couldn't take it?
    1
  9752. Freedom of Information Act. And, you clearly don't know the timeline. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = release of the arrest video.
    1
  9753. Well, first off, I certainly wouldn't be bragging about "classic BLM" notions. The "classic" notions complained about completely ridiculous cases that involved no racism, and were trying to make issues about cops just doing their jobs properly, with criminal offenders that happened to be black, and would end with the exact same outcomes regardless of the race of the offenders. If the idea is to stomp out racism, yeah, that's a wonderful cause. But, the "classic BLM" was just off the charts wrong in the way they picked which cases to get fired up about. Nothing to brag about there. But, yeah, as for this video, it's just crazy from start to finish. A bunch of protesters who don't truly understand their own cause, set out to make the entire world hate them, because they think it'll win people's hearts and minds, and get behind them? Um, no. Nobody is going to get behind those nuts. But, this is what happens when you mix these kinds of nuts with violent nuts. One nut blocks traffic. Another nut gets violent. It's ridiculous from start to finish.
    1
  9754. "I don't really feel like namedropping dead people to emphasize my point though." TRASLATION: "I'm right, but, I won't give any examples to show you, instead, you're just going to have to trust me." Sorry, I had given you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't literally mean the off-the-charts nuts in the "classic BLM" sense. But, yeah, you're clearly one of them.
    1
  9755. And, I was just going to let it go at that (my prior comment), but, this is just too ridiculous to avoid spelling out. Dewdrop, the entire point of BLM is to POINT OUT and HIGHLIGHT the injustices you're complaining about. That's the point. They WANT the attention to be focused on these cases. That's the entire point of the movement you're claiming to be part of. Yet, you then come here and say you don't want to point out these cases? You're worse than the protesters in this video. Those nuts in the video have no understanding of what they're even protesting. They don't know why they do what they do. They just blindly think it's a good idea to do and say ridiculous things. And, you're just like them. You don't even understand the movement you're claiming to be part of, because you won't highlight the cases of injustice, when that goes against the entire purpose of your own movement. Good grief. Grow a brain.
    1
  9756. What makes you think the "one mathematician" knows anything about the topic? Right out of the gate, I know your "one mathematician" doesn't know anything, because nobody in their right mind would ever use lead as Van Allen belt shielding. Lead is a heavy metal, which causes secondary Bremsstrahlung radiation when struck by ions such as the loose electrons in the Van Allen belts. This secondary radiation is just as bad, or sometimes worse, than the primary radiation. You're far better off with a light metal or polymers (which is exactly what they used). And, sorry, but boatloads of mathematicians and scientists have done the calculations, staring with James Van Allen himself. He calculated that it would take a full week in the worst areas of the belts in order to get a fatal dose. Apollo went through that area in 15 minutes.
    1
  9757. The story wasn't sensationalized until long after she was dead, so I reject your first statement. The family (and others) who reported her did exactly what they're supposed to do when witnessing a crime: ask the authorities to handle it.
    1
  9758.  @daphnetruman  But, it didn't. This arrest had nothing to do with it.
    1
  9759. Do you mean the video of the actual "incident"? They never released it. Or, do you mean the entire arrest video (which you will find easily on YouTube)?
    1
  9760. Wow. Another denier who reads and writes at a 2nd grade level. And, that's being generous in this case. Another shocker nobody could have predicted.
    1
  9761. Do we even know that's how it happened? Has that detail been released somewhere, and you've come to this video to comment (which doesn't state how it happened)?
    1
  9762. She refused to identify (required by law), obstructed and obfuscated (illegal), and resisted arrest. The original theft suspicion wasn't even all that relevant by then.
    1
  9763. Well, the saving grace (if you can even call it that) is that nobody saw the arrest video until long after she was dead.
    1
  9764.  @Dr.pikachuu  Where'd you get your law degree? A gumball machine?
    1
  9765.  @SUPREME-iq9wu  I'm generally speaking on your side (in favor of the death penalty, but not passionately, just more in favor than against it). But, seriously, get your facts straight. It's far more expensive to execute someone. Sad, but true. It costs millions (mainly in attorneys and court costs).
    1
  9766. I wish I had a dime for every person who said it wasn't dealt with correctly, yet, won't name how to do it instead. As for being discreet, what more do you want? They took her away from the restaurant, outside the earshot of anybody. They prevented the release of the arrest video for 2.5 years. Nobody saw it while she was alive. And, I cannot help but point out the irony that she plopped down on a beach and cranked in front of people, including children, and you're complaining about being discreet...? She was a convicted felon with a mile long arrest record, time spent in prison, and her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club. If she wasn't making "public beach" content for her fans, I'll eat my hat.
    1
  9767. Huh? Why?
    1
  9768. Huh? Why?
    1
  9769. The shattered glass and bullet hole doesn't count?
    1
  9770. Freedom of Information Act. What exactly do you propose that the police do about it? But, the police managed to keep this video private for 2.5 years. She was dead for 1.5 years before this video was released.
    1
  9771.  @rimlandrealist7679  Distance isn't the problem, dewdrop. Resolution is the problem. If you want to sit there in multiple threads and complain that the entire planet somehow has overlooked the idea of pointing a telescope at the moon, well, that's your own problem. In the meantime, any physicist can explain the concept of optical resolution. I know YOU don't understand it, because you have just demonstrated that you don't know the difference between distance and resolution. But, hey, what you don't understand shouldn't be the rest of the world's problem. It would take a lens a quarter mile wide to see what you want it to see. We don't have any such lenses.
    1
  9772. Wouldn't matter. One of the "audience" caught it on video and showed it to the police.
    1
  9773. It was probably a legal FOIA request that released the video. But, what charges do you want to see here? The arrest video wasn't made public until 1.5 years after her death. I mean, you don't just blindly believe Inside Edition, do you?
    1
  9774. "exposed "OPERATION NORTHWOODS," and the "Gulf of Tonkin"" But, dewdrop, nothing has "exposed" Apollo. By your "logic" (sigh), you can decide to disbelieve anything you feel like. Did the Civil War happen? Nope, it was PSY-OPS. Did Thomas Jefferson exist? Nope, he was inserted into history as PSY-OPS. Why? Because of Gulf of Tonkin. Therefore, every single thing in history is PSY-OPS. Dewdrop, why bother? What did these "PSY-OPS" do for anybody?
    1
  9775. "So says I, and many others" And, there are "many others" who think there's a Bigfoot. There are "many others" who think psychics talk to dead people. There are "many others" who think there are secret cancer cures that "they" don't want you to know. So what? You're PROUD to know nothing, because there are other people who are also proud to know nothing?
    1
  9776.  @lesaber251  The Apollo 15/16/17 cameras were hardened for the sun, and they pointed them at the sun numerous times, FYI. And, this original poster isn't interested in the slightest way in the answers to his own questions. He has, time and time again, posted the same stuff in various videos, even after he gets his answers.
    1
  9777.  @lesaber251  Alan Bean - Apollo 12.
    1
  9778. Oh, quit pretending you know things you do not. Good grief. You read and write like a 2nd grader (which is true of all of you moon landing deniers). Not a single one of you people can form a sentence. Yet, you think you're more knowledgeable than the world's experts. No, dewdrop. You don't understand the Van Allen belts, nor even what they're called. Don't pretend otherwise.
    1
  9779. The obvious answer is "no." The answer to your other question = Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  9780. Hilarious!!! Dewdrop, you have your timeline wrong. Arrest = July 1, 2021. Suicide = March, 2022 (unknown exact date). Body found = March 31, 2022. Arrest video released to the public = November 24, 2023. And, sorry, but, if she wasn't ashamed from her million other arrests, it's pretty doubtful she'd get ashamed over this one. And, what with her felony prison record, numerous arrests for drugs and alcohol, stealing cars, multiple judgements for different thefts, bunches of failures to appear in court, and open warrants for her arrest, yeah, it's pretty difficult to get a straight job after all of that. So, her landlord said her job was, well, one of those words you can't type on YouTube comments, ya know, involving cash transactions with lots of men, you get it... seems difficult for me to believe she'd be all that ashamed over this beach incident.
    1
  9781. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = the arrest video was released. So, how exactly did they kill her by releasing the arrest video, dewdrop?
    1
  9782. Loitering isn't even an infraction in a lot of places, let alone a misdemeanor. And, where it is, it's usually only if aggravated by dealing drugs or something more serious. Sorry, but I don't think you understand how these different offenses rank, and when police have discretion to issue a warning, vs. when they don't. There is no "warning" for indecent exposure. And, with her criminal history and long list of failures to appear in court with open warrants, yeah, let's get real here, she was getting arrested.
    1
  9783. "I find it hard to believe" TRANSLATION: "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." "that we can’t see the landing site perfectly clearly through at least one of our earth bound telescopes." Well, that's because you don't understand telescopes. See, there's a problem with how telescopes work, and the limits of resolution. It's called "Dawes' Limit," if you'd care to look it up. This is the limit of optical resolution. Photons interfere with each other on the way from the moon to Earth, thus limiting the resolution you're capable of seeing. The only way to get around this issue is to build bigger lenses/mirrors, so you can capture photons far enough away from each other that they didn't interfere with each other in transit. In other words, if you want to see something the size of stuff like the landers and rovers and stuff, you need bigger mirrors or lenses to do it. There's a very well understood formula you can use in order to calculate the size of lens or mirror you need for a certain level of resolution at a certain distance. And, let's face reality here, it's really a lens that you'd need, because mirrors are not perfect enough for such detail. So, ok, lenses.... You can calculate the size of lens yourself. But, if you don't know how to do that, I'll skip right to the answer: If you want to see an Apollo lander on the moon from the distance of Earth, it requires a lens about 75 feet in diameter. It would only be a single dot, and you wouldn't know what it is. But, if you want to be able to start to make out what it is, it would take a lens about a quarter mile in diameter. Thus far, the largest optical grade lens ever constructed is 5 feet in diameter, and costed $168 million to manufacture. So, yeah, we're a long way off from building quarter mile wide lenses. "and even more bizarrely not visible even by our spaceship telescopes" Yes, that would eliminate the issue of light scatter through the atmosphere (another issue on top of the above). But, it wouldn't change the fact that you would need the telescope in orbit to be just as large as I illustrated above. "you gotta agree" Well, gee, I wonder why nobody on Earth has ever thought of something so simple, huh? You do know that there are cameras on satellites in orbit around the moon that have taken plenty of those photos, right? You don't need a quarter mile wide lens when you're only 12 miles above.
    1
  9784. No, he's fine... unless you're asking about his father, who he had murdered and thrown into a lake right before this chase. (I guess I need to say "allegedly" until proven in a court.)
    1
  9785. Huh? What did the cops or media do wrong?
    1
  9786. I can't understand why this is even a question.
    1
  9787. Multiple people called the police about this incident. One of the "audience" even caught it on video, and showed the video to the police. In the police report, they describe it as a very loud and public act in view of multiple people, including children. But, you're saying that she shouldn't be arrested? Why? Because you believe the words of a convicted felon with a mile long arrest and prison record?
    1
  9788. Almost no media even covered this story until 2.5 years later. She was already dead for 1.5 years before anybody in "the media" ever covered this. The only exception was an obscure article on a website I've never even heard of. None of the big media covered anything about this until long after she was dead, because that's when the arrest video was finally released.
    1
  9789. I can't understand why this is even a question. What did the cops or media do wrong?
    1
  9790. Well, they didn't post anything while she was alive, so, posting after her death was their only option.
    1
  9791. And, you don't think there was still more stuff under that bulky coat besides gloves and a hat? She went right back to stealing from Walgreens after this incident. So much for an act of kindness, eh?
    1
  9792. The USA, China, South Korea, and India, have all taken photos of the landing sites with their lunar orbiters, and have found the Apollo landers on the surface, exactly where they're supposed to be. How does this jive with "our government won't allow it"? What ARE you talking about?
    1
  9793. "Why don't they just use one of Nasa's pictures to show us." Arizona State University built and manages the camera on the LRO (satellite around the moon), and have posted hundreds of photos of Apollo on their site. Hundreds. They're readily available. You can see landers, rover tracks, foot paths, etc. But, this video's purpose is to show what the stuff might look like today from close up, not from orbit.
    1
  9794. "where can someone find these pictures" Well, that's one way to demonstrate that you didn't bother actually reading my comment. I spelled out where to find them. But, apparently, paying attention isn't your strong suit, eh?
    1
  9795.  @PleasentToBeAround  So, you didn't bother reading my message before rejecting it either, eh?
    1
  9796. Well, um, ok, but, nothing in this video did any good (beyond warming your heart). She immediately went back to stealing from Walgreens after this incident. She abandoned her kids in favor of her meth habit (which she died from). So, well, I guess this individual story is heart-warming. But, the fact that everything went completely south after this incident is kind of a downer, if you ask me.
    1
  9797. Sure, but, why is that relevant? Dozens of countries didn't verify that Apollo went to a studio, those dozens of countries verified that Apollo went to the moon.
    1
  9798.  @humdinger7723  My dead wrong? Sorry, dewdrop, if you can't spell it, you don't know what you're talking about.
    1
  9799. There's ZERO evidence that it was faked that doesn't fall apart under a little bit of scrutiny. And, it hasn't been 60 years yet.
    1
  9800. You clearly don't want answers to your own questions, and merely cut-n-pasted this gibberish from a different video. "Who recording this video?" Dewdrop, this is CGI, and nobody is "recording" anything. If you can't even lift a finger to read what you're cutting and pasting before doing so, why should anybody take you seriously?
    1
  9801. And, yet, you don't provide the math... and you believe that nobody for the past 50+ years has done the math?
    1
  9802. It's not a who, it's a what. And, the answer is the camera mounted to the rover.
    1
  9803. No, your ability to swallow any gibberish you see is the real issue here.
    1
  9804. "Why don't you show some real pictures from the site?" Like the original mission photography? Just go look at it. "Oodles of lunar missions flew to the Moon but NASA has forbidden them to pass over the Apollo sites to take pictures." Yet, LRO has taken hundreds of pictures, as have China and India. How would NASA enforce such a thing? Where'd you get this ridiculous idea? "Now that's odd, isn't it!?" What's odd is that you'd believe such a thing. "Humans greatest achievement but no-one may investigate or ask any "out of the formal line narrative" questions about it." Dewdrop, plenty of people investigate. And, questions are fine. The issue is that none of you people ever listen to the answers. "Aren't they curious as we are how it REALLY looks at those sites? Why won't they allow that?" What EXACTLY do you think is preventing it? Me: I know that optical resolution is one of the reasons we don't see that level of detail. But, we do see enough to know Apollo was there. And, contrary to the babble you're spewing, I also know that three different countries have flown over the landing sites and taken the photos that you think don't exist. So, basically, you don't know what you're talking about.
    1
  9805. Huh? Nobody ever saw this video until she was already dead for 1.5 years. And, she didn't seem all that ashamed about her prior mile long arrest and prison record. Why would she be ashamed about this?
    1
  9806. What in the world are you talking about? Did you watch the version of this video that includes the entire encounter, or just this edited version that cuts the entire first half off? This woman did this to herself. The officer was very polite, and she is the one who escalated, and she refused to provide ID (which is illegal in Florida, and arrestable, regardless of the original theft suspicion). And, the entire reason he was there was to catch shoplifters in this high crime store, now you want him to NOT do the job he was paid to do? Sorry, but in most states, including Florida, you must provide ID when under investigation of a possible crime. It's called "stop and identify." There is no requirement for cops to memorize every law/penal code number. What difference would it have made anyway? If he said, "penal code 29047.942," do you think she'd magically change her behavior and comply? Good grief. You are apparently very proud to spew nonsense.
    1
  9807. If people went to the deepest ocean depth in 1960, by now there would be condominiums and democracy down there. Liars! 16 ton craft on the lunar surface? Huh? As if the craft didn't burn off most of its weight in fuel and oxidizer by the time it got down to the lunar surface? As if the craft didn't leave most of its remaining mass down on the lunar surface? What in the world are you even talking about? Do you REALLY believe that the entire planet's aerospace engineers can't figure out how much fuel was required, and YOU think YOU have figured it out? All you're basically doing, dewdrop, is saying, "I don't know the answers to these questions, therefore Apollo was fake." That's all you're doing. You're just sitting there, pretending to ask questions (though, let's be honest, you don't care about the answers), as if "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake" is an argument. Sorry, it's not. Honest people would ask their questions, wait for answers, and formulate an opinion based upon evidence. Not you, though. You came to your conclusions first, asked questions that demonstrate that you don't understand entry-level basics about the topic, and essentially declared that the world's aerospace engineers don't understand how much fuel is required to propel a rocket. Ridiculous.
    1
  9808. "Best evidence" So, YOU are deciding what the best evidence should be? You've denied all evidence in the past. Why should there be some sort of evidence you'd accept now? "would of been" Of been? Why do you people think that gibberish is a verb? Has there ever been a literate moon landing denier?
    1
  9809. "to film the earth as the astronauts sling shot to the moon" Do you mean trans-lunar injection?
    1
  9810. How do you propose they take photos or video of Earth while the rocket is facing the other direction?
    1
  9811. "and when the astronauts rotate around the moon film the dark side of the moon before they landed on the bright side of moon ." Do you mean the side in shadow? Or the far side? What exactly do you mean by "dark side"? There is no such thing as a "dark side" of the moon, except in a Pink Floyd song. "We want an actual video or picture of earth" There are hundreds of them. "not CGI pictures" CGI in 1969-1972? What ARE you talking about? "or earth from moon looking the same size as moon. Earth from moon should look . Alot more bigger way bigger than what videos and pictures show" So, do the math, dewdrop. Demonstrate that it's the wrong size. Don't just say "way bigger." That's all you nuts ever do. Deny, deny, deny. Never offer any evidence. Ignore all evidence that is presented to you. Create impossible situations, like wanting video of the TLI maneuver with a magical camera with X-ray vision that can see the Earth right through the rocket itself. Declare everything "CGI" decades before CGI was invented. And, then say, "too big," "too small," "not enough," "too much," "too far," "too bright," "too dark," etc. Not a single one of you nuts ever offers any math, or publishes in any actual science journals. Nope. You go on YouTube, demand impossible things, and declare that the thousands of aerospace engineers were all wrong. Is this what it takes to feel good about yourself? You slander/libel others, and pretend to be honest, when you know that you're not?
    1
  9812. First of all, it seems that you don't know the timeline. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. This story got almost zero coverage while she was alive. So, right out of the gate, your accusation that the arrest video led to her suicide is wrong. Nobody even saw it while she was alive. Secondly, it seems that you know nothing about this woman's history. She abandoned her career and family a decade ago, including a husband and 6 month old boy, because she wanted to live a life of crime and drugs. She served a felony term in prison about 6 years ago. She's been arrested a million times, and has had multiple convictions and judgements. Stealing cars. Other thefts. Drug charges. Alcohol. Failure to appear, etc. It's not easy to get a straight job after all of that, so, her landlord said that she was a stripper at the local club. Her neighbors said she also did "private" cash encounters in her apartment with a parade of various men. Third, multiple people called for this incident, not just the one family. Witnesses say it was an intentional act. One of them even managed to get the last few minutes on video, and gave a copy to the police. Needless to say, it didn't match her version about nobody being around. It was a very loud and public act in front of multiple people including children. Now, it's up to you if you want to believe she thought she was alone. But, I'd trust innocent bystanders who were able to take video, and the police, before I'd trust this convicted felon. I'd eat my hat if she wasn't making "public beach" content for her fans, but, got reported, and was trying to cry her way out of her millionth arrest.
    1
  9813. That wasn't the question, dewdrop. I asked you if ALL of them were "in on it." Spare me the "most" reply. ALL would need to be "in on it."
    1
  9814. Yes. You need to look at the thread fresh, instead of via a direct link to the thread, in order to see all visible postings. But, yes, even then, there's never a shortage of blocked posts. So, you should view it fresh from an incognito browser to truly know what can or can't be seen.
    1
  9815. Yes, dewdrop. I explained it to you above. It happens to all of us. Sometimes, it takes me 8 or 10 tries. And, I always keep an incognito window open so I know what others can see, and what they can't see. This is my 6th attempt at this very message.
    1
  9816. Yeah, when you see a guy cranking at the playground, it happens all the time, let him be, he wants to crank again tomorrow.
    1
  9817. A warning for this misdemeanor offense? What? With her extensive criminal history?
    1
  9818. Huh? Why? Are you under the impression that a cop cannot arrest someone until proven guilty in a court? How would that type of system even work? Name a single country on the planet where you're not allowed to make an arrest until after someone is proven guilty?
    1
  9819. Arrest in pursuit of an investigation? What in the world does that even mean? Um, no. You cannot arrest someone in pursuit of an investigation. You arrest someone as a RESULT of the investigation. And, what? I'm not saying she had to legally provide a receipt. She's not required to do that. However, not doing so results in raising the odds that a crime happened, and raises the probable cause for arrest. She was arrested because she refused to provide ID (legally required to do so), she obstructed and obfuscated the investigation (illegal), and, yes, because she was suspected of stealing. Now, as it turns out, she didn't steal. But, this has nothing to do with your statements about "guilty until proven innocent." An arrest doesn't make you guilty. An arrest just means that the cop determined that it's probable. And, yeah, 9 times out of 10, when someone refuses to ID, won't provide a receipt, and acts the way she's acting, yeah, the person is guilty. This was the 1 out of 10 times that the suspect wasn't guilty. So what? Who cares? Cops aren't required to be 100% correct. Cops are required to figure out if there's enough suspicion and probable cause, and then, from there, it's up to the courts. Why do you think things get proven or disproven at the side of the road? Do you even know why we have courts?
    1
  9820. Since you've made it clear that you didn't bother reading what I wrote, I won't waste more time after this. Her own attorney doesn't even agree with you, so, it's pretty clear that you really have no grasp on these things. No, the probable cause was established by then. I explained this already, but, you clearly either don't understand, or didn't read. The fifth amendment is irrelevant. She hadn't even been arrested yet. And, there is no harm in requesting a receipt. She doesn't need to give it, and she can remain silent if she wishes (except she must provide ID). But, you seem to be under the impression that a cop isn't even allowed to ask questions or something. It's outlandish. There is no such thing as "should of" or "could of." The verb "have" exists for a reason. Use it. You just make yourself seem like you need to go back and finish 3rd grade all over again, when you write like this. This is also probably why you don't actually understand anything. If you can't write well, you probably can't read well. And, if you can't read well, then that explains quite a bit about why your general comprehension levels are so low. And, at the end, you just admitted he had probable cause?? So, what's your argument then? Do you even know what you're admitting? Sheeesssssshhhhhh.
    1
  9821. I think you forgot that she was guilty of refusing to provide ID during a police investigation, obstruction and obfuscation (all illegal). And, then she added "resisting arrest" on top (also illegal).
    1
  9822. Yet, you won't say what the police should have done differently?
    1
  9823. And, you still won't say... because you have nothing.
    1
  9824. My slow? Or, was that your 2nd grader attempt at spelling "you're"? When did they start issuing warnings for a crime? I thought that was only for an infraction. You're clearly the legal expert here, so, enlighten me.
    1
  9825. 8 months to build a fake CGI interface, film some fake scenes, and make servos slowly move some legs and arms on a fake robot? And, you're impressed by this? Also, as a side note, weren't you supposed to have died? Or, is your nickname a tribute or something?
    1
  9826. Yes, she did. She just refused to show it until after she was under arrest. Read the video description, or go watch the full version of this video, or go read the lawsuit, or read any other article about this case.
    1
  9827. Please illustrate how anybody can fake radar and radio telescope signals simultaneously to countries around the world (including enemy countries), when those dishes are pointed AT THE MOON? Can you explain how that can be faked? And, what does that have to do with JFK?
    1
  9828. Huh? Accountable for what?
    1
  9829. Because the small affordable EV was tried, and failed miserably. The affordable econobox EV never really existed. Electric drivetrains and batteries are just too expensive to call them affordable (to the market you're talking about). You could buy two or three gas powered Chevy Sonics for the price of the cheapest econobox EV. And, too much of that particular buyer market lives in cities with only random street parking available, with no tangible way to charge them. The suburban buyer with a 2-car garage just isn't interested in a tiny econobox. The market has proven this over and over. The closest anybody came was the Chevy Bolt, which failed miserably, despite being the Motor Trend car of the year. Now they don't even make them any longer (nobody bought them).
    1
  9830. Oh, and about BYD, check out "China is Throwing Away Fields of Electric Cars - Letting them Rot!" and let me know what you think.
    1
  9831. "Why have they not attempted this mission again?" They flew 9 manned missions to the moon, 6 of which landed. If that's not attempting it again, I don't know what is.
    1
  9832. And, you got your law degree from where? YouTube University?
    1
  9833. Timestamp?
    1
  9834.  @toddfather1971  Is this a joke? What do you think those tracks are, if not exactly what you're asking about?
    1
  9835. Every case that goes through the courts will cost many thousands of dollars, even tens of thousands, or millions if you get into big capital cases. It's almost never worth the transactional value. But, we have a legal system for a reason. And, can you even imagine the world we'd live in if every case was decided on transactional value? The society would be free to steal anything worth less than $5000, because it wouldn't be economical to pursue it.
    1
  9836. Did you want to try that answer again when you're sober? It reads like one of those 1960s LP albums that people try to play backward.
    1
  9837. Huh? You think they give citations for that misdemeanor? And, with all of her open warrants and past felony history, do you really believe they had any choice? Even if they looked past the misdemeanor, they'd still need to take her in.
    1
  9838. Well, not that I'd entertain such a ridiculously inane pile of gibberish... but... just for the sake of accuracy: 1) Many people died during (and due to) Apollo. Astronauts, scientists, etc. 2) The first atomic bomb test worked on the first try (plutonium). And, the first actual war use was a completely different type of bomb, made of uranium, with an entirely different design and mechanism. It was never tested before dropping it on Hiroshima.
    1
  9839. Yeah, I know what you said. But, you don't understand anything. So, your opinions mean nothing. It's pure gibberish. I was just clarifying your inaccurate statements.
    1
  9840. So, you went back and changed your first comment, no longer asking questions, but now to making statements of gibberish. Bravo. You're totally honest.
    1
  9841. "so because you have rocket in your name" Well, life is full of ironies. My irony is that the "rocket" in my nickname has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with rockets. "yours do" No, dewdrop, because I'm not stating silly opinions, like you are. Anything I write can be independently verified, and it doesn't matter if I'm the one correcting you, or anybody else. And, YOU were the one asking the questions, remember? (But, of course, you've now gone back and edited your first comment, changing that.) If you didn't want answers to your questions, dewdrop, then don't ask questions. You're on an open comments forum, spewing gibberish, and originally you asked questions. But, you don't like the answers. It's not about ME at all. I don't matter one bit. You asked when something has worked on the first try. Someone told you the A-bomb did. And, you ducked and dodged, and said it was tested first. Well, I went on to tell you that the very first test DID work. So, yeah, they tested it, and that test worked on the first try. Furthermore, sorry that you don't understand this, but, there's a huge difference between a plutonium bomb vs. a uranium bomb. And, the uranium bomb worked on the first (and only) try, when they dropped it on Hiroshima. Nobody before had ever exploded a uranium bomb. The military use was the very first time it had been done.
    1
  9842. But, they never covered a single thing about this woman while she was alive. So, no, they weren't part of any reason for anything.
    1
  9843. Huh? There was no misconduct here.
    1
  9844. Huh? This story leaves out a million crucial facts, and intentionally spins the story to be misleading. I will never support such things. But, there was no misconduct.
    1
  9845. There is no obligation to provide a supervisor, nor to go back and view videos. This is especially because she had already committed the crimes of refusing to ID, obstructing and obfuscating, and then added resisting arrest to the pile. The cop tried to explain that it was too late for going back in, because she was going to be arrested either way.
    1
  9846. They had been discovered before Apollo. I'm not sure of the quote you're talking about, so I can't comment without more details.
    1
  9847. It's not that simple. The biggest problem in dealing with COVID is in the hospital and healthcare system capacities. We just don't have the infrastructure and staff to sustain a gigantic rush of incoming patients. For example, India had that type of rush, and what happened? People were dying in the streets near their hospitals. There weren't enough medical ventilators and oxygen tanks. There weren't enough hospital beds. Patients were getting treated in the streets, if they got treated at all. And, people were dying, who otherwise might not have died, if they had enough infrastructure to withstand the influx of patients. The same can happen here, and nearly has. During the peaks, hospitals basically shut down almost all other types of medical treatments (routine checkups, put all but the most life threatening surgeries on hold, etc.), and focused on dealing with the influx of COVID patients. There weren't enough ventilators to go around, and they resorted to using C-PAP and B-PAP machines (not good enough, but better than nothing) to try to deal with the massive waves of patients. It's not a good thing to have any of these kinds of huge spikes. The healthcare system isn't set up to have such a huge percentage of the population in the hospitals at any one time. Thankfully, this latest strain seems to be a bit milder on its effects, even though it's more severe on how contagious it is. But, anyway, no, we cannot rush into "herd immunity," without leaving a trail of unnecessary deaths in the wake.
    1
  9848.  @dianemccord6660  YOU SAID: "Again, much milder form of this virus," == Thankfully, that is correct... if you're talking about Omicron. But, given that you kept talking about Delta, well, frankly, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Delta was NOT milder. The various studies said that Delta was more severe, or, maybe as equally severe. Definitely not less severe. You have clearly confused Omicron for Delta, and, this makes it pretty clear that you don't know what you're talking about. YOU SAID: "people aren't flocking to the hospitals." == Pffttt. The hospitals do not agree with you. YOU SAID: "Even said that in their report. People are experiencing more mild symptoms." == Yes, but with the massive quantity of cases, yes, it has resulted in a rise in hospitalizations. It's true that fewer need hospitalization (percentage wise), but, with a huge spike in total cases, even a bit milder, yes, it's still causing deaths and hospitalizations to increase. It's just a lower percentage than the earlier versions. YOU SAID: "Even with Delta, we didn't have the issues we had with the first and second wave." == Only because, by that point, there were better treatments and awareness. YOU SAID: "Yes we can rush in herd immunity" == Pffttt. Clown. What do you know that the entirety of the medical community doesn't? YOU SAID: "no one is exempt from catching this virus." == Depends on what you mean. YOU SAID: "With 1,000,000 positive cases how many of those ended up in the hospital? There are about 94,000 people in the hospital with Covid in the entire United States with 18,560 in ICU in the entire United States, most of those cases are probably Delta or incidental Covid. Very minimal uptake." == So, you can quote exact numbers... but avoid stating the exact number of increases in cases that result in hospitalization?? YOU SAID: "India was dealing with Delta at that time and look at India compared to the United States, way different scenario in countries. You can't compare their health system to ours and their availability to equipment." == Yes, I can make the comparison. I was merely illustrating a point. Healthcare systems have capacity issues. Not all healthcare systems have the exact same capacity issues, but, all healthcare systems have a maximum capacity. Ours is being taxed right now. YOU SAID: "They have had a very little uptake in cases and hospitalizations now." == Are you trying to say "uptick" and not "uptake"? That's twice now that you've mistyped that word. I mean, I find it really difficult to cut through these things you write, when you confuse one version for another, you are barely literate. YOU SAID: "Look at South Africa now. Very minimal hospitalizations with Omicron around 7500 hospitalizations out of 59 million people and many were incidental cases. Their peak hit around Dec. 12 and is already declining daily. Yes of course you are going to have deaths unfortunately, but you are going to have that with any virus." == Oh no. Nope. We're done here. You just got done complaining that I couldn't bring up India as a comparison, and now you're telling me to look at South Africa??? Nope. I'm done. You're a crackpot.
    1
  9849. Yes, you seem to be off by multiple decades in your timelines. The Soviets didn't go to the moon because their N1 moon rocket kept blowing up, and by the time they realized they had a very poor design that would require them to completely start from scratch, they had long lost the race, and decided it wasn't worth it.
    1
  9850.  @VFilippkinZone  1) The lunar surface never reaches 160 Celsius. The highest surface temperature is 120 Celsius. 2) No Apollo mission ever landed when it was that hot. They always landed early in the lunar morning, long before those high temperatures. 3) You have no idea what you're talking about.
    1
  9851. Oh? Please tell me when they started giving warnings for misdemeanor crimes?
    1
  9852. Freedom of Information Act. What do you propose the police do? And, by the way, July 2021 = arrest. March 2022 = suicide. November 2023 = the video was released.
    1
  9853. Pffttt. Um, maybe because those agencies are funded with public money?? Like, who EXACTLY do you think at the UN would say, "no, we're not taking that money and spending it on what the public wants us to spend it on, we're going to give our money to NASA instead"??
    1
  9854. Huh? She wasn't embarrassed by the release of the arrest video. She was already dead for 1.5 years before the arrest video ever went public. Sorry if Inside Edition doesn't tell you that. But, hey, they have viral videos to produce, after all. Can't make them viral by telling the truth, can they?
    1
  9855. But, the news and social media didn't air the story until long after she died.
    1
  9856. So, your position is that the non-credible people are more convincing? Hilarious!!! Tell me, dewdrop, why do you suppose that you don't find any of the world's experts sharing that belief? There are 77 space agencies in the world, staffing the virtual entirety of the world's aerospace engineers (either as contractors or direct employees) that work on space travel for manned or unmanned craft. Not one of the world's space agencies has ever agreed with you. Not one. Not ever. And, there has never been a single peer reviewed article ever published in any university-recognized science journal anywhere in the world that has ever made it past the first round of scrutiny, denying the moon landings. Not once, not ever. Now, is that because none of the world's experts are aware of the guy with the 30 cats living in a trailer? Or, is that because they understand the topic better than the guy with the 30 cats living in a trailer? Not a single moon landing denier has ever offered an argument that doesn't instantly fall apart under scrutiny. Not once, ever. Yet, you find the guy with the 30 cats more convincing than the world's experts? Yeah, tells a lot about YOU in particular.
    1
  9857. Secure the area first, get backup, etc. Do you know what happens when you don't do that? You end up with cops needing the exact same medical attention that Mark needed in this video.
    1
  9858. So, it was too perfect because they added problems. Do you think before you type?
    1
  9859. Lots of people say those exact words, but, none of you ever say the basis for the suit, and who?
    1
  9860. No, he didn't. Before he cheated, he wasn't even a contender. His CHEMISTS dominated. And with the willing participation of the UCI, and massive funding, Lance was able to cheat far more effectively, and in far more advanced ways, than all of the other cheaters. Armstrong himself wasn't any better than the other riders, his DOCTORS and CHEMISTS were better. Any questions?
    1
  9861. Huh? She put on a show at a public beach in view of multiple people including children, but, her ARREST was too embarrassing?
    1
  9862. She certainly made herself into a spectacle at the beach. But, how was her arrest made into a spectacle?
    1
  9863. It's Inside Edition. Of course it's not real. I mean, yes, she's really dead now. But, this story is quite skewed.
    1
  9864. Yes. I wish people would realize when a "news" story is nothing but a big manipulation. When they open the story with a question, but never actually answer the question, yeah, you know you're being manipulated. Sad that so many people can't pick up on these clues and go verify whether the story is valid or not.
    1
  9865. Um, ok, accountable for what?
    1
  9866. Well, not that I'd want this officer to be unkind. I'd never blame him for the woman's issues. But, I dunno, it just seems crass to talk about the world being a better place due to this officer. The irony is... maybe she'd still be alive today if he had just arrested her, and she went to prison. Again, I'm not blaming the officer. But, I also wouldn't talk about the world being a better place now that she's dead.
    1
  9867.  @marksprague1280  Weeeelllll, to be fair, most of the work done by Apollo computers were not about the ballistics, but, rather, the conditions and trajectories under thrust. Not that it matters. The nuts probably don't even know what "ballistics" are.
    1
  9868. How'd they do that?
    1
  9869. Um, no, it doesn't require angels. The fact is that 9mm hollow point pistol rounds barely even break the glass of the truck, let alone penetrate. The only few rounds that made it through to hit the guy barely even broke the skin.
    1
  9870.  @marcusrino6197  Did the US ask China for the exact same favor? China's photos of the Apollo landing sites show the same thing that India showed. And, who asked for this favor? And, how would they know India and China would accept? Why didn't India say, "hell no, don't involve us with your scam, and we're going to expose you?" Did the US murder anybody who might say "no" to the favor?
    1
  9871. Yes, this is quite obviously a Gish Gallop. And, you made it quite clear from the start that you don't care one bit about the answers to your own questions.
    1
  9872. That's some very sound advice. However, in this particular case, it wouldn't have mattered. One of the "audience" recorded it and showed the video to the police. Needless to say, the video didn't match her version of a quiet little act with nobody around. She was getting arrested whether she said anything or not. Plus with her mile long record, felony prison term, mile long list of arrests for various crimes, and open warrants for no-shows in court, yeah, if she wasn't arrested for the beach incident, they'd have still arrested her.
    1
  9873. First of all, I hope Trump goes to prison if he fraudulently avoiding paying his taxes. But, at 2:00, when talking about COMPANY taxes (not personal taxes), this is a ridiculous claim, and shows how outlandish and slanted that CNN is. It's very common for businesses to have their expenses be exactly what their income is. It's even REQUIRED for an S-corp. At the end of the year, any profits made by an S-corp are passed through to the owner on a K1 form, and the owner pays personal tax. The company balances to ZERO, by definition. A C-corp has that same option (but it's not required). At the end of the year, a C-corp can pay out any open balances on the books as bonuses to employees, or K1/1099 income to the owner, whatever, so that the company makes $0.00 in profit. Employees/owners still have to pay personal tax on that money, but, it's often better than paying corporate tax rates. This is a 100% common practice, and for CNN to represent it as otherwise is pure hogwash.
    1
  9874. Yet, not a single one of the world's 72 space agencies agree with you.
    1
  9875. "I don't see the gun that you imagine being there." Are you kidding me? You can't see the gun on the ground at 5:02 next to the 2x4 piece of wood? What's wrong with you? "the leading cop points the gun and orders the suspect to the ground. You don't shoot him." There was a gun drawn. You don't just order the guy to the ground. You shoot him, or you die yourself. Good gods. "I would have done it this way." Then you would die. "If you cannot do it this way, don't be a cop." There isn't a police training academy on the planet that agrees with you. The rest of what you wrote is such a pathetic display of ignorance that I refuse to reply to it. Duck sue. Armchair ducking quarterback with no training, pretending to know things you don't know.
    1
  9876. The laser reflectors don't require a power source, nor are they very vulnerable to extreme temperature swings. The other equipment lasted many years, which is longer than they were even designed for. Realistically, after a couple of years, those sensors didn't return any data that was very different. The heat cycles and everything were pretty understood by that point. And, yeah, they stopped the funding on gathering the data before the ALSEPs even stopped working. But, ultimately, those radioisotope generators DO have a halflife, you know.
    1
  9877. With a gun pointed at the guy in the driver's seat?
    1
  9878. The main factor is the altitude. A picture is worth 1000 words. Go watch a vsauce video on YouTube called "How Much of the Earth Can You See at Once?"
    1
  9879. OK, and how would you propose to prevent it?
    1
  9880. Stop pretending to understand topics you do not.
    1
  9881. Oh, look, she's trying to pretend to be smart. How cute.
    1
  9882. "How about space radiation effecting the films" Effecting, eh? Not affecting? You know, there's a very well understood correlation between someone's ability to read and write and their overall comprehension level. Perhaps the reason you don't understand very much in life is because you can't read and write, eh? Have you considered going back to school?
    1
  9883. YOU SAID: "All I see here are name callers." == Idiots are idiots... whattayagonnado? YOU SAID: "Non one has bothered to address the evidence." == The decade of evidence that would bury a mountain? How does anybody address it in a YouTube comment field? YOU SAID: "I'm still not convinced either way." == I do not believe you. But, we'll see. YOU SAID: "Does anyone see the glint from the cables as the astronauts as they jump ?" == What? The lens flare from the antenna? (That's the most popular one that Percy and his idiotic crowd talk about.) Yeah, see, lens flare has been understood for a century. And, unless your name is J.J. Abrams, you try to AVOID lens flare. Problem is, they didn't exactly have the luxury of professional lighting experts on the moon to prevent lens flare.
    1
  9884. Itchy Boy, are you REALLY that stupid?
    1
  9885. Which media has blood on their hands?
    1
  9886. I really hate when people put me in a position that I'm forced to defend Trump. But, if going to the moon is what was glorious, I must remind you that Trump was the only president in history since Kennedy to successfully push congress into approving/funding putting people on the moon. Constellation's phase-2 was never approved/funded by congress. Artemis is/was funded.
    1
  9887. Huh? What does the state have to do with this?
    1
  9888. Even more warnings than that if you watch the whole video, and not this copy that starts in the middle.
    1
  9889. Really? And, you believe her, why? The witnesses said it was intentional. The video taken by the witnesses doesn't match her version about nobody being around. She has a million other arrests on her record (including a felony term served in prison). Her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the gentlemen's club, and neighbors said she did "extras" for cash in her apartment. But, you find her credible? I have this bridge for sale....
    1
  9890. What's wrong with you? Good grief. The guy was wielding a gun, and saying "kill me"? You call that a "murder"? And, the guy shot himself!! Did you not see the gun pointed straight at his own head while he was yelling for the cops to kill him? The cops were trying to get the gun away from him, but, he managed to pull the trigger. And, yes, with the shot fired, the other cop shot also, and rightfully so. And, sorry, but if you can't spell "Taser" correctly, I hardly thing you know anything about them. You don't bring a Taser to a gunfight, dewdrop.
    1
  9891. Can you name any social media that even posted this story before she died?
    1
  9892. Yes, and it's even worse than that. The father gave two interviews, saying two different things. In one interview, he said his son was going to the car to find out who was inside. In another interview, he said he doesn't know what his son was doing with the gun, or why he had it, but he "definitely knew his son didn't think anybody was in the car, that much he knows for sure." Now, do you suppose the attorney talked to the guy between the two interviews and said, "hey man, it's not a good idea to tell the world your son knew someone was in the car, because it makes it even more clear that this was an armed carjacking"? And, as you outlined, how did the dad know what the son's intentions were, when the son died 20 seconds after being shot?
    1
  9893. Did you just confuse distance and resolution? Do you really not understand the difference?
    1
  9894. I don't know for sure, but, I'd suspect it was most likely a .40.
    1
  9895. Huh? So, basically, in your universe, if a cop is told to investigate a person for a crime, and he does it, he needs to be fired if later it's determined that the crime didn't actually happen? What? How does that even work?
    1
  9896. Yeah, when you see a guy at a playground cranking it in front of the kids, just leave him alone.
    1
  9897. They do not hear the point and counterpoint. Their minds only accept input that supports their delusions. They literally do not even remember seeing any input beyond that.
    1
  9898. Hilarious!! Thanks for confirming that it wasn't just a typo in the other thread. You have now written "Van Ryan's Radiation belt" in two different threads. And, you want OTHERS to "look it up"? Dewdrop, look it up yourself. It's Van Allen, not Van Ryan. And, there are multiple belts, not just one. Furthermore, you clearly know absolutely nothing about them, not only just what they're called, but, you literally know nothing else about them either. Stop pretending.
    1
  9899. "There is no way around the belt it surrounds Earth." Thanks for demonstrating (yet again) that you don't know anything about it. "We have to figure out away through it" By using a rocket. That's how to get through the belts (plural). For the most part, most Apollo missions went around the worst areas of the belts. But, Apollo 14 went straight through the middle of them. So what? Are you going to pretend you understand belts better than the world's experts, when you don't even know what they're called?
    1
  9900. She sued anyway. I'm pretty sure that was her goal from the start. She lost, but, she tried anyway.
    1
  9901. OK, and your point is?? Do you think that excuses her behavior? She lied/obfuscated, refused to ID / obstructed, and resisted arrest.
    1
  9902. So, in your mind, the store employees shouldn't report theft? And, the employee even offered to waive the charges if the woman gave back the items. But, in your mind, she shouldn't have done that? And, spare the world this notion that she was just staying comfortable. She continued to steal from Walgreens after this event, got thrown in jail for it again within a month, and not just for "essentials." And, of course, she eventually died from her terrible drug habit. How do you even know that there wasn't more inside the coat? Because she said so? You know what they say... "How do you know if a drug addict is lying? Because his/her lips are moving."
    1
  9903. You're bothered by an employee who correctly reported theft, and offered to waive charges as long as the merchandise was returned. You refuse to answer questions. But, *I* am the crass one?
    1
  9904. Is your "scroll up" broken? (1) YOU were the one who complained that the store employee shouldn't report theft. (2) I asked a couple of questions that you refused to answer, then claimed you answered them. (3) You're talking about "assassinating" the druggie's character? Huh? She was a repeat felon who was busted again less than a month later for stealing from Walgreens (again). She was given another chance by this cop, and the store employee who didn't press charges, and she turned around and did the exact same thing as soon as she could. Sorry, dewdrop, but I'm not assassinating anybody's character. Reporting the facts doesn't make me be the bad guy. She threw her own character out the window long before this video was made. YOU are the one saying "boooo" to the good guys, and heralding a thief. YOUR character is the problem here, not mine.
    1
  9905. Dewdrop, I'm not the one saying "booo" to honest employees who identify repeat offenders stealing. That's YOU doing that, even when the honest employee even offered to waive charges if the woman returned the items. I'm not the one ignoring the fact that she continued to steal from Walgreens after this incident, proving that giving her the leeway did absolutely nothing. Stick your head in the sand all you want, and just judge her on the 2 sentences you heard from her, rather than her repeat criminal and drug history, and the fact that she returned to continue to steal from Walgreens immediately after this incident. Oh, what a model member of society, such a sweetheart, abandoning her children and being more interested in drugs and street life than to STOP STEALING and STOP TAKING DRUGS. Sorry, dewdrop, my standards aren't all that much to ask for. Take care of your kids if you're going to have them. Try to get a job. Don't commit crimes. But, your standards are apparently so low that a common street criminal who preferred drugs over her own children is a sweetheart in your mind.
    1
  9906. No, but, it would take several thousand. My best guess, about 10,000, including participation from dozens of countries plus enemy countries, and it would need to persist from generation to generation. And, whatever number of thousands who weren't "active participants" would need to be the most incompetent people on Earth, not to be able to recognize it. Did you think taxi cab drivers and warehouse workers and yoga instructors could figure out "the truth," but thousands of engineers who spent a decade of their lives on the project couldn't?
    1
  9907. You're not even capable of understanding who said what in these replies. Good grief. How far gone are you?
    1
  9908. Is this a joke? You opened your original comment with "100% fake." You later argued that you never claimed that, and said that you were only saying maybe. (100% isn't "maybe," dewdrop.) You also said you didn't know how many missions there were, didn't know the budgets, or much of anything about Apollo. Then, you doubled down and pretended to have the high ground. You know nothing about the topic, but, you think you're in the majority. Rejection of the moon landings is a fringe cult, not mainstream. And, it consists virtually entirely of people just like you. You don't know anything whatsoever about the topic, but, you blindly reject the topic just because you feel like it. "Go bother someone else while I accuse thousands of people of being criminals on a topic I know nothing about." That's what you're saying.
    1
  9909. Well, the news media had nothing to do with it either. The arrest video wasn't even made public until she was already dead for more than 1.5 years. I mean, you don't actually trust what you see on YouTube videos, do you?
    1
  9910. "sorties longer than scuba divers take today" Let's see, if you're at 120 feet, breathing 21% oxygen at about 52 PSI of pressure, and exhaling/losing a vast majority of that air with every breath... how fast will you go through it? If you're breathing 100% oxygen inside a rebreather that recycles the oxygen you exhale, at about 3.5 PSI of pressure, losing virtually none of the oxygen... how fast will you go through it?
    1
  9911. What evidence have you examined? Or, was that it? Just, "I'm not convinced, but, I never really looked at any evidence anyway"?
    1
  9912. Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  9913. I think we both know why. It's very apparent that her goal was to turn "can I see your receipt" into a lawsuit, and did everything in her power to get herself Taser'd and arrested.
    1
  9914. First of all, multiple people called the police, and one person even caught it on video and showed it to the police. It wouldn't matter if the woman said a single word or not, she was going to get arrested. And, if not for this offense, they'd have arrested her for any of the open warrants for her tons of prior arrests and no-shows at court. And, the police didn't release the arrest video until 2.5 years later, which was 1.5 years after she was already dead. None of the big media outlets covered this story at all until the arrest video was made public. So, no, they didn't cause her death, because she was already dead before anybody in the public saw any of this.
    1
  9915. Yes, that's called delusion. Anybody who informs you that you're wrong get ignored instantly.
    1
  9916. Because they weren't married.
    1
  9917. Well, the story is mostly fake. But, sadly, she did commit suicide. The silver lining (albeit a minor one) is that she never suffered any humiliation from the public seeing this arrest video. It was kept confidential for 2.5 years, which was 1.5 years after she died. That's something that Inside Edition will never mention, because that kind of story doesn't go viral. It goes viral when they manipulate the facts, use clever wording, ask questions without answering them, and presenting a false narrative.
    1
  9918. Hilarious!!! So, you think that the law states that an officer cannot use the Taser without getting a supervisor when asked? Tell me, what law would that be?
    1
  9919. Of course not. It's Inside Edition, where facts don't matter.
    1
  9920. You have your order of events incorrect. Arrest = July 2021. Suicide = March 2022. Arrest video made public = November 2023. Famous/viral = December 2023.
    1
  9921. Well, that's what happens when you watch a 1 minute video from Inside Edition (where facts don't matter), and actually believe them. Multiple people called about this incident. One of them recorded it, and gave a copy of the video to the police. Needless to say, it didn't match this sob story about "nobody was around." To the contrary, it was a very loud and public act in view of multiple people including children. Why do you believe her anyway? She was a convicted felon who served time in a Florida prison, had a million other arrests, and according to her landlord, was a stripper at the local club. If she wasn't making "public beach" content, I'll eat my hat.
    1
  9922. So? Do you think a building owned by the public is the same as a sidewalk or something? OK, you go right ahead, and try to march onto an aircraft carrier or something, and say, "this is owned by we the people, let me onboard!!" Try it. See how that goes for you. Try to enter the White House too. Tell them that the building is owned by "we the people" and you have the right to be there. Good luck. Try going into a courthouse, and entering a judge's private chambers. Tell the judge that "we the people" own his office. Count how many seconds go by before you're in handcuffs. Try that at your local mayor's office too. And, this incident was at a school, right? Do you think you have the right to just go into a school whenever you want? Try it while school is in session, for example. Sorry, you don't understand the difference between public property (like a sidewalk), vs. a building that happens to be owned by the public.
    1
  9923. Yeah, but that lawsuit ended in December of last year, when it was tossed out of court, and she was barred from ever filing it again.
    1
  9924. And, when those people say "Freedom of Information Act," then what? What happens to your suit?
    1
  9925. You are truly insane. Lance's biggest (known) lawsuit was against JOURNALISTS. Dude, I weep for you and your misplaced hero worship. Armstrong is a pig. Go ahead and worship pigs all you want. But, it's very pathetic.
    1
  9926. Sure, this is quite easy to explain. First of all, you need to know what happened before this video clip. This guy had just vandalized a car. Then, he kidnapped two people and held them hostage. The cops were called, they chased him, and he ran. He then fled into an office, and attempted to accost more people. The cops chased him again, he ran again, and got onto this bus. Then, the cops chased the bus and stopped it (there were many cops surrounding the bus, not just the two that got onto it in this video). The cops witnessed the people running off and evacuating the bus in fear. The bus driver waved for help and pointed at the crazy guy. Yes, under those circumstances, the person might be dangerous enough to warrant the cops going in with guns drawn. Very often, under those circumstances, the maniac is going to be armed. It is a reasonable presumption, even though he wasn't armed in this particular case.
    1
  9927. First, you talked about seeing the US when landing. Then, you talked about seeing the US when blasting out to space. You seem to be aware that the Earth spins, so, I fail to understand why you cannot connect the dots and realize that it's a simple matter of knowing what position the Earth is in when making a landing, or when blasting out to the moon, or whatever timeframe. You cannot even articulate what your "issue" is with this, but, you find it "too funny?"
    1
  9928. Well, that's just a media trick to begin with. The first time they showed the video, she was already dead 1.5 years. The second time was the "update" that they wanted to make you believe that the first release was the reason she killed herself. It's how they can manufacture viral videos out of nothing.
    1
  9929.  @01mustang05  She was innocent of theft. But, there was no violation of rights here. She is required by law to provide ID during an investigation (she refused), and is not allowed to obstruct/obfuscate (she did both). And, it's also a crime to resist arrest (which she did). But, you don't even need to trust me, you can trust her own three attorneys she hired for this case. They didn't even file a lawsuit against the police, which would have been 7-figures, and would settle for about $500K out of court, had there been any violation of rights. But, nope, they didn't sue the police at all. They merely launched a small lawsuit against the store because their employee (Anna) identified this woman for the police to investigate, asking for $50,000. Of course, it was tossed out of court due to lack of merit, and she's been barred from ever filing it again. But, again, ask yourself, if there was an actual rights violation case here, like you're claiming, why didn't the attorneys sue the police?
    1
  9930. And, we know those aren't Styrofoam painted to look like concrete, how? I mean, sure, maybe they're real, and weigh what you say. But, the core of the issue is that Musk refuses to reveal the numbers, and leaves people FORCED to guess. And, if Thunderf00t got the numbers wrong, ok, why does that matter that much? Does or doesn't Musk have a massive track record for deceiving people? Does or doesn't Thunderf00t have a pretty darned solid track record for accuracy in every other video? Whose fault is it that Thunderf00t even needs to make guesses like this? Every truck manufacturer on the planet tells people the price of the truck, and the weight of the truck. Not Tesla, though. They refuse to do so. So, whose real fault is it that he's forced to guess?
    1
  9931. Huh? The police shot at him, but, "what" = 9mm pistols.
    1
  9932. Then these kinds of mass shootings will not happen, because the armed civilians would stop the shooter before he could kill/injure so many people.
    1
  9933. More nonsense. You never answered a single question or point I made. Good grief. How small must your life be, if you think that asking for proof of purchase is tyranny? The store employee who identified this woman for stealing was simply wrong. It's not tyranny. It's just a matter of a store trying to control losses, and wanting proof of purchase, and simply making a mistake. Meanwhile, you want tyranny? How about the invasion of Ukraine? How about the genocide in Indonesia, killing 300,000 of their own citizens? How about the systematic slaughter of citizens under Hussein? Oh, but you're worried about "tyranny" because a woman got upset, and flipped out, going bananas because the store suspected that she took a piece of chicken and bread rolls. That's tyranny to you? Seriously, I'm not joking here, how tiny and insignificant is your life, if you think that's tyranny?
    1
  9934.  @dansv1  And, then the EASEP failed, and stopped sending data.
    1
  9935. I think you do not understand the timeline here. I mean, I don't blame you per se, because Inside Edition sure isn't going to share it... kind of destroys the false narrative that made this a viral video. Arrest = July 2021. Suicide = March 2022. Arrest video made public = November 2023. National TV and social media = December 2023.
    1
  9936. Nick, you just can't help yourself, can you? You go from thread to thread, posting pure nonsense. Why? "but what if cop was parking on a private property or just metres from it and the victim lived just couple metres from the car, while in the past people left abadonded cars in that same spot?" Then CALL THE POLICE. "Still stupid behaviour but far different right?" No. It makes NO DIFFERENCE. If you go up to the car wearing a ski mask in the middle of summer, open the door, and immediately point a gun at the driver, you are going to get shot. And, sorry, as much as you have tried over and over and over, in every thread you post in, to turn this carjacking into something else, sorry, you fail. Nothing is going to change the fact that this guy was wearing a balaclava ski mask, wielding a gun. You don't do that if you're just checking out a car that you think is abandoned. You do that if you're a carjacker.
    1
  9937. "it wasn't a highjack." Yes, it clearly was a carjacking. "Second it is PROVEN they live there just do a little research." Who cares? It's still a carjacking. "we DON'T SEE A GUN" Yes, we do. We see him draw the gun as he walks up, points the gun at 0:08, and you see the gun on the ground at 5:02 next to a piece of wood. "(parents say he didn't have one)" No, his father said he didn't know why his son took a gun there, but he acknowledges that he did. And, his attorney also acknowledges the gun, and even said that he was carrying it "as any normal person would." "we only hear police dude talking about a gun that WE DON'T SEE" 5:02 on the ground next to the piece of wood, dewdrop. "(in official report he said that he didn't saw a gun when the man was approaching but still chose to shot him instantly)." Pfftt. What "official report" was that? Thus far, you've shown that you don't know anything about this case, and you can barely even read or write. Furthermore, the cop was talking about the gun in this video, and even says "the gun is right there." Now, you're saying for the "official report" (yeah right), the cop changed his story? Pffttt. "Was there a gun or not seems to be part of debate" Not to anybody who goes frame by frame in the video at 0:08. Not to anybody who clearly can see the gun at 5:02 on the ground. There's no "debate" here, dewdrop. "I didn't dig that deep" Then why are you pretending you did? "but it coul've been paintball gun" So, now there was a gun? And, hmm, in the other postings you made, you declared that it WAS a paintball gun. Funny that his attorney doesn't say it was a paintball gun. And, what difference does it make anyway? It's still a carjacking, whether using a paintball gun or a real gun. Whether or not it was a paintball gun has no bearing on whether this was a carjacking. And, you're now hurting your own position. You claimed that this wasn't a carjacking, remember? Now, you're saying the guy could have approached the car with a paintball gun. If it wasn't a carjacking, why bring a paintball gun? Good grief. It sure doesn't look like a paintball gun to me, but, you are making a case FOR a carjacking, if you acknowledge there was a gun invovled. "or phone" A phone shaped like a gun? What in the world are you even talking about? "And the kid didn't know someones in the car, couse the windows were tinted and it wasn't visible whats inside," Sure. He walks right by the windshield, which was NOT tinted, wearing a ski mask, and pulls a gun, on an empty car. Sure. Right. "and because car stood there for long hours he thought it is abandoned" So, rather than calling the police for the abandoned car, he decided to put on a ski mask and point the gun at the driver. "not a highjack" Yeah, sure. Why is this even up for debate with you? Do you hate police THAT much that you can't even admit a carjacking is a carjacking? "and police reacted quite violently (he shoot BEFORE he saw a gun as he stated)." No, dewdrop. That is ridiculous, and you're making it up, just as you're making this stuff up about the gun being a paintball gun, and you're making this stuff up about the family saying there was no gun, and you're making this stuff up about not being able to see the gun in the video. You are wrong about everything. "btw police should INSTANTLY go check victim injuries and atempt to stop the bleeding" So, now you're an expert on police procedure? Sorry, dewdrop. Secure the area first, administer aid later. They had this woman coming up seconds later, clearly involved, screaming. Is she armed also? How many other people are coming to ambush the cops? Zero? 1? 10? They don't know. All they know is that one person came to ambush the cop, and that one more arrived a few seconds afterward. They need to make sure there are no other people coming there to do harm to the officers, THEN administer aid. "as first seconds are crucial for surviving" He was hit in the high chest area, said his last words 20 seconds later, and stopped moving 10 seconds after that. Sadly, surviving wasn't going to be an option, no matter how quickly they gave aid. "him standing and doing nothing for minutes put a nail to the coffin couse otherwise he coul've survived" Not even close. When are you going to stop spewing nonsense in thread after thread?
    1
  9938. But, the guy DID break the law. He was arrested for trespassing.
    1
  9939. The police got multiple calls about this incident. One woman even used her cell phone to record what was going on, then showed the video to the police. They described it in the arrest report as a very loud and visible display in the public. This is quite different than the claims of the woman who is trying to avoid getting arrested. But, if it was so private, and nobody saw it, how would you explain why multiple people saw it, called the police, and one person even video recorded it? Still believe the woman who was trying to avoid getting arrested? Or, do you believe the crowd of people and the police?
    1
  9940. Oh, and they released the video probably because of the Freedom of Information Act. After enough time goes by and the case is closed, they can't keep the arrest video private any longer, and must release it for a legal request. But, the silver lining is that the woman never suffered any humiliation over the release of the arrest video. It wasn't released until 2.5 years later, which was 1.5 years after she died.
    1
  9941. FOIA requests.
    1
  9942. There's a much easier way to understand this. If the makers of any world revolutionizing device needs YOUR money, it's a scam.
    1
  9943. QUOTE: "The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight. The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months' duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure. A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week. However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable. -- James A. Van Allen" Did a conspiracy video tell you the Van Allen belts were an issue?
    1
  9944. "They can't land a small craft today" Who can't? "but they did it 60 years ago" Math isn't your thing, eh? "with people and managed 100%" So, when Apollo 13 exploded half way to the moon, this doesn't count toward your 100% figure? Yes, dewdrop, 100% of the successful landings on the moon were successful. "too good to be true." Why don't any of you deniers ever look at evidence? Why? Why is it that you people want to "logic" your way into disbelief. Why is it always, "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake?" I've never even seen a single denier who even knows what the evidence is. And, when I (or anybody) presents some of it, you people always run for the hills, never allowing any of the evidence to pierce through the wall of delusion you've built in your brains.
    1
  9945. Huh? You remember this arrest from 3 years ago? Or, were you referring to one of her other million arrests?
    1
  9946. Stop watching Alex Jones. Good grief.
    1
  9947. You remember a news clip from 2.5 years ago? What channel even covered it?
    1
  9948. I don't think you understand the term "baby daddy."
    1
  9949.  @michaelstillman1171  For what it's worth, I didn't reply (I would have been a couple of minutes after you). I saw yours and thought I'd let you spring the trap.
    1
  9950. What the FUCK are you talking about? I read your 60 word sentence 3x, and I still can't make any sense of it. You do know that in the great depression, the highest tax bracket was 94%, right? That's 94 cents on every dollar goes to tax, and you keep 6 cents, right? You do know that when they lowered that tax, the US saw the biggest economic boom in its history, and we crawled out of the depression, right? Are you implying that all people should have the same amount of money?
    1
  9951. You don't have any understanding of the topic. Almost no media even touched this story until she was long dead.
    1
  9952. When did I ever make that claim? I didn't. Again, Armstrong isn't just another doper. I dare you to try to name any other name in sports who ruined lives the way Armstrong did, all to protect their lies. Yeah, countless riders, ball players, swimmers, (insert almost any sport), have tons of cheaters. That's not the point. The point is that Armstrong didn't just cheat. He DESTROYED you if you didn't protect his lies... even if you were a bystander. Do you know how many people he sued?
    1
  9953. It's called the Freedom of Information Act. And, sorry to burst your bubble, but, the police withheld the release of the arrest video for 2.5 years, which was 1.5 years after her death. Nobody in the public ever saw this video until she was dead for 1.5 years.
    1
  9954. YOU SAID: "I can’t believe that is happened" == So, like all conspiratards, you came to your conclusions first, and asked questions second. YOU SAID: "How they get back from the moon to the earth without rocket" == Why would you say they didn't have a rocket? See that big SPS engine on the back of the service module? That's a rocket. YOU SAID: "Coz they’re really need it to go back as they come from the earth" == Yes, they had a rocket. YOU SAID: "With a strong power from the rocket to push them to the same line, same way and same time." == No. The rocket only needed to push them out of lunar orbit. The Earth's gravity did the rest. YOU SAID: "How long is taking time to reach to the earth ???" == About 2 and a half days. YOU SAID: "I think they need long long long time to reach to the earth coz the fuel not enough to push the machine." == So, none of the 450,000 people who worked on Apollo ever realized they forgot to put enough fuel in the craft? What? And, not a single aerospace engineer ever noticed this "problem" for the past 50 years? Good grief. No. When going to the moon, they fight against Earth's gravity, and need a huge rocket. On the way back from the moon, Earth's gravity does the work. They basically just "fall" back to Earth.
    1
  9955. Except she wasn't humiliated. Why do you think she was? Because Inside Edition asked that question (and never answered it)? You do know that Inside Edition is trash news, right?
    1
  9956. You're the one who believes Inside Edition, and thinks a stripper with a million arrests is somehow humiliated over another arrest.
    1
  9957. Ah, I see your viewpoint. Back a couple of decades, yes, I witnessed some of that dynamic. But, the good thing is that it's trending in the right direction, as more and more women are actually qualified. They certainly dominate universities at this point (60/40 overall, and more like 2/3rds of the student population in some of the top schools). So, as time goes on, there's less and less of the dynamic you're talking about. And, ironically, right now, a qualified male has a heck of an easier time getting into top universities than females. The reverse dynamic is going on right now, where a less qualified male will be selected for admission into a university than a more qualified female.
    1
  9958. "Where the heck are you getting your talking points from?" Harvard studies, mainly. A friend of mine actually runs some of those studies. "True, women are going and graduating from universities in larger numbers, but the mass of stem is still overwhelmingly male, because most women do not choose those fields" Huh? When did I ever disagree with you about this? I never said that STEM was dominated by women nowadays. I said that it's trending in the right direction. I mean, back in my day (I hate that phrase, but, when it fits...), when I was in my university engineering classes, to be honest, I simply don't even remember any women/girls. I am sure there were a few, but, certainly not many. Nowadays, when you walk into engineering classrooms or engineering firms in the industries, there are more and more women. I wasn't claiming it was 50/50, but, like I said, it's trending upward for women. "because of the basic biological difference in the way men and women think and solve problems; these are well documented and studied results, no matter what feminist radicals try to tell you." Good grief. I practically wrote the book on this. I mean, when you look at simple examples like the World Series of Poker Main Event, and you notice that there has never been a female winner, and not even a female who has made it to the final table since around 1996, yes, it's very clear that most women think differently than most men. Men (generally) are far more aggressive, far more willing to take risks, and as a general trend, tend to be more statistical in their thinking. Women (on average) tend to take less risk, and tend not to be as statistical in their thinking process. However, this doesn't mean women cannot be good engineers, or good doctors, or good [whatever]. It also doesn't mean that they cannot be trained for these jobs, or that this general trend applies to all women. As I said, it's trending in the right direction. "The few women who study stem, tend to get married or have children and eventually drop off." It's not as "few" nowadays as it used to be. And, sorry, but I just have far too much experience with engineering firms to agree with you. If you walk down the hallways of a modern engineering firm, you'll see more and more female names on those doors/cubicles, and not just as "tokens," but actually doing the work. No, it's not 50/50. But, it's trending upward. "Every time a better qualified man is bypassed to make room for an unqualified token woman, it is a disservice to science" That is exactly correct. I agree completely. Granting someone a job should be because of the merits of the individual, and not to meet a quota. "and our competitive ability... not only that, but it is a "woke" injustice that will be the end of us." Well, there's a first for everything. I don't recall anybody ever using the word "woke" to describe anything I've ever said. I think you've either completely misunderstood what I've written, or somehow I just didn't write it correctly. But, the spirit of what I was saying is that there are fewer and fewer "tokens" nowadays, and more and more women are advancing in those areas, and are actually qualified. Medical schools are producing slightly more female doctors nowadays than male doctors. There are more and more female engineers. Etc. I'd like to see a point in time when the numbers don't matter at all, because, as you pointed out (accurately), we cannot expect that women and men will make the exact same life/career choices in the exact same numbers. That's never going to happen. Yes, as a general trend, women tend to gravitate to different fields than men statistically do. There is no point in trying to force-fit numbers with quotas, under some fantasy world where all women think like all men. It's just not reality. But, when it comes to a point that individual women just go get the qualifications for the jobs they want, and men do the same, yes, that's the "promised land." And, will that mean that it'll be 50/50 men/women across every industry? No way, not unless the entire genetic makeup of our population changes somehow. But, it's healthy and good to have unlimited futures for those who are capable and qualified, no matter which gender. And, IT IS TRENDING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
    1
  9959. Well, that sounds nice and all. But, one of the "audience" took video of the incident, and showed it to the police. Guess what? The witnesses' and police's version of what was in that video doesn't match what this woman said while trying to avoid getting arrested for the umpteenth time. She was getting arrested whether she said a single word, or not.
    1
  9960. So, basically, you haven't yet read the police reports.
    1
  9961. What does that even mean? What about the witness video?
    1
  9962. Secure the area first, otherwise who knows how many others might jump out of the woodwork and point their guns at the cops. Pretty soon, the cops are the ones needing the same medical aid as the carjacker. It's smart to wait for backup and stay alert, rather than putting your gun away and focus on the dead guy.
    1
  9963. 3) Freedom of Information Act. But, you do know it wasn't published until long after she died, right?
    1
  9964. 4) Again, Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  9965. 2) Do you really not understand police body cameras?
    1
  9966. It's amazing how many people are praising this cop for risking his own life and the life of the other cop/s on scene. The driver had just committed attempted murder, and was very clearly attempting to do it again with a concealed draw. The cops were lucky the driver dropped the gun. Blind luck isn't praiseworthy.
    1
  9967. Well, perhaps if she had bothered to show up in court, they could have mandated some of that counseling. Is it the justice system's fault that she habitually skipped her court dates after getting arrested?
    1
  9968. What in the world are you talking about? The Soviets didn't trust the USA one bit. They sent the Luna 15 unmanned probe to the moon a couple of days ahead of Apollo 11. The intent was to wait until the astronauts got down to the surface, then land Luna 15 on the surface also, then lift off and race Apollo 11 back home. (It was a rushed mission, and they ended up crashing it into a mountain when the astronauts were on the surface, but, that's besides the point.) The Soviets used radar and radio telescopes and tracked all 3 craft (Luna 15, Apollo 11 command/service module, and the Apollo 11 lander). They also received Apollo's radio transmission when their dishes were aimed AT THE MOON. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Why are you pretending you do?
    1
  9969. And, if people sell machine guns to anybody, including teenagers, they get arrested also.
    1
  9970. You obviously have zero understanding of laser ranging. The difference between the bounce-back you get from one of the Apollo reflectors vs. the bounce-back you get from random dust and rocks is like the difference between looking at the sun vs. looking at the dim glow of a lightning bug. Or, did you really believe that the numerous countries that build $50 million (each) laser ranging facilities all over the world are all too clueless to understand what they're building them for?
    1
  9971. Yes, dewdrop, loose fluffy dust was blown away. The more coarse/dense dust remained at some of the landing sites under the landers, including clear signs of rocket blast. And, as for "burnt" bedrock, um, no. The moon is essentially already a burnt rock. Blowing rocket blast onto it for a few seconds isn't going to change what it looks like. Go get a blow torch and put it to a volcanic rock (basically the closest match we have on Earth), and see if you can find any "burning" afterward. Hint: you can't, because you're trying to burn a burnt thing. When you put a piece of burnt-to-a-crisp toast back into the toaster, it still just looks burnt.
    1
  9972. No, the father is not ok. He was found dead next to a lake. Apparently, the son killed him and threw him in the lake, but perhaps he washed up on the shoreline.
    1
  9973. "is 10 to the negative 17 TOR" You do know that's an amazingly SMALL number, right? See that "negative" in your own statement? That means it's very close to ZERO. Why do you act as if this is a big thing, when you're describing a very small thing? "while maintaining a internal pressure of approx 14 PSI ? ? ? ?" Nope. Not even close. That would be hard on the craft, and even harder on the astronauts due to oxygen toxicity. Go learn something. Start with how to read and write. Stop being proud of your degree from YouTube University. That's not a real thing.
    1
  9974. While pointing a gun, no less.
    1
  9975. Well, the horrible movie about him showed the bracelet. But, do we really know he did that? His wife, as far as I know, still won't say what objects Armstrong took to the moon.
    1
  9976.  @DeputyNordburg  That's not outside the galaxy.
    1
  9977.  @DeputyNordburg  But, we don't see individual stars, nor detect planets by the method of those stars getting darker/lighter as the planets pass. That is only within our galaxy.
    1
  9978.  @DeputyNordburg  You were talking about detecting planets. We cannot detect those outside the galaxy.
    1
  9979. I think they did pretty well. They were called by multiple people about this incident. One woman who saw it used her cell phone to video record it, and showed the police. They describe the contents in their police report, saying it was a very loud and public display in full view of multiple people including children. This is quite a bit different than the version portrayed by a woman trying to avoid getting arrested. But, I tend to believe the police and the crowd of people who saw her, instead of believing the woman. They really didn't have much choice but to arrest her. Then, the police managed to keep the arrest video private for 2.5 years. It wasn't until she was dead for 1.5 years that they released it, probably as a result of a legal FOIA request (then the cops have no choice, since the case was closed for a long time). But, anyway, I'm all ears. What exactly do you think the police did badly?
    1
  9980. Multiple people called the police. One witness even caught it on video, and showed the video to the police. The arrest report describes the video as very different than the woman's words when she is trying to avoid getting arrested for the millionth time.
    1
  9981. Well, at least that didn't happen until long after she died.
    1
  9982. And, I blame the people who commit the crimes.
    1
  9983. But, dewdrop, one of the "audience" recorded the incident and showed the video to the police. Did you not read the police report? They describe the video as a very loud and very public act in view of multiple people including children. One of the witnesses said that she wandered up and down the beach, looking for a place to do this, then plopped down near a family with children.
    1
  9984. OK. But, one of the "audience" did take video. She was going to get arrested whether she said anything or not.
    1
  9985. Tell, me, would you be saying that if it was a man at a playground? "Excuse me sir, can you please put your pants back on and go somewhere else?"
    1
  9986. Lying won't get you anywhere.
    1
  9987. 1) Why do you ask questions, but come to your conclusions before you get answers? 2) Do you REALLY believe there's no gravity on the moon? 3) What was your final grade level in school before you dropped out? 8th? 9th?
    1
  9988. Yes and no. I mean, I don't begrudge the officers for wanting to secure the scene first. If you immediately focus your attention on first aid, you'll never be aware of who else might crawl out of the woodwork with a gun. Then, pretty soon, it's you who needs the first aid. It's best to keep your focus on your surroundings until plenty of other cops are around to assure safety. But, I'd never argue with the idea that, once they started first aid, the cops were basically just going through the motions. I mean, they didn't really look to be trying all that hard. But, c'mon, a .40 to the upper chest, and the guy stops moving or talking in 20 seconds? Yeah, he was gone already.
    1
  9989. Really? What should he have gotten instead? Death sentence?
    1
  9990. Most of his life? You aren't very in touch with reality. He'll be out in a few years.
    1
  9991. Sure. Blind trust in government is a mistake. Absolutely. But, just checking here, you are aware that numerous countries have verified Apollo in numerous different ways, right?
    1
  9992. Well, that's only because you fell for a typical media-created storyline. They wanted two viral rounds for the price of one. So, they first put it on the news that she was arrested (not mentioning that she was already dead). Then, they came back a few weeks later with the "update" that she had died, hoping people would believe that the first video caused the second. In reality, nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive, and this incident received near-zero coverage until 2.5 years later (long after she was dead).
    1
  9993. Not the brightest bulb, eh Paul?
    1
  9994. No, he was basically saying that doubting what you're told on TV is warranted, and used Apollo as an example. But, the evidence for Apollo goes a million times more than just what people saw on TV.
    1
  9995. Skepticism is a good thing. But, I doubt that's what you really are. It sounds more like blind rejection than skepticism. Yes, the USA committed the single largest governmental lie/deception in military history. We dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. Then, we essentially told Japan that we had hundreds of atomic bombs, ready to level their entire country if they didn't surrender. But, we only had three (we used one for a test of the plutonium bomb, and we had just used the uranium bomb on Hiroshima, and only had one plutonium bomb remaining). This is why Japan didn't surrender right away. They saw the Hiroshima one was a uranium bomb, and figured (correctly) that we didn't have enough uranium to make another one. So, they kept fighting, and didn't believe us when we said we had bunches of these bombs. Then, when we dropped the plutonium bomb on Nagasaki, their scientists realized that it wasn't a uranium bomb, and figured it might actually be possible that we had hundreds of them. And, they surrendered. I mean, Stalin knew better from his spies, but, Stalin certainly wasn't going to help Japan. He was actively trying to make Japan surrender also. But, anyway, yeah, the USA pulled off the greatest bluff in history. So, sure, be skeptical all you want. It's justified. So, how do you solve such a dilemma? Blind rejection? Or, hmmm, is there a better way? Like, maybe, looking at the evidence itself? Like, maybe seeing all of the other dozens of countries that confirmed Apollo in dozens of different ways? Is that a good way to decide?
    1
  9996. No leaks required. Freedom of Information Act. And, what charge is "incriminating misconduct"? You're the legal expert here, not me, so, can you explain this charge? Oh, and you do know that the arrest video wasn't made public until 1.5 years after she died, right? You do understand how the Freedom of Information Act works, right?
    1
  9997. Freedom of Information Act. What would you recommend the police do about it?
    1
  9998. There's no evidence we've ever sent people to Mars. There are loads of evidence that we sent people to the moon.
    1
  9999. Blue screen for a black and white camera? Oh, you're hilarious. "Radio band"? Sorry, that phrase doesn't mean anything. Aircraft? Did you mean spacecraft? The most amazing thing about people who have the intelligence of raccoons is that they really think they're smart.
    1
  10000. Dewdrop, the arrest video wasn't released until 1.5 years AFTER she was already dead. And, it was released as a result of the Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  10001. They made 9 manned missions to the moon, landing 6 of those times. If that's not repeating it, I don't know what is.
    1
  10002. Was it meth? Is that what did this to you?
    1
  10003. So, your mind has just set sail off into the sea on its own?
    1
  10004. Sorry, I wasted enough time on an obvious drug addict.
    1
  10005. It's "Boeing." But, GM also helped build the rover.
    1
  10006. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released due to FOIA. None of the big news outlets covered this story until after then. So, please explain how the police or news caused this? That's a mighty big piece of libel you're flinging around while knowing nothing.
    1
  10007. Well, don't worry then, Inside Edition isn't exactly known for honesty in reporting. If you read about this woman, you will find out that this incident probably had nothing to do with her suicide.
    1
  10008. Were you actually going to try to illustrate any of this "deception" you're talking about? Or, that was it? You just talk about deception, and leave it at that?
    1
  10009.  @occhamite  What don't you understand here? He's a super-secret agent who has "inside knowledge" that he isn't allowed to share via YouTube comments (but, apparently, he's allowed to make YouTube comments denying the authenticity of the landings... he just isn't allowed to say why/how). If that's not good enough for you, well, that's your own problem. We should always trust random people on YouTube with "inside knowledge."
    1
  10010. In order to answer your question, you first need to clarify exactly what you mean by "dark side of the moon." Do you merely mean nighttime? Or, were you attempting to say "far side"?
    1
  10011. Well, first of all, there was no way to have the events go down that way, because she didn't show up at court. That's apparently how she chose to handle all of her various arrests, just don't show up. She even tried changing her name a few times to evade the police, but, that got blocked, so, yeah, "failure to appear" seemed like her main tactic. It's very difficult to negotiate for probation or counseling when you don't even show up to the hearing. Second chance? She was on her MILLIONTH chance already!! Good grief. After she got out of prison, she continued to commit crime after crime after crime. And, you're sitting there talking about "second" chances?
    1
  10012. No, that's not accurate in either miles or KM.
    1
  10013. Is that really what this thread is about? You saw a photo somewhere that mislabeled an Apollo 15 photo as Apollo 11? And, from that, you've run down a rabbit hole of nonsense? I saw a documentary about WWII that showed an Iowa class battleship firing its guns in 1941. The problem is, the Iowa class battleships didn't enter service until 1943. Therefore, WWII is fake. lol hahahahaha
    1
  10014.  @stusue9733  You forgot the "lol hahahahaha."
    1
  10015. Well, what do I know? But, in my experience, I'd guess the first woman isn't a product of lack of discipline from parents, the first woman is a product of a bad daddy who should be behind bars for what he did to her when she was a young girl. Just my guess.
    1
  10016. WOW, you found one crackpot with zero expertise on the topic to claim that the moon landings were faked... yeah, that's convincing alright. Pffttttt. I think that bomb must have done more damage than just ruining his eye... seems that it must have penetrated into his brain as well.
    1
  10017. And, this mess was your edited version? I'd hate to see how bad your first version was.
    1
  10018. The carjacker pointed a gun at the officer's head, while wearing a balaclava ski mask in the middle of a Kentucky summer, and you have the audacity to claim the OFFICER is the one who made the mistake here? Not the carjacker? What's wrong with you? Hey, dewdrop, get this through your skull: the carjacker didn't have a gun to protect from bad guys, the carjacker IS the bad guy. Or, should I say "was"?
    1
  10019. As opposed to what? The carjacker wearing a balaclava ski mask in the middle of a Kentucky summer comes up to YOUR car, pulls the door open, and points a gun at your head. What do YOU do about it? Sit there and get shot?
    1
  10020. Sorry, but conspiracy videos made by criminal taxi cab drivers and warehouse workers aren't evidence of anything... other than the gullibility of anybody who believes a single word they say. Dewdrop, there is ZERO evidence that Apollo didn't happen, except silly nonsense that falls apart instantly under the slightest amount of scrutiny.
    1
  10021. Nobody even saw the video until she was dead for 1.5 years.
    1
  10022. Flagged as spam.
    1
  10023. Nearly zero "news" covered any of this until long after she was dead. So, um, no.
    1
  10024. I agree, but not because I have any sympathy for Lance Armstrong. I don't. I think he's a pig who is getting what he deserves. But, there's simply NO WAY that he pulled off his cheating without the help of the governing bodies who willfully looked the other way while he cheated, and even went as far as letting Armstrong's drug test urine/blood samples go untested. Everyone knew what was happening, but cared more about the money than the honesty, and they ALL should take the fall with him.
    1
  10025. Completely ridiculous. I'm not even going to entertain such a fantastically insane notion by composing a new reply. Instead, I'm merely going to cut-n-paste a reply I gave someone else. ** If it was as simple as just being the best among the cheaters, it would be a different story. That is merely the new angle that he/they are trying to spin, trying to minimize the damage once the cheating could no longer be denied. They're trying to portray it as still being an even playing field, everyone doped, so who cares, Lance was still the best, right? Well, that's wrong. Lance's case is truly a million times worse. And, it was NEVER an even playing field of dopers. 1) Armstrong bribed opposing teams to not help their team leaders. Imagine if Armstrong's team slowed down so that he couldn't draft. There'd be no chance of Armstrong winning anything. Well, opposing teams' riders were bribed to slow down their own teammates. 2) Armstrong could run hot because he had the cooperation of the UCI. They didn't even test all of Armstrong's samples during some of those races. They made more money by letting Armstrong be an amazing superstar, attracting a fan base larger than they'd ever had before. So, they willfully helped him win by letting some of his samples go untested. Armstrong could run many of those races with the drugs still in his system, unlike his competitors who had to back off a couple days beforehand so they wouldn't get caught by the tests. 3) Armstrong continued to lie on Oprah, and everywhere else, insisting that he was clean during his comeback. He wasn't. The USADA tested his samples from during Lance's comeback, and found that he was cheating then also. So, even when "admitting" his cheating, he still lied. 4) Armstrong sued the living daylights out of anybody who crossed him, draining them of their life savings just defending the case. This is unprecedented. If somebody told the truth, Armstrong sued them into submission, bankrupting honest people with court/attorney costs. Quite literally, BANKRUPTING them. These people would then sign non-disclosure agreements as terms of their settlements, which means, still today, we will never know the true extent of his crimes, because those people are still under those legal gag orders. 5) Armstrong ruined people's careers. No other cheating athlete in any other sport has gone out of his way to trash people's careers who didn't cheat also. Armstrong instructed Trek not to give LeMond a sponsorship deal for millions of dollars, and they complied. Armstrong instructed other racing teams not to hire riders who opposed him, and they complied. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not putting all of this blame on Armstrong, obviously others complied, and share the blame. But, Armstrong led the show. 6) Armstrong didn't merely dope. He had the money to run a ridiculously expensive effort to take his doping EXACTLY to the limit. Other riders doped, sure, but that EPO stuff is fatal if you take too much (and already killed countless riders). Armstrong could afford the super-expensive medical testing to very precisely take his EPO EXACTLY to its maximum values. Other riders would take some, but couldn't afford to push the limits with it. The Tour de France is an event where a 1% difference in performance equates to a win by 22 miles!!! Armstrong could afford to dope right to the edge, and other riders couldn't, thus he had that 1% difference in performance, and then some. 7) Let's not forget the long list of actual crimes committed by Armstrong. Drug trafficking. Perjury. Etc. The list goes on, of course. But, the bottom line is that we're not talking about Armstrong just being another cheater among cheaters. We're talking about a situation when Armstrong had the cooperation of the governing bodies, and utterly destroyed other people's lives in the process.
    1
  10026. Well, if YOU don't understand it... yeah, nobody does.
    1
  10027. WRONG. Absolutely wrong. Cops are not to take sides. They are there to decide if a trespass occurred, and if so, to arrest. Do you REALLY want cops to make a choice between one side or another? You don't think that's what courts are for? You want individual cops deciding? How will that go, if it's your house, and someone refuses to leave? Do you want the cops to say, "sorry, we don't agree with your politics, so we're going to let the person stay in your house, and we refuse to trespass the guy"? That's how this goes? Or, are you going to try to say that because this was a school, not a home, the cops shouldn't arrest anybody? (You'd be wrong.)
    1
  10028. As if you've ever looked for any. There are mountains of evidence for Apollo. Start with the fact that in 2021, both China and India used their individual orbiters to photograph the Apollo landings sites, and have confirmed Apollo remnants. Do you even know that? Or, do you just like pretending to know things you don't?
    1
  10029. Likely a piece of ice that came loose. Hard to tell, though.
    1
  10030. Well, you got your wish. Of course it's fake news. Arrest = July 2021. Suicide = March 2022. Arrest video made public = November 2023. Her arrest video had absolutely no effect on her, because she was already dead for 1.5 years before anybody ever saw it.
    1
  10031. What are you talking about? What do you see in this video that indicates that the police didn't know the law? And, um, you are completely backward. The driver wasn't killed. His father was killed. And, he wasn't killed by police. He was killed by the driver, and dumped in a lake, right before this chase.
    1
  10032. Still copying and pasting this same gibberish, eh?
    1
  10033. So, getting to the moon could be done, but not landing on it? Good grief. Based upon WHAT? How much do you think you understand about the engineering of Apollo?
    1
  10034. You really don't understand very much about what happened here, do you?
    1
  10035. You can drop "about what other people think" off of that sentence.
    1
  10036. Well, it didn't work. He spent 3 years in prison for this, and just recently got out. He is now running for president in 2024.
    1
  10037. Enjoy your future arrest. Sorry, but the system doesn't work the way you want.
    1
  10038. Well, your question is partially a result of the way this video has been edited. If you go watch the entire version, it might help clear up the issue. But, in short, most states (including Florida where this happened) are "stop and identify" states. This means that you are required by law to show your ID, or provide name/address/birthday, when being investigated for a possible crime. The cop asked her a million times for her ID or name, and she refused to give it (conveniently left out of this copy, which obviously begins in the middle of the encounter). Only one time in this version do you hear him ask for her name. Anyway, refusing to provide ID is a crime itself in those states, and you can be arrested for that alone. So, by the time she finally asked to go back into the store, the ship had already sailed, and he had already determined that he was going to arrest her anyway. He tried to explain that, but, she wasn't listening. And, yes, "got into a mess" - sure, because, for all practicality, the rest of the charges don't stick, if the original charge is dismissed. It's a bit frustrating, because she's certainly guilty of obstruction/obfuscation, refusing to ID, and resisting arrest. But, juries tend not to care about those things if the original theft charge is dismissed, so, yeah, it's a bit of a mess. And, yeah, all charges were ultimately dismissed. But, that doesn't change the fact that the cop was correct to arrest her.
    1
  10039. She plopped down in public and put on a show. She didn't deserve what, exactly?
    1
  10040. Well, that's one way to demonstrate that you don't even understand the branches of the government.
    1
  10041. You just outright refuse to get it. I cannot help you.
    1
  10042.  @stephanweinberger  Good gods. I didn't say that electric cars aren't more efficient. I'm objecting to your ridiculous 4x more efficient nonsense. I'm sorry you don't understand things here. But, again, I cannot help you. You're too far gone.
    1
  10043.  @seaturtledog  "Not on purpose." You have no understanding of the topic. Stop pretending you do. Yes, they pointed the cameras at the sun on purpose. Go through the archives yourself. Most of the time, it was because they were taking panorama photos. Click, turn a bit, click, turn a bit, click, turn a bit. That way, they can assemble the photos together when they get back home and get a 360 view from the spot they were standing. And, since the Apollo missions all landed in the early lunar morning, when the sun was low on the horizon, yes, the sun shows up in many such photos. There were other times when they took photos of the sun that weren't part of an effort to create a panorama, and they were just taking photos in general. But, whatever, you clearly don't know this. As for damaging the cameras, you're wrong about that, or confused a bit. There is absolutely no reason that a 70mm Hasselblad can't be pointed at the sun. They can, and did, with no consequence. You have been confused by the Westinghouse field sequential scanning TV cameras (both the black and white model, and the color models), which couldn't be pointed at the sun without damage (i.e. the one on Apollo 12 that was ruined). But, the upgraded model from RCA for the last 3 missions was hardened to be pointed at the sun (it had a mechanical filter to protect the vidicon from burning out).
    1
  10044. Yeah. That's how this goes. They get a 2.5 year old video. They know she's already been dead for 1.5 years by the time the video was released. But, they post it and never mention that. Then, a couple of weeks later, they post a "follow up" saying that she's dead now, and asks if the arrest had anything to do with the suicide. They don't answer the question, they just ask it, and pretend that the question IS the answer. The real answer is no. She was already dead for 1.5 years before anybody saw this arrest video.
    1
  10045. Reading and writing at a 2nd grade level is your ultimate problem. You can't write beyond a 2nd grade level, because you can't read beyond a 2nd grade level. And, because you can't read, your comprehension is remarkably low. That's why you know nothing at all.
    1
  10046. Well, I agree. But, at least the poor woman didn't suffer any embarrassment from the arrest video, since it wasn't made public until 1.5 years after she was already dead.
    1
  10047. @ And, you can't manage to scroll down through the comments to find that those questions were answered a few million times?
    1
  10048. @ And, you can't manage to scroll down through the comments to find that those questions were answered a few million times?
    1
  10049.  @rubenoteiza9261  Dewdrop, 4 different countries have photographed the Apollo landers on the lunar surface. China, USA, South Korea, and India. And, that's just the tip of the iceberg of evidence. You belong to an extremely small cult of people who pretend to know things you don't. Stop pretending.
    1
  10050. @ "research is now defined as scrolling through hundreds of youtube comments" Dewdrop, don't pretend. You stopped making your dozens of repeated comments EXACTLY before one of the millions of times that your questions were answered. And, ya know, YOU were the one who relied on comments to get your "knowledge." YOU did that. YOU were the one pretending to ask dozens of people to answer your silly questions that were easily answered.
    1
  10051. @ "im asking legit questions" No, dewdrop. You're PRETENDING to ask questions. These questions are trivially answered by scrolling through comments, or simple Google searches. Spare the world this game of yours.
    1
  10052. "you don't know the answer either" Really, dewdrop? Then how would I know those questions were answered a million times (many times by myself)? Are you done pretending yet?
    1
  10053. Yeah, you had better believe that this video will never be part of any training... except perhaps on doing the opposite (which just confuses things even more). What would the training video say? "Cop treats woman kindly, buys her some gloves and a hat, she continues to steal from Walgreens, continues to take drugs, and dies"? That's not a very good training class. They would need to find some equivalent experience somewhere, when a woman turns her life around after the act of kindness. They're not going to use an example when the woman continues to commit more of the same crime, against the same store, and eventually dies because of her own bad habits.
    1
  10054. Good grief. She opens by saying that dealerships are making record profits, and ends by saying "they're screwed." Right. I honestly don't know why people trust this girl. I've seen a few of her videos, and all I can say is that she's clueless. Changing the laws she's talking about has no chance of being effective. Dealers will just find some other markups that aren't covered by the laws, and/or will just lowball trade-ins, etc. And, sorry, but you cannot just decide to pass laws to cap profits made in private industry (unless they are monopolies, which dealerships are not). If that was the case, Apple wouldn't exist, with enough profits to keep the company alive for the next 50 years without selling a single product. The only way that this trend will end is by increasing supply. Once this choked supply chain issue is past us, things will go back to the way things were a few years ago. And, there are honest dealerships, and dishonest dealerships. To sit there and scrutinize online comments is ridiculous... as if NOBODY could ever write a positive review without it being fake? Good gods. Dealerships are going to adapt to the marketplace, just like every other business. If you want to stop dealerships from doing what they're doing, you hurt them in their pocketbooks. That's what you do. Walk out the door if they charge for ridiculous add-ons. Go find another dealership. Stop walking in the door and signing on the dotted line 10 minutes later. Let them know that you have no problems leaving and buying somewhere else. Leave comments on social media. This is a bit more difficult to accomplish in today's times, where demand greatly outweighs supply. But, remember, YOU are the one paying the money, THEY are the ones that want your money. All too often, people forget who's "in charge."
    1
  10055. Oh, you're a real genius alright. Criticizing other people's intelligence, while not knowing the difference between "whose" and "who's"? That's how this goes? What you wrote was "The one who is stupidity got him KILLED!" Sorry if your own stupidity prevents you from reading and writing properly. I don't usually pick on grammar and spelling, but, there's a special kind of irony when you call someone stupid... just one word away from writing stupidly yourself.
    1
  10056. She ended her own life.
    1
  10057. Welcome to Inside Edition. She was already dead for 1.5 years the first time they aired the story. But they didn't say so. Instead, they ran the story again a few weeks later, revealing that she was dead, hoping people would think that the media had something to do with it.
    1
  10058. Congratulations on knowing absolutely nothing. How does that feel?
    1
  10059. Oh, let me see if I can translate this response into your native language: I robots didn't say artificial anything about touchscreens from kidding cell phones like talking me make kidding human didn't moon on must of we.
    1
  10060. Huh? What misses? I mean, sure, maybe a few shots missed. But, I do not understand your question.
    1
  10061. I disagree strongly. You used the word "thinks"? C'mon man, that kid doesn't do that.
    1
  10062. At the cost of burning 8x more energy to produce the hydrogen than you could ever get back. And, let's face reality here, you're talking about a very expensive and dangerous solution. If you think electric cars catch on fire too often, wait to see how bad it'll be with hydrogen.
    1
  10063. Yup. Everyone knows what's needed to stop burning fossil fuels. But, the fundamental problem is that to find a new fuel to replace carbon emitting fuels, you're basically talking about needing to chemically manufacture them (such as hydrogen). You need to pay in money and energy to split water into oxygen and hydrogen ,and this takes 8x more energy than you can ever get back out of the hydrogen. Or, for a more complicated but safe fuel, you have to chemically manufacture it (again, meaning you have to spend a lot of energy and money to do it). At the moment, the best alternative we have is electric/battery vehicles. But, you're right, it's far too expensive, there's a lack of natural resources, and you just can't use that sort of thing for all applications. Not only is it a problem for large long-haul trucks (i.e. this video), but, it's a major problem for aviation also. They just can't get the batteries light enough to make them viable for aircraft use. A car carrying a few people, where you don't care how much it weighs, ok, you can pull it off. It's terribly expensive, but, it works. But, it's very difficult to scale that up, because of the weight constraints, and the supply of natural resources is restrained (as you pointed out). So, yes, a radically different battery (which we don't even have any ideas about how to make, or even what to make it from), or some sort of clean burning fuel, would be wonderful. But, they just don't exist yet, and I dare not guess at the odds of actually making them exist.
    1
  10064. He has asked for privacy, and, apparently the media are abiding.
    1
  10065. By your "logic," most of the people visiting those all-inclusive resorts should be dead by now. Have you ever been to those kinds of resorts and looked at how many people drink themselves out of their skulls?
    1
  10066. Thirteen Saturn V rockets were flown, not eight. Apollo 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and Skylab.
    1
  10067. Huh? Blame the victim?
    1
  10068. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    1
  10069. What people did that? Who is "these people"?
    1
  10070. You sound like a creationist... just keep throwing more and more garbage out to support nonsense until the person with whom you're speaking can't take the garbage any longer, then you declare victory.
    1
  10071. The video is an hour long. Would you care to specify the timestamp?
    1
  10072. WHOSE hands? Who is "their"?
    1
  10073. Oh, Ronald, still spewing nonsense, I see. "and no radar return possible from nearly a quarter million miles" Pffttt. Um, dewdrop, don't you ever get tired of being wrong all the time? Back in the 1950s, do you know how they determined the speed and direction of the rotations of Mercury and Venus? They shot doppler radar at them, and tracked the radar return from the surface features. This allowed them to calculate the speed and direction of the rotation. Yes, tracking surface features on planets about 80 million miles away. Yes, using radar. But, you think that Apollo couldn't be tracked by some of those very same dishes (and many more)? Hey, dewdrop, why don't you teach at MIT? They designed those radar systems used to track Apollo, you know. You can still read their publications on how it all worked. It's on their website. But, nope, you'll sit here on YouTube, head firmly planted deep in the sand, covering your eyes, plugging your ears, while you say, "lalalalalaa I can't hear you lalalalalla." You're ridiculous.
    1
  10074. As I told you before in the other thread, dewdrop, radio isn't sound. You clearly do not understand the difference between the two. Radio isn't atoms vibrating. Good grief. And, by the way, neither is sound for that matter.  @star_1_man214 
    1
  10075.  @mauiroy2124  Wrong.
    1
  10076. Well, according to the report of the video taken of the incident, the video doesn't match her claim of a private little thing with nobody around. It describes a very deliberate and loud public display in view of multiple people, including children. Doesn't sound very unintentional to me. And, as for embarrassing her even more, um, ok, but who do you think did that? The obscure Smoking Gun article? Did anybody even see it? It seems like the arrest video was what went viral, so, I'm not really sure why you'd say she suffered embarrassment.
    1
  10077. What embarrassment? I still don't know what you're saying.
    1
  10078. Aww, you poor thing.
    1
  10079. With her extensive criminal history, I'll bet she knew that. But, my guess is that she probably thought that staying silent would mean 100% odds that they'd look up her open warrants, but, by trying to cry her way out of it, there'd be a 50/50 chance they'd let her go without running a check.
    1
  10080. The police didn't post anything. Freedom of Information Act. The police kept the video private for 2.5 years. But, after she was already dead 1.5 of those years, they can no longer block a FOIA request.
    1
  10081. No lunar rocks were dated older than the solar system. The moon's ringing sound wasn't metal, nor hollow. It gave a hollow-like seismic noises due to the fact that the moon has virtually zero moisture to dampen the reflections.
    1
  10082. So, you're in love with the work done by a conman, but, you disbelieve a rover can work on the moon? What in the world are you talking about?
    1
  10083. Sorry, I just can't understand your point. Not on any level.
    1
  10084. Not very bright, huh?
    1
  10085. Wrong timeline there. July 2021 = arrest. March 2022 = suicide. November 2023 = release of the arrest video. Inside Edition = fake news.
    1
  10086. At least is wasn't aired until long after she was dead.
    1
  10087. It's very difficult to judge distance when you hear gunfire. I doubt he had any idea it would be that far, and probably thought it sounded far closer.
    1
  10088. And, who says she passed away because of this? Inside Edition?
    1
  10089. VHF communications antenna.
    1
  10090. YOU SAID: "The pictures of the Landers on the surface could have very easily been faked" == Pffttt. So, decades after Apollo, when not a single politician from the 1960s remains, not a single NASA administrator from the 1960s remains, not a single engineer from the 1960s remains, a completely new group of people decided to start up a completely new version of "the hoax" for no reason whatsoever, and launched a new satellite around the moon to send back thousands upon thousands of fake pictures. Anybody who was involved with the 1960s era "hoax" is long dead or retired. But, yeah, there's this new generation of administrators and engineers who got together to make a new version of "the hoax." Why? Nobody knows. But, yeah, sure, they're faking hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of images of the Apollo landing sites. Sure. YOU SAID: "I could have done that." == Bullshit. YOU SAID: "If they're images from the satellite orbiting the moon, why can't we get much better resolution than that?" == The resolution is about 1.5 feet per pixel. Plenty of resolution to see these things. And, that's not good enough for you? Why not? What good would higher resolution do? You don't get to sit there and claim that resolution is the reason you don't believe it. You'd still reject those images, even if they had enough resolution to read serial numbers off of the stuff on the moon. So, don't even sit there and pretend that somehow resolution is an issue for you. But, to answer your idiotic question anyway, the reason the resolution is what it is... is because of the other piece of the equation... the BANDWIDTH back to the Earth. They designed the LRO to survey the entire moon's surface, not to take pictures of Apollo (that's just a side benefit). And, the very best they could do with the radio technology is send about 400 gigs per day. So, while they're taking those north/south imaging stripes of the moon, they also have to remember how they're going to manage to get those images back to Earth. You want 10x the resolution, that's 100x the bandwidth (10x width x 10x height = 100x the amount of data). Now you're talking about needing 40,000 gigs per day. Sorry, but the radio can't do it. They designed the LRO as a complete system, and how much bandwidth they had was a major factor in deciding what kind of imagery they could take. YOU SAID: "The orbit of that satellite is much closer than the Google earth satellite and yet the Google imagery is way more detailed, with the atmosphere to contend with." == No, dummy. Google Earth long ago migrated away from pure satellite views. The satellite resolution on Google Earth is NOT better than the LRO image resolution. It's worse. But, Google now uses aerial photography in most places instead of satellite view. It's true that they still use satellite images for very high up images. But, as you zoom in closer and closer, it switches over to aerial photography instead. That's the thing with you fucking conspiratards... none of you idiots has the slightest clue what you're talking about. You morons act like debunking Apollo is as simple as a couple of sentences in a YouTube comment, as if none of the hundreds of thousands of people who work on these things for a career have ever noticed these glaring issues you're able to point out in 2 sentences... it's insulting. You are a stain on humanity. Instead of actually trying to learn something, you fucking imbeciles are just looking for ways to sling your stupidity around in an effort to slander everyone who knows more than you do. Every single argument against Apollo, ever proposed by ANY of you idiots, falls apart completely with a little bit of ACTUAL investigation. All you idiots have are these ignorant assertions about technologies you don't understand, and a series of out-of-context quote mines. And, you use your ignorance as a method to spit in the faces of the 400,000 people who worked on Apollo, and the thousands of them you're calling liars and frauds. You're an asshole. It's what you are. And, I have no idea why you assholes are so proud of being assholes.. I'm an asshole, and I hate it. You're an asshole, and you love it. You revel in it. You're ridiculous.
    1
  10091. First of all, THAT is your reply? You spewed utter nonsense. I corrected you. And, it goes in one ear, out the other, huh? Thanks for demonstrating that your mind is completely delusional (as if I didn't know that already). Secondly, um, dumbass, if you're going to talk about other people's intellect, it helps if you can fucking SPELL THE WORDS CORRECTLY while doing it. I mean, we all misspell from time to time, me included. But, when you can't even spell correctly in a sentence challenging someone's intellect, um, yeah, it's just one of those ironies that backfires in your face. The word is "you're," you utter imbecile.
    1
  10092. And, you think YOUTUBE is the place to reveal that the entirety of known aerospace engineering and life support systems in space are all wrong?? Why are you here? Where are your calculations about the Van Allen belts that James Van Allen himself botched? And, FREEZING?!?!!? WHAT?!??!! You are BACKWARD. They had to work hard to COOL the suits, not to protect from freezing. Good grief.
    1
  10093. It wouldn't have mattered. One of the "audience" recorded it, and gave a copy of the video to the police. Needless to say, it didn't match her "nobody was around" sob story she's crying about as she's attempting to avoid her millionth arrest.
    1
  10094. Or, maybe you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, and it's garbage in, garbage out?
    1
  10095. Well, according to her landlord, she was a stripper at the local club. So, I imagine she was desensitized to people seeing her doing that stuff. But, regarding taking her life, if you look up her history, the timeline, and everything else, I'd say it's pretty doubtful that this arrest had anything to do with her decision to kill herself.
    1
  10096. Alan Shepard took that video. It's Apollo 14, and that's part of the 2nd EVA's 16mm film clip from the DAC.
    1
  10097.  @ArKritz84  I was actually just answering the original poster. But, yeah, your response was incorrect. The two most immediate ways you can tell are the high quality image (not a TV signal, must be film), and the big S-band dish mounted on the ground (only present on Apollo 12 and 14).
    1
  10098. Yet, she waited a year before the straw broke? And, sure, with her lengthy arrest history, felony term in prison, all kinds of troubles, and a career at the "dance club" (yeah, that kind), abandoning her family more than a decade ago (including a 6 month old son and another son), to live a life of crime and drugs, um, ok, she was stressed.
    1
  10099.  @soniamartin2007  YOU SAID: "But you cannot see any satellites orbiting the earth" == In the right lighting conditions, you can see many of them them with your naked eye. You can see even more of them with a decent telescopic lens. YOU SAID: "not even radio-telescopes are able to detect them, which is curious." == Radio telescopes? What the hell? I mean, I wouldn't even know how to respond to that. Radio telescopes are to receive radio signals from FAR FAR FAR away. They were used to receive signals from the moon during Apollo. They are used to receive radio waves from deep space. Why would anybody use a radio telescope to try to receive signals from stuff in Earth orbit, which can be received with a regular antenna? Are there even radio telescopes that can track objects going 17,000 mph horizontally? (I really don't even know.) Bottom line, what on Earth are you talking about?
    1
  10100. Do you find it at all coincidental that everyone who has adult reading and writing skills disagrees with you, and everyone who operates at a 2nd grader level in reading and writing agrees with you? No? "Miss Carrage"? Is that like, "Miss Delaware" in a beauty pageant? And, what's a "carrage"? Sorry, the rest of what you wrote is so wrong, I wouldn't even know how to start, but, I'll try. You have confused the due process of law with an arrest. There is no burden of proof required to arrest somebody. The side of the road isn't a courtroom. The cop is not the judge and jury. Nobody has ever claimed that an arrest was a "condemnation" or even proof of guilt. An arrest is just an arrest, not a conviction. You might have had a shot at understanding some of these concepts if you didn't drop out of school in the 3rd grade, but, since you did, this is why you believe these amazingly wrong things that you believe. The "rest of us" do not agree with you, and we choose to live in a society where the police have less power, and the due process of the legal system has the real power. You apparently want to skip the court systems altogether, and declare that the police are all-powerful, and that an arrest is the same as a conviction.
    1
  10101.  @stgeorgeist  See, next to your bed, there's that button that says "nurse call." Press it. A nurse will come down the hall shortly. Have her put the TV on Wheel of Fortune for you. It's a classic favorite for those suffering from dementia. Whatever you believe you're saying, um, sorry, it's really not even understandable, and it's time you give it up.
    1
  10102. How on EARTH did you suddenly insert the word "president" in there? If you want to debate what's worse, atheism or slavery, well, it depends on the context. Today, sure, it's easier to be an atheist than it was to be a slave 160 years ago. But, if we go back another couple hundred years, at least slaves were allowed to live. Atheists were killed by the church for being atheists. It's all a matter of what year you're talking about.
    1
  10103. We might never know who, because the channel was deleted. Why? Because of a legal Freedom of Information Act request. When? 2.5 years later, which was 1.5 years after she was already dead.
    1
  10104. Are you under the impression that the astronauts were going through these regions without a spacecraft?
    1
  10105. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Sorry, but when every sentence you write is demonstrably wrong, there's really no hope for you.
    1
  10106. Just curious here... if it was a man at a playground... doing, ya know... would you go up and see if he needs any help?
    1
  10107. "I thought there was one who had to stay permanently in the lunar module for safety reasons" No, the third astronaut stayed in orbit. Not for safety. Because someone needed to fly the command module.
    1
  10108. So, the police have control over the Freedom of Information Act now? smh
    1
  10109.  @michaelhalaby6138  Well, not in its current form. Right now, they only have funding to put people on the moon for about a month, then come back home. But, yes, like all governmental entities, they're always going back to congress to ask for more money to do more things. So, we'll see what they decide. But, please understand that putting a lander on the moon with enough provisions to last a few weeks is quite a different thing than to actually build a sustainable base there. When colonies were funded for sailing across the ocean and building a new community on the other side of the world, they only needed enough food/water/air/shelter/etc. to last for the voyage. Then, once they got there, they used the natural resources to live on. They'd hunt and fish and grow crops and build houses, etc. The moon has none of that. So, we're talking about a project many orders of magnitude larger in order to set up any kind of permanent presence. All of that would need to be built. And, they'd need resupply missions constantly.
    1
  10110.  @therealzilch  Yeah, but, Homer was an astronaut who went into space.
    1
  10111. But, would a lifeguard have even helped anything? This happened after dark, when nobody was around. Should they staff a lifeguard at a pool after dark when there's nobody in the pool? I mean, I realize that this "news" (not news) story is trying its hardest to make the resort look bad. But, they had alcohol levels in their blood over 0.2. She was 0.25. This particular resort has never been found with tainted alcohol. Read the lawsuit they have against the resort and against the travel agency that booked the resort. Pretty weak, if you ask me.
    1
  10112.  @kevin49ification  Can you name any resorts who staff lifeguards at pools after they are closed for the night?
    1
  10113.  @kevin49ification  Well, that's a fine way to completely not answer the question. As for your comments about a security guard doing rounds, hey, how long do you think they were in there? She couldn't have been in that pool very long, a matter of minutes. In 6 minutes, you have brain death. She was still breathing when they pulled her out. So, she was clearly in that pool less than 6 minutes. He was found splashing around, not face down (the "news" report differs from the claims in the lawsuit). Anyway, look, you clearly are just like every other person out there who just wants to shift blame away. You have not made a single comment, not one, putting any blame on them for getting so ripped that they had blood alcohol levels above 0.2 (she was at a 0.25). This incident took place FOUR HOURS after the bartender was serving them the drinks that he talks about in this video. (Mighty convenient that the "news" story doesn't mention that.) Mighty amazing that not a single other person in the resort had suffered from the "tainted alcohol" that's being alleged, not ever. This resort has never been found with tainted alcohol. The lawsuit doesn't even claim that it has. The lawsuit is trying to claim that it was tainted, despite that there was absolutely no record of this resort being found with any of such alcohol. And, this "news" (not news) story had to resort to talking about tainted alcohol at OTHER RESORTS in order to make this story. Did you catch that? The people who were found with tainted alcohol in this "news" (not news) story didn't even stay at this particular resort. But, you're not really talking about that. You apparently expect a lifeguard 24/7, even if it's after dark when the pool is closed. Or, you expect security guards to make rounds more frequently than the few minutes that she was in the water. Please tell me, EXACTLY how much are you willing to pay for your vacations, such that you expect round-the-clock lifeguards at pools that are closed, and/or enough security guards to check the pool (and presumably everywhere else) every 2 minutes? Is there EVER a point in your mind when people are responsible for their own actions? Or, is everything someone else's fault, always? And, given that the family is also suing the Florida based company that booked the resort for them (stating that they should have known that the five star resort had tainted alcohol, despite never in history of ever being found with tainted alcohol), do you find this reasonable also? It's the booking company's fault that she drank too much? The premise of their lawsuit essentially boils down to the concept that this resort had ordered alcohol from the same supplier as other resorts ordered alcohol from (and those other resorts had been caught with tainted alcohol), therefore THIS resort must have had tainted alcohol. How did she get a 0.25 alcohol content in her blood? Who knows, but it's not her fault, right? Why didn't the blood tests show any methanol in her system (which is what would show up if it was tainted)? Who knows, but it was tainted anyway, right? Of course, I cannot say what happened, I wasn't there, she's dead, and he's not talking. But, how's this for a possible scenario? Two youngsters went to Mexico, got all excited to be there, got ripped, went back to the pool after dark, either jumped in or fell in, she inhaled too much water that eventually killed her days later, he hit his head, and they all know they won't get a dime out of anybody under those circumstances, so he clams up, says he went black (even though not a single other guest drinking that alcohol went black), and now they're suing anybody they can. And, I know it doesn't mean everything, but, Jeeezzzzuuusss H Christ, the best (and only) video images they can get of this wholesome young victim is at 7:03 while she's gyrating like a drunken party girl? Good grief. So, I'll ask you again, can you name another resort that staffs lifeguards around the clock, even if the pool is closed? And, to respond to your statements, can you name another resort that makes enough rounds with their security guards such that there is never a 5 minute gap between visiting every spot that someone can die? And, again, at what point, in your mind, is someone ever responsible for their own actions? Is that what you want in life? It's always someone else's fault, and nobody is ever responsible for drinking themselves into oblivion?
    1
  10114.  @kevin49ification  YOU SAID: "im not talking about the lawsuit and wether they have a case or not or wether the alcohol was tainted or not." == Yes, and I specified that. You clearly didn't read what I wrote. YOU SAID: "If the pool was really closed even if security made rounds every 30 minutes, he'd be there to ask them to leave, not babysit them." == Hey, fucking dumbass, if you read what I wrote, I addressed that already. They were in that pool less than 6 minutes. Spare me the "every 30 minute" comment. You are clearly not even reading. YOU SAID: "im just saying there should be someone doing such unless the pool is locked and they jumped over a gate at that point nothing could have been done. The percentage of resorts that do have security doing rounds that include the pools doesnt really change anything, so i dont see why youre so focused on what most places do" == Because you're expecting this resort to have done something that no resort anywhere on the planet does. Good grief. Next time, read the reply before you answer. Good grief. If you want to spew stupidity everywhere, just say so, don't pretend to actually have a dialog if you're not going to listen. You didn't answer a single question I asked. You ignored everything I wrote. I already addressed the exact points you made, but, since you didn't read it, you spewed stupidity anyway. Hey, dummy, you don't get to shift the blame onto the resort, without even reading what the lawsuit is claming. Nobody likes assholes like you. Nobody.
    1
  10115.  @kevin49ification  You aren't listening, and you refuse to answer a single question or challenge. You don't know what you're talking about. You know NOTHING.
    1
  10116. Um, yeah, if you work at one of the laser ranging facilities that still does it.
    1
  10117.  @theeraphatsunthornwit6266  Dewdrop, if you're going to pretend like the USA sent 3 secret missions up there to place 3 reflectors there on unmanned craft instead of Apollo, then you need to explain how they managed to design/build/launch these secret rockets and landers without anybody seeing, or saying anything.
    1
  10118. And, how do you think an arrest works? They phone you to make an appointment?
    1
  10119. Citation for a misdemeanor? Huh? And, sorry, but cuffs go with the arrest.
    1
  10120. Nice way to duck the fact that you don't have the foggiest understanding of what an infraction or crime is.
    1
  10121. Is that how it goes if someone robs your house? Do you just say, "Oh well, I don't want the police to pursue the thieves, because they need to only deal with real criminals"?
    1
  10122. Oh, you're a total genius alright. You opened by asking about the camera panning with the lunar module. You now reply, quoting Hasselblads? Um, sorry, dewdrop, but, the Hasselblads were still cameras, not the TV/video cameras. For the surface TV cameras, they used Westinghouse for the first few missions, and RCA for the last three. No Hasselblads. You are apparently very proud to know nothing. And, you still didn't address the main issue that I brought up... it took you FIFTY YEARS before you decided to check???
    1
  10123.  @radiomanz117  "There was supposed to be a 5 to 8 sec delay from Earth." No, dewdrop. The delay is 1.3 seconds. You have no idea what you're talking about.
    1
  10124. Huh? No "media" did anything to her, at least not when she was alive. The arrest video wasn't made public until 2.5 years after the incident, which was also 1.5 years after her suicide. What EXACTLY do you think "the media" is accountable for in this case?
    1
  10125. Would you go up to a guy cranking it at a playground in front of kids and have a conversation?
    1
  10126. Dewdrop, I'm sorry that you understand absolutely nothing about the space program, but, why should the rest of the world suffer for your own lack of knowledge?
    1
  10127. Dewdrop, YOU are the one denying the moon landings because "Disney would have had a resort there." After that train wreck of absolute cluelessness about how space programs work, you hardly get to claim any high ground here.
    1
  10128. Step one: demonstrate that you don't have any understanding of space programs or their economics. Step two: accuse thousands of people of being criminals who would spend the rest of their lives in prison if your uninformed opinions were actually correct. Step three: act offended when called out for such silly nonsense. Step four: run for the hills when it's demonstrated that you don't know anything about the topic you're blindly rejecting.
    1
  10129. Can you remind me, which of the latest conspiracy videos tells you to complain about networks not getting a "live feed"? Note: no network even asked for the "live feed" that you're referring to, because no network or publicly owned television could display the Apollo format. The video always needed to go through a machine to take Apollo's format and convert it to standard NTSC format. This took a tiny fraction of a second. So, yeah, what the networks got wasn't the raw feed, but, the converted feed a microsecond later. And, your beef is what?
    1
  10130. Oh, you're very descriptive and responsive. Yeah. I'm sure you're a true genius.
    1
  10131. You are also overestimating the chances that a leg hit would stop him (if you even manage to hit a moving leg). Most of the time, a leg hit isn't actually stopping anybody. This isn't the movies.
    1
  10132. Warning shots? Do you know of a single firearms training program in the entire country that advocates warning shots? Look, it's quite clear that you have absolutely no firearm knowledge. Why do you feel qualified to even hold an opinion?
    1
  10133. Accountable for what, exactly? I don't understand.
    1
  10134. The police camera video wasn't released until November 24, 2023, as the result of a legal FOIA request. How do you suppose they can block it, after she had been dead for more than 1.5 years? They can only block FOIA requests for open investigations. This matter had been closed for over a year, because she was dead.
    1
  10135.  @glnga  And, you believe that the hat and gloves were the only things she had in that jacket? Why? Because she said so?
    1
  10136.  @glnga  Good grief. She continued to rob from Walgreens immediately after the incident in this video. She had a track record. And, yeah, giving up a hat and gloves is an easy way to get out the door, hoping that they wouldn't ask her to dump the rest of her pockets. This is a woman who found meth to be a better thing in her life than her own two young children that she left behind. Let's get real here: if the only thing she was stealing was a hat and gloves, she wouldn't have come back for more stuff. But, nope, instead, she figured Walgreens was a nice easy target. She got away with it, and the cops even bought her stuff. So, she went back until she was arrested again. How do you know a drug addict is lying? Her lips are moving. And, yeah, if she continued to get a record, rather than being let off lightly, she may have been in prison. If not for the incident in the video, it would have been at least additional ammunition.
    1
  10137.  @glnga  And, you're barely literate. No wonder you don't understand anything.
    1
  10138.  @Jtyy345  Virtually everyone owns shares of Walgreens. It's not up to you to decide anything about who should steal or not, or how much. And, let's get real here: there was a lot more stolen stuff in that jacket that she never showed. And, given that she continued to steal from Walgreens right after this incident, I think it's pretty safe to say she's a "regular" there (stealing). Besides, do you just walk into stores and take a few items and never pay for them? They are big companies, therefore you're free to take anything you want, up to a certain dollar amount?
    1
  10139. It was probably a legal FOIA request. And, please explain exactly what you believe the PD is accountable for?
    1
  10140. "how astronaut survived in 170-180 C is also question" By not being there during those temperatures. As I explained already in another thread, the astronauts landed early in the lunar morning, before it ever got that hot. "also their craft survived solar winds which can burn alive is another big question" You have no understanding of the solar wind.
    1
  10141. "The best science that our planet produced." Yet, you know more about it than they did, right? You know that the technology didn't actually work, right? You said you know it was fake because of the technology, right? (Or, at least that's what it seemed you were saying, with your 2nd grader level of literacy.) So, the "best science" in history didn't actually work? That's what you're saying? And, all of the engineers were unaware? Politicians knew it wouldn't work, but the engineers thought it would? Um, how does that go, in your mind? Is that really your position here?
    1
  10142. "l can put things across in any order that I think" Yeah, you sure can. You can words make order any think across country technology person some maybe basic is revealed.
    1
  10143. Dewdrop, what difference does it make about whether we have missions on a regular basis or not? Apollo wasn't sustainable. It costed way too much money. Why should the veracity of Apollo be based upon what YOU think history should or shouldn't have done? Why do you not care about EVIDENCE, and all you offer is silly conjecture? Why won't you answer about what YOU know about this "missing technology" that the actual engineers never knew?
    1
  10144. I don't really understand your comment. She was arrested because she did it in the public eye.
    1
  10145. Huh? No news station even covered this until the arrest video was released on November 24, 2023. She died two years ago. Nobody saw it while she was alive.
    1
  10146.  @nimo6972  Hilarious!! She gave up her career and family about a decade ago to live a life of drugs and crime. She did a felony prison term in Florida about 6 years ago. She had an arrest record a mile long. You think this arrest would make any difference? Her landlord and neighbors said she was a stripper at the local club, who also did "private" transactions in her apartment. I'd hardly think this arrest would matter for her "job." Yeah, but you keep on pretending to know things you don't. You're a real hero.
    1
  10147. All freedoms have limits. The freedom of speech doesn't allow you to yell "fire" in a movie theater (unless there's a fire). The freedom to bear arms is limited to not being machine guns, and not by felons, and not by children. And, the freedom to express yourself doesn't include putting on a sex show in front of children.
    1
  10148. Huh? Doesn't seem like he was the one needing any blessings. Who blessed her when she died?
    1
  10149. Naw, unlike you, they probably know the real story, instead of this highly modified version Inside Edition presents.
    1
  10150. Probably because it was a legal FOIA request. The police can only block those for so long. After the case is closed for a long enough time, they can't block it any longer. They managed to keep this video private for 2.5 years, which was 1.5 years after she died. But, eventually, I guess they just can't block it any longer.
    1
  10151. The police didn't post it. They kept it private for 2.5 years. But, eventually, they couldn't block a legal FOIA request to release it. She had been dead for 1.5 years, so they could no longer block the release of the video.
    1
  10152. But, in reality, they ARE. Well, not "rigid." But, the fabrics do have a limit to how much they stretch. It's not like a rubber band that just keeps stretching until it breaks. The easiest analogy I can give you is that it's a bit more like an elastic belt (though, even that analogy isn't perfect, but close enough). An elastic belt stretches, but, once it hits a certain limit, it just doesn't stretch any further. Spacesuits are like that. They do "puff up" to a certain limit. But, after that, the fabric just doesn't stretch any further.
    1
  10153. Huh? How they handled what? You just acknowledged that she should be arrested, so, ok, that part was handled fine. You then spewed some stuff about socioeconomics and collective society. But, you mentioned nothing whatsoever about what you think anybody actually did wrong.
    1
  10154. No, fuckpig, I'm done with you. Go ahead and enhance your delusion and declare victory because I won't further engage a fucking clueless moron, and convince yourself that you know things you don't know. Be my guest. Your brain is flushed too far down the toilet for me to reach, and I choose not to even try. Circumstantial evidence is permitted, and fingerprints/DNA are classified as circumstantial. Believe it, or not, your choice. Done. Out. Over.
    1
  10155. Well, none of this went viral until the arrest video was released on November 24, 2023. So, it didn't cause her suicide in March of 2022.
    1
  10156. They didn't, dewdrop. The Freedom of Information Act did. And, it wasn't released until 1.5 years after she died.
    1
  10157. Is this a joke? Aim at somewhere besides the chest? Have you ever used a firearm in your life? Have you ever taken a firearms training course?
    1
  10158.  @yugiohmane4716  Huh? What ARE you talking about? The dad didn't need to warn anybody. But, he did, and 3 seconds is plenty of time. Are you actually taking the side of the criminal?
    1
  10159. No, she was not convicted.
    1
  10160. I'll bet that the family knows darned well not to trust a single word out of Inside Edition (where facts don't matter). And, they probably know that her suicide had absolutely nothing to do with this incident.
    1
  10161.  @marksprague1280  For clarity, Apollo returned samples first in the early landings. The Soviets returned samples during and after the Apollo program's mid-late landings.
    1
  10162.  @marksprague1280  Right. Their first attempt (Luna 15) during Apollo 11 crashed into a lunar mountain. They had a couple more Luna sample gathering missions that succeeded in the next couple of years during the Apollo missions. Then, they had a successful sample return mission a few years after Apollo was over.
    1
  10163. They were both offered a plea deal. Exchange a guilty plea for no death penalty. He took the deal. She did not (despite that she had already confessed twice).
    1
  10164. More proof positive that nobody who has "Truth" in their nicknames have any idea what that word means.
    1
  10165. "Yea he tried robbing but does that immediately justify the use of deadly force? the robber did not flash a gun or knife." Huh? If you freeze at 0:08 in the video and go frame by frame with the highest res copy available, you can see that the carjacker points the gun directly at the cop's head. It's grainy, but, you can make it out. And, you see the gun on the ground at 5:02 next to a piece of 2x4 piece of wood. How do you think it got there? If it was safely holstered, do you think it just jumped out on its own? Or, was it because the criminal pulled the gun? "we need to see how the whole situation escalated" Because the criminal pulled out a gun. "and the officer responds with deadly force" Because a gun had been pointed at his head. A half second later, and he could have been killed. "However, if the criminal was unaware that anyone was inside" He could see the driver through the windshield, dewdrop. And, how does this work, in your mind? Do you go up to cars that you think are unoccupied, while wearing a balaclava ski mask in the middle of a Kentucky summer, and pull a gun? Really? And, by the way, his dad gave a couple of interviews. In one interview, he said that his son (the carjacker) was going to see who was in the car (i.e. he knew someone was inside). In another interview, he said that his son "definitely didn't think anybody was in the car." Now, do you suppose that the attorney told the dad that it's a really bad idea to admit that the carjacker knew someone was in the car? "So imo, the robber was just trying to steal the vehicle." While pulling a gun, wearing a balaclava ski mask. "Since it seems the robber did in-fact was not aware anyone was inside the vehicle in the video." What planet do you live on? Again, who goes up to a car with nobody in it, while wearing a balaclava ski mask, pulling a gun? "The robber was not trying to pose a danger to the drivers life" Then why'd he point a gun at the cop's head? "since the robber had not intentions to hurt anyone in the car" Then why'd he point a gun at the cop's head? "because they had no idea anyone was in the car." Then why wear a balaclava ski mask in the middle of a Kentucky summer? "So then the officer could not of fired their firearm" Could not of? Good gods. "Could of" isn't a verb, dewdrop. I mean, you've been making grammar and spelling mistakes non-stop. But, c'mon. This is getting ridiculous. "thinking their life was in danger." Oh, so it's the cop's fault, huh? Not the carjacker? Sorry, dewdrop, but your obvious hatred bleeds through every word you type. "I guess one possible flaw to my opinion is that whether it was reasonably possible to assume the vehicle was occupied or not." Yeah, that's one of many flaws in your opinion. "Just because a vehicle is on the road doesnt not mean its vacant as we saw im the vehicle." Again, even if you were unaware that the criminal pulled the gun, explain why he is wearing a balaclava while pulling the door open on a vehicle that he thinks isn't occupied? "Up to the court to decide." Yeah, let's hope. Otherwise, there's a risk that this could actually see a jury, in which case there might be people like you on the jury, which would be a catastrophe.
    1
  10166. 1) Yes, police arrest couples all the time. Why would you believe they don't?
    1
  10167. 2) The police report only mentions women's names that called about this incident. The witness that took video of the event itself was also a woman.
    1
  10168. 3) Police didn't post the video online. It was a result of a legal Freedom of Information Act request. The police blocked the release until November 24, 2023. She died 2 years ago. So, if you're under the impression that the video caused her to commit suicide, you clearly do not know the timeline of events. Nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive.
    1
  10169. 4) You have confused an infraction with a crime. Police can give a warning for an infraction. But, for a crime, they perform an arrest. We don't want cops to be the judge and jury for a crime. But, for an infraction, such as speeding, fishing without a license, parking in no parking zone, etc., then yes, the police have that discretion.
    1
  10170. 5) Yes, of course police know about the criminal history. That's why this woman was going to get arrested either way. I mean, the video taken by a witness was already plenty of evidence to confirm that her story about a quiet and discreet act with nobody around was completely bogus. But, yes, with her mile long arrest record, her felony history, time served in prison, and open warrants for numerous failures to appear in court, yes, she was going to get arrested no matter what else happened.
    1
  10171. 6) It is shameful that Inside Edition and YouTube make money from stuff like this, however, comparing it to mental wellbeing is wrong, because, as I explained, she was long dead before anybody saw this video.
    1
  10172. 7) If she had bothered to show up for court for this arrest, the judge could have ordered her some counseling to get that wellbeing that you're talking about. But, she never showed up. Instead, she attempted to change her name a few times to evade police (from this arrest and the millions of other arrests).
    1
  10173. 8) You do know her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club, right? You do know that her neighbors said that she also did "private" cash encounters out of her apartment with numerous men, right? It doesn't really affect anything else I mentioned, but, it does affect the notion that she was "shamed" by being exposed to the public, given that she did the exact same stuff every day at the club, that she was doing on this beach.
    1
  10174.  @rimlandrealist7679  Well, then next time, don't just go from thread to thread and say, "no, I don't believe it," instead of asking for evidence. There's plenty of evidence out there, dewdrop. Just look for it.
    1
  10175. Yes, but, it wouldn't have mattered, because one of the "audience" recorded it and showed it to the police. But, yeah, she certainly had a long enough criminal history and time in prison to know that she should remain silent. But, my best guess is that she figured it was a better move to try to cry her way out of it before they looked her up and would find all of the open warrants.
    1
  10176. Shocker. People drink too much while on vacation at a resort.
    1
  10177. "Why isn’t it something that happens regularly now" The Apollo missions weren't sustainable. They costed more than the gross national product of 80% of the countries on Earth. Even with the USA's economy being, by far, the largest on Earth, it still costed, at its peak, about 5% of the entire federal budget in hard costs, and about another 2.5% in soft costs and international support. There's no way all of those other countries were going to keep their support endlessly. And, the public had very little appetite for spending 5% of their tax money to send 12 people to walk on the moon for a few hours each.
    1
  10178. "why won’t the other so-called moon landings as highly publicised as the one in 1969?" Look at how massively dishonest you are. You don't know answers to simple questions, yet, you feel confident enough to reject the program? Do you walk into the operating room and declare brain surgery to be fake, because you don't understand it? No? If you know so little about Apollo that simple questions like this are beyond your grasp, why in the world would you think you know enough to accuse thousands of people of being criminals? Dewdrop, NASA doesn't choose how much press the missions get. The public does. The public expresses interest, and the press publicizes stuff. When the public stops watching, and turns on reruns of "I Dream of Jeannie" instead of watching Apollo missions, yeah, the networks stop covering it, and give the audience what they want.
    1
  10179. The era in which people like you couldn't spell if your lives depended on it?
    1
  10180. Huh? Are you under the impression that he was killed? What?
    1
  10181. Um, no. The driver is fine. His father was killed, but, that was before the chase even started. The driver murdered his father and threw him into a lake, which is why/how this chase even began.
    1
  10182. The police blocked the release of the arrest video for 2.5 years. She was long gone by the time anybody saw it. This arrest had nothing to do with her departure.
    1
  10183. Who? The guy who also accuses somebody of murdering her? The guy who doesn't think cops should do their jobs?
    1
  10184. He shot TWO officers.
    1
  10185. Who shamed her, and how?
    1
  10186.  @occhamite  Hundreds of total hours of mission video, yes. Hundreds of hours of surface EVA video, no. The entire surface time throughout all 6 landings was only a bit over 80 hours. And, not all of those were on video (i.e. rover traverses from site to site, and setup time).
    1
  10187. There are lots and lots of UFO sightings. The Navy, Air Force, etc., all acknowledge it. Nobody on Earth can deny UFO sightings. But, that's merely because of the definition of "UFO." It merely means "unidentified flying object." I mean, even a bird, if not properly identified, is an unidentified flying object. Rival countries produce aircraft that are hard to identify/track. Those are unidentified. But, alien craft?? Um, no. There's never been anything ever presented that is a credible piece of evidence for aliens. And, the recent (a few months ago) news wave about some of the "UFO" footage that was released... it's just a product of the way infrared cameras work. They released a couple of videos, one was a bird, and another was just an airplane, but, in the infrared, from tracking cameras going the opposite direction, make it seem like they're going insane speeds and can't be identified. It's just plain silly.
    1
  10188.  @zenmeister451  Pffttt. Sorry, I'm not chasing you down this rabbit hole of insanity. I could sit here and write up all of the math and how that equipment works, and why, yes, pilots can be very confused. But, what's more telling than any of this is that they just release the segments they released, and not any of the stuff immediately afterward. It's pure nonsense. Ask yourself why they cut the footage when they did. Beyond that, not that I'd appeal to someone else's authority, but, I just don't feel like trying to teach you how this stuff works... so, just go watch Thunderf00t's channel about those ridiculous "UFO" videos. Good grief.
    1
  10189.  @zenmeister451  Your standards of evidence are clearly non existent.
    1
  10190. Hubble doesn't have that kind of resolution from this range, not by a long shot. But, LRO does (because it was orbiting just about 12 miles above the lunar surface for most of its photos of the Apollo landing sites). The deniers simply reject the LRO photography. What makes you think they'd accept Hubble photography?
    1
  10191. Freedom of Information Act. But, it wasn't released until 1.5 years after she died.
    1
  10192. Everything you said... plus... one sentence from a court ruling from a different case in a different jurisdiction doesn't necessarily mean that the entire case was identical. There could be a million other factors not mentioned in that single sentence they're highlighting.
    1
  10193. Is that what you say when it's a man at a playground?
    1
  10194. Yes, they don't release the arrest videos while there's still an open investigation. Since it was 2.5 years later, and because she was already dead for 1.5 of those years, they had to release the arrest video on November 24, 2023. The investigation was closed for long enough, and there was no choice in the face of a legal FOIA request.
    1
  10195. Real estate agent? Because Inside Edition labeled her as that? She had given up real estate around a decade ago, in favor of living a life of drugs and crime. According to her landlord, she was a stripper at the local club. Neighbors also claimed she did "private" cash work in her apartment with numerous men.
    1
  10196. It came down to one upload? What? July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = her suicide. November 24, 2023 = the arrest video was released. So, um, no. I'd say it's a heck of a lot more likely that it was her felony term she already spent in a Florida prison about 6 years ago, and that she decided to continue her drug and crime spree when she got out. She tried changing her name a few times to evade the police, but, the courts wouldn't let her. She kept postponing by refusing to go to court for multiple arrests (including this one), and I imagine the weight of her life's failures kept adding up. I don't think it all came down to an upload that didn't even happen until long after she died.
    1
  10197. But, dewdrop, this story wasn't on YouTube before she died. So, why do you attribute YouTube to her suicide?
    1
  10198.  @DeputyNordburg  No. Aldrin controlled the camera's settings. But, the lanyard that dropped the MESA was outside the craft, next to the porch. Armstrong is the one who pulled the lanyard to open the MESA.
    1
  10199. Huh? How about looking at the photo archive?
    1
  10200. You clearly don't understand the term "baby daddy."
    1
  10201.  @syang7775  China's government space program website.
    1
  10202. Open investigations vs. closed ones. And, how exactly did the police cause this?
    1
  10203. I love the part when he downplays how much the director knows about what's going on during the case. But, a year or two ago, he was talking about how intimately involved he was with the case, and how confident he is with all of the facts and details. Oh, but now, he was just the director and didn't know what was going on.
    1
  10204. Don't hold your breath for Artemis 3 landing on the moon. They selected that hideously ridiculous SpaceX monstrosity for the lander, and it took them 5 years to change their minds. Meanwhile, I hear that the head of the NASA committee who selected SpaceX in the first place, now has a high paying job at SpaceX. Make of that what you will. But, anyway, they waited way too long to contract Blue for a different lander. And, it's doubtful that they can get the thing ready in time for Artemis 3. So, unless SpaceX gets their act together (not likely), there won't be a lander ready in time for Artemis 3. NASA is already backtracking and saying it might not be until Artemis 4 for a crewed landing.
    1
  10205. Well, that's probably good advice. But, in this case, it wouldn't have mattered. One of the witnesses recorded it and gave the video to the police. Plus, my guess is that, with her extensive criminal history, she probably knew not to talk, but, I imagine that they probably didn't want them looking up her open warrants, so, she maybe figured she could cry her way out of it before they searched the computer.
    1
  10206. Huh? That makes no sense whatsoever.
    1
  10207. And, what does that have to do with this video of someone getting arrested for committing a crime?
    1
  10208. The laws classify and break down various offenses. An offense is either an infraction (such as speeding, or parking in a handicap spot, or fishing without a license, etc.), or an offense is a crime (misdemeanor or felony). Indecent exposure is classified as a crime. She was arrested for committing the crime. We know she did so because she admitted it on camera (especially in the full version of the arrest video), and even apologized for it. We also know because multiple witnesses called the police, and one of them took video of the crime, and showed it to the police. Even the version she admitted to is already a crime, but, the video version doesn't match the version she's telling about a quiet act with nobody around. But, you go on and keep pretending to know things you don't. That's what you use YouTube for, right?
    1
  10209. Not the brightest bulb, eh?
    1
  10210.  frank brown  YOU SAID: "Surviveability of a trip to Mars and back is ZERO," == Pfffttt. So says who? YOU?? You're the barely literate crackpot who (from the other thread) thinks radio waves take 2 minutes to reach the moon, remember? You are fundamentally wrong about even a basic entry level understanding of these things. Why would you think you understand how survivable a mission to Mars is/isn't? YOU SAID: "and it's still debatable whether the moon landings were faked," == Nope. There is no "debate." There are just a bunch of crackpots like you, who don't understand anything about it, but declare it fake out of your complete ignorance. YOU SAID: "just to poke Russia in the eye." == Yup. And, why would they "fall for it" if it was a hoax? They tracked the Apollo missions to the moon and back with their radar, just as many countries did. They aimed their radio telescopes AT THE MOON and received the broadcasts, just like many countries did. But, the Soviets went even further than that. They actually sent up Luna 15 (unmanned probe) to the moon a couple of days before Apollo 11, which waited in orbit around the moon for Apollo 11 to get there and land. Then, when the astronauts were on the lunar surface, they commanded the Luna 15 lander to land in the Sea of Tranquility, with the intention of grabbing lunar samples and racing Apollo 11 home with the first samples from the moon. It failed, because it was a rushed mission, and they ended up making some mistakes, and Luna 15 crashed into a lunar mountain instead of a soft landing. But, the point is, they tracked Apollo 11 all the way to the moon (as well as dozens of other countries). So, how do you explain that? If this was all just an elaborate hoax that somehow bluffed the entire planet at the time, and still continues to bluff all of the world's space agencies in every country that has one, friendly or enemy, why would the Soviets fall for it? Why didn't they say, "hey, we tracked Apollo 11, and it never went to the moon!!"? Why not? Or, for that matter, why didn't Madagascar (they tracked Apollo also)? Canary Islands? Guam? Australia? Spain? UK? Mexico? Nigeria? Ascension Island? Bermuda? Turks and Caicos? Antigua? Etc.? The Soviets, the USA, and all of those other countries, and more, tracked Apollo with radar and/or radio telescopes. And, there were even some backyard amateurs around the world who had good enough dishes pointed at the moon which picked up Apollo's audio signals. How do you explain that? If it's all just a big "hoax" to "poke Russia in the eye," why would they (the Soviets) and any other country even fall for it? What do YOU know that they didn't? YOU SAID: "In 50 years surely technology would have improved enough to make a trip to the moon and back something of little consequence." == Um, no. Minute for minute, dollar for dollar, man for man, there has been no exploration in history that has been even remotely close to Apollo. If you adjust into today's dollars, the USA spent about $16 BILLION per person who walked on the moon. And, given that two were on the lunar surface at a time, this equates out to around $50 million per minute (in today's adjusted dollars). Yes, advancement in technology has reduced those costs. And, Artemis is not projected to cost anywhere near what Apollo costed (not that I trust the estimates, I'm just telling you what the projections are). But, sorry, rocket technology doesn't advance at the pace of computer technology. And, frankly, it can't ever advance at that pace, because rocketry depends on a hell of a lot of thermodynamic laws to operate. Even if you used modern technology to increase a rocket's efficiency to 99% (not going to happen, but, just hypothetically), yeah, it's still a massive undertaking to go to the moon. But, methinks you don't know anything about thermodynamics, so I'm wasting my time trying to reason with you. YOU SAID: "Yet here we are with even the Shuttle program shut down because of all the failures that resulted in catastrophic loss of life." == No, it was shut down because it reached the end of its serviceable life. They kept on flying after Challenger. They kept on flying after Columbia. Those failures didn't stop them. Congress stopped them by pulling the plug on the program. The space shuttle program started in 1972, and was stopped in 2011. That's 4 decades. How long does a program need to run before it's ok (in your mind) to pull the plug? Oh, but no, in your mind, that wasn't long enough, eh? And, they stopped it because of the loss of life (even though they kept flying after the losses of life)?? Good gods, what a dummy.
    1
  10211.  frank brown  So, you didn't read what I wrote, but I'm wrong about what I wrote? That's your level of intelligence here? See, that's the thing about crackpots like you, you never address the answers to your own questions/statements. You come to an open comments forum, spew stupidity everywhere, pretend you know things you don't know, then when someone presents you with stuff you can't deal with, you declare victory, change topics, and run for the hills. Yeah, go ahead and block me, crackpot. You're obviously not listening to anything anybody tells you. You're a lost cause. Your brain is a one-way street, and you're proud of it.
    1
  10212.  @critthought2866  It really was, though. They went from Apollo 8 to Apollo 11 in months. And, even the lander on Apollo 10 was too heavy (well, sort of). I think Stara is right. It was extremely ambitious and optimistic to think that it could be done in that timeframe. But, yup, they did it. It's one of the reasons I'm so fascinated by Apollo. They really put that thing together in a hurry, and made it work. Now, you have stuff like a single fighter plane (F35) which originated in the 1990s, didn't fly a single prototype until about 2006, and wasn't actually put into production until 2015. And, the entire lifecycle budget is in the trillions. One plane. But, they whipped Apollo together the program in 1961, and started landing on the moon in 1969. Absolutely phenomenal. Today, we can't even get countries to agree on wifi standards, but, back then, they MADE it work. It's only matched by wartime efforts, like mobilizing countries in WWII, and shifting the entire industrial complex from building cars and refrigerators, to making planes and tanks, basically overnight.
    1
  10213.  @critthought2866  Yup, all too easy to assume people are denying Apollo when the wording can be confused... I took it as he was fascinated by Apollo, not denying it.
    1
  10214. And, yet, you followed this correct thread up later with additional threads showing your true colors after all. Good grief.
    1
  10215. Common sense? What? So, when NASA gives you the high and low temperatures of the lunar surface (high noon and lunar overnight), you accept what they say. When NASA says they only landed in the lunar morning (after the super lows, and before the super highs), you reject what they say? That's your "common sense"?
    1
  10216. TWICE, I addressed your assertion about the temperatures on the moon. And, TWICE, you ignored it. The temperatures on the moon were YOUR subject. Now, are you going to acknowledge that the surface temperatures were not a problem for Apollo, or not? I'm not playing the Gish Gallop game with you. Finish that subject before starting a new one.
    1
  10217. 2nd reply in a row here, just for additional clarity: A lunar day = 708 hours. Longest Apollo stay on the moon = 74 hours. They landed at the Earth equivalent of 6:30am, and departed at 9:00am of the same morning. The high noon temperatures or the overnight temperatures had NO EFFECT on Apollo, because Apollo was never there for the temperatures you're complaining about. Will you acknowledge this or not?
    1
  10218. Well, then you'd be a dead US Army Medic, if you had your attitude for very many of these encounters. If the scene isn't secure, and you immediately jump to aid someone instead of deal with the crazed woman screaming, and potentially anybody else who was going to jump out of the woodwork to continue where Mark left off, yeah, someone is going to need to give YOU that same medical aid.
    1
  10219. Yet, you don't say what they should have done differently?
    1
  10220. It's not that simple. Our infrastructure cannot handle the size of waves of patients that come from your strategy. And, no, it's not "lower risk" to use natural immunity as a strategy. Vaccines are a far superior strategy, with far less risk than taking your chances on whether or not COVID will kill you. I mean, your strategy could actually work fine, if the population consisted of only people under 30 years old. But, people in their 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, do not fare well just gambling on a natural immunity strategy.
    1
  10221.  @tommoore9080  Oh, sorry, I thought you were trying to make a valid case. Why didn't you just say you're a nutjob from the start? Hey, dummy, prove everything you just wrote via medical science journals. YouTube comments are where crackpots and clowns pretend to understand medicine better than the entire world's experts. Anybody who has anything REAL to offer, offers it via the scientific method.
    1
  10222. Yes, it's easy to get a gun in the USA. Most people get them legally. But, if someone has a felony record, and isn't allowed to buy one legally, it's easy to get guns illegally instead. The Taser is the less aggressive of the options. There's no requirement to ask for help from other officers for a mere problem with a woman who is upset that the store thought she stole a piece of chicken and bread rolls. Whether one officer or three officers, if they didn't use the Taser, they were going to have to use physical force to get the woman out of the car and onto the ground. She refused to comply, and told the officer that he'd need to Tase her before she would ever cooperate. He could have manhandled her instead, I suppose, but, that's a lot more intrusive, and more likely to result in injuries, than just hitting her with the Taser. That's what Tasers are for: to help force compliance when someone refuses to comply.
    1
  10223.  @eagleeye3946  There have been many studies done about whether a Taser affects a pacemaker, and they conclude that it does not. But, even if that was correct, there will always be some sort of argument about which is the less aggressive method. People will always argue that it's dangerous to manhandle the woman also. In Jacksonville, the murder and violent crime capitol of the state, it's quite a waste of resources to ask for additional personnel to deal with an irate woman at a grocery store. It sounds nice and everything, asking for more people. But, it's certainly not required, and I'm glad that such a minor thing didn't waste a whole bunch of time from numerous officers.
    1
  10224. Huh? No major media outlet ever even covered the arrest until she was dead 1.5 years.
    1
  10225. YOU SAID: "Ha ha this was a great story. Did you know there was an “escape slide”? The astronauts could “evacuate” to an underground safe room! There’s news footage of it!" == Yeah, there were a few different versions of the escape mechanism throughout Apollo. So what? YOU SAID: "Those astronauts never left the launch pad! Watch “James Burke demonstrates Apollo Saturn emergency precautions”" == Um, yeah, I fail to understand how you can make the bridge between the fact that there was an escape mechanism, and believing that they actually used it. Got any actual evidence? YOU SAID: "It’s all been a LIE to establish technological dominance." == Pfftttt. So, the entire world was dumb enough to fall for it?? But, YOU are the smart one? YOU SAID: "Please explain in detail how these men filmed their take-off from the moon" == Pffttt. Do you think you're the first person in history to ask this trivial question? Do you think the thousands of communications engineers and technicians who designed and built the billion dollar communications network for Apollo were all too dumb to wonder how the video was taken? No? None of those thousands of people in those countries ever thought to themselves, "hey, wait a minute, we never built anything to capture that video!!!"?? No? They all just watched those videos in a complete stupor, failing to realize that they never built anything capable of capturing what we see on the screen? That's how your mind works? == The camera is on the rover. It is remotely controlled by Ed Fendell in Houston. The dish on the rover receives the remote control commands to pan/tilt the camera left/right/up/down, as well as zooming in/out, and adjustments to the contrast/brightness. The rover's batteries had enough charge to drive the rover about 50 miles. But, they never drove it more than about half of that. They also used the batteries to power the communications equipment and camera. YOU SAID: "and how they took off from the moon and traveled back to the earth." == Pffttt. Do you expect an aerospace engineering class over YouTube comments? Here's the short version: The lunar module had an ascent engine. They separated from the descent stage, and used the ascent engine to climb into lunar orbit. The craft had a rendezvous radar (the dish on the top center of the lander's ascent stage) that tracked the command module, and the computer guided the trajectory to meet up with the command module. They transferred everything from the lunar module to the command module, then jettisoned the lander to go back and crash into the moon. They lit up the service module's SPS engine to break out of lunar orbit. And, from there, they basically "fell" all the way back to Earth. YOU SAID: "Then I won't be an idiot anymore, I'll be smart - like you." == Something tells me that there's no hope for that to ever happen. YOU SAID: "Why didn't they take that vehicle TO moon in the first place?" == They did. What are you talking about? YOU SAID: "If you have data or evidence that they had the technology and the fuel to play with the dune buggy" == Um, no. There was no "fuel" (unless you're counting an electric charge as "fuel," which would be ok if that's what you mean... but I think that's not what you mean). Battery powered cars had been around since the early 1800s. They reached the peak of popularity in the early 1900s. I don't understand why you're so surprised. YOU SAID: "they assembled on the moon then propel themselves from the moon back to earth- please enlighten me." == Um, what? The lunar rover was electric. But, they used rockets to get back home. YOU SAID: "Is the lunar lander in the Smithsonian in Washington D.C. a replica" == No. Not a replica. They originally intended to fly it in space, but they ended up changing the order of things a bit, and it never flew. The Apollo program was moving at a remarkable pace, and if all of the components weren't ready on time for the next mission, they tended to juggle things around. That one you're asking about ended up getting skipped altogether (never flown), and they flew some other missions instead. The museum ended up dressing it up a bit to look a lot more like the ones that actually went to the moon. It's not functional. It has no guidance computer. It has no radar. It actually wasn't even intended to carry people, so it lacks a ton of life support stuff. But, they polished it up and put it on display. There are a few others in a few other museums in various stages of completion. When congress canceled some of the missions, they ended up with a few extra landers in various stages of completion. They scrapped the ones that were barely started. But, the ones that were closer to completion were polished up and put into museums. YOU SAID: "or did they bring that back with them in that little metal can they splashed down in?" == If you want to be taken seriously, ask serious questions. If you want to make an ass of yourself, keep on doing what you're doing.
    1
  10226.  J Calhoun  Just FYI, the Wiki page on "Lunar Module" accurately displays which lunar module is at which location.
    1
  10227. What a pile of complete nonsense. YOU SAID: "Sorry folks." == No, you're not sorry. You love to pretend to know things you don't know. You're proud of ignorance, and you're not sorry about it at all. YOU SAID: "i know it is tough but we NEVER landed on the moon." == Wrong. There were 6 manned landings. YOU SAID: "It is impossible NOW to go through the Van Allen Belt" == Says who? James Van Allen certainly didn't agree with you. What do you know that he didn't know? YOU SAID: "there is some ancient history that hints at being able to by-pass the Van Allen Belt during extreme orbits that happen only once every 100,000 years or so" == Sorry, you don't get to make this up as you go along. If you have any evidence that the Van Allen belts are only passable every 100,000 years, the last place you'd be publishing this amazing revelation would be in a YouTube comment. You'd need to submit this evidence to an actual journal on astrophysics or aerospace engineering. YOU SAID: "but otherwise it is NOT possible" == James Van Allen, the world's foremost expert on the Van Allen belts until the day he died, said otherwise. Again, why do you think you understand the Van Allen belts better than James Van Allen did? YOU SAID: "If we were on the moon we would have seen stars in the background, but that would have been a dead give away so they were blocked out." == Why? What would make it a dead giveaway? And, again, this is very mathematical, and easily demonstrated (if you were correct). Human eyes have what's known as a "dynamic range." You are free to calculate the brightness of the lunar surface in the daytime, and the brightness of the stars, and see if those two brightness levels are simultaneously viewable by human eyes... especially ones that were behind a gold visor most of the time (ya know, because it was really bright, they needed to block out most of the light). YOU SAID: "There is much speculation that the filming actually happened Area 51." == Sure. Dummies speculate that all the time. There's no evidence for it. As a matter of fact, the video was received by Australia, Spain, and Goldstone, while their dishes were pointed AT THE MOON. And, the audio was received by dozens more countries than that, including backyard amateurs with good enough equipment. You don't know what you're talking about. YOU SAID: "Another clue is the disappearance of ALL of the Moon Rocks brought back because as technology advanced it was going to be another give away." == Why would you believe such a ridiculous thing? Geologists and geology students from around the world still analyze those rocks to this day. It's a 40 hours per week facility, where you can reserve time to go and check them out. And, at the end of 2019, they even opened up a brand new sample that had never been opened before. (They saved a significant percentage of the rocks and core samples, unopened, for future generations to analyze with that new technology that you're claiming they were avoiding.) What makes you think otherwise? There have been thousands upon thousands of papers written by thousands upon thousands of geologists and geology students about those rocks. What do you know that none of the experts know? YOU SAID: "We would have been so much further ahead with unmanned trips!" == I don't know what you're talking about, and neither do you.
    1
  10228. Authorized by the Freedom of Information Act. Benefit = ad revenue to media.
    1
  10229.  @matchhunter6055  You are what happens when an utter failure in life feels badly about being an utter failure... no higher education... didn't accomplish anything... completely left behind in math and science... eyes glazed over with confusion while looking at subject matter you simply couldn't understand, while the other students raced on by, leaving you in the dust... you want to feel better about all of this, so you attach yourself to the dumbest shit imaginable, and pretend that watching a few "flat Earth" videos on YouTube can somehow override the last 1000 years of established science. This is your method for coping with the fact that you don't know anything, you look for an easy way to feel superior to those who spent an extra decade in school, and decades more in fruitful careers, so, you claim the world is flat, because it's an easy answer for you to feel like you know more than everyone else. But, the part I don't understand, and maybe you can help me understand it... WHY do you feel like you need to advertise this stupidity to the world? That's the part I don't get. I mean, back when I was your age, long before the internet and stuff like that, people were ASHAMED to show their stupidity to the rest of the world. They were embarrassed every time they said something dumb, and others would laugh, etc. But, not this generation. You idiots are PROUD of your idiocy. Why? Why would you think it's actually a GOOD idea to tell the rest of the world how dumb you are?
    1
  10230.  @matchhunter6055  YOU SAID: "yip...one thing is clear. No man went to the moon." == Yet, every expert on the planet disagrees with you. And, meanwhile, YOU, someone who has never set foot into a university classroom on any relevant subject, think you know better? YOU SAID: "No wonder they lost all the data of the moonlandings. Destroy the evidence before you get caught." == Pffttt. Um, no, fucking dumbass, no. None of the data is lost. This is what happens when one conspiratard only listens to other conspiratards. See, about a decade ago, NASA announced that they had lost two backup tapes from Apollo 11. Moon hoax idiots jumped for joy, as if this was some sort of "gotcha" moment. The primary tapes were still intact, no big deal. But, moon hoax idiots couldn't live with that. So, within a year or two, in the internet rumormill of conspiratards, they switched it (in their minds) to thinking that the primary tapes were lost. And, a couple years later, they believed that all tapes from that mission were lost. Then, a couple years later, it escalated to being all tapes from all missions were lost. And, nowadays, you fucking morons are saying that all data and all tapes from all missions were lost. Um, no, dummy. Still to this day, the only thing that has been "lost" has been the two backup tapes from the Apollo 11 mission. Parkes (Australia) said they sent them back to Houston. Houston says they don't have them. Nobody knows where they are, probably lost forever. But, the primary tapes, and countless copies, are all still intact. You have NO IDEA what you're talking about. YOU SAID: "But nasa you are too late😂😂😂" == You're a fucking imbecile. Yeah, stupid shit, if your entire position is that NASA lost all of the data a few years ago, why would they have waited decades and decades to "lose" it, after so many copies had already been made? It makes no sense. You are painfully dumb. I mean, we're not talking about 80-IQ dumb. We're talking about in the low 50s at best.
    1
  10231.  @Jan_Strzelecki  I was wrong about Edson Pinas. I said he's in the low 50s (IQ). Clearly I was wrong. He's in the 30s at best.
    1
  10232.  @Jan_Strzelecki  Who's REALLY not civil? That dumbass is claiming that the last 1000 years of science is all wrong, he's claiming that thousands of people at NASA were all liars and frauds, he's spitting on the graves of all who died in the space program in the 1960s, claiming they all died for a lie. And, he does all of this just to fuel his own delusions. That's about as NON-civil as anybody can get. No, sorry, I'm not coddling these assholes that spit in the face of science, while using science every day of their lives. I'm not coddling a jackass who doesn't ask questions, but instead posts a thousand "smiley faces" while he accuses the entire scientific world of defrauding everyone. They're idiots. And, Edson is about as stupid as a person can be, while still being able to operate a keyboard. Nope, I'm not doing it.
    1
  10233. The videos were available within a few weeks of the mission.
    1
  10234. He's guilty because he planned the killings in advance, and then carried out the plan. Do you know the facts of the case?
    1
  10235.  @critthought2866  I'm trying to write in his language.
    1
  10236. "I will…. if they land in 2025 on the moon" A) Why should the veracity of Apollo be based upon anything that happens now? Why are you not interested in the actual evidence for Apollo, and instead, spew a bunch of numbers about the photos (which you're wrong about anyway)? B) Nobody thinks they're landing anywhere in 2025. The program wasn't funded at a pace to permit a landing that soon. And, making matters worse, it's really starting to bubble up that the hideous SpaceX selection for the lander was the wrong one. And, they're already contracting Bezos/Blue to build a backup. This is something completely unprecedented, as far as I can recall anyway. But, I've always said that SpaceX was a ridiculously bad choice, and I was shocked that Blue lost. I was further shocked that Bezos lost the lawsuit to overturn SpaceX. But, here we are, taxpayers, now paying for two different landers to be built. I guess it's better than wasting all of that money, then getting nothing. So, I guess they didn't have much of a choice. But, Starship isn't going so well. So, let's face reality here, it's extremely doubtful anybody is landing anywhere in 2025. Not impossible, mind you. But, just not very probable. NASA is already announcing that they are already making plans to make Artemis 3 into a non-landing mission, in the event that no landers are ready on time. "So far thank you for your time and answers." Would be nice if you actually read my earlier reply. But, you can only see if if you view the thread fresh, which, I imagine you haven't done. You can't see it through notification links. "A pity is that YouTube deleted every link I wanted to be discussed." Yes, they delete about 50% of my postings also.
    1
  10237. So, the 1960s technology couldn't do it? Alright. Name the EXACT technology you're talking about. Don't just wave the word "technology" around, as if it means something. Name the particular technology that was lacking. And, then explain why none of the thousands of engineers who worked on that technology ever realized that they failed to build a technology that could work correctly. Can you? NASA guy? Who? Kelly Smith? The guy who made a video for children? That's your "education" about the Van Allen belts? A 30 second clip of a video about Orion, stating that they wanted to test Orion in the Van Allen belts before putting people in there? They did the exact same thing on Apollo 6, you know. They sent Apollo 6 up there to take readings for the Apollo capsule, before putting people inside. And, they did the same in 2014 to make sure the Orion electronics would withstand the ionic particles, before putting people inside. Why is this an issue for you? Why would you bring up a 10 year old video? They tested Orion, just like Kelly Smith said they wanted to do. So what? Why does testing Orion mean that Apollo was fake? Don't pretend that conspiracy videos didn't spoon feed that to you, and intentionally skew the meaning. I mean, good grief, are you really going to reference a video made for children? Really? You and I both know that the entirety of your knowledge of the Van Allen belts is in that 30 second clip, and you literally don't know a lick more about them than that. And, on that basis, you think you understand enough to question anything? I mean, don't get me wrong here, asking questions is fine. But, I'm not going to play this game. You and I both know your questions are dishonest ones, just from the fact alone that you're bringing up conspiracy garbage like that as your "first" objection. It's ridiculous. I'll eat my hat the day that any one of you hoax nuts ever actually asked for the evidence itself. But, nope, none of you ever do. It's always the same. "I watched a conspiracy video, therefore Apollo was fake."
    1
  10238. THAT is your response? What's wrong with you?
    1
  10239.  @Salfordian  Good gods. You're quoting from silly conspiracy videos, then accusing ME of believing what I'm told? Could you be any more ironic? You have swallowed every word of that garbage hook line and sinker. And, like all hoax nuts, you only pretend to be asking questions, when you intend, in advance, to reject the answers. And, you avoid answering any questions you're asked. Bravo. You're a true genius.
    1
  10240. Yeah, nice try. Again, you refuse to address your own statements. Then you declare victory and run for the hills.
    1
  10241. Are you going to answer the question, or not?
    1
  10242. Don't stop there. Put that on every job application you fill out for the rest of your life. Believe me, it makes the hiring process much easier.
    1
  10243. Tell me, if it was a man at a playground, would you say the same?
    1
  10244. Well, (a) I don't believe you'd do that. And, (b) I grew up in a society that knows not to take things into their own hands, but to call the police to deal with crimes.
    1
  10245. Yeah. I agree. But, the only saving grace is that she wasn't alive when this arrest video went public. It didn't get released until 2.5 years later, which was 1.5 years after she died.
    1
  10246. Funny that dozens of countries tracked the missions with radar and radio telescopes... and that "fake" signal you're talking about from "a remote site" could only be picked up by multiple countries aiming their dishes AT THE MOON to receive them.
    1
  10247. But, this footage was never shown to the world until she was already dead 1.5 years.
    1
  10248. How do you embarrass someone who is dead?
    1
  10249. While your sentiment is nice, and sure, it would have accelerated the process of rendering aid had she not been a distraction and a potential threat, well, I'm afraid the reality is that it wouldn't have mattered. He says his last words at about 30 seconds into the video (about 20 seconds after being shot). And, he made his last movements about 10 seconds later. An upper chest hit like that, yeah, he's not going to make it, no matter what medical aid is rendered.
    1
  10250. After her mile long arrest record and felony prison term for stealing cars, drug and alcohol charges galore, many failures to appear in court, and judgements against her for various thefts, it's probably difficult to get a regular job after that. But, anyway, I doubt she was embarrassed, regardless of how she was acting while trying to get out of her millionth arrest.
    1
  10251. One of the witnesses caught the incident on video, and showed it to the police. They wrote about it in their arrest report as a very loud and public act in view of multiple people including children.
    1
  10252. According to her landlord, her "profession" (which I can't write in YouTube comments) involved putting on those kinds of shows already. Ya know, involves cash transactions with lots of men.
    1
  10253. And, just checking here... you do know that nobody saw the arrest video until she was dead for over 1.5 years, right?
    1
  10254. Yeah, she was very pretty, but did she have to sacrifice her life for drugs?
    1
  10255. In her arrest record. And, she died from overdose.  @Mr-Slayer-Sir 
    1
  10256. "Where are the stars?" Huh? Do you expect to see stars in photos that are set up for daytime exposure? Have you ever taken a Photography 101 class? "Where is the Sun?" Toward the east in any of the photographs they took facing in that direction. But, they tended not to take very many photos into the sun, because it bleaches out the picture. They tried to take most of the photos toward the west so that they'd come out better. But, sure, there hundreds of photos of the sun. You just have to look through the archives if you're interested. Why you'd come to a YouTube comment before looking for the photos yourself, well, I'll never understand. But, again, unless you wanted the photos to come out like AS17-134-20411 (as an example), you really want to take photos by facing the camera away from the sun. The same applies here on Earth, dewdrop. "The landing was on the illuminated side of the moon" All landings took place early in the lunar morning for each individual landing location. "and the lighting sources are spot!!" The lighting source was the sun. "The sun would shine all over the moon, not small areas!!" I don't understand what you are trying to say, and neither do you. "This side is always illuminated by the Sun" No, dewdrop. The moon has daytimes and nighttimes, just like on Earth. The main difference is that a lunar day (sunrise to sunrise) is 708 hours instead of 24 hours. Have you ever looked up in the sky? What do you think the phases of the moon are? "but it looks like at night!" Depends. As I said, all landings took place early in the lunar morning. As such, the sun was very low in the sky, basically like the Earth equivalent of 6:30am. Essentially, this is shortly after sunrise. But, when you got into the later missions like Apollo 17, which stayed 74 hours on the lunar surface, yes, the sun got higher in the sky, until it was basically about the Earth equivalent of 9:00am. So, photos taken earlier tended to be darker, like taking a picture just after sunrise. But, pictures taken later in the mission were at a sun angle of almost 45 degrees. I mean, seriously, you really just need to look at the photos for yourself (and learn some basic 7th grade geometry). You'll see plenty of photos of the sun, and you can understand the angles and lighting a lot better. "These are children's pictures for schoolchildren!" Yet, any schoolchild knows that the moon has daytimes and nighttimes, and, yet, you don't know this. I guess that puts schoolchildren as more advanced than you are.
    1
  10257. Sure, you could be right. But, whose fault is that? Musk refuses to reveal the price or weight of the truck. That forces people to guess. Why? Why should people need to guess at all? Reveal the weight of the truck, and nobody would be forced to guess. Is there any other truck manufacturer on the face of the planet who refuses to tell people the weight of their trucks?
    1
  10258. Why is it that people like you seem to believe that there always must be an innocent party? Guess what? It doesn't always work that way. Think of it like gangland shootings, where guilty gang members go to war with other guilty gang members. They're ALL guilty. That's what happened here. A guilty pair of teen thieves were murdered by a guilty man who premeditated those two murders, planned them in advance, and carried out that plan.
    1
  10259. "The footage is 100% fake shot in a studio." Yet, it exactly matches the photography done by recent generations of lunar orbiters from USA, China, and India (which have all photographed the landing sites). Pretty amazing, huh? They didn't have that kind of detail back in 1969-1972. Yet, I supposed they got every single "guess" correct about the placement of all of the equipment and craters and stuff, which was confirmed decades later. "There are hooks on the astronauts space suits that are not on the manifest" Huh? The hooks on the suits are well documented. They are to help secure the astronauts inside the lander during the descent. "you can literally see the wires holding them up." Nope. You see the communications antenna, and you think it's a wire. "As to whether or not the landing actually occurred, that’s anyone’s guess" Or, you can listen to the dozens of countries that tracked the Apollo missions to the moon and back using radar and radio telescopes (including enemy countries). Or, you can go look at the photos taken by Arizona State University's LRO camera, or India's orbiter camera, or China's orbiter camera, and see the Apollo stuff on the lunar surface. Or, you can learn about the other mountains of evidence. Then, you don't need to "guess" at all. "but seeing as how we can’t replicate it 50 years later" Huh? Nobody is trying to replicate it. They're building today's stuff for an entirely different mission profile. "and have done absolutely nothing since" Take it up with congress. They control the programs and the money. "It just doesn’t add up." Gee, could that be because you don't understand a lick about the topic?
    1
  10260. Are you honestly going to sit there and say "they're doing it wrong"? Dewdrop, if the cop takes his focus off of the surroundings, and puts his focus on rendering aid, there's an especially high chance that more people pour out of the woodwork to pick up where Mark left off. The screaming banshee arrived in about 10 seconds. The brother arrived a couple of minutes later. I think it's pretty obvious that the first order of business is to secure the scene and get a bunch of cops onsite. If you had it your way, the cops would be putting themselves at unnecessary risk of becoming the next people that need the very same aid you're asking for.
    1
  10261. So, that's how this goes? You double-down on your "they're doing it wrong" narrative, continuing to pretend to understand things you don't? Dewdrop, securing the scene doesn't mean you have guns drawn all the time. Dunning-Kruger.
    1
  10262. Dewdrop, your viewpoint is that every cop on the scene is just plain "doing it wrong." Stop pretending to know things you don't. The "under threat" status has degrees, you know. Again, they don't need to have a gun drawn in order to know to secure the scene.
    1
  10263. Sure, dewdrop, sure. Everyone else is wrong, and you're right. The family's own attorney isn't even making that argument you are. I guess he doesn't know procedure either, huh? All of the cops on the site, nope, none of them know what to do. But, YOU know best, right? It can't be that I'm actually correct. It has to be because there are no people involved with this incident who know what to do, and that YOU are the one who does.
    1
  10264. Well, she might spend time in jail for other things, who knows, but it won't be for this. They tossed all of the charges out.
    1
  10265. Good grief. Guns? He never drew a gun. And, as for the lawsuit, it was thrown out of court (and rightfully so), and she's been barred from ever filing it again. You two are like the blind leading the blind.
    1
  10266. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
    1
  10267. I think it's time for you to join a 12 step program.
    1
  10268. How would you have done it?
    1
  10269. "have had a laser that can hit a briefcase size target" Yeah, dozens of them. They're in dozens of different countries, and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. They hit the reflectors, as well as the surrounding areas. The newer the laser, the more accurate it is. Are you under the impression that people in all of these different countries build laser ranging facilities have no idea how they work, but you do?
    1
  10270. "yes its called Beam divergence measured in mrad" "So did they have a signal meter up there like dish network" So, basically, you did some quick Googling, and you still have no understanding of the topic. Bravo. Pure genius.
    1
  10271. "they were bouncing radio waves off the moon in the 40's . Doesn't mean we landed on the moon." And, that matters why? How does bouncing radio off of the moon relate AT ALL to anything about landing on the moon? Why would you even bring this up? This doesn't even relate to the laser reflectors. You just came up with a new little factoid that meant absolutely nothing to your assertions.
    1
  10272. "Obama ... said we haven't left low Earth orbit. Former NASA Astronaut and ISS Commander Terry Virts while in low Earth orbit says specifically that we can not go beyond Low Earth Orbit" Dewdrop, what didn't you understand about the words "right now"? Right now, we cannot fly 100+ people at mach 2 across the Atlantic. But, if you ignore the words "right now," then this means the Concorde didn't exist, right? Did you even watch the entire interview? Or, just the one little sentence that you think supports your gibberish? Are you REALLY asserting that presidents and astronauts think the moon landings didn't happen? Or, do you just love parroting silly one-line nonsense out of context? This is downright ridiculous. It's as if every time anybody says anything in an interview, they MUST say, "and Apollo happened," otherwise you people will insist on misunderstanding what is being said, and jump for joy when you find someone saying "right now, we can't leave orbit." Yes, dewdrop, the Saturn V had the capability to lift a manned craft past low orbit. There hasn't been a man-rated rocket capable of doing that since the Saturn V was retired. But, now the SLS is man rated, and will do so on its next flight.
    1
  10273. "Tony Slaba says they are working on technology to protect Astronauts beyond Low Earth Orbit" Yes, dewdrop. For missions that last a very long time, like many months or even years. It's irrelevant to shorter duration flights. You clearly haven't bothered to even read the work done by the guy you're pretending to quote.
    1
  10274. "Your the type" Dewdrop, how about forgetting these ridiculous conspiracies you clearly know nothing about, and try to conquer basic 2nd grade reading and writing? You don't know the difference between "your" and "you're," you don't know how to punctuate, you don't know basic sentence structure, you have no idea when to capitalize a word, and I could go on and on. This is absolutely silly. You have ZERO understanding of aerospace engineering. ZERO. NADA. ZIP. ZILCH. And, any 4th grader puts your writing to shame. Stop pretending you know things you don't.
    1
  10275. Police cuffs i dont story but the putting her in this is the.
    1
  10276. "If my duct tape gets over 30 degrees it is not really sticky anymore. So they should have had "professional moon and-space quality duct tape "on board." Huh? You're talking about the duct tape on the fender, right? You do know the duct tape didn't work for very long, right? They put it on, it worked for a bit, but, then they had to use clamps to repair the fender, because the duct tape failed. You do know this, right? It sounds like you're complaining that something is fake, because you don't even know that your own criteria (that the duct tape would fail) actually happened exactly as you expected. Good gods. "Good that they thought about repairing something before launch!" Does this even make sense to you? You want them to fix something BEFORE it breaks? "Just make the rocket a little bit bigger." I don't even understand your objection here. But, the way they got a heavier weight to the moon for the later missions was to increase thrust and efficiency of the engines. They added 25,000 pounds of thrust to each F1 for Apollo 15/16/17. And, they increased the efficiency of the lander's engine by lengthening the engine bell (less spread of the exhaust, more focused thrust). "What do you know about my knowledge of physics?" That you have none. "You get a lot of warming of materials because of that." Yes, hence why they used silver to reflect most of the sunlight on crucial items, suits that reflected most sunlight instead of absorbed it, and a thermal blanket on the craft that combined inconel panels (which are good insulators while not expanding as much as other metals), black tape (to radiate heat), and Mylar/Kapton foil (to create vacuum gaps and reflect light/energy). "That can give temperatures above chemical stability, material stresses etc." So, the 7,000 aerospace engineers at Grumman all "did it wrong," and you're here on a YouTube comment to "correct" them in their massive failure to understand aerospace engineering? "The extreme heatloss in the shadows, radiating to 3 degrees Kelvin of background of space, that cools quickly. Quick temperature changes of all type of materials is the result." They were more worried about radiating the heat on the side facing the sun than the side facing the shadow. I fail to understand why you think you've made some sort of relevant point here. "The moon Hasselblad camera's must have been magic" So, now the engineers at Hasselblad all "did it wrong" also when they lined the cameras with silver to reflect the heat/energy/light, and, you've come to YouTube to tell all of those camera engineers that they don't know how to engineer cameras. Bravo! "Film inside them must have been magic because it breaks when too cold." And, you think they got too cold, why? Again, you are merely demonstrating that you have zero understanding of thermodynamics. "They never seemed to have mis clicked" Huh? Have you looked at the photo archives? What? There are THOUSANDS of bad photos including tons and tons of misclicks when they took a photo while the camera was pointed at who-knows-what. "and seemed to be able to change the roll of photo;s (24 per roll?)" So, you're here to say that the Hasselblad camera engineers and Kodak film engineers didn't know what they were doing, yet, you don't know that each roll of film had HUNDREDS of photos (per roll)? Really? 24 per roll? Where do you get this garbage? Why would you think you understand a topic better than the engineers who built the things, when you know so little about it? "Needed correction is mostly in the microsecond or faster realm" Pfftt. What EXACT maneuver required microsecond reactions? And, now you're back to saying the 7,000 engineers at Grumman built the lander wrong? "Even breathing and moving your hand in the capsule can change the center of mass and so the position to the drive rocket and can give an angular deviation." The descent rocket had a gimbal, dewdrop. Do you not understand what that means? Gimbals deal with that exact issue. The first burn in the lunar lander was for ullage (only used RCS, which was used to orient the fuel/oxidizer/helium in the tanks). The second burn was at 11% throttle (though, they say 10%, whatever, it was actually 11%) to align the gimbals. After that, the gyros took care of the gimbals for the rest of the descent. Why do you not know this? You know more about aerospace engineering than the aerospace engineers who built the craft!!!! Right?!?!!?! So, why are you unware of the gimbals? "In the end you could end miles away from your appointment , with the capsule that stayed in a trajectory around the moon, or overshoot it." The command module SPS engine was gimbaled also. Good gods. Do you know ANYTHING about rocketry? "I am curious about the moon car video, I have never seen a video about the unloading of the thing. I believe you on your word that there are texts, photos and videos how they did that." And, I told you exactly how to find it. What's your problem? Is your Google broken? "And all this was done by an amazing low use of rocket fuel." Calculate it. The Tsiolkovsky (also Goddard) rocket equation has been understood since 1903, and is still the cornerstone of rocketry today. What are you waiting for!?!?!?! The thousands of engineers who built the craft and rockets all forgot how to calculate it!!! Here's your chance!!! Publish your calculations in aerospace engineering journals!!! I have no idea why you're so proud to know absolutely nothing. But, that's your problem, not mine.
    1
  10277. "say, 'if you cant make it, fake it'" So, by that "logic," you can pick just about any topic you feel like, and dismiss it as fake. You know, sane people use evidence as their deciding factors about what's real or not. Not you, though. If you can find some sort of phrase to support your delusions, that's good enough for you. "I don’t have to prove they did not land on the moon you have to prove they did. That’s how science works." But, what evidence do you expect, and would accept? Right out of the gate, it's pretty difficult to even know where to begin with someone like you. I mean, how does someone argue with a phrase? "Fake it until you make it"? OK, people are supposed to counter that argument with a different catch phrase then? And, don't even begin to pretend science is on your side here. That's ridiculous. "they could have not made it back to the earth if all they had to rely on were couple primitive telephone keypads while Houston was doing math for them by finger counting." So, the worldwide radar tracking via dozens of countries, all feeding back into two massive IBM mainframe computers that occupied multiple floors of a building... that's "finger counting" in your mind? Really? "There is no valid evidence that any man has ever left the low earth orbit and returned back alive." You say this because you've already decided, in advance, to reject any evidence that goes against your predetermined conclusions. Like, take for example India's ISRO Chandrayaan2’s photos of Apollo 11 & 12 landing sites a year or two ago. It's a completely separate space agency, didn't receive a dime from NASA to do it, and found some very nice evidence for Apollo. You can see the landers, and even the shadows of the flame deflectors, and the shadow of Apollo 12's flag (still standing) just north of the lander, exactly where it's supposed to be. You reject it, right? India has just decided to join "the deception" +50 years later, right? China also, no doubt, because they took similar photos with their Chang'e orbiter. They decided to join "the deception" also, in your mind? This is why it's not even possible to supply you with evidence, because, in advance, you've already decided it doesn't exist, and you reject all input. But, I'm all ears. What exact evidence would you expect there to be, and would accept?
    1
  10278. But, she suffered nearly zero humiliation, because 99.99% of the coverage of this didn't even happen until long after she was dead.
    1
  10279.  @Calebsnyder-lv2cg  She died more than 2 years ago, dewdrop.
    1
  10280. Just checking here... you do know that the arrest video wasn't made public until 2.5 years after the arrest, right? You do know that she was already dead 1.5 years by the time anybody ever saw the arrest video, right? It's not really clear whether you know that or not. (?) Secondly, yes, I agree, the arrest video shouldn't have been shown. However, I don't really have any solution to defy the Freedom of Information Act. They can block legal FOIA requests while an investigation is still ongoing. But, 2.5 years afterward, and 1.5 years after she was already dead, I don't know how they can block it any longer. Do you have a solution?
    1
  10281. What makes you believe the resort took "the cheap way out" of anything?
    1
  10282.  @leshawnervin1496  But, there is absolutely no evidence that they bought any cheap/tainted liquor. There was no report of any methanol in her blood. Instead, she has a 0.25 reading of alcohol. Even this news story cannot create any concrete connection to them buying cheap/tainted liquor. They had to stoop to reporting about OTHER hotels/resorts that had. This particular resort has no history of buying cheap/tainted liquor. Nobody else in the resort had these effects. Every historical time the government went in to sample and investigate this resort, they came out clean as a whistle. Why would you believe this resort bought any cheap/tainted liquor? Don't you think that if there was any evidence of that, this "news" (not news) hit piece would show it?? No?? They had to go find other people at other resorts with tainted alcohol for this story, and then somehow try to make people believe that this was taking place at this resort also?? Where do you get off slandering this 5 star resort? What's your evidence? Even the lawsuit has a difficult time drawing that connection, and expresses absolutely no evidence that this resort has ever purchased any tainted/cheap alcohol. What do you know that the rest of the world doesn't know?
    1
  10283.  @leshawnervin1496  WHAT??? How stupid are you? 1) There is no report of any methanol in her blood, and that's from two separate hospitals. If there was methanol in her blood, they'd not only have reports of it, it would have been part of the lawsuit (but wasn't). 2) These resorts have been routinely investigated by the local officials. In the past, this resort had even been shut down from selling alcohol while the officials check it out (as they do for countless resorts), and this resort has always come up clean. 3) With a blood alcohol reading of 0.25 in a small young female like that, sorry, but "tainted" alcohol means very little, when compared to the onslaught of alcohol her body was dealing with. 4) Nobody has been able to connect any tainted alcohol with this resort. 5) No other visitors suffered these effects. But, your logic is, until someone can find evidence of no tainted alcohol, there was tainted alcohol?? That's how your crippled little mind works? That's like saying that, without evidence that you've never robbed a bank, you must have robbed a bank. Sorry, but your "logic" (sigh) is BACKWARD. You're slandering this 5 star resort, accusing them of serving tainted alcohol. You don't get to just shift the burden of proof like that. Good grief. And, hey, dumbass, if you didn't want people replying to your messages, why'd you write them? Just wanted to hear yourself talk? Just like spewing uneducated nonsense everywhere, but nobody should ever correct you??
    1
  10284.  @leshawnervin1496  You are the living definition of the word "stupid." You haven't got the foggiest clue what you're talking about. You have decided, in advance, no matter what, that the resort served tainted alcohol. And, you decided this based on no evidence of any kind. And, you say your mind CANNOT be changed. That is about as stupid as a person can be. I hope you're proud.
    1
  10285. Do you even listen to yourself? You don't know how rockets work. You don't know where the energy comes from. You don't know what craft did which function. But, you think you know enough about the topic to claim that the entire world's aerospace engineers don't know either? And, you want to be taught rocket science in a YouTube comment?
    1
  10286. "Nobody said im trying to learn it here in the comments" Except that's EXACTLY what you're pretending you're trying to do. Of course, you don't really care about the answers. You've already decided you know better than the planet's experts.
    1
  10287. It costs at least 100x more money for a manned lunar program than an unmanned program. And, you said it yourself, they run the unmanned probes for a decade or more. LRO (lunar orbiter) was sent up there in 2009 for about a half of a billion dollars, and it's still working today. Apollo? 74 hours on the lunar surface, and they needed to come home, for a program cost of about $300 billion (adjusted into today's dollars).
    1
  10288. Go take any photo with the sun behind you, dewdrop, and look at what the shadows do. Or, if you're too lazy, "converging shadows" (Google is your friend), and look at the images. Sheeeeessssshhhh.
    1
  10289. Are you complaining about the condition that brought us to this point? Or, are you trying to say that new gun laws would magically stop this issue?
    1
  10290. First of all, the arrest video was not made public until she was dead for 1.5 years. Secondly, yes, she had a legal/arrest/prison history a mile long.
    1
  10291. Orion wasn't equipped with a camera for that purpose. And, the orbit never dropped low enough. Ann onn already addressed it also. There's no reason to take more photos. We have thousands of photos from the Apollo missions, which the hoax nuts deny are real. We have photos from LRO showing the landing sites, rover tracks, landers, etc., which the hoax nuts deny are real. India's orbiter took similar photos of the Apollo stuff on the moon, which the hoax nuts deny are real. What would be the point in taking more photos that they will continue to reject?
    1
  10292. Huh? Single indiscretion? She had a mile long arrest record. Stealing cars, drugs and alcohol, other thefts, failures to appear, etc. She did a felony term in a Florida prison 6 years ago.
    1
  10293. Um, ok, was there a point? Do you have a suggestion to fix the problem? Or, you were just pointing out the problem?
    1
  10294. How? A magic wand? Name the EXACT mechanism you'd use to remove guns from society?
    1
  10295. Thanks for proving my point. Instead of answering the question, all you do is duck and dodge, and try to ask me questions instead. No, I'm not answering anything. I'm giving you the same amount of respect you've given me. I'll ignore you, just as you've ignored me.
    1
  10296. Unfounded garbage.
    1
  10297.  J Calhoun  Don't forget, the Soviet administration also pressured their rocket engineers to go repair a rocket on the launch pad while it was fully fueled, because they didn't want to take the days of time to drain the tanks, fix the problem, and the days to fill them back up again. What happened? The thing exploded, killing some of their engineers in the process. So, not only did they make some design flaws with the N1, but they also killed some of the very people who could have worked to fix the issues.
    1
  10298. No shots of the doors opening, or dash, or seats?
    1
  10299. No, what's weird is that you pretend to know things that you clearly do not.
    1
  10300. See what I mean? An AR isn't automatic, dewdrop. The rest of what you wrote is equally wrong.
    1
  10301. Automatic weapons were banned decades ago, dewdrop.
    1
  10302. It's called the Freedom of Information Act. And, you have it backward anyway. She died long before the arrest video was released.
    1
  10303. Which god? Is there one that is "right" with armed drug dealing felons?
    1
  10304. Explain?
    1
  10305.  @LetsUniteNow  Hilarious!! You just keep hanging on to the idea that you're right, posting one comment after another of pure nonsense. So, let me understand this claim... you think the attorneys filed a trivial lawsuit for $50,000 against the store, more than 2 years ago (filed on 6/11/2020). It was dismissed, and she won't be getting a dime, because the merits of her case were so bad that they barred her from ever filing it again. But, here we are, more than 2 years later, and you think they might still sue the police? If there was a valid case against the police, you don't think they'd go after that first? Why sue the store for $50,000, when you can sue the police for 7-figures in a rights-violation case (the way you keep presenting it, in thread after thread)? If a case against the police had any merit (it doesn't, I'm just saying hypothetically), they would ask for 7-figures, and it would easily settle for $500K. But, you think they're sitting on this case for 2+ years, just waiting to file it? Absolutely amazing. You sure are proud to be wrong all the time.
    1
  10306. Blame the victims instead of the criminal, eh?
    1
  10307. Um, ok, sues who? And, on what basis?
    1
  10308. Pffttt. Tell me that you wouldn't be saying the exact opposite if he didn't. "The fact that Buzz didn't punch the guy is a clear sign that he's admitting he didn't go to the moon. He didn't react because he knows he's guilty." Good grief. And, by the way, Sibrel isn't wasn't a reporter. He was a failed film student and taxi cab driver who was also a convicted criminal. He has never had any credentials as a journalist.
    1
  10309. Oh, please educate the entirety of the law enforcement community, with your vast expertise, what should he have done instead?
    1
  10310. The arrest video wasn't made public until 2.5 years later. She was long dead before anybody saw it. And, if she wasn't embarrassed by her felony prison term, and the mile long list of other arrests and judgements against her, it's pretty doubtful that this particular arrest was all that embarrassing.
    1
  10311. So, your magical 1 loaded magazine can make 9mm rounds penetrate a truck better than these cops' magazines?
    1
  10312. You're lying in this comment.
    1
  10313. "There are pictures of camera shots" Yet, you offer no catalog numbers? "why no sand/dust on the capsule's footing" Congratulations on repeating silly lies told to you by conspiracy videos. Not a single person in history who has actually looked at the photo archive for themselves has made that claim. But, the makers of conspiracy videos know that none of their followers EVER fact check a single thing they say. They eat it up like Christmas dinner, and then regurgitate the same lies. If you scrutinized those conspiracy videos you love so much... as much as you're pretending you're scrutinizing Apollo... you'd find out really quickly who the real liars are.
    1
  10314. "there was no dust being cleared" Same answer. You haven't looked for yourself. You blindly trusted a conspiracy video that lied to you. How about AS11-40-5921? There's nearly zero dust remaining, because almost all of it has been blown down to the compacted regolith and rock. You even see radial striations from the rocket blast. But, a conspiracy video shows you a couple of low-res photos from bad angles, and they have full confidence that you'll never actually look at the archives for yourself to see how wrong they are.
    1
  10315. "greatest air pressure is when capsule is just about to land." No, dewdrop. It's the exact opposite. Do you really think they could land that thing at 10,500 pounds of thrust? You don't think it would be shooting straight upward if they ran at 100% throttle while landing?
    1
  10316. Is that really how this goes? You're going to ignore every question, every correction, every challenge, and just repeat the same nonsense about a topic you don't understand?
    1
  10317. Dewdrop, the first car phones were in the 1940s. No, they weren't called "cell phones" back then. But, it's basically the same radio concept as an analog cell phone.
    1
  10318.  @willoughbykrenzteinburg  At 25:00, for the next 30 seconds or so, there's no delay between Houston and astronauts. Of course, sane people realize that this is an edited documentary, and the delays were simply clipped out in the interest of time. Nobody likes to listen to delays. But, the conspiratards use it as ammunition.
    1
  10319. And, you believe she thought she was alone, why? Because she said so as she was attempting to cry her way out of her millionth arrest? I mean, the information you're asking for is in the arrest report, which you're welcome to read. But, I will warn you, that will open the door to shattering your delusions that Inside Edition is painting an accurate picture here. They're not.
    1
  10320. Stop pretending you know things you don't, dewdrop. You are attempting to take a few sentences out of context (intentionally), and ignoring the thousands of papers and the hundreds of probes that have measured the radiation you're complaining about. Sorry, but listening to a few seconds of cherry-picked lines out of context is no match for the scientific method. As I said, if you have a beef with it, publish in the science journals. Don't just sit there and pretend that, because a couple of conspiracy videos took a couple of sentences out of context, this means Apollo was fake. You're ridiculous.
    1
  10321. Huh? I don't understand your point. This was a suicide.
    1
  10322. Tell me about it. It's so crazy that media can't just say what is in the video, and they need to say "allegedly" to everything until a conviction is reached.
    1
  10323. "the officer who did a wrong cause of her death" Huh? The medical examiner wrote the cause of her death. Suicide by gunshot to the head. What cop said otherwise? What in the world does this even mean?
    1
  10324. First of all, it didn't lead to anything. Stop blindly trusting trash news. Secondly, thanks, but, I think society has already decided that this activity in front of children is illegal. The rest of society doesn't care if you want to promote that sort of thing, but, if you do what she did, you'll get arrested, just like she did.
    1
  10325. You don't know anything about this. No, this arrest didn't lead to anything. There was virtually zero publicity about it while she was alive. Two obscure blogs posted something about it. But, the big viral press didn't happen until November 24, 2023 when the arrest video was released. She died two years ago. Nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive. And, let's just make this clear... her landlord said she was a stripper, and her neighbors said she also did "private" cash encounters out of her apartment. So, to say she was shamed by being exposed is really ridiculous. And, she should have been pretty used to the legal system by then, what with the term she spent in prison about 6 years ago, and the million other arrests before and after. So, to claim this one petty arrest made all that much difference to her.....?
    1
  10326. He was dead within 20 seconds of being hit. What video are you even watching?
    1
  10327. Is the lawsuit also from Hollywood? The death certificate? Just how far out to sea has your mind set sail?
    1
  10328. No, she wasn't on the news until she was already dead 1.5 years. Arrest = July 2021. Suicide = March 2022. Arrest video made public = November 2023. On the news = December 2023.
    1
  10329. When a criminal is running from the cops, drops a gun (four times, no less), and picks it back up, it's because he intends to USE IT. You can sit there and say cops aren't supposed to shoot people who are running, but, that's a ridiculous claim. What if he used that gun on some nearby hostages he decided to take? What if he turned around 10 seconds later and started shooting at the police? I mean, it's really easy to sit there and say the cops shouldn't shoot. But, the minute you get your wish, and the cops don't do what they're trained, you're going to complain when that very same guy shoots someone 10 seconds later. You'd be saying, "Why didn't the cops shoot him when they had the chance? Now some innocent bystander is dead, because the cops didn't take action when they could have." Tell me I'm wrong.
    1
  10330. So, your preferred action is to just allow gun wielding felons to run loose in neighborhoods, and NOT pursue/stop them?
    1
  10331. "The flag is not vibrating from a movement" I don't even really understand what that sentence is supposed to mean, and neither do you. "it is flopping all directions from the bottom" Gee, could that be because the top and sides were secured to the poles, and the bottom is the only part that can flap around? Wow, you've cracked the case!! Your Nobel Prize is in the mail! What's next in your repertoire of the obvious? "The paper in my notebook barely moves by the binding that holds the paper, but the outside edges of the paper that's not secured to the binder flaps around." Wow, that's two Nobel Prizes on the way!! "show a picture of the flag on the moon from earth" Well, given that it would take a quarter mile diameter lens to even see the flag as a single pixel, and I'm sure you'd want more than one pixel, can you elaborate about what level of detail you'd expect, so the math can be done to calculate the size lens you'd need? I'm sure it would be miles wide, but, exactly how many miles wide would be a matter of whether you want to see stars and stripes, or just a basic outline. You do know the largest lens ever built is 5 feet in diameter and costed $168 million to make, right? Yet, you want to see the flag? Wow, I wonder why no physicists ever thought of pointing a telescope at the moon before!!! You're the first. That's THREE Nobel Prizes coming your way!!! "or modules, there is none." What modules? Can you even understand YOURSELF? I guarantee nobody else can understand this.
    1
  10332. "China and Japan sent modules around the moon no pictures of the flag" China's and Japan's cameras didn't have that kind of resolution. "or the vehicles" Well, Japan's didn't have the resolution to see the vehicles. But, China's did. Their photos show the landers. India's and USA's orbital photos don't show the flags themselves either, because, ya know, it's hard to see a standing flag from directly above it. But, both India and USA's orbital photos show the shadows of the flags. "that who knows how they carried them" I know how they carried them. Don't you? "but we have clear pictures from above on Mars" Wait, do you really not understand resolution either? You do know the orbital photos of the Apollo stuff on the moon are greatly zoomed in, right? You do know those raw photos are around 300 megapixels, far more than any modern camera you can walk into a store and buy today. But, they're taking pictures covering huge areas on the moon at once, and then have to zoom in to see the landers. You do know this, right? What do you think happens to ANY photo (Mars, portraits of people, anything) when you zoom in to that extent? "On a clear day and with the close up moon I seen detail pictures of the moon with a $10,000 telescope" You spent $10,000 on a telescope, when you have absolutely no understanding of optics? "we went to the moon but we can't take detail pictures of the moon ???" I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    1
  10333. Yeah, that's not bad advice. But, in this case, it wouldn't have mattered. One of the "audience" captured the event on video, and showed it to the police. She was getting arrested whether she spoke or not.
    1
  10334. Really? Did you phone up her three attorneys and tell them that they handled the case so badly? I mean, Florida is an identify state, so, you are required by law to provide ID if the cop is investigating a possible crime. But, YOU say otherwise, huh? Her own attorneys never sued the police for this obvious problem you spotted, and they figured that the cop did nothing wrong. They only sued the store (and lost, but, they tried anyway). But, hey, you could go tell them that they did their jobs wrong, and they could have been suing the city/police for 10x more money for a rights violation case. Go share your massive legal expertise with the three attorneys who handled her case (one of whom was very quite high profile). I really don't understand why you're bothering with YouTube, with this massive legal skill you have.
    1
  10335. So, your viewpoint is that cops must wait until AFTER people get shot? Tell me, dewdrop, let's say you got your wish, and she didn't take action, and the guy shot some people... now what? You're going to complain that she didn't take action first, right? See how this is? You can't have it both ways. You can't demand that cops read the future.
    1
  10336.  @BaptistJoshua  I wasn't addressing you.
    1
  10337.  @BaptistJoshua  You can't have it both ways. If a cop sees a criminal act, on duty or not, the cop can and should respond. They ARE licensed to carry while not on duty. This is largely because of the basic notion that cops are never "off duty." This is further compounded by the simple notion that perhaps she was dropping off her child, then going to head to work. How would a cop even get the firearm to/from work without carrying it?
    1
  10338.  @BaptistJoshua  Why are you pretending you understand things you don't?
    1
  10339.  @BaptistJoshua  Dewdrop, this incident happened in BRAZIL. In BRAZIL, their gun laws are specific. In order to carry in public, you need a license to do so. They give officers that kind of license. They have their reasons for their laws. Personally, I think anybody should be able to carry any time they want. And, thankfully, I don't live in Brazil. But, if you want to protest the laws in BRAZIL, go there and do that. But, they have decided that officers are never truly off duty, and need a mechanism to carry to/from work, and to do their jobs while "off duty" in an emergency. Take it or leave it. I'm done with you. You're WAY too far gone for me to deal with any further.
    1
  10340. Well, sure, if it's the cop's first day on the job, and they blindly believe anything someone says, yeah. But, in this case, there were 3 cops involved because of the multiple calls from witnesses about this. They reported that it was intentional. And, one of them even recorded it, and showed the video to the police. It didn't match her version about being a quiet act with nobody around (her story as she is attempting to avoid her millionth arrest, and is worried that she might end up back in prison again).
    1
  10341. See, with her being a convicted felon who spent time in prison, and her mile long arrest history, she was probably hoping that crying about nobody seeing her would perhaps avoid the cops running her name and finding the open warrants from her failures to appear for other prior arrests. See, it's difficult to get a straight job after all of that, so, her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club. Her neighbors said she also did "private" cash encounters in her apartment with numerous men. So, a seasoned police officer probably knows not to just blindly trust what someone says while trying to avoid getting arrested, and would question the credibility of such a person. Meanwhile, watchers of Inside Edition don't question much of anything.
    1
  10342. As a side note: I have this bridge for sale. Inside Edition says so. Interested?
    1
  10343. Well, the medical examiner's report said that she was last known to be alive on 3/19 of 2022, and they found her dead on 3/31. So, it wasn't a month. But, yeah, still, I agree, 12 days is a long time for someone with a family to let that go. But, yeah, her life was clearly going downhill. Apparently, she was so estranged from her own sons that one of them didn't even go to her funeral (so the reports say, I don't know for sure). And, in this arrest video from 2021, she looks to be fairly healthy. But, the medical examiner's report said her body weighed 86 pounds. So, in the approximate year between this arrest and her suicide, she lost a lot of weight. Reports also blame that on drug use. But, again, I don't know anything personally. The medical examiner also said that her implants were jutting out from her emaciated body in such a way that even more emphasized how unhealthy she had become. But, "the public footage was the last straw"?? I don't get it. The footage wasn't released to the public until November of 2023. She had been dead for over 1.5 years before the public even knew her name. I'm not sure that I understand your point here.
    1
  10344. Hilarious!! Dewdrop, he gave tons of interviews, and did lectures constantly. Sorry that you blindly trusted a video made by a drywall contractor who told you otherwise, but, is that really the rest of the world's problem? Why do you feel absolutely no obligation to have the slightest understanding of a topic before accusing thousands of people of being criminals?
    1
  10345. Blur = open investigation. Don't blur = closed investigation. And, nothing about her was on the news until long after she died.
    1
  10346. There's footage of Bigfoot too. Do you believe it is real?
    1
  10347. They're also careful not to show the bulge in the swimsuit.
    1
  10348.  @michaelstillman1171  Are you trying to tell me that the conspiracy videos that claim there are no photos of Earth aren't going to show people the photos of Earth?
    1
  10349. There is a strong static charge issue on the moon. Microscopic dust actually gets suspended above the lunar surface. This has been spotted with the instrumentation. Over time, this could result in very fine dust accumulating on top of the Apollo equipment. It remains to be seen about whether that's really the case. We won't know until people or cameras go to one of the landing sites to view them up close.
    1
  10350. Changed? Why? Because their rehearsed little script made them sound friendly? Was it the pigtails that made them change? How about an ounce of remorse for what they did? No? That's not required in order to "change"? By the way, I have a bridge for sale. Interested?
    1
  10351. Well, for whatever it's worth to you, Jack Schmitt (Harvard geologist who went to the moon on this mission in this video) disagrees with you. He thinks there's a lot more evidence that the moon was a flyby planetoid that was captured by Earth's gravity, and a lot less evidence that it was a collision with Earth or Earth ejecta. I'm not sure how he explains the circularization of the moon's orbit. But, that's what he thinks. Me: I tended to believe the more common origin theory (the same one you stated), but, after listening to Schmitt lecture on the topic, well, he outlined some rather convincing reasons to believe it couldn't have happened that way. Ultimately, though, I'm not a geologist by any stretch of the imagination, and I leave it up to the professionals to debate it.
    1
  10352. How many magazines would you use?
    1
  10353. Well, you're clearly the legal expert here, not me, so, can you explain when they started issuing tickets for aggravated misdemeanors like this one? And, with her long list of open warrants, do you really think they weren't going to arrest her?
    1
  10354. Japan sent JAXA/Selene to orbit the moon, and they have an entire section of their website dedicated to how they used it to confirm the Apollo missions. Arizona State University sent its LRO camera to the moon, which photographed the landing sites in enough detail to see the rover tracks, landers, foot paths, etc. China sent its Chang'e orbiter to the moon, and it photographed the landing sites also, and they recently released their images of the Apollo 11 landing site, and you can see the lander in the exact same spot that the original mission photography showed it, as well as LRO. India did basically the same thing with their Chandrayaan lunar orbiter. They released their photos of both the Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 landing sites, again, showing the landers exactly where they should be, exactly as LRO and Chang'e showed them. The deniers simply just keep increasing the amount of people/countries that they think participate in the deception. Now, after all of that, do you REALLY believe it would matter one bit if someone sent (yet another) probe? Do you REALLY believe that the deniers would magically care? Or, would they just call that fake too?
    1
  10355. OK, then lobby to get the ordinance changed.
    1
  10356. OK, but, where this incident happened, the laws were different.
    1
  10357. OK, wasn't that my first reply?
    1
  10358. And, here I was, thinking we were on the same page and having a friendly conversation. Thanks for making it more clear about your tone.
    1
  10359. Um, I don't think you understand the term "baby daddy." That wasn't her son. Her son was a baby in the back of her car. That was her [whatever] - father of her baby.
    1
  10360. Freedom of Information Act. But, why would you believe her ridiculous claims in the first place? Do you REALLY believe all of the witnesses and 3 cops were wrong, and you just blindly accept the words of the convicted felon with an arrest record a mile long?
    1
  10361. The father's story changed a few times. First, he said to the press that his son knew someone was in the car, and went to go see who it was. Then, the story changed to his son didn't think anybody was in the car. And, another version was that his son was inspired by Tik Tok to steal cars, and the cop shouldn't have shot him for it (despite that he acknowledges the son drew a gun).
    1
  10362. If none of her other million arrests mattered to her, nor her time spent in prison, I doubt that this arrest mattered that much to her.
    1
  10363. Yes, one of the audience recorded it and gave a copy of the video to the police. Congratulations on your 1 minute of knowledge from Inside Edition (where facts don't matter), without lifting a finger before forming opinions.
    1
  10364.  @DavidKen878  Yes, but one of the "audience" who witnessed her beach show recorded it, and gave a copy of the video to police.
    1
  10365.  @DavidKen878  Dewdrop, the original poster complained that there was no video. Yes, there was.
    1
  10366. Huh? When did she say should would have won titles against men?
    1
  10367. But, nobody saw the arrest video until she was dead for 1.5 years.
    1
  10368. Huh? I don't understand the question. He's not even in prison yet. And, at 18, he's not very likely to get the death penalty. I'm sure his attorneys will try to argue insanity, but, we'll see.
    1
  10369. Huh? What ARE you talking about? Are we even watching the same video? The driver here jumped out of the passenger side of the truck, threw his guns away and surrendered. He got a few minor hits, but will be fine. Clearly, you've started your weekend early, and you're on something. Better just sober up, before you make any further comments.
    1
  10370. So, when you don't know anything about the topic, you double down and spew more gibberish?
    1
  10371. Well, how about NOT pretending you know things you don't?
    1
  10372. Well, he was a photographer who knew nothing about photography. From that point forward, yeah, I imagine everything in his life was a mess, and jealousy might have been a common theme for him.
    1
  10373. The news outlets didn't cover this until long after she was dead... so... no, they didn't ruin her life... she did that all on her own.
    1
  10374. I tried putting this into Google translator, but, it still came out as gibberish. Can you maybe post this in your native language, and then people can translate on their own?
    1
  10375. A guy comes up to your car wearing a balaclava ski mask in the middle of a Kentucky summer, opens your door, and points a gun at your head. He just needs help? Or, he's there to carjack you, or even worse, possibly kill you? Which will you go with?
    1
  10376. Funny that the Supreme Court (the primary keepers of the Constitution) disagree with you. Maybe they knew the facts of the case when they rejected Smith's appeal, and you don't know the facts of the case?
    1
  10377. First of all, how do you figure he was shot in the back, when the bullet went into his chest? Secondly, sorry, but when a felon is fleeing the police with a gun, and drops it, and repeatedly picks it back up, yes, that means he intends to USE IT. Thirdly, what is it with you people that you believe a cop shouldn't shoot in the back? Why? I mean, you're wrong about this case anyway, but, even if you were correct, why do you believe what you believe? How does this go? A criminal needs only turn and run, and the cops can't shoot? So, you're basically advocating that a criminal can fortify his position, get to safety, then turn and get into a gunfight from a better vantage point? That's what you want? Cops should only shoot when the criminals have a chance to shoot first? Take your hatred somewhere else. Quit polluting the world with your rancid ideas.
    1
  10378. Yes, they did their jobs perfectly. But, something tells me that you blame them for doing their jobs, huh?
    1
  10379. You handcuff people you're arresting. That's how it works. And, the police didn't make it a spectacle. Whoever did the FOIA request for the arrest video did that (which was on a channel that no longer exists, so, who knows if we'll ever know who did it?). The police managed to keep the arrest video out of the public's eye for about 2.5 years, which was about 1.5 years after she killed herself. I'd say the police did pretty well. Why do you think otherwise?
    1
  10380. Not the brightest bulb, eh? When challenged, you changed the topic. And, you got it wrong. No dust was stuck to the Apollo 12 window, dewdrop.
    1
  10381. They obviously spent a lot of time rehearsing this conversation... but they don't take the time to realize that their banner dominates the page to the point that they block the text underneath, and you can't even read what they want you to read (i.e. 2:22 in this video).
    1
  10382. But, viral videos about attractive women don't go viral if they don't show the attraction.
    1
  10383. Most likely as a result of a FOIA request. But, the original channel that published it is gone now, so, I wonder if we'll ever know who it was.
    1
  10384. NASA doesn't spend any money disproving the fake story people. And, how would NASA shut down videos made by 3rd parties? Repeal the 1st amendment?
    1
  10385. Freedom of Information Act. If they get a legal FOIA request, what could they really do about it? They held the video private for 2.5 years. She was already dead for 1.5 of those years. They can no longer block it due to an open investigation. The case was closed because she was long dead. So, yes, they had to release it.
    1
  10386. I have a bridge for sale for any commenter here who buys this sob story about nobody being around. She was a convicted felon who spent time in prison around 6 years ago. She walked out on her family (including a 6 month old boy) about a decade ago, in favor of living a life of drugs and crime. She had an arrest and judgment record a mile long, including stealing cars, drugs and alcohol, failures to appear in court, more thefts, etc. One of the audience caught this incident on video and showed it to the police. The video doesn't match this sob story about a secluded act outside the view of others. Her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club. Her neighbors said she also did "private" transactions out of her apartment. Oh, but Inside Edition shows people a minute long video, labels her as a real estate agent and innocent soccer mom, and the crowd gobbles it up. BLAME THE POLICE!!! BLAME THE PEOPLE WHO CALLED!!! Good grief. I'd assume she was making a "public" video to promote herself before I'd believe a single word out of her. And, by the way, this arrest was July 1, 2021. Suicide = March, 2022. And, the arrest video was released to the public due to legal FOIA request on November 24, 2023. So, no, this arrest video didn't cause her suicide, because nobody saw it while she was alive.
    1
  10387.  @nimo6972  Sorry, dewdrop, but you don't know what you're talking about.
    1
  10388.  @nimo6972  You need to stop trusting trash news like Inside Edition, and go read the police reports, arrest record, interviews, and court judgements.
    1
  10389. So, in your mind, Buzz told her that he didn't go to the moon (because you didn't pay attention to the context)... yet, he told her he DID go to the moon both before and after that little quote you're talking about. Gee, could it be that you didn't understand the context? And, how do you think this works? Lori Loughlin bribed people to get her daughters into college, and the entire world stopped. Countless people went to prison, there were documentaries made, news reporters for months, senate investigations, etc. Aldrin tells the world that Apollo was fake... and... nothing? Nobody says a word? Not a single reporter? No prosecutions. Nothing at all? Or, could it be that you fringe nuts are intentionally taking things out of context, and ya know, we SANE people understand that context matters? And, if you believe a single thing in a Bart Sibrel movie, you have much bigger problems.
    1
  10390. So, you replied with ANOTHER message demonstrating that you read and write at a 2nd grader's level?
    1
  10391. Sorry, but you'll need far more emojis than that if you want to make your point.
    1
  10392. Huh? She was already a mother of two boys (two different fathers). She left her husband and two sons (one of them was 6 months old) around a decade ago in favor of living a "wild" and "off the rails" (her family's words) life of drugs and crime.
    1
  10393.  @magicstix0r  YOU SAID: "Yeah, but, you know, the only way to be absolutely sure is to put another person on the moon..." == No, sane people are already sure. And, putting another person on the moon won't convince anyone. The conspiratards will just deny it's real, then shift the goalposts (again).
    1
  10394. Unblurred = alive. Blurred = dead.
    1
  10395. The gun was black.
    1
  10396.  @dansv1  Oh no. You might want to do that math again.
    1
  10397.  @dansv1  C'mon man. Don't play that game with me. I can still see your other postings that you deleted.
    1
  10398. You have never heard of securing the scene first?
    1
  10399. Yeah, I really want to take advise from a guy who goes by the name "Donut." Yeah, forget common sense and training, and focus on administering aid, right? That's the best way to assure that you're going to be the next one needing that aid. You've got a guy crawling out of the woodwork wearing a balaclava mask and pointing a gun, a screaming banshee arriving seconds later, a screaming brother off in the distance a bit after that, and you think it's a good idea to turn your focus on aid, rather than securing the scene? Really? You don't think it's possible that another armed guy is going to crawl out of the woodwork and pick up where Mark left off? You don't think it's a good idea to make sure there are plenty of officers on the scene to assure safety before turning your focus away from the surroundings and onto the carjacker? Why? Because a donut told you something else?
    1
  10400. Dewdrop, how about the legal system itself, and the fact that his own family's attorney is not challenging the aid that was given? Do you trust "Donut" instead of attorneys and other trained professionals?
    1
  10401. A picture's worth 1000 words.
    1
  10402. Not much research required. I gave you the exact name of the video for the search bar.
    1
  10403. Yes, she is allowed to feel offended that the store employee told the cop that she left without paying. But, none of that justifies the actions this woman took after that point. Even if wrongly accused, the store has a right to ask for proof that you paid for something. And, the police have the right to ask for identification. And, you should never resist arrest. The initial human error was made when the store employee thought she stole. But, after that point, all errors were done by the woman herself.
    1
  10404.  @yangpaan453  The store employee said that the person left without paying. Yes, the police officer can investigate.
    1
  10405.  @yangpaan453  Let me make sure I understand you correctly... if a store employee tells a cop that a person stole, you're under the impression that the cop cannot stop the person? That's what you're claiming? A store employee's word isn't enough reason for a cop to investigate??? If not then, what would be? What level of evidence do you require? Good grief.
    1
  10406. Hey, DrNovid, just FYI: I have a copy of your entire thread from before you spewed even more gibberish, then deleted it, and ran for the hills. Stusue, you were in that thread too, let me know if you want a copy.
    1
  10407. It won't let me paste it as-is. I'll need to try to piece it together later into a reply (or replies) that can post without getting deleted. I've got to leave soon. But, it ended when he argued (again) that VOIP is faster than analog, and then cited the dejitter buffer as the reason. I pointed out (again) that the dejitter buffer's primary job is to ADD delay. My guess is that he finally looked it up instead of pretending he understood the topic, because then the thread disappeared.
    1
  10408. I've tried again to post it, but, it's not being accepted. I'll need to divide it out into chunks, and edit out all of the formatting problems that YouTube might be rejecting. I have every single post he made (except his last one while he was realizing he was wrong and ran for the hills), and I have 100% of the replies.
    1
  10409. DrNovid 3 hours ago (edited) If they had the camera view from within the tin foiled lander, it would have been far more convincing. Unfortunately, the Hollywood director must have been over enthusiastic to have a camera on the "Moon's ground" even before the first man set foot on Moon 😅. They also should hsve given a 5 seconds gap between the command and response sequence, considering the close to 800K KMs distance in round trip for the radio waves and the poor electronics of the '60s. Now, they know, even today, after 60 years, there will be more delay in round trip communications than what they showed in the '60s (even today, the voip communication on Earth, has a close to 2 seconds of frustrating delays in every sequence)
    1
  10410. stusue9733 1 hour ago "If they had the camera view from within the tin foiled lander, " They did. "on the "Moon's ground" even before the first man set foot on Moon" They did not. It was on the side of the "tin foiled lander". "a 5 seconds gap between the command and response sequence, considering the close to 800K KMs distance in round trip for the radio waves" Remind just what the speed of light is? " the poor electronics of the '60" Please explain exactly how "poor electronics" effects delay. Be specific.
    1
  10411. rockethead7 56 minutes ago Dewdrop, they DID [also] have a camera running inside the lander looking down onto the surface. "Apollo 11. 16mm Onboard Film 1969." So, you're convinced now, right?
    1
  10412. rockethead7 53 minutes ago "over enthusiastic to have a camera on the "Moon's ground" even before the first man set foot on Moon" No, dewdrop. The camera you're talking about wasn't on the ground, it was attached to a bay that folded down out of the side of the lander. Ya know, the landing was actually planned in advance, right? They knew they would need a camera, and actually put one there. Why do you think this is some sort of "gotcha" as if not a single one the 7000 engineers at Grumman would say, "hey, wait a minute, we never installed a camera there!!"??
    1
  10413. rockethead7 53 minutes ago "given a 5 seconds gap between the command and response sequence" No, dewdrop. 2.6 seconds.
    1
  10414. rockethead7 51 minutes ago "for the radio waves and the poor electronics" Analog electronics aren't "poor." But, um, dewdrop, you are aware that analog is faster than digital, right?
    1
  10415. rockethead7 50 minutes ago "they know, even today, after 60 years, there will be more delay in round trip communications than what they showed in the '60s" Why? Has the speed of light magically changed since then?
    1
  10416. DrNovid 3 minutes ago stusue9733 It was not about the "camera on the side of the tin foiled...." It was about the side view footages approx from 15 - 20 meters from the lander, while Armstrong (or whoever it was 🤫) was still stepping down (for the first time) unless he stepped down prior, fixed at least one camera outside (with its focus absolutely on the ladder), climbed back only to step down again as if a reel maker/vlogger would do these days!!. Speed of light is 300,000 KM/second, so the one way communication would take approx 1.3 seconds to reach the Moon (2. 6 seconds for round trip, without any processing involving demodulation, decoding, amplifying....). Regarding, the "poor electronics" of 60 years ago - the old vacuum tubes, early family of transistors with significant losses, poor heat dissipation, heavier dimensions, (forget chips and micro controllers, as early stable 8 bit controllers originated towards the first half of '70s or by the second half of '60s) - using even 10000 such 8 bit controllers, they couldn't have automated various aspects of a moon mission at that point of time (because of prohibitive time that will be spent on inter chip communication and logic gates computation delays and the subsequent heat that would generate and expensive heat dissipators/sinks that would call for adding for a very heavy payload......). In contrast to today's semiconductor technology uses 1 nm technology (a measurement used to differentiate the inter transistor gap on a silicon wafer without having much EM interference) - Remember, in the '60s it wasn't nano meters, it wasn't micrometers, it wasn't even millimetres, it was several centimetres of "gap" - first of all there wasn't any single silicon wafer embedding all the components (known as SoC), mostly the peripherals were all different components - many interconnects, different components meant, more time to switch between and losses, many amplifiers, more circuitry (forget the heat, cooling needs)........which could all add upto another 2- 3 seconds in round trip communication, taking the whole exercise of one round of command and response to at least 5 seconds (in comparison, even today's voip communications over WhatsApp, Skype etc have a close to 2 seconds frustrating delay many a times if you have noticed - and thats on Earth, using all our modern communication technologies, on a familiar territory). And this was just about voice communication while sending videos from 400K KMs 60 years ago, must have been a different ball game altogether!! The fact that they had "almost realtime" videos coming from the Moon in the '60s when an email could not have been sent back home, on Earth, without letters corrupted/ jumbled up (bit corruption, transmission losses, reproducing of transmitted and lost frames, causing jitters - which are all technologies of 'late '80s, 90s and early 2000s) gives me jitters!! And they say, the Saturn rocket didn't have to carry all those bulky electronics as the ground station would do all the bulky calculations and send back the required details (navigation, other trajectory and control related signals, heat, electrical, air, humidity related sensor data, corrections...........) - again considering the atleast 5 seconds transmission delay without even considering calculation delays, the rocket would have crashed for want of its navigation or engine control (assuming there was a fairly well engine control in the '60s if at all) data coming from the ground or would have burst into flames waiting for other sensor data to correct its onboard heat/current/voltage/air quality parameters......... Also, the bandwidth it could have taken for video frames to be transmitted from the Moon, using onboard transmitters and the power it could take using technologies of those times (which according to NASA are extinct as they didn't document those!) - sending videos from Earth to Moon and the rocket/lander is one thing, having a video coming from those lunar module and orbiter combined is just another thing altogether. Forget the "prohibitive costs", just to keep NASA's honour, all developed nations should pool in money and technology forgetting all their partisan differences to prove that man can land on Moon at least once in the next 3 decades - just to prove and keep the conspiracy theorists away - I wish
    1
  10417. DrNovid 1 hour ago rockethead7 Not exactly, its not about "also having a camera inside....." Its about who placed the camera outside at the first place, at least 15 - 20 meters away from the lander, to have such perfect reel shot of Armstrong stepping foot "on Moon".
    1
  10418. rockethead7 0 seconds ago "its not about "also having a camera inside"" Those were YOUR WORDS, dewdrop. That was YOUR opening sentence. You clearly had no idea that there was a camera filming from the inside, and YOU commented that you would find it more believable if they did. Now that you know you were wrong, you're merely shifting the goalposts, and trying to change the topic.
    1
  10419. rockethead7 0 seconds ago "who placed the camera outside at the first place, at least 15 - 20 meters away from the lander" There's no such footage, dewdrop. Go watch the Apollo 11 moonwalk again. The camera was attached to the side of the lander, exactly as I already explained. That's where you saw the first steps. 20 minutes later, Armstrong put that very same camera on a tripod and walked it away from the lander to point it back at the area they were working.
    1
  10420. rockethead7 0 seconds ago "to have such perfect reel shot of Armstrong stepping foot" You cannot even see his foot touch the ground!!! How is this a "perfect shot" of him stepping on the moon? Are you sure you've even watched the Apollo 11 video? Or, did you watch a movie dramatization, and got it confused in your head?
    1
  10421. rockethead7 0 seconds ago "It was about the side view footages approx from 15 - 20 meters from the lander" Dewdrop, you either watched a dramatization, or you watched footage taken from Apollo 14's second EVA, and you have it confused with Apollo 11. None of the Apollo 11 footage shows anything like what you're claiming.
    1
  10422. rockethead7 0 seconds ago "without any processing involving demodulation, decoding, amplifying" Well, decoding meant something in those three, but, doesn't apply to analog audio transmission. Demodulation doesn't mean anything at all. And, amplifying is irrelevant. But, hey, I know you just wanted to spew 3 big words to pretend you know things you don't. Sorry. Doesn't work on me.
    1
  10423. rockethead7 0 seconds ago "the old vacuum tubes" "chips and micro controllers" "stable 8 bit controllers" "even 10000 such 8 bit controllers" "inter chip communication" "logic gates" "computation delays" "heat dissipators/sinks" Not a single one of these things is in any way, shape, or form, relevant to the analog audio or video communications used in Apollo. Not one. Maybe you think you're dazzling people with big words, but, you're not.
    1
  10424. rockethead7 0 seconds ago "forget the heat, cooling needs)........which could all add upto another 2- 3 seconds in round trip communication" Good gods. Will you EVER stop pretending?
    1
  10425. rockethead7 0 seconds ago "have a close to 2 seconds frustrating delay" VOIP delay is rarely that high, but, yes, it can happen, and yes, it's far higher than analog. Again, the primary factor is in the long dejitter buffers. Each one induces 40 milliseconds of delay. If you have to traverse multiple, then add 40 more milliseconds for each one. And, that's with zero actual jitter, and that's in each direction. If you actually have a jittery stream, those buffers increase dynamically.
    1
  10426. rockethead7 0 seconds ago "just about voice communication while sending videos from 400K KMs 60 years ago, must have been a different ball game altogether" The voice and video were sent on two different frequencies.
    1
  10427. rockethead7 1 second ago "The fact that they had "almost realtime" videos coming from the Moon in the '60s when an email could not have been sent back home, on Earth" So, let me get this straight... they were supposed to wait to send missions to the moon until email was invented? What in the world are you even talking about, dewdrop?
    1
  10428. rockethead7 0 seconds ago "reproducing of transmitted and lost frames" There has never been a point in any VOIP (either video, or voice) that has ever reproduced any lost frames. Not one time. Since the inception of VOIP, it has been an international standard adopted by every single maker of every single piece of VOIP equipment to merely disregard lost frames and never re-transmit, using UDP. When are you going to stop pretending? When? Is this just an endless thing for you? Look, again, you might THINK you're dazzling people with your "knowledge" (sigh), but, sorry, you aren't.
    1
  10429. rockethead7 0 seconds ago "the Saturn rocket didn't have to carry all those bulky electronics as the ground station would do all the bulky calculations and send back the required details (navigation, other trajectory and control related signals," Well, yes regarding navigation on the early missions. They'd have gone to the moon without any onboard navigation computers whatsoever, if required. Navigation from ground based radar was accurate to within a mile, which would have been good enough until they could visually land. The later missions, um, no. They weren't going to land at sites like the Hadley–Apennine mountains or the Taurus-Littrow valley without an onboard computer.
    1
  10430. rockethead7 0 seconds ago "heat, electrical, air, humidity related sensor data" No, dewdrop. Those were irrelevant to any kind of notion of computers in Houston controlling them.
    1
  10431. rockethead7 0 seconds ago "atleast 5 seconds transmission delay" No, dewdrop. The round trip delay was about 2.6 seconds. It's very clear that you are just using technobabble to pretend you understand the topic to double the time delay to suit your narrative. You have absolutely no understanding of communications systems, and need to stop pretending.
    1
  10432. rockethead7 0 seconds ago "without even considering calculation delays" Why? Do you think the engineers simply had no idea there was a delay? Good grief. Since bows and arrows, and spears, anybody knew to "lead" the moving target they were aiming at, because it wasn't going to be in the same spot by the time the arrow or spear got there. Do you really believe that the engineers who designed and built the navigation systems for Apollo didn't understand that there's a communication delay? Oh, but YOU understand, right? YOU do? Mr. "Inter Chip Communication Logic Gate Computation Heat Sink Dissipators Cause 5 Seconds Of Delay"? You're here to share your "knowledge" with the world? That's what this thread is for, in your mind? The guys building stuff for Apollo didn't realize that there was a delay, but, YOU do?
    1
  10433. rockethead7 0 seconds ago "the rocket would have crashed for want of its navigation" No, dewdrop. Without the navigation computer, they'd have used these things called a "throttle" and a "control stick."
    1
  10434. rockethead7 0 seconds ago "assuming there was a fairly well engine control" Um, yeah, dewdrop. It was this little company called "TRW" that developed the throttleable descent engine. I mean, it wasn't like they were in the top 100 on the Fortune 500 list or anything... um... wait....
    1
  10435. rockethead7 0 seconds ago "data coming from the ground or would have burst into flames" Really, dewdrop? That's what you think engineers do? They design rockets that burst into flames if they don't get data from the ground? Seriously?
    1
  10436. rockethead7 0 seconds ago "its onboard heat/current/voltage/air quality parameters" Don't forget the Flux Capacitor!! Doc Brown and Marty McFly taught you everything you know about engineering, right?
    1
  10437. rockethead7 0 seconds ago "the bandwidth it could have taken for video frames to be transmitted from the Moon" Well, even I use the word "bandwidth" when trying to convey stuff to people who know nothing about the topic. But, I'm obsessive, so I always qualify it as an analogy by saying that it's not actually bandwidth, because it's analog, not digital. But, you actually believe you understand the topic fer reelz, right? You actually believe the stuff you're saying, right?
    1
  10438. rockethead7 0 seconds ago "and the power it could take using technologies of those times (which according to NASA are extinct as they didn't document those!)" Gee, did a silly video made by a taxi cab driver tell you that? Dewdrop, have you looked at the archives? It took me all of about 3 minutes to find the LRCU manual that outlined the exact power, radio frequencies, antennae specifications, etc., for the lunar rover's audio and video transmitters. It's an easy 65 page training document, and there are others like it that are hundreds of pages, even thousands. Have you tried looking for these documents you think don't exist? Or, did you watch a video that told you they don't exist, and never bothered verifying for yourself?
    1
  10439. rockethead7 0 seconds ago "sending videos from Earth to Moon and the rocket/lander is one thing" Really? What video do you think they sent from the Earth to the moon?
    1
  10440. rockethead7 0 seconds ago "having a video coming from those lunar module and orbiter combined is just another thing altogether" So, basically, your position is that, because you don't know how the equipment worked, and because you watched a video telling you that it was never documented (when it actually was), this means that Apollo didn't happen? Really, dewdrop? Really?
    1
  10441. rockethead7 1 second ago "just to keep NASA's honour" Dewdrop, you couldn't even lift a finger to know that they DID have a camera facing out the window from inside the lander during the moonwalk. Your first sentence was abysmally incorrect. And, ironically, every sentence after it got laughably worse and worse. Don't tell me that you think NASA's honor depends on whatever notion you have about future missions. You clearly have decided what to honor, and what not to honor, based on a stream of absolute ignorance that has nothing whatsoever to do with reality. You're in no position to decide what's honorable or what's not, because you don't know anything about the topic.
    1
  10442. I didn't make a copy in time of the message he sent back, stating how wrong I was about VOIP being slower than analog. He doubled down, and spewed more nonsense. I did get copies of my replies to that message, though.
    1
  10443. rockethead7 0 seconds ago "Analog didn't have the expensive error correction" And, thus, it's faster.
    1
  10444. rockethead7 1 second ago "jitter avoidance" Really, dewdrop? Do you mean the dejitter buffers? The main thing that makes VOIP communication slower? Yes, dewdrop, hence why analog is faster.
    1
  10445. At that point, he deleted the thread.
    1
  10446. Wow. I don't think I've ever seen such a wrong posting before. Good grief. No, dewdrop, it's not the gun that's responsible, it's the user of the gun. And, what's your solution? Let me guess: you want a law to be passed to ban guns? Just how out of touch with reality could you possibly be?
    1
  10447. THAT's your response? So, basically, you're confirming how far outside reality your mind has reached.
    1
  10448. Huh? July 1, 2021 = arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released to the public.
    1
  10449. My response was directed at the other person (who apparently deleted her comment and ran away).
    1
  10450. Huh? I can't make sense of what you're attempting to say. Which belt? Why did you use singular form? And, being outside of the belts is a good thing for life. Most organic life can't survive INSIDE the belts. But, you object to them going outside of the belts? What? Also, how much time do you think it would take to get a fatal dose?
    1
  10451.  @texmex9721  I'm a little confused when you state that you've never seen anything saying they went through the center on Apollo 14, then you provided a quote stating that they did (or, well, close to it).
    1
  10452.  @texmex9721  Well, I'll see if I can dig up the actual flight path, but, at the moment, I don't recall the exact source. Eric is retired now, and, although I exchange emails with him from time to time, I don't feel that this would be something worth troubling him over (to find out why he chose the words he did).
    1
  10453. Maybe if you understood how to read and write beyond a 2nd grade level, you might have the ability to read up on why you're completely wrong.
    1
  10454. Japan's satellite didn't have that level of resolution. But, they used it to confirm Apollo in other ways. Perhaps you're thinking of China's satellite, which, like India's, took photos of some of the landing sites in the last couple of years?
    1
  10455. And, when the news company says "Freedom of Information Act," then what do you think happens to your suit?
    1
  10456. I don't know what you're talking about, and neither do you.
    1
  10457. Pfftt. What?? She was cooperative? This must be a joke. I mean, I basically assume this is a sarcastic comment. But, who knows, on YouTube, there's no shortage of people who think crazy things. A store has every right to ask for proof of purchase. And, if a store tells a cop that someone left without paying, the cop is obligated to investigate. And, an individual is obligated to cooperate with those kinds of investigations, present ID, and comply if arrested. She is NOT obligated to present her receipt (and, yes, she didn't present it). But, then she has to deal with the fact that it will result in an arrest. And, resisting arrest is never allowed.
    1
  10458. If we listened to idiots ignoring education, disregarding science, and investing in magic beans, we'd still live in caves.
    1
  10459. According to the news articles, yes, there were only minor wounds. 9mm bullets do not penetrate trucks very well.
    1
  10460. They blindly believe trash they see on Inside Edition.
    1
  10461.  @murraychadwick9362  And, she died for it also.
    1
  10462. Pushed? Pushed by what?
    1
  10463. They probably feel sorry for people who believe a single thing seen on Inside Edition.
    1
  10464. Congress wasn't willing to keep funding it. At its peak, Apollo spending amounted to 4.5% of the entire federal budget in hard costs, and about the equivalent of 2% more in soft costs and international support. It was, by far, the most expensive program in human history outside of concepts like permanent programs such as the overall military or social security.
    1
  10465. Yeah, well, I have a difficult time with the money aspect. The main purpose of Apollo was to scare the Soviets into backing off, as an expression of so much technical and industrial dominance, that they would realize that they couldn't/wouldn't win a war. Many people think Apollo was one of the primary reasons the Cold War stayed cold, and that it saved tens of millions of lives by not getting into a nuclear conflict that would leave holes in the ground where cities used to be. But, we cannot turn back time and find out if they're correct... nor would we want to.
    1
  10466. I think the lunar geologists would argue with you about "nothing out there." But, yeah, a very good case could be made that an unmanned lander that lasts for 15 years is more valuable than sending people for a month at 100x the cost.
    1
  10467. Good father?
    1
  10468. Well, given that it takes very long exposure times (usually around 30 seconds) to show stars on film, I'd say that if you expected to see stars in "film footage" (I assume you mean the 16mm video film?), you really don't know what you're talking about.
    1
  10469. First of all, nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive. Secondly, Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  10470. Well, with the exception of an obscure website that posted an article, it was private until 1.5 years after she died.
    1
  10471. Huh? You can do better? Please enlighten the world about how accurate you are, such that you can not only get 9mm rounds to penetrate a truck, but hit the guy also? And, um, yeah, he WAS hit. So, I really don't understand this comment.
    1
  10472. YOU SAID: "great docu, but why are the still images always super high resolution and crystal clear yet all footage looks like its 1.0p 😁" == It depends on the camera used. Most of the video footage from Apollo 17 came from a low resolution television camera, via a live radio broadcast back to Earth. It was an RCA field sequential scanning camera (making matters worse for picture quality, but, it made it very lightweight and easy to mount to the rover). And, they didn't exactly have the bandwidth (using that term loosely, since it wasn't a digital signal, it was actually an analog signal, but "bandwidth" is close enough to describe it for now) to send live high definition video back home. And, they really didn't have the cameras for higher definition either, at least not small/compact/light enough to stick on the front of a rover. == They had other cameras. They had two 70mm Hasselblad film cameras (still photographs), which produced images that have a higher "pixel" (equivalent) density than the most expensive digital camera you can buy today. They also had a 35mm stereoscopic film camera. They also had a 16mm film video camera. But, those only held a few minutes of film before they'd need to change the film roll, and they didn't use that camera as much as some of the others. == What you see in documentaries like this are selected imagery (still photos, or video) from the various cameras, and put together in a documentary format. Personally, I like the documentaries that give you the camera that was used, and the official NASA catalog number of the photo/video every time they show it on the screen. But, alas, most documentaries don't do that, and just put together these assemblies of videos/photos, sometimes even borrowing footage/photos from other missions, and never give you a frame of reference to understand it. I don't blame you for being confused, because the documentaries rarely specify enough information for you to fully realize what's happening. But, whatever, it's just a documentary. If you want all of the original TV footage, there's a YouTube channel called "Apollo Seventeen" (spelled out like that) that has nearly the entirety of Apollo 17's mission video on it. And, if you want to see copies of all of the original still photography and 16mm video film photography, you'll find it on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal website. YOU SAID: "and why did light particle dust fall back down when they were driving and not linger/float if no gravity" == If there was no gravity, EVERYTHING would float away. The rovers. The dust. The mountains. The rocks. The people. Everything. The moon's gravity isn't zero. It's about 1/6th of Earth gravity. That's not a lot. But, it's enough to make things fall down. YOU SAID: "not doubting im just generally interested." == No problem. Nobody blames anybody for asking honest questions.
    1
  10473. Well, releasing it before she committed suicide would have been worse. And, sorry, but the Freedom of Information Act is not a faux pas.
    1
  10474. If she lost the receipt, then the cop would need to make a decision about whether it was likely a crime was committed, and, if so, arrest her. As for reviewing cameras, sure, that sounds pretty reasonable... except for the fact that the woman refused to ID, obstructed, obfuscated, and resisted (all of which were crimes all by themselves, regardless of the theft charge).
    1
  10475.  @boofert.washington2499  YOU SAID: "Nobody was physically hurt. It's really not that big of a deal." == Tell that to the students who DIDN'T get the college positions they wanted because the rich people bought their spots away from them. YOU SAID: "College is overrated to begin with. I should know. I barely went to class and still graduated with a 3.7 GPA." == Well, then you're not the one that's affected in the first place. But, others were. The ones most affected were the ones who didn't get in because they were borderline to begin with. Those are the types of people who really need the extra education, and it has been statistically proven that those types of people almost always benefit from getting the education that you didn't care about. This stuff isn't a victimless crime, you know. One of the main points of our country's university system is that it's supposed to be the great equalizer in our society. It's what helps to make the USA the "land of opportunity." As it is, it's already very true that children of rich parents have quite a head start in life, and will have a lot more privilege than children of poor parents, and I don't think there's anything we can realistically do about that, nor am I very sure that I'd want to do anything about that (people should be entitled to work hard to help their children in life, and why shouldn't that be the case?). But, a university education is supposed to help equalize the playing field a bit. Admission is supposed to be based on academic qualifications, not on the parents' financial status. What those parents did was pay money, not even to the university itself, but to crooked individuals, to cheat someone else out of their rightful admission to that university. Furthermore, get real here, do you REALLY want to live in a system that bribing people to get what you want is legal, and the only criteria to define what's a crime, and what's not a crime, is whether someone was physically harmed? If I pulled some sort of financial crime, which devalued your 401K portfolio by $100,000, would you take the same stance as you're taking right now? Is it "no big deal" that I essentially stole $100,000 from you, merely because you weren't physically hurt in the process? Well, what these parents did was just about the equivalent of that. Someone else was unable to attend that university, and either couldn't go at all, or had to go to a lesser university instead. This very well may mean that, over the period of his/her lifetime, he/she will earn $100,000 less than if he/she went to the more prestigious university. What these parents did was NOT a victimless crime, and they should pay a price for it.
    1
  10476.  @thetruth8302  "Only murderer rapist child molesters belong in prison." - This is a joke, right?
    1
  10477. Apollo 9 and 10 were not in 1968, they happened in 1969. Apollo 13's explosion wasn't due to faulty wiring, that's a vast oversimplification. Some unsolicited advice: there are only 4 moonwalkers still alive. Go meet them. I've met most of the 12 across many different occasions over the years, had dinner with them, breakfast, lunch, sit-down conversations, you name it. I've watched them die off, one by one, and regret either not meeting some of them at all (like Alan Shepard), or not spending as much time with them as I could have (like Edgar Mitchell). Thankfully, I've met with ones like Cernan enough times to have a pretty good glimpse into their personalities, before they died... but, no matter what, it's never enough time... but at least I can say that I've talked with him for several hours. Dave Scott is the only commander still alive. He isn't the open book that Aldrin or Cernan are/were, but, again, the only commander still alive. He'll answer your questions, but, he doesn't go into the level of detail that some of the other did. Aldrin is the best to talk with. I've spoken with him a bunch of times (don't remember how many) over the years. He was definitely the most disliked of all of the astronauts (by the other astronauts). But, man, he'll give you all of the information you ever asked for, and a ton more. I had breakfast once with him and Jim Lovell, and I almost said nothing at all, and just listened to Aldrin talk, telling details that you don't find in any books. Lovell didn't even say much. Aldrin remembers the technical details as if it all happened yesterday. Charlie Duke is one of the friendliest of the astronauts. I've never seen him NOT smile. He's really fun to speak with. Schmitt is more difficult to meet than the others. I've met him a couple of times, but, didn't get as much time with him as I would have liked, and never one-on-one. But, he's definitely one fine speaker, and doesn't make too many mistakes about the information. Anyway, just my 2 cents. They're getting old. Don't miss out on a chance to meet them, if you have the means.
    1
  10478. The arrest video was released 2.5 years later, as the result of a legal FOIA request. She was long dead before anybody saw it.
    1
  10479. Except one of the witnesses had it on video. And, with this woman's mile long criminal history, and numerous open warrants, she was getting arrested either way.
    1
  10480. Where do you get this nonsense? That bike was clearly not mowed over. It shows no such damage from any angle in any of the various videos on this topic. And, you have already exposed that you don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about. The surveillance video clearly shows that the kid raced away from the gas station as soon as he saw the police car. No wheelies involved (at least not before the pursuit started). I can't say whether any wheelies were done after the bike left the frame of view of the gas station. But, by that point, the police officer was already chasing the kid. So, this whole thing about police chasing the kid because he was doing wheelies makes no sense whatsoever. If any wheelies were done, they came AFTER the cop was already chasing. You clearly have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about.
    1
  10481. Well, they didn't really miss all that much. But, a 9mm hollow point round just cannot penetrate a truck very well. For example, watch at 2:10 in this video. The criminal is shooting directly at the driver's seat, and seems to make plenty of on-target shots. But, the rounds don't even break the glass, and bounce right off. Same goes in reverse. The cops' rounds just can't penetrate. The criminal driver only got hit a few times. I'm not sure how many were through the open window vs. having to penetrate the truck first, but, they only amounted to minor injuries. Did you see the photos of his chin shot? It barely even looks like a bruise.
    1
  10482. Then watch the entire video, not this cut up version. And, no, the store manager didn't see anything. The store employee "Anna" was the one who told the cop she thought the woman walked out without paying.
    1
  10483. This is brought up almost daily. Why would you think it's not? And, a telescope's "power" essentially boils down to how big the lens is. In order to see a lander on the moon as just a dot (you wouldn't know what it was, it would just be a dot), you'd need a lens about 75 feet in diameter. In order to start to see the outlines of the lander at about the resolution of a 1970s Atari video game, it would take a lens about a quarter mile in diameter. This would give you roughly the same as LRO level resolution (not very good, but, you could probably identify it as a lander). The largest lens ever built is 5 feet in diameter and costed $168 million to build. I don't think we're anywhere near building quarter mile wide lenses. Don't believe me? Do the math yourself.
    1
  10484. What grade were you in when you dropped out of school? 8th? 9th?
    1
  10485. For a misdemeanor with multiple complaints? And, ok, they'd still need to arrest her for all of those open warrants. So, what difference would a ticket make?
    1
  10486. Yes, and lucky cops also. Had the driver not dropped the gun, this could have gone a completely different way.
    1
  10487. I guess YouTube is rejecting #3 and #5 for some reason.
    1
  10488. Dewdrop, India, South Korea, China, and USA have all sent various orbiters to the moon that have taken photos of the Apollo landers sitting exactly where they're supposed to be. Some of them can even see foot paths and rover tracks. What ARE you talking about when you claim there are no images of this stuff? No, not in the level of detail shown in this video, of course. But, there's plenty of proof that the stuff is there.
    1
  10489. Indecent exposure = misdemeanor, aggravated by the fact that it was in front of children. Multiple people complained, one of whom recorded it and gave the video to the police. Witnesses say it was intentional. And, the video doesn't match her version about nobody being around. She could deny it until the cows came home, but, she was going to get arrested no matter what. Plus, with her long criminal history, time served in prison, million other arrests, failures to appear in court, etc., let's be honest here, she was getting arrested that day. Period.
    1
  10490. She was a convicted felon who spent time in a Florida prison, and had a million other arrests. One of the audience recorded the incident and gave a copy to police. It doesn't match her "nobody was around" version. It was a very loud and visible show in front of multiple people including children.
    1
  10491. Because, dewdrop, it reflects on her credibility.
    1
  10492. Or, you could use this thing called "the internet" to find out for yourself.
    1
  10493.  @marcusv6134  Dewdrop, I have READ THE POLICE REPORTS AND CRIMINAL RECORD. Good grief.
    1
  10494.  @ornanongsavage8688  I already responded to you about that video (in a different thread). Why are you linking it again? Did you even bother reading the reply? Did you read my replies in this thread? Why can't you address any of your own points? Why can't you address any questions I asked? What's wrong with you? Seriously, this isn't internet banter, what IS wrong with you? Was it drugs that did this to you? Something else?
    1
  10495.  @ornanongsavage8688  Why do you ask questions, then refuse to read the answers?
    1
  10496. Huh? It's also not a crime to request a receipt. And, sorry, but there's no such concept as a search warrant for a receipt. The receipt is for the benefit of the consumer, not for the benefit of the store or cops.
    1
  10497. Yes, the onboard computers were in the command module and lunar module on every mission. I was just giving some additional details.
    1
  10498. Freedom of Information Act. No "leaks" required.
    1
  10499. Who embarrassed her, and how?
    1
  10500. Then, wouldn't that mean she embarrassed herself? Who is the who you were referring to?
    1
  10501.  @vladkeel  In the USA, the word "pound" can mean mass, or it can mean weight (force). Sorry that the English language uses words interchangeably too often. But, yes, in this context, they are talking about pounds of force on Earth = 450. It's 1/6th of that on the moon.
    1
  10502. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    1
  10503. Premeditated murder isn't wrong???
    1
  10504. Well, sort of. But, the best way to solve it is to clear out the junk in the garage that's preventing him from putting the truck inside. Then, he can bring it up at the HOA meetings to vote on changing that particular rule. I mean, his beef isn't actually with the HOA, but, his beef is with the community itself that voted those rules into place from the start.
    1
  10505. But, dewdrop, the arrest video wasn't released until 1.5 years after she died. Nobody saw it while she was alive.
    1
  10506. And, where do you think she is? Heaven also?
    1
  10507. Oh, good grief. Why do people like you insist upon lying? You know darned well that it didn't actually sink in about how slowly the Earth rotates (relative to its entire size), until you were dragged into understanding it. You expected to be able to point the camera at the Earth and see the rotation in real time. That's what your initial posting said, that's what you believed, and then after two people pointed out how ridiculous it was, you said you expected them to wait a few hours in between photos. Well, dewdrop, you got your wish anyway. They took a bunch of Earth photos on Apollo 17, and you can go look at them all. You'll see that, other than the ones back to back in quick succession, none of the Earth photos look identical. That's because, not only is the Earth spinning, but, the sun angle is changing, and you can see the Earth going through some of the "phases" (just like seeing the various phases of the moon). And, heck, forget Apollo 17, go to Apollo 11, where they took about a hundred photos of the Earth as they got further and further away in transit, spanning hours/days. No? You're just going to sit there and pretend it never happened? Remember, dewdrop, you opened by denying that they ever took any of these photos AT ALL. Then, you were forced to admit that you did see some of the photos/video. And, now, you're still unwilling to just outright admit being wrong, and, once again, you need to be dragged into it, kicking and screaming. Good grief. You are WRONG. That's all there is to this. And, it's painfully obvious that you never lifted a finger to fact check YOURSELF. And, by the way, dewdrop, there was no "zoom" per se. They could switch lenses entirely, to use a "zoomed" (so to speak) lens instead of the "regular" lenses. But, nobody on Apollo was really interested in trying to convince people that the Earth rotates. Good gods. Learn some science. Sheeeeshhh.
    1
  10508. What possible reason would you have to believe that kind of nonsense?
    1
  10509. They didn't violate the constitution. The man wasn't arrested for speech. He was arrested for trespassing.
    1
  10510.  @JamesMDavis1  What are you talking about? They even say IN THIS VIDEO that he was arrested for trespassing. And, you can look up the public record. Good grief.
    1
  10511.  @Violet_Lotus_  YOU SAID: "it was in a public building at a public hearing. Explain how that constitutes trespassing." == You are confusing the concept of things like a public sidewalk, vs. public buildings. I mean, it helps if you stop and think for a minute about this concept. Like, if your idea is that it's owned by the public, you're allowed to be there, immediately you must know that this concept is wrong. You cannot just enter the White House. You cannot be in the judge's private chambers in a courthouse. You cannot go inside the mayor's office. You cannot even go inside the school while kids are in class. I mean, even for some public parks, you're not allowed to go at night. Anyway, back to your question about how it's trespassing: well, the way public buildings work, officials of that building have the authority to decide whether you're welcome there, or not. If the officials close the meeting early (which they did), and ask everyone to leave (which they did), then anybody who refuses to leave is trespassing. You may not like it, I may not like it, but, yes, that's 100% correct. The board has the purview to trespass people who refuse to leave when asked. YOU SAID: "They were clearly trying to shut him up." == Yup, and I hope that every member of that school board is booted off of the board, and sued to oblivion, and never holds any kind of public board/office again. Those people shouldn't be inflicting their "woke" politics upon the educational system. They're there to educate children, not to foster their silly racial viewpoints upon the world. I'd love to see the man who was arrested win $200,000, and every other parent of a child in that school system win $40,000. And, I'd love for this case to go to trial and become the next generation version analogous to the Dover trial on intelligent design (which destroyed the ridiculous intelligent design movement, and left it in the dust where it belongs, all because a stupid school board overstepped its bounds). I'd like to see this incident turn into the same thing for their racial theories, and that this board becomes the poster child that destroys their ridiculous viewpoint permanently, just like the Dover trial did to the school board's position, rendering it basically impossible for any school board anywhere in the country to ever pull that garbage again. That being said, like it or not, the school board CAN close a meeting, and CAN trespass people. If you are asked to leave, and refuse, you ARE trespassing.
    1
  10512. It's mounted to the front of the rover.
    1
  10513. Just checking here... it's not clear... you do know that the arrest video wasn't released until 2.5 years later... right? It was 1.5 years after the suicide, and one had nothing to do with the other. Just checking here.
    1
  10514. Multiple people called the police about that incident. One person video recorded it with her cell phone, and showed the police. The police report describes it as very loud and very public, hardly the quiet and discreet picture that the drug addict is trying to paint in order to avoid arrest.
    1
  10515. You ARE delusional. Yes, Lance passed dope tests. That's EXACTLY why his doctor was banned from cycling, because he trained cyclists how to avoid getting caught. That's why they keep blood/urine for 10 years, as new testing methods are developed, and guess what, Lance's old urine FAILED the new tests. Look at the parade of other athletes who were caught, who also passed hundreds of drug tests until finally busted later. If you don't know that the top cyclists ALL dope up, you live under a rock.
    1
  10516. Pfttt. What? What do you mean? What paperwork? (Let me guess, a conspiracy video told you that?)
    1
  10517. I think you don't understand the term "baby daddy."
    1
  10518. YOU SAID: "I disagree with the verdict 100%." == Well, thankfully for the sake of the rest of the civilized world, everyone involved with this case disagrees with you. The police investigators disagree. The district attorneys disagree. The judges who handled this case disagree. The 12 jurors disagree. The appellate court judges disagree. The state supreme court judges disagree. And, the supreme court of the USA disagrees (as is evident because they refused the case). I mean, you're certainly welcome to your opinion, but, it seems like you're remarkably ignorant of what happened here. YOU SAID: "I believe he was fed up with continual robberies in HIS HOME which in fact, because of these two partners in crime, he was forced to invest in numerous surveillance cameras" == Yes. You'd think that after buying those cameras and using them to figure out who was repeatedly robbing him, that he'd take that evidence to the police, eh? But, no. He only went to the police for the first robbery or two. After that, he never went to the police again until after he killed them. Seems silly to have that kind of evidence at your disposal, and refuse to actually report it to the police, huh? After all, not only did he know who was doing it, but, the girl was wearing his stolen flight jacket to school, and could have easily been caught red-handed with stolen property, on top of the video evidence, eh? But, the girl was the daughter in a family he had been feuding with for years. The boy used to work for him. So, he decided to kill them instead of report them to the police. Bad choice. YOU SAID: "a firearm and ammunition which none of these items are inexpensive items" == Pfftttt. Do you REALLY think this man didn't already own those guns? He used two different guns to murder the teens, by the way, not one (singular). And, he had more guns than that. I'm beginning to wonder what you really know about this case, such that you think you understand this topic better than all of the investigators, judges, jury members, attorneys, etc. YOU SAID: "however, he didn't have much choice!" == Call the police. If that doesn't work, call the sheriff. If that doesn't work, call the district attorney's office. If that doesn't work, call the FBI. If that doesn't work, call congressmen/women. If that doesn't work, press official charges. If that doesn't work, get an attorney to do the same. If that doesn't work, gather up a half dozen friends to help catch the kids in the act. Shall I go on? Really? "These two teens are robbing me, and I just don't know what else I could do besides murder them"?? That's how you operate? YOU SAID: "I believe also he was exercising his Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms so he could PROTECT Himself AND His Home!!!" == Sure. But, you're not allowed to use the 2nd amendment to commit two premediated murders. It has to be for self defense. And, this man went about a million miles over the line between self defense and murder. YOU SAID: "I agree somewhat, that nine times may have been excessive" == Did you even listen to the man's confession, or listen to the recordings he made of himself murdering them? For the boy, well, he probably would have been convicted of murder anyway, but, at least then, the man just fired the shots fairly rapidly, and the boy died quickly. But, then he gathered up the boy's body in the tarp he had prepared ahead of time for the murders, moved the dead boy to the other room so the girl wouldn't see his body, reloaded his guns, and reset the trap for the girl for when she would come in later. When she finally came in (10 or 15 minutes later, if I recall), he shot her. But, his gun jammed. So, he switched guns, apologized to her for killing her too slowly, and went straight up to her face and put two bullets into her left eye, just as he said on his recording that he planned on doing (hours before the teens arrived). He said he planned on shooting "in the left eye," and then, hours later, when the teen arrived, yes, he followed through on that plan exactly, went straight up next to her while she cried in pain, and shot her twice in the left eye. He said in his confession that he knew she had been incapacitated already, but had no intention of letting her live, so that's why he shot more. Then, as if that wasn't enough, he went back again afterward, put the gun to her chin, and shot a round up into her brain from below. Again, he said in his confession that he really wanted to make sure she was dead. Hardly an act of self defense, right? YOU SAID: "however, he was in fact protecting himself and home from would be thieves, trespassers and any other dangerous home invasions!" == Which could have easily been avoided if he would have just called the police and asked them to come over to help catch the teens in the act, rather that setting up his house to commit two murders. He parked his car a quarter mile away, so the kids wouldn't know he was home. He unscrewed the lightbulbs so they couldn't just flip a switch and see him. He got two tarps from outside, and put them in his house next to where he planned on killing them. He set up his cameras to know when they would be coming inside. He ran an audio recorder to capture the event so he could listen to it later. On that recording, while waiting for the teens to arrive, he rehearsed what he would tell his friends and attorneys about the killings. He also said he planned to shoot "in the left eye" (as I explained already), which he followed through on when the girl got there later. After he killed the girl, he then said "cute," and didn't call the police for 24 hours. She was found by the police with her shirt open (I'll let you figure that out for yourself). So, um, yeah, you are either painfully unaware of the facts of the case, or, you don't know how to draw the line between self defense and premeditated murder. YOU SAID: "The girls mother of course is portraying her daughter as an angel when in fact she was far from being one" == Yes, that's what the mother was portraying. But, I agree with you, she's ridiculous. She was a teen thug thief, and drug addict. Guilty thieves got killed by guilty gunman. YOU SAID: "but none other, was a hoodlum little thief along with her boyfriend/partner in crime!!" == And, once again, you are proving that you have NO IDEA what you're talking about. He was her cousin, not boyfriend. YOU SAID: "They are CLEARLY seen on his surveillance, breaking into HIS HOME!!" == Yup, as they had before on his surveillance, which he could have used to get them thrown into jail instead of murdering them. YOU SAID: "If We The People, keep chopping away at OUR RIGHTS and AMENDMENTS," == What ARE you talking about? There is no amendment saying you can plan to murder two thieves, then follow through on that plan. YOU SAID: "we will be stripped of our rights all together and become a FULL BLOWN COMMUNIST COUNTRY!!" == I have news for you: communist countries would be harder on the gunman than the USA's court system was. As usual, you are just plain backward. YOU SAID: [insert a pile of barely literate gibberish] == Good grief. Your ramblings mean absolutely nothing. YOU SAID: "I'd like to know if it were any of them, what they would do had it been their homes and sentiments???" == Well, I can't answer for others. But, I'll answer for what I'd do. If two people invaded my home by surprise, and I felt that the lives of my family were in danger, I'd empty a couple of clips into the intruders. But, if I knew who they were ahead of time (as in this case), I'D CALL THE POLICE. If I had them on camera robbing my place, I'D CALL THE POLICE. If I knew they were on their way to my house to rob me again (as in this case), I'D CALL THE POLICE, and set a trap to CAPTURE THEM by having a couple of officers in my house waiting for them. But, whatever. As I said, you clearly do not know anything about this case, and/or you suffer from severe mental problems such that you cannot distinguish between an act of self defense vs. an act of premeditated murder.
    1
  10519. Utah is part of China. Stanley Kubrick made movie starring Jenna Ortega and Charlie Chaplain in China. Gubmnt lying to years. I make sense.
    1
  10520. Dewdrop, multiple people called, not just one family. One of the "audience" recorded it, and gave a copy of the video to the police. It didn't match her story about nobody being around. To the contrary, witnesses said the woman wandered up and down the beach to select a spot, and specifically chose one in front of an audience.
    1
  10521. She was a convicted felon with a term spent in a Florida prison, and a million other arrests. Drugs and alcohol, stealing cars, other thefts, you name it. With that kind of record, it's tough to get a straight job, so, her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the gentlemen's club, and neighbors said she did "extras" for cash in her apartment. If she wasn't making "public beach" content, I'll eat my hat.
    1
  10522. When you see a guy cranking it at the playground in front of kids, mind your own business, so he can keep doing it every day!!!
    1
  10523. Shame on that person in your mirror!
    1
  10524.  @marcusv6134  Or, you could read the arrest report, and find out that you're wrong.
    1
  10525. Again, dewdrop, don't pretend you even read the responses. I asked you to write "green" to prove you were reading. You didn't. Yet, you continue to pretend you read things that you didn't read.
    1
  10526. It was two separate radar systems. The rendezvous radar was the center dish on top. The landing radar was a downward facing array on the underside of the lander facing downward (in multiple downward directions simultaneously).
    1
  10527. I don't really 100% understand what you mean. But, if she wanted the police to say anything to her, maybe she should have shown up for her court dates, and should not have kept trying to change her name to evade the police, eh?
    1
  10528. What an amazing super-sleuth. "NASA has gone on record proclaiming that the technology is lost." Yup, the terabytes of data, photos, video, schematics, operations manuals, etc., which would take you 10-20 years to get through, and even then, you'd just be scratching the surface, yeah, that's not "on record." But, one astronaut said something you saw in a conspiracy video in one sentence spoken off the cuff is now "on record"? Yeah, that's the official record alright. Nope, the aircraft carrier sized hangars of physical documentation, the online archives full of terabytes of information, the museum pieces we still have, the 850 pounds of lunar material spread over two different secure facilities, none of that stuff is part of being "on record." But, the one sentence spoken by an astronaut during a casual interview, a sentence you clearly didn't even understand, oh, now that's "the official record." Sure. Where'd you get your training in detective work? By watching Snoopy cartoons?
    1
  10529. It was meth, not weed.
    1
  10530. It didn't lead to anything. Why would you believe Inside Edition?
    1
  10531. How does this stupidity make news? "An attempted coup d'état"?? This issue is the OPPOSITE of a coup d'état!!! A coup d'état would be a rush on the capitol to "dethrone" the person in office. The protestors are attempting to do the exact opposite. They are trying to KEEP the person in office. Good grief. Hakeem Jeffries doesn't even know the definitions of the words he's using, yet, they put him on the news? Put someone on who is literate. Sheeesssshhh. Note: I don't support the protestors. But, this news story is like the blind leading the blind.
    1
  10532. The officer was "offended"?? What? The crazed guy literally just told the cop that he had a gun, and reached for his right hip (where most guns are kept). What do you mean the cop was "offended" by this? Then, the gun was found in that exact spot. Good grief.
    1
  10533. Why the "lol" after your question? The answer is that the RCA field sequential scanning camera only had one vidicon pickup tube (instead of the normal three). They did this to save size/weight. As a result, however, the way they made colors was to put a spinning color wheel behind the lens, in front of the pickup. Unfortunately, this degrades the picture quality, and results in rainbow colors any time something moved too fast in frame (the spinning wheel and pickup couldn't work fast enough to match the movement of the objects). But, it meant that they didn't have to have a huge camera on the front of the rover, so, yes, that's what was selected.
    1
  10534. Nobody owns the moon. So, there's no such legislation possible. But, there is legislation that passed a couple of years ago to try to preserve Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 sites. Basically, it's a "look but don't touch" law. But, since the USA doesn't own the moon, it cannot actually enforce anything like that. But, what the legislation outlines is that no person/company that intends to disturb the equipment at the Apollo 11 or Apollo 17 sites will get any government money to assist in doing that.
    1
  10535. Why is it that people like you always complain that the "technology" wasn't good enough, yet never actually name the exact component of the technology that was lacking? Which piece of technology wasn't good enough to do the job on Apollo? And, why didn't any of the thousands of people working on that piece of technology realize that they botched the job so badly?
    1
  10536. Ask a question, but immediately negate any answer before anybody can respond. Sure. You're really honest. By the way, thousands of people were involved in setting up the communications network to enable the remote controlled camera, and building all of the equipment, and upgrading all of the dishes in the deep space network, etc. Multiple countries did this in preparation for Apollo's video systems. But, in one word ("Impossible"), you think you know better than the entire world's experts. How kind of you to come to YouTube and share your expertise.
    1
  10537. Huh? The proof comes much later, in a court of law. Nobody proves anything at the side of the road, nor would we ever want such a system. At the side of the road, you determine reasonable suspicion and probable cause, not proof. In the courtroom, and the time leading up to the courtroom, that's when the proof is gathered and presented.
    1
  10538. Modern digital/packetized video is slower, yes. There are all sorts of reasons, starting with the fact that modern video is usually buffered (induced delay to result in improved video quality). But, we're still talking about just a matter of seconds at worse. Still close enough to "live" that it doesn't make a difference. If this is your "biggest clue," do you understand why you're clueless?
    1
  10539. Huh? What do you learn on the gun range that's going to make a tiny little 9mm round penetrate a truck?
    1
  10540. Information presented to you? By Inside Edition? Hilarious! What was that comment about less than two neurons?
    1
  10541. Yet, you're completely unfazed by the fact that your "asteroid belt" argument has nothing whatsoever with traveling to the moon. It doesn't even remotely bother you. You listed the asteroid belt as your most important reason. Dewdrop, at its closest point from Earth, the asteroid belt is about 100 million miles away. The moon is about 238 thousand miles away. You have very obviously confused 100 million with 100 thousand. You have made an error of a factor of 1000x. That's how far off you were. That's the same level of error as saying your salary is $100,000 per year, when it's actually $100 per year. Yet, when corrected by multiple people, did you offer any apology for getting it so wrong? Did you re-evaluate your position, after having learned the level of your error? Nope. It didn't sink in at all. Instead, you spewed out a bunch more topics that you know nothing whatsoever about, completely ignoring your own original topic. Denise, you have absolutely no understanding about Apollo, asteroid belts, radiation belts, nor any of the other anti-Apollo gibberish you're spewing. And, sorry, but when you post a whopping two messages, and already, in your second message, within an Apollo video, you feel compelled to talk about CPR techniques, pacemakers, and hemodialysis, yeah, this is a pretty good indicator that your ship has sailed, and you're not on it. Sorry, but, you're far beyond help here. The doctor has lost the patient.
    1
  10542. Doubtful. There were multiple people who reported it. One of them even recorded the display on video, and showed the video to the police. The police report says the video showed a very loud act in front of multiple people including children. The witnesses said that she had wandered up and down the beach, then plopped right down in front of people, and went at it. I realize this is different than the words spoken by the woman who is trying to avoid getting arrested for the millionth time, but, hey, you clearly want to believe Inside Edition, where facts don't matter.
    1
  10543. As opposed to what? Scaling the walls/fences in handcuffs?
    1
  10544. Huh? A stripper got caught at a public beach doing something illegal. And, this is the "peak of America" and the "fabric of society is damaged"? Drama queen?
    1
  10545. Itchy Boy: I see you all over these threads. I've challenged you many times before. You can NEVER answer a single question or challenge. And, you have no idea what you're talking about. You have ducked and dodged every point-blank question I put forth. Do you, or do you not, believe that Japan's JAXA (national space agency) has joined "the hoax" 40-50 years after the fact, when they now have an entire section of their website dedicated to how they've confirmed Apollo? Do you, or do you not, believe that China has done the same, and has joined "the hoax" 40-50 years after the fact when they say they've confirmed Apollo? Do you, or do you not, believe that NASA's modern day administration/engineers have started a brand new version of "the hoax" 40-50 years after the fact when they put LRO up there to take pictures of the moon (including Apollo landing sites)? Do you, or do you not, believe that the Soviets were in on "the hoax" when they tracked Apollo all the way to the moon with their radar, and their radio telescopes? Do you, or do you not, believe that Australia was in on "the hoax" when they aimed their radio telescopes at all 9 of the manned lunar missions, and received/repeated/recorded all of those transmissions (at least when Australia faced the moon)? Do you, or do you not, believe that the UK was in on "the hoax" when they observed and photographed the SIVB's fuel dump of Apollo 12 around the moon? Do you, or do you not, think Spain was in on "the hoax" when they tracked the Apollo missions to the moon, including again, photographing the SIVB fuel dumps and the radio transmissions? (The list goes on... Apollo was tracked by many more countries, receiving the audio/video transmissions with radio telescopes, using high powered Doppler radar to track the craft, using high powered photography to view the fuel dumps (which spread wide and far, and could actually be seen)). As for your assertion that "far less than a thousand people" would have to be in on it... bull... fucking... shit. You don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about. You never have, and with your attitude being what it is (refusing any input that shatters your delusion), you never will. As for your bullshit "hostility" comment, look asshole, YOU are the one accusing thousands upon thousands of people of being liars and frauds, based on your own ignorance. YOU are the one who rejects every pro-Apollo evidence, regardless of how well grounded in science, and accepts all anti-Apollo claims, no matter how stupid or ridiculous. YOU are the one spitting on the graves of all of the people who died for the moonshot program, astronauts, scientists working on explosive fuels, construction workers, etc., again, based on pure ignorance. YOU are the one who refuses to answer a single question/challenge I've put forth when you've spewed your ignorance all over these threads, it goes in one ear, out the other. YOU are the one who is telling 400,000 people that they wasted their lives on a lie. Don't you DARE sit here, while spitting in the faces of everyone who made Apollo happen, and then wonder why anybody would have hostility toward you. You're an asshole, and ignoramus. That's what you are. That's who you are.
    1
  10546. You are not required to show a receipt by law. However, there's no harm in asking for one. You are, however, required to provide ID, and NOT resist/obstruct/obfuscate.
    1
  10547. WHO treated her badly?
    1
  10548. Good grief. He's just talking about how science uncovers things that are unknown. Yet, you conspiratards always infuse a bunch more meaning into the words, as if you think Armstrong was "confessing." If you crazy notions were true, why not just confess? Why would he be so cryptic? What would be the purpose in just hinting, instead of just outright telling the whole story?
    1
  10549. Let me simplify this for you, since you seem very determined to deny reality. Generally speaking, if you want to make stars show up on film, the camera's shutter must be open for about 20-30 seconds, and that's how long the film must be exposed in order for stars to appear. A normal photo requires a shutter speed that is a tiny fraction of a second (usually between 1/60th of a second, and 1/250th of a second). If this doesn't explain it for you, nothing ever will.
    1
  10550. Then there's simply no hope for you. If you cannot understand a concept like film exposure speeds, and you believe that the entirety of the planet's photography experts are trying to trick you, then what can anybody ever say to you?
    1
  10551. "why in every picture they took it seems as though they are just at the edge of the moon?" AS17-146-22345 - Does this look like any "edge of the moon"? Stop pretending you've ever even looked at the photo archives. Some video told you that all of the photos were like that, and you just blindly believed every word without checking for yourself. There are about 5700 photos taken from the lunar surface, and another about 1300 taken from the windows of the landers onto the lunar surface. Tell me how many you've viewed?
    1
  10552. And, it refuses to post my reply. So, I'll make this shorter. AS17-146-22345. Does that look like an "edge of the moon" to you? How many of the 7000 photos have you even viewed?
    1
  10553. OK, on what basis?
    1
  10554. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released and news outlets covered it.
    1
  10555. Oh, that's hilarious!! The convicted felon who spent time in prison, with the mile long arrest record, drug and alcohol charges, stealing cars, other thefts, etc., turned stripper and prostitute, couldn't stand the shame of her millionth arrest, and took her own life (a year later), because a couple years after that, the news would cover it? Is that what you're saying? You do know that virtually zero news outlets covered this story while she was alive, right?
    1
  10556. Almost no news outlets covered this story while she was alive. She was long dead before this made news anywhere significant. Also, you do know that she was a convicted felon who did time in prison and had a million other arrests, right?
    1
  10557. Reputation?!?!?! According to her landlord, she was a stripper at the local club. According to her neighbors, she did "private" encounters for cash in her apartment with numerous men. Yeah, she's got a real reputation to preserve, and wouldn't want to be caught exposing herself.
    1
  10558. Here's a clue: when calling people derogatory names regarding intelligence, it's best not to write it in a sentence where you demonstrate that you think you make words plural by putting an apostrophe in there. Kinda backfires on you.
    1
  10559. Um, ok, I understand your thoughts, but, with the gun only 2 feet away from the body, it's really not a good idea to let her go near it.
    1
  10560. Fine. But, that doesn't give anybody the right to attempt to drive away from the scene while a cop is hanging on for dear life on the side of an SUV. You can disagree with laws all you want. We hall have various laws we disagree with. But, you don't get to put an officer's life in danger because you disagree with a law. And, we can take your argument one step further. You claim that it's the government's fault for not legalizing drugs. OK, how about that it's the pot smoker's fault for wanting to smoke pot in the first place? How about it's nature's fault for making the human mind susceptible to drugs in the first place? How far back do you want to play the blame game?
    1
  10561. Bravo on swallowing the utter garbage fed to you by Inside Edition. You're a real hero. This arrest video had nothing to do with her suicide, despite Inside Edition's attempts to skew the story that way. Arrest = July 2021. Suicide = March 2022. Arrest video made public = November 2023. This woman suffered ZERO effects from the release of the arrest video, because she was already dead for 1.5 years before anybody ever saw it.
    1
  10562. Ah, more editing what you're saying, eh? You cannot even post a message without going back and editing after you're embarrassed, eh? You did the same in the other threads.
    1
  10563. Yet, you can't answer a single question or challenge? And, you just unilaterally declare that MIT, Draper Labs, and Raytheon were either "in on it," or were too incompetent to realize that they failed to make the computers do what they were designed to do. And, then you changed topics. Typical hoax nut.
    1
  10564. Well, I would assume this is a joke. But, on YouTube, you just never know....
    1
  10565. There were multiple callers, not just one. And, yes, that's what we're supposed to do in a society when we see a crime, call the police. Where's the accountability in your logic? Why is the woman not responsible for her own crimes, instead of the responsibility falling upon the people who report the crimes? If I see a bank robber, and I call the police, and later something bad happens to the bank robber, am I at fault?
    1
  10566. Who is "they" (who publicly shamed her)?
    1
  10567. Sorry, but that makes no sense at all. July 1, 2021 = arrest. March 31, 2022 = body found. November 24, 2023 = arrest video made public. You said she suffered shame from the release of the arrest video, and the media coverage, but, none of that happened until she was dead for more than 1.5 years. Is it really too much to ask that people should at least know the slightest bit about a topic before determining that everyone else in the world is "doing it wrong"?
    1
  10568.  @DemonDrummer  Yeah, well, I don't mean to kick people who are on my own side... but... "you're education" is one of those ironies that always backfires on you. You shouldn't criticize someone's education if you don't understand the difference between "your" and "you're."
    1
  10569. And, if you worked at the police department, and got a legal FOIA request for the video, you would commit a felony and refuse to release it? (By the way, the video wasn't released until long after she was dead.)
    1
  10570. That's not a reply. Don't give me this "I'd release it to my boss" answer. Fine, you're the boss, now what?
    1
  10571. And, why do you believe she thought nobody was around? Because she said so, as she was attempting to avoid her millionth arrest, and didn't want to go back to prison again?
    1
  10572. And, of course, the other person deleted her replies and ran for the hills.
    1
  10573. No, it wasn't you. Someone else came in here spewing gibberish.
    1
  10574. But, if you answered my original posting, I didn't see it. The question still remains to you... what would you do instead of releasing the video?
    1
  10575. Nope. The arrest video didn't get made public until 2.5 years later, which was 1.5 years after she committed suicide. Keep your hatred to yourself. And, stop falling for deceptive Inside Edition videos. Good grief.
    1
  10576. It's worse than that. The father did one interview stating that his son went to go see who was in the car (like he knew someone was in there). In another interview, he said his son definitely didn't think anybody was in the car, and that's the one thing he positively knows. (How?) Do you suppose the attorney got to the dad in between interviews and said it's a bad idea to admit that the carjacker knew someone was in the car?
    1
  10577. Both should be jailed? Who's "both"?
    1
  10578. So, no blessings for the woman? She's the one who needed it. Was nobody blessing her when she died?
    1
  10579. Dewdrop, the art museum that blindly accepted that rock as a donation (decades after Apollo) blame themselves for not authenticating it. It didn't come from NASA, nor from any astronaut. Their national science museum still proudly displays their Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 moon rocks. Why would they do that, if you think that they believe that the rocks are fake? Or, tell me, if someone donates a fake Rolex watch to an art museum that doesn't bother to authenticate it, does this mean all Rolex watches are fake?
    1
  10580. Jim Smith: "All Lunar samples given were given to nations and encased in lucite and are accounted for." Not even close. More than half of them are missing now. I actually think it's more like 2/3rds of them are NOT accounted for. Lots of those nations' leaders kept them for themselves. Some have found their way into the black market. Some are just plain unknown at this point. Only around 1/3rd of them have known whereabouts right now.
    1
  10581. Um, ok, but, I fail to understand your assertion....?
    1
  10582. Michael, Aldrin got an ScD, not PhD. Both are doctorates, yes. But, just being a stickler for detail. Nut job Steve, Want to try that posting again when you're sober? Let us know when you get a doctorate degree from MIT (the top scientific institution on Earth), such that you think you're qualified to tell others that they're not scientists.
    1
  10583.  @robertwilliams4887  YOU SAID: "Nope your wrong" == My wrong? What does that mean? YOU SAID: "you tube is not a primary source of my info I knew this way before social media and the internet" == Yet, you've chosen this as the medium to reveal your massive superiority in knowledge about Apollo to the world?? The entire planet's 72 space agencies disagree with you. But, you, who has known that Apollo was "fake" since before the internet, have chosen a YouTube comment to reveal to the world that you know better? That's how you do it? You're not publishing scientific papers. No congressional investigations. No evidence presented to mainstream media sources. Nope, none of those things. You've chosen the method that only crackpots and idiots use to reveal their superior knowledge than the entire world's experts, and that's via YouTube comments?? Isn't that what a crackpot does? You're not a crackpot, are you? OK, what do you know that the Soviets didn't? Explain how the USA managed to somehow bluff the radar and radio telescope tracking done in dozens of countries. The Soviets tracked Apollo also. If you've known about the "fake" missions since before the internet, you must also know that the Soviets sent Luna 15 to the moon a couple of days before Apollo 11, to wait in orbit around the moon. Then, when the Apollo 11 astronauts were on the surface, Luna 15 (unmanned probe) was programmed to descend to the surface in the Sea of Tranquility while the astronauts were still there, grab some rocks, then race Apollo 11 back home with the first lunar samples. It was a rushed mission that ended up crashing into a lunar mountain due to human error. But, the fact remains that the Soviets tracked Apollo and Luna 15 with their radar and radio telescopes, as did many other countries. How do you explain this? In addition to the Soviets, many other countries tracked Apollo with radar and radio telescopes, including USA, Guam, Wales, UK, Australia, Turks & Caicos, Spain, Canary Islands, Madagascar, etc. (the list goes on). What do you think they were tracking, if not Apollo? How do you explain this? You've had decades of understanding this topic, so, I guess you must have an answer by now, right? YOU SAID: "you must be young" == Pffttt. So, let me see if I understand you correctly. I asked you what your "research" was. And, from that alone, you've determined my age?? Wow!!! Your level of delusion doesn't just affect your opinions about Apollo, but, apparently everything else in life also. You can determine my age from a couple of sentences??? And, you claim to be old enough to have known the missions were fake before the internet existed. Yet, you think that a YouTube comment is the mechanism to reveal this to the world. And, **I** am young?
    1
  10584. But, almost no media covered this until she was dead 1.5 years.
    1
  10585. Well, I read that his father was a convicted felon with a prison record. And, given that his press interviews make no sense and he changed his claims a couple of times about what his son's intentions were, I'd say that it's far more likely that Mark's bad influence wasn't the screaming banshee, but, probably more likely that his own father led him down the wrong path in life. But, I wouldn't know for sure.
    1
  10586. What in the world do you think they did wrong?
    1
  10587.  @therealzilch  1968
    1
  10588. It will stop when criminals stop pointing guns at people.
    1
  10589. Well, you are not legally required to show a receipt (except in certain stores that specify this in their memberships). But, it sure makes life a lot easier if you do. As for showing ID, it depends on the state. Most states (including Florida, where this happened), yes, you are required by law to show your ID when under investigation by police. In other states, there's a bit of a higher burden before ID is legally required.
    1
  10590. It's sad how uneducated people hide behind the concept of "advancement" to promote pure physics gibberish. Go find ONE physics PhD on Earth who believes this is even physically possible. You can't. There isn't one. It's not "advancement" to fall for hoax videos, it's just stupidity. Spare the world this ridiculous concept of yours that falling for hoax videos = advancement, and knowing the laws of physics = closed minded. You're plainly a hypocrite, and an idiot.
    1
  10591. She gave up her life as a realtor (and her family, husband, son, and other son who was only 6 months old) about a decade ago to lead a life of drugs and crime. After her prison term about 6 years ago, she continued her drug and crime spree until she died. Her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club. Her neighbors said she also did "private" cash transactions in her apartment with numerous men. She had been arrested a million times, stealing cars, other thefts, drugs and alcohol, failures to appear, etc. And, when she died, nobody even knew about it, and her body was not found until the landlord went in to find out about overdue rent. The medical examiner's report said she was well into the maggot phase of decomposition, and weighed 84 pounds. That's how long she was gone, with absolutely nobody looking for her. Yes, she really seemed to have her life together indeed!! As for the incident itself, multiple people called about it. One of them recorded it and gave a copy of the video to the police. Needless to say, it doesn't match the version she's sobbing about as she's attempting to avoid her millionth arrest. Oh, but, sorry, you said it wasn't handled well. Care to explain what you would have done differently?
    1
  10592. Wow!! So, in your mind, the criminals will abide by the laws and NOT have a gun if the gun is illegal? Really? That's how you think it works? Like, "well, I was going to go shoot someone today, but, guns are illegal, so, I guess I won't"?
    1
  10593. What video did you watch that made that silly statement? Why would you actually believe that all documents were lost? It's ridiculous. You can go right now to the Apollo Lunar Surface site and download terabytes of documents about how the craft worked, down to every wire and switch.
    1
  10594. Naw, I'm sure they're well aware that the picture Inside Edition is painting here is quite far from the truth.
    1
  10595. Yes, the onboard 16mm film camera was facing out the lunar module window and saw them setting up the TV camera. Though, please note: those film reels only had about 3.5 minutes of film at full speed (24 frames per second). So, they ran it at 1 frame per second to conserve on film and make the video last 24x longer. Therefore, it's pretty choppy. But, the answer to your question is yes. However, to further clarify, only one astronaut was needed to set up the video camera, the other was working on other stuff. "apollo 11 16mm onboard film"
    1
  10596.  @Tim22222  There was the TV camera, and the DAC pointed out of the LMP window.
    1
  10597.  @dansv1  Aliens on the moon for the Apollo 11 landing: Transformers movie. Was there a private medical channel? No. But, there was some sort of "hidden" communication about the SIVB panel shrouds on Apollo 11. It's been a couple of decades since I last heard Aldrin talk about that. He wanted to tell ground control that there was a UFO (which he assumed was one of the panels from the SIVB), but, he didn't want to say it over the open communication. So, he somehow tried to send the message in a medical report or something like that. Sorry, my memory of it is a bit fuzzy. But, yeah, one of the ejected panels covering the lander was seen while coasting to the moon. Aldrin didn't want anybody freaking out about it, and ending the mission or something. He technically wasn't sure what it was, so, yes, a "UFO" by the strictest definition. He was pretty darned sure it was just a panel from the SIVB, but, felt obligated to report it somehow. So, he told ground control in some other transmission (yes, I think it was something about medical). Anyway, I'm sure I'm botching parts of this story, but, I have to go do other stuff and can't look it up right now.
    1
  10598. Ad revenue.
    1
  10599. So, the real problem is YOU. You say you're comfortable even if there isn't a god, your faith helps your life. Sigh. So sad. So, you're basically saying, even if you can be shown that your god is a delusion, you're happier with the delusion. Truly, how far down the toilet has a person flushed his life away if he's happier believing nonsense than knowing the truth? Hey, if believing nonsense makes you NOT be a homeless drug addict, believe nonsense. But, the real problem is your own weakness.
    1
  10600. James Van Allen calculated that it would take about 1 week in the worst part of the belts to get a fatal dose. I calculated it at about 2 weeks. But, he was probably just being more conservative, whereas I was stretching to the limits. What's your calculation?
    1
  10601. Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  10602. Not exactly. If there's an open investigation, they generally don't release the bodycam, even if there's a FOIA request. But, this investigation was long closed, because she had been dead for 1.5 years. So, yeah, they had to release it.
    1
  10603. You join the club of people who have lost millions doing it. Even Warren Buffet says it's hard to short a cult.
    1
  10604. Doubtful. Extremely doubtful. I mean, even though she was a convicted felon who did time in prison and had an arrest record a mile long, this particular incident would likely have been negotiated down to a minor infraction, do a little community service, see a counselor, and it would be over. But, she never showed up to court (as usual for her). And, this incident wasn't going to make her life any more of a struggle than it already was. Being a felon couldn't have been easy for her, especially with the long list of other judgements and charges for various things including drugs and alcohol. I doubt that one more arrest was really going to matter that much.
    1
  10605. What didn't you understand here? Did you even read my message? The odds that she would be registered as a SO were extremely low. Something this minor is almost always negotiated down. Why must I type this twice?
    1
  10606. Also, according to her landlord, she was a stripper at the local club. And, the neighbors said that she also did "private" cash transactions from her apartment with bunches of men. I seriously doubt she would really be worried about SO status (which, again, like I said, was very unlikely anyway).
    1
  10607. Of they could of? Could of how of? Of you don't of say of how?
    1
  10608. By plopping down in front of a bunch of people including children, and putting on a show? And, how was she "punished"? The cops quietly took her outside the restaurant to talk to her outside of the view of the crowd. And, then she was arrested. She should have been pretty used to arrests by then, what with her mile long legal history, prison time for stealing cars, multiple judgements against her for various thefts, open arrest warrants for failing to appear in court repeatedly, numerous drug and alcohol charges, etc. So, yeah, getting arrested for the millionth time probably wasn't all that embarrassing to her, otherwise she'd quit committing crimes, huh?
    1
  10609. Oh, the irony. Before I would even bother responding with details about her mile long arrest record, felony prison term, and her "profession," first, I'd ask if you actually believe the trash you see on Inside Edition. Do you?
    1
  10610. Yes, it's called the Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  10611. So, you came to your conclusion without knowing the answer to your question? Dewdrop, they showed her face because of the Freedom of Information Act. They don't have a choice. However, nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive. They successfully blocked that for 2.5 years.
    1
  10612. Just because Inside Edition asks the question about being "shamed to death," doesn't mean the answer is "yes." This arrest got almost no coverage until long after she died. And, with her extreme criminal history and felony prison term, she should have been pretty used to being arrested by that point.
    1
  10613. Huh? How do you "bully" a dead person?
    1
  10614. How does that even makes sense? You complained about showing the face in the video. Now you're changing topics (and you're equally wrong).
    1
  10615. It's not that simple. The Freedom of Information Act permits it. It's not legal for YouTube to tear down this video. For their own protection, YouTube has elected to NOT be legally liable for the content of the videos. That means that, unless it's illegal, or a copyright violation, or something like that, they're not legally allowed to tear a video down, whether it's in good taste or bad taste. If they do, then that opens the door for YouTube to be legally responsible for the content of a billion other videos. They don't want that. They want to remain neutral and non-liable.
    1
  10616. Of course it was biased. Nobody claims otherwise. But, yeah, every single moon conspiracy claim ever made is debunked quite easily, both in this documentary, and any other claim ever offered.
    1
  10617. You are correct. This video doesn't focus on the positive evidence of the moon landings. It focuses on refuting the claims regurgitated by the nuts who reject the landings. They do provide some minor evidence that basically outline why the deniers are wrong. But, to really learn about all of the solid evidence, yeah, this video isn't the way to find it.
    1
  10618. It's crazy how many people in the comments have absolutely no idea where her rights begin and end, and then make silly statements like yours.
    1
  10619. I don't think I'd be hoping for karma if I was in your shoes.
    1
  10620. I don't understand. What exactly do you think the police should have done differently?
    1
  10621. All arrests result in handcuffing here.
    1
  10622. And, we have the Freedom of Information Act. This allows the release of these kinds of videos, as long as the case has been closed long enough. I definitely agree with you. I wish this video was never made public. I just don't know how to stop it, because that's the legal process. But, the one saving grace is that she never suffered any humiliation from it, because the arrest video was not released until 2.5 years later, which was 1.5 years after her death. Nobody saw this video while she was alive.
    1
  10623. So, what should happen instead? Let the guy come in and kill the family?
    1
  10624. Yeah, but, that wasn't going to matter here. One of the witnesses caught it on video and showed it to the police. But, yeah, with her long criminal history, you'd think she'd know not to talk to the police. My guess is that she didn't want them to find out about her open warrants for her arrest. If she said nothing, they'd certainly check. But, maybe by trying to talk her way out of it, she figured they wouldn't check her record?
    1
  10625. How much do you know about this case? I've outlined it to other people. You can scan through these comments. Or, maybe it's just easier to cut-n-paste my reply to someone else into this reply to you. (Note: my tone is not the same to you as it is to the other person. You are asking the question before coming to your conclusions, which is exactly what anybody is supposed to do. So, please don't take my cut-n-paste reply to the other person as if I'm directing it at you. I'm just too lazy to type it all again with a friendlier tone.) YOU SAID: "I disagree with the verdict 100%." == Well, thankfully for the sake of the rest of the civilized world, everyone involved with this case disagrees with you. The police investigators disagree. The district attorneys disagree. The judges who handled this case disagree. The 12 jurors disagree. The appellate court judges disagree. The state supreme court judges disagree. And, the supreme court of the USA disagrees (as is evident because they refused the case). I mean, you're certainly welcome to your opinion, but, it seems like you're remarkably ignorant of what happened here. YOU SAID: "I believe he was fed up with continual robberies in HIS HOME which in fact, because of these two partners in crime, he was forced to invest in numerous surveillance cameras" == Yes. You'd think that after buying those cameras and using them to figure out who was repeatedly robbing him, that he'd take that evidence to the police, eh? But, no. He only went to the police for the first robbery or two. After that, he never went to the police again until after he killed them. Seems silly to have that kind of evidence at your disposal, and refuse to actually report it to the police, huh? After all, not only did he know who was doing it, but, the girl was wearing his stolen flight jacket to school, and could have easily been caught red-handed with stolen property, on top of the video evidence, eh? But, the girl was the daughter in a family he had been feuding with for years. The boy used to work for him. So, he decided to kill them instead of report them to the police. Bad choice. YOU SAID: "a firearm and ammunition which none of these items are inexpensive items" == Pfftttt. Do you REALLY think this man didn't already own those guns? He used two different guns to murder the teens, by the way, not one (singular). And, he had more guns than that. I'm beginning to wonder what you really know about this case, such that you think you understand this topic better than all of the investigators, judges, jury members, attorneys, etc. YOU SAID: "however, he didn't have much choice!" == Call the police. If that doesn't work, call the sheriff. If that doesn't work, call the district attorney's office. If that doesn't work, call the FBI. If that doesn't work, call congressmen/women. If that doesn't work, press official charges. If that doesn't work, get an attorney to do the same. If that doesn't work, gather up a half dozen friends to help catch the kids in the act. Shall I go on? Really? "These two teens are robbing me, and I just don't know what else I could do besides murder them"?? That's how you operate? YOU SAID: "I believe also he was exercising his Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms so he could PROTECT Himself AND His Home!!!" == Sure. But, you're not allowed to use the 2nd amendment to commit two premediated murders. It has to be for self defense. And, this man went about a million miles over the line between self defense and murder. YOU SAID: "I agree somewhat, that nine times may have been excessive" == Did you even listen to the man's confession, or listen to the recordings he made of himself murdering them? For the boy, well, he probably would have been convicted of murder anyway, but, at least then, the man just fired the shots fairly rapidly, and the boy died quickly. But, then he gathered up the boy's body in the tarp he had prepared ahead of time for the murders, moved the dead boy to the other room so the girl wouldn't see his body, reloaded his guns, and reset the trap for the girl for when she would come in later. When she finally came in (10 or 15 minutes later, if I recall), he shot her. But, his gun jammed. So, he switched guns, apologized to her for killing her too slowly, and went straight up to her face and put two bullets into her left eye, just as he said on his recording that he planned on doing (hours before the teens arrived). He said he planned on shooting "in the left eye," and then, hours later, when the teen arrived, yes, he followed through on that plan exactly, went straight up next to her while she cried in pain, and shot her twice in the left eye. He said in his confession that he knew she had been incapacitated already, but had no intention of letting her live, so that's why he shot more. Then, as if that wasn't enough, he went back again afterward, put the gun to her chin, and shot a round up into her brain from below. Again, he said in his confession that he really wanted to make sure she was dead. Hardly an act of self defense, right? YOU SAID: "however, he was in fact protecting himself and home from would be thieves, trespassers and any other dangerous home invasions!" == Which could have easily been avoided if he would have just called the police and asked them to come over to help catch the teens in the act, rather that setting up his house to commit two murders. He parked his car a quarter mile away, so the kids wouldn't know he was home. He unscrewed the lightbulbs so they couldn't just flip a switch and see him. He got two tarps from outside, and put them in his house next to where he planned on killing them. He set up his cameras to know when they would be coming inside. He ran an audio recorder to capture the event so he could listen to it later. On that recording, while waiting for the teens to arrive, he rehearsed what he would tell his friends and attorneys about the killings. He also said he planned to shoot "in the left eye" (as I explained already), which he followed through on when the girl got there later. After he killed the girl, he then said "cute," and didn't call the police for 24 hours. She was found by the police with her shirt open (I'll let you figure that out for yourself). So, um, yeah, you are either painfully unaware of the facts of the case, or, you don't know how to draw the line between self defense and premeditated murder. YOU SAID: "The girls mother of course is portraying her daughter as an angel when in fact she was far from being one" == Yes, that's what the mother was portraying. But, I agree with you, she's ridiculous. She was a teen thug thief, and drug addict. Guilty thieves got killed by guilty gunman. YOU SAID: "but none other, was a hoodlum little thief along with her boyfriend/partner in crime!!" == And, once again, you are proving that you have NO IDEA what you're talking about. He was her cousin, not boyfriend. YOU SAID: "They are CLEARLY seen on his surveillance, breaking into HIS HOME!!" == Yup, as they had before on his surveillance, which he could have used to get them thrown into jail instead of murdering them. YOU SAID: "If We The People, keep chopping away at OUR RIGHTS and AMENDMENTS," == What ARE you talking about? There is no amendment saying you can plan to murder two thieves, then follow through on that plan. YOU SAID: "we will be stripped of our rights all together and become a FULL BLOWN COMMUNIST COUNTRY!!" == I have news for you: communist countries would be harder on the gunman than the USA's court system was. As usual, you are just plain backward. YOU SAID: [insert a pile of barely literate gibberish] == Good grief. Your ramblings mean absolutely nothing. YOU SAID: "I'd like to know if it were any of them, what they would do had it been their homes and sentiments???" == Well, I can't answer for others. But, I'll answer for what I'd do. If two people invaded my home by surprise, and I felt that the lives of my family were in danger, I'd empty a couple of clips into the intruders. But, if I knew who they were ahead of time (as in this case), I'D CALL THE POLICE. If I had them on camera robbing my place, I'D CALL THE POLICE. If I knew they were on their way to my house to rob me again (as in this case), I'D CALL THE POLICE, and set a trap to CAPTURE THEM by having a couple of officers in my house waiting for them. But, whatever. As I said, you clearly do not know anything about this case, and/or you suffer from severe mental problems such that you cannot distinguish between an act of self defense vs. an act of premeditated murder.
    1
  10626. OK, you want a bigger camera/lens? Alright, please illustrate what you are willing to give up. See, they can't just send up anything they want. Rockets have very specific payload capacities to very specific altitudes, etc. In this case, the launch capability to the moon was exactly 4000 pounds. So, how much did LRO weigh? Exactly 4000 pounds. So, you want a bigger camera with far more resolution, right? That also requires a bigger communications system/dish/radio to transmit more bandwidth, right? So, what are you willing to give up? Fuel? Other experiments?
    1
  10627. "youre argument" I am argument? What does that mean? Was that your 2nd grader level of reading and writing skills attempting to write "your," but you didn't know how? "didn't even touch his comment" Yes, dewdrop. If you want higher definition than the Arizona State University LRO camera had, it needs to be bigger. There is no physical way to get more resolution out of that camera, except by scaling it up to a larger size (and weight).
    1
  10628. She was a convicted felon who served prison time 6 years ago, and had a million other arrests. Her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club, and her neighbors said she did "private extras" in her apartment with a parade of men. Multiple people called about this incident, one of whom recorded it and gave a copy of the video to the police. It didn't match her sob story about nobody being around. To the contrary, it was a very loud and public act in front of multiple people including children. Oh, but you go right ahead and keep pretending you know things you do not. It's what YouTube is for, right?
    1
  10629. Secondly, if she had shown up at court, even with her extensive criminal history, this would be negotiated down to an infraction.
    1
  10630. Third, sorry, but she had already left society about a decade ago, when she ditched her career and family in favor of living a life of drugs and crime. She served some felony time in prison around 6 years ago. And, she picked up right where she left off, continuing her life of drugs and crime. She had a million arrests for drugs and alcohol, stealing cars, other thefts, failures to appear in court, etc. This one arrest was just a drop in the bucket, and not even her own family thinks it had anything to do with her suicide a year later.
    1
  10631. And, sorry, but "I was relieving myself in public and now I'm on that list" is a lie to cover up for what they really did.
    1
  10632. Well, that certainly was going to be one of the charges. However, even though she can be convicted of that, without the shoplifting charge, the true practicality is that it's very difficult to get that charge to stick when the original charge got dropped. Yes, she's guilty of obstruction, and should be found guilty. However, like it or not, you're not going to find a jury of 12 willing to convict her on obstruction when the theft charges are no longer part of it.
    1
  10633. Really? So, instead of sending two people to the moon's surface and bringing back lunar samples, you wanted them to only bring one person to the surface, and bring all of the equipment back instead of moon rocks?
    1
  10634. "Baby daddy" doesn't mean what you think it does.
    1
  10635.  @Sputz3  Which EXACT rights do you think he violated? Why are you going from comment to comment in these threads and spewing such a massive amount of misinformation about how the legal process works?
    1
  10636. So, how would you have done it?
    1
  10637. Yes, they face the exact same charges as a regular citizen would (ZERO). When an armed carjacker wearing a balaclava mask points the gun at you, you're within your rights to defend yourself.
    1
  10638. "AS16-117-18819 Notice the shadow of the rocks in the bottom-right cast their shadows towards the bottom-right. The rover, on the other hand, casts its shadow towards the upper-right. Impossible." Dewdrop, did you look at the very next photo in that sequence? The one ending in 20? It is taken right after that one, and shows those rocks are right on the edge of a cratered slope. Of course their shadows are going to drop off in funny ways when the surface itself is dropping off. How deceptive of you to look at one photo, and say, "see, the shadow doesn't go in the right direction" while ignoring the very next photo in the film roll that shows you exactly why. And, no, the rover shadow isn't heading toward the upper right. It's directly to the right. The rover is parked "diagonally" in the shot, so, you don't understand what you're looking at. And, how would this entire argument even make sense to you? Even if it was in a studio (your obvious position), you'd still have to explain why the shadows are doing what they're doing. You don't get to just look at it and label the photo as "impossible," because then you'd have to explain how the photo was taken in the studio also. "AS16-109-17800 The astroNOT's shadow falls towards the bottom-right, the rover's shadow falls again, to the upper-right. Just funny now." Same issue, dewdrop. Just look at the surrounding photos in the sequence. They parked the rover near a large crater. And, the photo you're complaining about was taken near that crater, and the shadow slopes off because of it. You need only look at the very next photo in the sequence to see the crater itself, and the wall of the crater is nearly 45 degrees, with the shadows of stuff sloping down into it. Bravo, dewdrop. You've spewed nonsense about nothing.
    1
  10639. Yeah, let's blame the victims and not the criminal herself!!
    1
  10640. Are you sure you're in the right video? This is about Apollo, not about your poor cell coverage.
    1
  10641. HAVE!!! Good grief.
    1
  10642. Dose sun light come camera from technique?
    1
  10643. Unmanned? Really? How does that work? Those moon rockets took about 3,000 people to get them off the ground. You're proposing that, somehow, they had 3 secret launches (one for each of the 3 reflectors Apollo left on the lunar surface)? Those rockets stood on the launchpad for about a month being prepared. Nobody noticed these 3 extra rockets? No? Who designed and built a completely different kind of lander that was capable of deploying reflectors on the moon? Where'd they get these extra 3 rockets? Every moon rocket was hand built, with pride, by thousands of workers. Only 13 Saturn V rockets ever flew, and only 10 Saturn 1B rockets ever flew. It took years to build them. And, you're proposing that, somehow, these thousands of workers built 3 extras that they must have forgotten they built? This isn't like an auto assembly line, dewdrop, where someone might be able to snatch 3 cars out of 300,000 being built every year, and nobody would notice. And, those rockets could be seen and heard for a hundred miles. Nobody in the public noticed some extra rockets being launched? So, explain it. Can you? How can they get 3 secret unmanned missions to the moon without anybody noticing?
    1
  10644. Do you like the crescent? I kind of like these: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-44-6548HR.jpg https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-44-6549HR.jpg https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-44-6551HR.jpg
    1
  10645. And, you were doing so well... until the last couple of sentences. The arrest video wasn't released until she was already dead 1.5 years. She suffered zero embarrassment from it, because nobody saw it until she was long dead. And, with her mile long legal/arrest/prison record already, it's doubtful that one more arrest would have made much of a difference. She should have been used to getting arrested by this point.
    1
  10646. Well, they probably had to release it as a result of a legal FOIA request. But ,you'll be relieved to know that it wasn't released until 2.5 years later, which was 1.5 years after her death. I'm sorry that Inside Edition doesn't mention that, but, hey, they have viral videos to manufacture, whether true or not.
    1
  10647. Well, when chasing a suspect who had just murdered his own father and thrown him into a lake right before this chase, it's definitely a risk NOT to chase, because, if you don't catch him while you have the chance, he might keep on killing more and more people. You've got to stop him.
    1
  10648. Dewdrop, I'm not the one who keeps shifting the goalposts, and parading around, making the wild assertions you are. Just remember how you started this topic (among the million other topics you keep talking about, none of which you know anything about). You complained that there were no distant things (more than 300 m) in view in any of the Apollo photography. I responded by giving you one of the most spectacular of the thousands of photos that show stuff well off in the distance. You then shifted the goalposts and complained that Apollo 11 didn't show mountains in the background. I responded by informing you that they didn't want their first landing to be among mountains, and specifically chose a very flat (relatively) area. As a side note, it's a good thing they did, since Apollo 11 missed its intended landing spot by about 4 miles. Had they been attempting to land in the middle of a mountain range, they could have smacked right into one. Yet, you seem to think that properly planning to have the first landing be in a flat area is a bad thing? That's how little you understand about the topic, expecting mountains where there are none. Then, you kept asking for links. I had to explain about a dozen times that links are blocked, and told you to post links yourself if you didn't believe me. You didn't understand. And, you proceeded (apparently) to try posting links, and they were blocked. (Shocker.) You then went back and forth even further, declaring victory, because you kept thinking you successfully posted links (that nobody else could see but you). Now, you're sitting there declaring that if I don't give you what you ask for (again), that I am the problem here? What? Frankly, I don't even understand your questions at this point. And, I've had it up to my ears with you. You know NOTHING about the topic. Nothing at all. Yet, you arrogantly display your ignorance as if it's a badge of honor. I don't owe you anything, dewdrop. I already provided you with the things you asked for (photos from Apollo with stuff clearly deep into the distance). In one ear, out the other, and you shift the goalposts instead of acknowledging it. If catalog numbers aren't good enough for you, and links are all you want, sorry, go find someone else to play your silly game. Keep on asking for mountains on Apollo 11, and if nobody gives them to you, you win, right? Good grief.
    1
  10649. So, your nickname is "Peace" while you accuse thousands of people of being criminals. You don't see any irony in that?
    1
  10650. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video made public (Freedom of Information Act). So, um, no.
    1
  10651. Oh, and by the way, the cops were there staking out a criminal involved in a completely unrelated shooting, when this carjacker came up.
    1
  10652. Um, ok, but, what's the basis for a lawsuit? I don't quite get it.
    1
  10653. Well, I'd never want to support a con-man. But, those low satellites aren't going to cause any Kessler Sydromes. They'll just re-enter and burn up. The Kessler effect will happen only if the satellites were much higher.
    1
  10654. She was Tased for resisting. She wasn't Tased for shoplifting. If you can't even get the first sentence correct, what could you possibly know? He doesn't need proof to ask for a receipt, he just needs reasonable suspicion. And, he explained that both someone named "Anna" who works for the store, and he, saw her go through [the checkout area] without paying. That's plenty of reasonable suspicion to ask for a receipt, and arrest if she won't provide it. Also, you're required by law to provide identification to an officer when requested during an investigation. She refused to do that. Is your posting even real?
    1
  10655. And, you think the primary purpose of prison is to reform? Um, no. There are 3 main purposes for prison: (1) punishment, (2) protect the rest of society from these people, by locking them away, and (3) reform. I think it's safe to say that reform is at the bottom of that list. And, that's because, for the most part, you aren't reforming people anyway. People do not change that easily. Most criminals will commit the same crimes over and over, regardless of how much effort you put into reforming them.
    1
  10656. Yet, you won't say HOW it could have been handled differently?
    1
  10657. Well, at least the arrest wasn't posted on any social media until long after she was dead.
    1
  10658. No, you didn't. It wasn't even released until November 24, 2023.
    1
  10659. Well, first of all, multiple people called, and one of them even got it on video and gave it to the police. So, right out of the gate, your solution wouldn't work. But, beyond that, with her extensive criminal history, she probably knew not to talk to the police. But, given the number of warrants for failures to appear, my guess is that she didn't want them to look her up. Had she stayed silent, there was a 100% chance that they'd look her up. But, maybe she figured there'd be a 50% chance if she tried to talk her way out of it, they'd let her go before they looked her up.
    1
  10660. Anybody wonder about the level of psychological damage that happens when Daddy can't keep his hands off of daughter? Person #1 in this video.
    1
  10661. If you freeze frame at 0:08 and then use the frame by frame advance/backward, you see the guy actually had the gun pointed straight at the officer's head. You also see the gun laying on the ground at 5:02 next to a piece of wood by the other officer's feet.
    1
  10662. @thePiercingTruth Says who? Where's your scientific paper backing up that kind of gibberish? Why don't any of the world's 72 space agencies believe what you believe? Why did James Van Allen disagree with you about the Van Allen belts?
    1
  10663. I think it's pretty clear why she was asking for it. She practically ordered the cop to hit her with the Taser and arrest her. Can you say, "setting the stage for a trumped up lawsuit"?
    1
  10664. It doesn't work that way. You clearly do not understand the difference between infractions and crimes.
    1
  10665. It was out of the reach of the guy who was shot. And, unless there's an imminent danger, they don't want to mess with evidence. Cops too often get accused of planting guns, tampering with evidence, etc. So, it's best to leave a crime scene unmodified whenever possible. But, sure, if the guy who was shot had only taken a leg hit or something, and was still more mobile, or if there were a lot more people around, crime scene or not, he would have secured the gun.
    1
  10666. They landed in daylight. The issue with seeing stars has almost nothing to do with there being an atmosphere or not. Our atmosphere, for example, on a clear night, only blocks/reflects/absorbs about 8% of the starlight. So, on the moon, yes, I guess it would be slightly more starlight, but, not as much as you're thinking. The bigger issue is that it was daytime on the moon.
    1
  10667. And, you're just going to keep on sticking your head in the sand and denying all evidence until that magical day, huh?
    1
  10668. No. That's a product of clever (and deceptive) wording. July 2021 = arrest. March 2022 = suicide. November 2023 = arrest video made public.
    1
  10669. Are you intentionally trying to type every single word wrong? The store employee Anna was the one who told the cop that the woman went through without paying, and the cop did his job and investigated. The woman herself escalated the situation by refusing to ID (legally required to do so), obstruction, and obfuscation, and eventually resisting arrest. And, she got paid $0.00 because her lawsuit was dismissed by the court, and she was barred from ever filing it again.
    1
  10670.  @ItsJustRoseLove  YOU SAID: "That's if "everyone" was drinking the same drink as them and just as much, they're saying it could have been tainted not drugged so 1 of their alcohols could have been tainted while others were not" == What? That's not the family's assertion, you know. They're saying that this 5 star resort so routinely serves tainted alcohol that the staff members should have been trained in recognizing tainted alcohol, and trained in how to deal with guests who get served tainted alcohol. They're also suing the Florida based company that booked their travel to this resort, because they say that company also knew the resort routinely served tainted alcohol, and therefore is also responsible for their daughter's death because they booked the rooms at this 5 star resort. But, your version is that this is 1 bad bottle, and all the rest are good bottles? Well, I'll give you this much credit, I guess... your version is more plausible than the family's version (at least in my opinion... and not that I agree with you... but, your version makes more sense to me than theirs does). If this resort routinely serves tainted alcohol capable of making people black out after 1-2 drinks, you'd think there would be bodies all over the place, huh? At least your version lets it be just one bad bottle. But, ok, now, please explain how the girl got a blood alcohol level of 0.25. Tainted or not, you're not getting that extremely ripped from just a couple of drinks. And, if this was one bad bottle out of thousands upon thousands of good bottles, why is the Florida company that booked the rooms responsible for the death of the daughter? YOU SAID: "why would they keep record of illegal activities ?" == Um, maybe because part of the job of the police is to keep records of illegal activities?? I don't understand your question. I wasn't talking about the resort's records. I was talking about the police records. Police have the records of the thousands upon thousands of gallons of tainted alcohol they seized from other resorts and bars. They don't have any records of seizing tainted alcohol from THIS particular resort (or at least no records that the family claims in their lawsuit... nor any records they talked about in this "news" piece). And, in their lawsuit, the family wasn't claiming to have any direct evidence that THIS resort had any tainted alcohol. The best "connection" to tainted alcohol that they talked about in their lawsuit was that this resort has used one of the same suppliers that another resort has used. But, personally, I find that argument to be remarkably weak. Just because a different resort ordered the cheap/tainted stuff from a supplier, doesn't mean that THIS resort ordered the cheap/tainted stuff from that supplier. I would have hoped that the family would make a more solid connection to a history of tainted alcohol. But, alas, the written lawsuit doesn't make any connection like that. You'd think that if Methanol was such a huge problem at this resort, the hospital would have tested for it, and it would have been mentioned in the lawsuit, right? But, no, no mention of Methanol being found in her blood. Also, the lawsuit doesn't mention any other known cases of people suffering from tainted alcohol at this resort. It doesn't mention any history of police finding tainted alcohol at this resort. Nope. The best connection they seem to make is (my own paraphrasing): "the resort down the road served tainted alcohol, therefore this resort also must have done the same, so the resort owes money for the death, and the Florida company that booked the rooms should have known better to book our rooms, so that company owes money for the death also." Anyway, just curious here... what is your version of what happened? And, why do you know more about what happened than the family themselves (as outlined in their lawsuit)? Why does your version of the events not match what the lawsuit says? Do you have knowledge of this case that nobody else knows about, including the family?
    1
  10671.  @ItsJustRoseLove  So, let me get this straight... you post utter bullshit online about a topic know NOTHING about. You don't care if you're correct or not, and you don't want anybody to correct anything you say. You PREFER your own ignorance, vs. knowing what you're talking about. Oh, but **I** am the problem here?? Not you?? I'm a "keyboard warrior" while YOU are the one who posted messages to 3 different people, asserting your absolutely ignorant opinions?? Hey, moron, a girl DIED. Show some respect. Don't just pull your stupid opinions out of your ass, and then wonder why nobody likes people like you.
    1
  10672.  @ItsJustRoseLove  Part 2: YOU SAID: "plus warm water can heighten the effects of regular alcohol" == Sigh. How the hell is warm water going to increase blood alcohol levels? What ARE you talking about??? Good gods. And, you continue to fling stupidity all over the place, rather than knowing what you're talking about. YOU SAID: "I watched an episode of "dumb ways to die" a few years ago about a couple who died drinking champagne in a hot tub." == Fine, but that doesn't mean their blood alcohol content was increased by being in a hot tub. It just means that the alcohol will have a greater effect on you if you're in hot water. And, once again, you're just throwing as much crap at the wall as you can. This still doesn't account for the blood alcohol levels. And, it doesn't account for nobody else in that pool having the same effects. And, it doesn't account for the 4 hours that passed between the time they had that drink, and the time they went back into the pool and drowned. And, it doesn't really apply all that much to begin with, because that pool WAS NOT A HOT TUB, it was a "normal" pool. Good grief. Once again, all you're doing it randomly flinging your stupidity around, rather than actually knowing what you're talking about. YOU SAID: "Yes I'm aware a pool and hot tub are different." == Yet, you felt compelled to bring it up anyway?? WHAT IS YOUR POINT?? Hey, by the way, I know someone who got shot by someone in a hotel in Las Vegas, therefore that pertains to this drowning in Mexico. Good grief. YOU SAID: "A tainted bottle could have slipped into their order through distribution" == And, nobody else in their group who had those shots had any similar effects? And, if your [latest version of] your story is correct, why isn't the family producing any hospital tests showing Methanol in her blood? And, if it was tainted with Methanol, how do you explain the 0.25 blood alcohol levels? Methanol isn't going to increase your blood alcohol level. And, why isn't the family asserting that there was one random tainted bottle? How would they even know? They're asserting that the practice of selling tainted alcohol is such a common thing at this resort that they are also suing the Florida based company that booked their rooms for them, saying that they should have known that this hotel routinely serves tainted alcohol. They're not claiming that this was a random tainted bottle. They are saying that the hotel should have been trained and experienced in dealing with tainted alcohol, and with guests who drink tainted alcohol. What's your evidence that this is one tainted bottle out of the thousands that this resort orders? Or, are you just pulling stupid opinions out of your ass again? YOU SAID: "trying to cut corners because the authorities aren't gonna check that every single bottle is untainted." == Let me see if I understand this version of your story now. The alcohol distributing company decided to send ONE bottle of tainted alcohol to this resort, out of the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of bottles?? The distributing company decided that they wanted to make an extra ten cents, so, they sent the resort 9999 bottles of good alcohol, and 1 bottle of tainted alcohol, to save money?? That's your assertion now? (Or, whatever the numbers, I'm obviously guessing at numbers to make a point.) Seriously, have you been diagnosed with a mental disorder? If not, you really need to go seek help. YOU SAID: "If they were siblings chances are they drank the same type of drink" == Well, according to him, they were in a group that all drank from those shots. YOU SAID: "and also the same ammount to keep up with eachother." == Um, stupid maniac, again, all you're doing now is blindly speculating about a topic you know nothing about. And, you're so goddamned stupid, you don't even realize that you are HURTING YOUR CASE with statements like that. If your goal is to blindly blame the alcohol distribution company, it certainly doesn't help your case that you're painting a picture of a couple of young "barely-adults" who are in a drinking competition with each other to "keep up" with the level of alcohol they're taking in. You're like the people who made this video. I mean, good grief, the best they could do to show this virtuous young girl's personality on video (the only video they show of her) is at 7:03 in this video, with her gyrating like a drunken party girl?? That's the best they could do?? And, now you're saying that she was "trying to keep up" on the drinking level with her brother?? How does any of that version of your story jive with tainted alcohol anyway? Do they need Methanol tainted alcohol to get ripping drunk? Or, if they're "trying to keep up," couldn't regular bottles of alcohol do the same thing? YOU SAID: "The other tainted alcohol claims from other people in Mexico also said that only had a couple of drinks were needed to make them pass out" == So WHAT?? So WHAT??? They couldn't find any others at THIS RESORT who had that claim. They only found those claims at OTHER resorts and bars. This is like saying, "Your neighbor is guilty of forgery, therefore you're a forger too." Or, "Your neighbor raped someone, therefore you're a rapist also." I mean, good grief. When this news story had to stoop to interviewing people at OTHER RESORTS in order to make their case, isn't that a red flag for you? YOU SAID: "I never said I "know" what happened Jesus Christ you're begging to argue" == No, asshole. I'm showing respect for the dead, unlike you. I actually took the time to read the lawsuit. I took the time to read about the blood alcohol levels, and the other articles about what happened. What did you do? You just decided to throw your stupidly wild opinions around... and some of your opinions aren't even consistent with other opinions. Basically, you're throwing darts at a wall with your eyes closed. Nobody likes people like you. Trust me here. Seriously, NOBODY likes people like you. YOU SAID: "yeah they keep hundreds of thousands of records sure, but if they have never suspected that place then they wouldn't have records would they" == No, asshole. This hotel WAS investigated. There was a major bust for thousands of gallons of tainted alcohol in that area, from that distribution, and the authorities shut down this resort's ability to give out alcohol until they investigated. And, guess what, they found NOTHING (at this resort). Once again, you're just wildly throwing your stupidity everywhere without actually knowing anything. YOU SAID: "and you're hilarious if you think Mexican government actually cares enough to file every single bottle of phoney liquor" == No, asshole. You don't get to call ME hilarious. EVERY SENTENCE you wrote is a laughable joke of ignorance. Well, I'm not laughing. A girl died. Show some respect. Good grief. Nobody likes assholes like you, spitting in the face of a dead girl, while you parade around, pretending to know things you don't know.
    1
  10673.  @ItsJustRoseLove  Oh, and well, I just took a glance at your channel, and I see by the titles of your videos, yes, you HAVE been diagnosed with mental disorders?? Alllrrriiighhhyyy thennnn. Keep up your treatments, you rude asshole. Maybe, with treatments, you will learn not to show this much disrespect for the dead (as you have in these comments).
    1
  10674.  @ItsJustRoseLove  If you are confirming that you have been diagnosed with mental disorders, but that those disorders have nothing to do with what you're posting here, then ok, it's just your stupidity at work. Um, asshole, nobody needs or wants you to wildly guess at what you think happened, based on absolutely no knowledge whatsoever. You don't get to call ME a "keyboard warrior" when YOUR entire purpose here is to fling wild accusations and opinions around, based on NOTHING. You have VERY clearly decided, in your mind, that this girl is not responsible for her own actions. Not a single possibility you've proposed (and you've proposed a hell of a lot of them, none of which make any sense) include the possibility that the girl simply drank too much. People like you are what's wrong with the world. You know NOTHING about what happened here. NADA. ZIP. ZERO. Yet, you've made it quite clear that your mind is made up. Nobody likes assholes like you. Nobody. This isn't a "name calling" thing. This is just the brutal reality. You ARE an asshole.
    1
  10675.  @ItsJustRoseLove  Oh, no you don't. No fucking way, asshole. You ignored virtually every question I asked, every correction I made to your parade of ignorance, every challenge I put forth, every line I wrote exposing the fact that you contradict YOURSELF constantly... you ignore all of it... it goes in one ear, and out the other... and now you're trying to ask ME questions??? Oh, no. No, asshole. I'm not going to sit here and take a quiz for you, while you ignore almost everything I've written, and you refuse to answer a single question from me. Nope. Not going to do it, asshole. Just keep on getting treatment for your mental illnesses, and try to show some respect for the dead. The rest of you... sorry... you're just too dumb.
    1
  10676. "Shooting Stanley Kubrick" (2015). Director = T. Patrick Murray. Stanley Kubrick is played by actor Tom Mayk. It's a mockumentary that was made to see how many gullible people would fall for something as obvious as that... dark spooky lighting... a ridiculous story that makes no sense... an actor that doesn't even look like Stanley Kubrick. Basically, that video exists for the purpose of making fun of YOU. And, here you are, falling right into that trap, and advertising it to the world.
    1
  10677. Well, now that's a fine way to demonstrate that you didn't read the arrest report. Multiple people called about this incident. One of them recorded it and gave a copy of the video to the police. Needless to say, it didn't match this "nobody was around" sob story she tries to present as she is trying to avoid her millionth arrest. Witnesses say that she wandered up and down the beach, looking for a spot, and deliberately chose one in view of multiple people including children. With her felony term spent in a Florida prison about 6 years ago, and other convictions/judgements for stealing cars, other thefts, drugs and alcohol, failures to appear, etc., I find her credibility to be ZERO. Personally, I'll trust the innocent bystanders and police before I'll trust a single thing she says, but, hey, you believe whatever you want. Her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club. If she wasn't making "public beach" content, I'll eat my hat.
    1
  10678. Well, SLS is scheduled to launch in a couple of months, which is the same size as the Saturn V, plus an additional 15% more thrust. We'll see. Hopefully, it goes. It's been delayed over and over and over. It was originally supposed to launch about 5-6 years ago. And, the latest status was that it was going to launch a couple of weeks from now. But, now it's been pushed a couple of months. Don't hold your breath, and I wouldn't buy plane tickets just yet, but, it's getting close. Maybe you should keep your calendar open.
    1
  10679. Who humiliated her, and how?
    1
  10680. Is that how you deflect the question? Pretend that I'm the one who doesn't know the answer?
    1
  10681. Huh? Do you know the definition of that word?
    1
  10682. Dewdrop, murder requires premeditation and intent. Are you really sitting there saying that Baldwin planned it, and intended for this to happen?
    1
  10683. Well, the police can block a legal FOIA request to release the arrest video if it's an open investigation. And, that's what happened here. They blocked the release for 2.5 years. But, for 1.5 years of that, she was already dead, so, with the investigation closed, they couldn't block the requests any longer.
    1
  10684. When 80% of the population has below average intelligence, then below average representatives get elected into office. The curve is bent, where the masses are below average, and the top 20% are quite a bit above average. It's like a teeter totter with four kids weighing 50 pounds each on one side, and the 200 pound dad on the other side, so the "average" is still the same, but, it's 4 dummies for every 1 smart person.
    1
  10685. Huh? Who got fired?
    1
  10686. Yes, this video is a rendering based upon some definite knowledge (photos from the missions) and some assumptions (where things are that were left behind, but not photographed, and what state these things are in today).
    1
  10687. The arrest video wasn't released until 1.5 years after she died. Something that ruins Inside Edition's fake story.
    1
  10688. (continued) Oh, and if the bible is so "perfect" as you claim, why do you so quickly discard the old testament anyway. Couldn't your magical creator of everything make a book that isn't so disjointed and has so many mixed messages (slavery, raped virgins must marry rapists, mass murder, slaughter entire communities, cut open pregnant women and kill the babies, etc.). Didn't your "perfect" god think that maybe some people might read that stuff and think it's pretty fucking evil, and not believe?
    1
  10689. And, this long rant has anything to do with this video, how?
    1
  10690. way moon lol foil lol air there that thing landed c'aus a dewdrop youtube say so
    1
  10691.  @timparziale8762  What in the world are you talking about? Each dish can track Apollo for about 12 hours, and then it falls out of line of sight. What signal "bouncing" are you even referring to? Good grief.
    1
  10692. None of the Apollo rock/dust samples had ever been exposed to oxygen, nor moisture. Sorry, you're not going to find that in any meteorites in Antarctica. The Apollo program has labeled 11,000 samples that they brought back from the moon, most of which are the size of a grain of sand. They literally labeled and cataloged every single piece of rock/dust, whether large or small (except the ones that they haven't even opened yet, saving them for future generations with better technologies). Sorry, but little dust sized rocks aren't surviving entry into Earth's atmosphere to be found in Antarctica. The Apollo samples have been given to thousands of worldwide geologists and geology students over the past 50 years, and not a single one of them thinks any came from Antarctica. You claim that "all geologists" agree with you? That's absolutely wrong, and a complete lie. There literally hasn't been a single paper written by any of those geologists or students that has accused the rocks of being meteorites from Antarctica, published in any recognized peer review geology journal anywhere in the world. But, if you think you understand the topic better than the entire planet's geologists for the past 50 years, why aren't YOU publishing your findings in some of those journals? What are you waiting for?
    1
  10693.  @timparziale8762  Hilarious!! What makes you believe this ridiculous story about Von Braun getting moon rocks from Antarctica? How does that make any sense to you? What in the world would Von Braun even know about geology? He was a rocket engineer. You seem to just blindly believe any "news" (not news) story that aligns with your delusions. Meanwhile, none of the thousands upon thousands of geologists and geology students who have studied the moon rocks have agreed with you. Can you name ONE paper written in any single one of the entire world's recognized peer reviewed geology journals that even remotely says that those rocks/dust could have come from meteorites? Have you even looked at the core tubes? You think they can get those from burned up meteorites? How about the anorthosites? Do you think you can make one of those by chopping into a meteorite? And, again, why won't you answer, if you think anything you're saying is correct, why aren't you publishing your findings in one of the countless journals around the world? Why would you think a YouTube comment would be the correct place to rewrite everything known about lunar geology?
    1
  10694. Are you even reading anything I've written past the first sentence? Why do you repeatedly refuse to answer anything? Good grief. More gibberish. Nothing you're saying makes any sense at all, yet, you're apparently very proud of yourself. Completely delusional.
    1
  10695.  @timparziale8762  Once again, I said any signal can be relayed, but, you cannot do so in such a way that a radio telescope or radar dish would be "bluffed." You claimed that it could be done from a ground station. I asked you how they'd replicate the Doppler effect of a craft going thousands of miles per hour from a ground station. You refuse to answer. You've refused to answer every question/challenge. And, YOU were the one who thought that the satellites in space were equipped with radio telescopes, and that's what your dish on the ground is receiving. Remember that comment? Satellites couldn't even work correctly if they used a radio telescope. Good grief. You don't know anything about radar or radio telescopes.
    1
  10696. How is that an answer to a single thing? What in the world are you talking about? Do you actually believe you understand these topics whatsoever?
    1
  10697. Thanks for proving my point.
    1
  10698. "You said you cannot retransmits radio signals." - If you're not going to read what I actually said (repeatedly), why are you even asking me questions? You know darned well that you're not reading my replies past 1 sentence, if at all. How would you even know what I said?
    1
  10699. This is just plain ridiculous, and you know it. YOU are the one who thinks radio telescopes are mounted to satellites, and that they transmit signals to a dish on someone's house (completely backward, and totally wrong). YOU are the one who said that radio signals cannot reach to and from the moon because of the magnetic field of Earth, despite that backyard amateurs have been doing it every single day for 70+ years, and magnetic fields have no effect on radio signals. Just stop pretending, you child.
    1
  10700. You have no idea what you're talking about, and you're not even reading replies.
    1
  10701. If you know exactly what you're talking about (sigh), why do you believe that radio cannot reach the moon and back, even though I have repeatedly explained that any backyard amateur can do a radio moon bounce, and this has been done for 70 years?
    1
  10702. Tim, why are you on YouTube? You apparently believe that your knowledge of geology exceeds thousands of the entire planet's geologists who have studied the Apollo moon rocks, none of whom have ever come to the conclusion that they are merely meteorites that came from Antarctica. You apparently believe your knowledge of radio exceeds the entire planet's communications experts who do not believe that the magnetosphere affects radio at all. And, you think that the entire planet's backyard amateurs who have done "moon bounces" for the past 70 years have someone been wasting their time when they point their dishes and Yagi at the moon, when they bounce radio off of it, because, you believe that the signal is really bouncing off of the magnetosphere, and therefore nobody has ever needed to aim their dishes at the moon at all. I'm sure you can reproduce this yourself, right? But, you never explained... why do radio bounces off of the magnetosphere or ionosphere take 2.5 seconds? And, how do they get half way around the world? Let me guess, you ran off to a video that "explained" (sigh) that the ionosphere in certain conditions can reflect radio, right? And, from that, you think this explains the last 70 years of moon bounces? When are you going to give up here, Tim? When are you just going to admit that you have no clue what you're talking about?
    1
  10703. Good grief. Tim, why are you pretending? What point do you have in pretending to understand concepts you do not? 1) You cannot bounce signals off of the ionosphere and get a radio signal half way around the world, like you can with a moon bounce. The range is a couple hundred miles at best. And, it's not the same. 2) You claimed that you can bounce radio signals off of the magnetosphere also. Where's your Nobel Prize for rewriting everything known about radio? 3) When you send moon bounce radio signals, the round trip time is 2.5 seconds. When you bounce a radio signal off of the ionosphere, the round trip time is nearly instantaneous. So, sorry, but anybody can tell that they're bouncing the signals off of the moon by the round trip time. 4) If you think that the last 70 years of thousands of radio experts bouncing signals off of the moon are all wrong, and that those signals are bouncing off of the ionosphere, but, they just don't realize it, then, as I said, why aren't you demonstrating it by doing the very same thing, except doing it at a time when the moon is not in view of your dish? See, the people who actually do moon bounces know they're bouncing off of the moon because it only works when they aim their dishes (or Yagi) at the moon. If you say that they could just be bouncing those signals off of the ionosphere, then aiming at the moon shouldn't be necessary, right? So, why aren't you DEMONSTRATING IT!!?!??! Go do the exact same thing that the moon bouncers have been doing for 70 years, but, make it work when the moon is not in sight!!! Why won't you do this?
    1
  10704. Huh? Is your "scroll up" broken? What don't you understand here?
    1
  10705. Judaism isn't a race.
    1
  10706.  @pep590  Everyone belongs to a race. Judaism isn't a race.
    1
  10707. "I dont see a problem." Oh, then let me explain the problem. The problem is that a bunch of nuts were "protesting" completely wrongly, by making the rest of society suffer for their own warped causes. The correct way to "protest" is to lobby their government to enact laws to change things, not to make trouble like this. None of these people are going to win any votes behind their cause if the entire society hates them. And, making matters worse, some other nut resorted to physical violence as his reply. This is what happens when you pour a bunch of nuts into a ridiculous situation, chaos. "They think because some scientists say were causing the climate change" Yes, something like 99% of the expert scientists in the field agree that humans caused (and are causing) the climate change. Of the remaining percent, most of them still agree that climate change is occurring, they just think most of it isn't caused by people. "its ok to block people." It's not OK to block people. "But lots of scientists say its a natural cycle of earth" Huh? You're talking about fewer than 1%. And, how many of those rare scientists have successfully published their models in peer review journals without getting completely shot down by the facts and data? Can you name a scientific peer reviewed article stating what you're claiming? Or, are you talking about some fringe nuts who haven't successfully published anything in the actual science journals, so they revert to making videos instead, completely skipping the entire scientific method? "so if you believe that the its ok to not let them block you in." ENGLISH!!! Maybe the reason you struggle to understand problems is because you barely read and write at a 2nd grader level? You don't punctuate. Your word choice is sloppy. And, frankly, sometimes (like in this sentence), nobody can even understand you. Learn to read and write first, then maybe you might start understanding what these problems are, and, maybe you might even start learning a little bit about science in the process. See, the scientific method shared by all scientists on Earth isn't to post ridiculous fringe views directly to the public. First, you must publish your data and hypotheses in the journals. "Who says they are definitely right." Huh? What do you mean? Obviously, humans cause climate change. So, they're right about that. The scientific method has clearly demonstrated it. But, can the society just simply stop using oil? No, of course not. Batteries or hydrogen can't do everything oil can. And, even if they could, it's not an overnight switch. Lots of problems need to be solved. And, it creates an all new set of environmental problems (and safety/cost problems) to switch off of oil completely. Like, if you want an electric airplane powered by batteries, you're looking at vastly slower planes, carrying far fewer people, because there's no direct propulsion method besides propellers, and a huge issue with batteries weighing 10x more than the equivalent energy in jet fuel. "Personally i believe the geology and ice core samples I've seen" Where? On YouTube videos? "rather than people who say look out your window you can see it happening." OK, how about the people who say to read the science journal articles about the actual scientific data? "This is all BS money making scam" Huh? Who makes money by agreeing with 99% of other scientists? How many rich climate scientists do you know? "to change the world" Um, dewdrop, the world is changing BECAUSE of climate change, not the other way around. "and these people are fools" Silly protesters blocking traffic? Yeah, they're quite foolish. I agree. "nailing there own coffin shut" ENGLISH!!!! I mean, good grief. Don't sit here and pretend you study ice cores for a living (when actually, we all know you just watched some silly videos about them), while you can't even formulate a single sentence correctly. You can't read. You can't write. You're barely coherent. You use the wrong words constantly. I mean, seriously here, you're not an ice core scientist when you (a) can't read or write, (b) think YouTube comments is where you'd publish your studies on ice cores, (c) express total gibberish. Good grief. What makes people like you pretend so much? Why? What possible reason would you have to pretend to know things you don't? "helping all this change for the worse happen." Oh, let me reply in your language: Happen change worse help world ice seen right samples definitely.
    1
  10708. I'm afraid your memory has altered itself a bit. There wasn't a live broadcast of the Apollo 11 liftoff from the moon (at least not one in which you could see anything). There wasn't a live camera on that mission that captured the liftoff. Maybe you're getting it confused with Apollo 15 or 16 or 17? Those had the live TV camera for the liftoff.
    1
  10709.  @MyStarPeopleExperiences  YOU SAID: "Lol." == Sorry, but your memory is inaccurate. I don't know why you are responding with "lol" to that. It wasn't an insult. All of us have memories that change over time, and lose accuracy. I could name a million examples about my own memory that has done the same. YOU SAID: "And how did we get the moon rocks" == By landing 6 Apollo missions on the moon, and 12 astronauts who gathered them up. YOU SAID: "and take images of the Apollo 11 landing site with the LRO?" == By using the camera that Arizona State University built, and by dropping LRO's orbit low enough to increase the relative resolution. They also switched to black and white, rather than color, because LRO's camera (called LROC) has far better resolution in black and white than color. YOU SAID: "Those are rethorical questions." == Then why'd you ask? YOU SAID: "No need to answer, is what that means." == Funny, you can't even spell "rhetorical" correctly, but you're telling me what it means? YOU SAID: "I do recommend getting an education." == They guy who can't spell "rhetorical" is telling me to get an education. Sigh. YOU SAID: "It's all free these days..." == Hey, dummy, did you even read my response? Or did you just blindly assume I was claiming the moon landings didn't happen, and you didn't even read a single word? There was no live liftoff footage of Apollo 11. The only footage they have of Apollo 11's liftoff from the moon was from the 16mm camera, which had to wait until it got home to be developed before anybody could ever see it. And, Aldrin didn't even start the camera in time to capture the first part of the liftoff. Apollo 11's black and white Westinghouse camera that they used for live broadcasts on Apollo 11 was disconnected from the LEM before the astronauts even got back inside. So, yeah, your memory is a bit faulty when you said that you watched Apollo 11's liftoff from the moon live. You probably got it confused with another mission. It happens. Human memory isn't perfect.
    1
  10710. I don't think you're understanding the issue here. She had her receipt. But, she was fighting everything because I think it's pretty clear that she was trying to turn a simple "may I see your receipt" into a lawsuit, doing everything in her power to escalate this into a Taser and arrest. She even ASKED to be Tased and arrested. Had she at least cooperated at a very basic level, none of this would happen the same way. If she had said, "sorry, I don't keep receipts for such small purchases, but, here's my ID that you keep asking for, and I'll comply and I want to confront the store about this accusation," I'm sure this would go very differently. I think you need to go watch the version of this video that picks up at the beginning, not this one that picks up in the middle, and it'll make it a lot more clear that she is the one who is refusing to ID, obstructing and obfuscating. I mean, it's pretty clear in this version also. But, it's even more clear if you watch from the beginning.
    1
  10711. So, after the guy murders his father, and fires at police in a chase, what EXACTLY would you propose the police are supposed to do? What in the world does Vietnam have to do with police chases?
    1
  10712.  @eknaap8800  The man was shooting at the cops a million times, including after crashing. Yes, you shoot back. That's what you do. And, the only reason they couldn't hit him (more than a couple of times) was because 9mm bullets don't penetrate trucks very well.
    1
  10713. Yeah, you go right ahead and keep pretending you understand things you do not. That's what YouTube comments are for, for you anyway, right?
    1
  10714. Bodycam. And, nobody saw the arrest video until she was already dead 1.5 years.
    1
  10715. So, rather than responding, you edited your post to add this notion of "deep space exploration"? Hubble is orbiting Earth, so, it's subject to the same size issue. Hubble would need a lens/mirror a quarter mile in diameter. Um, no. Webb is even further away from the moon than Earth is, and, would be about 1.2 million miles away from the moon at the angles when it would be capable of seeing the Apollo sites. So, you're looking at a lens/mirror well over a mile in diameter to do what you're asking.
    1
  10716. They give warnings for aggravated misdemeanors now?
    1
  10717. People used to sell their daughters into slavery also. What difference does it make today? Why should we live by caveman standards? Answer the question: when did they start giving warnings for aggravated misdemeanors? That's what you argued for.
    1
  10718. Because Diane Sawyer is about as far from being a "journalist" that anybody can get, and still be on TV "news." This is a hit-piece against "the system."
    1
  10719. Huh? Almost no media covered it until after she was dead.
    1
  10720. How much shame do you think she really suffered from this arrest? A couple hundred hits on obscure blogs nobody has ever heard of?
    1
  10721. Technically, we don't know the speed of a car. We measure the distance the car travels, and the time it takes. But, we don't know the speed, because it's not as if distance = rate x time or anything. It's not as if distance = rate x time is the actual definition of speed or anything.
    1
  10722. So, distance = rate x time doesn't apply if you have to include the distance in both directions? "Divided by two because it is a round trip" somehow negates the speed of light? I mean, it's not as if they flew a C130 around the Earth with an ultra accurate atomic clock onboard enabling them to calculate the speed of light via relativity, right? It's not as if we can know the speed of light by timing it and moving the receptor in multiples of the known wavelength, right? It's not like you are making claims you know nothing about, right?
    1
  10723. And, when numerous countries around the world, including the Soviets, tracked all of the Apollo missions to the moon and back with radar and radio telescopes, and listened in on the radio audio (with their dishes pointed at the moon), how do you explain that? Why would all of those countries, including enemy countries, go along with this "grab for power"?
    1
  10724. Inside Edition said it, you believe it.
    1
  10725. I have no idea what you're babbling, and neither do you.
    1
  10726. Dewdrop, the cops took her away from the restaurant crowd so that others couldn't hear what was going on. And, then they kept the arrest video private for 2.5 years. She was long dead before anybody saw the arrest video. How did they "shame" her?
    1
  10727. Well, thanks for demonstrating the same thing that has been demonstrated a billion times over already: people in your position don't know what they're/you're talking about. In 1994, certain assault rifles were banned. Prior to then, they were allowed. Yet, you've got it backward. You think they were allowed in 1994, while being banned prior to then. Um, no. It was a 10 year ban beginning in 1994, and ending in 2004. You couldn't be more backward if you wanted to be. Look it up. It's called the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. It completely defeats your own position. I'd respond about what you asked (for what I'd do), but, sorry, when someone is as far out in left field as you are, it becomes pretty clear to me that it's like trying to teach calculus to an earthworm. The reason they haven't reinstated it after 2004 is largely because it wasn't all that effective. Most studies indicated that the ban did virtually nothing to affect the rate of homicides. And, even the study that was the most supportive of the ban said that homicides were decreased by only 0.1%. (That means that if there were a 1,000 homicides before the ban, there were 999 homicides during the ban. Still, virtually no effect.) It's very clear to me that you are yet another loudmouth who has absolutely no clue what he's talking about, so, I'm not wasting my time trying to give you a firearms 101 lesson (which is what I'd need to start with, before we could start talking about what to do about it.)
    1
  10728. Wait, what? You believe there is more "divide" now, and less "divide" in the 1960s and early 1970s?
    1
  10729.  @jeaniemarczniec7755  So, when comparing to the era of Martin Luther King crusading for rights (and being shot for it), things are more divided NOW?? Were you even alive back in the 1960s/1970s? Good grief. You cannot possibly have been alive then, because anybody who was, wouldn't be saying the stuff you're saying. And, the proof is in the pudding anyway. This is an Apollo video. Do you see any black or female or Hispanic or Indian Apollo astronauts? Nope. Things were very divided back then. White male. That's it. Now, look at the Artemis astronauts for the upcoming moon missions. It's like watching a Disney show, meeting all diversity quotas. Things are less divided now. Good grief.
    1
  10730.  @jennifermarie5189  Why is it that only the most ignorant and uneducated people are the ones who make the comments you're making? Can you explain that?
    1
  10731.  @adamthemediocre6376  Yeah, the people who defend this maniac are very binary. They say, "they broke in, therefore it's self defense." It's as if they simply cannot conceive of the notion that sometimes guilty people are killed by other guilty people. The man planned their murders, reveled in it while committing those murders, and enjoyed it all the way. The thing a lot of people don't read about is the fact that he said "cute" on his recording, kept the bodies for 24 hours before calling police, and they found the girl with her clothes open and exposed. Figure that one out yourself.
    1
  10732. Huh? How does "social media" and "the internet" ruin the life of someone already dead?
    1
  10733. Well, this was her millionth arrest. None of her prior arrests, nor the term she spent in prison, stopped her from committing crimes. Why would this one arrest have a different result?
    1
  10734. Carjacking.
    1
  10735. Armstrong put it there about 20 minutes into the moonwalk.
    1
  10736. No. It's because Apollo never spotted the gigantic World Turtle that the Earth rests upon, as proven by the literature found in Hindu author Jñānarāja in Siddhāntasundara. If the Apollo astronauts never saw the 10,000 mile long living turtle that the Earth rests upon, they certainly couldn't have gone to the moon.
    1
  10737. Oh? How do you propose he should perform an arrest?
    1
  10738. I fully realize that English isn't your first language. But, sorry, I do not understand you.
    1
  10739. Welcome to Inside Edition, where facts don't matter. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. 99.99% of the coverage never happened until the arrest video was released. And, sorry, but the path to the car was through the restaurant. So be it.
    1
  10740. How? Inside Edition et. al. never posted a darned thing about this incident until long after she died.
    1
  10741. Nobody saw the arrest video before she died. July 1, 2022 = this arrest. Suicide = March, 2022. Arrest video released = November 24, 2023.
    1
  10742. Get back to me someday when YOU are sued by someone like Armstrong. You never did reply to those messages, by the way. You seem to reply to every other one I wrote. If YOU were one of the countless people Armstrong sued, would you be so forgiving? Would you say, "oh, well, I just lost all of my money to a guy who has hundreds of millions, and it was because he fraudulently sued me to protect his own lies. But, his fake charity does more good than harm. So, I don't mind that he ruined my life."
    1
  10743. Dewdrop, the surface temperatures during Apollo 11's mission were -23C and 7C (for the entire 22 hours the lander was on the surface). While they were on the 2 hour moonwalk, it was about -13C. Secondly, they didn't take the overshoes off while on the surface, they took them off inside the lunar module and then tossed them out later.
    1
  10744. Get in lunar module. Close hatch. Pressurize. Take off helmets and gloves. Get stuff situated, sorted, organized, etc. Put helmets and gloves back on. Hook up suit hoses to internal oxygen supply. Depressurize. Open hatch. Toss unneeded stuff out the door. Close hatch. Pressurize.
    1
  10745. Dewdrop, stop pretending you want answers to your questions. It's clear that you don't.
    1
  10746. "They were very good shots to be able to throw stuff out of a bottom hatch door." The only thing they had to "aim" at was the door itself, from a range of 0 feet and 0 inches. That's not a hard target.
    1
  10747. "the stuff is neatly piled nearby" How do you know? This video is speculating. In reality, there are no photos of most of the stuff they tossed out the door, because it's straight down next to the ladder, outside of the direct view of the window. But, have you looked at the photos from the other missions? They really launched some of the stuff, and you can see the stuff that cleared past the "block" of the descent stage.
    1
  10748. "pressurizing and depressurizing a chamber takes a lot of air and energy." Dewdrop, you just got done claiming that it was 93C on the lunar surface, while the actual temperature was -13C. You were wrong by a factor of 106C. So, don't sit there and pretend you know ANYTHING about the topic. No, dewdrop. It takes ZERO energy for a pressurized oxygen tank to fill a vacuum. And, the amount of oxygen inside the cabin weighed 2 pounds. This isn't "a lot." Calculate it yourself if you don't believe me. Take the amount of oxygen it takes to create 5 PSI of pressure, and multiply it by the volume inside the cabin. What are you waiting for? Why are you even asking questions, when you're pretending to know things you don't know? Shouldn't you be pretending you already have the answers?
    1
  10749. "Go look at the photos of the complete module." I have copies of every single photo taken on every single Apollo mission, thanks. I don't need you to tell me what to look at.
    1
  10750. "The hatch door swings down, turning into a platform." No, dewdrop. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong every single time you write something? The hatch swings INWARD, toward the LMP side. The "porch" (officially what they called it) was a permanent fixture, not a result of the hatch swinging down.
    1
  10751. "I looked at the photos of the inner shoes, and their soles were fasted on using threads! How do you get an air tight seal using threads?" Because that's not the airtight layer. It's still deeper inside the boot and surrounding garment. Hours ago, you didn't even know there was an overshoe that detached. You also thought they took off the outer boot while still on the lunar surface, because you didn't realize that they got into the lunar module while wearing the outer boot, and tossed it out later. And, you think the hatch opened outward and downward, instead of the reality that it opened inward toward the right (from the inside perspective, or left from the outside perspective). You clearly know absolutely nothing about Apollo, so stop pretending you do. Stop asking fake questions when you fully intend to reject the answers.
    1
  10752.  @TexMex421  Do you mean during the liftoff? Yes, fully suited/gloved/helmet and hooked up to the oxygen supply via the hoses.
    1
  10753. Huh? Not that they needed permission in the first place... but... hypothetically, how would they get permission from a dead person?
    1
  10754. Huh? I mean, ok, he could have made the title "What I Think the Apollo Site Looks Like Now." But, c'mon, get real, who really cares? The title isn't really all that inaccurate. Did you think they sent an actual rover there to take new photos of what this stuff looks like after +50 years?
    1
  10755. How? None of those outfits ever covered this story until long AFTER she was dead.
    1
  10756. Her suicide happened on an unknown date in March of 2022, dewdrop.
    1
  10757. But, this arrest video was not made public until 1.5 years after she died. I mean, you don't actually believe Inside Edition, do you?
    1
  10758. "placed four optical corner reflectors on the moons surface" Three corner cube reflectors, not four. "This reflected beam is received back on earth using a powerful telescope." Um, no. It's not a telescope. It's a sensitive laser detector. "The pulsed laser's travel time is measured very accurately and knowing the speed of light to high accuracy the distance to the moon can be calculated, to within cm's." Yes, horizontal accuracy (where it's located on the lunar surface) is within about 2 inches (about 5 centimeters). But, believe it or not, accuracy in just the raw distance between the laser and the reflector is less than 1 mm nowadays. "If the corner reflectors were not there there wouldn't be a reflection." No, you get a reflection, just not a very reliable one, and not more than just a few photons, lots of scatter, lots of inaccuracy.
    1
  10759.  @DonaldMerrit  Huh? There were laser ranging facilities all around the world (including enemy countries) that hit those reflectors within 24 hours of them being placed on the moon. For example, on Apollo 11, three different countries hit the reflector before the astronauts even lifted off of the moon. So, what in the world do you mean by the notion that people are "having all of these years perfecting narratives and creating images"? I'd say the complete opposite is true. When countries are hitting the reflectors while the astronauts are still on the lunar surface, that's hardly "taking years to perfect the narrative."
    1
  10760.  @damiendevil333  YOU SAID: "No no,I know the facts" == Pffttt. WHAT??? You said you thought they were strangers. They were not. The boy used to work for the guy who murdered him. The girl was his cousin, and he knew their family (and hated them). And, he said the girl had stolen his military flight jacket and had worn it to school. No, they were not strangers. When I outlined the facts of the case, you initially rejected them and called them "allegations until [I] can provide some evidence." No, you quite clearly didn't know the facts of the case. YOU SAID: "yes he did a whole bunch of morbid, and vile stuff I KNOW." == Irrelevant. The only thing relevant here was whether or not he PLANNED THE MURDERS. That's the difference between self defense or murder. If you are home, and someone breaks in, you have every right to defend yourself and home and family, including the use of a firearm. If defending yourself means that the intruder might die because of it, that's the intruder's problem. But, there's a difference between defending yourself, vs. knowing the criminals are coming, planning their murders, and following through on those murders. Each and every fact I presented was outlining the evidence that he PLANNED these murders. How morbid or vile is irrelevant to whether or not the murders were planned, or if it was spontaneous self defense. YOU SAID: "But as I explained months ago, intruders getting shot or how many times, isn’t really upsetting." == I agree. If people break into houses, they run the risk of getting shot. And, generally speaking, nobody cares if you fire 4 times or 5 times. But, when you go back after the threat is stopped, and put two bullets into her eye anyway, that goes beyond self defense. Also, if you wait a while longer, and then go back and shoot her in the chin up into the brain to just make sure she's dead, that goes beyond self defense. If this had been self defensive "bang bang bang bang bang bang" and she got hit until she was dead, nobody would have a dispute. But, "bang bang" (wait, pause, gun jams), girl lays on floor saying "oh my god," guy says "sorry for not killing you," and then "bang bang" in the eye, and then waits, sees a slight bit of movement, and another "bang" through the brain... sorry, you cannot claim it's self defense. YOU SAID: "Did it disgust the court and jury yes, was he charged and convicted for it? Yes." == Because it was premeditated, not because of how morbid it was. YOU SAID: "If you read my months old comments you’ll notice I’m speaking in my opinions, which aren’t bigoted in any way, shape, or form." == Oh, I agree with you. But, you are making a case for something I never said. I said you were massively ignorant of the facts (which you obviously were). I also said it's rude to conclude that the judges, attorneys, jurors, investigators, police, etc., were wrong, and you're right, when you know so little about the case. Remember, you said that the facts I presented were "just allegations." Those facts came straight out of his confession tape, and the tape that was running during the murders themselves. All you'd need to do is listen to those tapes, and you'd have most of what I wrote. The remaining couple of factors I wrote (that aren't on the tapes) came from excerpts from articles about the court transcripts. But, the vast majority of the stuff I wrote (that you seemed to reject) came straight out of readily available recordings. They were the guy's own words. YOU SAID: "So if they upset you THAT much block/report me. Chow🥰" == Wow, you really do miss the point all the time, don't you?? What could I possibly "report" you for? You've violated no terms of service. Man, I'm not "upset" about you. Good grief. I'm saying you picked the wrong guy to defend. Frankly, this is the only case I've ever heard of like this. But, you and I would be on the same side on 99.9% of the "intruder gets shot" cases. This little 0.1% case is a rarity, because the man actually planned, in advance, to kill these two teens. It wasn't self defense. It wasn't a "castle" case. It was premeditated murder. He thought that one crime justified a more serious crime. Sorry, it doesn't. I mean, well, I don't know how many other times in history something like this has happened. Maybe it has happened a lot. But, the difference between any other time this stuff happened, vs. this psychopath, is that the other times were committed by people who were smart enough NOT to record themselves in the act. The hypothetical others were smart enough to call 911 immediately after the murders, and didn't tell the police that they wanted to make sure the criminals were dead by putting a bunch of extra shots into them after they were no longer a threat. I mean, I've taken my fair share of firearms training courses, concealed carry courses, general training, etc., and each and every time, they outline that you're not allowed to murder, but you're allowed to defend yourself. They say quite clearly, if the intruder dies, it's because you fired a whole bunch of times quickly... not because you fired, waited, fired a couple more, waited, and then fired the last one execution-style with the gun pressed up against the underside of the chin and into the brain. Those training classes make it quite clear that you are to use the appropriate amount of lethal force to stop the threat, not to all-out-kill. Now, if the intruder dies while you're stopping the threat, that's the intruder's problem. But, you don't get to PLAN to murder them!!! And, if there have been a bunch more crazed lunatics like this guy, they were smart enough to keep their mouths shut, and call the cops immediately. Anyway, look, the bottom line is that you're defending this guy, and your defense of this guy is misplaced. You DON'T know the facts of the case. And, I think that if you want to crusade for gun rights, I'll be right by your side doing so. But, in this case, you failed to do your homework.
    1
  10761.  @damiendevil333  Oh, sorry. I guess I'll just do like you, then. I'll stick my fingers in my ears, cover my eyes, and say, "lalalalaala, I can't hear you, lalalalaala, I'm never admitting being wrong, lalalalalaala, they were strangers, lalalalalaala, I don't care if the man planned the murders ahead of time, that's just allegations, lalalalalalaala, no, I'm not listening to the man's own confession, nor his own tapes that he made while he committed the murders, he's innocent, lalalalalala."
    1
  10762. Is that "someone" you? You don't know the difference between lasers and radio (per your other comment). How equipped could you possibly be to "de bunk" anything (especially given the fact that you cannot even spell "debunk" correctly)?
    1
  10763. Karen's what? You didn't finish your sentence.
    1
  10764. So, cops aren't supposed to arrest criminals? What?
    1
  10765. Drama queen. I would have showed the receipt, and thanked the store and cop for being diligent in trying to keep everyone's costs down by catching thieves, even though they were incorrect this time.
    1
  10766. It's used daily in facilities in multiple countries. Apollo left 3 reflectors on the moon (the largest of which was on Apollo 15). The Soviets put two of them up there. India put one up there. Apache Point Observatory is one of the facilities around the world that does this every single day. Saying "there is no known usage" means absolutely nothing.
    1
  10767. Dewdrop, I'm not playing these games with you. This is especially the case because the modern facilities don't have these fixed values you're asking about. They can vary the frequency/power. And, I don't have the slightest clue what you're even asking for with regard to a photo. Sorry, but you don't get to just say "nuh uh" about this topic. All you're doing is saying "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." Go read up on lunar laser ranging and find out for yourself.
    1
  10768. Dewdrop, none of your lies matter. If you don't understand that there are dozens of laser ranging facilities around the world, that's YOUR problem. Why do you suppose India, the Soviets, and the USA put a total of 6 reflectors up there, if there was no way to use them?
    1
  10769. Why did India, the Soviets, and the USA all put reflectors up there if there was no mechanism to use them, dewdrop? Why do dozens of laser ranging facilities exist around the world if none of them work?
    1
  10770. Why did India, the Soviets, and the USA all put reflectors up there if there was no mechanism to use them, dewdrop? Why do dozens of laser ranging facilities exist around the world if none of them work?
    1
  10771. There's a certain level of irony when someone asks for someone else's diplomas... while butchering written English this badly.
    1
  10772. Um, no. The store employee Anna identified the woman and thought she stole. The cop was there because this is a high crime area, and he was on duty for that store.
    1
  10773. You're assuming Biden knows the definitions of the words he's using. Bad assumption.
    1
  10774. Why won't you answer? Do you still stand out in the middle of open fields, wearing an old beat up uniform that doesn't even fit you, making nutbag videos complaining about how badly the world treats you? Or, did you go seek the mental treatment you badly needed, and that's why you disappeared for a few years? I see you haven't learned anything about Apollo in these last few years of your absence. But, I certainly hope you're far more mentally stable than you were before. At least I see you took down the videos. That's a step in the right direction.
    1
  10775.  @aok4418  Oh, no you don't. Nope. I told you before, I'm not playing your game. You have refused to answer a single question or challenge I've put forth to you for over a year now. Not ONE. I'm not paying you the courtesy of answering your questions while you've made it quite clear that you (a) won't answer mine, and (b) don't want the answers anyway.
    1
  10776.  @aok4418  I only have one YouTube ID, dewdrop.
    1
  10777.  @aok4418  Sorry, dewdrop, but, you have me confused with someone else. That's the side effect of your ridiculous belief that I post under different IDs. I've asked you dozens of questions that you never answer.
    1
  10778. You can find pictures of almost all of this stuff (all but the tiny objects) on the official archive (Apollo Lunar Surface Journal).
    1
  10779. Well, that's a lot of words that don't mean much of anything. If you can't actually specify who you think shamed her, then what good is anything you just said?
    1
  10780. That's your excuse for not answering?
    1
  10781. Dewdrop, the arrest video wasn't released to the public until long after she was dead. She suffered virtually no shame from this incident. And, let's face reality here, she was a stripper who was performing the same thing at the beach as she did at the local club where she worked. I'd hardly think she felt much shame anyway.
    1
  10782. So, people shouldn't get arrested if they commit a crime?
    1
  10783. Enjoy your inevitable prison term.
    1
  10784. Correct. She was long gone before that happened.
    1
  10785. National Geographic should be ashamed to give this ridiculous idea any press. Sorry, but solar roads simply cannot match rooftop panels. A solar road is far more expensive, and far less efficient, than any equivalent effort for rooftop panels. And, except for Batman, nobody is going to drive cars on rooftops. Some of the solar road companies are just investment scams, the rest of the companies are just delusional.
    1
  10786. The problem is that the winners are no longer the ones with the best training and ability. The winners are the ones with the best chemists. OF COURSE if Lance hadn't won, another cheater would win. I never argued that. I'm arguing that you're a fucking delusional idiot if you believe Lance didn't cheat also. The USADA is going after Lance because, imagine the contrary. If they go after a lower name, everyone will think they're playing favorites. Bring down the biggest name, set an example.
    1
  10787. Who is "them"? And, on what grounds?
    1
  10788. Dewdrop, there was never an Apollo landing in The Apollo Basin. This is ridiculous. It was named "The Apollo Basin" in honor of the Apollo missions, but, no Apollo mission ever went to that location. You don't know what you're talking about.
    1
  10789. Dewdrop, why would they need to bother with a big fake program to milk billions of dollars? The government has no trouble borrowing (or printing) money. They have no trouble just raising taxes for whatever purpose. They don't need a fake program.
    1
  10790. Sorry Eddy, you have fallen for silly videos that make ridiculous claims, and you haven't fact checked any of them. You believe what you believe because of your own ignorance and arrogance.
    1
  10791. Let me guess, a YouTube video told you that, right? Nobody who actually looks at the photo archives for themselves ever says that. All you're demonstrating is that you don't actually have any interest in Apollo, your only interest is in watching videos that lie to you.
    1
  10792. @Blobba Fetta You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
    1
  10793. So, 8th grade, you dropped out of school? Or, 7th?
    1
  10794. The ship had sailed long before she requested to go back in the store. She had already refused to ID, obstructed, and obfuscated. She also added resisting arrest as time went on. The shoplifting crime basically didn't matter as much by then. There was already plenty of probable cause. If she had presented her ID when asked, and didn't jump off of a cliff into insanity with these silly rants, and calmly requested to go back into the store, sure, I'd agree with you.
    1
  10795. You are too kind about the aesthetics of the Cybertruck. It's hideous. And, the only people who don't think it's hideous are the cult members. If we could turn back time, and Honda or Dodge or Volkswagen introduced the exact same thing instead of Tesla, every Tesla fan out there would call it the most ridiculous vehicle they ever saw. But, if it comes from Telsa, it's their dream car, no matter what.
    1
  10796. Yeah, I understand the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" friendly tone you're taking. But, for some stuff, the Cybertruck being one of them, I think the hideousness is far more universal. This isn't a discussion about preferring chocolate or vanilla. This is more like a discussion about preferring to eat [you know what] vs. vanilla. NOBODY likes [you know what] (unless Musk serves a steaming pile of it and calls it dinner to his cultists).
    1
  10797. Yes. Every landing blew dust. Why would you think it didn't? Did you look at the photos, or did a conspiracy video tell you that no dust was blown, and you blindly trusted it?
    1
  10798. Watch frame by frame. The criminal pulls a gun as he's approaching the door handle. And, at 0:08, as the door opens, he points the gun at the officer's head. You also see the gun laying on the ground at 5:02 next to a 2x4 piece of wood.
    1
  10799. It's only one frame at 0:08, but, yes, he has the gun pointed at the cop. But, it doesn't really matter. He's drawing the gun as you can see through the driver's side window, approaching the door. You can see him reach in his shirt and pull it out. Yes, it's blurry, but, let's get real here, it's not blurry at 5:02, and you see the gun plain as day. So, face it, there was a gun, he pulled it, the cop saw it, and correctly responded by shooting the guy.
    1
  10800.  @alastermyst  Did you read my response before asking this?
    1
  10801. You're painting the picture that there are two possibilities about how this went down... (1) the carjacker didn't have a gun, or the cop didn't see a gun... and (2) the carjacker had a gun, and the cop saw it. The answer is (2), and (1) isn't any kind of realistic kind of possibility. Grainy video or not, it's very apparent that he was pulling the gun out of his shirt as he walked up, pointed it at the cop, and the gun was visible (clearly, not grainy) on the ground at 5:02 in the video. My "disagreement" (using that term loosely, because as you pointed out, we're saying the same thing) is that I do not see that (1) is even a possibility for any sane person to entertain as an option. The cop clearly was reacting to the gun, and talked about the gun a few times during this video. Yes, he knew there was a gun. So, my efforts in this thread have been to emphasize how unrealistic your (1) option was.
    1
  10802. The cop was reaching for the door handle, but didn't get to it before it was opened. Watch it again frame by frame. I'm not splitting hairs with you about these definitions (your other comment). If you want to play games, that's your own problem. The guy had a gun, the cop saw it, period. If you want to pretend it's a "mystery" to you if this was the case, then be my guest. The rest of the world will just stick with the facts.  @alastermyst 
    1
  10803. You say it can't be explained, but then say you want to believe? Sorry, dewdrop, but when a flag is handled, it's going to move/sway. It will move/sway even easier in a vacuum than it would in an atmosphere, because there's no air resistance to slow/stop the swaying. I mean, did you REALLY think the entire planet's physicists for the past 50 years can't notice this simple thing? And, YOU noticed it? Why do you suppose you can count the number of physicists on one hand that believe what you believe? Is it because they don't understand physics as well as you do?
    1
  10804. Huh? Some 3rd party random documentary maker (and not even a good one) is involved in "covering up" for something 50 years prior? What?
    1
  10805. Well, I'd argue that she didn't feel any shame, because the bulk of this never saw a speck of media until she was already dead for 1.5 years. But, yes, that's one of the deplorable agenda in the media that you're talking about, and I agree with. The media doesn't want to spell out that this incident happened 2.5 years ago, and that she was already dead 1.5 years by the time the arrest video was made public. Instead, they want to play word games to make their videos go viral, at the expense of accuracy in reporting.
    1
  10806. Huh? Who said they didn't use a rocket?
    1
  10807.  @01mustang05  You are describing yourself.
    1
  10808. Out of context quote mining? In that very same interview, both before and after this quote of yours, Aldrin said that he went to the moon. He said that his mission was to make the first landing attempt, and that it was successful. He also talks about his journey to/from the moon. Pretty strange if your position is that, in the very same conversation, you're trying to say that Aldrin was confessing to not going... while he repeatedly said he did. Also, just out of curiosity, if you REALLY believe he was confessing, why do you suppose the entire rest of the world didn't think that's what he was doing? No senate investigations? No prosecutions? No front page headlines? No? Lori Laughlin bribed a couple of crooked admissions people into letting her children into college, and it was a front page headline for weeks, multiple documentaries were made about it, reporters around the world scrambled to follow the story, docudrama movies were made about it, senate investigations, prosecutions, over 50 people went to prison, etc. Yet, here you are, thinking that Aldrin was confessing to the largest fraud in human history against the most simultaneous nations of any crime ever committed... but, nope, nobody cares, huh? Nobody in the world thought this was a "confession" except for nuts on YouTube?
    1
  10809. Are you serious? What's the problem with just letting everyone dope? Tell that to your kid who wants to cycle: "yeah, dad/mom, I want to get into cycling, but the only way on Earth I can ever compete in any way is to take 'roids and other drugs like crazy, which causes all kinds of long term medical problems, ok?" Also, what's the freekin' point of having people compete at all when it's no longer about training and skill, but it's about who has the best chemists? Is that what you want to see?
    1
  10810. "Human blood is designed to capture oxygen" Well, "designed" is a bit wrongly worded, but, good enough. "and safely bind it" As opposed to unsafely binding it? And, sorry, it's not actually bound. It's more like trapped. "Binding" implies actual covalent bonds, which is not the case. "to a molecule known as hemoglobin." So, you took basic high school biology. Did you graduate high school also? "However, if you breathe in a high concentration of oxygen, it will overwhelm the blood," Again, not exactly, but, close enough for this purpose. Yes, a high concentration of oxygen is called oxygen poisoning. So what? I already explained that they ran the cabins at the approximate partial pressure of oxygen at sea level.
    1
  10811. "The psi on earth is 14.7 at sea level!" Yes, dewdrop. But, most of it is nitrogen. The partial pressure of oxygen at sea level is about 3.07 PSI. Gee, what an amazing coincidence, that's almost exactly the pressure that they used in the cabins of the Apollo craft and suits!! It's almost like the engineers knew the partial pressure of oxygen in air, and then made the Apollo equipment match.
    1
  10812. And, why won't you answer me? What video told you to spew this gibberish about the oxygen pressure being wrong? I haven't seen it yet. But, there's been a wave of you dewdrops repeating this incorrect information lately. So, I know there's a new video out.
    1
  10813.  @critthought2866  More like 1/4th to 1/5th.
    1
  10814. Dewdrop, you do know what "partial pressure" means, right? I know I already answered this, but, to answer again... why would you quote the total pressure at sea level, if your complaint is about the oxygen content? The partial pressure of oxygen at sea level is just over 3 PSI. The rest of that 14.7 PSI you quoted is mostly nitrogen (plus a very small amount of trace gasses). Are you getting it yet, dewdrop? The video you watched lied to you. They don't realize that you can't compare 14.7 total PSI of multiple gasses to 3 PSI of pure oxygen. They also don't realize that aerospace engineers are well aware of these pressures, and accommodated accordingly. They just assume the same things that you do (the Earth is flat, aerospace engineers don't exist, the 450,000 people who worked on Apollo didn't understand the same things you think you do, nobody tracked Apollo to the moon and back, and the lizard people rule the universe). Again, what video told you this?
    1
  10815.  @occhamite  My understanding is that suit pressure was 3 to 3.5 PSI, and cabin pressure was 3.5 to 4 PSI. I can look that up in greater detail if you feel strongly that it was 5 PSI.
    1
  10816.  @occhamite  "Why don't you try finding out what in the holy hell you are talking about before you go posting comments " Because a conspiracy video told him what to think, and he just abides.
    1
  10817. "The body is effected by psi," Once again, learn English. Good grief. "but pure oxygen is still poisonous after 12 hours" Dewdrop, just write it up then!! Submit to a biology journal. If you think the total atmospheric pressure is more relevant to oxygen poisoning than the partial pressure, write it up. Demonstrate it. Explain to the entire physics and biology world about how oxygen poisoning takes place because of total pressure, not because of the oxygen partial pressure. Explain how the entirety of the aerospace engineers and biologists got it all wrong for decades. Why would you worry about me? I sense a Nobel Prize in your future (if you can prove you're right). "Are you a narcissist and act like you are more knowledgeable than science?" Let me get this straight... the entire world's scientists have somehow "missed" this little detail you have come up with. And, you have determined that the entire space program from Mercury through Apollo was fake, because the astronauts could not have survived their missions. As a side note, you also (from your other threads) think that radio doesn't work in space, because you think radio is the result of vibrating atoms colliding into each other, instead of radio being part of the electromagnetic spectrum. That's another area that you're bound to win a Nobel Prize for rewriting everything known about electromagnetics and radio. But, somehow, you think your opinions are part of accepted science? "You are twisting proven science to fit your needs" The irony is too thick for words to describe. "because you so badly can't except any new ideas or truth!" Then write it up. Submit it to your favorite university-accepted journal on physics and/or biology. "There is no need to get upset and try to demean people" TRANSLATION: "I've just come here to accuse thousands of people of being criminals who would be thrown in prison for their lives if I was correct, but stop demeaning me." "does NOT effect me in any way!" Sigh. Again, dewdrop, you can't even read and write. Why would you think you understand any of this stuff better than the engineers who worked on it?
    1
  10818. What would you do instead? You are a cop. Someone just pointed a gun at your head, and you were a fraction away from getting killed yourself. You managed to get a few shots off before the carjacker. You instantly have a screaming woman showing up, clearly an accomplice. You have no idea how many others with guns might show up out of the woodwork, and try to continue where Mark left off. Now, what do you do? A) You immediately focus on first aid, taking your attention away from your surroundings? or B) You keep watching your surroundings, you monitor the screaming woman, you keep looking around left and right for any others who might come up with a gun, you call for backup officers to flood the scene with plenty of cops to make sure no other crazed carjackers come out of the woodwork, because you're really concerned that if you focus your attention on first aid, you're likely to need first aid yourself. Which will it be, in your opinion?
    1
  10819. I agree. Over 20,000 people were murdered in the USA last year. That's an average of approximately 55 murders per day in the USA alone (doesn't include worldwide). None of them get the amount of press time as this one. But, this is a bit like the dynamics of "viral video." Once a news story gets popular, the media outlets simply keep on reporting, because they get revenue by giving updates on stuff that the public cares about. I also agree that it's unlikely that an old/ugly man like me will likely get little or no press if I was murdered, while a young and pretty girl will get 100,000x more press. But, I'm not really sure whom to blame. The press? The public in general? Both?
    1
  10820. Because everything you see on Inside Edition is totally true.
    1
  10821. As for the "blow up," the police managed to block the release of the arrest video for 2.5 years. What more do you expect? Eventually, though, after an investigation is closed for long enough, they can no longer block a Freedom of Information Act request. And, given that she was dead for about 1.5 years, yes, the investigation was over, and they had to release it.
    1
  10822. You missed some important facts: 1) Nick worked for Smith before. He fired him because of theft. 2) Smith and Haley's family had been feuding for years. 3) Haley had been wearing Smith's stolen military flight jacket to school. This would have been a nice piece of evidence to present to the police, but, by that point, Smith was already (probably) planning the murders, and had stopped calling the police once he knew who the thieves were. 4) Smith's security video shows him around an hour before the teens arrived going outside and getting two tarps. You can later hear on the recording that Smith was wrapping the bodies in the tarps within seconds of shooting them (he had the tarps exactly where he planned to do the shooting). 5) In Smith's confession, he made it very clear that he had no intention of letting them live. You touched on this, but, you skipped some very crucial lines in his confession when he spelled it out even more clearly. 6) Haley was found with her clothes open and exposed. Make of that what you will. But, it gives new potential meaning to keeping the bodies for 24 hours before calling the police. Re-emphasizing a few of the things you did cover: 7) Smith parked his car a quarter mile away, which made it seem like he wasn't home. 8) Smith had them on video outside, wandering around for quite a while before breaking in. He could have called the police then. Or, for that matter, since it's pretty clear that he knew they were coming, he could have called the police before the teens even arrived, hoping to catch them in the act. 9) The stuff on recording BEFORE the teens got there: Shooting "in the left eye" (then later shot her in the left eye twice). The talk about getting an attorney. This is all more evidence of premeditation. We, as a society, do not issue the death sentence for teens committing theft. Yes, there's always a risk of reprisals for getting them thrown into prison instead of killing them, but, that doesn't actually justify murdering them instead. And, in practice, it's really not all that likely that two drugged out teens were going to seek revenge once they got out of prison. It's far more likely to suffer reprisals from family members for killing the teens, than the risk of reprisals from the teens themselves.
    1
  10823. Yes, everyone knows that if you say the words, "I am stressed," the police aren't supposed to arrest you.
    1
  10824. Who's "they"?
    1
  10825. Well, once you learn to read and write, perhaps you can learn how to use a search engine.
    1
  10826. No, the Soviets were not on the moon. But, they did track Apollo missions with radar and radio telescopes. They listened in on the audio signals also. It's unknown about whether they were able to tune into the video. It had a bit of minor modifications to the formatting of that signal from the NTSC standard, so, maybe they knew how to play the video, maybe not, but, yeah, they certainly knew there was a signal. But, the Soviets were not on the moon.
    1
  10827. Armchair quarterback, what EXACTLY should he do? The area wasn't secure. He just had a gun pointed at him when a guy came out of nowhere. The girlfriend showed up seconds later. How many more people were going to show up, and how many of them had guns? Secure the area first. Render aid second. Else, you end up with cops who need the exact same first aid that the thug needed.
    1
  10828. Then why don't you own a chain of police academies, so YOU can train officers better. Be sure and let them know how to render medical aid before the scene is secure. And, quit being an armchair quarterback saying "you're doing it wrong," and go use your obvious expertise on the subject to open training academies.
    1
  10829. Great job avoiding everything I said. Did you even read it?
    1
  10830. Your opinions are NONSENSE. If you don't like being called out for spewing garbage, don't spew garbage.
    1
  10831. Yet, in your next posted comment, you spelled Apollo as "Appollo"?? Sorry, but if you can't even spell it, the notion that you know anything about the topic has gone right out the window.
    1
  10832. Not the brightest bulb, eh? "I would say that, they should of started" "Of started" isn't a verb, it's gibberish. I'll never understand why so many people use "of" instead of "have." "helping him a lot sooner They shot him, and then they really didn't start doing anything else apart from talking on the radio." Well, after a gun was pointed at the officer (then the officer shot him), then the woman immediately pulled up, I'd say the safest thing for him to do is secure the scene. Why did that woman show up so instantly? How many others are there that might also show up a moment later? Is she armed? She says she isn't, but, are we sure? Does the guy on the ground have another weapon? Who else might be lurking nearby to pick up where the carjacker left off? Get backup units onsite quickly. See, the idea is that the cop is not yet safe and secure. If he immediately renders medical aid, he might be vulnerable to the woman pulling out a gun, or the guy on the ground pulling a knife, or someone else lurking in the area coming to attack. Secure the area first, THEN administer aid, else, the cop could end up needing aid also. "You could frisk the suspect for weapons, make sure they aren't a threat" And, while you're doing that, suppose the woman pulls a gun and shoots you, then what? "call in EMS on your location, then administer first aid, since I know cops are taught first aid." Why aren't you training the police then? If you think you know better about how to handle these situations, where's your police academy, and why aren't your policies enforced throughout the country? "Although, that mother was def in on it. How'd she get there so fast?" Just making sure you understand, she's the mother of the baby in the car, not the mother of the guy who was shot. She's his girlfriend/accomplice. You do know that, right?
    1
  10833. But, the arrest video was first aired on November 24, 2023. She died 1.5 years prior.
    1
  10834.  @soriac2357  I'm pretty sure they pressurized, got everything sorted out, cataloged, put away, etc., then put their helmets back on, hooked up to the inside life support, then depressurized to throw the stuff out the door, then pressurized again.
    1
  10835.  @soriac2357  PAO This is Apollo Control at 112 hours, 19 minutes. The inhabitants of Tranquillity Base are still in the post EVA clean up period. Still have not fully configured the voice communications, however, we are getting telemetry - good telemetry from Tranquiltity Base showing a cabin pressure of 5 pounds per square inch, temperature of 60 degrees. We expect to establish communications before too long. During this period the crew is removing the portable life support systems, checking over their spacecrafts systems, getting ready for jettisoning equipment from Tranquillity Base_ The cabin will be depressurized before too long and equipment will be jettisoned onto the lunar surface. CAPCOM Tranquillity Base, this is Houston. Can you giveus some/idea of how yon're progressing on the PLSS dossing and preparation for depress? TRANQUILLITY Roger, Houston. Tranquillity Base. We're in the process of using up what film we have and I'm just getting ready to change the primary ECS canister. Over. CAPCOM Roger, Tranquillity. We'd like to hold off as long as possible on the philipium hydroxide canister make that one of the last things you do in getting ready for the depress if you can. Over. TRANQUILITY Roger. We're planning on doing that. I was Just wondering how much longer we want to wait though. We've probably got another half an hours worth of picture taking and I guess we could run through an eat cycle and
    1
  10836.  @soriac2357  Is my post not visible that proves that, yes, they did it the way I said?
    1
  10837.  @soriac2357  Yes.
    1
  10838.  @soriac2357  apollo 11 spacecraft commentary as11_PAO
    1
  10839.  @bradleyrex2968  Nice additional point. But, for clarity, they only did it on Apollo 15.
    1
  10840. "throw away equipment that can be reused/recharged" Huh? So, you want to bring unnecessary equipment back to Earth? Why? The PLSS backpacks and the OPS units on top weighed about 100 pounds (Earth weight anyway). You're saying that you wanted them to bring one of them back, instead of the 100 pounds of moon rocks that they could bring back instead? Or, bring back both of them, instead of 200 pounds of rocks? Dewdrop, is there any point at which you'll stop pretending to understand concepts you don't? I can't even imagine that another denier would read anything you're writing and actually get behind the nonsense you're spewing. "to "save weight"" Yes, dewdrop. The only real variable in these missions was the weight of each individual astronaut, which was kept under a strict cap, or they didn't go. Everything else was controlled to the ounce. The only times when people bent these rules were when the astronaut was about 145 pounds, leaving a lot more wiggle room. But, beyond those times, yes, every ounce mattered. Don't pretend you understand rocket engineering, when it's perfectly clear that you do not. No amount of emojis is going to convince anybody that you understand this topic. "then dump "extra fuel" too?" What fuel dumps are you referring to? The SIVB? When did they dump fuel? "Not much of engineering if they can't bring back PLSS they can reuse, to be checked for tearing/wear, have it cleaned, and readied for the next astronauts." Congratulations on confirming that you understand absolutely nothing. First, you complained about airlocks. Now, you're complaining that the engineers all "did it wrong" when they left unnecessary weight behind. Just stop pretending. You're no good at it.
    1
  10841. Rather than listening to conspiracy videos tell you about the missing two tapes, why don't you actually read what REALLY went missing? (Hint: backup tapes.)
    1
  10842. Yeah, you're a real hero.
    1
  10843. Oh, such a nice girl. Served a felony term in prison 6 years ago. Arrest record a mile long for stealing cars, various other thefts, repeated failures to appear, drug and alcohol charges, etc. Her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club. Her neighbors said she also did "private" cash encounters in her apartment. Her family said that she abandoned her husband and 6 month old son a decade ago to live a life of crime and drugs. Yes, very nice girl. Sure.
    1
  10844. What should they do? Cry?
    1
  10845. Inside Edition said so, therefore it's true.
    1
  10846. Secure the area first, administer aid second. Else, you end up with cops that need CPR also.
    1
  10847. Math just isn't your thing, eh? See, there's a thing called a "day." A "day" represents the rotation of the Earth, specifically one rotation. It takes a "day" to rotate one time. Yet, you flat-Earthers seem to think that you should just see the thing spin and spin and spin, like 10 times a minute or something.
    1
  10848. "I don't understand why they had to report this on the Smoking Gun website." Well, I think they report gun related deaths, right? "She was not an incorrigible criminal." Well, she was a criminal, with multiple arrests for various things. I don't know about "incorrigible." "She had a major lapse in judgment. She broke the law. She deserved to be punished under the law." But, she wasn't punished. She got off without any conviction for this incident. "She did not deserve to have her entire life ruined by this one crime." But, it wasn't. The arrest video wasn't made public until 1.5 years after her death. And, well, given that she had already been married and divorced, estranged from her family, and (as the reports say) suffering from some major mental health and drug issues, yeah, I'd say that those things had a lot more to do with her suicide than some arrest that wasn't made public until 1.5 years after she died. I mean, the medical report said that her body weighed 86 pounds, and that her implants were jutting out in such an unnatural way that really emphasized how unhealthy her emaciated body had become. Apparently, she was in quite a downward spiral in the year (or so) between her arrest in this video, and her suicide. So, um, no, I don't think this one crime had anything to do with her death. "That woman's life was ruined. Absolutely ruined. She felt shame and remorse for what she had done." Huh? She made a public show on a beach, which was video recorded by a family who saw it. They showed that video to the cops, who wrote about it in their police report. They say it was quite a loud and drawn out public display. I don't think "shame" was part of this woman's vocabulary. And, she didn't suffer any convictions for it. And, the arrest video was not made public until 1.5 years after she died. So, what "ruin" do you think, she suffered? "But not a soul involved in this debacle that ended in her death will feel the slightest bit of shame or remorse." The only "soul" involved in her death could be found in her own mirror.
    1
  10849. Google offers a free translator. You might want to try it next time.
    1
  10850. No, he didn't miss that, he just didn't spell it out. The point is, putting ice into coffee will dilute it less than putting water into it. And, he's demonstrating that the chilling effect of the container isn't doing all that much. But, you're quite right, it's like Phil (Thunderf00t) really missed the boat on spelling that out correctly. It's all there, but, he failed to deliver the punchline.
    1
  10851. And, you believe what you believe, why? Because a convicted felon with a mile long arrest record said she didn't think anybody was around, while she was trying to avoid her millionth arrest? Trust the criminal? Distrust the police and the innocent bystanders?
    1
  10852. It's not likely that this arrest had anything to do with her suicide a year later. Very few people even knew about it. None of the really big viral stuff came until 2.5 years later. And, why this arrest anyway? Why not her felony prison term in Florida, or any of her other million arrests? THIS one arrest was special, and caused her to take her own life?
    1
  10853. Dewdrop, to see your "white line" with any regular telescope, it would need to be about a mile in width. You don't know what you're talking about.
    1
  10854. Was it drugs? Is that what did this to you?
    1
  10855. Did you read the actual NASA article about the missing tapes? Or, did you read an article written by a denier? The NASA article quite clearly says that they were BACKUP tapes that were lost. They use the word "backup" at least a dozen times. But, the articles/videos by deniers always pretend that primary copies were lost. Nobody in history had ever even watched those missing backup copies. Why are they important to you?
    1
  10856. Sure, wonderful sentiments, but, was it really about that? I seriously doubt she revealed everything she was stealing, and only turned in the gloves and hat to gather that kind of sympathy. It sure looked like there was a lot more in that coat. And, what did she do with this generosity? She immediately kept stealing from Walgreens anyway. See, it's not that these people can't survive. It's that they're addicted to meth. That's where all of their time and money goes. It's not about a hat and gloves to those addicts. And, what about her two kids that she left behind when she died?
    1
  10857. "I no longer trust physicists after what I heard Neil Degrasse Tyson say." Really? Millions of physicists on Earth, and you're going to base your opinions on a single one? Really? "That’s when I lost all trust in any sort of science ever." Oh? And, now, you put your trust in random YouTube videos made by crackpots? "I feel like my whole life has been a lie" Because of something one person said? Good gods. "he doesn’t know if they should be in the same sports or not." And, that has WHAT to do with physics? My local car mechanic cannot tell me about swimming pool maintenance, therefore I will never trust car mechanics again. "So I lost all respect and all trust in scientists and now I don’t believe anything." And, you're proud of this?
    1
  10858. Huh? You do know that this arrest video wasn't public until she was already dead 1.5 years, right?
    1
  10859. And, the gun he pointed at the officer? That doesn't justify it, in your mind?
    1
  10860. Not likely. Even with her mile long arrest record and her felony term she served in prison, it's still pretty doubtful that this minor thing ends up with her on any lists. It would probably be negotiated down to a minor infraction, a little community service, a little court ordered counseling, and that would probably be the end of it. There were 9 months between this arrest and when she killed herself, so, there would have been plenty of time for her to talk to attorneys and stuff. But, as was frequent for her, she never showed up to court for this arrest to ever negotiate anything. Plus, in her line of "work" (cough cough, not a real estate agent as they show in this video, because she gave that up a decade ago), ya know, being registered on that list doesn't matter. I imagine most of her "customers" would probably think it was a good thing for her to be on that list.
    1
  10861. Wouldn't matter. One of the "audience" caught it on video and showed it to the police.
    1
  10862. Yeah, if you see a guy at a playground cranking it in front of kids, you're definitely just going up to him while he's doing that, and asking him to stop, and that's it, right?
    1
  10863. "Just because there's 400 plus employees at NASA that doesn't mean that they were all in on it. They were duped just like the American people were duped." Huh? So, 400,000 employees (either direct NASA employees, or employed by NASA as contractors) didn't know what was going on? And, a select few knew "the secret"? Why bother at that point? If the 400,000 people all believed that the equipment they designed and built to go to the moon would work properly, why not just send the craft to the moon? What's the need for deception at that point? "All the information that USSR had access to was the radio transmissions." Wrong. They also had radar tracking (just as dozens of countries had), and they also had laser ranging capabilities to hit the Apollo reflectors, just as they eventually hit their own reflectors placed on the moon robotically. "All the rest of the evidence was kept secret by the US." Pfftt. How? When Spain used their telescope (the largest in the world at the time) to see the Apollo SIVB fuel dumps around the moon, how did the USA keep that a secret? What would that even mean? When India and China each took orbital photos of the Apollo landing sites around a year ago, showing the landers exactly where they were supposed to be, what "secret" could they possibly conceal about other countries' orbiter evidence? When dozens of countries tracked the Apollo craft with radar and radio telescopes, how is that a "secret"? And, you already acknowledged the radio transmissions, which came from the moon. I mean, the list goes on and on here. I fail to understand what you could even mean about keeping stuff a secret. WHAT was a secret? "There were people in the Russian space program back then that recorded a extremely large solar flare the same week that we claimed we went to the moon" Wrong. The extreme solar flare came within a week or two of the Apollo 16 mission, but not during it. "that would have made it impossible for any astronaut in a spaceship to get through." Huh? How would you get through a solar flare anyway? They weren't going to the sun, dewdrop. They were going to the moon. "And the equipment they had would have never made it through the radiation belt around the Earth." Why not? What do you know about it that the entirety of the rest of the world didn't know? "I live by factual evidence." Pfffttt. I beg to differ.
    1
  10864. YOU SAID: "Does anyone honestly still believe we went to the moon using the technology available in the late 60s!?" == Name the EXACT technology you think wasn't good enough. Name it. Don't just say "technology" like it's a blanket word that's supposed to mean something. Name the exact technology that was lacking, then explain why none of the thousands of engineers working on that technology ever noticed that the stuff the designed and built, couldn't do the jobs they designed and built it to do? YOU SAID: "Come on! It is 383,000 miles away" == The moon has never been 383,000 miles away. Never. You have zero understanding of this topic. YOU SAID: "and requires travel through a vacuum!" == So? What's your point? YOU SAID: "Totally ridiculous." == No, dummy. YOU are ridiculous.
    1
  10865. You have left the most important part off of your sentence. Innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW. The side of the road isn't a courtroom. There is no obligation to prove anything. That's for later, in the courtroom. If the system worked the way you're pretending it should work, how could anybody ever get arrested, if they're obligated to prove guilt before the arrest even happens?
    1
  10866. Huh? Do you think that's the officer's choice? If your bicycle is stolen, and you identified the person who stole it to the police, would you appreciate if they said, "naw, not worth it, it's a $50 used bike, not my problem, you're on your own"? Or, would you want the police to do their jobs, and investigate theft?
    1
  10867. Hilarious!! What planet is that?
    1
  10868. Ridiculous babble. Moon is hollow? Where are you getting that kind of garbage? It "rang like a bell" is just an analogy. And, the answer is that it did so because of the lack of water/moisture to dampen the reverberations. There is extremely little water on the moon.
    1
  10869. Links are not allowed by this channel host.
    1
  10870. Yes. And, her landlord said she was a "dancer" (yeah, that kind), and her neighbors said she did "private extras" for cash in her apartment. Literally NOBODY was looking for her, and she remained in her apartment for about a month until the landlord went in to get the overdue rent, and found her. I guess she had zero friends or family.
    1
  10871. Huh? He did his job. What does any ego have to do with it?
    1
  10872. Who said only a small percentage was for COVID relief? Ted Cruz? Can you do the math? How exactly are you defining "COVID relief"? Is the $400 billion they're spending on the $1400 per person stimulus checks NOT "relief"? The hundreds of billions on extending unemployment benefits isn't "relief" to you? Do you even know the breakdown of how the money is being spent? As for minimum wage increases, even the democrats know enough about economics to recognize that you can't double the minimum wage during a mass inflation period like we have right now, without resulting in even worse inflation, and even higher unemployment. Minimum wage concepts are a separate argument entirely, which I won't bother getting into. But, the worst thing you can do when inducing mass inflation is to increase inflation even more. You don't stimulate an economy by crippling the economy.
    1
  10873.  @biggiecheese9225  Pffttt. I'm neither a democrat or republican. I've said for decades that I cannot stand either party. And, I find most politicians make me sick. I'm not defending ANYBODY, and shame on you for accusing me of that. The only thing I'm "defending" is ***MATH***. People like the original poster here in this thread listened to Ted Cruz say that 9% of the money is going toward relief. It takes only a few seconds and a pocket calculator to prove him wrong.
    1
  10874. Um, ok, but, just checking here: you do know that the arrest video wasn't seen by anybody until 2.5 years later, and she was long gone by then, right?
    1
  10875. Um, you do know they ARE going back, right?
    1
  10876. Gotta love when people confess to misdemeanors or felonies on YouTube comments.
    1
  10877. Be more specific? Who should have been quieter, and how?
    1
  10878.  @apolloskyfacer5842  Well, I never thought I'd say this, but, I now think Apollo was a hoax. I mean the decades and decades I've studied it... all of the times I've met the astronauts themselves... my knowledge of the equipment and technology... my understanding of the history and the evidence... none of that matters any longer. Now that Rambo1 has offered such a convincing argument: "Hoax," I'm now convinced I've been wrong for all of these years. We all need to thank Rambo1 for such wisdom.
    1
  10879. I have no idea why YouTube keeps erasing my replies. So, I'll divide part 1 into two parts: YOU SAID: "I thought" == No. I don't think you know what "thought" even is. You clearly don't think, you regurgitate. So, no, don't tell anybody you've been thinking about ANYTHING. YOU SAID: "everyone had realized that the moon landings were faked." == There isn't a space agency anywhere on the planet that believes Apollo was faked. The only people who think Apollo was faked are painfully uneducated fools, and extremely delusional psychopaths. YOU SAID: "because they were." == So says who? YOU? YOU SAID: "Nasa is so full of lies and deceit believe nothing they say." == Just remember you said that. I can demonstrate quite easily that you simply pick and choose to believe what you want. Hypocrisy and self-contradiction at its highest level. YOU SAID: "We cannot fly past low earth orbit per nasa..." == So, literally the very next sentence, you contradict yourself. This is utterly amazing to behold. You just said not to believe anything they say. And, in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE, you are quoting from NASA, believing what they say. If NASA says they went to the moon, you blindly reject it, and say not to believe NASA. If NASA says they can't go past low Earth orbit, you blindly accept it, and say to believe NASA. You couldn't make it ONE SENTENCE before contradicting yourself. Utterly amazing. And, what was this you were talking about "thinking"??? You obviously cannot think. Hey, dummy, of course we cannot currently go past low Earth orbit. All of the hardware to do so was retired decades ago. RIGHT NOW, we cannot.
    1
  10880. Trying again to post this (it keeps deleting itself). YOU SAID: "and let's not forget about the vanallen radiation belts" == James Van Allen disagrees with you. He said that flying through the belts on Apollo would be less than 1% of a fatal exposure. He said that it would take WEEKS in those belts before getting a fatal exposure, and Apollo went through them in only a couple of hours. He said to avoid the belts for long duration space flight, like the shuttle. And, since that time, NASA has indeed avoided the belts for long duration flights (shuttle, ISS, Skylab). So, what's your EXACT beef? And, once again, you are full of self-contradiction. If NASA tells you that there are invisible radiation belts, you believe NASA. So, what did you mean when you said you don't believe anything they say?!?!?! NASA is telling you about radiation belts, you believe NASA. NASA tells you how they got through those radiation belts (by avoiding the worst parts, and going through very quickly), and you reject it? Once again, you are selectively picking which things to believe from NASA (anything that supports your delusion), and which things to reject from NASA (anything that goes against your delusion). YOU SAID: "or the 500 other anomalies that exist that show this is an elaborate hoax." == Yet, none of these "500 other anomalies" have ever made it into a single scientific journal anywhere on Earth. The aerospace engineering community cannot spot them. The world's 72 different space agencies cannot spot them. Enemy countries cannot spot them. Nope, nobody can spot them outside of illiterate graduates of YouTube University who all watch the same conspiracy videos, and don't actually know anything about Apollo. YOU SAID: "Watch the interview when they first came back on the supposed first trip. Three guys on stage scared to death to talk for fear of saying the wrong thing." == What ARE you talking about? These were people who defied death for a living. These were people who were recruited into the program because they were afraid of NOTHING. Neil Armstrong flew 78 combat missions, was shot down behind enemy lines, nearly got killed in Gemini, nearly got killed in the LLRV, flew the X15 deathtrap rocketplane to the edge of space before even becoming an astronaut. This is a man you accuse of being afraid? How pathetic are you? Buzz Aldrin flew combat missions and shot down enemy Mig fighters. Sorry, you do not get to accuse these people of being afraid of ANYTHING. YOU SAID: "They got away with it the first time so they kept going with the moon trips until the fear of getting caught was so large they quit pushing there luck" == Why? What would be the purpose AT ALL in doing that? Why "pretend" to send 9 manned missions to the moon? If it was going to be faked, why not just "pretend" once? Also, good gods, LEARN ENGLISH. You are functionally illiterate. You write like an 8 year old. If you can't write very well, it's because you can't read very well. If you can't read very well, you don't know anything (and it shows).
    1
  10881. It wasn't an illegal arrest. They are allowed to trespass him. He cannot stay after he's been asked to leave. However, he should sue for a myriad of other reasons, and I hope he does, as well as the rest of the parents. That school board needs to all be removed, and the city needs to pay 7 or 8 figures to the parents for this ridiculous event.
    1
  10882. Who is "them" and what's the basis?
    1
  10883. Hidden fiction evidence means their amt country Everest men climb gone achieved then better ist man after one clearly means mind whatever reach moon tried everything clear fiction hidden common case country gone ist after
    1
  10884. Well, since the audience took video of the incident and gave it to the police, it wouldn't matter whether she admitted it or not.
    1
  10885. Huh? Do you not know the difference between crimes and infractions? A warning? What?
    1
  10886. First of all, what choice do they have? Freedom of Information Act. Secondly, they didn't release the video until 1.5 years after she was dead. Thirdly, not a criminal? Felony prison term for stealing cars. Multiple judgements for various thefts. Long arrest record for alcohol and drug charges. Numerous failures to appear in court and open arrest warrants as a result. Not a criminal? Oh, and what she did in this video was a crime also.
    1
  10887. Moral of the story: go back to high school to learn to read and write. And, get some morals while you're at it.
    1
  10888. Huh? Why?
    1
  10889. Happy ending? She continued to steal from Walgreens after this incident, and eventually died from the drugs.
    1
  10890. Open investigation vs. closed.
    1
  10891. I'm not 100% sure if you meant it the way it looks, but, FYI, Apollo 5 and Apollo 7 didn't use the Saturn V.
    1
  10892. So, you're just doubting that he oriented the footprints correctly in his CGI rendering? Well, yes, he's got a lot wrong in the rendering. The laser reflector is facing the wrong way. Same for the antenna on the experiment package. And, there are lots of other little things. But, if you're just asking about footprints that seem "random," and that's what you're challenging, well, have you looked at AS11-40-5902 as an example?
    1
  10893. For an aggravated misdemeanor?
    1
  10894. Huh? Are you under the impression that there's a burden of proof of guilt before you can arrest someone? How would that type of system ever work? If you must prove guilt before you can arrest someone, when could you ever arrest anybody? Um, no. Proof comes later, in the court system and due process of law. You arrest on concepts like "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause." The burden of proof comes later.
    1
  10895. And, you know these numbers, how? Tesla won't release the numbers. Why do you know them?
    1
  10896. So, you believe that the truck weighs only 28,000? Just remember that. Please update this thread when they finally give the real number.
    1
  10897. Huh? The arrest wasn't even based upon the original suspicion of theft by that point. The arrest, at that point, was more about the fact that she was asked for her ID a million times (mostly in the stuff that happened before this video starts, and you'd have to watch the full version to see it), but she refused. She is required by law to provide an ID when being investigated for a crime, and failing to do so is a crime all on its own. She continuously obstructed and obfuscated (also crimes). The cop even said that the original suspicion of theft didn't matter much as he was arresting her. He already had plenty of probable cause for obstruction and obfuscation, and then she added resisting arrest to the pile. You'd probably be correct, except for the fact that she dug herself a hole, and jumped right into it. If she had said, "I didn't steal anything, here's my identification you asked for, I'd like to confront the store employees myself about this matter," then I'd be on your side here. But, she didn't. She was making all kinds of accusations, she was lying and obfuscating, she refused to ID / obstructing. Yeah, that all adds up, you know. As for proof of theft, sorry, but that doesn't come until later. There's absolutely no requirement for proof at the side of the road. You even said it yourself, "probable cause." Sorry, but probable cause isn't proof. Typically, the proof would come in the following weeks, as the store would gather up camera recordings, register transaction logs, inventory records, etc., and provide those to the police or prosecutor. At the side of the road, all that needs to happen is the cop has to decide if it's probable that a crime happened or not. And, yes, between the theft suspicion, the obstruction, failure to ID, obfuscation, and resisting, yeah, there are plenty of crimes there. You are correct in that the woman wasn't legally required to provide a receipt. It does make things easier, and there's absolutely no harm in requesting to see the receipt. But, sure, if she wants to go on a crusade instead of just providing her receipt, that's her choice. However, the only correct way to do it would be to provide ID, and then cooperate on a very minimal and basic level (no obstruction or obfuscation), and request to work it out with the store. And, then, if the cop won't allow that, you cooperate with the arrest, and sue the pants off of the department afterward. She dug her own hole. You can sit there and pretend she should have won the lawsuit, but, ask yourself, why didn't she or her three attorneys ask for more money? Why didn't they even sue the police, and only sued the store? If you think this was a bad arrest (it wasn't, but, let's just pretend it was), do you really believe they'd only be suing the store for $50,000, and not sue the police at all? Hint: they didn't sue the cops because they knew darned well that there was no case. And, they only sued the store for $50,000 in hopes that they'd just pony up some quick money. If they really had the case you're making it out to be, it wouldn't be $50,000. It would be 10x that amount. This is very obvious that even her attorneys knew this was a very weak case, and that's undoubtedly why they didn't ask for much. And, you notice they didn't appeal, right?
    1
  10898. When you feel the need to lie to defend your silly beliefs, you know you've lost, right?
    1
  10899. No. The cops didn't arrest the man for anything to do with his right to speak. The cops arrested him for trespassing.
    1
  10900.  @deborahroy3528  Wrong. That's not how it works. The officials can trespass someone at any point in time.
    1
  10901.  @deborahroy3528  YOU SAID: "No they can not" == Yes, they can. And, after that, it's up to the courts to decide. Not the police. The police just arrest for the trespass, and from there, all decisions are made by the courts. YOU SAID: "they can try and make you believe it" == Pfttt. Who's "they"? The law is the law. YOU SAID: "you see a high official tried that here and he was put in his place very quickly" == What ARE you talking about? As for the matter of trespassing, the board was held up. The police trespassed the guy. The board was out of control and ridiculous in all other matters. But, regarding trespassing, the board's decision was to trespass the guy, and that's what happened. YOU SAID: "and that was none other than our capital building," == Pffttt. "Capital building"? Is that anything like "lower case building"? Or maybe "capital punishment building"? What? Was that your illiterate and crippled attempt to say "capitol building"? If you can't even spell it, what can you possibly know about it? YOU SAID: "and it cost him his next election because of what he tried." == You know you've already lost any position you ever had (which was already pretty much nil) if you have to drift off topic this badly. YOU SAID: "This was an example of people doing unlawful acts against the people, flexing authority they did not have as long as the meeting was public in a public building the people had every right to be there till the meeting was adjourn." == They DID adjourn it, dummy. Good grief.
    1
  10902.  @deborahroy3528  YOU SAID: " you are one of those who like to make others feel stupid" == Wrong. You are making yourself look stupid. YOU SAID: "you pick at a typo" == Spare me. You didn't know how to spell it. You know it. I know it. Don't pretend otherwise. YOU SAID: "which shows your ignorance." == How does YOUR misspelling show MY ignorance? YOU SAID: "As for the court issue I hope that guy get him self a dam good lawyer" == So, what's this sentence? A whole bunch more "typos"? Or, are you just demonstrating that you're completely illiterate, exactly as I said earlier? YOU SAID: "that specialized in Constitutional Law and takes the school board and those officers to school for their actions." == YES!!!!!!!! YES!!!!!! YES, you ignoramus, YES!!!! You are finally getting it!!!! The **BOARD** was the problem. The police were not. The police were not there about any civil rights. The police were not there to uphold any right to protest, any right to speak, etc. The police were there because the board called them to help clear out people who refused to leave. They had the right to do that. They can call meetings, they can end meetings, they can ask people to leave, etc. But, what they can't do is make decisions without hearing from the constituency, nor should they have done any of the ridiculous things about this silly (and very broken) "woke" attitude they're taking. And, for that, I hope the board gets sued to hell and back, and that every member of that board gets booted from office, and never serves again... ANYWHERE. The school board is downright ridiculous for the things they're doing. But, the board wasn't the topic here, dummy. You asked about what the POLICE were supposed to do. And, if the board calls the police to help get rid of trespassers, then that's what the police do. That's how their jobs work. That's what they're supposed to do. The police don't get involved with the politics. They don't get involved with whether or not the board should have ended the meeting. They don't get involved with whether or not free speech is violated. Those things are for the courts. Nobody gets "arrested" for violations of free speech. They get sued for that, not arrested. I'm sorry that you are just as crippled in your understanding of the law, as you're crippled in your understanding of English. But, you asked the question, and I answered you. If you didn't want an answer to your question, then you shouldn't have asked. YOU SAID: "You want to attack and act all high and mighty wait it will come back to you." == Really? How does that work? Any time you're pathetically wrong about something, and someone else calls you out for it, that person is "gonna get it"?? Really? Why is it that sooooo many people (you being one of them) can't just admit when you're wrong? Why not? What's so difficult about it? You posted the original question (clearly because you didn't know the answer). Then, when you get the answer, the person who answers you is the wrong one? Look, dummy, next time you want to say something, SAY IT. Don't disguise your ridiculous opinions as questions. Don't ask questions if you don't want answers. YOU SAID: "Every time you call someone stupid hope you get 7 times back what you do." == Well, that was almost a sentence. Congratulations. YOU SAID: "You get on here to fight with people because of you inferiority complex." == Dummy, you don't know what you're talking about. And, even pretending that you're correct, and I'm getting on here to fight with you out of an inferiority complex, it doesn't mean that I'm wrong. Either way, you still don't know what you're talking about. You're still barely literate. You still don't understand basic civics. You still can't muster up the courage to actually address anything I wrote, or any questions I asked. You still thought that the meeting wasn't adjourned, when it actually was (meaning, your facts are all wrong). I mean, good grief. Don't sit here and accuse ME of an inferiority complex, while you're demonstrating YOUR OWN INFERIORITY with every word you type. YOU SAID: "So you do all you can to make others feel as you do." == Dummy, YOU ASKED THE QUESTION IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! I didn't come to your home, knock down your door, and demand that you listen to me berate you. You asked a question, I answered, and then you jumped into the deep end of the ignorance pool, and spewed the most ridiculously wrong notions you could ever think up. Good grief. Again, next time you don't want answers to your questions, DON'T ASK QUESTIONS!!!
    1
  10903.  @deborahroy3528  Did you even read my reply? What ARE you talking about now? Good gods.
    1
  10904.  @deborahroy3528  YOU SAID: "oh I read what you said" == Then why can't you address anything? Why are you going off on these weird tangents? I don't even understand the relevance? (And, neither do you.) YOU SAID: "but you play ignorance over every school board" == Bad Friday night, Deborah? A little tipsy perhaps? What does this even mean? Did you want to try this again when you're sober? What does it mean that I "play ignorance over every school board"? That sentence literally doesn't mean anything. YOU SAID: "there are elected officials and people with any sense would call in so many complaints they would have to look into these matters." == Deborah, oh Deborah? Can you make your 8 brain cells operate together for once, and listen to me?? The topic here was about your comment about what the POLICE are supposed to do. YOU SAID: "They should also let the elected they will loose many votes" == They'll "loose" votes? So, should they tighten the votes instead? Deborah, seriously now, just stop. Just put an end to this pile of illiterate gibberish. Every sentence you write is riddled with so many grammar and spelling errors that it's just plain embarrassing. You have the literacy level of a 6 year old. Just stop. Go back to school. Take some classes on reading and writing. Seriously, you're doomed to misunderstand literally every concept you come across, when you read and write this poorly. You're a mess. You're an absolute mess. YOU SAID: "and support and would campaign very loudly against them getting elected again." == And, this relates to your original comment, how? How does any of this tie back to police upholding the constitution? What in the world are you talking about now? YOU SAID: "So your little smug comment shows what and who you are." == Good grief. Ignorance and arrogance are a wicked mix. I suggest you shed at least one of those two. I mean, it's best if you shed them both. But, seriously, drop at least one of them.
    1
  10905. A) You don't get a warning for a crime. You have it confused with an infraction. B) No.
    1
  10906. So, let me get this straight... you watch a few minutes of a video, and you think you know better about her case than the attorneys, judges, and juries that heard all of the evidence, and convicted her? Her own family won't even take her in for more than a day or two at a time, oh, but you think she's innocent. Hey, nutbag, here's a solution: if you think she's innocent, just let her live at YOUR house. Count the number of hours before she steals everything you have, and sells it all for drug money. Good luck with that.
    1
  10907. The cops must protect their own lives. Secure the area first, or there might be others popping out of the woodwork with guns, and then the cop would need just as much medical aid as the carjacker. So, spare the world your armchair quarterback version of what you think cops should or shouldn't do.
    1
  10908. Attacking you personally? What a snowflake. When did I do that, dewdrop?
    1
  10909. Oh, quit your silly baiting. Pause the video at 0:08, and go frame by frame. The criminal pulls the gun out as he's walking to the door of the car, and points it straight at the cop as he opens the door. And, you can see the gun on the ground at 5:02 next to a 2x4 piece of wood. Your hatred of the police is ridiculous. The criminal went up to the car wearing a balaclava ski mask in the middle of a Kentucky summer, opened the door of the car, and pointed a gun at the driver, and you're sitting there blaming the cop?? What's wrong with you?
    1
  10910. I'll bet your arrest and prison record is as long as hers.
    1
  10911. Pfffft. The laws of thermodynamics are "cliché"? Are you insane? It's one of the most fundamental concepts in all of science. You're so ridiculous it's not even funny. If someone was trying to make 2+2=7, would you say "all of you naysayers and your cliché rules of arithmetic" are just STUPID, and you only believe arithmetic because someone told it to you. Spare the world your broken interpretation of the foundation of physics. You clearly don't understand thermodynamics enough to comment on it.
    1
  10912. Yeah, the only saving grace is that nobody showed the footage while she was alive.
    1
  10913. Which wave did you see? The little blogs 2.5 years ago? Or, the wave of media that covered it when the arrest video was released on November 24, 2023?
    1
  10914. YOUR WORDS: "You obviously have no understanding of physics." Good gods. The irony. Dewdrop, the Earth spins ONE TIME PER 24 HOURS! You expect to notice that amount of spin? You refuse to answer any questions, or even absorb the answers to your own questions. Yeah, when viewing from 240,000 miles away, 1,000 mph is NOTHING. You're doubting other people's ability to understand physics? Good grief, I doubt your ability to understand 2nd grade MATH.
    1
  10915. "you attempted to solve an equation that mathematically cannot be resolved" Hilarious!!! Yeah, if only people could solve the math on how many hours it takes for the Earth to rotate once. And, you've come to YouTube comments to "grace" the world with this mighty puzzle (that has been understood since the earliest recorded history). We're done here, right?
    1
  10916. How would you prevent it?
    1
  10917. Learn the difference between an infraction and a crime. Good grief. Is it really too much to ask that people understand something about the laws before passing judgement on people?
    1
  10918. And, sorry, but with her extensive criminal history, time spent in prison, million other arrests, open warrants, etc., there was NO WAY she was getting out of there without being arrested.
    1
  10919. Um, no, dummy. They clearly said that the person was arrested for trespassing.
    1
  10920. Yes, but that's how the system must work. I mean, you have to allow enough time for proper procedures, appeals, motions, etc. You can't just find them guilty and execute them the next week, like they did/do in other countries, or like in the old French guillotine days. It might be inhumane to make it so uncertain, like you're stating. But, that's part of the due process of the system that has been set up.
    1
  10921. Sounds nice and all. And, perhaps if the woman had provided her ID, and cooperated at the most basic level, that would have happened. But, she didn't, and decided to refuse to show ID (legally required to do so), and obstructed/obfuscated instead (also illegal).
    1
  10922. The police department managed to keep this video private for 2.5 years, which was 1.5 years AFTER she died. And, when it was released, it was likely because of a Freedom of Information Act legal request. You cannot murder someone who has already been dead for 1.5 years.
    1
  10923. Perhaps this is a dumb question, and who knows if you'll ever read this... but... are they saying that the mere fact that the crazy ideas are contained within the video, that even though you are speaking against the crazy ideas, they don't want the crazy ideas to spread? Like, for example, James Randi used to have a huge "problem" in that whenever he aired crazy people with their homeopathy, psychic readings, telepathy, etc., utterly exposing them for the frauds that they are, still, the rule that "any publicity is good publicity" always held true, and the popularity of the people he was debunking kept going UP. Even if the purpose of your video is to tear apart the crazy notions, there will be a subset of viewers that will just believe the stuff you're debunking because they feel like rejecting everything you say. Therefore, by even having the crazy notions within your debunk videos, in some way, to a certain demographic, you end up indirectly promoting it? (Note: I wouldn't agree with YouTube taking down your video for that reason, I still think your video should remain up, but, I'm just asking about a possible "reason" that almost would make sense.)
    1
  10924. How much of a contributing factor? If you weigh all of the rest of her million arrests, her term spent in a Florida prison, her complete lack of friends and family (that she walked out on more than a decade ago in order to live a life of crime and drugs), etc., how much do you think this one arrest mattered? Almost nobody even knew about it until long after she was dead, contrary to the false picture painted by Inside Edition (where facts don't matter).
    1
  10925. Thanks, I'll have to take a look at that interview. Is she on the side of the crack-meets-pot? Why would she give him the time of day?
    1
  10926. Bart Sibrel? Good grief. Again, why would she give him the time of day? I saw an interview from about a year ago with Bill Maher in which she tapdanced around, and eventually said that the idea that the moon landings were not real was something she almost fell for, but didn't. And, she ineloquently stated that she didn't know enough about the topic, but again emphasized that she did NOT get taken in, just "almost." But, if now, she's been taken in, wow, what a decline. I'm not in the mood for over an hour with Bart Sibrel right now, but, I'll get around to it. Thanks again for telling me about it.
    1
  10927. "Russia laugh" No, dewdrop. The Soviets tracked Apollo missions to the moon and back, just as dozens of other countries did, and they congratulated the US. And, sorry, but just saying "AI" means absolutely nothing.
    1
  10928. I just love when the dumbest people alive think that they're "awake" and think the sane people are asleep.
    1
  10929. Agreed. But, in this case, at least nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive. And, they're not talking about her extensive prior record, prison term, or her career at the local "dance" club.
    1
  10930. @ Even with her extensive history, this is easily negotiated down to just a little community service... if she bothered to show up in court... but, apparently, ditching court was her regular thing with all of her various arrests.
    1
  10931.  @Hobbes746  Sure. But, yes and no. Some of the equipment on the lunar surface wouldn't have actually handled a lunar high noon. But, you're absolutely correct, without an atmosphere to conduct the heat via direct contact, the only method of heat transfer is radiant, which is a lot slower than direct contact, and yes, it helps.
    1
  10932. Well, that's fine, but, in Florida, you ARE legally required to provide your identification (she refused), and you are NOT to obstruct/obfuscate a police investigation (she did both), and you are not supposed to resist arrest (which she did). By that point, the original suspicion of theft didn't matter, because she had already committed other crimes.
    1
  10933. They had stills on the moon. It eventually led to lunar NASCAR.
    1
  10934. "they lost all the information about the moon landing and rockets" Says who? A conspiracy video full of silly lies? Have you tried simply looking for the information you're claiming is lost?
    1
  10935. This.her didn't anything do on internet about family this this who for her being put
    1
  10936. You can see the gun on the ground at multiple points in the video, just a couple of feet from the carjacker's hand, like at 1:50, and at 5:02, next to a 2x4 piece of wood. Furthermore, if you go frame by frame, you can make out the grainy outlines of him pointing the gun at the cop as the door opens. His own attorney (family's attorney anyway) clearly said that the carjacker had his gun out, and everyone agrees (even his own family) that it was the carjacker's gun.
    1
  10937. So, let me make sure I understand you here. You ignored all input, and changed the topics. You refused to admit being wrong about Grissom. Instead, you changed topics to wars, poison, human medical experimentation, some silly gibberish about modifying photos of the Earth from the moon, and Abraham Lincoln. Do I have that correct? When someone corrects one thing you say, you think the correct action is to ignore it, and spew a half dozen new topics of pure gibberish instead of dealing with your own original topic? Is that how your mind works?
    1
  10938.  @apolloskyfacer5842  He's on our side. You've misunderstood.
    1
  10939. Well, the video was real, but, yes, somewhat "staged" in how it was presented. She killed herself almost 2 years ago. But, the arrest video wasn't released until November 24, 2023. So, with an opportunity to falsely create a viral video, they cleverly played some word games, asking questions instead of providing answers, and never mentioned that she had already been dead a long time. Then, they came out with these "update" videos that say she's dead, letting the audience believe that she was shamed to death over the release of the arrest video. In reality, nobody in the public ever saw the arrest video while she was alive.
    1
  10940.  @lifeschool  YOU SAID: "Thanks for clearing all those questions sensibly for me. Now I can understand this a lot more than I did before." == No problem. YOU SAID: "Would you say anything being emitted by something is radiation? So sunlight is solar radiation, and magnetic fields are magnetic/metallic radiation?" == Well, sunlight is definitely radiation. But, magnetism isn't radiation. Perhaps you're confusing it with "electromagnetic"? (And, technically, sunlight is electromagnetic radiation.) Anyway, rather than me regurgitating a bunch of stuff into YouTube comments, maybe the easiest thing for you to do would be to start on the wiki page that describes radiation. But, believe me, I'm no fan of wiki. Too much stuff is wrong or incomplete. But, if you're just trying to categorize radiation, it's a good enough starting point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation YOU SAID: "Seems like a far cry from Atomic radiation." == Yes, it's definitely different. Although, gammas are part of the radiation that you get from atomic reactions, and gammas are basically the same as "light" (part of the electromagnetic spectrum), but stronger. But, yeah, most people, when they talk about atomic stuff, they're talking about high energy neutrons, which is definitely not even the same thing as electromagnetic. YOU SAID: "But I do wonder, if they blew up an atomic bomb on the moon, in order to free droplets of water, wouldnt that mean the area is unsafe, and the water would be blasted in to space?" == I guess it would depend on the atomic bomb. I don't really know what you're asking, and probably wouldn't know the answer if I did. YOU SAID: "I never considered the thing about the stars before. I guess the solar glare makes stars not visible like looking in to a light bulb, as the moon is a reflective disc." == Sphere. YOU SAID: "I guess all the stars would appear at night, although it can get a bit chilly to be out in the cold and walking around." == Well, a vacuum doesn't have a temperature. But, the lunar surface does get very cold in the lunar night. In all practicality, that means that the bottoms of their boots would get cold. But, it probably wouldn't matter much. It's a moot point anyway, because they never went to the lunar surface at night. The longest mission stayed on the moon around 73 hours. All of the landings were east to west, and they landed in the lunar morning. They all left before the lunar "high noon." Remember, one "day" on the moon is about a month on Earth. So, nobody was ever on the surface at night.
    1
  10941. She didn't make you look bad, she made herself look bad.
    1
  10942. What don't you understand here? Of course those people know this material. Can't you see it? Their evidence consists of one-sentence quotes!! "Buzz told a little girl he didn't go to the moon." "Werner von Braun said it would require a bigger booster than the Saturn V." "The astronauts didn't remember seeing stars." "The technology is lost." Powerful stuff here. Yup, we don't need to worry about the context of any of those quotes, nor the fact that 450,000 people poured a decade of their lives into designing and building everything. They have the quotes!! None of the world's 77 space agencies, staffed with the virtual entirety of the world's experts (either as direct employees or as contractors) are capable of understanding those quotes. Nope. The true experts are taxi cab drivers, warehouse workers, and yoga instructors, who have graced the world with their YouTube videos to tell us these single-sentence quotes.
    1
  10943. Doubtful they had a choice but to release the video. It was probably a legal FOIA request. But, at least they kept the arrest video private for 2.5 years, which was 1.5 years after she died. The saving grace (as minor as it is) is that the poor woman didn't have to suffer any embarrassment from the release of the arrest video.
    1
  10944. He did have probable cause. Plenty of it. She refused to ID (obstruction), obstructed further (illegal), obfuscated (illegal). Plus, of course, he had the original suspicion of theft, but, as it turns out, that was incorrect. It doesn't change the fact that it adds to the pile of probable cause. But, hey, don't take my word for it. Just explain why her own high profile attorney didn't see this the way you do. He didn't even sue the cops. He sued the store only. Why would that be? Why file just a case against the store for $50,000 (which he lost dramatically, but, at least he filed)? A violation of rights and such misbehavior of cops to arrest without cause... that's a 7-figure slam dunk case. So, why wouldn't he file it, if you think it works the way you think?
    1
  10945. Just FYI, there are lots of satellites in the Van Allen belts. GPS satellites are a primary example. And, technically, geosync orbital satellites (around 400 of them) are in the belts also. Of course, they tend to place the medium orbit satellites in between the most intense parts of the two main belts. And, there's no choice about the altitude of geosync satellites (it's exactly one altitude... physics). But, yeah, technically, they're in the belts.
    1
  10946. If you pause at 0:08 and use the frame-by-frame advance, you can see the bad guy has a gun pointed straight at the officer's head. Now, if you're that officer, are you going to pepper spray the guy? Really? How long do you think you'd live if you were an officer bringing pepper spray to a gunfight?
    1
  10947.  @Phoenix-ov5gg  "This is why the second amendment is dumb. It doesn’t level the playing field, it just means that any conflict that happens is more likely to result in death." Huh? What in the world are you talking about? Are you under the impression that if they remove the 2nd Amendment, that the bad guys will turn in their guns? Huh? When they banned alcohol, did anybody stop drinking? Sorry, dewdrop, but the USA is long past the point that a firearms ban will result in reduction of firearms crime. We're at stage-4 cancer levels here. You gotta fight fire with fire. There's absolutely no hope for a society with a half a billion guns in circulation to ever ban them.
    1
  10948. Huh? So, please enlighten the world how you react in life-or-death shootouts, in your massive experience? You perform flawlessly? And, please also explain how to make 9mm rounds penetrate a truck? Clearly you have more expertise in this topic than the police.
    1
  10949.  @axelmandc  Hilarious!!! You just watched a video where the 9mm hollow points are NOT penetrating the vehicle, yet, you insist that they do. Absolutely fabulous. You can always count on the commenters on YouTube to pretend to know things they don't actually know.
    1
  10950.  @occhamite  Remember the guy in these threads who quoted that very reason (boots/overshoes), and that it meant nobody had technically walked on the moon? I replied by asking if it was ok if his wife, ya know, some guy with a condom, and this meant that they technically hadn't, ya know, because something was in the middle of that contact. He deleted his thread and ran away.
    1
  10951. Daddy changed his story a few times.
    1
  10952. Are you under the impression that presidents decide these things? Um, no. Congress does.
    1
  10953. Odds that his dad is around?
    1
  10954. It says so on the internet, therefore it's true, and history is fake.
    1
  10955.  @therealzilch  I hear it all the time. "Apollo"gy - get it?
    1
  10956. You actually believe that they didn't give her the meds? Why? Because she said so? Do you REALLY believe that the "news" (not news) people didn't ask the prison why they didn't give her the meds? What are the odds that they said, "Are you nuts? Of course we gave her the meds. She's a convicted criminal, and she is constantly pretending she lost her meds, so she can get more, sell them, whatever. Don't be so gullible." I'll give you 10 to 1. How much should we bet?
    1
  10957. YOU SAID: "But coming back here I think JP is really missing the point ... JP's explanation for the gender pay gap is not gender itself but traits that separate most women and men." == To be more accurate, he acknowledges that gender discrimination plays a role in the average pay, but, he says the role of gender discrimination is not as large as the radical feminists portray. He doesn't deny gender discrimination, but says there are many more factors in addition to that. YOU SAID: "Suspecting that JP might exaggerate the biological differences somewhat (not that they don't exist of course)" == How EXACTLY are they "exaggerated"? He barely even mentions anything specifically. He mentioned the general difference between men and women with regard to how agreeable they tend to be (on average, not every individual, of course, but overall). But, he clarified that it only consisted of about 5% of the discrepancy. So, how is this "exaggerating" anything? He didn't even mention the rest of the factors. He says there are about 18 other factors (1 - gender discrimination, 2 - agreeableness, +18 more). So, how did he "exaggerate" in your mind? YOU SAID: "I think that explanation could be close to what's actually going on, though I wouldn't be prepared to argue for it myself." == Um, ok, so why do you say he's exaggerating? I don't understand your point. YOU SAID: "But JP argues that female traits" == Sigh. He even corrected this IN THIS INTERVIEW. He said "feminine traits." See, what you're not getting is that he's labeling certain traits as FEMININE, and separating that from being FEMALE. Males can have feminine traits. Females can have masculine traits. Yes, the historical entomology of the word inevitably leads to female = feminine, but, he's trying to tell you that those are actually separate things. He clarified this in this interview a couple of times. Yet, you're still saying the same thing? YOU SAID: "do not offer reward in the market place AND agrees that things might have been different had markets been governed differently, that is to better accord to more female traits." == I don't understand the point you're trying to make. YOU SAID: "Here he is actually making a point he refutes when asked outright about it: that the criteria for job market success is set by men." == No, the criteria for job market success sets itself. There's nobody in "power" to dictate these things. Take, for just one example, aggression. Aggression is considered to be a "masculine" trait (again, not really intending to say that "masculine" is exactly the same as "male," or "feminine" is exactly the same as "female"). Clearly, the more aggressive individuals succeed in the marketplace more than the non-aggressive individuals. YOU SAID: "Then he sort of attempts to backtrack and suggests that for the last 50 years or so the experiment has been going on, with 50 percent of the workforce represented by women, and still we see no difference." == No, he never said there was no difference. He was saying that these things still would sort themselves out naturally, and that, like it or not, it's quite probable that the gender pay gap would still exist under any circumstances, short of artificially induced mandates. YOU SAID: "But this is a line of argument that collapses. If the managerial and directorship base has not been replaced, there is nothing to suggest that criteria has changed and if it had, his argument in the first place would be defeated. When the presenter suggests that the job market (criteria) is decided by men, JP argues obscurely that markets are in fact run by women because they are the consumers. This doesn't make a whole lot of sense." == Yeah, I agree with you there. I don't think Newman and Peterson were talking about the same topic. I think Peterson misunderstood what was being asked, and ended up answering a different question than was intended. YOU SAID: "JP also seems confused about the way competence is rewarded in the job market. Task related competence is not rewarded automatically - instead employees must be proficient negotiators. In that case it is the competence to market ones virtues and dominate others socially that are rewarded...and explains the gender pay gap. At least when it comes to the example JP gives. This seeming paradox becomes more apparent when JP brings up his experience counselling top female lawyers who are "as competent as anyone you would meet", but obviously still were in need of support to enhance their careers." == I don't understand your point. He was clearly saying that the female attorneys were competent in the TASKS of being attorneys, but that they were NOT aggressive about their own pay negotiations. I fail to understand what you're getting at. It seems that this is likely a wording issue, ironically along the same lines as when Peterson misunderstood Newman's question... but in this case, I think you are misunderstanding Peterson's point. YOU SAID: "I think it is JP's seemingly dogmatic (because he obviously doesn't really believe in it) belief in efficient markets that sometimes makes him less of a scientific educator and more of a political figure. Not all the time though." == That's a mighty large claim... to say that Peterson doesn't actually believe what he's saying. Even if he's wrong, that doesn't mean he doesn't believe his own words. In order to make that claim, you'll have to do better than just a couple of misunderstood interpretations of questions/answers.
    1
  10958.  @ElBank2012  YOU SAID: "I didn't hear him say anything about actually existing gender discrimination. To me he basically says theoretically things could be even better but not much. And that the pay gap is explained to some degree by discrimination - could you refer me to that segment?" == It starts at 5:55, and goes for a while. Then he says it fairly boldly at 7:55 or so. He also talks about it in other lectures, interviews, etc., at more length. I actually need to do some other stuff right now, so I haven't had a chance to go through your entire posting yet.
    1
  10959.  @ElBank2012  YOU SAID: "The rest of the factors, however, I presume he locates in biological differences, no?" == I don't recall. He certainly didn't elaborate here. And, I'm not exactly a fanatic follower. I've seen some interviews and lectures, but that's about it. I didn't take notes. YOU SAID: " 3..." == Whatever you wrote, didn't show up on the screen. YOU SAID: "Obviously, feminine traits as descriptive categories are induced from propensities in the behavior of "females"." == Yes, it's a generality. YOU SAID: " The point is that there is no natural law which dictates that agreeableness should be a disadvantage within a social system." == Um, what? How old are you? It's ultra rare to see a company of any significant size, woman owned, man owned, publicly traded, privately held, whatever, where it's not beneficial to argue for more wages. If you just take the wages you're offered, "agreeably," and don't go fight for more, then they're rarely going to just give you more. That's about like going into a car dealership and just taking the first price they offer you, and don't haggle them down. Now, don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying that it's a good idea to become a pain in your boss' side. But, if you're not out there pushing, they're usually not just going to hand you more money. YOU SAID: "There is no doubt about the fact that in the history of the current economic system, men decided the rules of the game," == Good grief. There ARE NO RULES. The marketplace of jobs is wide open for whatever you choose. If you don't like the situation you're in, you either try to change it, or you leave. There's no rulebook for how business owners pay employees (except for union shops). YOU SAID: "Is it so strange then that the organising principles of the economy is tilted in favour of masculine traits?" == Nope. But, it's not because of any "rules set by men." YOU SAID: "What I was referring to was that the condition (of the wage gap) still exists" == Depends on what exactly you mean. If you take 10,000,000 random women and 10,000,000 random men, and you add up the wages, yes, men make more on average. But, men tend to take jobs that require more risk (and get paid for that risk). Men tend to be more aggressive to move up the ladder. Men tend to hop from job to job more than women (which often results in more money). Women tend to take a few years out of their careers to have children (slowing down career progress) more than men do. Women tend to choose more professions that don't pay as much as men who tend to choose more STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) oriented jobs. And, yes, in the mix of many reasons, there's some sexism that still exists. But, personally, I think the job choices are the biggest factor. YOU SAID: "What he indicates is that despite the purportedly approximate equality of opportunity, the gap persists." == Yup. Equal opportunity doesn't mean that people act on that opportunity the same way. Very few people would really want a system that prevents equal opportunity. But, if you expect equal outcomes, then that would mean that you require more women to go into engineering, more women to go into firefighting, etc. It's ironic that the only way you're going to acquire equal outcome is by taking away the freedom of women to choose the career paths they career. Equal opportunity isn't the same as equal outcomes. YOU SAID: "Maybe I have misunderstood Peterson on this point, but I thought he was arguing that job markets are systems that fairly allocate resources" == It depends on what you mean by "fairly." There are too many potential meanings to that phrase for me to possibly address it without more information. Does the market pay a doctor the same as a social worker? No. Does the market pay an attorney the same as a burger flipper? No. YOU SAID: "When I say that he obviously doesn't really believe in efficient markets, it is evident in what he says regarding the agreeableness/competence issue. But, as I indicate above, he still seems to profess it." == He gave ONE example (agreeableness), and he said that it consisted of about 5% of the pay dynamic. I'd hardly say that this is "professing" it. Frankly, you're starting to sound more like Newman, as if you just didn't pay attention to his words. He said there were around 20 different factors in that equation. Did he sit there and list out all 20 factors? No. He was disputing her notion that women just get paid less because they're women, period. He said that, yes, that's one factor. He also said "agreeableness" was another factor. And, he said there are 18 other factors. But, it seems to me that you refuse to digest the concept of "an example" (which is exactly what she does in this interview). It's an example. Newman: All birds are white. Peterson: No, there are 20 different colors of birds. There's a red one right over there, for example. Newman: So, you're saying that all birds are red?!!?! You're doing the same thing. He brought up one example, he said there are 18 other examples he never even mentioned, and you're jumping into the deep end of the pool and accusing him of focusing on the one example... as if bringing up an example is forbidden or something.
    1
  10960. And, they're probably more literate, too.
    1
  10961. Al Sharpton is an attorney now? Pfffft.
    1
  10962. Just letting you know, your hatred is showing. See, dewdrop, the thing is, it wouldn't have mattered what she said or didn't say, she was going to get arrested either way. One of the "audience" recorded the incident on video, and showed it to the police. It is described in the arrest report as a very loud and public act in view of multiple people including children. I'm sorry if this doesn't match the version told by the woman who was trying to avoid her millionth arrest, but, yeah, that happens. I think I'll stick with the version of the story told by innocent bystanders with a video camera, vs. the version told by a convicted felon who served prison time for stealing cars, and who had a mile long arrest record for various other things, and open warrants for arrest.
    1
  10963. Huh? Gone to prison for a while.
    1
  10964. I'm not sure I understand your comment. Are you implying the man didn't know the age of these teens he knew for years? The boy used to work for him. The girl was the daughter in a family he had been feuding with for a long time.
    1
  10965. Do you really believe that the veracity of Apollo is dependent upon trust in the government? I mean, sure, blind trust in anybody, and especially the government, is downright foolish. But, if you're under the impression that understanding Apollo requires trust in government, then all I can tell you is that you don't understand anything about Apollo at all.
    1
  10966. Well, if you mean she thought she could get away with theft, you should read the description. She didn't steal anything, and had her receipt. But, if you mean that she thought she could get away with lying, obstructing, refusing to ID, and the general screaming and obfuscating, well, she did "get away with it," because those charges were dropped also, when they dropped the theft charge. So, she was lucky there, and did get away with it.
    1
  10967. I suggest you learn to read and write in English before worrying about learning aerospace engineering.
    1
  10968. Yes, just tell her not to kill anybody again. That works, right? Ex-convicts always listen to what they're told, right?
    1
  10969. So, The Great Grain Robbery of 1973 is the reason that the Soviets congratulated the USA for Apollo in 1969? Oh, you're truly a genius alright. I guess they knew 4 years in advance that they'd have some crop troubles. Sure.
    1
  10970. What in the world are you even talking about? What straight answers have you asked, such that you don't have the answer? And, you clearly know nothing about how things are funded. And, congratulations on contradicting yourself. You just got done claiming there were secret budgets that you don't know about, then you said you could think of better things to spend the money on. Well, if the budgets are secret and you don't know what they're spending it on, how would you even know how to better spend the money, if you have no idea what the money is spent on in the first place? Furthermore, let's get real here, you couldn't name more than a small handful of NASA's hundreds of programs. Let's stop pretending, Jacob. You're not even good at it.
    1
  10971.  @DanPerissinotto  I addressed that also, dewdrop.
    1
  10972.  @donstory5097  Well, that sort of depends on the circumstances. Can you give an example? Sometimes it's wrong, sometimes it's not.
    1
  10973. Thanks for attempting to write in English, even though it's clearly not your first language. But, I politely ask that maybe you should try to write this in your native language and let others use a translator to try to understand you.
    1
  10974.  @occhamite  Just a quick FYI: nitrogen isn't inert.
    1
  10975.  @gives_bad_advice  Yeah. The two basic choices are low pressure 100% oxygen, or atmospheric pressure of 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen. Apollo selected low pressure oxygen. That choice haunted them for Apollo 1, when, during testing, they amped up the 100% oxygen pressure to 18 PSI to simulate the differential in space. If that hadn't happened, they might still be using 100% oxygen today. You can have rapid pressure changes and no bends.
    1
  10976.  @therealzilch  Yeah, I wasn't arguing about a chemical reaction vs. a biological one. I was just clarifying that nitrogen mattered quite a bit.
    1
  10977. Really? They don't arrest people for aggravated misdemeanors?
    1
  10978. Is there a conspiracy you DON'T believe?
    1
  10979. Well, you got 2 out 3 anyway. She didn't steal anything. The rest you said is true.
    1
  10980. "need an aircond and heating" There was a cabin heater, but, they only needed it just after filling the cabin with oxygen after depressurizing. Gasses get cold when they expand. But, after that, heating up was the main concern, and they used porous plate sublimators instead of air conditioning.
    1
  10981. "not to mention their spacesuit - 24 hours a day continuously." No, dewdrop. They didn't wear their spacesuits most of the time. They took them off when they got inside (except for the first couple of early/short missions).
    1
  10982.  @therealzilch  Won't matter. If the dewdrop ever reads these replies, he will delete this thread and run for the hills.
    1
  10983.  @therealzilch  Yes, but it IS unlikely that he will read the replies anyway. It was clear he was never reading more than one sentence from each reply before. He probably isn't even reading that much now.
    1
  10984. So, in your mind, cops should never make an arrest, because the person getting arrested might kill him/herself? And, huh? This woman WAS a criminal who was let out to offend again. She served felony time in prison for stealing cars. She got out. She went right back to crime, had a million arrests and judgements against her, including additional thefts. Oh, and by the way, this arrest had nothing to do with her suicide.
    1
  10985.  @stusue9733  Photons interfere with each other in transit, ruining resolution. The only solution is to make a bigger receptor to receive photons far enough apart that they didn't interfere with each other in transit. I almost never recommend Wiki as a source of knowledge. But, their page on "optical resolution" may shed some light (pun intended).
    1
  10986. And, when the woman in this video died, was that because your god blessed her too? Or, maybe you should have been wishing those blessings upon her, rather than the cop, whose life was already in order, and didn't need much blessing?
    1
  10987. Hilarious!! You first weren't going to answer. Then, you said you were going to give an answer. Then, you didn't give an answer, and instead babbled a bunch of stuff that had absolutely nothing to do with giving an answer to what I asked. Oh, you're a pure genius.
    1
  10988. Which media and on what basis?
    1
  10989. Do you actually believe that a telescope on Earth is even capable of seeing objects that size on the moon?
    1
  10990. He was arrested for trespassing.
    1
  10991. Irrelevant. The man was arrested for trespassing, not for speaking.
    1
  10992. Nope. You may have had a point when you said (in a different video) that one of the video clips looked fake from the Westinghouse camera. And, I tended to agree, because I was surprised that the Westinghouse could pick up the blues to the extent shown in that video clip. If I was very interested, I'd have cross checked the original Westinghouse videos against the documentary's clip, to see if it was just artistic license taken by the editors of the video, vs. actual original Westinghouse footage. And, that's exactly what I suggested to you in that other video/thread. But, here, you're complaining about Hasselblad photos, not Westinghouse clips. Those images in this video are correct for 70mm Hasselblad imagery.
    1
  10993. You cannot capture stars on film/video without very long exposure times. It's just how cameras work. It's the same here on Earth.
    1
  10994.  @PAULLONDEN  Correct. There is no such thing as an educated Apollo doubter. Every argument against Apollo comes from people who know absolutely nothing about the topics they're arguing about.
    1
  10995. Well, I think it's rather easy to prove that this arrest video didn't cause her suicide. Nobody saw it while she was still alive. Also, she didn't commit suicide during her prison term, and didn't commit suicide from her million other arrests. It would be absurd to think she'd choose this minor arrest as the one to cause her to kill herself, especially given that she didn't kill herself until 9 months later.
    1
  10996. Do you say the same thing about the fact that we can't buy airline tickets to go mach 2 across the Atlantic since the 1969 Concorde was retired a couple of decades ago? In your mind, are we never allowed to retire any technologies?
    1
  10997.  @ajbuythetruth  Wow, I don't think I've ever seen anybody who fits the phrase "too stupid to know you're stupid" better than you do. I'd normally attempt to get through to someone in your shoes. But, I can tell right now, there is no getting through to you. Your mind has been permanently lost. Even the world's biggest drug addicts have a chance to put their minds back together. Not you, though. You're doomed to be that way for the rest of your life. A shame.
    1
  10998. On what charge?
    1
  10999. "Don't be rude while I accuse thousands of people of being criminals who would be imprisoned for their entire lives if I was correct about the topic I don't understand."
    1
  11000. Multiple people called about this incident. One of them caught in on video, and showed it to the police. Needless to say, the video differs from the version she's telling as she's attempting to avoid her millionth arrest. The witnesses said she deliberately chose a spot in front of people. The video shows a loud and public act in front of multiple people including children. I mean, you do know that she was a convicted felon who served time in prison and had a million arrests before this, right? You do know that her landlord said she was a stripper, and her neighbors said she also did "private" cash transactions in her apartment with numerous men, right? So, let's face reality here, this woman had no idea what shame was. And, given that the arrest video and the viral coverage didn't come out until long after she was dead, she really didn't suffer much embarrassment while she was alive. But, hey, you keep on pretending you know things you don't. You're pretty good at it. How about heading over to a brain surgery video and tell the doctor he should be ashamed of himself for the procedure he uses?
    1
  11001.  @blackops844  Huh? What does that mean?
    1
  11002.  @rsfilmsworld  Yes, but it only had a couple hundred hits, and didn't include the video.
    1
  11003. No, you didn't finish the video because it was tearing apart your silly notions, and you couldn't stand it.
    1
  11004. Your problems go far deeper than these ridiculous questions you ask across multiple threads. Why are you trying to turn your own psychological issues into a problem for people 50 years ago?
    1
  11005. Huh? What are you talking about? You have forgotten the phrase "in a court of law." That's where the guilt is proven. The side of the road isn't a courtroom. The cop is not judge and jury. We don't want cops to have the power to pronounce guilt or innocence. We give cops the power to establish reasonable suspicion and probable cause, and that's where their power ends. I'm sorry you want to get rid of due process and our entire legal system, in favor of some sort of system where the cops themselves decide guilt or innocence, but, hey, for the rest of us, we want to LIMIT the power of the police. You apparently want police to have UNLIMITED power.
    1
  11006.  @ginskimpivot753  Whatever floats your boat. You want to pretend that no engines failed, and then tapdance around the reasons that, yes, engines failed, fine, who cares? I realize how difficult it is for you to simply say you were wrong. Just like the deniers. Whatever they say is right, even when it's wrong.
    1
  11007.  @ginskimpivot753  "The Saturn V is the launch vehicle - I make no allusion to the S-II or S-IVB, and no launch vehicle failed related to an engine." The Saturn V includes the S-II and S-IVB. You even named the weight of the Saturn V, and your own weight that YOU named included the S-II and S-IVB. So, you don't get to pretend you didn't mean the S-IVB. But, I know people like you. You're incapable of ever admitting to a mistake. So, keep on pretending.
    1
  11008.  @ginskimpivot753  Yup, keep denying your mistake. You're really good at it.
    1
  11009. Alan, it's very clear that you WANT to reject the moon landings. Why else would you ever swallow such a ridiculous claim about all of the data being lost? I mean, every single one of the moon conspiracy videos you'll ever see is lying to you, either intentionally (most of them), or because the videos are made by people just as clueless as you are (the rest of them). But, c'mon. This is just downright silly. NASA lost two backup video tapes (primaries are still intact) for one mission, and announced that in 2006, and, year after year, the nuts making those videos you've been watching have just kept increasing what was actually lost. Now they claim everything is lost. It's ridiculous and unimaginable (as you said), yet, for some reason, your mind cannot simply realized that the claim is wrong?? Really? You yourself said it's unimaginable, yet, in your mind, you couldn't connect the dots to realize that it was a lie?
    1
  11010. "please explain or give one other example of a technology, and more specifically computer tech/material tech/aviation tech/navigation tech/communications tech that has gone backwards in the last half a century." Hilarious!!! The 1969 Concorde could fly 100+ people at mach 2 for 3000 miles. Today? The fastest planes we have can go mach 2 for a couple hundred miles, with 2 pilots onboard, and no passengers, and then have to slow down. SR71. 1966 Mach 3 spy plane that could fly around the world and outrun any missile in existence. Today? Nothing. Nada. Zippo. X15. 1950s hyperplane capable of mach 7, flying to the edge of space, and made astronauts out of pilots without being in the astronaut program. Today? No hyperplanes whatsoever. Shall I go on? Are you going to continue to pretend to ask questions while not caring about the answers?
    1
  11011. "I can understand that a moon buddy that weighs less than the two astronauts with full gear couldn't possibly have had any traction spread over 4 wheels with such little gravity." Oh, so the engineers built the "moon buddy" wrong then? Those spun wire wheels wouldn't do what the engineers designed them to do, and you've come to YouTube comments to reveal this amazing revelation to the world, sharing your engineering expertise. Right?
    1
  11012. "they couldn't have sent pictures back live knowing what we know today" Really? So, the 1,100 people internationally who designed and built the DSN to allow that exact communications to happen... you know more than they do now, right? You're not an engineer, but, you know enough about radio engineering to declare that the radios won't work? And, you're not shy about this AT ALL? You're actually PROUD to display this Dunning-Kruger?
    1
  11013. "nor had a live phone call to the president" So, explain this then, dewdrop: A full decade before the Apollo program, backyard amateurs could rig up little radios with a backyard dish or Yagi, aim it at the moon, and make "phone calls" by bouncing those radio signals off of the moon, and someone half way around the world could receive that signal, and talk right back with the same type of equipment. This was known as a "moon bounce" and had been done by thousands of amateurs around the world since before NASA even existed. Oh, but, you think that a decade later, with those massive radio telescopes and unlimited international funding, they couldn't manage to make a phone call to the moon and back, even though backyard amateurs had been doing it for more than a decade by then? That's really what you believe?
    1
  11014. "achieving a far less ambitious goal with vastly superior tech" But, dewdrop, the technology isn't vastly superior. The computers are faster. But, the technology itself? Please name the EXACT technology you think they lacked for Apollo? And, yeah, sorry, but you clearly don't understand how funding works for unmanned probes vs. manned craft. Yeah, they shoot those little unmanned probes up there like candy. They don't care. They're made to be cheap and easy. If they have a 50% failure rate, they don't care. It would cost them 10x more money to make them 98% reliable. So, please explain, which would you rather have? Would you rather shoot 10 of those things up there with a 50% failure rate? Or, send 1 of those things up there with a 2% failure rate? Which is the better use of money?
    1
  11015. Well, you answered a few of my questions, then proved that you didn't read everything. Sorry, dewdrop, if you're just going to read a couple of replies, then spew back a bunch of ignorance (which is exactly what your replies did), then there's simply no hope for you. You are the textbook definition of delusional.
    1
  11016. Sound conducts through any physical medium, which includes hammers and spacesuits.
    1
  11017. Wrong. It wasn't made public until she was already dead 1.5 years. Her suicide had nothing whatsoever to do with this arrest video.
    1
  11018. Probably a Freedom of Information Act request.
    1
  11019.  @sub2me543  Wrong. Arrest = July 2021. Suicide = March 2022. Arrest video made public = November 2023.
    1
  11020.  @sub2me543  Nope. Not even close. It was held private because it was an open investigation. Not even a legal FOIA request could release it. Yet, you're saying the bodycam was made public the very same day as the arrest? Um, no. It was released to the public on 11/24/2023.
    1
  11021. Oh, get real here. As if he actually thought that far. He doesn't even know what a semiautomatic is, let alone does he even understand what he wants to take away. And, he certainly doesn't realize that criminals won't actually hand in their guns if there's a ban.
    1
  11022. Multiple callers complained about this incident. One of the "audience" caught it on video and gave it to the police. Needless to say, it didn't match her version about a quiet act with nobody around. To the contrary, the witnesses said it was intentional, and the video showed a loud act in front of people including children.
    1
  11023. It's very doubtful that this arrest had anything to do with her suicide. Her family doesn't think it did, because they just attribute it to her overall decision to exit normal society and live a life of drugs and crime instead, and she had extreme alcohol issues.
    1
  11024. Her neighbors and landlord said that she was a stripper at the local club, and that she did "private" cash transactions out of her apartment also.
    1
  11025. And, I'd imagine that her poor choices in life just stacked up, and she couldn't deal with it any longer. If this arrest had something to do with it, it was probably just another thing to throw on the pile of things.
    1
  11026. Even with her history, it's likely that this would have been negotiated down to a minor infraction anyway. So, I disagree with the notion that she would have ended up on any "lists."
    1
  11027. She was a convicted felon who spent time in prison about 6 years ago. And, she's had a million other arrests. Stealing cars. Other thefts. Drugs and alcohol. Failing to appear in court. You name it.
    1
  11028. I'm wrong? Why? Because you fell for a deceptive Inside Edition video, and you prefer the fake story instead of the real one?
    1
  11029. And, you think that's relevant, why?
    1
  11030. Naw, even with her extensive criminal record, this would easily be negotiated down to a minor infraction, no lists. But, she didn't show up at court to even have that negotiation. As for ending her career, she did that all by herself more than a decade ago when she abandoned her family and career to live a life of drugs and crime. She did a felony term in a Florida prison about 6 years ago. Stealing cars, other thefts, drugs and alcohol, failures to appear, the list goes on. After that, you're correct, it's tough to get a straight job, so, her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the gentlemen's club. I don't think this arrest affects that job in a negative way. I'd eat my hat if she wasn't making "public beach" content, but got reported, and was trying to cry her way out of her millionth arrest.
    1
  11031. Yeah, they wanted to time it that way to make it look like the arrest led to the suicide. So, a few weeks ago, they showed the arrest video. Then, they waited a couple of weeks, then showed that she committed suicide. The reality is that the suicide happened over 1.5 years ago. But, hey, that doesn't make a viral video, so, they leave that little detail out of their reporting.
    1
  11032. Well, he had already thrown it away by murdering his father (I guess I should say "allegedly" until proven guilty). The police chase was icing on the cake.
    1
  11033. Well, I can agree that a lot of people would be confused by that. But, here's the clarification: see, by the time she asked for that, she had already escalated past the point that she was going to get arrested anyway. The suspicion of theft barely even mattered at that point, because she had already repeatedly refused to ID (go look at the whole video, not this one that starts in the middle), which is required by law, obstructed and obfuscated (also illegal). And, of course, she was adding "resisting arrest" to the pile of her charges too. So, she was getting arrested regardless of what the security systems showed. It was additionally confusing when the cop said he doesn't have access to it, then later asked for it. But, I believe he was just dealing with this woman's rantings and screaming, and simply slightly misspoke, in that he didn't have access to those systems before he had to run out and catch her before she left, and that he himself doesn't have direct access, and would need store employees to get it for him, and that it's not actually legally required for him to review security cameras before questioning her. Yes, the sentence he spoke was a little bit awkward, but, I cut him the slack because everything else he said and did was correct, and I'm not going to begrudge someone for saying a single sentence a little awkwardly, while dealing with an irate and out of control maniac like this woman.
    1
  11034. Pfffttt. Yet, you couldn't muster the courage to list at least ONE piece of this "scientific evidence"? Why is none of this "science" ever published in any recognized science journal anywhere on Earth?
    1
  11035. Because every single thing you just mentioned is abysmally wrong.
    1
  11036. Van Allen belts: You clearly know nothing whatsoever about them. There are literally thousands of papers written about them, from over 400 probes and satellites over almost 70 years sending data back. Have you read a single one of them? Or, did you watch 30 seconds of a quote taken out of context from a video made for children, then presented to you by a video made by a taxi cab driver? Did the videos you watch tell you that they need lead for shielding? Are you aware that lead would be the worst material you'd ever want to use against that type of radiation? Aluminum and polymers are far better than lead, because lead generates secondary radiation when struck by ions. Are you under the impression that all radiation is the same? Are you aware that the Soviets sent two dogs into the worst areas of the Van Allen belts for 3 weeks (spending about half of the time up in there, half of the time dipping just under the inner belt), and the dogs came back home and lived a normal lifespan? Have you read what James Van Allen himself has said about Apollo going through the belts?
    1
  11037. Camera film, no shielding? What do you call the aluminum canisters lined with silver? That's not shielding, in your mind? Again, did you hear the word "radiation" and you thought it was always gammas and high velocity neutrons that you get from nuclear reactors and bombs? Sound is radiation. Do you use lead, or do you use foam rubber, to shield against sound radiation? Visible light is radiation. Do you need more than a piece of paper to shield light radiation? Do you think the engineers at Hasselblad and Kodak just gave them over the counter film and cameras? Or, hmmm, did they engineer custom stuff for Apollo, fully well knowing about the environment? Why hasn't any actual camera or film company on Earth ever complained about the shielding for the past 50+ years?
    1
  11038. Heat? Again, you clearly do not understand it. Aluminum and silver are wonderful reflectors of heat/energy for film/cameras. The bodies of the cameras reflected energy just fine. Let me guess, you're going to quote the high-noon surface temperature on the moon, as if you think they were on the surface at high noon, and as if you think the surface temperature mattered to the cameras?
    1
  11039. "multiple photographs of the same vista, some with and some without the LEM in shot ( the photographs were all taken well behind the LEM, maybe 500yds" Because that's not true. The videos you watch pretend that the LEM disappears from the shots, but, it's simply a matter of the mountains in the background being very far away. You can go look at the actual shot locations and map them out, and see that some of the shots those videos complain about were simply taken in front of the lander, facing in the exact same direction as the shots taken from behind the lander. You can generate the same effect by photographing a tree with mountains in the background, then walking in front of the tree and facing the camera at those same mountains, and it would look like the tree just disappeared.
    1
  11040. "why are there refelections of studio fill lights" There are no such reflections. Again, another empty claim presented to you by videos that lie to you. You didn't specify a photo catalog number, but, most likely, you're talking about the bouncing effect of the light within the helmets' multiple layers. The helmets didn't just have one bubble. They had the bubble, then multiple layers of plastic partial bubbles over it. The light from the sun can literally bounce back and forth between those layers sometimes, creating the illusion that there are multiple lights. This has been replicated using A7L helmets on Earth from certain angles. The bigger question would be why they'd even publish those photos if they had these "problems" on the "studio set"? JJ Abrams was just a child during Apollo, so it's not because he was the director using lens flare for dramatic effect (like he does in virtually every movie he makes).
    1
  11041. "one with the barn doors open in one of their visors" I don't think I've seen this claim. Do you have a catalog number?
    1
  11042. "why are there definite hot spots" There aren't. There's a meandering terrain. And, with a very low sun angle at just after dawn, yes, a meandering terrain will reflect light in funny ways. Why are there 7,000 photos with no "hot spots," and many of them cover vast expanses of lunar ground, while you can only find a very few of these photos with "hot spots" (not really hot spots), and they just so happened to be the lunar dawn photos with meandering terrains?
    1
  11043. "the reason nothing gets published" Huh? What's not published? What ARE you talking about? Every single Apollo photo has been published, except for the one film roll Conrad accidentally left inside the camera when he tossed it out the door onto the lunar surface.
    1
  11044. Why have dozens of countries independently confirmed Apollo in dozens of ways, including enemy countries? For example, Japan's orbiter confirmed the Apollo photography in a level of detail not available in 1969-1972 (except by actually being there). Arizona State University's LRO camera, South Korea's Danuri camera, China's Chang'e-2 camera, and India's Chandrayaan-2's camera, have all taken photos with enough resolution to see the Apollo landers on the surface. Some of them have enough resolution to see the rover tracks, foot paths, shadows of flame deflectors, etc. How would you explain that? Did all of these organizations and countries "join the deception" after 40-50 years? Are you even reading this reply? Can you write "green" at the top of your reply to prove you've read this?
    1
  11045. As opposed to what? What would you have them do?
    1
  11046. Well, nobody put anything on social media about this until she was already dead for 1.5 years. So, I fail to understand your point.
    1
  11047.  @williammann9176  Thanks. YouTube's algorithms are getting worse.
    1
  11048. She's wearing a cross. Didn't help. She was still a criminal.
    1
  11049. So, take that, imagine all of the people Armstrong committed fraud against, and go look up the jail time for each of those events, and each act of perjury. Add up all of the potential jail time. That's how long Armstrong would be in jail (for the rest of his life) if it weren't for the fact that the deluded hero worshipers in the public would fill the ridiculous jury panels, and nobody could ever get a conviction against the guy.
    1
  11050. Hence why sexual cases often go unreported, and are rarely prosecuted when they are. Without additional evidence, it's basically he-said-she-said, a 50/50 case. But, criminal cases need more than 50/50 to convict, it's like 99/1 to convict.
    1
  11051.  @gives_bad_advice  Five still standing anyway. Six in total.
    1
  11052. Nobody understands that better than you.
    1
  11053. The amazing part is that the dad said in one interview that his son went to see who was in the car, while in another interview, the dad said his son definitely didn't think anybody was in the car (and he fumbled over his words like he knew he was lying). Do you suppose that in between the interviews, the attorney told him that it's a bad idea to say the son knew someone was in the car?
    1
  11054. "He knew someone was in the car. He had a gun drawn and a ski mask." Yup, of course he knew. I agree. "I would find it hard to believe any judge or jury siding with the family on this." Well, I find it hard to believe Elon Musk isn't in prison by now. But, weird things happen in our courts. "With that said his family now say he wasn't armed" Do they? I watched a few interviews, including the dad in a couple of them, and their attorney in another, and they always acknowledge the gun. The video shows the gun. It's not going to be very successful to argue there wasn't a gun. "and was just trying to take the car for a joy ride" Wooo hoooo. POS Nissan econobox!! "His family seems quite poor" Yet, his dad was sporting some extremely trendy and expensive Air Jordan shoes. Priorities are a bit off.
    1
  11055. Yes. That's why the receipt is for the protection of the customer, not for the store. But, to answer your question, the correct course of action is to identify yourself, and cooperate. She refused.
    1
  11056. The term "baby daddy" means it's her "boyfriend" (basically). Mark was the father of her child.
    1
  11057. Let me make sure I understand you here. Your original position was that this was his mother. That's how little you understood about this case. But, a moment after you were corrected, you already know enough about this case to declare that it wasn't an attempted carjacking? Two minutes before, you didn't even understand who the people were. But, two minutes later, you now know so much about this case that you have declared it wasn't a carjacking? The guy goes up to a car wearing a balaclava ski mask in the middle of a Kentucky summer, with a gun drawn, but, it's not a carjacking? Good grief. What's wrong with you?
    1
  11058. Huh? The police didn't publicize anything. They blocked the release of the arrest video for 2.5 years. She was already dead 1.5 of those years before anybody saw the video. And, eventually, with the case closed that long, the police couldn't block a legal FOIA request, and had to release it.
    1
  11059. YOU SAID: "So back then, we had only been to space a few times and orbited the moon a couple times, then we went ahead and landed and walked on the moon?" == Yes. YOU SAID: "No probes or in depth studies on its atmosphere or terrain?" == Both the USA and Soviets sent many probes to the moon, fly-by missions, impactors, and soft-landers. Why do you believe there were none? Did a conspiracy video tell you that? YOU SAID: "No knowledge of what to expect, yet, we just shot a multi million pound rocket/ shuttle to our moon and put human beings on its surface after hardly any studies of its conditions, but after all these mars probes and studies we havent stepped foot on it yet?" == You do not know what you're talking about.
    1
  11060. Are you attempting to think rationally about irrational people?
    1
  11061. Um, they don't put dead bodies in jail.
    1
  11062. Sorry, I'm not going to applaud someone who behaved in such a wretched manner toward the entirety of the world, just because she found a way to soften herself and change her ways. Forgiveness and acceptance is fine. But, we shouldn't herald these types of people, and make it seem like their voices mean something now. She said absolutely nothing of value here, nothing which every civilized person doesn't already know. But, the crowd claps and cheers, why? Because she's not out there spreading pure hate?
    1
  11063.  @wolfe6209  Congratulations on missing the point entirely. Yes, I know all of that. But, this doesn't deserve the level of applause and fandom she's getting. She has gone from being horrible, to being normal. I don't applaud people for that.
    1
  11064.  @AB-wq2vy  FINE!!! And, does that choice warrant big book deals, paid lecture circuit tours, and applause? This just reminds me of an analogy to people who herald and applaud smokers who quit smoking... and don't pay any attention to those who never smoked in the first place.
    1
  11065.  @AB-wq2vy  Yes, it's just an analogy (to smoking), and not a perfect one. And, if YOU want to give your money to someone who figured out how to be an average person half way through her life, after being disgusting to everyone prior, then that's your prerogative. But, for me, I'm happy enough to forgive/welcome, but, I'm never going to applaud or give her money.
    1
  11066. She substained the tacket agreement every time he axed a question.
    1
  11067. Well, if I ever wanted to see someone whose mind has been evaporated in a blender, I now know where to look. Good grief, man. What happened to you? I mean, every single sentence you wrote was a mess, but, just look at your very first one. Why in the world would you state that nobody has walked on the moon since 1969? Right out of the gate, in your very first sentence, you just demonstrated that you know absolutely nothing about the topic you're rejecting. Sheeessshhh. You wouldn't happen to be a drug addict, would you?
    1
  11068. This is what happens when everything you know about Apollo boils down to intentionally taking a single sentence out of context.
    1
  11069. And now he's banned, and offered "no contest" to the charges. Do you think he did that because he's innocent? These are his first USADA official charges (lots of rumors before, but this is now the real thing). Spare me the "I can't take the accusations any more" excuse, this is the FIRST official charge, and he quit before the real evidence came out. Do you think his teammates gave back their medals because they're innocent? NOBODY on the team is fighting the charges? WHY? Guilty, that's why.
    1
  11070. No, that's just the picture Inside Edition is falsely painting.
    1
  11071. How? What did they do wrong? And, how did it cause her suicide?
    1
  11072. You think they give warnings for aggravated misdemeanors?
    1
  11073. Huh? No news even covered this until 1.5 years after she was dead.
    1
  11074. Um, no. You are innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW. You are forgetting the most important part. By the way you're thinking, no cop could ever even make an arrest until after there's a conviction in a courtroom. Now, you tell me, how could such a system ever work? The side of the road isn't a courtroom, and the cop isn't judge and jury. We want cops to determine reasonable suspicion and probable cause, and that's it. That's where their responsibility ends. We don't want them proving or disproving things. You are mandated by law to comply at a very basic level. You don't have to assist the cop. But, you legally must provide ID during an investigation of a potential crime, and you must not obstruct or obfuscate. And, if arrested, you must comply without resisting. An arrest isn't a conviction, it's just an arrest. It only means that it's LIKELY that a crime was committed, not that it's 100% proven. And, that woman wasn't standing on her rights. I think it's pretty obvious that she was bothered by "can I see your receipt," and wanted to turn that into a lawsuit/payday by getting herself Taser'd and arrested.
    1
  11075. Huh? What ARE you talking about? She refused to give her ID, or even say what her name is. In the longer version, he asked for it many times. In this shortened version that picks up in the middle, at 1:00, he is STILL asking for her name. So, don't sit there and pretend she already gave her info. You are making stuff up as you go. By the time she said she was willing to go into the store, sorry, but it was already past the point of no return, because she had been refusing to ID, obstructing and obfuscating. He even tried to explain that the potential theft itself was almost immaterial, because she had already violated the obstruction laws. She was Tased for resisting, not for failing to provide a receipt. Don't tell me to educate myself, while you butcher the living daylights out of what happened here. But, you don't need to take my word for anything. Go phone up her high profile attorney, or one of the other two attorneys on his team, who did NOT sue the police, because they didn't think the police did anything wrong here either. She and her team of three lawyers only sued the store, and it had nothing to do with the arrest itself. They lost the lawsuit badly, and will be getting $0.00. But, at least they attempted to sue the store. There never was a lawsuit over the arrest or use of the Taser. So, stop being an expert with your law degree from YouTube University, and phone up her team of 3 attorneys who never filed a lawsuit against the police, and tell them they did their jobs wrong, and should have sued. But, ya know, you might not want to tell them that you think she provided ID, because, ya know, she didn't.
    1
  11076. Update: the people making that claim have no idea what they're talking about.
    1
  11077. And, how many megachargers exist? I think the point was that there are so few of them, a vast majority of people will want the supercharger numbers, not the megacharger numbers.
    1
  11078. So, you are saying that there are only a small handful (about 5) megachargers that exist anywhere? And, there are 4,470 superchargers? And, you wonder why Thunderf00t would quote the supercharger numbers?
    1
  11079. Well, depends on what you mean. The driver killed his father right before this chase started. But, in this video, everyone lives.
    1
  11080. Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  11081. So, before anybody could even provide the answer to your question, you came to your conclusion. How honest of you.
    1
  11082. You are under the false impression that the nuts even want answers to their questions/issues. They don't. They PRETEND to be on a search for "truth," but, in reality, they have absolutely no interest in listening to any input. And, the last thing they'd ever want is answers to any of their questions.
    1
  11083.  @biblethumper1624  Just read through the comments. It's quite obvious that the deniers have no interest in the answers to their own questions.
    1
  11084.  @biblethumper1624  Sorry that you're so blind.
    1
  11085. My hamster.
    1
  11086. So, what EXACTLY do you think the cop should have done instead?
    1
  11087.  @chihchang1139  Pffttt. Name a single firearms training class that teaches anything like you're saying. Name ONE. You don't know what you're talking about. You've obviously got absolutely zero gun experience.
    1
  11088.  @chihchang1139  Good grief. Have you ever even fired a gun? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
    1
  11089.  @chihchang1139  Oh, then you are aware that there isn't a single firearms training course anywhere in the country that advocates firing at limbs, and instead, every single one advocates firing at the center of mass (torso). Moving targets are difficult to hit, and it's difficult enough to hit center of mass (torso), let along someone's arm or leg. Furthermore, even if you hit an arm or leg, you will know that it will almost never stop someone. Like, if you hit the criminal in the leg, she would still stab her victim. Criminals in the act of attempting to murder someone with a knife will not stop the attack if they are hit in a leg or arm or even a belly shot. They tend to keep attacking. You will also know that it takes, on average, 5 shots to stop someone Good grief. Sorry, but I don't believe you. I don't think you have any experience or knowledge in this subject matter. If this cop had tried to shoot at an arm or leg or less lethal spot on the body, two things were likely: (1) he would miss, or (2) if he got a hit, it wouldn't have stopped the criminal trying to murder the girl. And, Tasers are not 100% effective either. You live in a fantasy land. I wonder, if it was YOUR life that the cop saved by shooting someone attacking YOU, would you say, "hey, cop, you should have shot at her leg!!!" Or, would you be thankful that you're alive because the cop just saved you from death?
    1
  11090.  @chihchang1139  So, you refuse to answer anything I ask you. And, instead, you persist to live in your fantasy land. Hey, dummy, there is NO TIME to fire 1 shot, wait, see if it's effective, fire another shot, wait, see if it's effective, fire another shot, wait, see if it's effective. By then, the victim has been stabbed to death. Good grief. Just stick to topics you understand. You obviously know absolutely nothing about this topic. Nothing whatsoever. There isn't a single firearms training course anywhere in the country that advocates anything like what you're saying, and that's for good reason. The reason is that the stuff you're advocating would result in MORE DEATHS. The stuff you're advocating would have resulted in the death of the victim girl, AND the criminal who was trying to stab her. And, if you were the victim here, your own policies would result in YOU being dead. I'm done here. Since you cannot directly answer anything I've asked, and you insist on repeatedly posting ignorant stupidity, there is no point. You're a pathetic Dunning-Kruger sufferer, no more, no less.
    1
  11091.  @chihchang1139  YOU SAID: "Tbh, your posts are too long," == So, basically, TRANSLATION: "I didn't read what you wrote, but you're wrong about what I didn't read"? Good gods. YOU SAID: "but I'm answering the main points" == No, you're not. YOU SAID: "that actually pertains to our discussion of making safe policing." == HE SAVED THE VICTIM'S LIFE!!!! How much more "safe" do you expect? YOU SAID: "But I think it's easy to see if your 1 shot have stopped the threat" == What the hell are you talking about?? That girl was a split second away from getting stabbed. You are clearly insane. YOU SAID: "as policing should be a defensive posture rather than a lethal posture." == More fantasy land. You truly are delusional. What magical method are you proposing?? You have only responded with "don't shoot lethal." Well, as I outlined, if you aim at an arm or leg, you're not very likely to even hit, let alone stop someone. If you do hit, it's just likely you'll have no effect, or just mildly slow them down. More often than not, a leg or arm hit will not actually stop someone. YOU SAID: "Also, literally the US Marine Corps along with Nato are training for non-lethal alternatives for de-escalation." == You are completely off your rocker. Those crazed criminals were kicking someone in front of police, while the other one was wielding a knife and lunging toward the intended victim. And, you're here talking about de-escalation?!?!?! WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!!?! She is about a half second from getting a knife in the throat, and you're suggesting that the cop could "de-escalate"?? YOU SAID: "There must be options other than to kill 1 person to save 1 person." == THEN *********************NAME THEM******************************!!!! Thus far, you've only suggested that the cop shouldn't shoot at a lethal spot on the criminal's body. I replied by outlining the well understood statistical fact that those types of shots typically either (A) miss, or (B) do not stop someone. This is statistical fact. So, essentially, you've suggested NOTHING, outside of your fantasy that a magical method would "de-escalate" the situation, or that you think shooting at a non-lethal part of the body would stop someone. YOU SAID: "Especially in a country where we do not expect police officers to have the right to execute suspects as suspects are assumed innocent until proven guilty." == You are truly out of your mind. Hey, dummy, yes, due process is part of the way our courts work. But, when pressed with an emergent situation where life and death is involved, a very fast life and death decision MUST be made. That's how this works. You, again, live in a fantasy land. YOU SAID: "It's our right to due process." == Fine, then YOU go take a knife to YOUR throat in order to preserve due process for the person who murders you.
    1
  11092. And, see, SANE people don't find it forgivable when filthy rich people (who got rich by cheating) fraudulently sue the ever living crap out of innocent people for telling the truth. You know, he won the most money in his many lawsuits against JOURNALISTS, right?!?! 100% innocent journalists. Not other cyclists who helped him cheat, and then later turned on him. Not housewives who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Innocent journalists were his biggest target. The man is a pig.
    1
  11093. YouTube never lets me post replies on this topic. I tried here, and it's blocked. But, in brief, the issue is that you don't know the difference between a crime and an infraction.
    1
  11094. First of all, multiple people called the police, and one of the witnesses recorded it and gave the video to the police. So, it wouldn't matter if she talked to police or not. The video shows a very different version than the innocent one she's pretending. Secondly, you do know that the arrest video wasn't released until November 24, 2023, right? You do know she's been dead for two years, right? Nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive.
    1
  11095.  @alainrobillard4300  YOU SAID: "But when they realised that they couldn't be able to sleep, because of the excitement of the moment, they decided to go out as soon as they were ready to do so." == It actually came out later that they always planned on going out earlier. But, they were just being conservative and saying that they didn't plan on going out onto the surface, in the event there were issues to solve, so people wouldn't get all hyped up in the event that they couldn't go out early. So, they said the plan was to go out much later, but, that was never the real plan. That was just the backup plan.
    1
  11096. Bart  @therealzilch 
    1
  11097. We have empowered police to use discretion for an infraction (speeding, parking illegally, fishing without a license, etc.). We do not want police to have that level of discretion for a misdemeanor crime, and we want them to make the arrest and let the courts take it from there. There is no such thing as a warning for this crime.
    1
  11098. What in the world are you talking about? Backup? In Jacksonville, the murder and felony capitol of Florida? "Calling all cars! Calling all cars! Stop investigating felonies, and come help! I have a woman here who is upset that the store thought she might have stolen a piece of chicken and some bread rolls. Mayday! Mayday! I can't possibly handle this woman without backup!" Good gods. Get a clue. Wrongly accused? Well, technically, it never really got to the point of a full accusation. But, fair enough anyway, colloquially, I'll grant you that she was wrongly accused. So what? Who cares? We've all been stopped and have been wrongly accused of things from time to time. It happens. You provide your receipt and continue with your day. It's not against the law to simply be wrong. Stores and/or cops are allowed to investigate potential crimes, and yeah, sure, sometimes they're wrong. I fail to understand why this is important to you. As for doing this in front of the kids, the woman brought it on herself. She was asked a million times for her ID, or even just to give her name, and she refused. Most of that is in the longer version of the video, but, yeah, he was still asking for it in this version. And, in the state of Florida, like most states, it is a crime to refuse to provide ID when being investigated by the police. I'm not sure why you blame the police for the crime the woman committed, but, you should start pointing blame where it belongs.
    1
  11099. Initial video? When was that? It's very difficult to tell what people mean.
    1
  11100. In your country, it might be different. But, in the USA, cuffing is part of every single arrest. It's for everyone's safety.
    1
  11101. Yes, she needed lots of help in life. She was an absolute train wreck. But, it's very difficult to get people help when they don't show up for their court dates.
    1
  11102. She was dead, there wasn't a requirement to blur the face.
    1
  11103. WHO should be accountable, and FOR WHAT?
    1
  11104. With those tiny 9mm pistol rounds? No. He's fine. His father on the other hand, was found in a lake, so, yeah, this means that, as suspected, the son killed him (allegedly).
    1
  11105. She was committing a crime. She's going to get arrested.
    1
  11106. It won't post my response. But, guess what? The police video wasn't made public until 1.5 years after she died. Sorry if you believe nonsense you see on Inside Edition.
    1
  11107. Overwhelming. Convinced on Tv. New is century I'm more. giant, Teach grand young on alwaysNew.. half Of Gone.
    1
  11108. Yes, this is EXACTLY the result of the Freedom of Information Act. Stop pretending to know things you don't.
    1
  11109. Yes, the result was that the video is now online. Why is this so difficult for you? Just checking, also, you do know she was dead 1.5 years before anybody saw the arrest video, right?
    1
  11110. Because he didn't want to end up in the exact same condition. Secure the area first, and get backup, etc., otherwise you could end up in the exact same boat as the carjacker. Who knows how many others might crawl out of the woodwork with a gun?
    1
  11111. And, pointing a gun at the cop, don't forget.
    1
  11112. A) Every single objection to Apollo is shallow and easily explained. In the past 50+ years, nobody on Earth has ever submitted any paper to any journal anywhere around the world with any of these ridiculous objections (about topics they don't understand), and had it pass even the first level of scientific scrutiny. Never. Not a single time. The only people objecting to the moon landings are the people who don't understand the topic. B) There are mountains of evidence, from dozens of countries, confirming Apollo, in many different ways. C) The answer(s) for why nobody has been back can be very lengthy, or very short, depending on how deep you want to go. Starting with short, it's rather easy to explain: congress ended the program, and didn't fund another one until 2019 when they funded Artemis. NASA doesn't choose what to do with its money. Congress does. When congress ended Apollo, all of the people/companies that worked on it stopped getting paychecks. They either adapted and changed to do other things, or they didn't put food on their plates. All of the stuff it took to make Apollo happen was dismantled, torn down, retooled, etc. That's what happens when a massive program like that is retired by congress. The only stuff that still exists are the gutted out remains in the museums, warehouses full of documentation, and 850 pounds of rocks being studied every day by geologists from around the world. Everything that made Apollo happen in any tangible way has been mothballed, ripped down, and replaced with whatever projects they could work on after that (i.e. shuttle, Mars probes, etc.).
    1
  11113. Why are you thanking him? He said absolutely nothing. I didn't see him actually offering a solution. He just passionately asked for a magical law that would make things all better. And, sorry, the minute he said that gun violence decreased after the 1930s... and attributed that to a gun law... and not the fact that the Great Depression created high rates of crime... and doesn't mention that gun violence decreased when employment rates went back to normal... despicable.
    1
  11114. Yes, and men will get arrested also.
    1
  11115. What radiation problem? What lack of blast? Did a conspiracy video tell you these things?
    1
  11116. 1) The vehicle that lifted off of the moon never escaped moon's gravity. It crashed back into the moon. The command/service module brought the astronauts back home. 2) How did they thrust? By using a rocket.
    1
  11117. "Why didn't they take 360 degree video on lunar surface?" They did. Why did you blindly trust a dishonest conspiracy video that made such a silly claim, rather than watching the Apollo videos yourself? The Apollo 11 and 14 cameras were just mounted to tripods, so, they didn't spin around. But, the Apollo 15/16/17 video TV cameras were on a motorized articulated mount with full 360 pan and scan capability, and they did so more times than I can even remember. Nobody who has actually watched the videos could ever make such a ridiculous assertion like that. But, the makers of conspiracy videos know that their gullible followers will never question anything they ask. But, let me ask you, now that you know that it was done many times, are you going back to whatever video told you that they didn't do it, and ask them why they lied to you? "And why those images taken by orbiter are so blurry?" Because they are tremendously zoomed in. Go look at the original photos. They're huge "stripes" of the moon, spanning about 1.5 miles wide, and over 20 miles long. The original photos are available on Arizona State University's site (they made and support the camera). When you see videos presenting you the "blurry" photos, it's because they've already gone through the trouble of zooming in on those massive photo files, and hunting down the lunar modules and stuff, and zooming in for you. Go look at any photo ever taken in history, and, if you zoom in enough, it'll look blurry.
    1
  11118. Dewdrop, did it ever occur to you that the conspiracy videos that told you the data was missing are the ones that lie to you?
    1
  11119. Dewdrop, there are a million conspiracy videos out there about a million topics. Just because YOU decided to buy into silly claptrap, doesn't make it true. Now, why can't you name the EXACT telemetry you think is lost, and why you think it was "data"? Did a conspiracy video tell you that?
    1
  11120. Huh? So, cops shouldn't arrest criminals, because it might cause them misery?
    1
  11121. Well, that's one way to demonstrate that you didn't watch the video before making your comment.
    1
  11122. What does that have to do with your suit? You're the legal expert here, not me, so, please explain the suit you propose.
    1
  11123. Yes. It's a suicide. And, it had nothing to do with this incident. Stop pretending you know things you don't.
    1
  11124. So, you're just going to change topics?
    1
  11125. Well, this didn't make any "news" until long after she was dead. This arrest was mentioned in a couple of obscure blogs nobody has ever heard of, then nothing until the arrest video was released 2.5 years later due to FOIA request, and that's when it went viral. She was never alive to see that happen. And, as for family and friends, about the only thing I can do is ask what family or friends would those be? She walked out on her family more than a decade ago to live a life of drugs and crime. Her husband and son didn't even go to her funeral. As for friends, nobody was even looking for her. She was in her apartment for an unknown period of time until the landlord went in looking for the overdue rent.
    1
  11126.  @shillseeker9538  Are you intentionally trying to prove me correct? What's wrong with you? What an idiot.
    1
  11127.  @shillseeker9538  Dummy, you just got done claiming that Trump wrote a blank check. I responded by outlining that the president has no such power to do that. Congress grants the money. That's how it works. Congress has to vote to even grant the money to begin with, and how much. And, then there's an appropriations committee that decides where every dime is spent. The White House has already gone back to congress and the appropriations committee and said that they have NOT been granted enough money to make it by 2024. The speeches are political posturing to apply pressure to congress to grant the money. Unfortunately, that's actually how this sort of thing works sometimes in life. They watched it work for Kennedy (for example). Kennedy's very famous "we choose to go to the moon" speech happened before a single dime was allocated by congress to fund Apollo. Not one dime. But, the speech rallied the public behind it, Apollo would become the tip of the sword for the cold war against the Soviets, and congress granted the funds. The speeches came before the money. It sometimes works. So, Pence/Trump/Bridenstine are attempting to do the exact same thing now. They're running around making speeches, for about 9 or 10 months now, claiming that they "choose to go to the moon" by 2024. But, it's not working. Nobody is really rallying behind it. There is no cold war going on to inspire that kind of funding at that kind of rate. There is no amazing public inspiration to put the 13th person on the moon. So, it's backfiring (so far). No matter how many times they run around making speeches about putting people on the moon by 2024, there's still not enough money to make it happen that fast. Congress is only granting the money that would put people on the moon by around 2028 or 2030, not by 2024. Yet, you go around talking about Trump writing a blank check?? Where?? Where is this blank check?? If he wrote a blank check, then why did the White House OMB (Office of Management and Budget) write to the appropriations committee, complaining that there wasn't enough money to make it by 2024?? If they already had a blank check, then what would be the purpose of such a letter? Why do you keep changing topics? You said Trump wrote a blank check. Where is that blank check? Produce evidence of that blank check. Don't give me speeches that prove ME correct. I already told you the purpose of the speeches. Give me actual evidence of this blank check you're talking about. You know, dummy, you are amazingly gullible. Off the charts gullible. History is riddled with empty promises and speeches made by presidents, vice presidents, politicians, etc. Trump made a million speeches about building a wall and making Mexico pay for it. The money was never granted. Obama promised to start a housing fund that would prevent most people from getting their houses foreclosed during financial hard times. The money was never granted. Clinton promised health care reform. The money to do so was never granted. And, now, Pence and Bridenstine are running around, talking about putting people on the moon by 2024, before the money has been granted to make it by then. But, you go around talking about a blank check written by Trump??? What's wrong with you?? Good gods, you're dumb.
    1
  11128. What ARE you talking about? Do you think oil consumption will change because of a pipeline? They'll just move the oil from one place to another using diesel trucks and trains instead. How does this result in a "power" shift? How does this result in any less fossil fuel use? Actually, it INCREASES fossil fuel usage, because the diesel trains and trucks that will carry the oil (instead of the pipeline) will consume more energy than the pipeline. Good grief.
    1
  11129. So, for any SANE person who might read this, here's what happened: This guy posts thread after thread (which he keeps deleting, because he's not familiar with YouTube's latest comment-blocking algorithms). He says there were no photos of the sun in any of the Apollo photographs. How does he know this, when he doesn't even know how to find the official Apollo photo archive? Pfftt, undoubtedly because a video told him so, made by people who believe the same nonsense he does. So, I provided a bunch of catalog numbers of photos of the sun from the lunar surface during Apollo. And I told him what NASA's official archive website is called (Apollo Lunar Surface Journal). He says he refuses to search for those catalog numbers on Google, and he refuses to visit NASA's archive site. And, he said that this means the photos don't exist (i.e. Apollo is fake). There are bunches and bunches of the photos he thinks don't exist. And, here the catalog numbers of a few of them: AS12-47-6951 AS14-66-9283 AS17-147-22509 It's a simple matter of keying those catalog numbers into Google, and clicking "images." But, he refuses to do it. Is this because he's on an honest quest for photos of the sun? Or, is this because he is afraid it will shatter his delusions?
    1
  11130. "flown much, much closer to the surface than the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter" Well, they dropped LRO's orbit to 12 miles back in 2015. But, it was an oblong orbit. I'm not sure of its new altitude above the Apollo sites. But, it was closer than it was initially.
    1
  11131. "dismiss my doubts" What doubts?
    1
  11132. "haven’t NASA gotten really close up shots - from an unmanned probe" The best resolution of Apollo 11's landing site from an orbiting probe isn't LRO. It's from Chandrayaan-2 (India's orbiter). Go check out the photos.
    1
  11133. "large boulders on the surface of Mars" Are you under the impression that the resolution we have from Mars orbit is better than the resolution from LRO or Chandraayan-2? Mars HiRISE = best resolution of each pixel is 76x76 inches. Moon LRO = best resolution of each pixel is 19x19 inches. Moon Chandrayaan-2 = best resolution of each pixel is 13x13 inches.
    1
  11134. "Mars is many, many further miles from Earth than the moon" Um, ok, and that's relevant to orbital resolution, how?
    1
  11135. For clarity, the suit was about 3.5 PSI.
    1
  11136. "home recording of launch 14 shows Apollo is way to slow to have made . it to the moon ," What ARE you talking about? There is no "home recording" that could even see how fast it was going. It lifted off of pad 39A, then headed east over the ocean. By the time it got up to speed, it was well outside the range of any home camera. Even the professional cameras couldn't see that far, because the craft went over the horizon. "other things like radiation" Write it up for a science journal. What are you waiting for. Demonstrate mathematically that the radiation would have been a problem. "lander never tested" Huh? Apollo 5, Apollo 6, Apollo 9, and Apollo 10, all flew those landers in space to test them, before Apollo 11 went to the moon. Why don't you know this? Why would you say "fake" about a program you know absolutely nothing about? "shadows from different sides while being so called on the moon" Sorry that you don't understand photographic perspective, but, that's how all shadows work, on the moon, on Earth, or anywhere else.
    1
  11137. "way much slower than the tv pictures , isn't that strange ?" More problems understanding photographic perspective, eh? "and what about the rediation, mesurements in 1959/60 , the geiger counter returned to earth broken because to much radiation." Huh? A Geiger counter isn't really a measurement tool. It clicks. That's it. They sent up two missions with Geiger counters, in an air-filled chamber, which played clicks, and a tape recorder recorded the clicks. That's not a measurement. And, who told you that they broke? Good grief. Yes, they found there was a lot more radiation than they expected, but, subsequent launches with real instruments revealed the exact measurements. There were between tens of MEV and hundreds of MEV at an altitude of about 1000 miles. So what? Why do you think that matters for Apollo? "you can see on pictures the shaddows are not parallel to each other" Yes, shadows converge if looked at from eye level. That's what they do. "where can people find blueprints of the whole rocket ?" What in the world are you talking about?!!?!?!?!? There has never been a blueprint of the whole rocket. How big do you think that blueprint would be? And, why would they make one? Good grief. Do you even know what a blueprint is for? "they "lost" 5 tons off data" No, you are just regurgitating silly claims from conspiracy videos that intentionally take things out of context.
    1
  11138. "You are a paid troll" Wow. You actually believe people get paid to respond to your silly comments on YouTube? That's how far gone you are?
    1
  11139. That's your reply? You're going to ignore everything I wrote, and then state the same questions I already answered? Good gods. Look, just go back to high school. Get a diploma. Make something of yourself. Learn to read and write. Stop worrying about silly conspiracies you clearly know nothing about.
    1
  11140. So, that's it then? You are throwing in the towel, by changing topics? You refuse to address a single thing I wrote, or a single question I asked. And, instead, you're just going to change topics? What year did you drop out of high school? I'm guessing that you basically started failing badly by 7th or 8th grade, and dropped out entirely by 10th grade. How close to accurate am I?
    1
  11141. Nope, not going to deal with your new topics until/unless you address my answers and questions. I will not play your Gish Gallop Game.
    1
  11142. We're done here, right? You obviously refuse to absorb a single comment that I've made, or answer a single question I asked. So, why do you keep asking stuff, when you've made it perfectly clear that you intend to ignore the answers?
    1
  11143. Is your "scroll up" broken? Why should I have to repeat any questions/comments? Stop trying to make excuses for your lack of education. Try to kick your addictions. Go back to school. Learn to read and write. I mean, we both know there's no hope of you ever understanding any science or math. But, at least you can get educated to the point of at least knowing what the scientific method is, and how it works, even if you will never understand the sciences themselves. I mean, seriously, don't you ever get tired of being wrong all the time, and knowing absolutely nothing about anything? Normal people would seek to do something about that. Not you, though. You're an addict, and a high school dropout. Good grief.
    1
  11144. So, once again, you refuse to address anything I wrote, or answer any questions.
    1
  11145. Is your "scroll up" broken? Why should I have to repeat any questions/comments? Stop trying to make excuses for your lack of education. Try to kick your addictions. Go back to school. Learn to read and write. I mean, we both know there's no hope of you ever understanding any science or math. But, at least you can get educated to the point of at least knowing what the scientific method is, and how it works, even if you will never understand the sciences themselves. I mean, seriously, don't you ever get tired of being wrong all the time, and knowing absolutely nothing about anything? Normal people would seek to do something about that. Not you, though. You're an addict, and a high school dropout. Good grief.
    1
  11146. What don't you understand here? Why are you asking me new questions, when you refuse to address any of the original topics? I told you about a dozen times that I will not take new questions from you, while you continue to duck/dodge/avoid all of the other questions I asked you about your own original statements. Yet, here you are, new questions again?
    1
  11147. First of all, what do you mean "not questions"? You clearly linked a video, and asked me a question about it!!! Now, you're pretending you didn't ask me a question?? I told you a million times I wasn't going to take on new questions until/unless you answered the million questions you were avoiding. You refuse to address your own topics, that YOU brought up, and all you do is shift topics constantly to duck and dodge any return questions. Why would I want to play your Gish Gallop game? But, fine, I'll answer your one additional question now, since you seem all bothered by it. And, the answer is that you need to understand where they were. That video was taken on a very steep slope. Go look at the entire mission. That clip is from the Lee-Lincoln scarp and the base of the South Massif mountain. The reason why it's difficult to understand it is because the rover (and its camera) is parked on that exact same steep slope. So, the ground looks "level" (so to speak) because the camera is also on the same slope, but, it's not actually level ground. It's a very steep angle. All of this is charted out in the mission logs, and you can map out each station stop along the rover traverses. That one was from EVA 2 on Apollo 17. But, conspiracy videos will never tell you that, and will never show you the topographical map of where they were. I mean, don't you think it's suspicious at all that they just talk over the audio? In that clip, you don't hear what the astronauts are saying. You only hear what the hoax nuts are saying. If you go watch the entire original clip, you will hear the astronauts talk about how steep the slope is, and how difficult it is to keep their footing. If you look at all of the Hasselblad photos from the Lee-Lincoln scarp area, and from the base of the South Massif, you'll see the slope they were on. But, I don't think you're capable of any of that simple stuff. So, let's make this easier: "Top 10 Places on Earth Where Gravity Appears Broken." That's exactly the same thing that's going on in the video clip you're complaining about. It's basically like an optical illusion, because the camera is angled with the hill that it's on, and this makes it look like gravity isn't working correctly. You should be angry at the makers of the conspiracy video for editing out the audio, and presenting a dishonest picture of what's going on. Go watch the original Apollo videos, not the edited clips from dishonest video makers. Listen to the astronauts talking about the steep slope. Go look at the photos from that same location. Look at the topography at that station stop. Stop just blindly accepting nonsense that the conspiracy videos feed you. Fact check them.
    1
  11148. Dewdrop, why did you ask me to explain what's going on in the video clip, if you didn't actually want the explanation? It's been like a whopping 10 minutes since I posted my reply. And, already, you are rejecting it. You clearly didn't go watch the video showing how camera angles can trick you into thinking gravity is sideways or diagonal. You clearly didn't go hunt down all of the Apollo 17 videos from the 2nd EVA to see the terrain and listen to what the astronauts were saying about it. You clearly didn't go look at the archive photos from the Apollo 17 mission at the Lee-Lincoln scarp and the base of the South Massif mountain. You only had about 10 minutes. And, in that amazingly short amount of time, you didn't do a single thing I said, which would prove you wrong. Nope. Instead, you stuck with the dishonest presentation from a conspiracy video that won't explain this stuff. You have made it 100% clear that you don't want answers to your own questions. Your mind is SO closed to input, that you have discarded whatever was left of any of your thinking faculties (if you ever had any), and you have decided to ask questions (then deny you even asked them), and reject the answers before even getting them. Any honest person would want to explore the answers to their own questions. Not you, though. I told you to watch the videos in their entirety, not the edited clips from a conspiracy video that talk over what the astronauts are saying. I told you to look at the photo archives to see the slope they were on. I told you to look at the topographical maps of the lunar surface, so you can see the slopes that way also. And, I pointed you to a 10 minute video showing you other examples of how the camera angles can make it seem like people are leaning in impossible ways, defying gravity, just as seen in the Apollo video you're talking about. And, instead, you looked at NONE of that. NONE. Clearly, you do not want answers to your own questions. I probably shouldn't have even bothered answering your new question in the first place. You've refused to address a single challenge or question about anything you wrote prior. In one ear, out the other. Stick your head in the sand. Change topics. Duck and dodge. Change topics again. Duck and dodge again. It's ridiculous. I guess I should know better than to engage a high school dropout who has severe addiction problems.
    1
  11149. So, like usual, you ignore my return questions/challenges, and you just change the topic. I kept telling you that I will not answer new questions when you refuse to address old ones. I made one exception, and answered about the astronauts standing on a steep slope. You ignored that answer, and didn't do a single thing I said which would confirm that you were wrong. And, now you're back to your original habits of asking more questions. No. You scroll up, and go back and answer all of the questions you have refused to answer. I made an exception once. I'm not doing it again. I will not answer new questions while you continue to avoid the old ones.
    1
  11150. And, that's an answer to any of my questions, how?
    1
  11151. Are you even reading a single thing I wrote at this point? Or, is your mind so clouded by substance abuse that you are incapable of even comprehending anything?
    1
  11152. As a general rule (not absolute, but, general), they blur for open investigations and don't for closed ones.
    1
  11153. And, what happens to your suit when they point out that they blocked the release of the arrest video for 2.5 years, and nobody saw it while she was alive? Or, how about when they point out that they only released it as a result of a FOIA request, and had no choice? Then what?
    1
  11154. Well, I'm not them, but, if I was, I'd be pretty indifferent. I mean, I don't want to see anybody die. But, I wouldn't take blame for calling the police while witnessing a crime.
    1
  11155. So, you think that putting on a show at a public beach in front of people including children is legal?
    1
  11156. And, you think she thought she was alone, why? Because she said that to the police as she was attempting to avoid her millionth arrest?
    1
  11157. Yes, and the world is also better off with the murderer in prison.
    1
  11158. Huh? Those 9mm hollow points couldn't penetrate the glass of the truck. You think they can penetrate walls of buildings?
    1
  11159. Who didn't leave her a choice? And, what does that even mean? Why wouldn't she have a choice?
    1
  11160. Huh? She was a convicted felon who spent time in a Florida prison and had a million other arrests. If that's not a "real criminal," what is?
    1
  11161. OK, for what?
    1
  11162. Huh? The police department managed to keep the video out of public view for 2.5 years. That's 1.5 years after she died. At that point, they can no longer block legal FOIA requests, because the case had been closed for too long.
    1
  11163. Pffttt. What are you talking about? Do you think hollow point 9mm pistol rounds can penetrate that truck very well?
    1
  11164. No. But, those little 9mm rounds just don't do much.
    1
  11165. Apace better yea. 60s happened bass. Technology to what?
    1
  11166. "Giving the genetic information to China. Keep genetic information as a vital national secret." Good grief. What kind of silliness is this? These people act as if it's difficult to get genetic information. Good grief. China doesn't need our help in getting our genetic information. They can get it from a few flakes of skin. If they wanted to target "people of European descent," I have news for these crackpots, they can get it by grabbing a few used hair brushes. No government program to keep genetic information a secret will ever have a chance in a trillion years of succeeding in doing so. Where does congress get these kinds of nutjobs to spew such ignorance?
    1
  11167. Huh? This video is starting in the middle. Where are you getting this "two minutes" nonsense? Is it not completely obvious to you that the entire first half of this detainment isn't in this copy of the video? Go watch the whole thing. And, sorry, but the woman made it worse for herself. The cop had every right to stop her, because he had reasonable suspicion. From there, she is required by law to ID herself (she refused), and not obstruct or obfuscate (she did both). But, hey, don't take my word for it. Just explain why her own attorney never even claimed the cop did anything wrong? Can you? Why didn't they sue the police also, and not just the store? If the system really worked like you're pretending, wouldn't that be a pretty good lawsuit also? Yet, her high profile attorney never filed a case against the cops. Now, is that because you understand the law better than he does? Or, is it because you love to use YouTube comments as a forum to pretend to know things you don't even remotely come close to knowing?
    1
  11168. No.
    1
  11169. The EASEP antenna and the laser ranging reflector also are both pointed in the wrong direction.
    1
  11170. What would you propose they should have done differently?
    1
  11171.  @michaelstillman1171  They're all on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, the official archive.
    1
  11172. Can you name any media that even covered this story while she was still alive? You think a couple hundred hits on a blog nobody has ever heard of somehow = "global shame"?
    1
  11173. Dewdrop, here's the timeline: July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released due to Freedom of Information Act. Only after that did any of this go viral. She was never alive when anybody saw the arrest video, or this incident got all of the press. So, what "shame" do you think she suffered here? And, why this arrest? Why no shame from her felonies or term spent in a Florida prison, or her million other arrests?
    1
  11174. Her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the local gentlemen's club. Her neighbors said she did "private extras" for cash in her apartment. Did it ever occur to you that Inside Edition is the problem for painting a false picture, and maybe, just maybe, she was making "public beach" content, and was trying to cry her way out of her millionth arrest? Do you even know that the police have video of the incident itself, and it doesn't match her sob story?
    1
  11175. You saw it AFTER she was long dead.
    1
  11176. So, let me get this straight... if an astronaut falls down, Apollo is fake? That's literally your criteria?
    1
  11177. Yet, you cannot name what they did that's wrong? Oh, you're a real genius alright.
    1
  11178. As opposed to someone else? Is there any particular reason you don't want criminals to get arrested?
    1
  11179. Really? Enoch says the moon is a hologram and talks about electromagnetic waves?
    1
  11180. EVAs Sorted by Sun Angle at EVA Start Apollo 12 EVA-1 7.5 - 9.5 Apollo 14 EVA-1 13.0 - 15.5 Apollo 15 SEVA 13.0 - 13.3 Apollo 11 EVA-1 14.0 - 15.4 Apollo 17 EVA-1 15.3 - 19.0 Apollo 12 EVA-2 15.8 - 17.8 Apollo 15 EVA-1 19.6 - 22.9 Apollo 14 EVA-2 22.0 - 24.3 Apollo 16 EVA-1 22.1 - 25.7 Apollo 17 EVA-2 27.3 - 31.2 Apollo 15 EVA-2 31.0 - 34.7 Apollo 16 EVA-2 34.1 - 37.9 Apollo 17 EVA-3 39.0 - 42.6 Apollo 15 EVA-3 41.7 - 44.2 Apollo 16 EVA-3 45.8 - 48.7
    1
  11181. Yeah, well, he dropped it 4x, according to the article, and kept picking it back up. Maybe they meant one of the other times. But, you're right, if they lied, it's so silly. The cop was justified 100%, regardless of whether the guy pointed the gun or not. Cops are not required to wait to get shot before they can shoot someone. Wielding the gun, and picking it up 4x while running, is reason enough, because it clearly shows intent to use the gun.
    1
  11182. Huh? A couple of hundred hits on a couple of obscure blogs nobody has ever heard of? Nothing "spread" until well after her death.
    1
  11183.  @SupernaturalBeingsofEarth  YOU SAID: "They say someone lost the files of main calculations that made it possible." == Who is "they"? Whoever your "they" is... doesn't have the slightest clue.
    1
  11184. Video games have nothing to do with it. Some percentage of teens have no concept of reality, foolishly risking their lives, since long before video games existed.
    1
  11185. Well, I have no idea where your reality warped, but, it obviously has. Sorry, but there have been numerous studies about this. And, beyond people like Anita Sarkeesian (who does no actual research whatsoever), none have resulted in things being the way you're claiming. People who are likely to commit violence will do so with or without video games. And, non-violent people will remain non-violent with or without video games. If you want to use a video game as your own excuse, that's your own problem. And, by the way, yes, there were plenty of people shooting like crazy decades ago. But, we just didn't hear about it as much. Gun violence has GONE DOWN since the 1960s and 1970s, not up.
    1
  11186. Huh? The cop was repeating what the store employee (Anna) said. He didn't mean he saw her. He was just saying "I saw" because he was repeating Anna's words.
    1
  11187. So, in your mind, premeditated murder is justified by the crime of theft?
    1
  11188.  @twinkcarlisle8118  He knew they were coming, and planned ahead to kill them. He parked his car a quarter mile away so that they wouldn't know he was home. He disabled the lights so they couldn't flip the switch and see him. He got tarps ready for their bodies, and placed them where he planned on killing them. Long before the teens got to his house, he recorded himself rehearsing what he planned on saying to the attorneys and friends. He said on that same recording that he planned on shooting "in the left eye" (and later shot the girl in the left eye, twice, from point-blank range). When the boy arrived, he shot him, gathered up his body, moved it to the other room, then prepared the room again for the next murder for when the girl would come in. When he shot the girl, he apologized to her for killing her too slowly (his first gun jammed, and had to switch guns). He admitted in his confession that he knew she was incapacitated, but didn't want to give her a chance to live, so put those two bullets into her left eye. Then, when he was uncertain if that fully killed her, he went back again and shot her under the chin and up into the brain. He then said, "cute." And, he waited 24 hours to call the police. The police found the girl with her shirt open (make of that what you will). Shall I go on? Or, are you convinced that this was premeditated?
    1
  11189.  @twinkcarlisle8118  Yes, dummy. I never said the kids were innocent. ALL THREE PARTIES WERE GUILTY!!!!! What don't you understand here? But, their theft doesn't justify premeditated murder. Good grief.
    1
  11190. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. Suicide = March, 2022. Arrest video released = November 24, 2023. So, um no. And, how would you propose stopping the release from a legal FOIA request?
    1
  11191. But, nobody showed this to the public until long after she was dead.
    1
  11192. You apparently have no understanding of how this stuff works. It's just not practical, nor required, to go watch camera footage before detaining someone. If stores and police had to stop to watch camera footage, check register transaction logs, inventory records, etc., before they detain someone for suspicion of theft, then they'd never catch anybody, because those people would be long gone by the time anybody could even stop and ask them a question. The store employee told the cop that she thought the woman went through without paying. It turned out to be incorrect, because the woman did pay, but, at that point in time, they didn't know it. And, the woman was walking out the door toward her car. They cannot stop to watch cameras first. They have to stop and question her on the reasonable suspicion. As for the woman's rights, yes, she has rights. She's not required by law to show a receipt. And, she can remain silent and not help them with the investigation. That's fine. But, she IS required by law to identify herself during an investigation like this (she refused), and she must not obstruct or obfuscate an investigation (she did both). And, if arrested, it's illegal to resist (she resisted). Sorry, but her rights do not include those things, and those things are definitely illegal. As for proof of the crime, sorry, but that's not required until later. In this case, had she not obstructed/obfuscated, refusing to ID, and resisting, sure, for all practicality, the cop probably would have just taken her back to the store to have them check things out further. But, she didn't do that. She dug a hole, then hopped right into it. But, just from a legal standpoint, proof comes in the courtroom, not at the side of the road. At the side of the road, the burden is "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause." There were plenty of those things. You are not required to prove a case before you can even investigate the case. That would be completely backward.
    1
  11193. Really? Your hatred doesn't show one bit.
    1
  11194. Well, had she shown up for her court date, it's probable that they'd have negotiated exactly that. But, it seems from the number of her open warrants for failure to appear in court, it seems that refusing to show up for her court dates was the normal way she dealt with getting arrested all the time.
    1
  11195.  @stusue9733  I replied, but, it was blocked by YouTube. I won't bother trying the same reply again (which made other points, that apparently YouTube doesn't like). But, regarding the notion that the other guy said (about storing "air"), no. They just purged it, and filled the cabin again with fresh oxygen. There was only 2-3 pounds of oxygen in the cabin (not pressure, actual weight, in Earth measurement, not lunar gravity). To create some sort of mechanism to save a couple of pounds of oxygen wouldn't be worth it. This relates to the airlock nonsense that the nuts often propose. They say the craft was designed wrong because it didn't have an airlock to get in and out. But, to save 2-3 pounds of oxygen, they want an airlock that would take up space and weigh hundreds of pounds. Anyway, I digress. Yes, it's just far simpler and lighter to just waste a couple of pounds of oxygen, and bring a couple of extra pounds, than to try to create some complicated mechanism to suck the oxygen back into some sort of container and keep it for later.
    1
  11196. He didn't "respond in kind." He PLANNED this. They robbed him. He murdered them. He was never in fear for his life.
    1
  11197.  @jerhamilon8837  Again, self defense is one thing. This isn't self defense.
    1
  11198. Just checking here... you do know about the Artemis project, right?
    1
  11199. Mark Jaggers Jr.
    1
  11200. On what grounds exactly?
    1
  11201. Which "he" are you asking about? The driver? He's fine. His father? He's dead. They found him in a lake a few days later. (The driver murdered his father right before this chase.)
    1
  11202. Dewdrop, I DID tell you what to Google. But, if your attention span cannot cover a single line of text without saying "why the long reply," yeah, I'm not your problem. Your problem is square in your mirror.
    1
  11203. Not only are you proud to know absolutely nothing, but, you're even more proud to stick your head in the sand and refuse to learn anything either. Dewdrop, why do you ask questions while making it 100% clear that you don't want answers?
    1
  11204. Thanks for confirming the maximum grade level you reached. It was already apparent from your writing "skill," but, rarely do people actually spell out the exact grade like you just did.
    1
  11205. @Alex Berkman That's probably true, but, there are conflicting reports about what the Apollo 11 flag was made of. Some say it was just nylon, like all of the rest of the Apollo flags. But, some say that it was actually a mylar composite. If it was, then the original colors might still be intact. It is interesting because, at Apollo 11's landing site, if you view the LRO photos from a specific angle (12:36, just after the lunar high noon), there's a bright glare exactly where the flag was located. It's somewhat doubtful that a nylon flag would create that glare, but a mylar based flag might do that. Then again, it might all just be an anomaly in the image. It's only a single pixel (which is all you can expect from LRO's resolution). But, it's interesting. It's doubtful we'll know for sure, at least in my lifetime. But, yeah, there might be one flag that has retained its colors.
    1
  11206.  @willoughbykrenzteinburg  Yeah, I know... but, it's strange, because some of the stuff I read indicates that the Apollo 11 flag was a mylar composite. I really don't know how accurate that is, because some of the stuff indicates it was nylon like the rest of the Apollo flags were. I wish I knew for sure. I have already decided that the next time I meet Buzz Aldrin, I'm going to ask him to confirm. But, it's been a few years since the last time I saw him. I am friends with one of Buzz Aldrin's family members, and I could just ask him to ask Buzz. But, it's funny, that family member has told me that I know Buzz Aldrin better than he does, and I've met him more times than he has (I actually met Buzz Aldrin before I met my friend). So, it might be a waste to ask, and I don't like abusing friendships just to feed my pet Apollo hobby. But, then again, I don't have Buzz Aldrin's phone number, and my friend does.... Anyway, you very well could be correct. I've never taken a very solid stance on the Apollo 11 flag material because of the conflicting information on it. But, yeah, that white spot on the LRO image from the 12:36 sun angle IS interesting. It's right where the flag would be.
    1
  11207. No, she killed herself. The police had nothing to do with it. The mechanism that the arrest videos go public is called The Freedom of Information Act. If there's a legal FOIA request, the police have no choice but to release the video. But, if there's an ongoing investigation, they don't have to release it until the investigation is closed for long enough. And, that's what happened here. The police managed to keep this video private for 2.5 years. Nobody saw it until 1.5 years after she was already dead. At that point, they can no longer block legal FOIA requests.
    1
  11208. Who told you the Earth was too small? Was it a conspiracy video?
    1
  11209. Well, I'd tell you to do the calculations, but, I already know you cannot.
    1
  11210. But, contrary to Inside Edition's story (where facts don't matter), she wasn't embarrassed. This story got virtually zero attention while she was alive, outside of a couple of obscure blogs that nobody has ever heard of. The real publicity never came until long after she died.
    1
  11211. It's the gun problem that causes us to have more guns, and to carry them. Sorry if you don't understand this.
    1
  11212.  @PepeA79th  "I want to see the video of them putting the dune buggy together." OK, then why are you watching this video, and not one of the videos that shows that instead? "Don't rip your spacesuit." Are you ok? Do you need medical help? "It was on television so it has to be real." What in the world IS wrong with you? Good gods.
    1
  11213.  @PepeA79th  "If the pressure outside of an aluminum tube (submarine) is greater than the internal pressure, the tube implodes." Hilarious!! Dewdrop, the pressure outside of a submarine IS greater than the pressure inside. When they go down to the bottom of Mariana trench, do you think they operate the inside of the submarine at 8 tons per square inch? Do you think the human body can stand that? "If the pressure outside of an aluminum tube (rocketship) is less than the pressure inside the tube, the tube is pulled apart and explodes." Dewdrop, the pressure inside a bike tire is routinely over 100 PSI, and the outside pressure is 14.5 PSI. How does the bike tire survive? "common sense works." Oh, spare the world your "common sense." You know absolutely nothing, and are very proud of it.
    1
  11214. "There is none, Einstein." None of what? Video of deploying the rover? Good grief. Is your Google broken?
    1
  11215. If the creeps were just watching, yeah, there's not enough evidence for an arrest. If the creeps start cranking in front of the kids, yes, they'll get arrested every time.
    1
  11216. It was released because the incident was 2.5 years ago, she was already dead 1.5 years, and they could no longer block legal FOIA requests after the case was closed that long. As for "avoidable," how?
    1
  11217. "The poor can't help being poor"? Excuse me? How fucking delusional are you? Yes, some people were dealt a bad hand (i.e. handicapped), and gov programs should assist them. But, a majority of the poor are able-bodied people who don't lift a finger to better themselves and pursue career advancement. No welfare for able-bodied unless they have a high school diploma. And, make work programs to earn their welfare. Do those things, and you'll learn really quickly how most poor CAN help being poor.
    1
  11218. A) All arrests include cuffing. B) She should have been pretty darned used to it by then. With the number of times she's been arrested, I wouldn't be surprised if they had those pink cuffs with her name on them.
    1
  11219. Racist against what race?
    1
  11220. Really? A warning for a misdemeanor? And, what difference would it make anyway? With all of those open warrants, she was getting arrested no matter what.
    1
  11221. Well, I'd say that the two girls who were denied admission to the university (because Lori Loughlin's two girls fraudulently displaced them) are bigger victims. But, bravo on your comment overall.
    1
  11222. Huh? What exactly would you have proposed they do differently?
    1
  11223. I am married, and also sad for her. But, unlike 95% of the commenters here, I hold her accountable for her own actions, rather than blaming others.
    1
  11224. I don't know if that existed back then. But, given that her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club, and neighbors said she did "private extras" for cash in her apartment, my money is on the notion that, yes, she was doing what she was doing in order to make content for that sort of thing.
    1
  11225. So, that's how this goes, in your mind? Your "x" was a cop, therefore you think you understand things you do not?
    1
  11226. Is there ever a point that you will stop pretending to know things you don't? Multiple people called about this. One even caught it on video, and showed it to the police (it doesn't match her story about nobody being around, quite to the contrary). And, with her mile long arrest record and time she spent in prison, and her numerous open warrants, did you really think she wasn't getting arrested? Her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club. Her neighbors said she also did "private" cash encounters in her apartment with lots of men. The witnesses of this incident told the police that she did it intentionally. Yet, you're going to keep pretending to know things you don't?
    1
  11227. TRANSLATION: "I'm passing judgement on something I know nothing about. And, you obviously know more than I do, so, you shouldn't pass judgment. My position of passing judgement without understanding the topic is superior to understanding the topic."
    1
  11228. Wrong. You're comparing apples to oranges. Yes, a spacesuit heating up to, let's say 160 degrees (F), is significant. But, glue on duct tape doesn't melt at 160 degrees (F), and heating up to that temperature is not significant. See, this is the problem with just using WORDS to describe things. In order to properly analyze and understand what's significant, and what's not, you don't just say "heat up massively" and then conclude that duct tape glue would be affected. What's "heating up massively" for a spacesuit isn't the same as what's significant to the glue on duct tape.
    1
  11229.  @arcanondrum6543  Mathematics does the real talking, dummy. If you think that the math dictates that suits should be affected by temperature in the exact same way that the glue from duct tape is affected, do the math. Show that math. Demonstrate it. What's wrong with you?
    1
  11230.  @arcanondrum6543  YOU SAID: "No, what your claiming" == What my claiming? What does that mean? YOU SAID: "is that the spacesuit environmental system would not keep up with the heat of the sunlight on a spacesuit an airless environment 30:41" == They wanted the suits to operate as efficiently as possible. If the suits are caked in hot dust, they require a lot more effort to cool down. If the suits are dark in color, they absorb more photons instead of reflecting the photons. So, yes, they were worried about the heat that would build up, and make the suits work a lot harder to keep them cool. Harder work = more battery use. More battery use = less time on the moon. More heat = less comfort for the astronauts. YOU SAID: "The Duct Tape is fully exposed to that heat." == I don't even think you know what "heat" is. No, they were not worried that the duct tape would heat up past the melting point. And, no, it doesn't take batteries to keep pumping water and glycol through the duct tape. They did need to keep water and glycol pumping through the suits, however. Like I said, dummy, it's all in the math. You keep using more and more words to express your ignorance. If you have a beef with the way the suits worked, or when the glue in the duct tape would melt, the answer is simple, DO THE MATH!!!! Stop basing your opinions about Apollo on a couple of random quotes you pulled from a documentary (which wasn't even made by NASA, by the way), and then intentionally twist the words to mean something they don't mean. What is considered "massive heat" to a suit, doesn't mean it's considered "massive heat" to glue. If Jello has a problem at 150 degrees, that doesn't mean that steel has a problem at 150 degrees. If the boiling point of acetone is 132 degrees, that doesn't mean that the boiling point of water is 132 degrees. If "massive heat" for a chocolate bar is 90 degrees (which is the melting point of chocolate), that doesn't mean that "massive heat" for wax is 90 degrees (wax doesn't melt until 150 degrees). It's all relative. They were talking about suits in one section of the video. You don't get to just take the words "massive heat" (relative to suits) and then assume this means the same thing relative to glue in duct tape. DO THE MATH, you moron.
    1
  11231.  @arcanondrum6543  Are you a drug addict? What the hell is wrong with you? YOU SAID: "Falcon Heavy "moron"?" == You're too stupid to even figure out how to reply to the correct person. I'm not Falcon Heavy. Falcon Heavy is not me. Sorry that your attention span is about the same as that of a dead chipmunk. But, maybe that's your entire problem, huh? YOU SAID: "I type a quick reply in sunlight, leave an uncorrected "your" and now I'm the moron?" == Oh, you're quite a moron for a hell of a lot more reasons than just illiteracy. YOU SAID: "You keep repeating "Math" when the issue is Physics, specifically thermodynamics." == Yeah, indeed, so do the math on that physics, and let us all know how it turns out when you submit your calculations for scientific peer review in your favorite physics journals. YOU SAID: "Duct Tape close to the surface of the Moon and exposed to constant abrasion not to mention direct contact with surface dust and sand would receive DIRECT Exposure to the hottest temperatures found on the surface of the moon." == No, dummy. The hottest temperatures found on the surface of the moon don't come into play until well after the Apollo missions left the surface. All lunar landings happened in the lunar morning. All lunar departures happened in the SAME lunar morning. They never saw the highest temperatures, because they left long before they could take place. The longest surface stay on the moon was about 74 hours. And, given that a lunar day, from sunrise to sunrise, is about 708 hours, yeah, the lunar missions were barely over 10% of a lunar day. The super hot temperatures don't happen until the lunar afternoon. The highest surface temperature during Apollo was about 160 degrees (F), which is not nearly hot enough to melt glue in duct tape. You don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about. YOU SAID: "Duct Tape is one of the worst adhesive tapes anyone can purchase." == Pfftttt. Sure. Keep telling yourself that. YOU SAID: "It can stick to itself but little else." == It is made to stick to DUCTS!!!! That's why it's called DUCT TAPE!!! Good grief. YOU SAID: "You really prattle on too much and have exposed yourself as someone who does not think, you just repeat what you like to hear." == Oh, the irony. Um, no, dummy. That's called "projection" on your part.
    1
  11232.  @arcanondrum6543  YOU SAID: ""Morning" on the Moon?" == Correct. It was a short while after the sun came up (at each particular landing spot), and long before "high noon." Yes, morning. YOU SAID: "Okay, I did hit "reply" to the wrong user" == Yes, you don't pay attention to much of anything. YOU SAID: "but "Morning" on the Moon?" == Correct. It was a short while after the sun came up (at each particular landing spot), and long before "high noon." Yes, morning. YOU SAID: "Tell you what, we will come back to that. Without listening again, the video points out "THREE Days spent on the Lunar Surface by Apollo 17"" == It's not my fault that you get your entire "education" by watching YouTube videos, and not actually understanding anything. I'm sure they must have meant three EARTH days. But, they certainly couldn't have meant a "lunar day." Each lunar day is around 708 hours, about a month. Hence why the moon's phases take about a month. The moon rotates relative to the sun once in about 708 hours, about once a month. YOU SAID: "and that the Duct Tape "lasted 15 hours" on the fender. 1. Duct Tape IS NOT used for Ducts except by people who don't know better. Metal tape is used on Ducts. Duct Tape is useless for Ducts, it deteriorates quickly from the heat." == This is too stupid to deserve a reply. YOU SAID: "2. It was "the 3rd day" that the Tape was used for the repair and the subsequent "day of experiments"." == So what? Have you done the math yet on the temperatures? Or, are you just going to sit there and keep writing more and more words, refusing to do any math whatsoever? YOU SAID: "3. Anyone living in warm climates knows that it doesn't take very long for the Sun to have a warming effect on their day" == So, do the math!!! Tell the world EXACTLY how much energy the tape would receive, and how hot it would get, and that it should have melted the glue!!! Calculate it!!! Don't just base your entire "knowledge" on a couple of words spoken by a narrator for a YouTube video, especially when he was talking about things relative to SUITS (not tape glue). DO THE MATH, dummy. YOU SAID: "so while a Moon rotation might take 4 weeks, that IS an entire rotation." == So what? Yes, that's why the moon has daytimes, nighttimes, mornings, afternoons, overnights, etc. YOU SAID: "3 days in the early part of the Sunlight is still, significantly more than 72 hours of direct, nonstop sunlight (due to the preparation before landing)." == Pffttt. And, dummy, the immediate "preparation before landing" happened mostly on the DARK SIDE from lunar orbit. They always approached the landings from the east. I mean, technically, they were preparing for landing for a couple of orbits, dark, light, dark, light. But, yeah, the most immediate part of the preparation happened on the dark side. And, I fail to understand what you think this has to do with melting the glue on tape? YOU SAID: "I welcome you to test this by placing your hand on your cookstove." == Test WHAT???!?!?!? What should I test that way? What ARE you talking about? YOU SAID: "Conclusion: You are a SPECTACULAR MORON!" == Pfftttt. I'm not the one who can't do math, you are. YOU SAID: "Oh and THIS will be my most favorite comment of the day because you just keep BEGGING me for Math and you screwed up YOUR Math, BIG TIME." == Then what ARE you waiting for?!?!!? You're on YOUTUBE, you moron. If you think my math (and the math of every aerospace engineer who worked on Apollo) is wrong, then you write it up, and submit it for scientific peer review to a science journal!!!! YOU SAID: "cut your "708 hours" in half" == Pffttt. I said the time from sunrise to sunrise (a "day") on the moon is about 708 hours. There is no "cutting that in half." That's the amount of time it takes for the moon to rotate a single time on its axis, plus the adjustment time for the change in relative position to the sun as it orbits. Hence, one lunar day, from sunrise to sunrise. You can't "cut that in half" without speeding up the spin of the moon. YOU SAID: "because the Moon's surface is dipping closer towards Absolute Zero" == The moon's surface never gets anywhere near absolute zero. Strictly by the sentence you wrote, ok, it's getting "closer" to it. But, that's only because, technically, if something is, let's say, 500 degrees in temperature, and drops to 499 degrees in temperature, yes, it's getting closer to absolute zero. But, from any sane person's practical perspective, no, the lunar surface never gets down near absolute zero. YOU SAID: "once that portion slips into darkness and we knew that, we care about the heat." == Well, no, we don't care about that for the purposes of Apollo astronauts, because they were never on the lunar surface in the darkness. They landed in the lunar morning, and lifted off in the SAME LUNAR MORNING. They never stayed into darkness on the lunar surface. YOU SAID: "Here is the math using your numbers: 74 hours divided by (708 hours but divided in HALF because it is heating only during the day). Also known as: Fully 20% of the Moon's daylight hours NOT your "barely over 10%" and that must begin well past "Dawn" to verify that the site is clear." == No, dummy. I didn't say "daylight" on the lunar surface for 708 hours. I said a "lunar day" is about 708 hours. That's very equivalent to saying that a day on Earth is 24 hours. Yet, unless you live near one of the poles, you don't get 24 hours of daylight on Earth, do you? For most of Earth, yes, a "day" is 24 hours, and about half of it is in daylight, and about half of it is in nighttime. But, it's still a day. The same concept is true of the moon. A lunar day is about 708 hours. You don't cut that in half. If you want to just talk about how much time is in daylight, yeah, it's around half. But, I didn't use those words. YOU DID. YOU SAID: "Math REALLY IS fun, ain't it?" == Well, one of my degrees is in mathematics. But, no, I don't find it fun, which is why I never called myself a mathematician, and I went on to do other things instead. YOU SAID: "rockethead7 said exactly this: "The longest suface" == No, I spelled it correctly. YOU SAID: "stay on the moon was about 74 hours. And, given that a lunar day, from sunrise to sunrise, is about 708 hours, yeah, the lunar missions were barely over 10% of a lunar day." == Yes, so, what's your point? I said that, and it's correct. YOU are the one who is insisting on cutting the amount of time of a lunar day in half for some reason. I even said "from sunrise to sunrise" to clarify that I was talking about a FULL LUNAR DAY. I didn't say "sunrise to sunset." I said "sunrise to sunrise." But, apparently, your feeble little brain with zero attention span somehow magically absorbed that to mean "sunrise to sunset" (even though that's not what I said). But, YOU decided to twist everything around. YOU SAID: "(BTW meathead, don't begin sentences with a conjunction and CERTAINLY don't follow a conjunction with an immediate coma.)" == It's called "prose," dummy. You don't know what you're talking about. And, given the utter train wreck of everything you've written incorrectly, I hardly think you're in a position to complain about MY writing!! What a clown. Do the math. Submit it for scientific peer review. That's how you prove your points, dummy. You don't go on YouTube and declare that duct tape isn't used for ducts. You don't go on YouTube and say that a comment made by the narrator in a YouTube video about the heat in the suits, magically means that he was also talking about the heat on duct tape. Mathematics is the avenue to prove your point. Out-of-context quoting from a narrator of a YouTube video proves nothing (except, it does prove that you're intentionally twisting words to suit your delusions). I'm done with you. You're a colossal loser, and you suffer severely from the Dunning-Kruger effect. You know absolutely nothing about the topic, yet you pretend you do. You are a completely functionless pile of flesh. And, I can't waste my time on dummies who don't understand what a "lunar day" is, and who insist never to use duct tape on ducts, and use this ignorance as a method of accusing thousands of people of being criminals. Your mind has been lost, probably permanently.
    1
  11233. Um, ok, what was unnecessary? Her crime? Or, something else?
    1
  11234. Inside Edition says so, right? Or, well, they ask "was she shamed?" They never actually answered. (Hint: the answer is no.)
    1
  11235. Well, I'd imagine they'd probably blur the face if she was still alive. But, since she was dead, the investigation was closed, and there's no requirement to blur.
    1
  11236. Well, first of all, this arrest had nothing to do with her suicide. Secondly, the cops didn't allow the arrest video to be released until 1.5 years after she was already dead.
    1
  11237. Blame the victim? What's wrong with you?
    1
  11238. Let me guess, you'd have immediately administered aid, right? Sorry, bad move. Until the scene is secure, you could end up needing the exact same medical aid as the guy on the ground. If that woman was just a few seconds behind the carjacker, who else might have been coming also? Did she have a gun? Was anybody else going to spring out of the sidelines with a gun?
    1
  11239. The only way to see it today is from lunar orbital cameras. India's has the best resolution. "Chandrayaan 2's photograph of Apollo 11" should do the trick. But, if you want to see it up close, you'll have to go there.
    1
  11240. Well, I've been guilty of occasionally misunderstanding the intent of some people's questions, so, I'm not sure if I deserve thanks or not. But, yeah, I responded "straight" to your question. If you had worded it differently, I may have been in that boat that answer you a different way.
    1
  11241. It's scary to see people fall for these trick videos. The guy even mocks it in this video, pretty much BEGGING people not to believe it. The pathetic part isn't in failing to understand the physics behind why this is an obvious hoax. Many people don't have even a 100 level understanding of physics. That's fine. The real crime is in the gullibility of believing that IF this guy defied the laws of thermodynamics, he'd merely post in on YOUTUBE (instead of being the world's first trillionaire).
    1
  11242. Based on WHAT? Why would you say such a ridiculous thing?
    1
  11243. Yes, he did. You can see it if you watch frame by frame in the highest resolution copy as the door opens, and, you see it laying on the ground next to a 2x4 piece of wood at multiple points in the video, including 5:02.
    1
  11244. "Body camera video shows undercover LMPD officer fatally shoot suspected carjacker" also highlights it for you.
    1
  11245. Huh? So, after Kennedy, they weren't as gullible? Um, dewdrop, you do know Apollo missions happened nearly a decade AFTER Kennedy, right? Good grief.
    1
  11246. Yes and no. I mean, yes, it's a very kind act, and sometimes people need a break in life. But, what did she do with it? Nothing. She continued to steal, and now she's dead. Ironically, she might have been better off in prison.
    1
  11247. Do you even know how bodycams work?
    1
  11248. Yes, there is this thing called a "truck" that was in between the cops' guns and the suspect. 9mm rounds do not penetrate this thing called a "truck" very well.
    1
  11249. Imagine being a clueless YouTube commenter who believes every bit of fake news he can gobble up. The video wasn't seen by anybody until 1.5 years after she died.
    1
  11250. Fred, why do you pretend to ask questions, while making it 100% clear that you're not reading the answers?
    1
  11251.  @Cliffmchrist  In Celsius.
    1
  11252. Sorry, when you think it's "boxes" when it's really "the rover," yeah, you really don't get to pretend you understand the topic.
    1
  11253. Todays film grew up with understands no one. Scared showing people do we crisis! My friend fkag on th moon pyramid say 10 years. Rocks are coverd up from fog! Understood are th1ngs are fake. Trusting me I'm smrt.
    1
  11254. You're here to deny the moon landings ever occurred, but, you don't want anybody giving you any data about the moon landings (which began on July 20, 1969). If that's not the living definition of the word "delusional," I don't know what is.
    1
  11255. Huh? The case was long over by then. She was never convicted for the incident in this video. I fail to understand your point here. What do you mean?
    1
  11256. Her suicide had nothing to do with this arrest.
    1
  11257. Yes, if you see a man cranking it at the playground in front of kids, do nothing, unless you're paid to do it. Leave him ALONE!!!! LET HIM WATCH YOUR KIDS AT THE PLAYGROUND, but, DO NOT CALL THE POLICE!!! That might upset him.
    1
  11258. Huh? First of all, why would you believe that she showed everything she was stealing inside that coat? Secondly, it's ok to mess up in life, ok, well, that's a nice thought. But, you don't get to keep messing up over and over. She went right back to stealing from Walgreens after this incident. How many chances should she get? Thirdly, She was so hooked on meth that she abandoned her kids for it, and it eventually killed her. If your god blessed her, why'd he let her die instead of raise her kids? I mean, I acknowledge that you have very nice and positive thoughts about stuff like this. But, let's face reality here: you can never trust a drug addict.
    1
  11259. Well, just stating the facts here: if you look back on every administration since the end of the Apollo program, and you adjust for relative inflation, and take into account that budgets are set in the year prior (i.e. the 1993 budget is set in 1992), every Democrat presidency has resulted in a decrease in NASA funding, while every Republican presidency has resulted in an increase in NASA funding. Surprising, because other sciences tend to show an opposite funding pattern. But, the facts are facts.
    1
  11260.  @harleyquinn5774  And, you'd believe that, why? Because that's what she claims while she's attempting to dodge her millionth arrest? You've never heard criminals say, "I didn't do it" before?
    1
  11261. So, first you came to your conclusion. THEN you pretend to ask questions. Then you pretend to know things you don't understand. Bravo, dewdrop. When you're ready to really learn the answers to your questions, let me know. Until then, I know you don't care one bit about learning how the stuff actually works.
    1
  11262. Again, dewdrop, do you actually want answers? Or, do you prefer to pretend to understand things you don't?
    1
  11263. But, the bodycam video never went public when she was alive. It wasn't released until 2.5 years after the arrest, after she had long been dead.
    1
  11264. If you could see stars in the same frame as astronauts and a properly lit lunar landscape, then that would mean it's fake. Sorry that you don't understand anything about photography. Go try to take photos of the stars yourself sometime. You'll learn quite quickly that it's not that easy to do.
    1
  11265. Spare the world, seriously.
    1
  11266. Why would you ever believe a single word of the garbage you just spewed? Good grief. When every single sentence you write is wrong, guess what, dewdrop, your conclusions are wrong also.
    1
  11267.  @JayVee-d  A month after the mission also. The nuts think the astronauts walked off of the aircraft carrier and into that press conference.
    1
  11268. Oh, that's perfect then. It's a technology problem. Alright, please name the EXACT technology you think they lacked. Can you? Then, please explain why none of the thousands of engineers who worked on that particular technology ever realized that they failed to build a technology that could do the job they designed it to do? Don't just use the word "technology" without explaining which one you're talking about. That's just a useless word without proper context. So, explain it.
    1
  11269. Wow, what stupidity. Do you know the background (which I will cut-n-paste from another comment): This guy had just vandalized a car. Then, he kidnapped two people and held them hostage. The cops were called, they chased him, and he ran. He then fled into an office, and attempted to accost more people. The cops chased him again, he ran again, and got onto this bus. Then, the cops chased the bus and stopped it (there were many cops surrounding the bus, not just the two that got onto it in this video). The cops witnessed the people running off and evacuating the bus in fear. The bus driver waved for help and pointed at the crazy guy. Yes, under those circumstances, the person might be dangerous enough to warrant the cops going in with guns drawn. Very often, under those circumstances, the maniac is going to be armed. It is a reasonable presumption, even though he wasn't armed in this particular case.
    1
  11270.  @bigcrabrob  YOU SAID: "I stand by my comment, police are called when you want to be murdered or you are trying to have someone else murdered." == You are one of the dumbest people alive. YOU SAID: "No authority should assume you are armed in any situation where they have the opportunity to take a risk assessment and form a plan of action." == Good gods, what a moron. Um, no, dummy. Sorry, but life and death situations DO exist. Quick decisions DO have to happen. And, this time, you'd be lucky enough that he wasn't armed. But, sorry, you're just dead wrong in most situations like this. When facing any threat where it's reasonable to assume that he might be armed, yeah, you draw your weapon. You do that, or you eventually die. You don't have the luxury of just hoping to talk it out. I'm sorry you're too stupid to understand reality. But, hey, that's what YouTube is for... for people like you, who know absolutely nothing, to pretend to be experts, right? Good thing for the rest of the world, your stupid opinions mean absolutely nothing. The officers were universally cleared by the REAL experts who analyzed the situation. The district attorneys, internal investigators, judges, etc., all universally agreed that the actions taken by the police were justified, and were not found for any wrongdoing whatsoever. So, dummy, you can scream at the wind all you want, and pretend you understand this topic better than the REAL experts, but, you're nothing but a stupid YouTube crank with no clue whatsoever about how this works.
    1
  11271. You believe that, why? Because you saw it on Inside Edition?
    1
  11272. Does that even make sense to you? Nobody owns the moon. There's no such thing as a "no fly zone" at a place nobody owns. You don't know what you're talking about. A law was passed that made Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 considered to be like historical monuments. It's "look but don't touch." But, there's no way to enforce such a thing. So, all they did was say that if anybody ever goes to those sites and intends to touch anything there, they cannot get government funding. Read the laws, don't just regurgitate ridiculous claims that make no sense.
    1
  11273.  @Austin1990  First of all, the Van Allen belt radiation penetrates just about anything (inner belt anyway, protons... not so much with the outer belt, electrons). Those big protons don't care much whether it's thin aluminum, or thick lead. But, the thing is, there's just not that many of them. The Soviets sent dogs up into the worst areas of the inner belts, and they lived for 3 weeks. Apollo went through the worst parts in about 15 minutes. Secondly, you are claiming that the Apollo 5 crew had a bunch of radiation problems? Huh? Not only didn't the Apollo 5 craft go that high, but, um, there were no people inside. It was an unmanned mission. Look, I told you in the other thread that I don't like picking battles with people on my own side... but, seriously, man?? Apollo 5 crew?? Van Allen belt radiation? I mean, you're right about solar flares. But, the rest... not so much.
    1
  11274. Well, that was almost a sentence. Too bad you can't address any return challenges or questions. But, I'm assuming you maxed out your remaining 12 brain cells.
    1
  11275. Huh? And, if they had used a marked police car for the stakeout trying to find the other criminal that they were there to watch/find, what good would that do?
    1
  11276.  @AmericaFirstNow  Questioning her was part of the investigation. She fought it the entire time.
    1
  11277.  @AmericaFirstNow  None of her rights were violated.
    1
  11278.  @AmericaFirstNow  Call for assistance? In Jacksonville, FL? The murder capitol of the state, with the highest violent crime rate, the most shootings, the most robberies, the most gang activity? "Calling all cars, stop chasing those felons, I have a woman here who is upset because the store thinks she took a piece of chicken and some bread, mayday, mayday, need assistance." Good gods.
    1
  11279. Huh? Wrong of the cops? For arresting a criminal?
    1
  11280. Not the brightest bulb, eh?
    1
  11281. So, you asked questions, but didn't wait for answers, before you came to your conclusions. How amazingly honest of you! Dewdrop, it's called the Freedom of Information Act. The police don't dictate the rules about releasing the videos, the law does. The police can and do block the release for an investigation that is open. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023, arrest video released. Do the math before holing people accountable on the basis of your own ignorance of the facts.
    1
  11282. Well, there are many ironies in life. And, one of them is that the woman in the video might still be alive today had she just been arrested and put into prison.
    1
  11283. Jesus fucking goddamned imaginary christ, you're a moron. Bush tax cuts responsible for the economy? Excuse me? Bush had 6 years of a booming economy, and it wasn't until the democrats got control of the house/senate and overturned every republican incentive that the economy collapsed. Not to mention, the root of the problem was the housing collapse, which was because of laws pushed through by dems AGAINST republican votes (including Bush). Stop talking about crap you know nothing about.
    1
  11284. A misdemeanor is not the same as a traffic infraction. They can't just decide for themselves to give a break or not. They either have probable cause, or they don't. In this case, they did. Nobody embarrassed her besides herself. Is "accountability" not part of your vocabulary? The arrest video was released because that's what the Freedom of Information Act requires. But, they blocked its release for 2.5 years. Once an investigation is closed long enough, they can no longer block it. Nobody saw it while she was alive. At least the video of the incident itself remains blocked. With her extensive criminal history, what did you think was going to happen? She put on a show in public in front of children. I mean, you don't believe the convicted felon's sob story while she's trying to cry her way out of her millionth arrest, do you?
    1
  11285. No mainstream media even covered it until 1.5 years after she died.
    1
  11286. Nope. She didn't. She had her receipt. But, I think it's fairly obvious that she was attempting to turn "can I see your receipt" into a Taser and arrest, hoping to win a big lawsuit. (She lost the lawsuit.)
    1
  11287.  @myotheraccount5947  Then publish, dewdrop. If you think there was a physics problem, explain it in the physics journals for peer review. YouTube comments is where dewdrops come to pretend to understand physics when they don't understand how to tie their own shoes. There are hundreds of recognized science journals out there, which you can write up the laws of physics you think were violated, and demonstrate it mathematically. A YouTube comment isn't how to do that.
    1
  11288. "The biggest giveaway, when asked why we haven’t been back, is that NASA Said publicly We used to have the technology, but we no longer do." And, this doesn't bother you? It's been 55 years, and THAT's the best you've got? They retired the technology, therefore it's fake? I mean, you said it, that's the absolute BEST you have to offer. Personally, if that was the best I could do, I'd throw in the towel. But, not you, though. You actually think this is "good" evidence. Yes, dewdrop, the technology had been retired. Just like Concorde was retired. Just like the SR71 was retired. Just like the X15 was retired. The list goes on. Yes, those are all things that we cannot do now. There's absolutely no hope of flying 100+ passengers at mach 2 for 3000 miles right now. We used to have that technology, but no longer do. We have no hope of flying a plane at mach 7 to the edge of space right now, because the X15 is retired. I guess, by your standard, this means it never existed, eh?
    1
  11289. "Nasa had numerous failed attempts prior to the Moon Landing” and somehow convinced the public that they figured it out" Huh? Numerous failed attempts to put people on the moon? What? See, dewdrop, when you know nothing about a topic, it's not going to do you any good to pretend.
    1
  11290. So, basically, you're saying that you don't actually want answers to your own questions. You PREFER not to understand anything about the topic.
    1
  11291. Peter, you know NOTHING. 1) Buzz Aldrin wasn't the first on the moon. Neil Armstrong was. You don't even know who stepped out first, and yet, you think you know enough about Apollo to deny it? Good grief. 2) OF COURSE they tested the spacesuits, many many many many times in vacuum chambers. It's an internet myth made by idiot conspiratards to claim that they didn't test the spacesuits. This is obscenely stupid. I mean, the hundreds of people who made those spacesuits... you think they wouldn't mention the "fact" that they were never tested?? Good grief. 3) The hatchmarks will disappear on bright areas of overexposed film. This is a well known effect, that happens everywhere, Earth, the moon, wherever. It's chemistry. 4) Of course they change the spacesuits for different functions. The A7L was designed for the moon. The stuff they use on the ISS was designed for the ISS. There are different requirements, and technologies change over time. You don't get to complain that because the spacesuits change over time, and for different purposes, that means that the spacesuits didn't work. 5) They switched to pool training for neutral buoyancy, not because the spacesuits didn't work. Good grief. Look up the history of Ed White and Gene Cernan. They were completely unprepared for zero-g operations in space. So, they now train in a pool because it's the closest that they can get to zero-g for extended periods of time. They could ride the "vomit comet" zero-g aircraft (which flies in short parabolas to provide zero-g)... it's what they used to film the zero-g scenes in the movie Apollo 13. But, that's also why all of those film clips are very short... you can't go in a parabolic arc for hours at a time... you're lucky to get 1 "functional" minute of training at a time. A pool is a far superior option. I'm not diving into any more of your stupidity. You have NO IDEA what you're talking about. None whatsoever.
    1
  11292. Sorry, but you're not a criminal detective, and shouldn't pretend to be one.
    1
  11293. Nobody should say that death is "all good." But, sorry, you don't know what you're talking about. The scene was nowhere near secure enough to stop everything and administer aid. The guy was still alive, and might have had another gun or knife. The woman was screaming wildly, and might have been armed. There's a guy in the background yelling about his brother. They weren't sure right away about what happened to the gun the bad guy dropped. And, who knows who else may be lurking to come do him harm? Before you administer aid, you need to secure the scene, else someone might be needing to give YOU aid, when another guy pops out of the woodwork and shoots at you.
    1
  11294. Well, your first mistake right out of the gate is to try to make sense of any of Bob Lazar's ridiculous claims to begin with. There is nothing sensible (nor believable) about them.
    1
  11295.  @AM-rd9pu  I replied to you in the other thread about this. I have no idea whether it's visible to you or not.
    1
  11296. How do you ruin someone's life who is dead already? I mean, I'm not fond of this story either. But, at least I'm aware that the news didn't cover anything at all until well after she was dead.
    1
  11297. I know you didn't exactly say Gene Cernan was the only one who rode a Saturn V twice. But, just for clarity, there were a few more. Dave Scott rode one twice (Apollo 9 and 15). Jim Lovell (Apollo 8 and 13). Cene Cernan (as you mentioned, Apollo 10 and 17). John Young (Apollo 10 and 16).
    1
  11298. Which family? The one she abandoned a decade ago to live a life of drugs and crime? Or, the family that she chose to put on a show in front of at the public beach?
    1
  11299. The only force that destroyed her was HERSELF.
    1
  11300. How badly did you cry when you found out she died?
    1
  11301. While the Soviets started quicker, the fact is that there was no "space race" yet. Nobody had declared a race to anything. But, yes, the USA felt the pressure, and immediately began to act upon it. Meanwhile, the Soviets stalled out, and didn't launch a single mission during the entirety of the USA's Gemini program (10 manned missions). Not one. This put the USA very far into the lead, before the first Apollo mission even flew. So, spare the world your talk of "miracles." You have no idea what you're talking about. The USA had many losses and setbacks along the way. Tell the families of Gus Grissom, Ed White, Roger Chaffee, CC Williams, Elliot See, etc. (to name a few) that the Apollo program was "miraculous." Go right ahead. See if they don't deck you.
    1
  11302. Not the point. It's outrageously difficult to stop one of those battery fires once they get going. They basically have to just burn out. Pouring water won't make any difference on the fire, it just stops the fire from spreading to other things.
    1
  11303. Hey, i just flagged you for spam.
    1
  11304. I hope you read the YouTube terms of service.
    1
  11305. Huh? How is that response even remotely related to the questions I asked?
    1
  11306. So, when I opened my comment with "I'm asking seriously here," you assumed I wasn't asking seriously. Right. Sure.
    1
  11307. You believe that, why? Do you REALLY believe that the entire planet would see a video with a mouse running around on the moon and just say, "oh, ok, no problem"? Really? That makes sense to you?
    1
  11308. Oh, and for 55 years, nobody ever watched the video slowed down? Again, does this "mouse" story really make sense to you? And, why aren't you out there observing the ISS yourself, and doing the math on the speed it's going?
    1
  11309. I'm not playing this game. If you want to sit there and believe everything a conspiracy video tells you to believe, there's really not much hope here. I asked you a bunch of questions, and made suggestions, and all you've done is ignore them and try to shift topics. Have you looked at the India Apollo photos? Have you tracked the ISS yet?
    1
  11310. Hilarious!! Is your "scroll up" broken? You advised OTHERS to "do a little research." But, the moment I asked you to do the same, your response is, "no, I have not, I don't see the point." Yeah, you make a lot of sense. In your mind, "do research" is "watch conspiracy videos." And, the moment anybody tells you to look at actual evidence or simply do a few observations and calculations to prove yourself wrong, you don't see the point. Good grief.
    1
  11311. "you asked if i have seen it, not if i would." Dewdrop, you said you didn't see the point. Again, is your scroll up broken? Why do you refuse to look at evidence that contradicts your silly beliefs?
    1
  11312. "Also the stats of the iss while its flying would prove nothing for either side." You can go look at the thing, and use a nice camera and some basic geometry and trigonometry to calculate its size and speed and altitude. When you calculate that there's a 350 foot long craft that looks exactly like the ISS, and it's at 250 miles up going 17,500 mph, it basically shatters your notion that it's a balloon or whatever crank notion you got from conspiracy videos.
    1
  11313. "everything i have mentioned is literal video evidence" Yeah, fed to you by CONSPIRACY VIDEOS made by CHARLATANS, and you fell for it hook line and sinker.
    1
  11314. "and btw buzz aldridge" Can you even pretend that you're serious here? Aldridge? Oh, you're a real expert on the topic alright. You don't even know the man's name (that you're accusing of being a criminal who would have been in prison for most of his life if you were correct).
    1
  11315. You know absolutely nothing about the topic, other than silly nonsense spoon fed to you by conspiracy videos, which you have fallen for hook line and sinker. Yet, with this "knowledge" (not knowledge), you are ready to accuse thousands of people of being criminals. Good grief.
    1
  11316. I think her wrong turn was when she got herself hooked on meth.
    1
  11317. What are you talking about? When did I say to abandon her? The cop and store clerk not only didn't abandon her, but, they agreed not to arrest her if she simply returns the stuff. And, then the cop bought the stuff. He told her what to do in the future. How is this "abandoning" her? But, sorry, people also need to take responsibility for their own lives, otherwise they end up like she did. She continued to steal from Walgreens immediately after this incident. She was arrested again for it. And, now she's dead. At no point did I ever say to abandon her. There are many rehab programs available in this country. But, the government didn't kill her. She did that to herself because of her drug problems.
    1
  11318. Then what? Then she should present her ID (required by law, but she refused), and cooperate by not obstructing and obfuscating (she did both, which is illegal also).
    1
  11319. Mentioning police is correction. Wanna be called listening? Who is the sometimes?
    1
  11320. Why ask a question if you intend to ignore the correct answer?
    1
  11321.  @Pritam_Jana_u  You left South Korea off of your list of orbiters that can see the Apollo landers on the moon. And, FYI, Japan's orbiter didn't have the resolution required to see the landers themselves. But, it gathered different types of evidence from orbit.
    1
  11322. See that camera in the middle of the cop's belly/chest area? The other cop has one too. That's normal now. But, the arrest video wasn't released until 2.5 years later, and she was long dead by then. As for protecting her identity, well, I would agree in principle, but, the Freedom of Information Act doesn't agree.
    1
  11323. Huh? Doubtful anybody around her even knew about it. The arrest video wasn't released until 1.5 years after she died. Sorry if Inside Edition conveniently left that little detail out of their story. Gotta make viral videos after all.
    1
  11324. 70mm film, not 120mm. But, whatever.
    1
  11325. Well, that sounds nice if you know, in advance, that the intruder isn't armed with a firearm himself. But, you don't know that. So, you have to be prepared for worst case.
    1
  11326. Atomic clocks are the most accurate clocks known to man. They are highly non-susceptible to heat. There are no mechanical parts to wear out. The decay rates of each element is extremely understood. The Naval atomic clock in Colorado (USNO Master Clock) is essentially the entire world's timekeeper. All clocks in the world nowadays get their time synchronized to that clock, either directly, or indirectly. The accuracy of that clock is within a billionth of a second per day. And, they use even more accurate hydrogen based atomic clocks to keep that Master Clock's 1 billionth of a second variation per day even more accurate than it already is. That's how reliable and accurate atomic clocks are. But, you're going to say that you don't think atomic clocks are accurate?? And, the world's scientists who work on those things are the ones that don't understand it?? Hey, dewdrop, can you name a more accurate clock, if not the atomic ones? Don't just sit there and declare that it can't be done. Don't just sit there and declare that others don't understand it. If you don't like atomic clocks, propose a better way. Can you?
    1
  11327. THAT is your reply? Huh? What's wrong with you?
    1
  11328. Yes, but, there's not much energy left in those 9mm rounds after going through glass and metal. He lived.
    1
  11329. Um, well, ok, the Freedom of Information Act applies to all of us. So what? At least nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive.
    1
  11330. Well, indeed, you're correct not to believe a word out of Inside Edition. I mean, yes, the poor woman is dead. But, this story is massively skewed to the point that you can basically reject it entirely.
    1
  11331.  @AdventureswithLandon  And, Smith got what he deserved.
    1
  11332. Yes. And, I'm not saying that the cop did anything wrong. But, isn't life strange? Had she been arrested and thrown in prison, maybe she'd still be alive today.
    1
  11333. So, basically, you want to repeal the Freedom of Information Act?
    1
  11334. Who? Why?
    1
  11335. Huh? Prison? He's dead.
    1
  11336. Good gods, what hatred you must have. MOST cops are very good. So, spare this silly nonsense about "finally." Secondly, I mean, not that I blame the cop, but, c'mon, she's dead now. And, had he just arrested her, maybe she'd still be alive in the relative "safety" of prison. Again, I'm not blaming the cop here. She is the cause of her own death. But, I'd hardly sit there and brag about the outcome in this case.
    1
  11337. Huh? Who is "they"? And, what filming? The video taken by the "audience" of the incident itself (which still has never been released, due to graphic content), or the arrest video?
    1
  11338. Wait, huh? You're complaining about the chest camera?
    1
  11339. And, huh? Swimwear embarrasses her? Then why was she a "dancer" at the gentlemen's club? She wore a heck of a lot less than that!!!
    1
  11340. And, you do know that nobody saw the arrest video until 2.5 years later, right? You do know she was already dead for 1.5 of those years, right? So, how did this embarrass her?
    1
  11341. You make no sense whatsoever. How can she be "embarrassed" by a video that nobody saw until long after she was dead? And, why this arrest? She had been arrested a million times before, and even did a felony term in a Florida prison about 6 years ago. What's so special about THIS arrest to you?
    1
  11342. This incident = July 1, 2021. Suicide = March, 2022. Arrest video released = November 24, 2023.
    1
  11343. Huh? So, basically, you think cops shouldn't have body-cams? Huh?
    1
  11344. Because he planned the murders in advance.
    1
  11345. Pfftt. Well, given that she went right back to stealing from Walgreens immediately after this incident, I'd argue that she wasn't really disappointed with herself, and instead, she reveled in the fact that she got away with theft, and even got someone else to pay for stuff. And, as for your god blessing the officer, well, I'd wonder if you think your god was also blessing the woman in this video when she died? It seems to me, she needed the "blessings" more than he did.
    1
  11346.  @thebowshock7729  Just look up her arrest record. And, sorry, I don't consider it much of a "blessing" when a woman abandons her two kids for meth, and then dies from it.
    1
  11347.  @thebowshock7729  Do you have sources for her being blessed by your god? And, what good are blessings if it all boils down to her choices anyway? It seems that blessing, or not blessing, doesn't make a difference.
    1
  11348.  @thebowshock7729  And, the fact that you think your reply addressed anything I said/asked ... is evidence that you haven't got the foggiest clue what you're talking about.
    1
  11349. It wasn't released due to content. The only video they released was this arrest video.
    1
  11350.  Southeastern777  No, quite obviously, his lobotomy was successful.
    1
  11351. Do you say the same about a man on a playground bench? Couldn't those families just take their children to some other playground and let the guy do his thing?
    1
  11352. Yeah, you probably don't. You're Inside Edition's target market, after all.
    1
  11353. I'm sorry you don't understand. I guess you must have a bunch of other issues that go a lot deeper than understanding this.
    1
  11354. What strings? What are you talking about?
    1
  11355. No. The video wasn't released until 1.5 years after she was already dead. Sorry if Inside Edition skipped that fact. Gotta make viral videos, ya know, not accurate ones.
    1
  11356. China's published space budget is $11 billion. Now, of course, I would never blindly accept that number, because they're secretive, and won't necessarily reveal everything, but, to believe your claim that their actual space budget is in the hundreds of billions is quite difficult to accept. Dozens of countries tracked the Apollo missions with radar and radio telescopes, including enemy countries. Spain had the largest telescope at that time, and took photos of the SIVB fuel dumps around the moon, and the Apollo 13 debris field. India has taken photos of the Apollo landing sites with their lunar orbiter Chandrayaan2, which is the best camera around the moon today, and you can see the landers, foot paths, shadows of the flame deflectors and Apollo 12 flag (still standing), etc. Backyard amateurs anywhere in the world (facing toward the moon anyway) could aim their dishes/Yagi at the moon and receive Apollo's audio. China's Chang'e orbiter took photos of the Apollo landing sites also, and have confirmed that the landers are still there. Dozens of countries still use the Apollo laser reflectors on the lunar surface. The list goes on, and on, and on. You don't know what you're talking about.
    1
  11357. The arrest video was released and first posted on November 24, 2023. Freedom of Information Act. What EXACTLY do you think should have been done differently?
    1
  11358. In the overall picture, sure. But, these one-at-a-time claims from over 50 years ago? How can we tell the difference between someone doing a money-grab vs. someone who is an actual victim?
    1
  11359.  @stusue9733  Yes, where's the lander in the background of their little moon set?
    1
  11360. I don't blame you. These edited videos that clip out the entire beginning and end are ridiculous. She had her receipt. But, regardless, she still was in the wrong for the other stuff.
    1
  11361.  @DineroA1  No, her lawsuit was thrown out of court, and she has been barred from ever filing it again.
    1
  11362. The irony runs deeper than just that. They sent the Luna 15 probe to the moon a couple of days before Apollo 11. The intent was that they would have it orbit the moon until Apollo 11 gets there, wait for Apollo 11 to land, then land Luna 15, scoop up some samples, and rocket it back home to beat Apollo 11 with the first samples gathered from the moon. If that's not a race, I don't know what is. But, it was a very rushed mission, and, due to human error, they ended up crashing it into a lunar mountain while Apollo 11 was on the surface. But, yes, the Soviets tracked all of the craft (theirs and ours) with radar, just as numerous countries did. And, it was also a bit compounded because MIT had to scramble to work with the numerous nations to get the world's ground radar tracking to be able to track 3 craft at once (Luna 15, Apollo 11 command module, Apollo 11 lander) instead of the normal 2 craft everyone was originally set up to track. The USA didn't trust that the Soviets just wanted to race, and thought they may have been attempting to slam Luna 15 into Apollo 11. Yes, more evidence that they weren't faking anything, because so many countries were involved with all of that tracking.
    1
  11363. Yeah, and I'll never blame the officer for what he did. But, the additional irony is that she might still be alive today if he had arrested her, and put her in the relative "safety" of prison, rather than letting her continue her life as a homeless drug addict.
    1
  11364. When I first read your message, I assumed you meant that a whole bunch of civilians should have been armed with assault rifles, because police can almost never be close enough to stop someone like this before causing as much harm as he did. Therefore, tons and tons of citizens should carry assault rifles everywhere to help stop this guy, and anybody else like him. But, then, I think I realized that you meant that something should be done about the fact that the shooter had the assault rifle. So, ok, like what? I mean, that's the problem with people like you: you make these claims of "something should be done," but you don't say what that is. And, every time I've seen "reasonable gun control" advocates actually propose something, it's always something that has no hope of making any difference whatsoever, and just consists of "feel good" laws to ban this or that, but will never actually stop criminals from having [whatever] anyway. Like, this guy from this video. Do you think that he wouldn't have done what he did if having that gun was illegal? Do you think he'd say to himself, "well, I planned on going on a murderous rampage today, but, this style gun is illegal, so I guess I will stay home and play Xbox instead"? Anyway, go right ahead and tell me what EXACT measures you meant by "something needs to be done"??
    1
  11365. So, you have declared an answer, and that's it? You don't want replies? Sorry, dewdrop, but you don't get to wave the "Australia" comment around, as if it's supposed to mean something. Their gun crime was already on a massive decline. And, they never had anywhere near the same amount of guns in circulation that the USA has. If you implement the same measures in the USA as in Australia, all that will happen is that you're making sure the criminals stay armed, while the good guys are not. You refused to answer whether you think the guy would have committed the exact same crime if having that gun was illegal, or not? Do you believe he'd just stay home if his gun was illegal? And, he'd only go out and commit these crimes if his gun was legal? Is that, or is that not, what you believe? As for how to stop criminals from obtaining firearms, what IS wrong with you? Are you actually under the impression that any law is going to stop them? The USA tried prohibition of alcohol. What happened? Absolutely nothing changed, everyone kept drinking, except they moved control of the alcohol industry over to the mob (because there weren't legal channels). With a half a billion guns in circulation, what do you think would happen if you made them illegal? Do you think the bad guys wouldn't get them anyway? How do you intend to gather them up? Don't sit there and compare to Australia, which never had this quantity in circulation to begin with. If a doctor recommends some reasonable measures to get healthier, to someone who is almost healthy anyway, that's fine. But, if the patient has stage-4 terminal cancer, eating right isn't going to change anything. And, that same thing is true in the USA. When it comes to guns, the USA is well past the stage-4 terminal cancer stage. You can't treat the patient by making guns illegal. There's no hope of it working, and it will only make things worse. My answer is that you don't have a shot at stopping criminals from getting guns. And, your mind is completely gone if you think that any law is going to disarm them at this point. People like you seem to think "oh, well, we made it illegal, that means we're all safe now" - as if the criminals will just abide, and turn in their weapons. But, it's completely bonkers. Nobody is turning in their weapons, dewdrop. Your stated "solution" is off the charts delusional. And, don't tell me how to respond. This is an open comments forum. I'll respond how I wish.
    1
  11366. Largely, you're sort of correct, that doesn't really make it murder by itself. The much bigger factor is the fact that he knew they were coming, and planned the murders in advance. In the case of the male teen intruder, it would be pretty tough to say that he fired too many times. Yeah, he probably did. But, on its own, with no other factors, it would be pretty tough to claim he shot him too many times, you're right. But, in the case of the female, the gunman sat there for 20-30 minutes for her to finally arrive to check on what was taking her cousin/thief so much time to rob the place... and he shot her in the torso a few times. Then, his gun jammed. And, with her crying out in pain on the ground, he apologized to her for not killing her quickly enough, switched guns, and shot her twice in the left eye from point-blank range. The thing about this was that he said on tape, hours before they even arrived, that he was going to shoot them in the left eye. And, he later said in his confession that he knew she wasn't a threat any longer, but shot her in the eye twice anyway, because he didn't want her to live, he wanted to make her dead as quickly as possible. Then, he decided to put one more bullet under the chin and up into the brain, just to make sure she was dead. Those extra shots definitely reinforced the fact that this wasn't "self defense." He wasn't merely defending himself at that point, and clearly intended for her to die even once she was incapacitated (and said so in his confession). See, that's the difference between just emptying your clip into a random intruder in self defense, vs. slowly and methodically taking shots to make sure the person is dead, even after she's no longer a threat... especially after recording yourself ahead of time saying how you plan on shooting them, then following through once they arrive.
    1
  11367. Except multiple people called the police about this incident, and one woman even video recorded it with her cell phone. Pretty difficult to claim it was a little discreet act outside public view with a shake weight, when they have video showing otherwise.
    1
  11368. Yeah, I agree. The only saving grace (which is minor) is that she didn't suffer any humiliation over the release of this video. It wasn't released to the public until 2.5 years later, which was 1.5 years after she died.
    1
  11369. Of course not. But, that's not what happened here. Premeditating two murders IS a crime.
    1
  11370. So, you don't know who, why, or when, but, you've determined that you know what's wrong?
    1
  11371. Pfftt. OK, in your vast expertise in law enforcement and firearms training, please inform the world about how to magically make 9mm hollow point pistol rounds penetrate a truck, or even the glass? Will you do so? In your mind, is the criminal also a lousy shot, because none of his rounds even broke the cop's windshield? At 2:10 in the video, you can see the criminal shooting the cop's windshield, and most of the rounds aren't even breaking the glass. Oh, but you go right ahead, and pretend to know things you don't know. You're right, and the entire country's police force is wrong. Ahhh, YouTube comments, the land where people who know absolutely nothing can pretend to be experts.
    1
  11372.  @stusue9733  There was no data on the lost backup tapes. It was just analog video. And, they aren't sure if the quality was better than what we have seen in the primary copies. But, the idea is, yes, they might have better quality because they were recorded before the machine that did the NTSC conversion. The backup tapes were taken of the raw feed in the original broadcast format, rather than after pumping it through a cathode ray tube, and then recorded by a camera in NTSC format.
    1
  11373. On a public beach in front of children? C'mon.
    1
  11374.  @kathy888  YOU SAID: "NASA had the schematics of the rover online and they matched perfectly to a Jeep (forget which one)" == Ridiculous dribble. That's what your favorite conspiracy videos claim. But, you obviously have never looked at the rover schematics for yourself. You simply regurgitate what conspiracy videos tell you. YOU SAID: "It was on the youtube site Lift the Veil." == Sorry, conspiracy sites aren't rover schematics. It's even funnier because GM and Boeing designed and built the rovers. Yet, you think they'd use a Jeep? Tell me, dummy, which jeeps use wire mesh wheels, four electric motors (one on each wheel), and fold up to fit into a tiny compartment on the lunar module? Funny you'd "forget which one" (your words) - yeah, because what you're claiming is insanity. YOU SAID: "Six million for each Rover." == $38 million each. YOU SAID: "We were screwed!" == You sure were. But, not by NASA. You were screwed by the lousy education you've received, and you were screwed by your parents when they lied and said you were a smart child.
    1
  11375.  @kathy888  So, your reply was to repeat your earlier stupidity??
    1
  11376.  @kathy888  Fine, in the meantime, how about explaining which Jeep fits those criteria: has wire mesh wheels, and 4 electric motors, and a flat folding chassis? Why can't you do so? A video told you this was a Jeep, so it's a Jeep? Hey, don't pray for your god to wake me up... pray for your god to grant you a new brain. Yours is defective.
    1
  11377.  @kathy888  YOU SAID: "Stupidity if answering a fool. Opps, just broke my own rule! == But, dummy, you're NOT even answering. You're refusing to answer. You always have, and you always will. Your stupid conspiracy videos are wrong, therefore you're wrong (because those videos are your only source of "education"). And, when challenged, you crumble, EVERY SINGLE TIME. You've never been able to answer ANY questions or challenges.
    1
  11378.  @gives_bad_advice  A normal scuba tank has 21% oxygen. Apollo ran 100% oxygen. And, Apollo kept recycling the exhaled oxygen (lithium hydroxide scrubbers) so that very little of it was let out of the suits until it was consumed. A standard scuba setup doesn't recycle anything, your lungs just absorb a bit of the oxygen in each breath, but, most of it just gets blown right back out again in the bubbles. Yes, as was pointed out, Apollo was about 25x more efficient than a scuba tank used just under the water level (basically just one atmosphere). But, when you compare Apollo to a scuba tank at 100 feet of water depth, we're now talking about 100x more efficient because the scuba setup is even more wasteful (your body doesn't absorb oxygen any faster, and even more oxygen is wasted each breath at that kind of pressure).
    1
  11379. Well, if it's the mall I think you're talking about, it was open, not closed. Nobody was killed. But, yes, the mall was open.
    1
  11380. Yes, dewdrop. Sibrel's video is edited, and is a lie. Go watch the original version, not Sibrel's edited copy.
    1
  11381. As I also explained, all you really need to do is go watch the original video, not Sibrel's edited copy. You can see the astronauts moving the camera from window to window. There is no round cutout to make the window view appear to be a distant Earth. You can see the trapezoidal windows, you can see the distant Earth, etc. I mean, it's 100% clear that you're not studying Apollo at all. You're just watching videos that lie to you, and believing every word they say.
    1
  11382. Somehow, even when it's presented in irrefutable terms that Sibrel was not only wrong, but was actually lying, I don't think you're going to be as angry at him for lying to you as when you thought it was the astronauts lying, right?
    1
  11383. And, why would you believe that NASA lost all of the original data and videos? Did a conspiracy video tell you such a ridiculous thing?
    1
  11384. And, you'd believe all of the data and videos are lost, why? Who told you something that ridiculous?
    1
  11385. So, you didn't bother reading what I wrote. Bravo.
    1
  11386. He was killed in a nuclear explosion, while hiding behind Tesla's nuclear explosion proof glass.
    1
  11387.  @peteconrad2077  1. Armstrong took pictures of Aldrin coming down the steps. 2. It was filmed with a remote camera on the ROVER (I think you meant that, but, accidentally typed something else).
    1
  11388. YOU SAID: "KELLY SMITH ... ORION PROJECT ....NASATURD .. gone missing since the video about the VAN ALLEN BELTS ." == Um, that's because that video was made in 2014, as an introduction to Orion video made for children. And, they successfully tested the Orion craft later that year, and it passed all of its tests. The only people still clinging to that video are dummies like you, who do not understand it. YOU SAID: "MIRACULOUSLY ... granted by unknown saints of perhaps GOD HIMSELF ,from 1969 to 1972 the laws of physics were suspended because ???" == Name one law of physics that was (or would have been) violated by Apollo. Name ONE. Then, please explain why no actual physicists agree with you. YOU SAID: "AMERICANS were going to the moon !!!!!! Perhaps BUZZED ALDRIN is not an alcoholic, his 50 year long stupor may be the result of passing through the belts that KELLY says will fry most anyone to bacon crisp consistency." == No, you stupid shit. Kelly Smith mainly talked about the electronics. Modern computers are billions of times more sensitive to ionic particle radiation than Apollo computers were. Apollo computers used rope memory. Yes, literally, metal ropes. A charged particle hitting a metal rope is like a fly hitting a freight train. It's not going to do ANYTHING. But, nowadays, where memory pathways are just a few atoms across, yeah, a charged particle can change a 0 to a 1, and yeah, you've got problems. Yes, they needed beefier shielding. And, as for humans, yeah, Orion has missions planned to put astronauts in the belts for WEEKS at a time. Apollo went through in a couple of hours. So, yeah, at 1 rem per hour (in Apollo), you're only getting a couple of rem out, and a couple of rem back. If you're sitting in those belts for WEEKS, you're getting 500 rems, which is minimally going to make you ridiculously ill, with a very shortened lifespan, and sometimes will be downright fatal within days/weeks. Yeah, sorry, dummy, but 500 rems of radiation is not the same as 2 rems of radiation. Sorry that you base your entire understanding of the Van Allen belts on 30 seconds of an introduction to Orion video made for children. But, hey, the rest of the world is happy to have dummies like you around. Gives us a good laugh. YOU SAID: "Had kelly Smith been around in 1969, he might have saved BUZZED all the years of drinking to drown a lie." == You're an idiot, and an asshole.
    1
  11389. Just checking, if you were at a playground with your kids, and a man came up and started doing, ya know, would you be saying the same thing?
    1
  11390. She was arrested because she committed an aggravated misdemeanor. So, quit with the "unnecessarily" nonsense. And, if she didn't like being arrested, maybe she should have thought of that before ditching her career and family to lead a life of crime and drugs instead.
    1
  11391. No medication? Why? Because you actually BELIEVE what she's saying? You've never heard the old saying: "How do you know when a drug addict is lying? Her lips are moving." Do you REALLY think that the prison would deny her prescription meds for no reason whatsoever? You think it's more likely that a repeatedly convicted thief and drug addict is telling the truth?
    1
  11392.  @DanHarkless_Halloween_YTPs_etc  Oh, good gods. Spare me. And, you think the "news" station wouldn't have lit up like crazy if they had a story like that? You think they wouldn't dive deeper, if there was anything actually credible about these ridiculous claims? Good grief. That drug addict and repeatedly convicted thief wasn't even allowed in by her own family, that's how much bullshit she is obviously spewing. Yet, yeah, you find it perfectly plausible that the prison denied her meds for some unknown reason, and all we'd hear about it is ONE SENTENCE from a convicted criminal. Sure. I have a bridge for sale. Interested?
    1
  11393.  @DanHarkless_Halloween_YTPs_etc  Yeah, the "all" argument... total weakness. I still have that bridge for sale. Interested?
    1
  11394. Why? Armstrong IS a monster. He wasn't just some doper who won a few, and then disappeared. He lied for 18 years. He fraudulently sued countless people to shut them up. He destroyed riders' careers if they didn't help him. He destroyed LeMond's bike brand to shut him up. Armstrong isn't just a doper. He's a massive psychopath who ruined lives, then started up a fake charity to make himself look like a hero. And, idiots fell for it. Yeah, I think he deserves to be called a monster.
    1
  11395. Huh? Asking for a receipt is not the same as an illegal search for one.
    1
  11396.  @imabott7053  And, she refused to do even that.
    1
  11397. Well, not exactly. You can get a reflection from just about anywhere on the moon. But, yeah, if you hit one of the reflectors, it's orders of magnitude better than just hitting an area that doesn't have a reflector.
    1
  11398. They just simplify it for TV.
    1
  11399. Yes, I'm sure they just saw the moon landings as something that would make a popular episode, so they covered it. I try to look at it with the eyes of someone who maybe doesn't know anything about Apollo, and yeah, I guess they did a good enough job (maybe). But, I also know that they oversimplified many things, and even made a couple of mistakes. The laser reflector thing, yes, they had lasers before ever going to the moon to put a reflector there. But, the bounce-back was subject to a lot of scatter and false positives. With the reflectors, there are so many more photons coming back, that the scattered ones and false positives don't mean much. Google is your friend. "Apollo laser reflector graph." Images. Look at the one called LaserMeasure. That's what it looks like with a reflector. You get a super distinct line. So much that you can ignore the other hundreds of dots. Without the reflector, you just get the hundreds of dots and need to take averages, with a much wider margin of error. Also note: newer laser ranging facilities can focus the beams a lot more than the ones in the 1960s and 1970s.
    1
  11400. How? The cop didn't select the person to investigate.
    1
  11401. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. Sorry, but no. She experienced zero shame from this arrest video, because nobody saw it while she was alive.
    1
  11402. "the exhaust didn’t dirty ANY of the landing pads" Well, that's one way to show that you are only watching denier videos made by taxi cab drivers and lawnmower repairmen. Nobody who has ever looked at the photo archive for themselves has ever made that claim.
    1
  11403. "never moved his arm" Well, not much anyway. The rover was designed so that it didn't require much movement. So what?
    1
  11404. She didn't steal anything, and had the receipt. But, huh? Good lawsuits? She hired a high profile attorney and sued the store for $50,000. The courts rightfully threw the case out the window, and she won't be getting anything. As for suing the police, even her own attorney knows there was no misconduct there. The woman refused to ID, obstructed the investigation, obfuscated, and resisted arrest. Where do you see a case there?
    1
  11405. Her crazy son? It's just a tiny baby. What ARE you talking about?
    1
  11406. The Chinese rover landed hundreds of miles away from the closest Apollo landing site, over mountains, through the curvature of the moon, etc. Yet, you expect them to see it anyway?? If you are unable to see a tool shed in New York while standing in Chicago, does that mean that New York doesn't exist??
    1
  11407. David B: What makes you think that "technology" is the issue? I mean, outside of cherry-picked out-of-context quote-mining, nobody has ever claimed that "technology" is the issue. think it's perfectly clear that funding is the issue. Until 2019, congress has not allocated a single dollar for more manned missions to the moon (since Apollo). But, if you think "technology" is the issue, please name the EXACT technology that was lacking in 1969-1972? And, once you name that particular technology, please explain why none of the thousands of people who designed and built that technology in 1969-1972 ever noticed that the equipment they designed and built... couldn't do the job they designed and built it to do?
    1
  11408. They're called police bodycams. And, it wasn't let out until she was already dead 1.5 years (2.5 years after the arrest). Freedom of Information Act requests cannot be blocked once a case is closed for that long.
    1
  11409. She killed herself. They don't give warnings for aggravated misdemeanors. They always wear bodycams. Freedom of Information Act. But, nobody saw the video while she was alive.
    1
  11410. Well, that's correct. But, just FYI, she experienced nearly zero public "shame" from this incident. None of the big media covered it until long after she was dead.
    1
  11411. Well, this charge was just another to add to the pile. I don't know why she'd take her own life over this charge, as opposed to the million other arrests on her record, or her felony prison term. I think the suicide was completely unrelated.
    1
  11412. "lost her job" - Huh? Her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club.
    1
  11413. "embarrassed on national television" - Huh? Nothing was on television until after she was dead for 1.5 years.
    1
  11414. "give warning" - Again, for an aggravated misdemeanor? And, what about her outstanding warrants for her other million arrests? You think they should just let her go?
    1
  11415. "the arrest should not have happened" - Why not? She put on a show in front of children at a public beach. An aggravated misdemeanor.
    1
  11416. "whos going to see this" - Hilarious!! I'll eat my hat if she wasn't making "public beach" content with the INTENT that people see it.
    1
  11417. "friends, family" - Oh, the family she abandoned more than a decade ago in favor of living a life of drugs and crime? The family she had no contact with? And, what friends? After she died, nobody was even looking for her. It wasn't until the landlord went in to look for overdue rent that her body was found.
    1
  11418. "she was in real-estate" - Yeah, more than a decade ago. But, then she turned to a life of drugs and crime. Kinda hard to be a real estate agent with a mile long arrest record and a felony prison term.
    1
  11419. "this could of definitely been handled differently" - Of it? What of could of done of differently of? Of how of you of handled of it instead of of?
    1
  11420. How of about you of stop of blaming of victims, and start of blaming of the actual of criminals and hold of them accountable of for their own actions of of?
    1
  11421. "they could of written a ticket" - Of they? Of ticket?
    1
  11422. Huh? What exactly do you believe the cops did wrong?
    1
  11423.  @freeairbreather2657  Good gods, what a bunch of silly nonsense you're spewing. And, you ask the guy if HE is a licensed attorney?? Why?? Are YOU??? (I know you are not.) So, you can spew your stupidity everywhere, but, if someone else corrects you, you get to reject it by just asking if he's an attorney? That's how this goes, in your mind? Nobody can challenge your stream of dumb comments unless they're attorneys, but you can spew your stream of dumb comments without being an attorney yourself?? Wow. Watch out, dummy, you're one step away from becoming a sovereign citizen. Better have Safelite's phone number handy. I suspect lots of broken car windows in your future.
    1
  11424.  Steven Sullivan  YOU SAID: "The cop used excessive force" == Wrong. The amount of force was appropriate to deal with the fact that she was resisting. YOU SAID: "over a mask" == Wrong. The mask was the indirect cause, not the direct cause. The direct cause was that she refused to comply with the rules of the facility, and refused to leave. The officer has the duty to forcibly remove her. YOU SAID: "the officer needs to be fired point said ." == Wrong. The officer would be fired for NOT doing his duty. You are completely backward. YOU SAID: "the officer used excessive force over a mask" == Wrong. Stating this same thing twice doesn't make you magically correct somehow. You're still wrong the 2nd time you say it. YOU SAID: "she had a medical condition that prevents her from wearing one point said ." == Fine, then she doesn't get to go to the game. If you're a pregnant woman, you don't get to ride a roller coaster either. If the amusement park denies you access to the roller coaster because you have the medical condition of being pregnant, you don't get to demand to ride the roller coaster anyway. I mean, why is this so difficult for you to understand? I mean, does this REALLY not sink into your brain? Really? Forget about COVID for a minute here, and think about ANY contagious disease that can be spread through the exhale of breath or sneezing. Do YOU want to be seated by someone with a hypothetical airborne form of AIDS or something like that? "Oh, sorry, I can't wear a mask because of my medical condition, so, everyone around me is at risk, too bad, your problem, not mine." The answer is quite simple, don't go to the game. Once again, you clowns are simply unable to understand the entire function of the masks. The masks aren't to make you wear one for your own sake. The masks are to prevent you from spreading diseases that you may or may not even know you have. The masks are to protect OTHERS from YOU. And, yes, of course, they also protect you. But, hey, if you want to be an idiot, that's your prerogative. But, your freedom to be an idiot ends when you are negatively affecting others. I truly don't understand why you find this so difficult to grasp. And, c'mon, get real here, if you REALLY think that she had a medical condition that stops here from putting a mask over her mouth, then I'm afraid your delusion has impaired your ability to think straight. Stop spewing stupidity everywhere in support of your ridiculous delusion. Good grief.
    1
  11425.  Steven Sullivan  You're telling me to read the comments? You obviously didn't read my comment before replying. Good grief, what a hypocrite.
    1
  11426.  @freeairbreather2657  YOU SAID: "By the way, your veiled threats of violence reveal your criminal intentions." == Dummy, that is your delusion talking. I have never made any threats of violence, veiled or unveiled. I haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about... and neither do you.
    1
  11427.  @freeairbreather2657  2nd reply about this: I was truly boggled by why you would think I was threatening you. I mean, I know you're insane, and I know you're not the brightest bulb, but, for you to perceive violence... even you couldn't be that dumb. So, I went back and read what maybe you're talking about. Were you referring to when I said that you were one step away from becoming a sovereign citizen, and that there are lots of broken car windows in your future? Is that what you think was "threatening"?? Broken car window glass?? Well, ok, I guess maybe I took too many assumptions about you knowing what a sovereign citizen was, and why they get their windows smashed so often by cops. So, I'll explain that to you. Sovereign citizens spew the same kind of nonsense that you've been spewing, only a bit more extreme than you. As I said, you're only one step shy of being like them. They don't understand the law, yet pretend to be experts (just like you). They don't understand the role of the fed vs. state vs. local (but they pretend to know, just like you). And, they crusade for stupid stuff (just like you). As a result, these sovereign citizens often find themselves on the side of the road during a routine traffic stop, refusing to provide identification, and eventually, smashy smashy, their windows are broken out by the cops to forcibly remove them from the cars. Go watch a few of those videos. They're utterly hilarious, and well, you're on that road yourself. See what your future is by watching a few sovereign citizen videos. Not a good idea to keep heading down that road....
    1
  11428. Well, at that particular moment, it was because he refused to identify, and when he finally gave his passport, he coupled it with saying "that is not me." The officer assumed he meant that the passport wasn't legit, and therefore was still refusing to identify.
    1
  11429. Fine. You don't have to believe the US government. But, there's a mountain of evidence outside of the US government that clearly demonstrates that Apollo went to the moon 9 times and landed 6 of those times. And, literally every single "objection" ever offered by the deniers falls flat on its face with the slightest bit of scientific scrutiny.
    1
  11430. No. No news even covered this until 1.5 years after she was dead. Nothing went viral until the arrest video was released. The only coverage this story got while she was alive was a couple of obscure blog posts.
    1
  11431.  @stusue9733  If they really have two million orders for Cybertruck, they'll probably finally make money, given that they changed the base price from about $39,000 to about $80,000. Of course, the thing is absolutely hideous. But, cultists will love it because they're told to love it.
    1
  11432.  @theeraphatsunthornwit6266  If they had the technology to send an unmanned craft the size of Apollo's craft to the moon, why not just put people inside? You're acknowledging that the Saturn V and its command module, service module, and lander were sent to the moon, but, you don't think they put people inside?
    1
  11433.  @theeraphatsunthornwit6266  Do the math, dewdrop. Calculate the weight of all of those things, and determine whether the Saturn V rocket produced enough energy to carry it to the moon.
    1
  11434. What would you have done if you were the police?
    1
  11435.  @BoberFett  So, two wrongs make a right?
    1
  11436. Well, then let me explain what really happened here. This story is so heavily edited and modified from the truth that it's ridiculous. Let's first start with the timeline: July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. These channels wanted to get two viral rounds for the price of one. So, they released the story in November and December, but, didn't mention that she was already long dead. Then, they waited a few weeks and re-released the story with the "update" that she died, letting people believe that the first round caused the suicide. And, of course, the story itself is massively inaccurate. She was a convicted felon who spent time in prison, and had an arrest record a mile long. And, one of the audience recorded the beach incident and gave a copy to the police. It doesn't match her version about nobody being around.
    1
  11437. I understand why people think it's wasteful. But, frankly, I don't think you know what Apollo was for, or what it accomplished.
    1
  11438. She abandoned her family, including a 6 month old son (and another son) about a decade ago to live a life of crime and drugs. She spent a felony term in prison about 6 years ago. She's had a million arrests before and after that term. Stealing cars. Other thefts. Drugs and alcohol. Failure to appear. You name it. Her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club. Her neighbors said she did "extras" for cash in her apartment with bunches of men. What a professional and respectable woman!!!
    1
  11439. I think they're saying the sister didn't WANT to keep her more than one night. I mean, c'mon, she's a multiple-conviction thief and drug addict. Do the math. Her family probably cannot stand her bullshit any longer.
    1
  11440. "Researching the hoax claims" = watching a bunch of nonsense spewed by people who know nothing about Apollo, but pretend they do? Or, "researching the hoax claims" = learning about the evidence that clearly shows those claims as false?
    1
  11441. "sounds like you really haven’t checked it out" Checked WHAT out? Silly videos made by people who know absolutely nothing about Apollo?
    1
  11442. "the biggest question to me is why NASA nor any other space agency hasn’t figured out a way to get out of low Earth orbit with a human" Because they retired the Saturn V rocket, the only man-rated rocket large enough to lift a large manned craft that high. Because there has never been another manned program funded by congress to do what you're asking (until Artemis' funding began in 2019). Because no other space agency has even tried, except the Soviets, because it's far too expensive for every other space agency on Earth.
    1
  11443. "If Artemis II ever launches and does the moon orbit with 4 humans, I’ll reconsider" Why is this relevant? Why should the veracity of Apollo depend on what happens 50+ years later? Do you say the same of Magellan? It was 50+ years before anybody sailed around the world again. Does that mean Magellan didn't do it?
    1
  11444. "it doesn’t stand to reason that we would have 8 successful moon orbits" It was the other one that exploded half way to the moon (Apollo 13) that increased congress' desire to cut the program, you know. There were 9 manned missions to the moon, only 8 of them ever completely orbited (as you point out). Once they beat the Soviets to the moon, they really wanted to end the program right then and there, especially after the incident with Apollo 13. But, yeah, they were already cutting back before then, and that was the final straw that clipped the last few missions.
    1
  11445. "can the technology and settle for that useless space shuttle" Again, why is this relevant? The Apollo missions happened regardless of the fact that congress ended the missions earlier than planned. Why should the veracity of Apollo depend on the space shuttle, or Artemis, or anything else? Why (in your mind) doesn't the evidence for Apollo stand on its own?
    1
  11446. "NASA is still grinding on the radiation problem of the Van Allen belts" No, they're not. Who told you that? Let me guess, some deniers made a video that showed you a couple of clips from a decade old video made for children about Orion, right? They flew Orion in the belts TWICE now before putting people inside (just like they flew Apollo's capsule twice in the belts before putting people inside). See, the thing about you deniers is that you'll always find a way. Had they NOT tested Orion in the belts before putting people inside, you'd be yelling, "Hey, it's a brand new craft with new mission parameters, and new electronics, are you telling me that they don't want to test it in the Van Allen belts before putting people inside? FAKE!!!" But, they say the opposite, that they ARE testing the craft before putting people inside, and you people say, "Hey, they supposedly already went through the belts on Apollo, why do they want to test a new craft? FAKE!!!" Either way, you people look for an excuse to cry FAKE every chance you get, while knowing absolutely NOTHING about the topic.
    1
  11447. "Plus that lunar module is laughable." Really? What exactly would you have done differently? Please share your aerospace engineering expertise.
    1
  11448. ""Im checking out both sides, like you should." Again, what "side" do you think I know nothing about? Are you under the impression that I've never seen the silly videos you've been watching?
    1
  11449. "The beauty is neither side seems to know very much because of tight government controls on information." Well, thanks for making it perfectly clear "which side" you got THAT nonsense from. Have you tried the archives? What "information" do you think they're controlling?
    1
  11450. So, that's it then? You ignore every comment and question, refusing to address a single thing, and now you want me to answer more stuff from you?
    1
  11451. So, not only do you refuse to respond to the answers to your own questions, or any return questions, but, you're making it perfectly clear that you don't even read them. Dewdrop, why are you even posting any messages at all if you are simply going to refuse to read any replies?
    1
  11452.  @chemuuchemuu9358  YOU SAID: "Just so you know, there are laws against insulting people on the internet." == Pfftttt. Hilarious!! Just when I thought you couldn't get any dumber.... YOU SAID: "And there are laws that encourage freedom of speech and opinion." == You're so fucking stupid, you don't even realize that you just contradicted yourself Hey, stupid fuck, just stop digging. You can't get out of the hole by digging yourself in deeper.
    1
  11453. Telescopes are limited by the Rayleigh criterion / Dawes' limit. The short version is that photons interfere with each other in transit, and it's not possible to resolve something the size of a lunar lander from this distance. The only way around this issue is to build a larger lens. There's a well understood formula for calculating the lens size required. In order to see the lunar landers on the moon with barely enough clarity to even make out the shape, it would take a lens about a quarter mile in diameter. To see them with more details, now you need a lens multiple miles in diameter. It's just the way optics and light work.
    1
  11454. Not the brightest bulb, eh?
    1
  11455. After it closes? No.
    1
  11456. But, social media didn't get involved until she was already dead for 1.5 years. She didn't suffer any media hounding, because she was long dead. And, "innocent"? Huh? How is she innocent? One of the "audience" even got it on video. And, with this woman's mile long arrest and felony prison record, I'd hardly call her "innocent" of anything.
    1
  11457. Why? Do you want to be lied to?
    1
  11458. I don't believe you graduated the 10th grade!
    1
  11459. He kidnapped two women and hijacked their car. He then fled to an office, and tried to take that over. Then, he fled to this bus, and tried to take that over too. The cops were chasing him for a while.
    1
  11460. Huh? How does this "blessing" work, exactly? He doesn't seem like he needs much blessing. And, she continued stealing from Walgreens immediately after this incident, abandoned her two kids, and died of meth. How is that a "blessing" exactly?
    1
  11461. YOU SAID: "The biggest lie in the mankind history !" == Wrong. YOU SAID: "We are now in 2020 and from 1969 till now no one was launched to the moon ..." == Apollo 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 all launched after 1969. YOU SAID: "why ?" == Because congress ended the Apollo program. YOU SAID: "Cause in that time the tehnology was not so good .. maybe now could be possible !" == Oh, you didn't say you were an aerospace engineer. Please name the specific technology that is available now that would allow people to go to the moon that didn't exist in 1969, and name the exact technology that was lacking in 1969? And, please explain why none of the 450,000 people who worked on Apollo ever realized that the equipment/technology that they designed built to go to the moon, was actually inadequate to do the job they designed and built it for? What EXACTLY do you know that they didn't know about their own equipment they designed?
    1
  11462.  J Calhoun  Stop insulting pet rocks.
    1
  11463. Were you under the impression that your sentence was coherent?
    1
  11464. How do you? Seems they did the correct thing, and you're doing the wrong thing by accusing them of something.
    1
  11465. Learn the difference between an infraction and a crime. Sorry if YouTube University never taught you that while you were getting your degree.
    1
  11466. Spare the world your jokes at the expense of the deceased. Already, she's had her name publicized in death. And, you have to make it worse? You don't get tickets for crimes. You get tickets for infractions.
    1
  11467. But, dewdrop, she never suffered any such shame or disgrace. The cops kept her arrest video private for 2.5 years. But, eventually, you can no longer block FOIA requests if the case was closed. But, they still managed to prevent the release of her arrest video until 1.5 years after she died. Sorry, did Inside Edition not give you that detail? Just going to gobble up the garbage anyway?
    1
  11468. His attorney is a wannabe Al Sharpton. Go watch the videos where he gives a couple of speeches about how this was a wrongful death, and the cop should have just gotten out of the car to ask what was going on, rather than shooting at the guy who had a gun pointed at him.
    1
  11469. Um, no. When you are aware that two teens are robbing you, YOU CALL THE POLICE. When you have them on video recordings, YOU CALL THE POLICE. When the girl is wearing your stolen flight jacket to school, YOU CALL THE POLICE. When you are aware that the two teens are coming back to your house that day, YOU CALL THE POLICE. You don't get to plan two murders, then commit those murders, just because you were robbed. The man had plenty of evidence to get the teens convicted. At first, yes, before he knew who was doing it, he reported it to the police. But, after installing the cameras, he figured out who was robbing him, he stopped calling the police, and planned two murders instead. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
    1
  11470.  @kathyjackson4034  So, that's it? That's literally all you have to say? You advocate the murder of two teens because they were thieves?
    1
  11471.  @kathyjackson4034  Then have fun in your eventual prison sentence, you absolute monster. Nobody agrees with people who break into houses, you one-dimensional dullard. We're not talking about shooting surprise invaders (which I would absolutely do myself, to surprise invaders). But, these were not surprise invaders. I'd absolutely NEVER plan out two murders of teens that committed the crime of robbery. There's something very sick and twisted about people (i.e. you) who would prefer to gun people down than call the police. Apparently, you favor vigilante justice, and committing the crime of double-murder in response to the crime of theft. Sick. But, as a side note, what did you think about the fact that Smith didn't call the police for 24 hours? After he killed the girl, he said on his recording, "cute," and then kept the body for 24 hours, and her shirt was found open by the cops the next day. Do you advocate that also? All's fair once she's dead?
    1
  11472.  @kathyjackson4034  YOU SAID: "Breaking in to an elderly person's House 6 times I can not imagine his fear" == Oh, spare me. The man knew those two kids. The girl was the daughter in a family that he was feuding with for years. The boy used to work for him. And, if he had sooooo much fear (while armed with a bunch of guns), why did he even stay there that day? How does that make sense to you? He knew the kids were coming that day. Did he call the police to set up a trap? No. Did he call friends to set up a trap? No. Instead, he planned out two murders, and followed through. YOU SAID: "also he may have had PTSD from the war." == FINE!!!!! Then blame that if you must. But, you don't get to stand there and simultaneously blame "fear" and "PTSD" at the same time!!!! Those are two different concepts. Good grief, what IS wrong with your brain? The man planned two murders, and followed through on his plan. Any normal person would CALL THE POLICE. But, this man stopped doing that as soon as he knew who was committing these robberies. He reported the first couple of robberies to the police. But, after he installed cameras, and knew who was doing it, he stopped calling the police, and planned the murders instead. So, don't give me this ridiculous "fear" excuse. He knew darned well that reporting it to the police was the correct course of action, before he knew who was doing it. Then, the moment he found out who was doing it (an enemy family he hated), all of the sudden THEN the "fear" kicked in, in your mind? Then, all of the sudden, he doesn't go to the police again? Why? Because he "feared" a couple of teenagers that he knew for years? That makes sense to you? I mean what does the man have to do in order for you to be convinced he premediated these murders? What has to happen, in your mind, to convince you? You simply WILL NOT be convinced? That's how this goes for you? The man knew they were coming. He set up the house to murder them. He went outside, got tarps for their bodies, and then placed them where he planned on killing them. He parked his car a quarter mile away, so they wouldn't know he was there. He disabled the lights in the house, so they couldn't see him. He recorded himself rehearsing what he was going to say to neighbors and attorneys about the murders (BEFORE the murders). He said on his recording that he planned on shooting "in the left eye" (and then, hours later when the teens got there, he shot the girl twice in the left eye). Does this sound like a man who was terrified? Have you even listened to the recordings? YOU SAID: This old man that dedicated his life to this Country and thieves break in to HIS HOUSE, HIS HOUSE, His Home!!!!!!!!!! His Safe Haven Hell No. Those little mother crimes would have gotten Bigger and Violent." == Yes, so CALL THE POLICE, you evil maniac. Wow, you are truly one bloodthirsty and cruel maniac. You simply CANNOT bring yourself to blame the murderer for committing the murders. YOU SAID: "You Don't Break into someone's home you should be mad at His Mother not me My Grown Son won't tell alittle white lie. Don't smoke, drink, and goes to church 4 times a week. He is GOOD because I rasied him Right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" == I doubt you raised anybody right, if your church-going child is being trained to gun down teenagers who steal. Is that what your church teaches you? No "turn the other cheek" in your house. If someone steals, you kill them, right? Which church teaches that? YOU SAID: "don't get me wrong, I would have maybe shot in the foot and called police right away." == Then you have zero firearms training. You're just as ignorant about firearms as you're ignorant about this case. YOU SAID: "When you have gone through something you don't know the level of fear that Man was in." == Dummy, if the man was sooooooo fearful, why did he even stay home when he knew they were coming to his house? YOU SAID: "Do you think he wanted to retire in a prison cell????" == Oh, so that's how this goes? You won't answer my questions, but you want me to answer yours? You ignore things I ask of you, but, you want to ask me things? I asked what you thought of the man not calling the police for 24 hours after the murders, and the girl's open shirt. You won't answer. Are you even reading? Can you demonstrate you're even reading the responses by acknowledging the word "green" in your replies? Can you start your next posted message with the word "green" so that I even know you're reading anything? Or, is your mind sooooo crippled that you refuse all input, and you won't read any words that go against your predetermined conclusions? YOU SAID: "That's Awful 😩😩😩😩😩 if you are a family member or friend I am very sorry for your Loss it was a very bad situation all the way around!" == Dummy, guilty teen criminals were murdered by a guilty adult bloodthirsty maniac who hated their family. ALL parties here were guilty. And, you can be bloodthirsty all you want with them. Enjoy your eventual prison term, you cruel maniac. Because, nobody agrees with your cruel thoughts. Thankfully for civilized society, everyone involved with this case disagrees with you. The police investigators disagree. The law itself disagrees (this man went about a million miles past the line between self defense and murder). The district attorneys disagree with you. The judges who handled this case disagree with you. The 12 jurors disagree with you. The appellate court disagrees with you. The state supreme court disagrees with you. And, the supreme court of the USA disagrees with you. This case has been reviewed by the jurors, as well as at least 20 judges, and this man has been convicted of premeditated murder, BECAUSE HE COMMITTED PREMEDITATED MURDER. Sorry, dummy, you don't get to just gun people down for stealing. You CALL THE POLICE.
    1
  11473.  @kathyjackson4034  I asked you to start your next reply with a code word to prove you were even reading the responses. You didn't do that. You are obviously not reading anything. People truly don't get any dumber than you are.
    1
  11474.  @kathyjackson4034  So? You decided to waste my time by saying (essentially): "I'm not reading what you wrote, but you're wrong about what you wrote"? Is there anything dumber than that?
    1
  11475. Yes, she killed herself more than 2 years ago.
    1
  11476. They'd say you should go get an education and learn how to read and write.
    1
  11477. And, you're actually proud of this silly attitude? Well, all I can say is that I hope you put this on every job application you ever fill out.
    1
  11478. Asking me to prove it to you is like asking for proof of WWII. There's so much evidence that you could write entire novels on it, not exactly stuff that can fit into a YouTube comment. So, first, give me an idea about what kind of evidence you'd accept, and expect? As for the rest of your posted message, sorry, too much gibberish, not going to deal with it.
    1
  11479. Huh? I asked you to first tell me what kind of evidence you'd accept and expect, because there's too much evidence to even put into a comment. And, from that, you're now saying that my response is proof that Apollo didn't happen? Huh?
    1
  11480. I asked you to name the type of evidence you would expect and accept, yet, in message after message, you refuse to name it. Instead, all you do is ramble about other things. I was perfectly willing to give you the evidence you pretended to ask for. But, since you won't tell me what kind of evidence you're seeking, and all you do is change topics, then this just demonstrates that you don't really want the evidence you asked for.
    1
  11481. Oh, so it's a physics problem, eh? Then please explain a couple of things: 1) Why do the polls show that physicists are the least likely demographic to believe the moon landings were fake? 2) What are you doing on YouTube, instead of publishing this physics of yours in physics journals? Science isn't done by barely literate YouTube commenters by posting emojis about it. Science is done in the journals. Why aren't you publishing?
    1
  11482. Well, they covered about 20 miles total across the 3 EVAs. But, to answer your question more directly, the greatest distance from the lunar module on Apollo 17 was around 4-5 miles. You can get a better understanding by looking at the Apollo 17 rover traverse map.
    1
  11483. There is no "dark side." All sides get equal daytime and equal nighttime. In addition to communications difficulties with the FAR side, there's also the issue of radar tracking. We can't track the craft on the far side.
    1
  11484. And, in a different interview, the father said his son was asking who was in the car, and went to find out. Do you suppose that the attorney got to the father in between the two interviews and told him that it's a bad idea to admit that the son knew someone was in the car?
    1
  11485.  @Its_Mechele  It can happen that way, but doesn't need to. Spare the world this blame you're placing on cops and the store. The courts have spoken. The woman was to blame for her own arrest. If she had cooperated, perhaps it could have gone something closer to the way you're describing.
    1
  11486. Except that's just plain wrong. She was last known to be alive 3/19/22, and she was found on 3/31/22. This "struggle" happened a month prior. And, yes, sometimes people live through gunshot wounds to the head. She was one of them, and managed to stumble around until she finally bled out.
    1
  11487. Oh? What was the correct course of action instead?
    1
  11488. So, multiple people called the police. One of the audience even recorded it, and showed it to the police. Needless to say, it doesn't match her version of "nobody was around" (the claim she was trying to make when she was attempting to avoid her millionth arrest, and she didn't want to get sent back to prison again). To the contrary, the video showed a loud and public act in front of multiple people including children. And, your position is, "never mind, we're not going to do anything"?
    1
  11489. Good grief. So, if someone steals money to buy hats and gloves, you don't like it? But, if people steal hats and gloves, you don't mind? Tell me, do you actually believe hats and gloves were the only things she stuffed into that bulky coat? Why'd she go right back to stealing from Walgreens after this incident, if she already got that hat and those gloves?
    1
  11490. Hilarous!!! Who exactly is "the television" that has this agenda?
    1
  11491.  @exiledintheus7251  No, dummy. I'm not the one thinking "the television" is a conspiracy to stop women from being with men. Good grief. You have lost your marbles. I never said a darned thing about "accepting media as truth when I know they get paid to advertise." And, why would you even mention some sort of "oath to the truth"? Do you think that any media company would honor such an oath? The United States has lost "it's" (your spelling) honor, and then something about burning a flag... as if that has anything to do with something about keeping women from men? You think these stories about women getting murdered are "effecting" (your spelling) the birthrate? Oh, never mind, I guess I'll just go invest in tinfoil companies. With people like you making all of those hats lately, I'm bound to get rich.
    1
  11492. Staying under water for that long is not the same thing. First of all, Apollo used pure oxygen. They could do this because they never pressurized more than about 4 PSI. But, under water, if you breathe pure oxygen, you'll get oxygen toxicity due to the pressure. For example, at 90 feet depth under water, it's about 60 PSI. At that pressure, you're going to get oxygen toxicity in a hurry. Very trained scuba divers can use 100% oxygen when decompressing, but it's dangerous, and you cannot do it for 7.5 hours. You can only do it for a short time to help flush the nitrogen out. Trained divers who stay down for a long time will usually use a tri-gas mix (that includes oxygen, nitrogen, and helium). This will allow deeper depths and longer bottom times. But, it also requires longer decompression and off-gassing time. The longer you stay down, the more your cells get saturated with nitrogen, and the longer time it takes to flush that out (otherwise you get the bends). I don't know if you were asking for that level of detail. Maybe it was just a quick "I wish" comment. But, for those who might want to know, it's not very simple to be able to dive for long periods. Casual diving is usually around an hour per dive.
    1
  11493. Wow, how convincing!
    1
  11494. Huh? You believe any of this was on YouTube before she died?
    1
  11495. "no one passes alive through the Van Hallen belt." If you cannot even spell it, sorry, but I have no faith in your understanding of it. James Van Allen, the guy whose name is on those belts, said you're wrong. What do you believe you know about the topic that he didn't? "In addition, they say they lost their original recordings" No. One mission's backup tapes were lost. The primary copies have never been lost. This is what happens when you listen to conspiracy videos (which always lie to you), rather than the original articles themselves. "and destroyed Apollo's technology" At last, something you said is correct. But, you seem to say this like it's untrue, or a bad thing? What would you have done? It's 1975. Congress has pulled the funding on the Apollo program. They want to rip everything down and replace it with stuff for the space shuttle. What are you going to do? How are you going to stop them? How will you accomplish your goal of keeping all of the Apollo stuff still online, and avoid destroying it? "with an 11kb computer or something" Please explain exactly how much memory you believe was required, and why MIT, Draper Labs, and Raytheon, never realized that it wasn't enough to do the job they designed it for? Can you? "Stanley Kubrick confessed that he filmed the moon's go before he died." No, dewdrop. You have fallen for a film made to mock YOU. It's called "Shooting Stanley Kubrick" (2015), made by Hollywood director, T. Patrick Murray. It's got an IMDB credit, and actor Tom Mayk plays Kubrick. He even has versions on his channel that include (behind the scenes) where you hear him calling the actor "Tom," and tells him what to say. I'm sorry that you fell for it, but, I guess that was the purpose of it in the first place. It's sort of a social experiment to determine how many gullible people there are that would just blindly believe something so ridiculous. The actor doesn't even look like Kubrick. But, they made that spoof video for people like you, and you bought right into it. "Radiation belt my friend. No one passes alive there." The Soviets sent two dogs into the very worst parts of the Van Allen belts. They lived for 3 weeks. Can you explain that? Van Allen himself calculated that it would take at least a week of exposure to the worst parts (and was confirmed by the Soviet dogs) before getting a fatal dose. And, Apollo went through the intense part in 15 minutes. Again, if you can't even spell it correctly, I seriously doubt you know anything about it. "this not going through the Van Hallen belt." You have now misspelled it at least 3x in this thread and in your other thread. So, it's not a typo. You actually don't even know how to spell it. "NASA admitted that it is testing a ship to pass it." Dewdrop, of course they want to test craft. Why wouldn't they want to test new craft? And, by the way, they sent that craft through the Van Allen belts back in 2014, and again in 2022. Let me guess, you watched a Kelly Smith video (as fed to you by a conspiracy video) from before any of those tests, and you didn't realize it was a video that's nearly 10 years old. Am I correct? "Do your own research." Sorry, dewdrop. Watching conspiracy videos isn't "research."
    1
  11496. "And Kelly Smith?" Yes, he's the person you're quoting out of context from a video he made almost 10 years ago. "Attack the person and not their arguments." Please tell me this is a joke. I tore apart every single word you wrote, demonstrating that you don't know what you're talking about. I also asked numerous questions (that you refused to answer). Now, you have the audacity to sit there and say I'm "attacking" you, and not your arguments? This cannot even be real at this point.
    1
  11497. I will add, for landing, they put a radar array on the bottom of the lander, aimed downward.
    1
  11498. Spelling and grammar at its finest. The word "its" exists for a reason. Use it.
    1
  11499. What outcome? The fact that she died after this incident?
    1
  11500. You haven't looked into a mirror in a long time, eh?
    1
  11501. No, it wasn't. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released.
    1
  11502. Huh? Why? What do they have to do with her suicide?
    1
  11503. As for the solar flare comment, um, no. They're not worried about the light from the solar flare. They're worried about the coronal mass ejection. That takes about a day to reach Earth/Moon.
    1
  11504.  @stusue9733  " I doubt are pushing that far" No. They did EXACTLY what he asked for on Apollo 16 with the Carruthers camera.
    1
  11505.  @stusue9733  No. He complained that they should have taken UV photos with long duration exposures. Yes, they did exactly that. Neither you, nor he, were aware of this.
    1
  11506.  @stusue9733  I'm not the one who keeps pretending to know things I don't know. That's YOU.
    1
  11507.  @stusue9733  Is your "scroll up" broken?
    1
  11508.  @stusue9733  The original poster's sentence you were arguing about was exactly correct (while you said "too much CSI" - if I correct your typo anyway). You said you doubted they pushed that far. The fact is, the Apollo 16 crew DID do exactly what the original poster asked for, which YOU said was too much CSI, and doubted they pushed that far. You were pretending to know things you didn't know. We all make mistakes, I make a million of them every day. But, you constantly overestimate your knowledge about Apollo. I leave most of it alone, but, now and then, I correct your mistakes.
    1
  11509.  @stusue9733  Again, I'm not the one pretending here. YOU are. You do it constantly. You know very little about Apollo, but constantly pretend otherwise.
    1
  11510.  @stusue9733  I'm not playing this game with you. I also don't care one bit if you call me "full of myself." Again, I'm not the one pretending to know things. I don't know, nor care, what "issue" you think I didn't address. The only issue in this thread is that the original poster said he wanted them to use a UV camera and take long exposure photos. And, they did exactly that. But, as usual for you, you don't know much about Apollo, and responded with gibberish.
    1
  11511.  @stusue9733  Yup, spare the world, seriously.
    1
  11512.  @stusue9733  YOU don't know anything about the topic, yet, you somehow try to pretend *I* am the problem?
    1
  11513.  @stusue9733  The denier refused to Google his own phrase that would have shown him that what he's asking for (and claiming never happened) already happened. You did the exact same thing as he did, not even lifting a finger to find out what happened (because you clearly don't know yourself). And, since then, you have refused to admit being wrong. You're just the same as they are.
    1
  11514.  @stusue9733  The amount of projection you're emitting is amazing.
    1
  11515.  @stusue9733  Good grief, are you drunk?
    1
  11516.  @stusue9733  Again, I'm not the one pretending to know things here. That's YOU. And, then you couldn't even bring yourself to admit it. Instead, you tried to brush it under the rug as "interpretation" instead of just plain admitting that you had no clue that the Carruthers camera existed. Quit pretending.
    1
  11517.  @aaad3552  As I said in the other thread, you should just try to write in your native language, and maybe I can translate. I appreciate that you try to write in English. But, nothing you write actually means anything.
    1
  11518. So, that's how your god works, huh? Your god is responsible for putting them behind bars. Thank your god for that. And, you want your god to have mercy on them. But, somehow, your god didn't do anything from stopping the murders from happening in the first place? Is that how your god operates? Your god is going to give mercy to the murderers, but the victims buried alive, naw, they didn't get any mercy. Sounds like a real winner, this god of yours. Which one is it, by the way? You didn't mention which of the thousands of gods you're talking about.
    1
  11519.  @saragriffith6045  THAT is your reply? Good grief.
    1
  11520.  @postersandstuff  I don't have the slightest understanding of what you're saying... and neither do you.
    1
  11521. Or, how about being Tom Stafford, who commanded Apollo 10, had a lander, was in the lander, and flew the landing approach down to the moon, but the mission was to abort the landing intentionally to test the systems for Apollo 11 to make the actual landing?
    1
  11522. So, one location didn't have a lot of information about the lunar lander, therefore they never landed? Huh? What kind of "logic" is that? Good grief. "I'm only skeptical that man actually landed on the moon" Sorry, that's not skepticism. Truly skeptical people use a method of analysis to come to conclusions. Your method = "one place I visited didn't have the info I wanted, therefore the info I wanted doesn't exist, and the program was a fraud." No, that's not skepticism. "60 years later" Math isn't your thing either, eh? "we still cannot vertically land reusable rockets consistently" So what? Why does anybody want to do that? Other than SpaceX pretending that it's a good idea that wasting fuel that could have been used for increased payload and saving it for a vertical landing instead, who has even tried? Most sane rocket companies just use the fuel to lift bigger payloads, then splash the rockets down into the ocean under parachutes. McDonnell Douglas experimented with vertical landings, and realized that it just wasn't worth it. What does that have to do with Apollo? And, Apollo's landers weren't reusable, so your analogy fails anyway.
    1
  11523. Hilarious!!! Um, you know there are hundreds of papers on how this stuff works in the geology and physics journals, right? Were you under the impression that a YouTube comment was a science journal? Why aren't you publishing your massive expertise for the world to see in the actual science journals dedicated to that stuff? Why would you think a YouTube comment is the appropriate place to publish? YouTube comments is where crackpots and clowns go to post their anti-science gibberish, you're not one of those, are you?
    1
  11524.  J Calhoun  Apollo placed three reflectors on the moon. The Soviets placed two (unmanned landers). But, one of the Soviet ones was lost for decades, because it was on a rover that drove around, and wasn't returning a good bounce-back. They suspected it either turned over, or was covered with too much dust. But, they re-acquired it a few years ago with better lasers, and has the location pinpointed. The bounce-back isn't great, but good enough.
    1
  11525. Marco Ribeiro: YOU SAID: "I think you replied to the wrong person rocketman." == Really? The very first words in both of my posted messages... clearly indicating EXACTLY who I was replying to... that's too much for you to understand? Hilarious.
    1
  11526. Paulanderson79: You clearly know as little about the law as you know about Apollo (which is nothing). No, NASA cannot sue for libel. Good gods.
    1
  11527. Huh? Other than the Smoking Gun article, none of this stuff was public until 1.5 years after she died. The arrest video wasn't made public until November of 2023 (probably from a FOIA request). Her suicide was in March of 2022.
    1
  11528. What exactly do you think the police did wrong? And, it's doubtful that she wanted to take the 5th anyway, nor that it would have mattered. One of the "audience" recorded the incident and showed it to the police. Needless to say, it didn't match her version about a quiet act with nobody around. And, with her arrest history (and the fact that she served time in prison), I would think she knew not to talk to the police. But, she probably figured that she might whine her way out of an arrest before they ran her name and found out about her open warrants. If she remained silent, there would be no way to avoid them looking her up.
    1
  11529. YOU SAID: "I believe we landed on the moon in my heart. SO much "evidence" however have a few questions. I always encourage an open mind and healthy skepticism." == I don't believe you know what "skepticism" really means. Skepticism isn't just doubting/rejecting things. Skepticism is a method of analyzing the facts. YOU SAID: "Why are there no stars ever pictured in ANY of the videos or pictures?" == Well, then you obviously haven't looked for them. See, this isn't being "skeptical" at all. I mean, a simple Google search for "photos of the stars on Apollo" will yield lots of hits. On Apollo 16, they brought the Carruthers UV telescopic camera, for example, for the SOLE purpose of photographing stars, and did so. For more, you can Google Apollo 15 or Apollo 17 stellar photography, and you'll find some photos there. And, they did so on Apollo 11 (but, I can't seem to find those photos any longer, for whatever reason, and I foolishly didn't download the copies... they're out there somewhere... but, they turned out like garbage, so, you don't really learn anything from them anyway). They may have done it on other missions too, I'd have to look it up. But, anyway, don't sit there and call yourself "skeptical" while you haven't even lifted a finger to Google that which you are blindly denying exist. == As for video, it's the same basic concept as regular short-exposure photography. You can't capture dim stars simultaneously in frame with bright objects, because the exposure time is simply too short. We have the same problem on Earth, you know. You can't see stars at night in big cities because there's too much surrounding light. And, you can't take video or short-exposure photography of stars because the cameras aren't set up for that, they're set up for properly exposing the bright lunar surface. YOU SAID: "Technology was not that primitive was it?" == Well, maybe if you took the time to actually look up what the technology even was, this might be worth an answer. But, you could have Googled "photographic equipment on Apollo" and found out exactly what all of the photographic technology was. But, in your "skepticism" (not), you apparently didn't think to even look it up. YOU SAID: "Conspiracies do exist thats why we have Federal Laws against it." == Pffttt. Federal laws against conspiracies?? Um, no. That's absurd. YOU SAID: "Building Seven Larry Silverstien, The whole covid fraud. What is the one thing all politicians have in common? We have be careful understanding what Truth is. That which does not waiver. We all have the same rights. A right is an action that does NOT harm another, Physically, Economically and the most misunderstood Emotionally, such as threatening ones life. I will not violate your rights and I will defend mine as well as yours. All of our Rights are being violated at this moment." == Are you PROUD to be an idiot?
    1
  11530. Spare the world, seriously. That's ridiculous for a million reasons, and you know it.
    1
  11531. Well, it sounds like she suffered a lot in life. But, I don't understand how this arrest was any different to her than the mile long list of other stuff she did, arrests, judgments against her for various theft, failures to appear in court, alcohol and drug problems, prison term for stealing cars, and everything else. And, since the arrest video wasn't made public until she was dead for 1.5 years, she really didn't suffer from that either.
    1
  11532. No. Not EVERYONE in the public was so gullible (I never believed his crap, and neither did a lot of people). And, remember all of the journalists who Armstrong sued for hundreds of millions of dollars (and won) to shut them up? He did the same to anyone and everyone who had first hand evidence. He used mafia boss style tactics to perpetuate his crimes. How dare you suggest that the blame should be distributed?!? The man is a pig. The blame is on him.
    1
  11533. I don't know what you're talking about, and neither do you.
    1
  11534. But nobody saw the arrest video until she was already dead 1.5 years.
    1
  11535. Welcome to trash news.
    1
  11536. Thanks for making it clear, in advance, that you don't really want answers to your own questions.
    1
  11537. I'm not an expert on this, but, from what I've read, it actually costs more (endless legal fees, processes that last a decade or two, etc.) to perform a capital punishment than it costs to permanently keep someone in a cell until they die of natural causes. The only way to avoid this is to bypass the appeals and nearly endless court proceedings that are required to actually perform the capital punishment. However, now you're talking about violating rights, and not allowing enough time for maybe finding out later that someone didn't actually do it. Maybe there can be a new concept in this case, some sort of "fast-track" for those who are so obviously guilty that there's no way a future technology is ever going to prove him innocent. But, good luck in getting something like that to pass congress and the SCOTUS. My general thoughts are not much different than yours. This guy is never going to be of any use to anybody, so, why not just put an end to him in the same fashion that he put an end to others? But, I take a bit of solice in the notion that he'll suffer more by being alive, rather than ending his suffering by putting him to death.
    1
  11538. You're clearly the expert here, not me, so, can you please explain to me when they started giving warnings for aggravated misdemeanors?
    1
  11539. Embarrassed enough not to do it again? Huh? She was a convicted felon who served time in a Florida prison. Stealing cars. Other thefts. Drug and alcohol charges. Failures to appear. You name it. Yet, she had an arrest record a mile long for plenty of repeat offenses. Oh, but you thought she'd learn THIS TIME to quit committing crimes?
    1
  11540. Come on, do you really not understand bodycams?
    1
  11541. And, you think that the entire world's aerospace engineers, cosmologists, astrophysicists, and radiobiologists, all simultaneously "forgot" this aspect of the Van Allen belts? But, YOU know about it? YOU? What in the world do you know about it? You can't even spell it, dewdrop? How about actually knowing SOMETHING about a topic before spewing gibberish everywhere, huh?
    1
  11542. It's pretty doubtful that "shame" was even in her vocabulary. Even after she got out of prison close to a decade ago, she continued her drug and crime spree. And, according to her landlord, she was a stripper at the local club. And, according to her neighbors, she also did "private" sessions for cash in her apartment. I doubt "shame" was a term she even understood.
    1
  11543. Well, I won't weep for the teens. They were criminals. But, the thing you're not understanding is that Smith was a criminal also. He planned those murders in advance, and was convicted for it. And, if he was so upset about the stuff that was being stolen, why didn't he simply call the police after he installed the cameras and identified who was doing it? I mean, the girl was wearing his military flight jacket to school, right? He knew this. So, why not just call the police?
    1
  11544. "What makes you think he hadn't called the police before?" He did, for the first two break-ins, before he knew who was doing it. For the rest, once he knew who was doing it, he never called the police again until 24 hours after he killed them. "He was not a criminal." The rest of the world disagrees, including the cops, the prosecutors, the judges, the jury, the appellate court, the state supreme court, and the Supreme Court of the USA (who denied his appeal in 2019, because they didn't think his defense had merit). "A Vet who's sense of peace was turned upside down by these two." The word is "whose." And, yes, hence why he should call the police. "Do you have any ideal the mental distortion vets come back with?" The word is "idea." And, sorry, but PTSD wasn't his defense. He claimed self defense, not PTSD. "He set the trap for the intruders and he knew they would continue because they were no good." And, how does this go, in your mind? He just so happened to randomly guess that this day would be the one? He parked his car a quarter mile away. He unscrewed the light bulbs in the house so the light switches wouldn't work. He went outside and gathered up two tarps to use as body bags, and placed them exactly where he planned on killing them. He rehearsed on audio recordings about what he would say to the police and friends (about an hour before the teens even arrived). He also said he planned on shooting "in the left eye," then, an hour later, when the teen girl got there, he shot her a few times in the torso, apologized for not killing her fast enough, and then walked up to her at point-blank range, and shot her twice in the left eye, exactly as he said on the recording that he planned on doing. Then, he kept the bodies for 24 hours, said "cute" on the recording, and the next day, the girl was found with her shirt open and exposed (figure that one out yourself). He could have simply called the police and asked them to dispatch to hide in his basement with him, catching the teens red handed. But, nope. "We don't know what that ol man suffered at their hands because he was too proud to say." Huh? They repeatedly stole from him. It always happened when he wasn't home. He hated them. The girl was the daughter in a family he was feuding with for years. The boy used to work for him. We know exactly what he suffered... stolen stuff. "He rid of of future killers" They were teens with an addiction problem, now you're saying they were future killers?? Huh? "He defended his property and himself from continuous attacks." And, if he had gone to the police after the 3rd break-in (when he had the cameras), that would have ended the "attacks" also. "He is justified by all means" All I can say is that I'm glad the rest of the world disagrees with you, and I can wish you luck in your inevitable prison term.
    1
  11545.  @factsmatter1172  It's pretty clear that you don't want to actually address anything, and all you're going to do is ignore all input. So, as I said, good luck with your inevitable prison term. Sorry, you don't get to advance-plan murdering people, whether they stole from you, or not.
    1
  11546. If you're into irony, well, it's sort of ironic (sad ironic) that she might be alive today had the cop just arrested her. She might be in the relative "safety" of prison, rather than dying.
    1
  11547. Came should be cops investigating scenes of be.
    1
  11548. The cop with the gun pointed straight at his head by a carjacker wearing a balaclava ski mask in the middle of a Kentucky summer didn't have the opportunity to look up the guy's criminal record either.
    1
  11549. Let's hope the kid learns what you're asserting he should learn. But, odds are against it.
    1
  11550. Just checking here... you do know that the video wasn't posted anywhere until long after she died, right?
    1
  11551. Than your initial sentence in your initial posting is incorrect.
    1
  11552. How did you determine this? Because you saw a minute long video? Just a few tidbits to add to the stuff Inside Edition fails to mention.... About a decade ago, she abandoned her career in real estate and her family including a husband and two boys (one of whom was 6 months old) to live a life of drugs and crime. She spent some felony time in prison for stealing cars. She had multiple judgements against her for other thefts. She had an arrest record a mile long for various drug and alcohol charges. Her method of dealing with all of that seemed to be to just fail to appear in court, and the open charges and open arrest warrants just kept growing. She tried changing her name a few times to evade the police. After all of that, it must have been difficult to get a straight job. So, according to her landlord, she was a stripper at the local club. Interviews with other people who knew her said that she was also, ya know, one of those strippers who also does "private" services for cash. Witnesses of this beach incident said that it appeared that she willfully chose a spot in view of others. One of the audience caught it on video, and showed it to the police. The version they describe doesn't match this innocent soccer mom caught when nobody was around version. I mean, to each their own. You're welcome to say she was a keeper, in your mind. But, thanks, I'll pass.
    1
  11553. Watch a few more conspiracy videos. They'll give you additional fake questions to ask.
    1
  11554. You skipped the punchline. After the very next day, did your girlfriend change her mind or not?
    1
  11555. She lost the lawsuit so badly that the court threw it out the window and barred her from ever filing it again.
    1
  11556. There's some real irony when we live in a country where it's ok to occupy city blocks of Seattle for weeks at a time and the authorities do not send in squads to stop it, loot and vandalize businesses in cities under the protection of mayors who direct police not to arrest any of the looters/vandals... but... within an hour of a school board meeting, someone gets kicked out of a school board meeting for speaking about topics they don't like, then gets arrested for trespassing.
    1
  11557. "Would of" isn't a verb. And, sorry, but you don't know the difference between an infraction and a crime. And, you know even less about what happened in this case.
    1
  11558.  @therealzilch  Oh, and I'm always harping on grammar. I actually never knew that one. The irony.
    1
  11559. Yeah. Go up to someone in the middle of a loud public show and have a conversation. Sure.
    1
  11560. What difference does it make if he was paid or not? The more relevant thing is whether you can prove the "lies" or not? Can you? Side note: proving once again that all people with "awake" or "truth" in their nicknames are not actually interested in either thing.
    1
  11561. You can't answer. So, you run for the hills. Sure. You're 100% honest.
    1
  11562. Hopeless.
    1
  11563.  @therealzilch  C'mon, don't you play the "Plants vs. Zombies" video game? Quite clearly, on the home screen, they show the crescent moon, and you can see stars within the crescent. That should be proof enough for you.
    1
  11564. How many ridiculous postings are you going to make here? She DID sue. And, she lost (as I explained in one of your other threads). You claim you've been studying the law for years, but, repeatedly, you demonstrate no understanding of it whatsoever. And, her own attorney disagrees with you.
    1
  11565. Why would you say that? What would you recommend that they do?
    1
  11566. Another proud graduate of YouTube University School of Law, huh? This arrest = July 1, 2021. Suicide = March, 2022. Arrest video released = November 24, 2023. Freedom of Information Act. And, sorry, you don't get a warning for a crime, you're thinking of an infraction.
    1
  11567. YOU SAID: "This would be very enjoyable to watch if the evolution crap was left out!" == So, you love the science of Apollo, but hate the science of evolution? YOU SAID: "The first landing was interesting in that they thought the module might sink into millions of years of dust," == Um, no. That's ridiculous. They sent many unmanned probes to the moon to discover the surface conditions before they ever landed an Apollo mission there. I realize that crackpots will often try to refer to early Apollo planning phases, when, yes, they talked about such concerns. But, those concerns went away when they started sending the impactors into the lunar surface, and then, later, the soft-landers that had sensors and cameras and motorized armatures, which made it quite clear that there wasn't going to be a concern about sinking into deep dust. And, yes, the dust is millions of years old... billions even. But, that doesn't mean it needs to be deep. In order to understand all of that, you need to know a lot more about how the dust comes about, what causes it, etc. YOU SAID: "but it was relatively shallow! A couple of inches maybe!" == Yes, that's about right for Apollo 11. Some of the other sites had some deeper dust, but not significantly deeper. YOU SAID: "That says YOUNG moon!" == Pfftttt. WHY ARE YOU ON YOUTUBE!?!?!!? There have been THOUSANDS of geologists who have analyzed the lunar dust, world wide. There are THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of scientific papers produced about everything they've found in that dust. Hell, in 2019, they even just then cracked open a fresh sample from Apollo 17 that they literally had never opened, and there are hundreds more geologists and students analyzing that core sample right now. And, still to this day, around 15% of the lunar samples remain untouched, saving them for future technologies to analyze. In the meantime, the other 85% of lunar samples are analyzed every day, for 40 hours per week, by tons of geologists around the world. A lot of this analysis is just oriented toward university classes, sure, and aren't discovering anything new about samples that have been studied thousands of times over 50 years. But, yes, it's being analyzed 5 days per week, by people from around the world. And, never, not a single time, not ever, has anybody ever written a single scientific paper about those lunar rocks/dust, indicating that it's "young." All testing and analysis indicates that it's billions of years old. If you think otherwise, sorry, but YouTube comments isn't where to go to reveal your amazing science-defying revelations to the world. YouTube comments is where crackpots and idiots go when they want to make outlandish claims that could never stand the scientific method of peer review in real science journals. You're not one of those, right? You have some actual expertise in lunar rock/dust study, right? And, you have a valid reason that none of the thousands of worldwide geologists who study those rocks/dust have ever noticed this simplistic notion that "shallow dust = young moon," right? Why aren't you publishing? Why are you revealing your amazing super-knowledge about lunar sciences on YouTube comments, with all of the crackpots and idiots? Why aren't you elevating yourself, and writing an actual scientific paper?
    1
  11568. Well, you're almost correct. The store employee "Anna" was the one who identified the woman to the cop. When he said "I didn't see" and stuff like that, he was trying to repeat Anna's words verbatim, and wasn't trying to imply that he took this upon himself. Anna was the one who identified the woman, not the cop. The cop was just pursuing the exact individual Anna told him to pursue. You're pretty correct about everything else you said, though.
    1
  11569. Well, your thoughts are extremely nice. But, I'm betting there was a heck of a lot more than a hat and gloves in that bulky coat. With her track record, and eventual demise, I'd say it's far more likely that she saw a way out of trouble by handing over "the essentials" that would make her look like she was only taking stuff to preserve her life. But, you know what they say about drug addicts? "How do you know if a drug addict is lying? His/her lips are moving."
    1
  11570. "labels like 'deniers'" You deny the moon landings. You're a denier.
    1
  11571. "film in an environment with temperature fluctuations ranging from -173 to +123 degrees Celsius" The only thing you did here was demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about. You have quoted the lunar surface temperature range for an entire lunar day. That's 708 hours (basically a month). Why in the world would you quote temperatures for time periods that the astronauts weren't even there? They weren't there for a cold lunar overnight. They weren't there for a hot lunar afternoon. All landings occurred early in the lunar morning. The longest missions stayed about 70 hours. That's basically the equivalent of 6:30am until about 9:00am. They never stayed long enough to experience the extreme temperatures you're complaining about.
    1
  11572. "ionizing radiation and cosmic rays present in such space environments, combined with the extreme temperatures, would have devastating effects on the film" So, Hasselblad and Kodak didn't know what they were doing, but YOU do? YOU? You just got done complaining about a temperature range that the astronauts never even experienced, because they weren't there for those extremes. Oh, but NOW, a sentence later, you think you know what you're talking about? Dewdrop, Kodak and Hasselblad dealt with radiation by encasing the film canisters in aluminum and silver, reflecting a vast majority of the radiation. They also developed specialized film to be used in space. And, sorry, but a vacuum is an excellent insulator from the surface temperatures.
    1
  11573. "the absence of an atmosphere that could mitigate these extreme conditions" You are BACKWARD!!! An atmosphere provides physical contact to transfer heat. An atmosphere wouldn't mitigate the extremes, it would aggravate them. Good grief. Why are you pretending you understand topics you clearly do not?
    1
  11574. "miserable and useless arguments" Yet, you can't refute them? That's it then? Bury your head in the sand and declare victory?
    1
  11575. "-173 to +123 degrees Celsius" Where'd you get those numbers? From NASA? So, you trust NASA about the maximum surface temperature (high noon and a bit after), and you trust NASA about the minimum temperature (overnight low), but, you don't trust NASA when they say that they landed early in the lunar morning, long before those super high temperatures, and after the super low temperatures? You pick and choose, huh? When the facts support your delusions (the moon gets really hot and really cold), you jump for joy. When the facts go against your delusions (i.e. the missions landed in the early morning to avoid those extremes), you try to wipe it away as a "miserable and useless argument"? Really?
    1
  11576. "Without it, we’d experience temperatures like those on the Moon, ranging from +123°C to -173°C." No, dewdrop. The reason the moon can reach those extremes is because daytime lasts 2 weeks, and nighttime last 2 weeks. That gives a lot of time to warm up, and a lot of time to cool off. You would not have those temperature ranges in a 24 hour day.
    1
  11577. "your lack of understanding is quite evident" Hilarious projection. What are you waiting for, dewdrop? Why are you not publishing in journals on physics and engineering? You've come to a YouTube comment to declare that Hasselblad and Kodak didn't know what they were doing. You quoted surface temperatures for times when the astronauts were NOT EVEN THERE. Yet, you say *I* don't know what I'm talking about? Dewdrop, again, let me hammer this home: YOU are the one who quoted surface temperatures from the lunar overnight and the lunar afternoon, times which the astronauts WERE NEVER THERE. Sorry, but there's no return from that botched understanding. You have no high ground to stand upon after that.
    1
  11578. "dark backgrounds with white dots" Well, that's one way to prove you've never looked at the photos you're rejecting. First of all, the published images from China are light or middle shaded backgrounds with dark dots (landers). So, once again, you're backward (seems to be a pattern with you). Secondly, sorry, but if you are trying to wipe away the ones from India as "not good enough," you're clearly just denying reality. You can see the landers' octagonal shapes, with landing pads and struts sticking out the sides, shadows of the flags and flame deflectors, foot paths, etc. India proudly shows them as an accomplishment that they can see the Apollo landers in more detail than any other current orbiter.
    1
  11579. "It’s curious that, with all the advanced satellite and exploration technologies we have today, we still haven’t managed to obtain high-resolution images that clearly show these sites." Dewdrop, the photos are taken from very far away, then digitally zoomed. In reality, the images are higher resolution than just about any commercial camera today. Go look at the raw image files then come back and pretend that they're not high res.
    1
  11580. "not just vague visual indications that leave much to interpretation." Yeah, those rover tracks, foot paths, shadows of the flags still standing... lots of "interpretation" is needed. Sure. Right. Funny that those rover tracks happen to identically match the original mission photos, eh?
    1
  11581. "ridiculous graphic animations that prove absolutely nothing" Dewdrop, nobody is saying this video is "proof" of anything. He made this video for sane people that might want to get a notion about what things might look like after +50 years. He's not catering to crack meets pot dewdrops that pretend to know things they don't.
    1
  11582. "why hasn’t there been more accurate and publicly accessible photographic documentation showing the remains of the Apollo missions clearly?" Cameras have resolution, dewdrop. I'm sorry you don't understand this, but, it's true, there's a maximum resolution for any kind of camera. And, you can do the math, and figure out the size of each pixel of the lunar surface. These countries are quite proud to have the resolution they do. It's better resolution than we have of any Mars orbiters. And, those lunar orbiters have resolution values that are quite on-par with the best of Earth orbiters (which are much larger, and therefore have larger lenses and capabilities).
    1
  11583. "which should be easily addressed with the technology we have today." Take it up with Arizona State University, dewdrop. Ask them why they can't make their cameras resolve more than a 19x19 inch square pixel on the surface of the moon. They'll tell you exactly why. (They had their share of a 4,000 pound maximum payload weight, with a 400 GB/day communication system, and they did the best they could with the space/weight they had.) Or, go to ISRO and tell them, "not good enough." See how far that gets you.
    1
  11584. Listen to your own dishonesty in these responses, dewdrop. Your original complaint was about the surface temperatures and the mission cameras, remember? Remember you quoted a temperature range that included lunar overnights (the astronauts weren't there overnight)? Remember you quoted surface temperatures for lunar afternoons (the astronauts weren't there for a lunar afternoon)? But, the moment you were told that the astronauts were never on the surface for the temperatures you complained about, what did you do? You tried to wash it away as "miserable and useless arguments," and then immediately changed topics. No, dewdrop. No. You were painfully unaware that a lunar day is 708 hours. You were painfully unaware that the moon doesn't hit those temperature extremes while the astronauts were on the surface. During the 21 hours that Apollo 11 was on the moon the surface temperature range was -23°C to 7°C. Now are you going to admit that your camera/film complaint is unfounded? Or, not? Are you even reading this message? Can you prove it by writing "green" at the top of your reply (if you make one)? Else, I can just conclude that you don't read answers to your own messages.
    1
  11585. Yeah, when you can't actually refute anything, just refuse to read it, right? Thanks for proving me correct.
    1
  11586. Yeah, when you can't actually refute anything, just refuse to read it, right? Thanks for proving me correct.
    1
  11587. You still refuse to read the responses to your own comments, dewdrop. Everything you claimed was BACKWARD. Go take this thread and show it to some of the astrophysicists you claim you worked with for a decade. Watch them laugh you out the door.
    1
  11588. "incapable of engaging in a discussion with serious argument" Dewdrop, you refused to read my replies. Everything you wrote was incorrect, and I told you exactly why. You dismissed it without reading it, and, you want to pretend you have the high ground!?!?! Utterly hilarious. But, I'll tell you what, dewdrop: you go publish any of your gibberish here in any journal on aerospace engineering or astrophysics. I promise I'll be your first rebuttal. OK? Start by explaining why you magically believe that the moon's overnight surface temperatures, or the afternoon surface temperatures, matter at all, given that the astronauts were never there overnight or in the afternoon. Every response you've made avoids those simple facts, and you desperately hope I won't keep reminding you about all of the things you know nothing about.
    1
  11589. Dewdrop, if you had bothered to read my responses (which you didn't), I wasn't denying the maximum and minimum surface temperatures of the moon. I repeatedly questioned why you'd even bring them up, given that the astronauts were never there for the maximums and minimums. But, since you don't read responses, you'll never understand it.
    1
  11590. So, you refuse to address the fact that you were wrong. Bravo, dewdrop.
    1
  11591. The internet said so, right?
    1
  11592. Wrong. Numerous countries tracked Apollo missions all the way to the moon and back, including the Soviets. Stop pretending to know things you don't.
    1
  11593. YOU SAID: "the bloody peopel says nice breeze" == No, they said it LOOKS LIKE it's waving in the breeze. YOU SAID: "and us flag opens up" == They inserted a horizontal pole to suspend the flag open, and it looks like it's in the breeze (but there is no breeze). YOU SAID: "and late at 30;48 describes air less envirounment dust is sticking of helmets" == Yes, there's virtually no air.
    1
  11594. Huh? What in the world are you talking about? The video of the arrest wasn't released until 2.5 years later. Nobody saw it while she was alive. And, it was only released because the Freedom of Information Act requires it, and the case was closed a long time. And, the video of the actual "event" was never released due to graphic content.
    1
  11595. No, she did not.
    1
  11596.  @selfesteem3447  Yes, he did time. About 3-4 years. And, since he got out, he is now running for president in 2024. Not kidding. He still denies he did anything wrong.
    1
  11597. What news covered it before she died?
    1
  11598. Yes, he planned the murders in advance, and recorded himself committing the murders.
    1
  11599. Tea, I'm sorry, but that's just plain wrong. Police arrest people all the time, and it turns out that they're innocent. You are NEVER to fight the police during an arrest, regardless of whether you're right or wrong. You take the arrest, and you bring it to the courtroom. Charges get dropped every single day. There is no state in the country that allows what you're claiming.
    1
  11600.  @williamholmes9807  What on Earth are you even talking about? You continuously express that you have the functional comprehension skills of a raccoon. Good grief. If you don't actually want to know what crimes she committed, don't sit there and repeatedly ask, then refuse to read responses to your own questions.
    1
  11601.  @luissantiago874  Good grief. You truly don't understand anything.
    1
  11602.  @blueforest4589  Still spewing gibberish, eh? You just can't help yourself. After you ran for the hills, deleting half of your posted messages, you'd think maybe you'd learn something. But, nope. I still have copies of the ones where you claimed that she didn't lose the lawsuit, and that her own attorneys requested it be dismissed so they could file a new one (wrong).... which you then changed to claiming that they were appealing (wrong)... and now you're pretending she didn't commit crimes? Yes, she did. Refusal to ID (crime, as a subset of obstructing), and resisting arrest (another crime).
    1
  11603.  @blueforest4589  You are the one claiming that her own attorneys requested to get her own case dismissed (ridiculous), and then claimed that she was appealing (she's not).
    1
  11604.  @blueforest4589  Still spewing the same gibberish? As I told you before, your ever-changing stories about what happened here have resulted in ZERO credibility from you.
    1
  11605. You could definitely explain it better with more emojis.
    1
  11606. Not very likely that he'll get the death penalty. He is only 18. Not that I'm arguing about what should happen, I'm just stating that I don't think it's really likely.
    1
  11607. Here are some of the countries that tracked the Apollo missions with radar and radio telescopes: Madagascar, USA, Soviet Union, Cuba, Bahamas, Turks & Caicos, Canary Islands, Ascension Island, Australia, Spain, Guam, Mexico. Backyard amateurs could point their dishes/Yagi at the moon to receive Apollo's audio. Spain had the world's largest telescope at that time, and photographed the SIVB fuel dumps around the moon. That shiny large command/service module could be seen with the naked eye in Earth orbit, so, if it didn't head out to the moon, it would have been spotted. It would have been the 3rd brightest object in the sky just after dusk. Laser ranging facilities in 3 different countries (one of which was Russia) could hit the Apollo corner cube reflectors while the astronauts were still on the lunar surface. Need I go on? Please name the mechanism you'd use to fake any of those items?
    1
  11608. Yeah, that's what everyone in the scientific community is looking for... a "Nobel Price." Good gods.
    1
  11609. I've barely made it into the video. Just 3 minutes in, and sorry, but you cannot possibly complain that an auto manufacturer doesn't cover damages caused by a car wash if the person doesn't put the truck in car wash mode. I cannot stand the Cybertruk, nor Musk, but, sorry, no manufacturer on the planet would cover damages caused by car washes, and complaining about this is a real low point. Love your videos overall, probably 98% of them, but, that particular complaint just makes you look bad.
    1
  11610. I am glad I watched the rest of the video, because, everything after the 3 minute mark was really good. But, yeah, just that one distraction of complaining about car wash damage... bad idea... the rest, great.
    1
  11611.  @theeraphatsunthornwit6266  Huh? Have you looked at all of the photos from India and LRO? You can see rover tracks, foot paths, landers, and even the shadows of the 5 flags that are still standing (one fell over). And, again, if they can send an Apollo-sized lander to the moon, why not just put people inside?
    1
  11612.  @theeraphatsunthornwit6266  So, you acknowledge that India and LRO found rover tracks on the moon, but you're saying they look fake? Huh? What in the world are you talking about?
    1
  11613. Huh? Sorry, but if ANYBODY points a gun at a cop, the cop is shooting.
    1
  11614. Oh, I thought you meant "normal person" instead of the silly carjacker. I think I now understand you to mean "normal person" instead of the cop. Sorry, you're wrong. Anybody has a right to defend themselves against a carjacker pointing a gun at them.
    1
  11615.  @ArKritz84  Yes, but, he could see it on the initial time I posted it.
    1
  11616. Multiple people called about the incident. But, only one video was reported to the police, not multiple. You can read the police report. It's a bit of a moot point, because one video, or multiple, it doesn't change the fact that she was getting arrested. But, this incident would likely have been negotiated down to a minor infraction, had she bothered to show up in court. Yes, she was a convicted felon who spent time in a Florida prison, and had a million other arrests and judgements.
    1
  11617.  @LunaLapin-ho5tk  There were two callers. One video. And, yes, this sort of thing is easily negotiated down if she had cooperated and appeared in court.
    1
  11618.  @LunaLapin-ho5tk  Nope. You can post that until the cows come home, but, it's not reality.
    1
  11619. OK, on what basis?
    1
  11620. Well, had she shown up for court, this would likely have been negotiated down to a minor infraction, no registering on any lists. But, of course, it seems that she never shows up in court after being arrested, what with her piles of open warrants over the years, felony term in prison, and a million other arrests.
    1
  11621. "I listed them in at least 2 replies" I asked what technology they lacked. You replied that there was no guarantee that they could relight the engine or land back on Earth. Well, that's not a lack of technology. There's no guarantee that my house won't be hit by a meteor tomorrow. The lack of a guarantee doesn't have anything to do with technology lacking. Good grief. No wonder you're so confused. Your thinking process is as straight as a twisted up spaghetti noodle on a spoon.
    1
  11622. I can't see my own reply, so, I'll shorten it. Dewdrop, you didn't name any technology they lacked. You claimed there weren't guarantees. Well, I didn't get any guarantees that a meteor wouldn't hit my house someday. So what? Nobody said space travel was guaranteed (whatever that would mean).
    1
  11623. Well, perhaps if she had bothered to show up in court, they could have mandated that help you're talking about. But, of course, she didn't.
    1
  11624. lol of Apollo equipment mathematics life's technology lol any software based on calculators of lol what pure physics computers has faults man usage was their of the hardly
    1
  11625. July 2021 = arrest. March 2022 = suicide. November 2023 = arrest video was released, probably as a result of a FOIA request. This video didn't cost anybody their lives. She was long dead before anybody saw it.
    1
  11626. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    1
  11627. Good gods! And, this train wreck was your EDITED version? How bad was the first posting, if this 2nd grader level writing was the edited one? Kindergartner level?
    1
  11628. Well, they dropped the charges. But, the main things were failing to ID, obstruction, obfuscation, and resisting arrest. Yes, she was also suspected of shoplifting.
    1
  11629. Open investigation vs. closed investigation.
    1
  11630. Doubtful. They probably know that this Inside Edition story is as far from accurate as you can possibly get.
    1
  11631. Huh? The only one who died here was the father, who, apparently, this maniac killed. Nobody in this video died.
    1
  11632. So, you believe China's rover/lander has the capability of harvesting Helium-3, and returning it to Earth? Good gods.
    1
  11633. Um, no. The way it works is that bodycam footage is withheld while there's an open investigation. After a case is over for long enough, they can no longer block a legal FOIA request. This arrest was 2.5 years ago. She's been dead 1.5 years. The police released the bodycam footage about a month ago.
    1
  11634. They give warnings for crimes now? I thought that was only for infractions. With your obvious legal prowess, please explain...?
    1
  11635. The media didn't cause it either. Virtually zero media covered it while she was alive.
    1
  11636. Don't be ridiculous. Quit getting your "education" by watching conspiracy videos.
    1
  11637. Yes, unless you have a better idea.
    1
  11638. They had about a 7.5 to 8 hour capacity in the main oxygen tank, plus about 30-40 more minutes in the OPS backup tank. You don't think they could walk a few miles in that amount of time? Keep in mind, they went to the furthest rover stations first, exactly for this very reason.
    1
  11639. Well, they never published anything while she was alive, so, they're doubling down while she's dead.
    1
  11640. Well, she didn't have a good job. Her career in real estate was long over, and she hadn't sold a house in years. And, with a felony prison term under her belt for stealing cars, it's pretty tough to get a nice job after that. And, yeah, she had been arrested enough times to know to smile for the camera, so it doesn't look like a mugshot.
    1
  11641. This arrest = July 1, 2021. Suicide = March, 2022. Arrest video released = November 24, 2023 from a legal Freedom of Information Act request.
    1
  11642. Amazing that nobody seems to think she pushed HERSELF into her own situation. It's always someone else's fault. Zero accountability.
    1
  11643. Dewdrop, how does any of that relate to this particular case? You accused the police of murder. How?
    1
  11644. But, there was no public shame. Inside Edition asks the question about whether she was shamed. But, they [intentionally] don't give the answer. The police didn't release the arrest video until 1.5 years after she was already dead.
    1
  11645. 1) The words are accurate. These are people that hold the theory that it was a conspiracy. There's nothing wrong with using accurate words.
    1
  11646. 2) Today, it seems that people think "skepticism" means to reject something. But, that's not what that word was ever supposed to mean. Skepticism is a method of thought, a way of analyzing. I'm skeptical about everything, including the moon landings, and I'm 99.999999% certain that the moon landings happened. But, today, that word seems to have morphed into just meaning that if someone feels like believing nonsense for no good reason, that means they're "skeptical." Sorry, I reject that new definition of the word.
    1
  11647. 3) There is a particular massive irony in those who claim to be "skeptical" on this topic. They pretend that they're doing "research" and merely thinking critically about whether or not they have been presented with accurate information. But, in a massive stroke of irony that could drown a mountain, these very same people NEVER analyze the silly videos made by taxi cab drivers and yoga instructors that deny the moon landings. They swallow every single word, never once being skeptical about anything told to them (if it agrees with their predetermined conclusion).
    1
  11648. Well, don't worry, it had nothing to do with it. This is Inside Edition, where facts don't matter.
    1
  11649. "All I'm saying is no one ever questions the missions to the outer planets." Huh? Well, first of all, your original posting was worded very poorly, if you think that's what most readers would think you meant. Secondly, you obviously don't pay much attention to the nuts (which literally probably makes you better off, because they're really quite clueless, to the point of making your brain hurt). Yes, about half of them deny the probes also, not just denying Apollo alone.
    1
  11650. Nope. You are incorrect. The Taser wasn't used because she wouldn't show receipt. The Taser was used to force compliance during the arrest. She was resisting arrest, and made it very clear that she wasn't going down without a fight, and even repeatedly said, "Tase me, Tase me." (I think it's pretty clear that she had dollar signs in her eyes, envisioning getting more money in a lawsuit if she gets Tased.) The use of the Taser had nothing to do with the original suspicion of a crime. It wouldn't matter if he was arresting her for murder, or theft, or tax evasion, or failing to bring her garbage can in from the curb by 6pm (a weird law in some cities), or whatever else. The original crime has nothing to do with the Taser, and it has nothing to do with refusing to show the receipt. The Taser was used for resisting arrest.
    1
  11651.  @brianvincent4165  Apparently, links are not allowed in comments in this video. (Or, more accurately, if I post links, I think I'm the only one who can see them.) So, you'll have to do a lot of Googling. But, to get you started, there was an RCA TV video camera mounted to the front of the rovers on Apollo 15, 16, and 17. If you Google "lunar roving vehicle," you will find the Wiki article, and a bunch of photos. You will see the gold wrapped camera, mounted to an articulated control system with servos to rotate, pan, tilt, zoom, etc. Note: the camera was often faced straight down for transit or when being stowed in between usage, so, some of the photos will not make it very easy to know that it's a camera (just looks like a weird gold box). But, if you keep looking at the photos, you'll see that it's a TV camera. There's a cable that goes from the camera to the dish mounted to the rover. That's the S-band antenna dish. They would aim that dish at Earth using some alignment sights mounted to the dish and handle, then lock it in place. The alignment had to be pretty good to receive remote control signals back from Earth. But, the alignment didn't have to be all that great to be able to send the signals to Earth. They used such huge dishes on Earth to receive the signals, that, basically, if the dish on the rover was aimed even in the general direction of Earth, it could be received by the massive dishes in Madrid, Spain, or Goldstone, California, or one of a few different locations in Australia. This was called the DSN (Deep Space Network). As the Earth rotated, they could switch to whichever station on Earth had the best line of sight to the rovers on the moon. All of the dishes on Earth were huge, but, the most impressive one was in Parkes, Australia. Google "Parkes Radio Telescope" if you want to get an idea of how huge it is (it's still in use today). Basically, they only used the rovers' remote controlled cameras when the rovers were parked. Technically, I guess I should note that the reception was good enough that, a few times, they could get a few seconds more video back from the moon, even when the rover started to move, because the alignment was still good enough. But, they couldn't control the camera when the rover was moving. And, it didn't take but a couple of seconds before the dish lost alignment to the point that Earth couldn't receive the signals. So, yes, for the most part, it only worked when stationary. Ed Fendell was in Houston. He operated the camera controls across the three missions that had rovers. He had a video monitor, and push button controls. And, across the three missions, he got very good at anticipating the communication delays and pushing the buttons a few seconds before the action he wanted. But, by and large, his technique was to just do short movements, and then waiting until he saw the effect on his monitor. Note: they had other cameras on the missions, namely the 16mm DAC that could be hand-held, or mounted to the rover (also), directly behind the TV camera. But, the DAC operated with film. So, they had to wait until the astronauts got home before they could develop the film and watch. Hope this helps.
    1
  11652. Oh, get real here. Used a Jewish name to get into Hollywood? What? As if nobody could see her skin during an audition? What?
    1
  11653. And, why should the veracity of Apollo be based upon what future generations do or don't do?
    1
  11654. Wrong. The arrest video wasn't made public until 1.5 years after her death. Sorry if you fall for Inside Edition's clever wording and little one-line out-of-context quotes, and their reporting of the "news" by asking questions without providing the answers. But, look it up yourself if you don't believe me. Arrest = July 2021 Suicide = March 2022 Public release of arrest video = November 2023
    1
  11655. But, the "embarrassment" had nothing to do with it. The arrest video wasn't made public until 1.5 years after she died.
    1
  11656.  @Tim22222  Um, I don't think you read his entire message.
    1
  11657. Inside Edition never covered anything about this story until long AFTER she was dead.
    1
  11658. Because she DID do it to herself. Her life was already in shambles. And, the police did everything they could to stop the arrest video from going public. They kept it private for 2.5 years. That's 1.5 years after she died. But, eventually, Freedom of Information Act requests cannot be denied if the case is closed long enough. So, how did they ruin her life? What EXACTLY would you do differently?
    1
  11659. Yes. Did you expect otherwise?
    1
  11660. Yeah, I'm a bit frustrated also by these legal classifications. But, I think you're confused about the process. Whether or not they call him a "suspect" or "person of interest" is not going to matter about whether or not they have to Mirandize him.
    1
  11661. I'd eat my hat if she wasn't making "public beach" content, but got reported, and was trying to cry her way out of her millionth arrest.
    1
  11662. C'mon, you're being ridiculous. In order for him to be in violation of anything, this would mean that he would actually need to understand the words he's using. Do you really think he knows what a semiautomatic weapon is? Do you really think he knows what he's suggesting that be "controlled" or "banned"? This is the Biden version of Trump's "can't we just inject bleach to kill COVID" moment.
    1
  11663. Yeah, I was trying to be funny. I guess I'm not very funny, though.
    1
  11664. After they retired the Saturn V, sure, they weren't able to go past low orbit again. No other booster was powerful enough to propel a large craft (big enough to carry people) that high again. When astronauts say that they hope to be able to do it in the future, they're not saying it never happened in the past. And, once again, all you're doing is proving that the best you've got is a bunch of out-of-context quotes. You have NEVER looked at the evidence, and you don't want to look at the evidence. I've tried to give it to you, others have tried also, but it all goes in one ear and out the other.
    1
  11665. And, you got your aerospace engineering degree, where?
    1
  11666. Well, I wouldn't call her a domestic terrorist, nor cowardly. More like just really slimy, outlandish, and got what she deserved ($0.00 in her lawsuit).
    1
  11667. That's not the issue. She is required to provide ID, and NOT to obstruct, obfuscate, or resist.
    1
  11668. Should we call the suicide prevention hotline for you?
    1
  11669. Well, maybe she shouldn't have decided to put on a show at the public beach.
    1
  11670. They did. They took her aside so nobody could see and hear what was going on. And, they kept the arrest video private until after she was dead for 1.5 years. What more do you want? And, sorry, but she willfully put on a show in front of people including children. She doesn't get to play the "shame" card. Especially because her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club. And, if she didn't learn any shame from her felony term in prison, and her other million arrests, she wasn't going to be shamed here either.
    1
  11671. Huh? What are you talking about? He was asked to investigate a potential theft, and that's what he did. Is it his fault that the store employee was wrong?
    1
  11672. There's a weird irony in that the obituary reads that he "died in peace." Um, being shot by a cop while carjacking... peace? Huh?
    1
  11673. Police? What do you think they did wrong?
    1
  11674. Really? How? By arresting her?
    1
  11675. So, you believe that doctors have more rights over medical decisions than the parents? Good grief. Outside of urgent/emergency care given to someone who was not in any condition to consent, patients must sign a consent form. And, when/if that doesn't happen, it often ends up in a lawsuit, and/or the loss of that doctor's medical license. And, what? You believe that doctors would take away a child right after birth? Why would they do that? What ARE you talking about? Good grief, you have no clue what you're talking about.
    1
  11676. I just love the "think about it" part of the message. As if you've ever thought about it yourself. Right. Sure. Is your Google broken?
    1
  11677. Well, past tense, sure. But, you do know he died, right?
    1
  11678.  @grezdaed  "Innocent soccer mom gets arrested by evil police and can't stand the shame" goes viral. "Convicted felon who can't stop getting herself arrested, gets arrested yet again, and commits suicide a year later due to unrelated causes" doesn't go viral.
    1
  11679. Well, let's see.... She wrote off the bribe money as a charitable donation (tax deduction), thus defrauding the government. Making this more egregious, her tax deduction was for "helping underprivileged kids get into universities" (while her over-privileged children were the actual beneficiaries, and in actuality, her donation PREVENTED two underprivileged girls from getting admission). She caused two other girls not to gain admission to the university so that her two girls could get in under false pretenses. She never intended for her girls to row crew, thus cheating the university out of what they wanted (two female crew rowers for their team). She bribed program officials and committed mail fraud and money laundry. She refused to admit any fault for over a year, despite that the had her stone cold on tape. Thus, she clogged up the legal system, once again, by using her wealth and power to cause more trouble. Should we go on? And, you should be careful about using an analogy to lying on a resume. Yes, some lies on resumes are not illegal. They'll get you fired from a job, or kicked out of a university, if it's ever found out. But, yes, not illegal. On the other hand, some types of lies on resumes ARE illegal, and can result in jail time.
    1
  11680.  @kirkdennis830  Wow. Just plain wow. You are very clearly disconnected from reality.
    1
  11681.  @kirkdennis830  So, you didn't read what I wrote, then came back with an utterly backward rambling of insanity, and now you're saying that you can't see the crimes (because you didn't read what I wrote)?? Wow. So, in your mind, they are pleading guilty to crimes that don't exist, eh? Those people worth multi-hundreds of millions of dollars, with high priced attorneys to go with it, somehow let themselves plead guilty to crimes that don't exist (in your mind)?? That's how this goes?? Seek mental healthcare. You are massively disconnected from reality.
    1
  11682.  @kirkdennis830  No. I'm not going to engage any further if you couldn't even bring yourself to read the first reply. Instead, you read one line, and ignored the rest, and dipped yourself into your delusional little world of thinking you know what you're talking about, while being absolutely disconnected from reality. All of those people PLEAD GUILTY. Money laundering, racketeering, fraud, etc. They all plead guilty. But, you don't want to hear it. You just want to hear that you're "correct" - so you ignore everything but the one line that you think aligns with your delusions, and throw the rest in the trash. Everyone is stupid except for you, including the highest paid legal experts on the planet. So, yeah, go live on whatever planet you live on. I couldn't care less.
    1
  11683.  @kirkdennis830  You are proving me correct, and I will not bother with another reply after this. I wasn't even going to make this reply. If aaaaalllllllll of those people pleading guilty (people who have the best attorneys money can buy) doesn't prove to you that they're guilty, then there's really no hope for your sanity. You are claiming, while you don't even know what the crimes were, to know better than those people's own legal teams. And, why do you think you know better than they do? Because you are a delusional fool who lives outside of reality. If you cannot understand why it's a crime to commit money laundering, racketeering, fraud, bribery, tax evasion, etc., and why it's a BAD THING to cause two girls to get rejected to the university in favor of two girls who were not qualified, then there's really no hope for you. Your mind is completely lost, probably forever. You even alluded to this idea of "sport" and stuff, about how you thought they were actually going to compete, demonstrating how little you even know about the situation. They never competed. They never were going to compete. It was never part of the plan to compete. They faked "injuries" after they were admitted. And, the school cannot kick them out for getting injured. So, those girls didn't spend a single minute competing in the sport you're arguing about. Meanwhile, two girls who WERE qualified to compete on the team, didn't get admitted to the university, because those spots were taken up by these people who falsified their credentials, and bribing the coach to help them do it. You said you'd do the same as they did, huh? Well, then you're just as much of a piece of trash. I'm done. I won't go any further with a piece of trash like you.
    1
  11684. No, that's in almost all of the footage from the DAC, and it doesn't move.
    1
  11685. Oh, spare the world. Seriously. The guy went up to a car wearing a balaclava ski mask in the middle of a Kentucky summer, pulled out a gun, pointed it directly at a cop's head, and got himself killed doing it. There's no "solution" to this issue. The cop had two choices: (1) wait to get shot, or (2) try to defend himself. He chose #2, and succeeded, after being a fraction of a second away from losing his own life. Don't sit there and tell the world that they need to offer "solutions" to this. The man tried to carjack the wrong guy, and got himself killed. There's no "solution" beyond that.
    1
  11686. So? Dad raised that kid to be what he is. Dad should pay the price for it. (Assuming he even has a dad... not long gone?)
    1
  11687. They were staking out someone else for an unrelated shooting. The other guy turned himself in right after this incident.
    1
  11688. Learn the difference between infractions and crimes. And, no, it didn't lead to her suicide, despite that Inside Edition is trying to paint that false narrative just so videos go viral.
    1
  11689. Huh? What in the world are you talking about? Can you name one firearms training course anywhere in the country that advocates warning shots?
    1
  11690. No, the real problem is IQ.
    1
  11691. Huh? I think you posted this message in the wrong video. Just FYI.
    1
  11692. When you see a guy cranking it at a playground in front of kids, just mind your own business, and don't report him.
    1
  11693. The media didn't cover it until long after she was dead, dewdrop.
    1
  11694. Of course. 6 Apollo missions landed on the moon. It's ridiculous and outlandish that people believe otherwise.
    1
  11695. Hilarious!! Sorry, dewdrop, but, no. If someone says 2+2=9, and I call that person a clown because 2+2=4, that doesn't mean I've lost the argument. See, nobody needs to conform to "formal debate" framework, where ad-hominem comments are banned. The FACTS and EVIDENCE are what matters, and the ad-hominem is just icing on the cake.
    1
  11696. "It would take around 10cm of lead shielding" Huh? Please explain what you'd do about the secondary Bremsstrahlung radiation that is caused by using a heavy metal to shield ions. Can you? I mean, sure, lead is great shielding from GCRs or gammas or high velocity neutrons. But, no aerospace engineer would advise using lead for ions in the Van Allen belts. You're far better off with lighter metals, or polymers. But, clearly, you're the expert here, so, can you explain?
    1
  11697. "transit the Van Allen belt" Um, you do know there are TWO Van Allen belts, and even sometimes THREE, right? Why'd you use a singular "belt" word? With your years of aerospace engineering expertise, I wouldn't expect you to make such a trivial error.
    1
  11698. "lethal radiation" In what amount of time? Sure, they're lethal, yes. But, it's not instantaneous. Do you know how much time it would take inside them to become lethal?
    1
  11699. "The closest we ever got to the Van Allen" Again, you're using a singular term here. Why?
    1
  11700. "a third of the way" Huh? They just sent a crew of 4 into the inner Van Allen belt (the worst of the two) just two months ago.
    1
  11701. "occular flashes they experienced proved how lethal this area is" When has anybody died from ocular flashes? Why are you under the impression that ocular flashes are lethal? You cannot even spell "ocular" correctly, so, I tend to doubt your expertise.
    1
  11702. "Buz Aldren" So, you can't spell his name either.
    1
  11703. "he admitted we never went" Oh, the one where he answered her question about why they haven't gone back in such a long time, and he explained it? The one where, in the very same interview, he told the very same little girl, both before, and after, this one sentence you're abusing, that he DID go? That's your "evidence"? You took a single spoken sentence out of context intentionally, and with that, you think you understand things you don't?
    1
  11704. Huh? Which media?
    1
  11705. We are many years away from supersonic airline travel also. So, the 1969 Concorde never existed.
    1
  11706. As opposed to?
    1
  11707. Do the math. What are you waiting for. Don't just sit there and say the dust didn't fall correctly. Do the math.
    1
  11708. Huh? It would be negligent for them NOT to release the video if they get a legal Freedom of Information Act request. I mean, the police blocked the video's release for 2.5 years. The woman was dead for 1.5 years before they finally released it. What more do you want? What's the exact basis of your suit?
    1
  11709. The arrest video wasn't released until 2.5 years later. She was long dead by then. I fail to understand this suit of yours?
    1
  11710. Huh? You knew what? At what time?
    1
  11711. Huh? You think there aren't satellites mapping the moon? Japan's JAXA/Selene in 2008? LRO in 2009 (and every year since). Chinese and Indian orbiters? The 110,000 photos of the moon taken during Apollo from orbit? Huh?
    1
  11712. Dewdrop, again, why do you ask questions when YOU DO NOT WANT THE ANSWERS? Spare the world your flat-Earth nonsense. If you disagree with the well known properties of light/resolution, such that you think the Rayleigh criterion and Dawes' limit are wrong (which dictate the size of the lens/mirror you need for [whatever] resolution), then publish in the science journals. But, given the fact that you don't know the difference between distance, time, and resolution, I highly doubt you're capable.
    1
  11713. And, you'd believe she hurt herself over this, why? Because Inside Edition (trash news) told you?
    1
  11714. I believe it's the boyfriend of the landlord.
    1
  11715. Multiple people called the police. Nobody was anonymous. I won't post their names, but, they're readily available. One witness even managed to record it, and showed the video to the police. Needless to say, the video doesn't match her version of being a quiet discreet act with nobody around. Quite to the contrary. She was getting arrested whether she said anything or not.
    1
  11716. occhamite: Your explanation is fine for many of the complaints seen from people like this. But, for his specific complaint about photos 5902 and 5903, it's really as simple as looking at the bunches of different copies of those photos (there are countless versions, especially 5903, one of the most famous photos in history), and seeing that some of them have this "fall off" he's complaining about, and some don't. This goes all the way back to 1969, looking at copies from newspapers and on TV vs. copies printed in coffee table books. It's truly a difference between quick and sloppy copying of photographs vs. getting a nice print from the original negatives. Go to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal where you'll find scans that come directly off of prints from the original negatives, and look at 5902 and 5903. They don't look like the copies being put forth by the deniers in this video. There is no fall off of light.
    1
  11717. Here's the short version for those who don't want to read a lot of details. The deniers intentionally use poorly copied versions of famous photos, then say "look, the lighting is wrong!!" They don't dare show the better copies that don't have the lighting problem at all.
    1
  11718. First of all, it seems that you don't know the timeline. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. This story got almost zero coverage while she was alive.
    1
  11719. Secondly, it seems that you know nothing about this woman's history. She abandoned her career and family a decade ago, including a husband and 6 month old boy, because she wanted to live a life of crime and drugs. She served a felony term in prison about 6 years ago. She's been arrested a million times, and has had multiple convictions and judgements. Stealing cars. Other thefts. Drug charges. Alcohol. Failure to appear, etc. It's not easy to get a straight job after all of that, so, her landlord said that she was a stripper at the local club. Her neighbors said she also did "private" cash encounters in her apartment with a parade of various men.
    1
  11720. Third, multiple people called for this incident, not just the one family. Witnesses say it was an intentional act. One of them even managed to get the last few minutes on video, and gave a copy to the police. Needless to say, it didn't match her version about nobody being around. It was a very loud and public act in front of multiple people including children.
    1
  11721. Now, it's up to you if you want to believe she thought she was alone. But, I'd trust innocent bystanders who were able to take video, and the police, before I'd trust this convicted felon. I'd eat my hat if she wasn't making "public beach" content for her fans, but, got reported, and was trying to cry her way out of her millionth arrest.
    1
  11722. Good gods, how is that a reply to anything I said?
    1
  11723. Yeah, we have to stop letting presidents give metal away, and make them give out medals instead. Or, maybe they can take the metals from their medals, and make new medals out of metal.
    1
  11724. They sent 9 manned missions to the moon, 6 of which landed. What makes you think sending more would make one bit of difference to the ignorant deniers?
    1
  11725. Another crackpot who refuses to answer a single thing asked.
    1
  11726. If you want to differentiate one president vs. another, the key thing you'd have to analyze is what decisions did any one particular president make that would have been made differently (for better or worse) than a different president. For most decisions a president makes in the daily life in office, frankly, even the worst president in history is going to make the same decision as the best president in history. A president needs to be measured by his (or someday her) ability to make better/different decisions than someone else would make... and for providing leadership that gets things done that a lesser president couldn't get done. So, that being said, regarding Apollo, did JFK make a different decision than any other president would have made? We will never know for sure. But, I'd argue that any president would have done the same. The space race was a much better battleground than a REAL war. And, even at the high cost, a space race is still cheaper than a real war also. And, it actually was the perfect stage to demonstrate the country's ability to implement technology and to beat the Soviets at whatever we wanted to beat them at. Of course, we'll never actually know what a different president would have done, because it's not possible to turn back time and insert a different president. But, my opinion is that any president would have done the same thing.
    1
  11727.  @SunshineCasy  Depends on what you mean by "affected." Testing positive... vs. actually having it cause serious illness or death... are two different things. Older folks tend to have more serious effects than younger folks. But, are you saying that younger people shouldn't even test positive?
    1
  11728.  @marksprague1280  I think he meant the TV camera aimed at the steps.
    1
  11729. Well, yes and no. I mean, I would never want to take away from the contributions made by the Germans. But, the Soviets got their fair share of German engineers also. And, the truth is that the USA would have gone to the moon with or without the Germans helping them. I fully realize that there's plenty of "we couldn't do it without you" comments out there. But, boiling away the nice comments, the raw truth is that the USA's engineers were not too shabby, and would have done the job.
    1
  11730. Well, the problem is, he had a screaming woman that might be armed, and who knows how many others might spring out of nowhere? After you get a gun pointed at your face by a carjacker, yeah, it's wise to secure the entire area first, otherwise you might be the one on the ground who needs aid also.
    1
  11731. The video wasn't released until 1.5 years after she committed suicide. She suffered no such public embarrassment.
    1
  11732. Hey, dumbass, how many times are you going to post the same nonsense over and over? Dummy, there's not even a picture of the rover at 47:42. You're too stupid to even timestamp it correctly. Yet, you keep on posting the wrong timestamp anyway. What's wrong with you?
    1
  11733. Huh? There was nothing to "pass over." Virtually nobody even knew about this arrest until long after she died.
    1
  11734. Exactly!! A blog entry on an obscure site that virtually nobody has heard of, that got a couple hundred hits worldwide.
    1
  11735. Besides, you got your wish anyway. She lived for another 8 or 9 months after the arrest.
    1
  11736. Man goes to a playground and does the same thing in view of kids, "lock him up and throw away the key." Woman goes to a beach and does this in view of kids, "Omg the poor woman. My heart hurts for her."
    1
  11737. Well, her arrest wasn't plastered on the net until she was already dead for 1.5 years. The police kept the arrest video private until the case was closed long enough (2.5 years later, which was 1.5 years after her death). And, sorry if you blindly believe the words you hear from a convicted felon with an arrest record a mile long, but, yeah, the video of the incident didn't match her version of a quiet and discreet act with nobody around. Multiple people called the police. One witness said that she wandered up and down the beach and intentionally plopped down in view of a family and others. The police saw the video of the woman, and described it in their arrest report as a very loud and public act in view of multiple people including children. I have no idea why you blindly accept the words of a drug addled woman trying to avoid her 1 millionth arrest, but, that's exactly what you've done. According to her landlord, she was a stripper who puts on these kids of shows every day. I guess she forgot she wasn't at the club, and was out on a public beach, huh? Anyway, why? Why in the world would you believe a single word out of this woman? Years prior, she served a felony prison term for stealing cars, and has been in and out of jail and the courts ever since, for various crimes, drug and alcohol problems, you name it. I'm fully aware that you don't know any of this. But, (a) yeah, you're one of those people who trusts Inside Edition (sigh), and (b) if you can't understand the analogy to a guy at a playground, that's all the more evidence that you can't think straight.
    1
  11738. I don't know what that even means (and neither do you). Look, dewdrop, just watch your Inside Edition, swallow up every fake story they put forth, and pretend that your heart hurts. That's fine.
    1
  11739. Well, I certainly don't get it by watching Inside Edition, which is where you obviously get your info from. I get the information from the medical examiner's report, the police reports, her arrest and prison history, from Freedom of Information Act requests, etc. But, you just stay sleepy, ok? You're good at it. And, Inside Edition needs viewers like you.
    1
  11740. Oh, and dewdrop, links aren't allowed.
    1
  11741. No, his last words were, "Mark... Mark."
    1
  11742. How do you figure that?
    1
  11743. The term "baby daddy" means that he was the unwed father of her child. No, the woman was not the criminal's mom, it was her "boyfriend" if you want to use a different term than "baby daddy."
    1
  11744. "Fixing a fender with a map encased in a thin plastic hull and duct tape" You are getting your facts wrong. The duct tape was used as an attempt to get the actual fender put back on. They used clamps on the paper flight manual makeshift fender, not tape.
    1
  11745. "120 degrees celsius" That's not how temperature works. You are quoting the surface temperature at the lunar noon. They were never on the surface at noon. All missions landed early in the lunar morning. And, even at that, it's still not how temperature works. Ever go outside on a super-hot and sunny day and touch a black car and a white car? The black car will cause severe burns. The white car won't be a problem. Right? Well, in space, such effects are even more extreme. It's more about thermal equilibrium than these simple temperature quotes you're using.
    1
  11746. "that stuff would melt like a slice of cheese" Yes, dewdrop, IT DIDN'T WORK. They had to discard the tape, and switch to spring-loaded clamps. Good grief. Stop getting your "education" from a few sentences in an edited documentary. Go learn about what actually happened to the fender and tape.
    1
  11747. That's it? That's your reply? Every single thing you asserted is patently absurd, and, that's the best you can muster as a reply?
    1
  11748. Why are you posting anything at all when you clearly have no interest in the replies? You are very proud to be wrong, aren't you?
    1
  11749. A day or two ago, YouTube changed the way the "thumbs" work, and you're no longer able to actually thumbs-down anything. It doesn't register. Only the thumbs-up registers now. Now it's just like the comments. They let you thumbs-down a comment, but, it does absolutely nothing.
    1
  11750. You never saw the arrest video before she died. It wasn't released until 1.5 years after that.
    1
  11751. That's a mighty powerful accusation from someone who knows absolutely nothing.
    1
  11752. Oh, good grief!!! I talked about her lawsuit with the store, and already gave you the result. Did you read the first sentence and ignore the rest? No wonder you believe what you believe.
    1
  11753. What in the world? You originally said I was right. Now, you say I'm wrong. In the end, I don't even think you read anything I wrote. I talked about the lawsuit, then you came back and proved you didn't even read what I wrote, because you then said she should sue (even though I already explained that she did). Again, no wonder you believe the things you believe. It's an utter mess to even write back and forth with you. Yes, anybody can call the police and accuse you of a crime, and the police WILL INVESTIGATE. What are you proposing? Nobody can ever call the police?
    1
  11754. First you said I'm right, now you're saying I'm wrong. It really helps if you actually read what I wrote, rather than just picking stuff at random to say. Yes, the police will investigate when people report crimes. What did you expect?
    1
  11755. Dewdrop, China said their Chang'e orbiter found the Apollo landers on the moon back in 2021.
    1
  11756. 1:23:08 - "I'm not saying you're lying." 1:23:50 - "You lied to me."
    1
  11757. Well, I hate to argue with someone who concludes that the moon landings were real (yes, they were real). But, you're making that conclusion for the wrong reasons. Nothing should ever depend on what a documentary says. The only thing that should matter is the evidence. Sadly, however, I think 99.9% of the people have no idea what the evidence actually is, and they falsely think the only evidence is photography/video. No documentary should ever convince you of anything. Documentaries can lie. And, it shouldn't be a matter of which documentary is the most convincing to you. It should be a matter of actually understanding the evidence, the history, and the technology.
    1
  11758. Freedom of Information Act. But, you cannot shame a dead person. The bodycam footage wasn't released until 1.5 years after she died.
    1
  11759. They sent 24 men to the moon, and 3 of those 24 went twice. What do you mean they never sent men again? How many more do you need?
    1
  11760. A) Nobody embarrassed this woman into committing suicide. This incident happened in July of 2021. She was arrested, but suffered no consequences, and wasn't convicted. Her suicide was in March of 2022. The video was released to the public in November of 2023, more than 1.5 years after her death. B) The "busybody" was a woman with her family on a public beach. The now deceased woman decided to plop down on the public beach in front of that family and go to town. The family recorded the incident with their cell phone, and showed the video to the police, who wrote about it in their police report. They described it as a loud and public display that went on for around 5 minutes, in full view of the family with children (the children were quickly escorted away, though)... hardly the "few seconds, and not thinking anybody could see her." Why do you think she was discreet? Because she said so while trying to avoid being arrested?
    1
  11761. Yet, so many different countries confirmed Apollo. How do you figure?
    1
  11762. So, you don't know what it should look like, but, you know it doesn't look correct? Huh? And, now you're saying you know what the lunar module should look like instead of what it looks like? Elaborate. What should the lunar module look like? If you don't like the aluminum alloy compounds they used, what would you have used instead? If you don't like the tape, what method would you have used for fasteners instead?
    1
  11763. So, you can't manage to answer the question. Instead, you assume your ridiculous conclusion, and pretend to know things you don't know.
    1
  11764. Ignoring all input doesn't exactly make you look credible.
    1
  11765. Typical. Again, you refuse to answer stuff I ask, but, you ask more empty questions anyway.
    1
  11766. So, you ignore all input, you refuse to answer questions, yet you keep asking new questions anyway... and now, you're complaining that you didn't get an answer to a question you didn't even ask? What IS wrong with you?
    1
  11767. Um, sorry to burst your bubble, but, she did have her receipt. It doesn't justify any of her other actions here. But, yes, she paid for her items.
    1
  11768. Well, it says so right in the description of this video. And, it's in the court filings for her lawsuit (which she lost). But, yeah, this video is missing half of the entire event, and is edited down. Probably the quickest way for you to see it with your own eyes is in: "Woman suing Publix after being accused of shoplifting, Tased in parking lot in front of children" - at about 0:15 in that video.
    1
  11769. Huh? Even her own high profile attorney didn't sue the police for false arrest. What do you know that he doesn't?
    1
  11770.  @JKDVIPER  THAT is your reply?
    1
  11771. And, once again, just like your other thread, you are agreeing with me without even knowing it. He DID have evidence. The original claim of theft WAS just the start of the process. He had every right to question her, because the store employee said she stole. The employee was wrong, but, that's irrelevant to whether the police can/should stop someone to investigate. I mean, seriously here, you are acting as if every stop and investigation and arrest must be correct and result in a conviction, otherwise it's a false arrest. That's just not true. People are arrested all the time and found to be not guilty. That doesn't mean an arrest was "false." I mean, could you even imagine the amount of money the police around the country would need to pay everyone if every arrest that doesn't prove out to be correct is a "false arrest"? I mean, ok, it's "false" in the sense that she wasn't guilty. But, that's not what the term "false arrest" even means. That would mean that the cop didn't have enough probable cause to make the arrest at all. But, that's not what happened here. The cop had plenty of probable cause. And, as I illustrated in the other threads, and you refuse to reply about, her own high profile attorney doesn't even see a case for false arrest, and didn't sue the police.
    1
  11772. Dewdrop, everyone has their little opinions on what a "good argument" is or isn't. Not a single argument against Apollo has ever stood up to even the slightest amount of scrutiny. Every argument against Apollo for the past 50 years has failed miserably.
    1
  11773. Spare the world your accusations, and explain what "common sense" would ever result in police deactivating their cameras during an arrest?
    1
  11774. Multiple people called the police, not just one. And, one of the "audience" recorded the incident, and showed it to the police. The police report's description of the video doesn't match this woman's claim about being a little private thing with nobody around. And, yes, she was arrested.
    1
  11775.  @stusue9733  I wasn't notified and can't see that reply, except by starting over and viewing the thread fresh. Interesting new info for me. Every document says "non-rechargeable," but, your information says (basically) "minimally-rechargeable." Either way, they never recharged them, nor really intended to. But, I always love new info. Thanks.
    1
  11776. Huh? She had a receipt for buying nothing?
    1
  11777. But, she had gone over the edge 1.5 years before Inside Edition or any other "news" outlet covered it. She was long dead by the time this went viral.
    1
  11778. So, you ask a question, but, negate the answer before you get the answer? Bravo. You're a true genius. Next time, dewdrop, if you want to be taken seriously, ask your questions seriously. Don't pretend you have a question, but reveal that you have no interest in the answer.
    1
  11779. Yes, I agree. I'm not in favor of releasing such videos. But, do you have a solution to solve the problem besides repealing the Freedom of Information Act? Anyway, at least the poor woman didn't suffer any humiliation from the arrest video, since nobody saw it until 2.5 years later, which was 1.5 years after she died.
    1
  11780. It'll happen eventually. I probably won't be alive to see it. Maybe my kids. But, there are just too many other priorities that rank higher than re-visiting a landing site.
    1
  11781. Yeah, funny, but, to your point, all three rovers (Apollo 15/16/17) lost a fender or two each. Seems like a weak point in the design.
    1
  11782. I have a clue for you... ALL parties in this incident were criminals, including Smith.
    1
  11783. YOU SAID: "People have lived their lives and gone to the grave thinking that what they have experienced in that time has been real." == And, your purpose is to spit in all of their faces, and pretend to know things you don't know. YOU SAID: "Things are emerging now that, as with a lot of governments dealings, it is all fake and weve been living a lie" == Pffttt. For FIFTY YEARS, people have been claiming "things are emerging now" to uncover this "hoax" of yours. Yet, year by year by year, the actual evidence gets stronger and stronger. During Apollo, many nations (including the Soviets and other enemies) tracked Apollo to the moon and back with radar and radio telescopes. Literally every day, without a single exception, people have shot lasers at the Apollo reflectors left on the moon, which was first done while the Apollo 11 astronauts were still on the surface. Japan sent up JAXA/Selene to the moon, and they have an entire section of their website dedicated to how they've verified Apollo. Arizona State University's LRO has been sending back images from lunar orbit for over a decade, which include images of all 6 landing sites, the landers, rovers, rover tracks, foot paths, etc., from virtually every possible sun angle. China has sent up probes to the moon, and they say that they've verified Apollo. The 850 pounds of lunar samples brought back by Apollo have been analyzed by thousands of geologists around the world, and have been confirmed to have been billions of years old, and have never been exposed to moisture or oxygen. So, no, I'm sorry, but your stupid statement about "things are emerging now" is just ridiculous and wrong. It's the other way around. You are BACKWARD. Every day that goes by, Apollo is proved more and more and more. And, the only thing that makes you say what you're saying is that you don't actually know anything about Apollo, and you are blindly swallowing the outlandish claims made by conspiracy videos. YOU SAID: "duped by people who just live for power and wealth and will go to any ends to achieve it." == Power and wealth??!?!!? WHAT?!?!!? Any one of the key people who worked on Apollo could have made tons more money by working at a military contractor company instead of NASA. And, how much money and power do the professors and students at Arizona State University get from their 11 years of studying the LRO photographs?? What ARE you talking about? YOU SAID: "Were going through a similar time now and again people dont realise what's really happening." == The irony here is quite amazing to behold. YOU SAID: "NASA have the nerve to say they're going to the Moon and Mars." == Well, I don't know what will happen for Mars. But, at least until/unless the Artemis program is canceled, it's not just NASA claiming that they're going to the moon. Congress says so. In late 2019, congress gave the green light to put people back on the moon by funding the Artemis program. YOU SAID: "My premise is that it will be done by CGI or not at all." == This is EXACTLY how delusional minds work. Essentially, what you're doing is creating a failsafe method to deny what the future will bring. Either way, you win (in your mind). If Artemis gets delayed or canceled, you declare victory, because they didn't go back to the moon. If Artemis proceeds as planned, you declare victory, because you'll just say it's CGI. Have you decided on a way to actually examine the EVIDENCE? No, of course not. Evidence isn't your thing. You don't really care one way or the other about actual evidence. All you care about is whatever excuse you can manufacture to dismiss anything that goes against your delusions.
    1
  11784. Yeah, that's probably the most confusing part. I think it was a slight misspeak at first. I think his point was that he didn't have access to the cameras before stopping to question her, but he just abbreviated it down to saying that he doesn't have access to them. It's absolutely silly to say that there would never be access to cameras. But, he was dealing with a non-cooperative lunatic, so, he probably got a bit frazzled and misspoke.
    1
  11785. And, of course, it's blocking my reply from being seen. Check your notifications instead of trying to read it in this thread.
    1
  11786. OK, and when Inside Edition replies to your suit with "Freedom of Information Act," then what?
    1
  11787. I try not to bash people who merely ask questions. But, seriously, how bad has your education been if you don't know the moon has gravity? What do you think causes the tides on Earth, if not the moon's gravity? Obviously, planets all have gravity, why wouldn't a moon?
    1
  11788.  @DanPerissinotto  Congratulations on continuing to demonstrate your scientific illiteracy in every single thread in which you post your gibberish. Dewdrop, gravity is a fact, a law, and a theory. You clearly don't know what any of those things are in scientific terms. The theory of gravity is just part of it. And, if I'm being honest, I will tell you that I think the current front-running theory of gravity is wrong. But, you very obviously don't understand what I'd even mean by that. You'd undoubtedly think I meant that there's no gravity. But, no, that's not what a theory is. No theory has ever been "proven," dewdrop. That's not what the word "theory" means in science.
    1
  11789. Dewdrop, as I said, I'm not playing your Gish Gallop game. You named some specific things that are ridiculously wrong. I refuted those things, and asked return questions. You don't get to ignore it and change topics.
    1
  11790. Hilarious!! You continue to refuse to read any responses. And, you're thumbs-upping your own comments. How far gone are you?
    1
  11791. So, you watched the first half of the video, and not the 2nd half?
    1
  11792. Well, then he should have called the police BEFORE the teens got there, right?
    1
  11793.  @dougstyles  What ARE you talking about? So, your solution is to just gun people down without even trying to call the police?
    1
  11794.  @dougstyles  Pffttt. No solution? How about CALLING THE POLICE!?!?!?! How can you say that's NOT a solution? I said the solution was to call the police. You just outright rejected it. How ridiculous can you be? How about, "Hello, police, you know those robberies I reported a while back? Well, I bought cameras, I identified who is doing it, I can prove it via the cameras, and because the girl is wearing my stolen flight jacket to high school. They're coming back today to rob me again. Can you send someone here to help catch them in the act?" No? That's NOT a solution? Instead, you "don't blame him" (your words) for planning two murders, and following through on that plan? How sick are you? What's wrong with you? No solution?
    1
  11795. He said he had a gun, and reached for it, and the gun was found near his right hand.
    1
  11796. Huh? What do you think the police did wrong?
    1
  11797. Huh? Well, the "result" was that she died. And, the cold irony is that she might have lived if she was in the relative "safety" of prison.
    1
  11798. Wow, you must have attended Harvard Law School, eh? They give warnings for crimes now, huh? I thought that warnings only applied to infractions, but not to crimes. I thought, for crimes, "probable cause" is what decides whether someone is arrested or not. But, hey, you're the legal eagle here, so, please explain?
    1
  11799. I asked you to explain when they started giving warnings for crimes. I thought warnings were only for infractions. And, you answered with that mess?
    1
  11800. Decent person? With her mile long arrest record and prison time for stealing cars, public drunkenness, judgements against her for various theft, changing her name over and over to try to avoid prosecution and being served notices, left her own family behind, including a 6 month old child, to go out and live the party life of drugs and alcohol, living on welfare and can't pay rent, and estranging her family so badly that nobody even knew she was missing after she committed suicide, and her own husband and son didn't attend her funeral? Decent person?
    1
  11801. Huh? The medical examiner's report said that the body weighed 86 pounds, and that her implants were jutting out from her emaciated body in such a way to emphasize how unhealthy she was. And, she apparently had no close friends or family, because her body sat there for so long without anybody checking on her, until finally her landlord did, because she hadn't paid rent. Turning her life around? What?
    1
  11802. I wouldn't go that far. Kindness is a good thing. But, you're absolutely accurate in this case. She continued to steal from Walgreens, she continued to take drugs. And, maybe she'd still be alive today if she had just simply been arrested and sent to prison. But, she's dead now.
    1
  11803. Why do you believe she tried to be discreet? Because a video on Inside Edition showed you a few seconds of her claiming that? Why do you believe the words of a convicted felon who has a prison and arrest record a mile long, who is trying to avoid her millionth arrest?
    1
  11804. Arrest = July 2021 Suicide = March 2022 Arrest video made public = November 2023 Do the math. One thing had nothing to do with the other. But, that story doesn't go viral. Twisting words, pretending, and asking questions instead of providing answers, is how a routine story about a drug addict committing suicide turns into a viral story about "did she kill herself over embarrassment?" Inside Edition knows the answer is "no," but, instead of giving you the answer, they just feed you the question, and let you believe that the question IS the answer.
    1
  11805. Freedom of Information Act. What do you do to stop it? But, at least it wasn't released until 2.5 years later, which was 1.5 years after she died. The poor woman didn't need to suffer any shame for the release of the video, because she was already dead.
    1
  11806. Apollo 14, Alan Shepard. Not Apollo 11. And, there were 2 or 3 balls.
    1
  11807. I like writing sentences with no punctuation because it makes me look smart and I believe it makes a point when it really doesn't especially when talking about secret governments and presidents who are puppets and who has ideas about whatever other topic I feel like cramming into a single sentence while I hope people read it while I don't propose any solutions to the problems I only like complaining about an invisible government and say that we need to protect ourselves from invisible governments who want my money even though I don't have any money to take and somehow this relates to semiautomatic weapons even though I didn't even mention those because I was rambling about puppets and can I make this sentence any longer?
    1
  11808. So, let me make sure I understand your position here... you didn't care enough to actually try to articulate your thoughts in a coherent way. But, you felt like spewing a bunch of stuff anyway, as if that'll do anybody any good? Isn't that the living definition of just liking to hear yourself talk?
    1
  11809. Bingo. But, it's never going to happen. They make a lot of money by misrepresenting stories and asking questions without giving the answers.
    1
  11810. Well, she's wearing a cross in this video. Or, was that the wrong god?
    1
  11811. Why do you think the shadows do not move over time? Did someone tell you that, and you just blindly believed it? Or, did you actually look at the photo archive yourself? There are hundreds of examples. But, here's just one: compare AS17-145-22211 to AS17-147-22469. You can clearly see that the shadow angle is quite different. Also, as it's been told to you already, please remember that one lunar "day" is one month on Earth. The moon is not spinning very fast.
    1
  11812.  @AM-rd9pu  That's not even the biggest factor. The biggest factor is that the surface heats for 2 weeks, then cools for 2 weeks. Or, well, a little more accurately, it heats for a little over a week, then it starts to cool while still being in sunlight because, as the sun goes down, the surface loses energy faster than it gains it. On Earth, the most amount of time it can heat up is about 12 hours (but, usually, as the sun is going down, it's already cooling, so it's even less than 12 hours). 12 hours of heating vs. a week or two.
    1
  11813. To add to what you said, she was a convicted felon who spent time in a Florida prison about 6 years ago. She had a million arrests before and after. And, here's the timeline: July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. (Nobody saw the video while she was alive.)
    1
  11814. Pffttt. Well, if there's one thing you can count on in YouTube comments, it's a series of crazy people making wild and unsupported accusations. YOU SAID: "Could be they were targeted to be kidnapped" == By giving them dangerously high levels of alcohol? Then, what? Not following through on the kidnapping? YOU SAID: "because really strange no staff assisted them when they were floating in the pool." == Um, yeah, it was after dark, and nobody was at the pool any longer. These two kids got drunk at the pool in the afternoon, went back to their rooms, got more drunk, then snuck back into the pool after dark in a drunken state after everyone was gone. YOU SAID: "Maybe they hit the guy on the head to get the girl but something went wrong with the plan." == Or, maybe two young people got too drunk while on vacation?? Could that be the reason?
    1
  11815. Huh? The multiple callers? The video of the incident? Those things don't matter now?
    1
  11816. So, that's it? Mark corrected your gibberish. You ignore it and change topics? Are you people actually PROUD to behave this way? Seriously? Do you think it's a badge of honor that your mind is a one-way street, completely incapable of taking input, and just spewing word vomit instead? Does this make you happy somehow?
    1
  11817. Just a piece of friendly advice: you might want to write this in your native language, and let the readers translate it to English. I'm not sure what you thought you were saying, but, whatever translator you used didn't work very well.
    1
  11818. Never blame the criminal for her own crimes. Nope. Blame the innocent bystanders and the police.
    1
  11819. Held responsible for what, exactly?
    1
  11820. Huh? They canceled Apollo prematurely because of the exact OPPOSITE of what you're trying to convey. You are claiming that people didn't question the utility of the program. Well, sorry, but that's simply not true. Congressmen all over the place were looking to pull the plug on Apollo since before anybody went to the moon, because, yes, they WERE questioning the utility of the program. And, after the Apollo 1 fire, they actually came pretty close (relatively) to getting the program shut down before anybody went to the moon. Apollo missions 18, 19, and 20 were canceled in between Apollo 12 and Apollo 14, using Apollo 13 as a catalyst to finally put a nail into the program's coffin. Public support just wasn't there. And, by Apollo 17, nobody even knew who the astronauts were. Sure, Armstrong and Aldrin were household names, and had difficulty even going out in public without being mobbed like rock stars. But, Cernan and Schmitt? Not even close. They could go to movies, grocery stores, etc., and nobody gave them a second glance. The public simply wasn't interested in Apollo, and, yes, they wanted the program to get canceled. As for the primary function of Apollo: well, it was to scare the Soviets. It was a mechanism to tell them that the USA's industrial and technological capabilities could beat them. It was a mechanism to avoid WWIII. And, many people think that, if not for Apollo, millions would have died in a nuclear war. It's impossible to say for sure if that's correct or not, because there's no such thing as a time machine to change history. But, that was its primary purpose.
    1
  11821. OK, but, it didn't really "go public" until 2.5 years later. I mean, sure, the one obscure article on a website I've never heard of before, ok. But, the arrest video release and the following viral coverage didn't happen until long after she was dead.
    1
  11822. Well, being a convicted felon (did a prison term 6 years ago), with a million other arrests, she shouldn't have the firearm to begin with. But, that's another story entirely.
    1
  11823. I don't lack sympathy. But, I hold her accountable for her own actions.
    1
  11824. I think her biggest crime was walking out on her children (one was a 6 month old son) over a decade ago because she preferred a life of crime and drugs.
    1
  11825. You know "for what." Answer = for an attempt at a trumped up lawsuit, right?
    1
  11826. 1) So, your position is that it "doesn't make sense" to go to the moon unless all "mysteries of life" are solved first? 2) Lay off of the drugs.
    1
  11827. It takes many weeks before the effect you're talking about. Stop listening to crackpots.
    1
  11828. How do you know? Have you seen his fireplace?
    1
  11829. Can you name any media that even published this story while she was alive?
    1
  11830. So, let me make sure I understand your position: you know SO little about the missions that you think Apollo 11 had a rover, completely failing to understand that the rovers came only on the later missions... but, simultaneously to understanding THAT little about Apollo, you also believe you understand the topic better than the entire planet's experts, to the point that you think you know enough to label it as "fake"? Good grief.
    1
  11831. Was that reply all that your 6 brain cells could muster?
    1
  11832. Well, that's because SpaceX is a clown show of a rocket company, and should never have been chosen. NASA seems to have realized that mistake, because they've already contracted Blue to build a different lander. Hopefully, we only lose $3 billon by that blunder. But, we'll see, because I have zero faith that they'll cut off SpaceX altogether, and that Blue will do it for only another $3 billion. My best guess is that it'll cost us more like $12 billion total between Blue and SpaceX, instead of just $3 billion to SpaceX.
    1
  11833.  @Amsayy  Don't hold your breath about Artemis III. NASA is already backtracking and saying that it might be another lunar orbital mission. SpaceX is a train wreck. And, they waited too long to contract Blue to build a different lander.
    1
  11834. But, you don't know anything. You can't even read or write properly. Why would you think you understand the topic?
    1
  11835. What clowns. They don't care? OK, I wonder if they'd be saying that they don't care if THEY were some of the countless journalists that Armstrong fraudulently sued for MILLIONS (and won). They don't care if cheating is rampant? Yeah, sure, if their own kids started getting interested in sports, and the only way to succeed was to pump up on dangerous cancer-causing drugs, would they say "sure, go ahead" to the kids? And, what lessons are they teaching? These two journalists are idiots.
    1
  11836. Dewdrop, the arrest video wasn't released until 1.5 years after she died.
    1
  11837. Well, let's face reality here. Multiple people called this into the police. One woman even video recorded it with her cell phone. The police described that video in their police report, and it doesn't match the woman's version of a little private discreet thing with nobody around, which is what she says when trying to avoid getting arrested. They say it was a very loud and public display in full view of multiple people including children. Now, I can't really say, because I am nobody, and never knew her. But, my guess is that she WANTED to be seen.
    1
  11838. What don't you understand about when she said to the kids to call their mom? Are you under the impression that she's the mom? As for being arrested, um, yeah, she was accused of stealing, she refused to ID, she obstructed/obfuscated, and then she resisted arrest.
    1
  11839. Bingo.
    1
  11840. Well, its main purpose was political. It was a message to the Soviets that if they messed with us, we would beat them. We were on the brink of a nuclear war. And, by sending a message of technological and industrial dominance, we helped to keep the cold war from turning into a real war. We can't turn back time, but, many believe that, without Apollo, there'd be big holes in the ground where cities used to be. I'd say something good came out of Apollo.
    1
  11841. Well, that's the problem with news articles, they often botch the facts. And, of course, they never print retractions. Go read the actual release NASA made about those two tapes. They were the BACKUP tapes, and had never once even been viewed. The article you're quoting from uses the words "original tapes," but, I have no idea where they'd get those words from. The primary NTSC conversion tapes are just as "original" as the pre-conversion backup tapes that were lost.
    1
  11842. With as often as she got arrested, maybe they got a special pair of cuffs just for her?
    1
  11843. As opposed to what? Immediately focus on aid, and take attention away from surroundings? While a screaming banshee arrived in about 20 seconds? While a screaming brother arrived shortly after? What do you suppose happens if someone else crawls out of the woodwork to pick up where Mark left off? How about securing the scene first, getting a bunch of cops on scene, then rendering aid? Wouldn't that be a better plan?
    1
  11844. OK, I won't argue with that. But, just out of curiosity, in your mind, what would it take to be an ugly soul? I mean, this woman had a felony conviction and served time in prison for stealing cars. She had an arrest record a mile long for various offenses, drugs and alcohol, etc. A number of judgements against her for various thefts. Numerous failures to appear in court. Open arrest warrants. Etc. She attempted to change her name a few times to evade the police. She left her husband and two kids (one of them just 6 months old) in order to go live a "wild" and "off the rails" (her family's words) life of drugs and crime instead. I'm pretty sure it's difficult to get a straight job after all of that. So, her landlord said that her job was as a stripper in a local club. And, internet rumors say that she also had "private" sessions for cash from numerous men. I mean, ok, none of that negates your "beautiful soul" comment. But, what does someone have to do to be an "ugly soul"?
    1
  11845. Why? What in the world do you think they did wrong?
    1
  11846. First of all, the arrest video wasn't made public until she was already dead for 1.5 years. None of the big social media stuff you see about this woman ever happened when she was alive.
    1
  11847. Secondly, multiple people called the police. One of them even recorded the incident and showed the video to the police. Read the report yourself. It differs quite a bit from this notion of a quiet and discreet act with nobody around, the story portrayed by the woman attempting to avoid her millionth arrest.
    1
  11848. And, I seriously doubt she even knew what shame was. A normal person would be ashamed of her prison record, arrest record, etc. But, she kept on committing crimes. I doubt shame was any part of it.
    1
  11849. How should it have been dealt with differently?
    1
  11850. I blame people for their own actions, instead of shifting blame to someone else.
    1
  11851. Well, maybe if you'd stop watching silly conspiracy videos, you'd get the answers. Hint: those conspiracy videos you watch aren't going to show you anything truthful.
    1
  11852.  @espoj12  And, you only know about the "lost the technology" comment because a conspiracy video showed it to you. And, your entire knowledge is based on a single sentence spoken by a single astronaut. This is really very simple, so I don't know why you have difficulty with it. It's "lost" in the exact same sense that Concorde technology is lost. We don't have it any longer. It's not because we don't know how it was done. It's not because we can't do it again if given enough money to rebuild a program. It's a simple statement about the fact that the technology was all lost/destroyed. Everything that it took to put Concorde airplanes into the air is gone. The only things that remain are the gutted out museum pieces. There are no engines. There are no repair facilities. There are no manufacturing facilities. The people are long gone, dead, retired, or moved on to other things. It would take you about 10 years to get a replacement Concorde off the ground. And, the same is true of Apollo. There are no launch facilities. Those were ripped down. There are no manufacturing facilities. Those were knocked down or retooled to build other things. The 450,000 highly trained people are mostly dead now, and the ones still alive are long retired. The companies that built everything for Apollo are mostly gone also. The few companies that remain do not have anybody on staff who actually worked on Apollo. Nobody uses analog S-band communications. Nobody uses that style radar. The IBM mainframe guidance computers were all dismantled and scrapped. Now, was Pettit going to explain all of that (and a million more things)? Or, was it just easier to say it's "lost" or "destroyed"? Why do you hinge your entire opinions on one statement?
    1
  11853. Another proud YouTube University Law School graduate, I see.
    1
  11854. Freedom of Information Act. However, the police can and do block the release if an investigation is open. This arrest = July 1, 2021. Suicide = March, 2022. Arrest video released = November 24, 2023.
    1
  11855. If your plan was to be wrong in every single sentence you wrote... mission accomplished!!
    1
  11856. Multiple people called the police. One witness said the woman wandered up and down the beach, then plopped down in view of people and did this. One of the "audience" recorded it on video, and showed the video to the police. They describe the video in the police report (go read it yourself) as a loud and public act in view of multiple people including children. Why did you conclude that her version of the story (a discreet act with nobody around) was the correct version? Because she said so while attempting to avoid her millionth arrest?
    1
  11857. What she did would be illegal in Europe also. Don't pretend otherwise.
    1
  11858. The police did everything correctly. There isn't a suit there. They took her away from view of the crowd to question her. They arrested her correctly. They blocked the public release of the arrest video for 2.5 years. But, after she was dead for 1.5 years, they could no longer block legal FOIA requests, and had to release the video. You weren't under the impression that anybody saw the arrest video while she was alive, were you?
    1
  11859. You're worried about her employability after getting arrested? So, when should people get arrested? Nobody can ever be arrested now? Would you say the same if it was a man at a playground? "Don't arrest him, it might affect his future!"?
    1
  11860. And, sorry, but, she long before had thrown her normal employment possibilities out the window. Almost a decade ago, she left her normal life behind, abandoned her family, and decided to live a "wild" and "off the rails" (her family's words) life of crime and drugs. She did a felony prison term for stealing cars. She had multiple judgements against her for other various thefts. A mile long record of other arrests for drugs and alcohol, failures to appear in court (which she did also in this case), open arrest warrants, etc. Her legal situation was really piling up, so, she tried to change her name a few times to evade police. And, yeah, it's extremely difficult to get a straight job after all of that, so, according to her landlord, she was a stripper at a local club. She put on shows like this every day she worked at the club, but, this time, she chose to put on the show at a public beach.
    1
  11861. You complain that she shouldn't end up on the sex offender list. OK, but, dewdrop, it's extremely unlikely that she would have ended up on it anyway, if the picture was what you think it was. If she actually had been a suburban soccer mom and real estate agent, who was isolated on a beach and this was a discreet act that nobody could see, yeah, this would easily negotiate down to some minor infraction and she'd not end up on any list. You'd have gotten what you're asking for. But, instead, she never showed up to make any such negotiation. And, let's face reality here, she was not a mild mannered soccer mom. She was a convicted felon with a mile long record.
    1
  11862. "it's why the USA has more people incarcerated per capita than any other nation in the world." Absolutely positively incorrect. The prison population of soccer moms caught goofing around on a beach is NIL. We have the highest incarceration rate largely as a result of having the highest rates of illegal immigration of criminals, and the highest frequency of gangs, and a dismal high school graduation rate in large metropolitan cities.
    1
  11863. "There is a Youtube documentary on a woman who" .... Well, given your obvious propensity to swallow any garbage you see on YouTube (this video included), I hardly think you have much judgement about determining what's true or not. If I show you a YouTube documentary about Bigfoot, does that make it real?
    1
  11864. Most ironic nickname ever. You have sheepishly gobbled up every piece of gibberish fed to you, and regurgitated it. Not a single thing you wrote was correct. Not one. Bravo, you're a real hero.
    1
  11865. So, you're doubling down? You scoured the internet? How about simply reading her arrest reports and prison records? Good grief.
    1
  11866. Huh? What would you do? A guy walks up with a mask/hood on, and points a gun at your head. Now what? How would you react? Let yourself get shot without doing anything about it?
    1
  11867. So, you refuse to answer the question. So, basically, this means you would just sit there and get yourself shot. Right.
    1
  11868. Well, you can't exactly "humiliate" a dead person. But, yeah, I agree, it's pretty bad taste to blast it on the internet after she died.
    1
  11869. I think this version is far more honorable than the actual story. And, by the way, she didn't suffer much from this story. Other than a couple of obscure blogs nobody has ever heard of, nobody covered this incident until long after she was dead.
    1
  11870. It's called a legal FOIA request. Freedom of Information Act. But, it doesn't get released if the case is still active. In this case, she was already dead 1.5 years before this arrest video was made public. Date of arrest = July 2021. Date of suicide = March 2022. Date of release of the video = November 2023. I mean, you don't believe claptrap you see online, do you?
    1
  11871. Well, then you've completely misunderstood everything. First of all, nobody is claiming that the cop profiled anybody. The claim was that the STORE profiled her. The store employee "Anna" told the officer that the woman went through without paying. At that point, the officer's duty is to perform the investigation, no matter who someone is. So, if anybody profiled someone, it was Anna, who didn't see any Cadillac. Secondly, I could almost understand your position about providing (or not providing) a receipt. Almost. The fact is, a store has the right to demand that you prove you paid for something. So, that's why I say "almost" about this. But, she took it more steps beyond that. During a police investigation, you are required by law to identify yourself. She refused to do that also. So, it's not just the failure to provide a receipt, it's the failure to identify also. You can pretend to be "standing your ground" all day long, but, if you refuse to identify, then you're not merely standing your ground, you're downright committing a crime at that point. Innocent, guilty, whatever, you are required to identify yourself to an officer who is investigating a potential crime. And, lastly, she resisted arrest. I'd say that these actions make it more than reasonable suspicion of a crime. That's all the officer needs to demonstrate at the side of the road. He doesn't need to prove a case. He just needs to decide if there's enough evidence to warrant the arrest, and to take it to a courtroom. That's where the case is decided. In court. Not at the side of the road.
    1
  11872. Sorry, you lost all credibility when you made your "knee on the neck" comparison. I'm done here. I'm not playing your ridiculous game.
    1
  11873. Good grief. Dewdrop, NASA doesn't discontinue anything, nor does it continue anything. CONGRESS does. If congress funds moon missions, NASA performs moon missions. If congress ends the funding for moon missions, NASA stops sending moon missions. The lack of public support results in CONGRESS ending the program. Yet, here you are, acting as if NASA makes these decisions? Do you know ANYTHING?
    1
  11874.  @ronharris3411  Sorry, that ship had sailed. She already had refused to ID, obstructed and obfuscated. You can keep pretending all day long that you understand stuff that you don't. It's apparently why you like YouTube, so you can spew your silly opinions all over the place, and pretend you're right. But, sorry, I know better.
    1
  11875. Excuse me?? So, I'm not better than convicted murderers? Um, no. You're wrong. I'm better than convicted murderers. And, unless you're a murderer also, so are you.
    1
  11876. You clearly do NOT want to hear the answer. Don't pretend you do.
    1
  11877. Huh? They arrested her for committing a misdemeanor crime. And, she had an arrest record a mile long with a history of failing to show up in court, with open warrants. What would you say the police should do differently?
    1
  11878. Wow, what a complete train wreck comment you just made. 1) It was proven that she participated in the murder also, hence why she was found guilty. Good grief. She even CONFESSED TWICE to actively participating in the murder. 2) It's "OK" because the man took the plea deal he was offered. They offered him life imprisonment with no death penalty in exchange for a guilty plea. He took the deal. She was offered the same deal. She decided to reject it, recant her confessions, and stupidly thought she could win at trial. It's OK when people make their beds, that they are required to lie in them. Ironically, though, her death sentence was overturned, so are you happy now?
    1
  11879.  @GSCnocturne  What are you talking about? He DID articulate the suspicion of the crime!! And, if you think anything you're saying is correct, please explain why her own high profile attorney didn't think there was a case against the police? Why did he only sue the store, and not the police also?
    1
  11880. Huh? Didn't it get fixed in this video?
    1
  11881. Google.
    1
  11882. Did drugs do this to you? Or, was it something else?
    1
  11883.  @jajaruss  Did drugs do this to you? Or, was it something else?
    1
  11884. I have no idea what you're talking about, and neither do you. The moon is too low on the horizon for WHAT? The moon is low on the horizon, then, about 6 hours later, it's higher in the sky, then it's back down on the opposite horizon. Unless you live at one of the poles or something. Anyway, I completely fail to understand whatever point you were attempting to make.
    1
  11885. And, sorry, but your edited version is not much better than your original version. You still don't make any sense.
    1
  11886. In general, they blur for open investigations, and don't blur for closed ones. Since she was long dead, no need to blur.
    1
  11887.  @TexMex421  We don't know if the solar panels from Apollo 11's EASEP overheated or not, but, they definitely stopped working after about 3 weeks. Maybe they overheated. Who knows?
    1
  11888.  @trhansen3244  But, nothing you're saying is correct. The arrest video wasn't made public until she was already dead for 1.5 years. Before then, she had a whopping ONE headline, very obscure, on a site I had never even heard of before. I mean, good grief, she got more press from her prior arrests for stealing cars and public drunkenness than she did for this beach incident.
    1
  11889. What a massive delusion. Saved more lives? Via what? His sham charity? The "cancer awareness" charity? (**NOT** RESEARCH, you moron!!! Awareness... as if there's anyone in the modern world unaware of cancer.) So, in your deluded world, would ANY low-life criminal who makes hundreds of millions on a lie, destroying other people's lives in the process, suing innocents left and right, started up a niceynice sounding charity as a false front of heroics, would you say "I'm quite glad"? Insane nutbag.
    1
  11890.  @LetsUniteNow  Why do you keep posting the same incorrect gibberish? Yes, he did articulate it. The store employee thought she didn't pay. Yes, that's enough reasonable suspicion. It never even went to a lower court, because her own three attorneys didn't see a case against the police, and never even filed one. They only filed a case against the store, but, it had nothing to do with the arrest. They accused the store of profiling. And, the case was tossed out of court, and she has been barred from ever filing it again. Her three attorneys never appealed it, probably because there is no way the appellate court would ever overturn a slam-dunk easy case like this one. Sorry, but there's no such concept as "probable cause to detain her." Probable cause is for the arrest phase, not the detainment phase. You clearly don't even understand the basics here. Her attitude wasn't illegal, but, her actions were. She is required by law to provide identification during a police investigation, but repeatedly refused. You can be arrested for that alone, regardless of whether or not she stole anything. It is also illegal to obstruct/obfuscate an investigation, but she did so repeatedly. And, resisting arrest is also a crime. And, sorry, but yes, if you see someone go through without paying, that's a good enough reason to ask the cop to investigate. This isn't up to you, it's up to the store. And, by the time anybody checked a camera, the woman would have been long gone, so, spare the world this notion that they needed to stop and look at cameras first. There's absolutely no requirement to do so. All of this (and more) is why there was never a lawsuit against the police, and why she lost her lawsuit against the store. So, you don't even need to believe me. Believe her own three attorneys.
    1
  11891. It received nearly zero social media traffic while she was alive. 99.99% of the viral stuff didn't happen until the arrest video was released on November 24, 2023.
    1
  11892.  @g.gorrell2088  Huh? They're PROUD of their ignorance!!!
    1
  11893.  @Trina-rg7fi  That's not the point. It's not doing the world any good to have a deceptive story like this, painting an inaccurate picture of what happened. Most people in the comments blame the police for doing their jobs correctly, instead of holding people responsible for their own actions. THAT is what's wrong with this story.
    1
  11894. Depends on how you define "plane." The X15 went mach 7, more than double the SR71 speed.
    1
  11895.  @stusue9733  I said X15, not the space shuttle.
    1
  11896. Well, that's nice and all, but, when the buyers are members of a cult, the engineering doesn't matter. The Cybertruck doesn't even need to be good. It just needs to be advertised by the cult leader and the cult followers will buy.
    1
  11897. She gave up her good job a decade ago in order to live a life of drugs and crime. She served a felony term in prison, and had an arrest record a mile long. So, no more good jobs after that. According to her landlord, her job at the time of her death was as a stripper at the local club.
    1
  11898. But, the arrest video wasn't posted anywhere until 1.5 years after she died. So, um, no.
    1
  11899. Well, given that this arrest video and 99.9% of the news coverage didn't happen until long after she was dead, I reject your theory on face value alone. November 24, 2023 was when the arrest video was released and everything went viral. She died two years ago. And, as for embarrassment from being arrested, yeah, I don't think that was part of her vocabulary. She had an arrest record a mile long, and served time in prison for stealing cars. I'd think she was pretty used to getting arrested by this point. And, according to her landlord, she was a stripper at a local club. I doubt "shame" is part of her vocabulary either.
    1
  11900. My point was that your perception was inaccurate. And, trash news isn't helping anything by portraying her as an innocent soccer mom, when the reality was the opposite.
    1
  11901. Why would you believe such a thing? Because Inside Edition told you to think that, so you do? None of her other million arrests resulted in anything like this. But, this one did? And she waited a year?
    1
  11902. Good gods. You have no concept of radiation, no concept of conservation of momentum, no concept of thermodynamics in general, yet, you feel qualified to "educate" others?? Why? You obviously never set foot into a university classroom on any of these topics. You are glaringly ignorant in every single barely literate word you type. What possible reason would you have to believe you understand these topics better than aerospace engineers? I mean, I'd normally tear apart every single line you wrote. But, it would just be too much of a waste of time, like trying to teach calculus to an earthworm. But, I'll respond about the solar wind comment, and the notion that you believe they didn't know about it in the 1960s/1970s: hey, dewdrop, if you think they didn't know about it during Apollo, why do you suppose the Apollo missions brought solar wind collectors? Do you think they'd bring solar wind collectors on missions if they didn't know the solar wind existed?
    1
  11903. Of saved? Sorry, dewdrop, "of" isn't part of a verb. When you're barely literate, you'll forgive the rest of the world for dismissing your silly opinions. The proper thing to do is secure the area first. Else, who knows how many others are going to pop out of the woodwork with guns? And, do you REALLY believe the kid could live through that? Really? An upper chest hit like that? Probably with a .40? He spoke his last words about 20 seconds later, and made his last movements another 10 seconds after that. And, you think he would have lived?
    1
  11904. It WAS kept private. Arrest = July 1, 2021. Suicide = March, 2022. Arrest video released = November 24, 2023. Eventually, the police can no longer block Freedom of Information Act requests, once the case is closed long enough.
    1
  11905.  @alH1ndawi  Source? Her arrest record and obituary.
    1
  11906.  @alH1ndawi  Is your Google broken?
    1
  11907.  @alH1ndawi  What in the world are you talking about? She says and spells her name in the video. "Jamie M Scafe" - look it up. You see a picture of her in the obituary. You see her arrest record. What in the world more do you want from me? Is it my fault you don't understand how to use Google?
    1
  11908.  @alH1ndawi  And, you could have done all of that by looking for yourself from the start.
    1
  11909.  @01mustang05  Did you even watch the longer version of this video? You do realize this video starts in the middle, cutting off the end, and never even shows the beginning, right? I mean, I think it's completely obvious. But, in your case, with the number of comments you've made that demonstrate that you're completely clueless, I'm not so sure that you are even capable of realizing that this video has been edited down massively.
    1
  11910. That's what you do when your magazine is out of bullets. You dump the one, and replace it with another that has bullets.
    1
  11911. Are they drug addicts and thieves?
    1
  11912.  @lianasoares8052  Well, that will all start clearing up when you (a) read my replies, and (b) start to realize you cannot trust the words of a convicted felon trying to avoid her millionth arrest.
    1
  11913.  @teenanance8691  Dewdrop, I'm sorry you blindly believe Inside Edition, but, the arrest video wasn't released until November 24, 2023. Read the FOIA release yourself. She died in March of 2022.
    1
  11914. What in the world are you babbling about? Nobody said cops need proof in order to investigate a crime. The side of the road isn't a courtroom. Why are you spewing this gibberish, as if it applies to this situation? By your standard, no cop could even question or arrest anybody, until after there's a trial and conviction. How would such a system ever even work? Cops operate under concepts like "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause," not "proof." Cops aren't judge and jury. And, we WANT cops to investigate crimes and make arrests. An arrest isn't a conviction. She's innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Yeah, the court of law comes later, in due process. In the meantime, when cops see potential crimes, they investigate, and determine if it's likely that a crime actually happened. Good grief. And, for you to say a confession isn't evidence of a crime... utterly vapid. Yes, a confession is evidence. It's not the only type of evidence, but, yes, it's quite clearly evidence. You don't even know the definitions of the words you use.
    1
  11915. Good grief. By the way you're talking, no cop could ever even investigate a crime or make an arrest until after getting a conviction in a courtroom. How backward can you be? And, you don't think a confession is evidence? Wow. I mean, just plain wow. It's not the only form of evidence, but, yes, sorry to inform you, but, a confession *IS* evidence.
    1
  11916. So, you're just going to delete your silly comment, and post a different silly comment? Sorry, but I cannot help people who are so extremely proud to know absolutely nothing.
    1
  11917. She did not steal. She had the receipt after all. The cop is in the clear anyway, because the store has a right to ask for proof of payment. And, the woman refused to identify herself, and resisted arrest. She gave the cop plenty of reasonable suspicion of a crime, which justifies the arrest, even though the initial crime never happened. Cops don't have to be correct. Cops just have to be able to justify suspicion of a crime, and then let the courts decide who's right or wrong. She didn't get paid a dime, by the way. She sued Publix for $50,000, and it was thrown out of court. The fact that she paid for the stuff isn't the issue. It's just reality that, sometimes, human mistakes happen. But, that doesn't justify the notion that the woman is allowed to resist, fail to cooperate, fail to identify herself, and then pretend it's because of her skin color. The store employee was mistaken, period. That doesn't mean she gets a $50,000 payday, after behaving this way, and refusing to cooperate.
    1
  11918. Well, she had a husband and two sons. But, she walked out on them more than a decade because she preferred a life of drugs and crime.
    1
  11919. Good grief. Frankly, the particular attorney rarely matters for stuff like this. The judges and/or juries listen to the facts and make up their minds. A different attorney wouldn't have made any difference. She caused her own problems here, by violating the law instead of cooperating with a police investigation. No, she didn't steal. But, everything she did after that point was against the law.
    1
  11920. This has GOT to be a joke. "I don't know what it's called, but, every expert is wrong about whatever it is."
    1
  11921. She could even be charged with murder/manslaughter. Unlikely that they could get a conviction in this case. But, when armed bank robbers get killed in the act, the ones that survive can be charged with the deaths of the ones that died, since their own actions are what caused it. Same goes here. If she's assisting him in the crime that got him killed....
    1
  11922. I watched "Full Metal Jacket" yesterday. There's that scene when Hartman finds that the lock is open on one of the privates' footlockers. Hartman scolds the private for leaving the footlocker unlocked, and says, "if it wasn't for people like you, there wouldn't be any crime!" So, don't blame the criminal for stealing, blame the victim for not locking the lock. That's pretty similar to what you're saying here. Don't blame the criminal, blame the innocent bystanders for reporting the criminal.
    1
  11923. Well, we have this thing called a "society." Perhaps you might want to live in one someday.
    1
  11924. I just love hearing idiots pretend they're "awake," while being completely oblivious to reality.
    1
  11925. Yes, and the story is readily available (not on Inside Edition). Short version: she was a felon who had a million arrests and spent time in prison, turned stripper, and one of the audience had it on video. And, the arrest video wasn't made public until long after she died, so, no, it didn't cause her death.
    1
  11926. This is too funny. You're talking about China not finding evidence for Apollo, right? Um, sorry, but China DID spot the Apollo artifacts on the moon with their orbiting satellite, and have openly said so. What has happened here is that you have fallen for an article published by World News Daily Report. It said that China didn't find any evidence for Apollo with its orbiters, and that 2,000 Chinese officials have signed a petition to the USA demanding an answer about it. The problem is that WNDR is a PARODY website. Their tagline is "where facts don't matter." And, at the bottom of every page is a disclaimer that says that it's a miracle if anything they claim has any relation to reality. It's basically the web version of Saturday Night Live's parody news. Yes, I always get a kick out of you hoax nuts when you keep using that parody claim as if it makes your case. I think the other story that they ran that day was about a bunch of housecats that were going around neighborhoods and breaking into houses to steal jewelry. Get it? Catburglars? Funny, right? Did you believe that article was true also?
    1
  11927. Huh? What EXACTLY is 100% the media's fault?
    1
  11928. Who is "they"?
    1
  11929. They left three corner cube mirror ARRAYS, not just individual mirrors.
    1
  11930. It doesn't matter what you are, electrician, landscaper, rocket engineer, janitor, whatever. What matters is that you make baseless assertions, refuse to even address your own topics, refuse to answer questions, and never admit when you're wrong. It's ridiculous. It's like the behavior of an early teen. But, you're an adult. Grow up finally!!! Sheeeessshhh. Is it THAT difficult to just admit you never looked at the photos you're telling others to look at? I'll ask it again, since you ignored it before: if you never looked at the photos yourself, why did you declare that they never took those photos you complained didn't exist? Don't come back with the same backtrack as you did last time. Don't sit there and say they never took the photos, then turn around and say they took the photos, but that the photos are fake. Just admit you blindly swallowed some garbage that was fed to you by a conspiracy video. I've seen those videos too, dewdrop. Those videos say they never took photos of Earth. Anybody who looks at the archive would know that's a false claim. Yet, you turned around and told OTHERS to look at the photos in the archive? Do you actually believe yourself to be an honest person? How can you sit there with this level of dishonesty and pretend otherwise?
    1
  11931. Um, no. She and her three high profile attorneys never filed a case against the cops. They knew there just wasn't a case to be had, because the woman was in the wrong, and the cop did nothing wrong. So, they sued the store for a mere $50K, hoping just to get a quick payout on a very weak case. But, the store didn't give a dime, and let it go to court. The court tossed it out (as they should), and the woman lost, and her attorneys didn't appeal it.
    1
  11932. Is this a joke?
    1
  11933. And, that solves this problem, how?
    1
  11934. Huh? Everyone involved in what? Her arrest?
    1
  11935. CALL THE POLICE then. You don't get to plan two murders ahead of time, rather than simply calling the police.
    1
  11936. Police can use discretion for an infraction, but, not for an aggravated misdemeanor. Any discretion is left for the courts, not the police on the street. And, sorry, but would you give mercy to a guy begging for it after being caught cranking in front of kids at the playground? No? You think the courts should deal with him, and not simply letting him go, allowing him to do it again tomorrow?
    1
  11937. There was virtually zero shaming, because there was nearly zero coverage of the story until long after she was dead. And, as for the incident, sorry, but the audience captured it on video and gave it to the police. Needless to say, it didn't match this version about a quiet act with nobody around. Quite to the contrary.
    1
  11938. Yet, you can't name the better way? Just complain that there is one, without naming how?
    1
  11939. Dewdrop, it's called the Freedom of Information Act. And, no, it had nothing to do with her death, because nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive. It wasn't released until 2.5 years later.
    1
  11940. C'mon now, don't just leave us hanging. Please tell the world where you've seen any of those magical telescopes?
    1
  11941. Did you bother reading my response before you responded back? Good grief. Why do you people ask questions if you're not going to read the answers?
    1
  11942. Rampid. Good one. Is that like "rampant" plus "rabid" squeezed into one word?
    1
  11943. So, if a man goes to a playground, and begins cranking it in front of the kids, your solution is to arrest the parents of the kids?
    1
  11944. Huh? The charges against her did stick. She's in prison right now.
    1
  11945. What don't you understand, dewdrop? Artemis got the green light from congress in 2018, and the funding started in 2019. Yes, they've been working on it for 4 years. Sorry you don't understand.
    1
  11946. Well, I hate to be a hypocrite here, because almost all of my cars have huge V8 engines, and the only one that doesn't, is a supercharged monster V6. But, sorry, you're just plain wrong. I don't know where you're getting the notion that it takes more CO2 to produce a battery than driving a car 180,000 miles, but, that's just plain silliness. I think it's likely that you might be referring to the diesel trucks that mine the lithium, or something like that. But, they're producing enough batteries for hundreds of cars, not just one.
    1
  11947. I am not a geologist, and I'm not in a position to argue such points. But, I reject that claim outright on principle alone. I've never even heard of such an objection in any scientific peer reviewed journal. And, I'd suspect that if your assertion was true, it would be in those journals. It sounds more like an out of context quote from somewhere (which is how lots of media get their talking points). But, again, I don't have the expertise to debate it.
    1
  11948. "the photos with obvious signs of fakery?" Which ones? I mean, sure, lots of the Apollo photos have been modified, but, they always label which ones. Can you provide a NASA catalog number of ones you think have these signs?
    1
  11949. "intersecting shadows?" You mean "converging shadows," right? Um, yeah, they're supposed to do that.
    1
  11950. "objects overlaying the crosshairs that are imbedded in the lense? yea." Oh, what a photographic expert you are, when you cannot even spell "lens" correctly. Bravo. Dewdrop, did it ever occur to you that this is caused by a chemical reaction on the film emulsion? No? You think the entire world doesn't know how/why that happens? Do you have any examples of this "problem" of crosshairs disappearing on anything besides a white background object? When the white stripes on the flag bleach out the crosshairs, and the red stripes don't, do you think the "studio workers" placed crosshairs on the red stripes and not the white stripes on the flag? Or, hmmm, could it be that you don't have the slightest understanding of photography?
    1
  11951. Oh, and by the way, dewdrop, the crosshairs are NOT embedded in the lenses. You have absolutely no understanding of photography, and shouldn't pretend you do.
    1
  11952. A) Retail is a brutal business with extremely thin margins. I think you overestimate their ability to hand out free stuff. B) As far as charity helping to reduce theft, huh? How did that go with this woman? She was given a break by the store, didn't press charges, and the cop purchased stuff for her. That's some pretty good charity, right? How'd that work out? She went right back to continue stealing from Walgreens until they arrested her for it.
    1
  11953. (continued) You don't honestly believe that Warren Buffet pays less than his secretary, do you? You say that rich in the Netherleands pay 52%? Yeah, it's the same here in the USA. Warren Buffet's "pay less tax than secretary" is a myth. They're talking about ONE tax category and then they say "oh, he pays less." The total he pays in all of the tax categories is 50-55%. Buffet is fighting the IRS on 1 billion in tax. Don't trust this bullshit doubletalk about how he pays less than his secretary.
    1
  11954. Jesus fucking goddamned imaginary christ. You know NOTHING. Grounds for firing varies from state to state. In some states, NO, a boss cannot fire you for anything he finds unsatisfactory. In other states, yes. But, that wasn't your original statement. You said "the constitution allows you to say anything" and "it also would allow you to curse out your boss"! What the hell is wrong with you? Dumbass, NOTHING you say is consistent with reality. Now go back to your rubber room and quit posting BS.
    1
  11955. On what charge?
    1
  11956. About this suit you propose... who, and on what basis? About a citation, um, huh? This was a misdemeanor. There's no such thing as a citation for that.
    1
  11957. Multiple people called the police for this incident. Witnesses said that the woman walked up and down the beach, and intentionally chose a spot in front of others. One witness even recorded it, and showed the video to the police. Needless to say, it didn't match the discreet little act with nobody around, as the woman attempts to claim when she's trying to avoid her millionth arrest, and doesn't want to go back to prison again. Stop blaming the victims, good grief.
    1
  11958. Agreed. But, life is strange. And, had he just arrested her, she might still be alive today, in the relative "safety" of prison.
    1
  11959. Yeah, I'm sure if she was able to get over her mile long arrest record and prison time for doing things like stealing cars and public drunkenness, drug and alcohol abuse, and walking out on her family and two sons years prior, sure, this incident was nothing by comparison, and could surely get over it.
    1
  11960. In her arrest record, in internet articles, in interviews, etc.
    1
  11961. No, it's called personal accountability. We don't pass blame to others for the actions freely chosen by someone else.
    1
  11962. A store has the right to ask for proof of payment. You're correct in that she doesn't have to prove innocence, but, you're failing to mention that a cop doesn't have to prove guilt either. That's what the courts are for. The cop's job is to determine if enough reasonable suspicion of a crime exists. And, the store employee said she saw the woman go through without paying. Then, the woman refused to provide a receipt. She also refused to identify herself (a crime right there). And, she resisted arrest. You're correct in the rest of your posting, she handled this poorly. But, other than her claim that she's been profiled, I don't see any evidence of it. If a store employee thought someone didn't pay, that same mistake can happen to anybody of any skin color.
    1
  11963. Huh? I don't think he was really trying to present evidence. He is just illustrating what's still there. If you want the evidence, why would you even be looking at a video in the first place? The best evidence has nothing to do with any videos.
    1
  11964. Next time?
    1
  11965. Pfftt. You're calling someone a pathological liar based upon nothing, yet, I have issues? Good gods.
    1
  11966. Well, unless you actually believe claptrap reported by Inside Edition (where facts don't matter), this arrest had nothing to do with it.
    1
  11967. Yeah, when you can't refute any of the points in the video, duck and dodge and change topics, right?
    1
  11968. Responsibility for what?
    1
  11969. Ashamed for what? For upholding the law?
    1
  11970. Hilarious!!!! What kind of magical 9mm rounds do you use, such that you think they're going to penetrate a truck in two shots?
    1
  11971. TILL L: Of course getting hit by a meteor/meteorite is/was a risk. But, the odds are so off the charts small that it's barely worth mentioning. But, they were equipped with materials and training on how to patch small holes in the suits or spacecraft, if they ever happened (which they didn't).
    1
  11972. TILL L: YOU SAID: "This conflicts with what I was taught in school, that there is a relatively steady hail of meteors of various sizes that burn up in our atmosphere before hitting earth." == Yes, have you ever seen a shooting star? That's a meteor burning up. So what? The Earth is much larger than the moon (thus is a bigger target for meteors to hit). The Earth has 6x more gravity than the moon (thus is able to draw in many times more meteors than the moon can/does). And, even at the rate that meteors hit the Earth's atmosphere, the odds of actually hitting something the size of a person is amazingly small. I mean, hell, Gordon Cooper's Mercury flight was the first one to even be hit, that's how rare it is. Or, another comparison, if you think meteors are just bombarding every square foot of the Earth's atmosphere, why is it so rare that satellites get hit? Why do we have satellites up there since the 1970s still in working order? Why is the ISS not blown to bits by meteors? Again, you clearly have no actual knowledge of how rare it is to be hit by a meteor. And, again, what EXACTLY is the point you're trying to make?
    1
  11973. It's very correct to give von Braun a lot of credit. But, make no mistake about it, the USA would have gone to the moon with or without him, as well as the rest of the group of Germans.
    1
  11974. Manny, look, I realize you're trying to form an opinion about stuff... but if you honestly believe that child is ever going to school... man, your mind is lost. He will never walk, or speak. He doesn't show any signs of even knowing what his surroundings are. He will never read. He will never be able to "learn" anything. The parents read books to an empty gaze from their child. School? No.
    1
  11975.  @mannyoommen2768  Well, everyone has an opinion. But, it's all irrelevant now. They're stuck with the decision they made when they decided not to have an abortion, knowing in advance that the baby would have no brain. And, by that, I mean no "functional" brain. The only part of the brain that "works" is the basic life support section of the brain, breathing, eating, heartbeat, basic reflexive movements, etc. The cognitive part of the brain (being able to think and learn) is missing. So, they're stuck with that decision. It's too late now for the abortion, and it would be considered murder at this point. And, since then, these parents are either putting on an act for the camera to get donations, or are completely delusional (or maybe both). There's no choice now but to care for the "vegetable child" (I don't like that phrase, but, it fits for this issue). As long as the body functions well enough to live, that child will live, and those parents must care for their child.
    1
  11976.  Blank Space  Thanks for that info. I wasn't aware that they're now divorced. Do you have a link? Is the child still alive? Anyway, yes, about "they're not the most honest people," yeah, well, anybody who makes the horrifyingly terrible decisions that these parents made... yeah, it's not surprising that they'd be liars also. It sure seems like they are/were willing to participate in this public disgrace to raise crowdfunding money, by pretending that child has more going on in his head than he really does. They're READING to him?? Pfftttt. That's an obvious circus show designed to tear at the heartstrings of viewers, to pry money out of their pockets for donations. Sorry, but that child will NEVER know what a book is, nor reading, nor what a "story" is all about. You can't comprehend those things without a functioning frontal lobe. Good grief. Yeah, dishonest parents indeed.
    1
  11977. Just checking here... but you do know that Mexico is NOT in South America, right? I just don't understand why you keep mentioning South America??
    1
  11978. Well, then you will be happy to learn that this arrest had nothing to do with her suicide. Welcome to Inside Edition, where facts don't matter. July 2021 = arrest. March 2022 = suicide. November 2023 = arrest video made public. December 2023 = video goes viral. Other than one obscure article on a website I've never heard of, nobody knew anything about this arrest until after she was long dead.
    1
  11979. I'm glad it worked out for this 8 year old. But, if everyone did this, it would most 8 year old kids as a complete wreck, being given off to a stranger?? No grandparents, uncles, aunts, friends? Just uproot an 8 year old to a stranger? At least if you give up a kid for adoption, there's a screening process. But, this story is like buying a lotto ticket and staking your son's future life on hitting the winning number. Hate to rain on people's parade, but, I don't think this is a "good" story at all.
    1
  11980.  @ghde996  Pfftt. You are backward. I am kind to 8 year old kids. In a time of tragedy of losing a parent, I think the best place for them is to be surrounded by friends and family, and be given to a trusted loved one, and not being shipped off to a stranger, based on a random gamble that the person would be a good replacement parent. That's all this was. It was a gamble that appears to have paid off (if this short "news" story is true). But, being handed to a stranger with no filtering process, and being yanked away from the rest of his family and friends, is NOT a good idea generally. And, this "news" (not news) story shouldn't be heralded as if handing an 8 year old to a stranger for the rest of his life is a smart way to take care of children. YOU are not very kind. YOU aren't.
    1
  11981. Maybe if you graduated high school....
    1
  11982. No, I think her wish all along was to get Tased and arrested in order to trigger a lawsuit, and win it. But, she lost her lawsuit badly.
    1
  11983. So, let me try to understand this "logic" of yours.... It doesn't really matter to you if people can debunk every single argument ever made by a moon landing denier. You just need more time, right? And, no matter how many decades go by, with more and more evidence pouring in, demonstrating that the moon landings were real, you will keep on ignoring it, because, eventually, you expect someone will come along and show it to be all wrong? Is that really your position here? Tell me, if that's really how things are supposed to work, is there ever way anybody could ever convince you of ANYTHING? Forget the moon landings. I'm talking about ANY subject you choose to ignore. If someone shows you that every argument ever offered in favor of your position was wrong, you'll still deny being wrong, and just keep on waiting until the cows come home, for somebody to finally "shed light"? Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the light HAS been shed already, and that you're doing nothing besides sticking your fingers in your ears, covering your eyes, and saying, "lalalalaa, I can't hear you, lalalalala"? Because, sorry, that's basically the same thing.
    1
  11984. Repercussions (spelled correctly)? You do know that nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive, right? What repercussions?
    1
  11985. I feel badly for people who fail to understand simple concepts like remote control.
    1
  11986. You cannot destroy the lies, you can only expose them.
    1
  11987.  @Victor-vj5ds  Says who?
    1
  11988. As opposed to what? Cops decide that they're judge and jury, and don't trespass someone who refuses to leave?
    1
  11989. Grace, stop changing the topic. Are you, or are you not, satisfied with the fact that James Van Allen himself said you're wrong about the Van Allen belts? Why won't you answer? Good grief. It's always more difficult than pulling teeth... to get a single one of you deniers to acknowledge when you're wrong. Have you done the math? Do you understand yet? Why change topics? I thought you were on a quest for "truth"? So, aren't you at all interested in learning the truth about your own claims?
    1
  11990. Grace, so, let me make sure I understand this position of yours... you acknowledge that James Van Allen said that the Van Allen belts wouldn't be a problem for Apollo. You acknowledge that James Van Allen made those calculations before Apollo ever went anywhere. But, it's your position now that there haven't been any cosmologists, particle physicists, radiobiologists, or aerospace engineers, in any country, as part of any space agency on Earth, friendly or enemy, who have ever done the math again? There have been hundreds of satellites and probes sent by dozens of countries that have taken readings, but, not a single one has ever resulted in anybody realizing that the Van Allen belts have over 1,000x more lethality than James Van Allen published? Is that your position here? And, you came to this conclusion when, just a day ago, you said you didn't know what the belts were called? So, in 24 hours, you went from not knowing what the belts were called, to becoming enough of an expert to spot that the entire world's particle physicists, radiobiologists, cosmologists, etc., have failed to recognize the true strength of the radiation in the belts for the past 60 years? Do I understand you correctly? If not, what have I missed?
    1
  11991. Why would this particular arrest humiliate her so badly? None of her other million arrests, nor her time spent in prison, humiliated her. What's special about this one?
    1
  11992. Yes, you prefer delusion vs. accuracy.
    1
  11993. The rock sounds were real. They reverberate through the suit and up into the microphone. The rest of your comments were accurate, though.
    1
  11994. This is a joke, right? If he meant that Earth is a disk, why would it look differently in the summer than the winter? You do know that he's only saying "disk" in terms of the view from the sun's perspective, right? And, you're just being silly, correct?
    1
  11995. What would you suggest? They let the screaming banshee go to the gun on the ground?
    1
  11996. Can you name any media that even published this story before she was dead?
    1
  11997.  @coltconnorproductions1016  Nope. You didn't.
    1
  11998. Why would you say that?
    1
  11999. And, that's an answer to the question, how?
    1
  12000. Jaggers Senior changed his story a couple of times also. In one interview, he said Mark knew someone was in the car, and was going to check to see who it was. In another interview, he claimed that the only thing he knew for sure is that Mark didn't think anybody was in the car. Do you suppose he talked to the attorney in between the two interviews, and was told that it's a really bad idea to say that Mark knew someone was inside the car? Also, Mark died within 20 seconds of being shot. How would his father know "for sure" what Mark was thinking (unless it was planned from the start)?
    1
  12001. Hollywood didn't say that Stalin knew before Truman... Truman did... and Klaus Fuchs.
    1
  12002. ​ @eventcone  Just a stickler for detail: you mentioned "LLRV" and didn't distinguish the LLTVs. Also, Armstrong's "40 successful flights" mostly included "flights" with multiple landings per "flight." My understanding (hard to confirm) is that he actually had about 70 landings just in the month before his mission. I'm guessing a single "flight" constituted one fuel fill-up, and didn't necessarily mean he only lifted off and landed one time per "flight."
    1
  12003. Huh? And, do you have magical 9mm rounds that penetrate a truck?
    1
  12004. The sun.
    1
  12005. Let me know when you really want your questions answered. Until then, sorry, it's just too obvious that you don't actually want answers to your own questions.
    1
  12006. Who told you such a thing? A conspiracy video?
    1
  12007. Learn the difference between an infraction and a crime. And, the police kept the video private for 2.5 years, and didn't release it until she was dead for 1.5 years. How much longer do you think they'd be allowed to keep it private, if faced with a FOIA request?
    1
  12008. Keeping up the irony trend of all YouTubers with nicknames that include "truth" or "awake" -- not having the slightest clue what those things even mean, let alone anything about rocket science.
    1
  12009. Huh? On what planet is a cop required to call a female assistant, or a supervisor?
    1
  12010. Yes, that's probably good advice. But, it wouldn't have mattered in this case. One of the "audience" caught it on camera, and showed the video to the police. It didn't match her story about nobody being around. One of the witnesses said it seemed quite deliberate. So, she was getting arrested either way. And, even if hypothetically she could avoid this arrest by staying silent, they'd still have arrested her on any number of her open warrants for failures to appear on many prior arrests.
    1
  12011. Um, what? You don't believe that another auto maker will buy up whatever remains at bottom dollar prices in order to capture that market? We're not talking about a financial company here, where there are no assets to buy. We're not talking about the Bricklin car company that folded after building 3,000 cars. We're talking about a company with tangible products and a consumer base that is worth money. SOMEONE will buy it at rock bottom. American Airlines bought TWA when it folded. Even Bed Bath & Beyond was bought for pennies on the dollar (kind of rare for just a retailer that makes no products, just reseller).
    1
  12012. But, shame had nothing to do with it. She killed herself a year after getting arrested. And, the arrest video wasn't made public until 1.5 years after that. And, hey, if you want to avoid feeling shame, how about NOT putting on a public show in front of families on a beach? I mean, you don't actually believe her when she said she didn't know people were around, and that it only lasted a few seconds, do you? The family that reported her recorded it on video, and the police watched that video and wrote about it in their report, and said that it was a very loud and public display that went on for a while (not a few seconds).
    1
  12013. You're being generous.
    1
  12014.  @kellysid5529  So you keep typing in thread after thread. But, dewdrop, no Apollo mission ever even claimed to land in the Apollo Basin. So, why are you making such a big deal of this. Do you think anybody expected to see any Apollo remnants on the far side of the moon, where no Apollo mission ever went?
    1
  12015. Correct, we don't have anything even remotely big enough to see the Apollo stuff on the moon.
    1
  12016. Why do you, 1) watch conspiracy videos made by liars, and 2) believe a single word they say?
    1
  12017. So, supporting the good guys is wrong? And, I suppose you support the criminal?
    1
  12018. So, 100 people faked it? Why? If the other 449,900 people thought all of the equipment would work, why not just go? What did the 100 know that nobody else did? And, those 100 people faked 7,000 photos from the lunar surface, and 110,000 photos from lunar orbit, and 80 hours of mission video? For example, to make a 2-3 hour movie like Endgame, it took about 2500 people to film it and render everything. But, those 100 people during Apollo produced 80 hours of video? And, they somehow managed to fake radar tracking to dozens of countries, including enemies? And, they're still around today to somehow hack the lunar satellites from China, South Korea, and India to send back false photos of the lunar landers sitting on the moon?
    1
  12019. Wow, so many possible replies. So, basically, you should want to eliminate women's sports altogether, right? Just have one big sporting league, available to women, men, whatever, right? Stop dividing women from men. Right? Secondly, well, I won't dare pretend to know anything about your wrestling history, but, as a former wrestler on my high school team, I can tell you this much, I'd have never wrestled you, and if I didn't have a choice, I certainly wouldn't have tried to win, and you'd have won every match against me. Take it or leave it.
    1
  12020. Yeah, police need to stop doing their jobs. You tell 'em!!
    1
  12021.  @zenleeparadise  A "fascist police state"?? Why? Because someone who wasn't welcome on that property was arrested for trespassing?? So, by your definition, if you come to my house, violate my house rules, and I want you to leave, and you refuse to do so, it's a "fascist police state" when I call the police and have you physically removed from my property?? It's the exact same thing. She violated the rules of the facility, and they wanted her to either comply, or leave. She refused to do either. She was therefore trespassing. I really don't think you understand what "fascism" is, nor even understanding the basic rules of society.
    1
  12022.  @mickpratt8327  Yes, well, I was addressing the "fascist police state" comment, and the concept of being arrested.
    1
  12023. Um, ok. I don't understand. What should he have done differently? The driver murdered his father right before this chase... was shooting at the officers throughout the chase... and was shooting at the officers after the crash.
    1
  12024. It was an undercover stakeout of a completely different guy, involving a completely unrelated shooting.
    1
  12025. What humiliation would that be? A couple of obscure blog posts nobody had ever heard of? 99.9999% of the media coverage never happened until 1.5 years after she died.
    1
  12026. Family and friends? You mean those people she walked out on more than a decade ago in order to live a life of crime and drugs?
    1
  12027. Wrong. The arrest video wasn't released until November 24, 2023. She died more than 2 years ago.
    1
  12028. Well, with her extensive criminal history, felony time spent in prison, million other arrests, she should have been pretty used to it by then. And, if she didn't like "exposure," why'd she choose to be a stripper?
    1
  12029. Is this a joke? I mean, on one hand, I should never really question how far down the intellectual totem pole the deniers are. We're usually talking about sub-80 IQs here. But, on the other hand, c'mon, I have a hard time believing you could be as low down there as this post would indicate. You really don't know the difference between "lose" and "loose"? And, this was your edited version? How bad was the first version? Who told you nobody wrote anything down? What ARE you talking about? How did they have enough power to get back? Seriously? Are you really pretending to understand aerospace engineering better than the entire planet's aerospace engineers? Or, was this entire message just a pathetic attempt to get negative attention?
    1
  12030. Multiple people called the police. One of the "audience" recorded it, and showed the video to the police. Sorry, but it didn't match her version of a quiet and discreet act with nobody around. Why would you believe her anyway? Because she said so, as she was trying to get out of her millionth arrest?
    1
  12031. Yes, so?
    1
  12032. Where'd you get that idea?
    1
  12033. YOU SAID: "Look at the picture of earth when an astronaut took the pic while on the moon , if you can see earth why no stars ." == Basic photography 101. Exposure. The Earth, as viewed from space, is many orders of magnitude brighter than stars. A camera set up to properly expose the Earth is not going to capture stars in the frame. YOU SAID: "The pic shows earth in all her glory and nothing around it you would think if they can get a picture like that they could have taken a pic of the sky" == They did take some star pictures. They came out horribly (just as any professional photographer would expect from those little handheld cameras). In order to get star pictures, you need very long exposure times, and a tripod to keep the camera steady. They didn't have that in the command module, and had to take the photos by hand, relying on how steady a human being could keep the camera. The star photos taken from the command module are blurry as a result. YOU SAID: "but if they did that we would know their position relative to the stars" == OK, then go look at the Carruthers UV telescope/camera images, and determine their position. What are you waiting for? I mean, I don't think that would prove anything anyway. People have been using star charts for very precise positioning since ancient mariners centuries ago. It's not that difficult to get the star alignment correct for a photograph. The navigation systems during Apollo used precise star sightings to align the craft. Yes, they obviously knew how to get the stars aligned perfectly, contrary to the silly notion suggested by the conspiracy crowd to suggest that NASA would have been completely oblivious to where the stars should be in the sky, hence why they don't include stars in the photos. It's hilarious and laughable to presume that something ancient mariners had been doing for centuries (accurate star alignment/positioning), was beyond the capability of the world's aerospace engineers. YOU SAID: "I just have a hard time excepting some of those pictures ,so clear when everything else is fuzzy and grainy" == Which ones? Yeah, sometimes the pictures came out badly, sometimes they came out wonderfully. This is not exactly a surprise. That's why they took +7,000 pictures from the lunar surface, and +110,000 photos from the command module. They knew they wouldn't all be good photos. So, they tried taking a lot of them, in the expectation that they'd get some good, some bad. YOU SAID: "I do believe we went to the moon" == Congratulations. YOU SAID: "but some of the pics were done here on earth those cameras were in the middle of the chest no viewer to look into" == First of all, then you know nothing about Apollo's photography. What makes you think the pictures were all taken from the chest? Why would you believe that? And, why would you believe there was no viewfinder capability? Who told you that? A conspiracy video? (Hint: they're always wrong. ALWAYS wrong.) I mean, you can't possibly have spent much time actually discovering Apollo on your own, if that's what you believe. For example, look at a video on the "Apollo Seventeen" YouTube channel, called "Apollo 17 - 146:40 - 154:40 V2" (the name of the video). Go to 57:44 in that video (57 minutes, 44 seconds). What's Cernan doing with that camera? Is it mounted to his chest? No. Is there a viewfinder? Yes. He's pointing the camera, while up to his eyes, and taking pictures, using the viewfinder. I mean, yeah, sure, chest mounting was an option, which the astronauts did use. They had a lot to do, and the engineers made a nice little chest mount to keep the camera in the event that they just wanted to rip through a few photos quickly. But, the cameras could easily be removed from the chest mount. They could use lenses that had the viewfinder. They could align the pictures quite well. Did they do it every time? No. Did they sometimes just take photos while the camera was mounted to the chest? Yes. But, the fact that you are making this statement just proves that you have never actually looked into this yourself, and you are blindly taking someone's word (a conspiracy video, undoubtedly). Stop doing that. Nothing good or accurate comes from moon conspiracy videos. They're ALWAYS wrong. And, making matters worse, most of them are wrong intentionally. Some of the makers of conspiracy videos just don't have the intellectual capacity to understand anything. But, most of them... they know they're lying, and just don't care. They make money by producing those videos, in full knowledge that the conspiracy believers will never fact-check them, and will gobble up anything they see... like this notion that all photos were taken from a chest mount (which is nonsense). They KNOW this is incorrect, yet feed it to their gullible followers anyway. YOU SAID: " but pictures are excellent" == You just got done saying that things were sometimes fuzzy and grainy, now you're saying that they're excellent??? Has it occurred to you that maybe some pictures turned out good, and some turned out bad? Have you looked through the 7,000+ photos taken from the lunar surface? Or, did a conspiracy video tell you they came out perfectly? Do you know the difference between the TV cameras, the 16mm film cameras, the Hasselblad 70mm still cameras, or the 35mm stereoscopic cameras? Do you even know how the images from those different cameras are supposed to look? Do you even know they had so many different cameras?
    1
  12034. Ahh, YouTube comments... the land where people pretend to understand things they do not. Innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW. Sorry, but the side of the road isn't a courtroom. A cop doesn't prove innocence or guilt. The cop isn't the judge or jury, nor would we want that. No proof is required for a cop to make an arrest. It's called reasonable suspicion and probable cause. That's what the cop needs, and he had that.
    1
  12035. Good gods. The side of the road isn't a courtroom. You are innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW. The cop doesn't prove anything, nor would we want that. You people seem to think the cop must convict someone before arresting that person. How backward can you be?
    1
  12036. Michael M, Do you just make this stuff up as you go along? What? Yes, a store is allowed to request proof of purchase. Why wouldn't they be allowed to do that? She doesn't need to provide it, but, if she chooses not to do so, that's fine, but, that increases the cause to make an arrest. You are acting as if nobody can ever be arrested until after they are convicted. This makes no sense at all. The cop only needs to decide if it's likely a crime was committed. There's no obligation for a cop to be correct 100% of the time. But, don't take my word for it. Her own high profile attorney disagrees with you also. If the system worked the way you pretend, why didn't he sue the police? Can you explain that? Why did he only sue the store? That case was thrown out, of course, as it should be. But, at least he TRIED to sue the store. He didn't even try to sue the police. What do you know about the law that her own attorney doesn't?
    1
  12037.  @sirmixcomps  Side note: you might have a shot at understanding concepts like these if you were even remotely literate. As it is, you read and write like a 6 year old. No wonder you can't understand anything.
    1
  12038.  @hardlearner2988  You obviously aren't reading a word I've written. Why should I write it again?
    1
  12039.  @01mustang05  Good grief. Do you just cut and paste the same nonsense everywhere? Why haven't you asked yourself why her own three attorneys never filed a lawsuit against the police, if you think that's what happened here? The original suspicion of theft was amplified by her actions. Yes, it turned out to be wrong, because she didn't steal. But, she's not helping herself with the rest of her actions here. She refused to ID (arrestable offense all on its own), obstructing and obfuscating a police investigation (also crimes), and resisted arrest (also a crime). Why do you keep defending her? Is her ridiculous behavior that appealing to you? Really?
    1
  12040. Wrong. The arrest video wasn't even made public until she was already dead for 1.5 years. She never suffered any shame from the release of the arrest video.
    1
  12041. So, basically, your standards of evidence don't include evidence? Your standards of "evidence" = whatever your imagination cooks up. You wouldn't happen to be a drug addict, would you?
    1
  12042. Huh? First of all, they didn't cover this story until 1.5 years after her death. Secondly, they paint this amazingly inaccurate picture (in her favor), making her out to be an innocent soccer mom who was arrested by evil police and couldn't handle the situation. The reality is that she abandoned her family over a decade ago to live a life of crime and drugs. She did a felony prison term about 6 years ago, and was arrested a million times before and after. Stealing cars, failures to appear, drug and alcohol charges, other thefts, you name it. Her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the local gentlemen's club, and neighbors said she did "extras" for cash in her apartment. But, Inside Edition still says she was a real estate agent (sure, like 15 years ago or something). They seem overly sensitive to me. Personally, I prefer accuracy.
    1
  12043. Yes, but the facts don't match that belief.
    1
  12044. NASA has been begging to go back. NASA begged for Apollo not to be cut short back in those days. But, it's congress that chooses these programs, not NASA.
    1
  12045. Take it up with congress. They're the ones who put the brakes on that stuff. But, if you thought the Apollo missions were expensive, I can't even imagine the cost of dancing on Saturn's rings.
    1
  12046. Well, you're not alone. The reason Apollo was canceled after Apollo 17 was largely because, yes, congress didn't want to spend that money on moon missions, and wanted to spend it on other things. But, the reason Apollo happened at all was basically (long story short) to prevent WWIII. It was an expression of technological dominance over the Soviets, to keep the cold war cold, and not give the Soviets a reason to think they'd have a shot at winning an actual war. It was a message. "Mess with us, and we're going to beat you, we will always beat you." So, if you want to get philosophical, well, the Apollo missions may have prevented millions of deaths in a possible nuclear war. So, I'd say that reason was good enough. But, yeah, I can't tell you the reason for Artemis, other than Trump wanted some glory if he had gotten a 2nd term. He'll still get the glory akin to Kenney's, because Artmis was approved by congress under Trump's pressure. And, Biden certainly isn't going to stop spending money. Spending money is the name of the game, when trying to prevent a recession and in a post pandemic economy. So, the money will keep flowing to every single project possible. But, from a technical standpoint, I'm not all that sure it'll justify the total cost. But, yeah, it's happening.
    1
  12047.  @joeb2588  Well, believe me, I'm no fan of Biden (nor Trump, nor Obama, nor etc.), and I don't agree with the level of spending and basically what boils down to printing money. But, today's economic environment is more complex than any known time in the USA's history. Normally, inflation runs rampant when productivity is super-high, and government spending is also super-high. But, this is a weird one now, because productivity is super-low, and government spending is super-high. Anybody who has taken an Economics 101 class would say that today's economy isn't even financially possible. Yet, here we are. I'm not sure if anybody has much of a choice other than to keep spending. And, well, I guess I'm "ok" (sigh) with it, as long as the other countries are doing the same. We don't want to devalue the dollar in the international market. But, yeah, if government spending outpaces the increase in personal income, yeah, that's a bubble that's going to burst sooner or later. I think the only course of action any of us really has is to keep on trying to invest in our own productivity, and make the most of our money, and ride the storm. Again, I don't quite agree with the level of government spending and money printing right now, but, there'd still need to be quite a bit of this under any president, just maybe not to this extent.
    1
  12048. This incident happened on July 1, 2021. The arrest video wasn't released until November 24, 2023 (2.5 years later). Nobody saw it while she was alive. So, no, this video didn't have anything to do with why she chose to exit the world.
    1
  12049. YOU SAID: "Stanley Kubrick said he Faked all the moon landings and it was a 30 Billion scam." == WOW!!!! And, I had thought nobody was stupid enough to still try that one. Let me explain what happened here. Someone made a spoof Stanley Kubrick "confession" video around 7 years ago (give or take, I don't recall exactly). It went absolutely crazy, and circulated the conspiracy channels like mad, and all of you dummies jumped for joy. Now, to any SANE person, it was laughable right from the start, because it was comically staged with dark lighting, using an actor who didn't even look like Stanley Kubrick, and offered the ridiculous excuse that this was a video that wasn't supposed to be released until 15 years after his death. It's phenomenal that anyone would ever believe that this was authentic, yet, you conspiratards fell for it, hook line and sinker. About 24 hours later, the "behind the scenes" version of that video was released, including the director telling the actor (playing Stanley Kubrick) what to do, what to say, how to behave, and clearly calling him "Tom" (not Stanley). Then, your conspiratard friends ran around, quickly trying to delete any reference to it, deleting comments, deleting re-posts of that video, etc. It was clearly demonstrated to be a video made to mock the conspiracy nuts, demonstrating that they'll believe anything they see, if it aligns with their delusions. As instantly as it started, that confession was shown to be false, and almost all of you nutbags knew enough never to mention it again. It takes a rare sort of conspiracy weirdo to still quote from that obvious spoof video. And, yet, you're proud to be one? Dummy, if any of that was true, why haven't there been senate hearings? Why was nobody arrested? Why didn't this make front page news? How dumb would you have to be in order to believe such a ridiculous spoof? Note also: like every other conspiratard, you ask questions, you make statements, but you don't actually want the answers. And, you ignore any questions asked of you. I've asked you repeatedly, and you refuse to answer: Why did James Van Allen say that Apollo could go through the belts with no trouble? What do you know about them that he didn't?
    1
  12050. Why did James Van Allen say that Apollo could go through the belts with no trouble? What do you know about them that he didn't?
    1
  12051. Why did James Van Allen say that Apollo could go through the belts with no trouble? What do you know about them that he didn't?
    1
  12052. Why did James Van Allen say that Apollo could go through the belts with no trouble? What do you know about them that he didn't?
    1
  12053. This is a well understood psychological phenomenon. You already believed it was fake before you saw any photos. So, to you, it looks fake because that's what your delusion is forcing your mind to conclude.
    1
  12054. Huh? The answer is rather simple: if she didn't want the woman in the audience recording her on the beach, don't do that particular act on the beach.
    1
  12055. You complained that they didn't bring "sand" back. I corrected you. They brought plenty of "sand." You simply don't know what you're talking about.
    1
  12056. Go learn about photography. Good grief. I mean, try to even take a picture of the sun with regular exposure settings. The sun will appear in the photo many times larger than it is. Sheeesssshhhh.
    1
  12057. So, you're just as incapable of understanding basic photography as you are incapable of understanding basic thermodynamics, eh? Is that REALLY what you think happens? Put an object in the sun and, BING, it instantly hits 200 degrees (C)? Move it to the shade and, BING, it instantly drops to neg-200 degrees (C)? Really?
    1
  12058. It takes the lunar rocks and dust about a week in the sun before they heat up, and they only get to about 120 degrees (C). But, you think the camera would heat up to 200 in a few hours? And, why'd you mention the vacuum of space, as if it supports your viewpoint? Heat transfer in a vacuum is slower than any other method.
    1
  12059. Sorry for the multiple postings. I tried to explain it further, but YouTube blocked it, and I had to break up my responses into pieces, and delete most of what I wrote.
    1
  12060. As opposed to? Do you think all shootings result in instantaneous death?
    1
  12061. So says a YouTube crackpot.
    1
  12062. Huh? What questions have you asked them, and how? Do you think there's a hotline or something?
    1
  12063. Oh, well, you're clearly a legal expert, far beyond my level. So, can you explain when they started giving warnings for aggravated misdemeanors?
    1
  12064. Fake stories weren't going to fool the Soviets and prevent wars. Actually doing the task is what did that.
    1
  12065. A) It's a crime scene, you don't just let people in and out, and move things around. B) He got what he deserved. I have no sympathy for the fact that he died without someone holding his hand. C) Do you think the criminal and his girlfriend would have done what you're advocating, if he had gotten the first shot off? Would he let someone come and hold the dying cop he just shot?
    1
  12066. Mark gave one of the more charitable versions of that story. There are many versions out there. One clue is that the estate (family) gave the rock to the ART museum instead of the science museum. Why in the world would the ever give the rock to the art museum, rather than the science museum? Well, I'm guessing it's for the tax writeoff, and that they knew darned well that it wasn't an actual moon rock, and the art museum is more likely to accept it (not knowing how to identify an actual moon rock). But, whatever, either way, NASA never gave that rock in the first place, in any version of the story that the museum represents. The museum accepted the rock without verifying what it was, stuck it into a drawer for 14 years, and it was instantly identified as petrified wood upon finally displaying it.
    1
  12067.  @EmilyTienne  Stop blaming the good guys for doing their jobs correctly. Arrest = July 1, 2021. Suicide = March, 2022. Arrest video made public = November 24, 2023. The police blocked the release of the arrest video for 2.5 years, 1.5 years of which she was already dead. But, eventually, they can no longer block a legal Freedom of Information Act request, once a case has been closed that long.
    1
  12068. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    1
  12069.  Albert Litts  I hear it's very rare that you'd actually need to come up with the bail money personally. A bail bondsman posts money for you, and you pay a fee for that. I have never personally been arrested. But, from those I know, that's how they tell me it works. This cop isn't going anywhere. There's nowhere in the world who doesn't know him at this point.
    1
  12070. Well, they DIDN'T release the video of the actual action at the beach. But, yes, the arrest video was subject to the Freedom of Information Act, and was released 2.5 years later. What's your point?
    1
  12071. Um, no. That would be illegal. The maximum allowed weight for truck+trailer+cargo is 80,000 pounds. They allow an extra 2,000 pounds if it's an EV, hence the 82,000 number. The issue is that Tesla refuses to reveal the weight of the truck, thus allowing a potential buyer to do the math, and find out if the Tesla can haul the loads they want to haul, or if it's too heavy, not leaving enough for the cargo.
    1
  12072. Of course it's not true. This is Inside Edition, where facts don't matter. I mean, it's true she killed herself. But, it's not true that this incident had anything to do with it.
    1
  12073. That is a strong possibility. But, do you actually know this? Or, just an assumption.
    1
  12074. The arrest video wasn't released until she was already dead for 1.5 years.
    1
  12075. It was released on November 24, 2023. The publication date is easy to find. And, c'mon, you didn't really trust Inside Edition to give a straight story, did you?
    1
  12076. Colorful and annoying editing by the makers of the documentary.
    1
  12077. First of all, if in the middle of this war and all of the garbage going on, you want to trust a trolling Tweet made by a Russian crackpot, hey, be my guest. But, all you're going is exposing how little you understand things. No sane person would ACTUALLY compare a spaceflight lasting less than 2 weeks to spaceflights lasting around a year. Muscles do not atrophy THAT quickly, and I suspect that the Russian crackpot knows this, but is just stirring up trouble. And, if he doesn't know it, he should. Secondly, HD film? Dewdrop, it wasn't film at all, it was a TV signal. And, if you think that's HD, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Thirdly, I heard somewhere that they actually found the tapes last year. But, frankly, those tapes mean so little to me, I haven't tried to dig into it to it to find out if it's true or not. What is so important about those two tapes to you? Why are you concerned about them? Nobody had ever even viewed them a single time in history, because no machine was capable of playing them. That's why they went lost to begin with, because nobody cared about them. They only made those two backup tapes in the event that the primary mechanism failed. That way, they'd still have the tapes, and would construct a machine capable of reading them. But, since the primary mechanism worked, nobody ever bothered. But, you said those two tapes are important to you, so, can you explain why?
    1
  12078. So, because lead is used for Xray radiation, you think lead should be used for ionic radiation? Because foam rubber is used for sound radiation, I guess we should use foam rubber for microwave radiation, huh? Because sunglasses are used for light radiation, we should use sunglasses for nuclear radiation, huh?
    1
  12079. You cannot even formulate a coherent sentence. You're in no position to judge stupidity.
    1
  12080. Nice libel there. Keep your obvious hatred to yourself.
    1
  12081. Do you not understand body-cams? But, the police managed to keep the arrest video private until 1.5 years after she died. After that, they can't block FOIA requests any longer.
    1
  12082. Why is it always "logic" instead of actual EVIDENCE? And, by the way, your "logic" fails.
    1
  12083. Dewdrop, if you weren't going to read the answers to the question you pretended to ask, why did you ask it in the first place?
    1
  12084. Maybe you should understand not to trust media in the first place... nor politicians. Yes, Trump/Pence/Bridenstine were pushing for a 2024 landing, and published those numbers. The problem is, congress never approved the funding at that pace. The pace of their funding only put them on the lunar surface around 2028-2030. Read the White House OMB reports to/from congress. That will give you far more reliable info about it than random media or whatever politicians say. They're exactly on the pace that congress funded, minus two factors: (1) the slowdown in the world caused by 2020 and 2021, and (2) the ridiculous choice of a ridiculous lander, that put them behind by 3 years until they funded a much better lander design (only last year).
    1
  12085. Well, in the mountains of evidence in favor of Apollo, I've never once heard anybody stating that von Braun is enough evidence on his own. Personally, I need more than that (and yes, there are mountains more than that). But, whatever floats your boat.
    1
  12086. Nobody wants to reproduce Apollo technology. Why don't you understand this? There are companies today trying to build supersonic airliners (unsuccessfully). Does this mean Concorde was fake? Or, is it because nobody wants a copy of that failed airliner, and they're trying to build something better?
    1
  12087. I reject your claim outright. First of all, the video was never released. So, I seriously doubt YOU saw it. Secondly, the police described the video in the arrest report, and it contradicts your claim (and her claim) entirely. They said it was a very loud and public act in view of multiple people including children.
    1
  12088. Can you even name any media that covered this story while she was alive?
    1
  12089. He lived. He will go on trial for murdering his father.
    1
  12090. Just being a stickler for detail: the moonwalk was 2.5 hours, and the total time on the lunar surface was about 21.5 hours.
    1
  12091. The Freedom of Information Act disagrees with you. And, stop pretending you understand police procedures, when you clearly don't.
    1
  12092.  BobbyBeez  Hilarious!!! First of all, dewdrop, the lunar lander's ascent stage never escaped lunar gravity. Secondly, even if it did (which it didn't), that burn would be accomplished over a longer period of time than just a little blast at liftoff. One pound of thrust is enough to escape lunar gravity if you give it enough time.
    1
  12093. I am sure some of the dust was blown. But, to blow away footprints? Not even close.
    1
  12094.  @inyourgenes  Dewdrop, what don't you understand here? First of all, the ascent engine wasn't throttleable. It was either 3500 pounds of thrust or zero. They didn't ever run it at 1700 pounds. (You forgot the weight of astronauts and payload, which meant it was more like 1950 pounds in lunar gravity, by the way.) Secondly, dewdrop, how much of the lunar surface do you think was hit by that thrust? Most of it was going to hit the first stage, and be greatly dampened and deflected. What little amount trickles to the side will blow dust, yes. But, that's pretty spread out. Let's just say for grins that it's a 50 foot circle, which is about right once the craft lifts off enough to start blowing past the edges of the 1st stage, and the exhaust spreads out (in a vacuum, it spreads pretty wide pretty fast). That's an area of 1964 square feet. What is the resulting thrust upon each square foot of lunar surface? A whopping 1.78 pounds of thrust per square foot of dust. And, in a couple of seconds, the lander is too high up to make much of a difference at all. Quit pretending you know things you don't. And, go learn English also.
    1
  12095.  @inyourgenes  I don't think my reply is showing. So, I'll divide it up. First of all, the ascent engine wasn't throttleable. It was 3500 pounds of thrust, or zero.
    1
  12096. Secondly, do the math. By the time the thing clears enough of the descent stage that's deflecting the thrust, so that the thrust can hit the ground directly, you're looking at about a 50 foot diameter of the rocket thrust area. It spreads very wide, very fast, in a vacuum.
    1
  12097. 50 foot diameter circle = about 1963 square feet. You have 3500 pounds of thrust spread over 1963 square feet. That's a whopping 1.8 pounds of thrust per square foot. Yes, the velocity of the rocket blast matters quite a bit, but, you could stand there with that amount of rocket blast and it wouldn't even push you very hard (might burn you, but, that's a different story).
    1
  12098. A couple of seconds of that little amount of thrust over a wide surface area isn't going to blow footprints away, dewdrop.
    1
  12099. Then you know nothing about the topic. It's not as easy to blow footprints away as you apparently think. A flag catches a lot of "wind." Footprints don't. The flag was blown over rather instantaneously. Footprints don't get blown away that fast. As I explained repeatedly, some of the surface dust gets blown, yes. But, it's not going to blow enough to wipe away footprints. There's just not enough time, and there's nowhere near the amount of pressure.
    1
  12100. Huh? Who was shaming her?
    1
  12101. Dewdrop, it's called the Freedom of Information Act. The police actually prevented the release of this video for 2.5 years. Nobody saw it while she was alive. But, eventually, they couldn't block the release any longer.
    1
  12102. Dewdrop, again, stop pretending to know things you don't.
    1
  12103. You seem incapable of empathy. Murder and rape, you seem to have empathy. But financial crimes, you have zero empathy. Why is that? You've admitted that you would be pissed and vengeful if it was YOU who was damaged. But, people like Armstrong and Skilling left permanent financial damage to others, just to fraudulently help themselves. Imagine it was you. Now multiply that times the hundreds of lives Armstrong ruined. Multiply it by the thousands ruined by Skilling. These men should be set free?
    1
  12104. Wow! What a reply! Apollo is fake now.
    1
  12105. Why? For correctly doing their jobs?
    1
  12106. So, let me get this straight... you believe the moon is below cloud level?? You don't think that is just an optical effect of a bright moon through thin clouds?? No? You think the moon is below cloud level?? And, none of the millions of high altitude flights over the last century have ever accidentally stumbled across it?? No?? Somehow, every flight in human history has managed to avoid hitting the moon, and every pilot has simply not noticed that he/she was flying above the moon... rather than the simple conclusion that the video you're linking was overexposed??? Good gods, what a moron.
    1
  12107.  @robertpunu7624  What a total moron. I'm certainly not answering your parade of idiocy when you fail completely to answer my challenge about airplanes and the moon. If you believe the moon is below cloud level, then explain why no flight in history has ever hit the moon, or no pilot/passenger has ever seen the moon below. What IS wrong with you? What drugs did this to you?
    1
  12108.  @robertpunu7624  YOU SAID: "you just come off as an insulting jerk." == Oh, the irony. You're accusing millions of people of committing fraud upon the entire world population for centuries, oh, but everyone ELSE is an insulting jerk?? Hey, dumbass, has it occurred to you that maybe YouTube isn't actually an education?? Is there any scam you do NOT fall for?? Seriously, you're as dumb as they come, and it's quite clear that you've never set foot into a single university classroom on any relevant topic. I'm with Maynard also in doubting you even graduated high school. The moon isn't solid??? What a goddamned idiot.
    1
  12109. Links are not permitted. But, "ISRO Chandrayaan2’s photos of Apollo 11 & 12 landing sites" is a good start.
    1
  12110. "I seriously dont understand how the flag moved as it did." I don't understand it, therefore it's fake. "The footage I have seen looks really strange. Not a twist of the pole by one of the astronauts" Are you sure? Without an atmosphere to dampen the movement of a flag, it doesn't take very much to make a flag wave a lot. And, depending on the frame rate (a lot of it was only at 6 FPS to conserve on film), you may not always see small hand movements. Or, if you're talking about smaller flag movements, are you sure it wasn't from the life support backpack venting, or the suit's overpressure valve opening? Sometimes the flags even moved without being touched. One time, the flag moved about 180 degrees when the astronauts were nowhere near it, because the lunar module's purge valve was opened, and oxygen rushed over the surface. I mean, without any reference point, I wouldn't even know how to answer you more than these generalizations. If you had a timestamp or something, I could look closer.
    1
  12111. Good grief, talk about schizophrenia. You don't stay consistent from one posting to the next.
    1
  12112. Good grief. The cops weren't there for first amendment rights, dummy. They were there for TRESPASSING. Sheeeeesssssssshhhhhh. You're darned correct if you think the school board was way out of line. They certainly were. Their policies are ridiculous. And, I hope they get sued, big time. I hope the man who got arrested gets at least $200,000. I hope every other parent of a child in that school gets at least $40,000. The actions of this board are reprehensible. But, the cops were not there for that. The cops were there FOR TRESPASSING!!!! The cops are not judge and jury about civil rights. The cops determine if a trespass has occurred (which it did), and then arrest the offender FOR TRESPASSING!!! Why can't you understand this? The cops didn't arrest the guy for anything he said, the cops arrested the guy because he refused to leave. And, the real irony in all of this is that it's going to HELP the man's civil case that he was arrested. The school board really shot themselves in the foot (worse than they already were) by having the guy arrested. Now, the guy (and every other parent) is going to have even more ammunition to show that the school board lost their minds and need to be kicked out of office. But, the cops did NOTHING wrong. If a school official trespasses someone, the cops must first ask the man to leave, and if he doesn't leave, the cops must arrest him. That's how the law works. It doesn't matter what the cops think about the school politics. It doesn't matter who the cops think is right or wrong. The only thing that matters is that the man refused to leave when asked. Remember, this isn't a public sidewalk, where anybody can go, and it's never trespassing. This is a school. Yes, trespassing applies to public buildings, just like private ones. And, regardless of the fact that the school board was completely in the wrong on every other issue, they had the right to trespass the guy, and the police MUST abide. This isn't a matter of first amendment rights. The man wasn't arrested for that. The cops don't deal with that. The courts do. That's where those matters are solved. So, why do you think the cops had anything to do with violating 1st amendment rights? What ARE you talking about?
    1
  12113. And, if they called about a guy at a playground cranking it in front of children, would you say the same?
    1
  12114. She put on a show in front of children, dewdrop. It makes no difference if it was at a playground or beach.
    1
  12115. And a gun.
    1
  12116. They talked about the gun. If you go frame by frame with the highest resolution, you can see the carjacker point the gun at the driver's head as the door opens. You can see the gun clearly on the ground next to a piece of wood at 5:02.
    1
  12117. No, dewdrop. You have confused missions that last many months with missions that last a few days.
    1
  12118. Because Inside Edition told you so.
    1
  12119. What rights do you think were violated? What are you talking about? What protocol should he have followed? Why doesn't her own attorney agree with you?
    1
  12120. I wonder if you're aware that the woman in the video is was a convicted felon who spent time in prison, had a million other arrests, and was a stripper at the local club? I'd eat my hat if she wasn't making "public beach" content for her fans. I wonder if you're aware that multiple people called the police, and one of them took video of the incident and gave a copy to the police? I wonder if you're aware that the content of the video doesn't match her little story about being alone?
    1
  12121. How about NOT blaming innocent bystanders, dewdrop?
    1
  12122. Well, thankfully, you don't make the laws. Society does. And, society disagrees with you.
    1
  12123. I can't decide whether to flag this as spam, or flag it as misinformation....
    1
  12124. "film melts at 50c and the camera's had no cooling system" The camera's what had no cooling system? You left some words out there, or, you're completely oblivious to the fact that an apostrophe means possession or contraction, not pluralization. Anyway, yes, dewdrop, it's called INSULATION. The camera's aluminum housing, and the film canister itself, was lined with silver to reflect the sun's energy. How do you think an oven door works? Why can it be 500 degrees inside the oven, yet, a fraction of an inch away (on the outside of the door), it's room temperature? How does that happen? The oven door INSULATES the inside from the outside. And, again, you've been asked repeatedly, yet, never answer... why didn't Hasselblad or Kodak ever realize that they forgot about the temperatures? What do you know that their engineers didn't?
    1
  12125. "At the time of the Apollo 11 landing, the temperature at the landing site, Tranquility Base, was approximately 107 degrees Celsius" Why do you keep cutting and pasting the same incorrect things across multiple threads and multiple videos? Good gods. Flagged as spam at this point. You don't even read answers to your own questions/comments.
    1
  12126. Not only don't you read responses to your own questions/comments, but, you don't even read your own copy-pasted statements. Dewdrop, here's what you wrote: "The EASEP science package deployed on the surface by Apollo 11 recorded temperatures as high as 150°F (66°C) and as low as -63°F (-53°C). This was via remote measurement of the nearby soil radiance." Do you see? Are you even capable of digesting what you wrote? REMOTE measurement. The astronauts were long gone by then. A lunar "day" is 708 hours, dewdrop. The astronaut was on the surface for a couple of hours. Get it yet? No astronaut was on the surface during a lunar high noon, but, yes, the REMOTE experiment package was. Did you even read this response? Can you write "green" at the top of your reply to prove it?
    1
  12127. And, my reply isn't visible. So, here's the short version. Yes, dewdrop. The REMOTE (your own word you copied/pasted) measurements show high surface temperatures. REMOTE because the astronauts were long gone by then. Why do you refuse to understand this? You've been told 1000x.
    1
  12128.  @stusue9733  Well, apparently, my reply is visible if sorted by date, but, not in the notification thread.
    1
  12129.  @stusue9733  I've had that happen. I've had my posts disappear a significant time later. Most of the time, if they're going to disappear, it's within a minute or two. But, I've had it take much longer. Just like your [whatever] complaint about [whatever] I was wrong about. I never saw it, and it's likely it disappeared, or was only visible to you.
    1
  12130.  @stusue9733  I have no idea what you're talking about.
    1
  12131.  @stusue9733  I have no clue about whatever you posted. I never saw it. But, you kept foaming at the mouth for the next several posts. There's something clearly wrong, and your issues are far outside my expertise.
    1
  12132.  @stusue9733  "Strange you have no clue about something you brought up." Dewdrop, YOU were foaming at the mouth, repeating in a hundred different postings about how I wouldn't answer about something I supposedly got wrong. I never saw the original statement. I don't know why you cannot understand this. Or, wait, yes, I understand perfectly. You are unbalanced, and don't know what you're talking about.
    1
  12133.  @stusue9733  Your refusal to "get it" isn't my problem.
    1
  12134.  @stusue9733  Once again, I haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about. You are clearly refusing to even digest anything I've said.
    1
  12135.  @stusue9733  I'm not playing a game of hide and seek with you, especially given that you've been foaming at the mouth for quite a while now. I'm not your problem. Your problem is in the mirror.
    1
  12136.  @stusue9733  I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. And, I'm not playing Easter egg hunt with you to go find whatever you're foaming about.
    1
  12137. That is greatly sped up video. Go watch it at original speed, or watch the TV video version instead of the sped up 16mm version. Those motions were a lot slower.
    1
  12138. Spare the world your silly interpretation, dewdrop. The sped up video explains it just fine. There were 16 thrusters that had 100 pounds of force each, 4 of which would fire at a time. That causes short bursts of rotation, which was then canceled out shortly afterward by firing the opposite 4 thrusters. That perfectly explains the movements you see. And, as I said (but you ignored), you can go watch the TV version of the same video to cross compare. I'm sure you didn't bother.
    1
  12139. OK, but, I don't quite understand the grounds of the suit. What's the exact basis?
    1
  12140. Um, no. You have a real timeline problem with what you're claiming. Arrest = July 2021. Suicide = March 2022. Arrest video made public = November 2023. Put on TV = December 2023.
    1
  12141. GreenDay1981, my uncle used to be a defense attorney, and he told me that a vast majority of the time, the cases are pretty open and shut. Most of the time, when he represented a guilty client, it wasn't his job to try to say the client wasn't guilty. But, instead, his job was to make sure the defendant wasn't unfairly represented, and not to let the prosecutor try to get the sentencing way out of whack with the crime committed. About 95% of the cases never see a trial, and are plea bargained as guilty (verified by US Department of Justice online statistics). I'm not encouraging you to be an attorney if you don't want to be one, of course. Defense attorneys typically don't make much money, and need to deal with the scum of the earth on a daily basis. Nobody can blame you for not wanting to be one.
    1
  12142. They mostly just ignore it. But, yeah, some just say that those other countries decided to join in on "the deception" 50 years later.
    1
  12143. No. It's the difference between an infraction and a misdemeanor.
    1
  12144. Are you talking about the shadow of the lander?
    1
  12145. You are correct when you say that she doesn't have to cooperate with the investigation. However, then she needs to be prepared to be arrested, and must cooperate with that arrest. Personally, I'd have just presented my receipt to end the conflict immediately. But, sure, if I wanted to go on a crusade, alright, now I don't present my receipt, that's fine. But, then I would have politely told the officer, "I am bothered that the store sent you out here after me, I know you're just doing your job, and my beef isn't with you, so, I'd like the opportunity to go into the store and confront them with my receipt, rather than just giving it to you." And, if the officer refused to allow that, I would politely allow the arrest to happen, and then solve it in the courts. But, that's a million miles away from what this woman did.
    1
  12146. Absolutely incorrect. You are allowed to use deadly force if a carjacker is coming at you with a gun drawn.
    1
  12147. Yeah, and after this video, I have no respect for Sylvester Stallone either. This video completely changed my image of him.
    1
  12148. Your high school graduation?
    1
  12149. Why? Who would want a monster like this to roam free in society?
    1
  12150. The media is to blame for what?
    1
  12151. You're beyond hope.
    1
  12152. Yeah, but, just for clarity, only 5 are still standing.
    1
  12153. Wow .....how the people watching this video hold no accountability toward the actual criminal, and try to blame everyone else for her own crimes. Hint: stop blindly believing Inside Edition (where facts don't matter). She was a convicted felon who had an arrest record a mile long, and spent a term in a Florida prison. Her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the local gentlemen's club, and neighbors said she did "extras" for cash in her apartment. One of the "audience" recorded this incident, and gave a copy of the video to the police. It doesn't match her sob story about nobody being around. If she wasn't making "public beach" content, but got reported, and was trying to cry her way out of her millionth arrest, I'll eat my hat.
    1
  12154. So, you want an INCREASE in this sort of thing? That's what happens if you ban guns, you know.
    1
  12155. If you just want to blindly reject the obvious, that the "flat" surface is merely "relatively flat" (not 100% flat), and will have surface features that rise and fall a bit, causing a false horizon line, well, there's no convincing you of anything. It's completely impossible to argue with blind rejection. And, if you don't understand the mathematics behind the fact that there will also be some mountains in the distance that protrude above the actual horizon line, well, I can't teach you basic trigonometry over a YouTube comment. The same happens on Earth, and it's even closer on the moon because of the smaller radius. But, this is just a short video of some of the clips and photos from a 74 hour stay on the moon. There are photos and video clips taken from higher ground that don't have the false horizon line. Take AS17-140-21494 as an example. It's taken from higher ground, and you can see much of the Taurus-Littrow valley, the South Massif mountain, etc., with no false horizon line, and no real horizon line either. You can even see the lander if you look closely above the big rock at the little goldish colored object a couple of miles off in the distance. You also get a much clearer idea that the "flat" area isn't completely flat, and is only "flat" relative to the mountains and valleys. So, what then? No horizon for you to complain about.
    1
  12156. You're not the brightest bulb, eh?
    1
  12157. Skepticism is a method of analyzing. It doesn't just mean "blind rejection" (which is all the nuts are doing). The people who deny the moon landings are not skeptical. You have no business using that word to describe them. They're just blindly listening to claptrap produced by video makers that know the same amount that they do about the topic (zero). And, for you to question why people use the words "conspiracy theorists" to describe them is just plain silly. They have a *theory* that the moon landings were a **conspiracy**. You then went on to accuse me of being one of the crackpots. You're definitely not the brightest bulb. There. Did I elaborate enough for you?
    1
  12158.  @daryllect6659  Yet, every time you've been asked to back up your ridiculous claims, you run for the hills.
    1
  12159.  @daryllect6659  Well, let's see, dewdrop... you post here on and off, make claims, but never back them up with anything whatsoever, and run away any time you're corrected. Now, does that make you someone actually interested in being correct, or does that make you nothing more than a ridiculous troll who wants to pretend to know things he doesn't?
    1
  12160.  @mingmen9908  Watch out, dewdrop, your stupidity is showing.
    1
  12161.  @DammDamian  "The biggest problem is the massive radiation belt before hitting the moon." No, dewdrop. The Van Allen belts are not a problem if you go through quickly. They're only a problem if you linger for a long time (days/weeks). Why do you think you know more than the entire planet's aerospace engineers about this? Was it because a conspiracy video told you that the Van Allen belts would be a problem for Apollo? "And why were all the files of Apollo destroyed immediately?" Why would you believe that's true? Did a conspiracy video tell you that?
    1
  12162.  @mingmen9908  Yes, I've watched all of the moon landings. The camera was mounted to the LMP window. There are no camera angles from already being on the moon. You have no idea what you're talking about.
    1
  12163.  @deanhall6045  Spare me. You clearly know nothing. You opened your fake questions by stating that they didn't have batteries? Good gods.
    1
  12164.  @deanhall6045  You're saying they didn't have batteries, and yet you're saying you know more than I do? We're done here, right?
    1
  12165.  @deanhall6045  What don't you understand here, dewdrop? I'm not engaging with a Gish Gallop. You stated that you didn't think they have batteries. That was your subject. If I can't get you to admit you were wrong about that, I'm certainly not playing this game of never-ending topic shifting.
    1
  12166.  @deanhall6045  You just refuse to understand. I cannot help you.
    1
  12167.  @donaldwest8130  The lander weighed about 33,500 pounds on Earth. It burned about 18,000 pounds of fuel (Earth weight) during the descent. That means it weighed about 15,500 pounds upon landing (Earth weight). Divide by 6 to get the lunar weight (the moon's gravity is 1/6th of Earth). That means that the lander weighed about 2,500 pounds (moon weight) when it landed on the moon. I'm sorry math isn't your thing, but, should I really suffer for your inability to do math?
    1
  12168.  @ronaldgreene5733  No, dewdrop. As usual, all you do is spew nonsense. And, I've explained this to you before. The F1 is a very specific engine. And, the reason it wasn't used for anything else is because IT COULDN'T BE used on anything but a Saturn V, or something virtually identical. Why? The F1 couldn't be throttled. And, it was designed to be used in a cluster of 5. This means that its only purpose is to lift 6 million pounds. You can't put it on a smaller rocket, otherwise the G-forces would be too strong. The F1 cluster of 5 engines needed to be lifting 6 million pounds. The only rocket that fit that requirement was the Saturn V. I suppose you could make more F1s and use them in a cluster of 8 or something, thus being able to lift rockets heavier than the Saturn V. However, you couldn't use it to lift anything lighter than a Saturn V. If you only used 4 F1s, or 3 F1s, or 1 F1 (on smaller rockets), then the G forces would be too strong as the fuel was consumed. I'm sorry if you don't understand math. But, your continuous slander of Apollo and everything you don't understand is downright insulting, and you should pay attention to the answers.
    1
  12169.  @ronaldgreene5733  And, once again, this has been explained before, and you ignore it. That was just a silly edited trick in a conman's editing room. Watch the original version.
    1
  12170.  @ronaldgreene5733  So, now, you reposted more gibberish. Dewdrop, you don't know what you're talking about. Good grief.
    1
  12171.  @ronaldgreene5733  No, dewdrop. You have a disorder which prevents you from listening to any input. I've given you evidence a thousand times over. You are incapable of absorbing it.
    1
  12172. Huh? How do you embarrass a dead person?
    1
  12173. Dewdrop, she was arrested in July of 2021. She committed suicide in March of 2022. This arrest video wasn't made public until November of 2023. Sorry for reality. And, sorry you believe deceptive Inside Edition videos. I have a bridge for sale, though. Interested?
    1
  12174. Where do you get that information? Just because she said she has it? Or, is there more evidence that isn't in this video?
    1
  12175. Well, I'd never bother to deal with 95% of your rant. But, what was the purpose in going there? Well, it was the cold war. Apollo was the tip of the sword at the time. It was an expression of technological dominance. It was a message to the Soviets that, if they mess with us, we will beat them, we will always win. This was a timeframe when people were building bomb shelters in their backyards, and kids were trained to duck and cover if they see mushroom clouds. Cuban missile crisis. Political tension everywhere. We were quite close to having WWIII. Apollo was one of the mechanisms to try to keep the cold war cold, and not turn it into a real war. A lot of people think that, without Apollo, we would have had a thermonuclear war instead. Now, is that true? What would have happened without Apollo? We'll never actually know. But, yes, that was its purpose.
    1
  12176. Now, it seems he is making claims of building all kinds of car propulsion systems. He started years back by claiming he had made a jet car. He offered no demonstration of this jet car actually working, just claimed that it went 200 mph. Then, he said he made a nuclear reactor powered car. He offered no demonstration of this nuclear powered car actually working, just claimed that it did. Then, he says he's running a car on hydrazine. He offered no demonstration of this hydrazine powered car actually working, just claimed that it did. But, don't worry, if Bob Lazar says it, his cult followers will believe it. After all, Bob has created a universe where he doesn't ever need to supply evidence of anything he says. All he needs to do is make the claim, and his cult followers believe him.
    1
  12177. How about learning to actually read and write? I know you're trying to compensate with emojis. But, seriously man, if that's you in the photo, you seem to be in your 50s or 60s, and I think it's about time to learn the English language, huh? And, good grief, learn some physics while you're at it. No telescope on Earth is capable of seeing the Apollo stuff on the moon. And, sorry, but sending rovers to the Apollo 11 landing site? Good grief. How big do you think the moon is? The size of a small city or something?
    1
  12178. Huh? The video wasn't posted until she was dead for 1.5 years. She experienced ZERO shame from the posting of the arrest video from 2.5 years prior, because she was no longer alive to even know it was posted.
    1
  12179. Who knows? The driver had just murdered his own father and threw him into a lake. After that, yeah, he just kept on shooting. But, apparently, he wanted to live (and did) because he threw his guns out the window and hopped out the passenger side and surrendered.
    1
  12180.  @ColinBPlays  YOU SAID: "This is a bogus charge that she'll no doubt get out of" == NO doubts??? You literally don't even doubt it? YOU SAID: "what? I never said the video was bogus... I said the charge of first not wearing a mask and then resisting arrest. They will both be laughed out of court." == So, basically, you didn't bother to watch the video before coming to your conclusions? They clearly said the charge was trespassing, not a charge of failing to wear a mask or resisting arrest. YOU SAID: "yes I'm sorry you are correct, but the point I was making that any and all charges will be dropped in my opinion." == But, you didn't even know what the charges were!!! Remember?? How can you make such a judgment about charges being dropped, if you had no idea what the charges even were? YOU SAID: "I'm not the judge" == And, that's a good thing. Nobody wants a judge who condemns people, or sets them free, without even knowing what the charges were, and before hearing both sides of a story, and didn't even look at the evidence before coming to a conclusion. YOU SAID: "but I was just stating my opinion that I feel that these charges will be considered bogus to a judge." == Charges that you didn't even understand. AOK. You're a genius.
    1
  12181. 100,000, not 400,000.
    1
  12182. Putting on a show at a public beach in front of children is an aggravated misdemeanor.
    1
  12183. Let's hope so. But, they can't exactly do that yet. They need it to be iron clad. But, yes, I hope the parents serve time for assisting their son in evading prosecution. The parents should be considered as accessory to murder.
    1
  12184. You have misunderstood what happened here. You were correct when you said she's not legally obligated to show her receipt. However, this also means that she has to live with the consequences of that choice. She is not free to conceal her identity in a police investigation (she is required by law to provide ID), she is not allowed to obstruct and obfuscate, she is not allowed to resist arrest. And, she already sued the store, and she lost so badly that the court threw it out, and barred her from ever filing it again.
    1
  12185. Hilarious!!!! Um, the direct statements of a store employee are not hearsay. And, hearsay doesn't even apply to this situation. Oh, but you go right on and keep pretending. That's what YouTube is for, right? It's so people with zero education to pretend, right? Yes, he articulated the reasonable suspicion. The store employee said she left without paying. The store employee was mistaken, but, yes, that's reasonable suspicion. On what planet wouldn't it be? Oh, why am I even trying to explain this to you. You don't even know what "hearsay" means. Asking a person for a receipt is perfectly fine. She doesn't have to give it, but it's a perfectly reasonable thing to ask for. You are, once again, pretending, when you say that this is the same as guilty until proven innocent. You're barely even literate. You read and write at the level of a 2nd grader. Yet, you think you understand these things? Guilt or innocence isn't proven at the side of the road anyway. It's done IN A COURTROOM. The cop just needs to establish reasonable suspicion, and to determine if it's likely that a crime happened. And, he had that in spades. There is absolutely no obligation for any proof at the side of the road. Her own attorney didn't sue the police, because even he knew that they did nothing wrong. He sued the store, and lost badly there too. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
    1
  12186. How does it feel when every single illiterate sentence you write is incorrect? Good grief. Go back to school. You are completely and totally wrong.
    1
  12187. Her name is well publicized. But, so what? This had nothing to do with her suicide, despite the efforts of Inside Edition to be deceptive.
    1
  12188. They did. It wasn't released until 2.5 years later. She was long dead before anybody ever saw it.
    1
  12189. Good gods. Why don't you crack-meets-pot dewdrops just spell out what you mean from the start? I wouldn't have wasted my time even responding in the first place.
    1
  12190. I'm not sure what you mean by "US flag is flying." Care to elaborate? But, as for being windy when they landed, well, yes, the rocket exhaust creates "wind" and blows dust while they're landing.
    1
  12191. The missions with the rovers had the TV camera mounted to the front of the rover. It didn't work when the vehicle was in motion. To have a TV signal, they had to align the high gain S-band dish (the dish you see mounted to the rover) at each rover stop. Once they started moving, you might get a couple of seconds of TV, but, when the rover bounced around, turned, etc., the dish would no longer be aligned. There are some 16mm film video shots from the rovers, but, those would run out of film very quickly, so, they used them sparingly.
    1
  12192. And, you believe that, why? Because Inside Edition said so? What "shame" do you think she suffered?
    1
  12193. Wouldn't have mattered. One of the "audience" recorded it, and showed the video to the police. The police described in in their arrest report as a very loud and public display in front of multiple people including children. She was getting arrested no matter what she said, or didn't say.
    1
  12194. So, with dozens of guests drinking the very same alcohol, yet nobody else getting sick, you have concluded that the 5-star resort has purchased tainted alcohol from the manufacturer? Really? It's just not possible that the girl drank herself into oblivion, especially given her blood alcohol percentage? Why didn't the hospital find any evidence of tainted alcohol?
    1
  12195. But, Jessica, this wasn't a case of self defense. He planned these murders in advance.
    1
  12196. That's generally good advice. However, it wouldn't have mattered all that much in this incident. Multiple people called the police. One of them captured the event on video, and showed it to the police. Needless to say, the video doesn't match her claims about a discreet act with nobody around. It's not uncommon for criminals to lie when questioned, you know. I'm sure she wanted to avoid her millionth arrest, and was hoping they'd let her go before they realized she had so many open warrants for other arrests and failures to appear in court.
    1
  12197. Huh? Do you not know the difference between crimes and infractions? And, a court summons? You think you issue those for crimes? What? A ticket? Did you flunk Civics 101?
    1
  12198. It's the difference between an open investigation and a closed one. Like, for this particular arrest video, the police blocked the release for 2.5 years. That's 1.5 years after she died. She was dead, so, the investigation had been closed long enough to release the video in the event of a legal FOIA request.
    1
  12199. Huh? It would have been fake if you could see stars.
    1
  12200. Wilson Combat for me, thanks.
    1
  12201. They caused WHAT?
    1
  12202. No. The media is getting the views and clicks 1.5 years AFTER she died. Still bad, I agree. They shouldn't be capitalizing on a woman's suicide. But, make no mistake here, social media was not involved until long after she already died.
    1
  12203. Yeah, the same ones that didn't think she should have been arrested. They don't know what they're talking about.
    1
  12204. Wrong. Completely wrong. 45%?? That shows you how out of touch with reality you are. It's clearly at least 80%.
    1
  12205. Inside Edition didn't run a single story on her while she was alive. So, um, no.
    1
  12206. Well, you can make all of the little observations you want. The only relevant one for this video is whether or not what she did was against the law, or not.
    1
  12207. Yeah, 9mm hollow point pistol rounds don't really go through a truck very well.
    1
  12208. So, you're blaming the victims, not the criminal?
    1
  12209. Lay off of the drugs. Good gods.
    1
  12210.  @therealzilch  Yeah, and I know you weren't addressing me or my reply. But, my main point was that this guy is clearly taking little quotes here and there to formulate his opinions. And, it really shouldn't matter what anybody says in little quotes, either in favor of the moon landings or against them. Quotes are too often either wrong or twisted, or the speaker just doesn't know what he's talking about, etc. What matters is the evidence itself. But, the nuts never want to actually look at that. They just like to listen to quotes and base their opinions on that.
    1
  12211. Depends. Yes, Trump's administration has been the only one since Apollo that has gotten congress to allocate money for landing people back on the moon (project Artemis). It only got funded at about 1/2 of the pace that he asked for, thus it will take double the amount of time he wanted. But, like many government programs, funding can go up, funding can go down, or funding can be canceled altogether. Since Apollo ended, NASA's budget has been increased under every republican president, and decreased under every democrat president (adjusted for inflation). So, if Biden takes office (which looks likely), I wouldn't be surprised if his administration kills Artemis, or decreases the pace.
    1
  12212.  Thomas Pickering  Dummy, I am not advocating Trump, or anybody else. It's pure mathematics that dictated my response. Go look up the NASA budget when each president (after Apollo) took office. Look up the NASA budget of first year of the next presidency (which was set during the prior year). Adjust for inflation during each time period. And, chart it out. NASA's budget was always decreased (relative to inflation) while a democrat was in office. NASA's budget was always increased (relative to inflation) while a republican was in office. I never said a darned thing about endorsing any candidate. I'm just reciting the math.
    1
  12213. When did they start giving warnings for misdemeanors?
    1
  12214. The carjacker had a gun and pointed it at the officer. You can see it in slow motion, and at 5:02 laying on the ground next to a 2x4 piece of wood.
    1
  12215. There is no assumption of privacy when in a public place.
    1
  12216. Yes, I think the laws should be changed. I agree that it's a changed world now. 50 years ago, you needed to own a newspaper or TV station to be able to broadcast people's faces to the public. Now, anybody with a YouTube account and a smartphone can do it for free. But, until the laws are changed, yeah, there is no assumption of privacy.
    1
  12217. YAAAAAAAAAAAAAY. Another person saying to handle it differently, but never saying how.
    1
  12218. A verbal warning for an aggravated misdemeanor? Huh?
    1
  12219. But nobody saw the arrest video when she was alive.
    1
  12220. The commentators I saw estimated hundreds. But, again, I can't possibly know, and neither can you, due to non-disclosure. But, Armstrong said himself that he sued so many people that he can't even remember them all, and couldn't remember which people he sued. This does NOT equal four. Sorry, but I think Armstrong could remember four people. If you want to quibble about how much of his power was attained by a willing and deluded fan base, vs. willing accomplices, go somewhere else.
    1
  12221. She had an audience.
    1
  12222. Not.
    1
  12223. YOU SAID: "My mom was served a roofied alcoholic drink in Mexico....BY THE BARTENDER." == I wish a slow and painful death upon that bartender. That is HORRIBLE for your mother. YOU SAID: "Sounds like she's not the only one to possibly have been poisoned." == Well, the lawsuit mentions NOTHING about being poisoned. Not a single word. They accuse the hotel of substandard alcohol, but they didn't mention a single word about any poison or roofies.
    1
  12224.  @lavender3401  YOU SAID: "Oh, I understand that it wasn't mentioned in the lawsuit. I'm just pointing out the possibility of foul play at hand based off of my own experiences." == If drugs were involved, you'd think they'd have shown up in the blood tests at the hospital, and that they'd have been the biggest part of the lawsuit. But, instead, the lawsuit only mentions the possibility of tainted alcohol, and frankly, the connection they build (in the 24 page lawsuit) is really weak, if you ask me. If they could make a connection to drugs also, yeah, I'd imagine that would have been the core of their case, not the extremely weak connection to maybe being tainted. Their only link to tainted alcohol mentioned in the lawsuit was that this hotel ordered alcohol from a supplier that supplied tainted alcohol to a different hotel entirely. They didn't even make a direct connection to tainted alcohol to THIS resort. If they could bring in drugs to the argument, yeah, I'd think they'd do it. But, they didn't. YOU SAID: "Anecdotal evidence, I know." == Yeah, hey, I'm not trying to kick you in the teeth (too much, anyway). But, yeah, that's very weak. "My mom was drugged somewhere else entirely, therefore this girl may have been drugged." Extremely weak. I don't think there's a courtroom on the planet that would allow that kind of "logic." And, that's for good reason. If that type of logic was valid, then ANYBODY could be guilty of ANYTHING, if all you ever need to do was say, "well, this happened to someone else in a completely unrelated incident... therefore...." YOU SAID: "However, based on the events mentioned, coupled with the fact that they both passed out at the exact same time" == And, you know they both passed out at the exact same time, how? Was the pool even open when they were in it? According to the timing outlined in the lawsuit, it happened after dark, you know. I mean, you're sort of answering your own question. If this was a busy time at the pool, tons of people around, swimming, drinking, etc., wouldn't someone notice the two bodies? But, since it happened after dark, and nobody noticed, I tend to suspect that it was because nobody else was there. The guest who reported it to an employee didn't run up to anybody in the pool and say, "hey, help those people!!" No, they reported it to someone else entirely. So, how exactly do you know that they both passed out at the same time? YOU SAID: "and drowned" == She drowned. He lived. YOU SAID: "within eyeshot of other people with no-one noticing is slightly suspicious." == Hence why it's difficult to even believe it happened the way you're outlining. YOU SAID: "Plus, this also seems to be happening often at other resorts with nearly identical storylines." == Now you sound like a conspiracy theorist. I mean, what the hell purpose would there be in resorts intentionally drowning their guests? How would they get the participation of their staff? Why would they do it? I mean, sure, one psycho killer, I can at least believe could happen. But, if you're asserting that there's a rash of resorts deciding to kill their patrons... sorry... I can't get on board with you on this. You, frankly, sound insane. YOU SAID: "It's just odd. And again, based on how my mother's experience" == Your mother's experience is terrifyingly horrible. And, again, I wish a slow and painful death on the man that did that to her. YOU SAID: "I'd be curious to know if that's what could have potentially happened to the victims in this story. (Or if anyone has even considered this theory.)" == I cannot even think of a response to this. Please rejoin reality. That's about all I can say. It's not going to serve you well in life to hold your insane beliefs.
    1
  12225.  @lavender3401  I'm only going to bother replying to some of your latest message, and that will be that. YOU SAID: " 1. I am stating that my mother's experience of being drugged in Mexico while purchasing an alcoholic drink sounds similar to stories of other American's who have traveled to Mexico. As you can tell from the video, this has happened to other travelers under almost identical circumstances. That's strange. Thus, I'm simply pointing out that perhaps another element is at play here, and that I'd be interested to know if such a theory has been looked into." == The hospital ran drug tests. I'd imagine roofies were on the list of things they'd test for, but the articles don't specify. YOU SAID: "They both drowned. She died. He survived. You can, in fact, survive a drowning. Hers was fatal. His wasn't." == I just did a quick Google search for "definition of drowning" - and it returned "die through submersion in and inhalation of water." But, whatever, it's not worth it to argue about the definition of words. YOU SAID: "The young man in the video stated that they were drinking "in a group of people." That's HIS outline. Not mine." == Fine. He also said he has no memory of what happened for the remaining hours after the first drink or two. What's your point? YOU SAID: "They purchased the alcohol from the hotel." == Well, sort of. It's "free" because it's an all-inclusive hotel. But, obviously, it's baked into the room price. YOU SAID: "If the pool was open and alcohol was still being served on their premises (regardless of whether or not it was "after dark"), then I believe that there's liability there." == Yeah, exactly why I am trying to find the pool/bar hours from two years ago when this happened. Thus far, I cannot find it. And, conveniently (or inconveniently), the lawsuit does not mention that part. YOU SAID: "I never said anything of the sort. You came to this conclusion on your own. With all due respect, you sound insane." == Your inability to communicate your thoughts is not my problem. And, this will be my last message to you. You're talking about whacked out ideas of roofies being given to this girl, when NOBODY ANYWHERE ANYTIME has ever even alluded to any such concept, not the hospital, not the family, nobody. And, what? They roofied the brother too? Did the bartender want a bisexual threesome with the drunk girl and her brother? And, your basis for this is because your mom was given roofies once. By that logic... oh, fucking forget it, you're obviously not listening.
    1
  12226.  @pleasepassthemustard4401  Note: "attilafry" is either just an idiotic troll, or a complete psychopath. In these threads, he has talked about these prisoners' "supple bodies," and has stated that he thinks they not only shouldn't be on Death Row, but should actually be let out of prison. So, yes, either he's just trying to get a response out of people, or he's a complete mental case (probably the latter).
    1
  12227.  @pleasepassthemustard4401  I think the studies have pretty conclusively shown that people are not deterred from committing murders, even if they know the potential penalties if they're caught and found guilty. Quite simply, they don't seem to care, don't think they'll get caught, or aren't thinking that far in advance. But, I'll tell you what the death penalty does, that nobody can refute: it gets people to fess up (or at least a large chunk of them). When faced with a trial and potential death penalty, vs. a deal to plea guilty in exchange for life imprisonment (instead of death), they often take the deal. In states where there is no death penalty, there's not much motivation for anybody to take any deals, because there are no deals to be made (short of a sentence reduction, which nobody wants). The potential for the death penalty is about the only bargaining chip available, and it's only available in states that have the death penalty. In other states, you either get long trials (with the potential to lose), or you need to reduce the sentences in order to get the guilty pleas.
    1
  12228. What didn't you understand here? Yes, there are many photos of Earth. And, yes, many photos of the stars, as it was explained by ArKritz. Do you bother reading replies? Or, just continue to spew nonsense?
    1
  12229. Links to other sites are not allowed. So, I cannot post a link. And, sorry, but, I'm not playing this game of shifting the goalposts. You claimed that there were no images of the Earth or stars. That's wrong. There are many images of both the Earth and the stars. Now, you're just preempting by saying that they're fake, before anybody can even give them to you. AS17-137-20910 is one example of the many Earth photos that were taken from the lunar surface. I like that one because it's looking directly up the slope of the spectacular South Massif.
    1
  12230.  @paul8972  Who told you there were no photos or video of Earth? Why would you believe it?
    1
  12231. Yeah, kinda strange that they didn't tell you 2 weeks ago that she was already dead for 1.5 years, right? Instead, they want you to believe that the release of that video made her commit suicide.
    1
  12232. "We have satellites that can easily take pictures of the dark side of the moon." Um, ok, so what? What has that got to do with Apollo?
    1
  12233. "We could easily take a snapshot of the landing site and actually look at it today." Not in the level of detail put forth in this video. The best resolution camera is onboard ISRO's Chandrayaan-2 lunar orbiter. In monochrome, it's about 0.32 meters by 0.32 meters per pixel, which is about 13 inches by 13 inches in English units. This video is showing color (color resolution from lunar orbiters is about 7x worse than monochrome), and showing things much smaller than 0.32m. So, no, there is no such camera anywhere that can take snapshots to achieve the imagery shown in this video.
    1
  12234. "This video offers none of that only speculates on what it looks like." Yes, because there is no such camera anywhere that can do what you're asking.
    1
  12235. "The fact that the United States does not release real photos of the site" Dewdrop, they published all 7,000 images of all 6 of the landing sites. You can go to the archives and view every single one of them. And, if you want orbital photos of the landing sites, ok, yes, only a small portion of them are available online, just about a hundred. But, you'll find them on Arizona State University's site (they made and managed the LRO camera). A hundred photos should be more than enough to demonstrate the landing sites are there.
    1
  12236. "leads to more speculation the landing never happened" But, dewdrop, everything you've stated is laughably wrong. You cannot get ANY of your facts straight. If you want verification that the landings happened, why would you trust the USA anyway? Why do you want the USA to publish more photos, while you're clearly rejecting everything the USA has already published? Why would you magically accept MORE photos, while you've rejected every other photo? Good grief. Dewdrop, both India and China have published photos of the landing sites from their orbiters, and you can see the landers, etc. What more do you want here?
    1
  12237. "NASA and USA could easily debunk it with satellite photo proof but refuse to do so" You clearly never looked. Good grief. "Arizona State university LRO Apollo photos" - try that, and go from there. Stop pretending you know things you don't.
    1
  12238. There is no "dark side" of the moon, dewdrop. All sides of the moon get equal light. A lunar day is 708 hours, from sunrise to sunrise (about a month). All landings happened early in the lunar morning.
    1
  12239. Are you even reading my answers before you reply? I already answered you, dewdrop. You're repeating questions I already answered.
    1
  12240. "The Hubble telescope never looked into deep space?" Dewdrop, Hubble's best resolution of the moon yields a photo that is 160 feet x 160 feet PER PIXEL. Do the math yourself if you don't believe me. You cannot see a 14 foot x 14 foot lander with Hubble, let alone the tiny items depicted in this video. ONE pixel is 160 feet x 160 feet of the lunar surface. ONE PIXEL. Do you understand yet?
    1
  12241. "Either way, we have technology that could prove either way but NASA nor the United States is using it. You must ask yourself why." Dewdrop, what didn't you understand about Arizona State University's LRO camera? Go look at their own site about it. There are about 100 photos of the Apollo stuff on the moon.
    1
  12242. I don't know if my other reply is visible. No, they didn't land on the "dark side." They always landed early in the lunar morning (daytime). Why would they land at night? That makes no sense.
    1
  12243. "Houston they were looking at numbers not footage" What in the world are you talking about? Do you have any idea how many geologists, rocket experts, surface experiment experts, etc., were watching live in Houston, then asking the astronauts to do something? "Hey, that rock looks interesting, can you ask the astronaut to bring it over to the camera and show us a closer view?" Then, the astronauts do exactly what the geologist asks. "Hey, we're getting a bad reading out of the 3rd surface temperature probe. Can you get the astronaut to re-dig that hole and place the probe a little deeper?" Then, that's what the astronaut does. There were over 100 various experts in various different capacities that were in Houston, watching the live feed, then interacting with the astronauts (via capcom) to do something. No. You're just plain wrong. They were not just looking at numbers. They had a constant interaction with the astronauts, and this is very apparent if you'd just take a few hours to watch the footage yourself. "the public were feed fake footage on tele" Yet, this "fake footage" arrived in dishes in Goldstone, Spain, and Australia, while those dishes were pointed AT THE MOON. How do you explain that? "an definitely couldn't see it with there own eyes" Shocker. The denier reads and writes at a 2nd grader level. I mean this seriously here. I'm not joking at all. I am genuinely curious about why you people think that the world's experts are the ones that don't understand the subject, while thinking that the world's high school dropouts who barely can form a sentence are the real experts? Can you explain this? I mean, I don't know for sure that you're a high school dropout. But, by the quality of your writing skills, it's pretty clear that you didn't deserve the diploma (if you even got one). Why do you think you understand this better than the entire planet's engineers who specialize in this stuff? "so they swallowed what they saw an believed it, mass deception," So, the dozens of countries, including enemies, that tracked Apollo to the moon and back with radar and radio telescopes? They're just swallowing what they see? So, countries like China and India, who have sent unmanned probes to the moon, that have photographed some of the Apollo landing sites, and can see the landers exactly where the original mission photography shows them? This is just swallowing something they saw on television? "when nobody can see reality" Well, you certainly can't. "an the only way to see is through NASA" No. Like I said, numerous countries have confirmed Apollo in numerous ways. And, I was just scratching the surface. There are many other ways to confirm Apollo that have nothing to do with trusting NASA videos. "well that tells ya, they blinded all to win a so called race to the moon," And, you think the Soviets were just going to believe what they saw on videos also? "was to go hide behind a rock" What would you do instead? Most of the radiation cannot penetrate a large rock. But, I'm all ears, what do you propose instead? "what a load of croc" Translation: I don't understand it, therefore it's fake. "an still 50 years on an still haven't been back, oh wait were going to mars so the moon will have to wait" Huh? There are no funded missions to send people to Mars. There is, however, a funded program to send people back to the moon. There have only been two funded programs for manned moon missions. Apollo, and Artemis. Constellation got close to getting funding to go to the moon. But, it was divided into 3 phases, and only phase 1 ever got funded. So, no, there were no other funded programs to go to the moon. And, there have never been any funded programs to send people to Mars. The rest of what you wrote was just a childish rant about a topic you clearly do not understand.
    1
  12244. So, basically, you're confirming that you didn't read my response before dismissing it. Sure. Right. Dewdrop, if you weren't interested in responses, and you didn't intend on reading them, why did you post anything at all?
    1
  12245. And we have now somehow hit an even deeper bottom of the barrel. I mean, all of you cranks are pretty much bottom of the barrel to begin with. But, this? Yeah, I didn't realize how deep the barrel could actually get.
    1
  12246. Like how? What do you suggest?
    1
  12247. 1) You get arrested for misdemeanors, not a ticket, not a warning, not asked to leave. Arrested. Period.
    1
  12248. 2) You get put in cuffs if arrested. Period.
    1
  12249. 3) Cops were quite kind and discreet because they asked her to leave the restaurant to ask her the questions, outside the view of others, so nobody could see/hear what was going on.
    1
  12250. 4) Yes, they had to walk back through the restaurant because that was the path back to the police car, but, other than that, they kept it as quiet as possible.
    1
  12251. 5) Multiple people called the police for this incident. One of the "audience" even recorded it, and showed the video to the police.
    1
  12252. 6) One of the witnesses even told the police that she had wandered up and down the beach, looking for a place to do this, then chose a spot in full view of people.
    1
  12253. 7) You seem to believe her claim of nobody being around. Why? She's a woman who was trying to avoid being arrested for the umpteenth time, so, yeah, she'll try to say anything. "I didn't do it" is a very common claim.
    1
  12254. 8) With the number of outstanding warrants on her, you don't think the cops should arrest her?
    1
  12255. 10) According to her landlord, her real "profession" wasn't a real estate agent (she hadn't sold a house in many years), but, ya know, one of those professions that women do when they can't get a job, but YouTube bans the postings with those words... you get the idea. Is it that far fetched to you that she'd put on a public display on a beach?
    1
  12256. 11) The police kept the arrest video private for 2.5 years, which was 1.5 years after she died. So, the woman suffered zero shame from the release of the arrest video, because she was not alive when it was released.
    1
  12257. I had to break apart my response because it was getting blocked. I see it didn't like #9, so, I'll reword.
    1
  12258. 9) With her mile long legal history of arrests, prison term for stealing cars, legal judgements against her for various thefts, drug and alcohol problems galore, numerous failures to appear in court, attempts to change her name to evade prosecution, why in the world would you believe a single word she says?
    1
  12259. 12) The video taken by the witness and showed to the police was depicted in her arrest report as a very loud and public display in view of multiple people including children.
    1
  12260. Oh no you don't. You blamed the officers for her death, remember? Now, if the best you can muster is the officers went back through the restaurant (which was the path back out to the police cars), and you think that puts blame on them for her death... what more can I really say? You're just one of those people incapable of ever uttering the words "I was wrong."
    1
  12261. They bear ZERO responsibility for her death. Stop being ridiculous. You don't know what you're talking about, but you refuse to admit it.
    1
  12262. Eventually, this will solve itself. This is just the beginning. Eventually, trans athletes will dominate just about every woman's sport. Then, when women's sports is basically annihilated to the point that there will just be men's sports, and trans sports, and that's it (because those born as women won't have a chance), they'll start up a new division where women can compete, but trans won't be allowed. The problem is that all female athletes will suffer for a couple of decades while that plays out.
    1
  12263. Well, then you will be arrested. That's really all anybody can tell you. I mean, sure, you can fight the crusade, and not provide the receipt, if you just want to make things difficult. That's within your rights. They can ask for a receipt, but, you aren't legally required to provide it. However, during a police investigation like this, you ARE required to show ID, and cooperate at a very basic level. You can remain silent, you can refuse to provide your receipt, that's fine. But, you cannot obstruct, obfuscate, or resist. And, yes, you must identify yourself. (This woman didn't provide her receipt, nor her ID, nor even just stated her name, and definitely obstructed/obfuscated/resisted.) If you want to take the same path she did, you'll end up in the exact same boat.
    1
  12264. Well, my guess is that she didn't want to deal with another term in prison. Not that I think this arrest would matter. Even with her extensive criminal history, this incident is probably negotiated down to a minor infraction. But, with everything else piling up, and the fact that the courts wouldn't let her change her name to evade police, and her life completely off the rails for more than a decade, she probably just finally cracked under the weight of it all.
    1
  12265. I usually don't think any teen can't change his ways. But, I'm afraid you're correct about this one.
    1
  12266. And, you believe her? Why? On a side note, I have a bridge for sale. Interested?
    1
  12267. Pffttt. Right. Sorry, but, you aren't making those little 9mm rounds penetrate a truck any better than the police can. Your military training doesn't magically convert a 9mm pistol round into a rifle round.
    1
  12268.  @bennygarcia7786  There really is no point here. You have now shifted your position from how good/bad of a shot the officer was, to switching to talking about the combat techniques. If you cannot even stick with your original position, and you need to change topics instead, yeah, we're done. Congratulations on pretending to know more than the people who actually were in this situation. I'm sure you're quite proud of yourself.
    1
  12269. The phrase is "I couldn't care less." By saying that you COULD care less, you're saying that you actually care more. Bravo. I hope you're super proud of yourself. You can't even retort correctly.
    1
  12270. Yeah, before this clip began, the woman went bananas. I couldn't care less about what "de-escalating" you teach. This woman caused the entire thing all by herself. Go watch the entire version, not this one that was edited down.
    1
  12271. OK, what exact technology do you think they lacked? Don't just say "technology" like it's supposed to mean something. Name the piece of technology you think they didn't have at the time. Then, explain why none of the thousands of engineers who designed and built it ever realized that they failed to make stuff that did what they designed it to do. Can you?
    1
  12272. So, you're just going to continue to overstate things, and basically paint the picture that we'd never have made it to the moon without the Germans?
    1
  12273. Now, is that because AI chat is wrong, and the loose dust is only a very thin layer? Or, are you saying you believe AI chat?
    1
  12274.  @daveystod  So, the AI contradicted itself.
    1
  12275.  @eventcone  I don't know. I haven't liked any presidential candidate for decades. I remember my grandfather complaining about each election being worse than the prior election, and now I sound just like he sounded. Trump vs. Hillary? Seriously? Those are my choices? Trump vs. Biden? What? Biden is a crackpot who campaigned on absolutely nothing besides meeting diversity quotas and wearing a mask. Trump is an egomaniac who never admits being wrong about anything, while somehow simultaneously has a remarkably fragile ego (make sense of that, if you can). Romney believed his underwear had magical powers. McCain picked an airhead running mate who cannot be distinguished between Tina Fey's impression of her. Hillary was just as much of a crooked liar as her husband. Maybe between the two of them, they can figure out the definition of the word "is." Her husband set a timebomb into the USA's economy by admitting China into the WTO, and by passing the laws that allowed the mortgage companies to commit predatory loan practices that would destroy the economy 10 years later when nobody could make their balloon payments. Bush knew that timebomb was there, and did nothing to stop it, hoping that he could get through his 8 years and let the timebomb go off under Obama instead of him (and he almost made it, too). It's a mess. As for Trump not keeping his mouth shut about the topics you're talking about... yeah, the Twitter president never keeps his mouth shut.
    1
  12276. What in the world are you talking about? That's not how this works. You don't just let a person go home, then arrest them later for stuff like this. You make a determination about whether it's likely that a crime happened, and then you make the arrest. The burden of proof doesn't even come into play until the courtroom. There is no burden of proof at the side of the road. And, she lost her lawsuit so badly that it was tossed out of court, and she has been permanently barred from ever filing it again, that's how meaningless the suit was. Why would you think she won? Good grief. Do you just enjoy having every single sentence you write being wrong? Is that what makes you happy?
    1
  12277. I agree. But, how do you prevent it? And, at least nobody saw the video while she was alive.
    1
  12278. Multiple people called, not just one. And, you seem to be implying that they shouldn't have called. Why not?
    1
  12279. Dewdrop, the arrest report has all of the details.
    1
  12280. Yeah, I'm convinced now. Thanks for your inciteful posting. The mountains of evidence... the fact that no space agency on the planet doubts the moon landings... the notion that thousands of people would keep such a secret and none have ever come forward... nope, we need to toss those aspects aside. Amante has looked at the moon on a clear night, which is convincing enough to overturn everything else.
    1
  12281. Um, ok, and?
    1
  12282. You're joking, right? What kind of delusional isolated life have you led
    1
  12283. So, shorted wires on Apollo 1, which happened 2.5 years before Apollo 11, means that Apollo 11 couldn't happen? And, you're PROUD of this ridiculous opinion of yours?
    1
  12284. Yeah, blame the victim, not the criminal herself.
    1
  12285. July 1, 2021 = this incident. March, 2022 = she decided to exit this world. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released due to FOIA request (no, not FOIL).
    1
  12286. The Freedom of Information ACT is a federal law.
    1
  12287. Can you name any media that even covered anything about this story before she died? How much "exposure" do you think she actually got? A couple of obscure blogs that nobody has ever heard of?
    1
  12288. The arrest video ended up on the internet because of a Freedom of Information Act request. But, the police successfully blocked the release for 2.5 years (she was already dead for 1.5 years before anybody saw the arrest video). At least they're still blocking the release of the video of the incident itself (graphic content). What's your complaint exactly?
    1
  12289. ****Inside Edition never even covered this story until 1.5 years after she died.*****
    1
  12290. Um, no. Not even close. SHE was the exhibitionist. Why do you believe she thought nobody was around? Because she said so while trying to avoid her millionth arrest?
    1
  12291.  @stusue9733  It's from the movie "No Way Out." They can magically insert pixels that aren't even there.
    1
  12292.  @LunaLapin-ho5tk  The police report only mentions one video taken of the incident.
    1
  12293. You saw which video? The video taken of the woman by one of the "audience," that was shown to police, and mentioned in their report? I didn't think that video was ever posted anywhere, so, maybe you're talking about the arrest video? But, that doesn't make sense either, because that video wasn't made public until November 24, 2023. She died two years ago. So, it wouldn't make sense that you're blaming her suicide on that video. Anyway, can you clarify?
    1
  12294.  @SpaceTime773  Yeah, you have a lot in common with him.
    1
  12295.  @SpaceTime773  You lost all credibility a long time ago. But, the icing on the cake was when you told me that you investigated the engine used on Apollo 15, when you know very well that you did not. You lied. You never checked anything. You can tell it was a J-mission engine with the extended nozzle visually, as well as in the documentation, as well as by understanding that Apollo 15 couldn't have landed where it did without the extended engine. Yet, you lied to me, and said you verified that I was wrong. You never even looked it up. You just wanted to assert that I was wrong, based on your own ignorance. Yes, you're a troll, by definition.
    1
  12296.  @SpaceTime773  See what I mean? You won't even address the fact that you lied. You never checked anything, and you know it. But, you lied, and said that you did. You ARE a troll. What more do you want? You can't sit there and lie and pretend you know things you don't know, pretending you checked on things you never checked, and now pretend you have some sort of superior knowledge about a topic you knew nothing whatsoever about, until I told you. Absolute troll. And, again, you seem to have forgotten the parade of garbage you threw at me prior to then. Absolute troll. If you would have just come clean and said, "yes, you're right, I lied to you about checking things I never checked," I'd probably have offered to befriend you and we can share knowledge, etc. But, nope. You chose to be a troll, and refuse to even admit your lies when you're caught in them.
    1
  12297.  @SpaceTime773  You have failed to understand the point. After I repeatedly corrected you about the Apollo 15 descent engine, after you kept on with your garbage, telling me to shut up, etc., after all of that, you came back and said that you checked on what I was telling you about the engine, and said that I was wrong. YOU DID NOT CHECK. Yes, you lied about that. Only after I told you the exact page number of the Apollo 15 mission report did you finally check, you troll.
    1
  12298. Huh? He walked up to a car while wearing a balaclava ski mask in the middle of a Kentucky summer, opened the door, and pointed a gun at the driver. Are those the actions of someone who didn't think someone was in the car?
    1
  12299. Bingo.
    1
  12300. Well, to be fair, I think your comment applies to the world's population as a whole, not just the conspiracy crowd.
    1
  12301. They didn't give her a ticket. Why would you think they did?
    1
  12302. You might be confused if you saw the officer reach for the door handle, and assumed he's the one who opened the door. He was not. The carjacker did. Look at it in slow motion. And, huh? Just passing by with a balaclava ski mask and a gun?
    1
  12303. Another denier who reads and writes at the level of a 6 year old. Dewdrop, if you want to make a comparison to Santa Claus, learn how to spell it.
    1
  12304. Huh? This woman in this video had an extensive criminal history. She did a felony term in prison about 6 years ago. And, she had a million other arrests before and after. Seems that most of them were for drugs and alcohol. So, spare the world your obvious hatred.
    1
  12305. Well, I agree. And, the only saving grace was that she didn't get any publicity until long after she was dead.
    1
  12306. "Debate"? That's like "debating" whether 1+1=2. There's no "debate" here, dewdrop. Not a single one of you deniers knows anything about Apollo. It's like "debating" politics with a 4 year old.
    1
  12307. Was that a 9mm overdose, or .22 overdose?
    1
  12308. Those aren't 48 star flags. Good grief.
    1
  12309. Wow. I have some Kool-Aid, want some? What got her arrested was the multiple people who called and said she was doing it intentionally, and the person who recorded the incident and gave a copy of the video to the police. Furthermore, with her extensive criminal record and open warrants, make no mistake here, she was getting arrested either way. Why do you believe she thought she was alone? You believe the convicted felon instead of the innocent bystanders and police?
    1
  12310. What in the world are you talking about? He murdered his father right before this chase. And, guns don't create problems, people create problems. What EXACTLY would you do to stop crimes like this? Don't just sit on YouTube and complain about guns. Explain the EXACT laws you'd enact in order to actually stop these crimes from happening?
    1
  12311. Yet another person who likes to say "do something" (but offers absolutely no suggestions).
    1
  12312. What laws? Look, if you cannot actually articulate what you're talking about, then, you don't know what you're talking about.
    1
  12313. Well, the primary purpose of Apollo was as a demonstration of technological dominance over the Soviets.
    1
  12314. It was a political message during the height of the cold war. "Don't mess with us, or we'll beat you."
    1
  12315. Oh, I give up. I've tried about 12 times to reply, and it keeps blocking everything I write. The point is, you can't have all of those nice things if your country is radioactive.
    1
  12316. Yet, you won't name the other party in this suit? The ether? Poseidon? Just who do you think would pay anything to the family, and for what reason?
    1
  12317. Was this posting supposed to be a response to a different posting? (in which case, you didn't actually respond to the person) .... Or, just general?
    1
  12318. Or, oh, you were addressing what was said from one of the guys in the video?
    1
  12319. Well, the first obligation is to secure the scene. The cop just had one guy jump out of the woodwork and point a gun at him, and another screaming woman drive up, who knows how many more might come out of the woodwork with a gun? If the cop immediately focused on giving first aid to the dead guy, that means he's not paying attention to his surroundings, and the next thing you know, he could be the one who needs first aid also. But, yes, I'd agree that the attempt to give first aid once the scene was secure was a bit half hearted, or so it seemed. My guess is that the cops know pretty well that there's no saving the dead guy anyway. A .40 to the upper chest, and the guy stops moving/talking 20 seconds later, and turns more white than he already was, yeah, first aid was only a formality at that point. He wasn't surviving either way.
    1
  12320. Yeah, take the law into your own hands, and don't tell the police if there's a crime happening. Never report criminals, because Inside Edition says that they might kill themselves.
    1
  12321. The 737 Max has trouble staying in the air, and that's today. Let's keep entertaining the thoughts that airplanes can fly.
    1
  12322. Yet, nobody else's drinks were spiked.
    1
  12323.  @bvskyfacer4377  YOU SAID: "The first Moon landings (Apollo 11 12 14 15 ) were crewed by military men but the last two (Apollo 16 and 17 ) had non-military men with those crews." == Wrong. John Young and Charlie Duke from Apollo 16 were both military. Civilians that went to the moon were Neil Armstrong and Jack Schmitt. Though, Armstrong was ex-military. As you said, Jack Schmitt was completely non-military, and was a Harvard educated geologist.
    1
  12324. Hilarious!! So, your one piece of evidence that only a few knew about, that was kept a secret from 450,000 people, is "Van Allen Belt"? Not beltS (plural)? Oh, you really know a lot about them. The Soviets sent two dogs up into the worst areas of the belts for about 3 weeks (about half of that time anyway, due to the orbit). They didn't see any problems for short durations. What do you know that they didn't?
    1
  12325. And, you believe that the prison refused to give her the meds, why? Because the repeat felon (whose own family refuses to take her in, that's how tired of her bullshit they are) said so? You don't think the "journalists" (sigh, this isn't journalism, this is a bullshit fluff piece) didn't go ask the prison why they didn't give the meds? What are the odds that the prison said, "that chronic repeat felon lies constantly, we gave her the meds, she always says we didn't give them, because she wants more, or she wants to try to sell them." No? Just blind trust in the felon?
    1
  12326.  @Dave-bq6gy  So, Arizona State University is now "in on it" also? And, China and India, for that matter, because they took equivalent orbital photos?
    1
  12327.  @Dave-bq6gy  So, since you believe that the USA, India, China, and the other dozens of countries who have supplied evidence for Apollo (both from enemy countries and friendly ones) are all "in on it," what method could anybody ever use to convince you that you're wrong? If your only criteria is "anybody supplying evidence for Apollo is a liar," then it seems that you've created an unfalsifiable scenario in your head, basically paranoid delusional. So, what mechanism could ever even be used to show you otherwise, if you've decided, in advance, to reject all evidence?
    1
  12328. Huh? Multiple people called the police. One woman even video recorded it with her cell phone. The police saw the video and described it as a very loud and public display in view of multiple people including children. Sorry if this doesn't match the "nobody was around" version that the woman is trying to portray while attempting to avoid getting arrested. But, seriously? Do you really think that the cops have a choice in this matter? They can just ignore a crime and tell the woman to go home, like it was just a minor traffic infraction? When there's video evidence and a crowd of people? And, exactly how is the internet a deadly weapon? She didn't commit suicide over this. You don't actually believe Inside Edition, do you?
    1
  12329. So, you refuse to answer a single question I asked, and, instead, you try to wiggle out of it and spew a bunch of nonsense. Dewdrop, you do not know what you're talking about!!! Your original claim was that they shouldn't have arrested her. Your original claim was that the cops should just send her home. Now, you're saying a completely different thing. Good grief. What story will you tell in the next version?
    1
  12330. Nobody did anything "to" her, dewdrop.
    1
  12331. Read the two coroners' reports, and then tell me if you still think that same nonsense you're spewing now.
    1
  12332. Huh? So, let me make sure I understand you correctly... you believe that if a store employee tells a cop that someone stole, and that cop investigates, this means that, if the person didn't actually steal, the police need to pay millions? Why would any legal system on the planet actually operate that way? You're basically saying that the police are responsible for whether or not the store was correct about whether someone stole. Or, you're saying that police are never to actually investigate any reports of stealing, otherwise the police will be liable. This is outlandish.
    1
  12333. He completely 100% changed the meaning of his original post.
    1
  12334. Why is it that people like you never say HOW you wanted it done differently? Or, when you people do, you say you wanted the family to go up to the woman and talk to her? Nobody is going to approach a man or woman while cranking it.
    1
  12335.  @lewispeaks1518  THAT is your response? Are you simply incapable of ever admitting being wrong about anything?
    1
  12336. Try doing it in front of kids and watch your opinion change instantly.
    1
  12337. Of they give of a ticket of for of a misdemeanor? Of what of about her open warrants of of? Don't of you think of they'd have to of arrest of her anyway of?
    1
  12338. "any of the more sound theories which doubt the veracity" Not a single "theory" of any sort is "sound." Every single one falls apart the instant it is scrutinized by anybody with even entry level knowledge about the topic. That's why there are no aerospace engineers who believe what you do.
    1
  12339. From your duplicate thread: "The sun’s reflection in the visor is WAY too big" Glare works that way. Deal with it.
    1
  12340. "discrepancies in the photos, videos, communications, moon rocks" Wow, how descriptive of you. I guess that settles it. You watched some videos made by lawnmower repairmen and drywall contractors who told you that there was something wrong with photos and videos and communications and rocks, and decided to believe them. Meanwhile, why haven't any geologists on the planet found problems with the rocks? Why don't communications engineers find problems with the communications? What exactly are your issues with videos and photos?
    1
  12341. "This is not a trivial point to be dismissed" But, you didn't say anything. How can anybody dismiss or accept the words "videos" or "photos" without any description of your issues with them. Do you think people can just write a couple of words and disprove Apollo?
    1
  12342. "Most people are willing to accept the NASA narrative without any scrutiny of the data" Is there any way to be more backward? YOU are accepting nonsense gibberish fed to you by taxi cab drivers and yoga instructors who make YouTube videos, and you haven't scrutinized them.
    1
  12343. What "social media" company even published this story before she was dead?
    1
  12344. You don't think people should be arrested for aggravated misdemeanors?
    1
  12345. He died. And, he was hit in the upper chest. If you go frame by frame, you can get a short glimpse of the wound when they pull his shirt up.
    1
  12346. Thumbs down for one reason, and one reason only. Doug sat there and gave a ridiculous conspiracy rant in an earlier video about how Chevy wouldn't hand him the hottest car of the year in advance, because he claimed they were basically (paraphrased) too stupid to give him one. Historically, Doug bashes Chevy every chance he gets. He uses the term "Chevy" when not even talking about a Chevy car, basically implying that the word "Chevy" is a derogatory term, representing the bottom of the barrel. Then, he wonders why Chevy didn't just hand him one of these cars in advance of the rest of the world, saying that the people in those departments who handle this stuff were basically just too dumb to give him one. No, it couldn't be because Doug is so obviously biased against Chevy, and vocalizes the word "Chevy" in a negative connotation constantly. No, that's not possibly the reason. It has to be because Chevy is just too stupid to give him a car. I used to watch every video Doug made. But, I haven't watched a Doug video since that one. And, with the exception of the fact that I was linked this video, I'm not watching this one.
    1
  12347. A) Yes, he died. B) There was a court ruling about 10 years ago that barred YouTube or other social media platforms from banning such videos. They can make it so the search algorithms don't find them very often. But, they're all out there. Beheadings. Burning people alive. Jumping off of buildings. You name it. I do not advise watching them. They're really very disturbing. A few sites tried to ban such videos, but, the courts said they couldn't.
    1
  12348. The general rule is that they blur the faces and hide identities for open investigations. Given that she died more than 2 years ago, this investigation has long been closed.
    1
  12349. I notice you said not a single word to put any blame whatsoever on the guy who said he had a gun, then reached for his right hip... after the crazed ranting from the addict he undoubtedly was. No blame goes on that guy for declaring he had a gun then reaching for it? No?
    1
  12350. Why should the veracity of Apollo depend on what other generations do or don't do? Why don't you care about EVIDENCE?
    1
  12351. But, there was no TV coverage until 1.5 years after she was dead.
    1
  12352. Huh? What exactly should the cops have done differently?
    1
  12353. Correct. She said that. So what? Do you believe her?
    1
  12354. I tried putting this in Google translator, and it still didn't mean anything. Can you maybe try writing it in your native language, and then readers can translate for themselves?
    1
  12355. Waiving mountains? Like, they waived their rights to be mountains? Or, did you mean waving? Like, you cannot afford a new television, so you're watching a 1978 Zenith with a wavy picture?
    1
  12356. Don't hold your breath. They've already contracted Blue to build a lander "in parallel" with SpaceX. I'm guessing about a 5% or 10% chance that they'll keep funding SpaceX's HLS for more than another year or two, now that Lueders is gone. I predict they'll pull the plug on SpaceX. But, then again, I was radically wrong when I predicted that SpaceX wouldn't get the contract in the first place. Soo.....
    1
  12357. What in the world are you talking about? The store asked the cop to go investigate this woman. What are you implying he did wrong?
    1
  12358. What do you think he should have used instead?
    1
  12359. "radio headset would have been better." Why? A telephone is what all presidents used to contact any radio station anywhere in the world, simply by relaying the call through the radio transmitter. It's how they could contact ocean ships. It's how they contacted airplanes. Calls to/from Air Force 1 were done with regular telephones that were relayed through radio. Why should they do it a different way? You go right ahead and pretend everyone is "doing it wrong" though. Right. You're a telecommunications engineer, right? "Very little delay." You clearly do not know where the audio was being recorded. You won't hear a delay, because none is expected, when an astronaut speaks and the president answers. The delay is in the other direction, when the president speaks and the astronauts answer. And, all delays were 100% correct if you listen to the original audio. Sorry that you don't understand basic principles. Maybe you need to go back and renew that telecommunications engineering degree, eh? You seem to be stuck in 1860. "And surprisingly still no other country besides the U.S. has gone and set foot on the moon. Interesting." Yup, no other country has been willing to spend that kind of money on putting the 13th person onto the moon. Yeah, you keep on pretending to understand things you don't. You're a real hero.
    1
  12360. "So in over 50 years we can't save up enough money to go back to the moon?" What in the world are you talking about? Do you have any idea how NASA's programs are appropriated and funded? Who EXACTLY do you think would be "saving up"? What ARE you talking about? "What sense does it make to go to the moon and then decide that it is just not worth going back because of cost." Because the program's objectives were achieved. Did you think Apollo would just go on forever? How much would be enough for you? They ran Apollo from 1961 to 1972 for the moon program, and until 1975 for the Apollo applications programs such as Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz. During the height of the Apollo spending, it costed 4.5% of the entire federal budget in hard costs, and another 2% in soft costs and international support. Do you believe that sort of spending was sustainable? They managed to launch 13 Saturn V rockets during that time, including 9 manned missions to the moon, 6 of which landed. How many more do you need, in order to believe it? "We have companies within the civilian sector that are able to go into space at more than half the cost as NASA but no one talks about going back and setting foot on the moon. Really?" Dewdrop, what in the world is wrong with you? They ARE going back!!! The first Artemis mission already flew to the moon a couple of months ago. The second mission will take a crew. Are you honestly sitting there, pretending that the Artemis program isn't happening? Sorry, but when you know absolutely nothing about the topic, you're not in any position to doubt Apollo. I noticed you completely dropped your original topic about how phones and radios work. Why? Do you now acknowledge that a phone is the best tool to use to make that phone call? You insisted on a radio headset. How would the radio headset work in communicating with the moon? Do you think a radio headset has the range to get the signal to the moon all on its own? Or, do you think it would have to go through a relay system over to Parkes, Australia anyway? You do know that the moon was on the other side of the Earth during Apollo 11's moonwalk, right? You do know there was no direct line of sight between the White House and the moon, right? You do know that they'd need to relay it to Parkes no matter what, right? So, why wouldn't a phone work for that? "We've seen and explored all we needed to on those 6 trips. Seems very odd to me." Oh, quit your ridiculous pretending. You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't know enough about the topic to know what's odd or what's not.
    1
  12361. Typical hoax nut. Are you even reading the responses to your own statements/questions? Why do you refuse to answer any questions I asked, or respond to any points I put forth? You pretend to ask questions, but, you have absolutely no interest in the answers.
    1
  12362. "Don't call me a nut while I accuse thousands of people of being criminals. Don't call me names while I call thousands of people names." "No, I didn't read any of your prior messages. I just pretended to ask questions, but, I never cared about the answers." "No, I don't know how YouTube comments work. I just come here to commit my slander/libel and don't want to be bothered."
    1
  12363. You're the one accusing thousands of people of being criminals. You're the one who doesn't want to be "called names" while doing that. You're the one who knows absolutely nothing about the topic. You're the one who asks questions, but ignores the answers. You're the one who refuses to respond to return questions. You're the one who changes topics rather than dealing with your own original topic. You're the one pretending to be an expert on telecommunications, and laughably thought that Nixon should wear a radio headset to communicate with the moon. Just stop pretending. Good gods. What IS wrong with you?
    1
  12364. Wow, and you couldn't even manage to duck and dodge and change topics. Look, dewdrop, as I said, just stop pretending you understand things you don't. Is it THAT difficult for you? Is that what YouTube is for you? Is it a place you can go pretend to be an expert on stuff, to make yourself feel better? You enjoy dragging people down to your level, because it's too difficult for you now to go get the education you never got? So, instead, you just pretend you have knowledge you don't?
    1
  12365. Because it's 238,000 miles away.
    1
  12366. Sure, but, then didn't he also get what he deserved by getting thrown into prison for planning and going through with those murders?
    1
  12367.  @Gangstar41145  Good grief. Of course I know about the case. I have read every article. I've listened to the confession tape. I've listened to the recordings he made of himself while planning the murders. I listened to the recordings of the murders themselves. Sorry, but "terrorizing" him doesn't quite cut it. You are not allowed to commit two premeditated murders in response to the crime of theft. And, this was easily preventable. He could have called the cops and reported them instead of letting them keep stealing from him and doing nothing about it. He knew it was them. He knew that girl was wearing his flight jacket to school and stuff. The boy used to work for him. He hated the girl and her family. Or, he could have called the cops and say, "Hey, these two teens are routinely stealing from me on holidays. I can prove this. And, today is a holiday, and I expect them to come here and steal from me again. Can you send a cop here to wait for them to arrive, so we can catch them in the act?" But, nope, he didn't do that. He felt that killing them was the better way to go. So, he planned these killings in advance. He set up the house for them, getting tarps ready for their bodies, unscrewing light bulbs so they couldn't turn on the lights and see him. Then, he waited. He killed the boy first. Then, he wrapped up the body, and waited for the girl to come find out what was taking so long. Then, he shot her. His gun jammed, so he switched guns, apologized to her for not killing her fast enough, then shot her twice in the left eye (exactly as he said he was going to do in his pre-recordings he made before the teen thieves got there, when he said he was going to shoot in the left eye). And, then he went back later, and put another bullet into her brain from below (by the chin). Sorry, this is FAR more than what is allowed in an act of self defense. This WASN'T self defense. It was premeditated murder.
    1
  12368.  @Gangstar41145  So, you believe that teen thieves deserve to die? Wow. Just wow. So, thievery deserves a death penalty? I mean, I would agree that if they got shot by someone defending the home, well, that's what's going to happen. They took their lives into their own hands by committing the crimes to begin with. But, I do not agree that teens deserve to die for the act of theft. As for claiming insanity and walking free, um, no, afraid not.
    1
  12369.  Policelivesmatter *  That's exactly what I said.
    1
  12370.  Policelivesmatter *  I have written a hundred comments in this video's threads that says EXACTLY what you're saying. I said the exact same things that you've said here, that this was a case of premeditated murder, not self defense. You and I agree about EVERYTHING, with one exception: the definition of the word "deserve." I do not think the teens "deserve" to die from the act of theft. But, yes, if they broke into my house and put myself or my family at risk, yes, I'd probably empty a couple of magazines into them (self defense, not premeditated). I don't think they "deserve" to die. But, they took their lives into their own hands by breaking into houses, and if they die in that act, because a homeowner doesn't know if they have come to rob vs. kill vs. rape vs. whatever, then so be it.
    1
  12371.  @A300G  I never said they were innocent. But, the murderer is guilty ALSO. Criminal thieves killed by criminal murderer.
    1
  12372. Two things: 1) Why do you think she didn't do this intentionally? The witnesses thought it was intentional. The video taken by one of the "audience" certainly shows her in front of multiple people including children. She said nobody was around when she was attempting to avoid her millionth arrest and potentially going back into prison again. "I didn't do it" is a very common claim of criminals being arrested. What reason do you have to believe a single word? 2) They DID restrain the publicity. They took her away from the restaurant to question her, so nobody could see/hear what was going on. And, they didn't release the arrest video until 1.5 years after she was already dead. What more do you want?
    1
  12373. "Do you truly think in reality that if they actually had archived the moon landing" Archive it? Did you mean "achieve" it? "they wouldn't had colonized that place a long time ago?" Do you truly think that if we have made deep sea dives to the bottom of the ocean 50 years ago, we wouldn't have colonies living at the bottom of the ocean by now? "they can't go back cause they never being there in the first place" So, before anybody could answer your questions, you came to your conclusions. Bravo. You're a real hero.
    1
  12374. "Works even without a reflector" And, do you think nobody can tell the difference? The difference between the reflection from random dust/rocks on the moon vs. the reflection from one of the Apollo corner cube reflector arrays is like the difference between a jet ski and an aircraft carrier. NOBODY could ever confuse the two.
    1
  12375.  @aaad3552  I don't know what you're saying, and neither do you. I appreciate that you try to write in English. I'm sure your English is better than my [whatever your language is], but, I see you posting in many threads, and nothing you've written means anything. Try writing in your native language and let people just translate.
    1
  12376. Forever, no? The best estimate I've seen is that they'll last roughly 1-2 million years before you can't see the footprints any longer. But, who knows how accurate that is? I don't think anybody can say for certain.
    1
  12377. You're the legal expert here, not me, so, maybe you can explain when they started giving warnings for aggravated misdemeanors?
    1
  12378. Why do you believe she thought she was alone? Because she said so as she was attempting to avoid her millionth arrest?
    1
  12379. Um, she WAS a hardcore criminal!!! She was a convicted felon who served a term in a Florida prison about 6 years ago, and had countless arrests/convictions/judgements for various crimes before and after.
    1
  12380. The shame should be squarely on the stripper (yes, that's right, her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club) who was almost undoubtedly making "public beach" content in front of multiple people including children. You do know that one of the "audience" recorded it and gave a copy of the video to the police, right? You're not just basing your opinions on a 1 minute video by Inside Edition (where facts don't matter)?
    1
  12381. Was there ever a point at which you actually wanted to learn about Apollo? Or, were you going to just watch conspiracy videos and swallow all of the garbage?
    1
  12382. Well, nothing you're saying here applies to this incident. She never showed up at court, so, you're correct when you say she wasn't convicted. But, the most likely result, had she shown up, even with her long history of crimes, her felony term served in prison, and her mile long arrest record for various crimes... would have probably been that it would be negotiated down to a minor infraction and she would have been required to serve some sort of community service and gotten some counseling. And, the arrest video wasn't made public until 2.5 years later (as a result of a legal FOIA request). Nobody in the media showed the arrest until she was already dead for 1.5 years.
    1
  12383. Um, ok, but can you name anybody who even profited from this story before she died?
    1
  12384. What a load of misinformation. The emissions requirements didn't change every year, and weren't the cause of the 1983 Corvette delays. And, there has never been an emissions law that "changes at the last minute." Every auto maker on the planet would sue the living daylights out of every emissions board in the country if that was the case. All emissions laws are passed with years of ramp-up time to give auto manufacturers a chance to comply. So, your statements are pure gibberish. As a matter of fact, the 1984 Corvette ended up with the exact same emissions as the 1982, thus completely disproving your assertion. The real reason for the 1983 issue was that they had to work out some technical glitches with the production of the 1983, and, by the time they got everything going, they just decided to release the "1984" in MARCH of 1983, but calling it a 1984 (thus skipping 1983). They ran the 1982 production long, and started the 1984 production VERY early. It's as simple as that. Don't pretend you're "educating" anybody when you don't know anything about the topic. Yes, they had 43 test mules, but, that's normal, and is irrelevant to everything else you [incorrectly] stated.
    1
  12385. YOU SAID: "Use common sense FOLKS..." == Pffttt. What? YOU SAID: "get a good telescope, and look, for the LUNAR landing sites..." == Hilarious!!! It would take an optical grade lens a quarter mile in diameter to see the lunar landing sites in enough detail to make anything out. Google "optical resolution," look up the formula that determines the size lens you'd need for that resolution at this distance, and do the math yourself. And, um, dummy, given that the largest optical grade lens ever constructed was 5 feet in diameter and costed $168 million to manufacture, um, yeah, I'd say that we're a long way away from seeing the lunar landing sites with the quarter mile lens that would be required. YOU SAID: "THERE AREN'T ANY... HOW MANY BILLIONS OF OUR DOLLARS, HAS NASA STOLEN...ON THEIR MISSIONS TO NO WHERE..." == So, what does your "common sense" tell you? Is it "common sense" to assume that there isn't a space agency on the planet that has ever thought to look through a telescope?!?!? That's how your "common sense" works? You believe that nobody on the planet has ever considered to look through a telescope before YOU are suggesting it now?? That makes sense to you?
    1
  12386.  @jaymz1999  YOU SAID: "Well I wouldn’t say resolution has anything to do with it." == Yes, it does. Atmospheric distortion is a problem. But, the other problem is resolution. Either problem is huge. But, the point really hammers home when you talk about resolution, because this gets into the property of light itself. See, what happens is, if you try to squeeze too much light through a lens, the photons interfere with each other, and you just can't see anything. A lens has a limit of resolution that, if you try to exceed it, bam, the light just can't get through, and you have to build a bigger lens. Again, this is because you can only cram a certain amount of light through the lens, and if you try to cram more than that through a lens, the photons just plain block each other. Google "optical resolution" and read about the well understood formula to understand about the size of lens you need in order to produce a certain level of resolution from a certain distance. See my earlier post about the size lens you'd need in order to see the Apollo equipment. J Calhoun is 100% correct also to bring up atmospheric distortion. Even if you built a large enough lens to see stuff on the moon left by Apollo (a lens, which, itself, would cost more than Apollo), now you'd have to solve the problem of atmospheric distortion on top of that.
    1
  12387. Huh? They never had the video. The arrest video wasn't released until 2.5 years later. And, the video of the incident itself was never released. The Smoking Gun only got about 200 hits, essentially zero.
    1
  12388. The moon's average albedo is 0.12.
    1
  12389. Did you click the button yet?
    1
  12390. Wow. You truly drank the Kool-Aid. Um, sorry, but no. Multiple people called the police. One woman even recorded it with her cell phone, and showed the video to the police. It's described in the arrest report as a very loud and public act in view of multiple people, including children. One of the witnesses even said that the woman wandered up and down the beach for a while, looking for a place to do this, then plopped down in front of a family with kids. And, you're claiming that she wouldn't have done it, why? Because she said so while trying not to get arrested for the umpteenth time? Nice woman? With her mile long arrest and prison record, did some time for stealing cars, multiple judgements against her for various other thefts, numerous failures to appear in court, attempting to change her name to avoid arrest and legal processes, a long history of drug and alcohol issues, a welfare case who didn't pay rent, and abandoning her family including a 6 month old child so that she could go "wild" and "off the rails" (the words spoken by her own family)... nice woman?
    1
  12391. So, after you first spewed a whole bunch of stuff you knew nothing about, you're now following up with another pile of stuff you know nothing about. You don't know the difference between a crime and an infraction. And, you have no knowledge of the Freedom of Information Act. Instead, in both postings now, you keep pointing blame where it doesn't belong. Why? Why do you pretend you know things you don't?
    1
  12392.  @luisa.torres8333  YOU SAID: "The calculations that even NASA does isn't right." == You are the living embodiment of ignorance and denial. Above, you said you weren't a rocket scientist and didn't know much about rocketry. Now, you're claiming that thousands of rocket scientists and aerospace engineers have all done the calculations incorrectly?? And, you think the proper forum to reveal this to the world is via YouTube comments? Good gods. Look, clown, I seriously doubt that even your like-minded conspiratards can get onboard with your absolute silliness at this point. Good grief, what a nutcase.
    1
  12393. Wait, what? You think a cop needs proof of a crime at the side of the road? Um, no. Proof comes in the courtroom. At the side of the road, the cop needs reasonable suspicion, and probable cause. There was plenty of both. And, sorry, but not cooperating IS against the law. Florida is an identify state. You are legally required to provide ID when asked by the police during an investigation of a potential crime. Failure to do so is obstruction, and is an arrest worthy offense all by itself, with or without the theft. But, she added obfuscation and resisting arrest to the list of stuff she did wrong. You clearly need a lesson in understanding how the law works.
    1
  12394. Why couldn't a man step on the moon? What makes you say such a silly thing?
    1
  12395. So, you just take the "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room" movie, point by point, and narrate over it, and call the work your own? How is this video NOT a huge copyright violation?
    1
  12396. That's good advice. But, in this case, it wouldn't have mattered. One of the "audience" captured it on video. She was going to get arrested either way.
    1
  12397. Hang in there. There's a decent chance that Artemis will make it by 2028-2030.
    1
  12398. Well, that's because they didn't tell you she was already dead for 1.5 years by the time the arrest video was released. Videos go more viral by misleading viewers.
    1
  12399. Did you read the police report that described the public display she put on, as seen in the video taken by the family that saw her? Note: according to the report, it was not just a few seconds, nor was it discreet. It was apparently described as a very loud and public act that lasted about 5 minutes.
    1
  12400. Yup, you're right. It doesn't sound right, because it's not. The reality is that she was arrested in July of 2021, she killed herself in March of 2022, and the arrest video wasn't made public until November of 2023. She was dead 1.5 years before the public knew anything about the arrest. Thus, it had nothing to do with her suicide. What we have here is yet another sensationalist video designed to get lots of hits (ad revenue), while playing word games, carefully crafting what they say to skew people into coming to the wrong conclusions.
    1
  12401. OK, well, they successfully blocked the release of the arrest video until 1.5 years after she was dead. And, when they did, it was because of a legal FOIA request. So, now what? What happens to this suit of yours?
    1
  12402. Well, congratulations (literally) for your ability to get past your problems. But, as for how Jamie did, she wasn't able to do what you did, and she is dead now.
    1
  12403. One of the audience took video of the incident itself and gave it to the police.
    1
  12404. Ever hear of a firearms training course? Go take one.
    1
  12405. Do you know anything about firearms whatsoever? No, you don't fire warning shots. (a) They never work, the flakes are going to keep doing what they're doing anyway. (b) There's often not enough ammunition to sit there and waste shots. It sometimes takes many hits before stopping someone. You shouldn't waste ammunition on warning shots. (c) If you had ever taken a firearms training course, you'd know that there isn't a single firearms training course in the country that advocates warning shots.
    1
  12406. Thanks for confirming that you didn't bother to read anything. It's not MY judgment. It's the judgment of every single firearms training program in the entire country.
    1
  12407. It's worse than that. In one interview, the father said his son was going to the car to see who was inside it (like he knew it wasn't empty). In another interview, the father said his son definitely didn't think anybody was in the car, and said that was the only thing he knew for certain. First of all, how would he know what his son thought, since his son died within about 20 seconds of getting shot? Secondly, did the attorney tell the father in between the two interviews that it's a bad idea to say that the son knew someone was inside the car?
    1
  12408. I'd imagine that the woman could have used those "blessings" more than the officer. He's alive, employed, has a job, etc. She's a deceased drug addict.
    1
  12409. Because her children were not qualified to get in. I don't understand your question.
    1
  12410. Wow. You sure are proud to know nothing.
    1
  12411. The guy pointed the gun at the officer's head. Good grief.
    1
  12412. Your hatred is unjustified.
    1
  12413. Well, almost, but not quite. This incident didn't have anything to do with her suicide, and she suffered nearly zero humiliation from it. Almost zero media touched this story until the arrest video was released on November 24, 2023. She died in March of 2022.
    1
  12414. No, they were just joking.
    1
  12415. Yet, you cannot name something that they should have done differently? It's just wrong, and that's it, with zero suggestions on what could have been done better?
    1
  12416. What ARE you talking about? He was arrested for trespassing.
    1
  12417. If someone is already dead, how do you humiliate them into killing themselves? Nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive, you know.
    1
  12418. Dewdrop, they only referenced the Smoking Gun blog. The arrest video wasn't released until November 24, 2023. She died two years ago.
    1
  12419. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? He was trying to repeat verbatim what Anna (the store employee) said. His point was that ANNA said, "I didn't see her pay." The cop was merely repeating Anna's words. He wasn't saying he himself didn't see her pay.
    1
  12420. Huh? They PREVENTED the release of the arrest video for 2.5 years. Nobody saw the arrest video while she was still alive. But, once an investigation is closed for a long enough time, they can no longer block a legal FOIA request.
    1
  12421. Well, you're right, and you're wrong, but, part of the issue is that I think you didn't go watch the entire video, and you're just looking at this version that's picking up in the middle. You are correct in that she doesn't legally need to provide a receipt, nor does she need to assist a police officer in an investigation. However, that being said, she does have some legal requirements, which she completely violated. He had been asking for her to identify herself numerous times (before this version of the video picks up). In Florida, she is legally required to provide ID if being investigated for a possible crime. And, if she doesn't have an ID card on her, she is required to give her name and enough information to be identified (like birthdate and address). But, she refused, and she can be arrested for that alone. But, adding all of the obstructing and obfuscating on top, and resisting arrest, yeah, she sure did add to the suspicion there. And, by the way, technically, the proof doesn't have to come until later. Nobody requires "proof" at the side of the road. It's proven or disproven during due process, and in the courts. For all practicality, if she had cooperated at a very basic level, provided her ID, yeah, even if she refused to provide the receipt, he probably would have just done the simple thing and gone back into the store with her to confront them about whether she actually stole or not. But, we'll never know, because she flipped her lid, and went bananas over being asked for the receipt, and she escalated a simple "proof of purchase request" into this total nightmare.
    1
  12422. I am not sure why you think you understand this stuff, when it's painfully clear that you don't. Going back into the store: well, that may have been fine if the woman hadn't already refused to ID, obstructed and obfuscated, and accused the cop of all kinds of garbage. But, by the time she asked for that, the ship had sailed, and she was being arrested either way, so the cop had had enough of her nonsense, and arrested her. Remember, this video is missing the entire first half of the encounter. There's only so long the officer is going to request ID and stuff, before finally, it's just too late to finally sit there and be reasonable. She wasn't arrested for not providing a receipt. The cop arrested under suspicion of theft (which later was found to be wrong), obstruction and failing to ID, obfuscation of an investigation, and then she added resisting arrest. Backup isn't required. This is Jacksonville, the murder and felony capitol of Florida. You don't need to take other officers away from investigating high crimes felonies in order to deal with an irate woman who is upset because somebody thought she stole a piece of chicken and some bread. As for the use of the Taser, that's the correct use. She was resisting arrest, and refused to comply. She wasn't Tased over the receipt, or the original crime. She resisted, and got Tased for it. As for your paranoia about cops making up stories to arrest people, good grief. I mean, I'm sure it must happen. There are bad individuals in every single profession on Earth, whether it's police, or doctors, or librarians, or anything else. But, if you think it's very high odds, there's really nothing I can do to help you. And, yes, of course proof is needed. IN THE COURTROOM. There is absolutely no need for proof at the side of the road. An arrest isn't a conviction. There's due process, and prosecutors, and defense attorneys, and judges, etc. That's when the proof comes into the picture. At the side of the road, the cop just needs reasonable suspicion and probable cause. That's all. And, he had plenty of both.
    1
  12423. Against who and on what basis please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    1
  12424. Huh? Where was your lord when the woman in the video died?
    1
  12425. And, what of her open warrants for her million other arrests and failures to appear in court?
    1
  12426. "Where are the right questions?" Well, everyone decides for themselves what the "right questions" are or aren't. The makers of this video decided to address the questions they did. No matter what, someone is always going to say it was the wrong list of questions. How long did you want this video to be? If they addressed all questions that anybody on Earth asks, this video would be 3 weeks long. "Who filmed the module just before landing on the moon?" The lunar module pilot from each mission. He mounted the film camera to the crossbar above the window, and pointed the camera out the window and downward. "Who filmed the lift off fom the moon?" The same setup. They pointed the film camera out the window, mounted to the very same crossbar. But, that's just the inside view. For the outside view, for three of the missions (Apollo 15/16/17), they had the rover-cam. Those were the three missions with rovers. So, they parked the rover behind the lunar module, and sent TV video for those three liftoffs back to Earth via radio. "Why do you see wires" That's the communications antenna on the top of the PLSS backpack. "Why are the footprints different than the (no)profile of the suits?" The astronauts wore "overshoes" (a second shoe layer) while walking on the lunar surface. The inner boot was used inside the craft. The outer boot was discarded and left on the lunar surface when they were done with them. (The only exception is Cernan's pair of outer boots, which he brought back home, and they're in the Smithsonian museum.)
    1
  12427. YOU SAID: "Just too many convenient excuses as to why mankind never went back to the moon" == Well, if you ask NASA, there's nothing "convenient" about it. They wanted to keep going back and never stop going. But, congress controls this. And, congress stopped funding it, and retired the program. Congress never approved another manned moon program until 2019. Why do you call this an "excuse"? It's the reason. That's all there is to it. YOU SAID: "especially the loss of the original film!!" == We have covered this before. You ignored it before, you'll undoubtedly ignore it again. No, dummy. No film has been lost. Conspiracy videos tell you that, and you just blindly believe it. The only thing that's been lost were two backup video tapes from one mission. Those two tapes were only ever considered to be backup tapes, and they literally had never even been watched. Not a single time. They didn't even have a mechanism to play them. They only recorded them in the event that the NTSC conversion didn't work. That way, they could construct a machine capable of playing the tapes in their original source format, and wouldn't lose the broadcast altogether. But, since the NTSC conversion worked, those backup tapes went into the archives somewhere (either in Parkes, Australia or Houston), and nobody ever even tried to watch them. Then, about 15 years ago, someone got the bright idea to try to find those tapes, and maybe build a machine capable of reading them, and started searching. They searched for years, but the backup tapes were never found. None of you conspiratards thought those backup tapes were very important before. But, the moment it was announced that they were missing, all of the sudden, NOW this means that those tapes are part of some sort of conspiracy. They were irrelevant for the 35 years that nobody tried to look at them. Oh, but they lost two backup tapes, therefore Apollo is fake. And, since that time, year after year, you conspiratards keep escalating (in your minds) what has been lost. No film has been lost, dummy. No data has been lost. Two backup tapes were lost. That's it. YOU SAID: "not being American my judgment is not swayed by over patriotic zeal!!!" == Clearly not. Your judgment is swayed by your hatred and jealousy instead.
    1
  12428.  @Gary-jj5sx  Are you a drug addict? Just curious.
    1
  12429. Welcome to Inside Edition, where facts don't matter. Arrest = July 2021. Suicide = March 2022. Arrest video made public = November 2023 (probably as the result of a legal Freedom of Information Act request).
    1
  12430. Huh? You do know she was already found guilty and sentenced, right?
    1
  12431. Ahhhh, the famous chant of delusion... "reasonable gun control." Meanwhile, I have yet to hear any of you people actually name something that would be effective. You just use the words "reasonable gun control" to make yourself feel good, but, never actually offer an actual law that would do anything in situations like this.
    1
  12432. Hilarious!!! And, you think that's "reasonable gun control"? Wow. And, exactly how does this work? What happens when you ban all firearms? Do you think anybody is actually going to turn them in? How do you manage to gather up 350 million guns? How do you make anybody give them up? And, wait, now you want to give everyone their rights to the guns back again, after they pass a mental background check? Hilarious!!! Um, except for a couple of rare states, they already do that, you know. Yes, in almost all states, training is required also. So, unless you're talking about Alaska or something, yes, what you're asking for is already true. Bravo!!! So, you want to ban the guns, then give them back to the exact same people who had them already. And, what of the criminals? Do you think they're going to just hand them over? Then, you went on to accuse me of having an obsession with firearms? Good grief. The irony is amazing. I never even owned a firearm until I was something like 45 years old. I had never even shot one, not a single time. And, it's been years and years since I've shot one since then. It's like you're calling someone an alcoholic if they've had 6 drinks in their entire lives. I'll never understand what it is about YouTube comments that compels people to pretend to understand topics that they do not. Is it because you feel good about yourself, by expressing your delusions for the entire world to see?
    1
  12433. Good grief, again, all you're doing is demonstrating that you don't understand the topic. HOW would you seize the guns? There's no gun registry. Nobody knows who has them, and who doesn't. Who's going to seize them? The military? The police? How? Do you really think you can find them? The minute they start seizing them, 99.9% of the people will simply hide the guns and say they don't have them. Then what? And, how would you get anybody to seize them? The military doesn't even want to do it, nor do the police. YES!!! The USA has some very serious problems in society, with far too many people who commit gun violence. Banning guns isn't going to stop that. It will make it worse. Good grief, why is this so difficult for you to grasp? You are extremely proud to display your delusions, aren't you? I cannot help you any further. You obviously want to live in a fantasyland, instead of reality.
    1
  12434. How would she know that? You're trying to say that an incident from July of 2021... she decided to kill herself in March of 2022... because she knew it would be public in November of 2023? Huh?
    1
  12435. Huh? Going after her was PART OF the investigation. What do you propose he do? Do you think he should have gone into the store, watched security tapes, reviewed register transaction logs, etc., before going after her? How would that work? She'd be long gone by then. Do you really believe the system would work that way? And, what? He tasted her? I'm sure you must have meant that he Tased her. But, um, yeah, what do you expect? Should he have ripped her out of the car and wrestled her to the ground instead? You don't think the Taser is the easier option for both of them?
    1
  12436. Wow, you really like spewing garbage everywhere, eh? She didn't steal. She had her receipt. And, I think this is about as clear a case of someone trying to act in every way possible to get herself Taser'd and arrested in order to pump up a lawsuit. She hired a high profile attorney, and they sued the store. They lost, and won't be getting a single dime. But, they tried. But, no lawsuit was ever filed against the police. And, that's because the police DID have probable cause. The woman provided that when she refused to ID, obfuscated and obstructed. Sorry, but those things are not legal, and there's enough probable cause right there, with or without the shoplifting charge. If you think otherwise, and you think the police didn't have probable cause to arrest, then your next step shouldn't be a YouTube comment, it should be to phone up her high profile attorney and tell him he botched everything by not suing the police. Let him know about your vast legal expertise.
    1
  12437. Wait, what? Are you under the silly impression that there's no gravity on the moon? What?
    1
  12438. The words used aren't ridicule. They're just the correct words. English is English. They have a theory about a conspiracy. Conspiracy theorists. Nobody is ridiculing anybody by merely using the correct words to describe those people. The ridicule is because those people know absolutely nothing about the topic, yet try to pretend they do, at the expense of slandering the good names of people who dedicated a decade of their lives to accomplishing something. And, it goes even further. Not only are they denying the accomplishments of 450,000 people for a decade of their lives (4.5 million years of human effort), but, they're actually accusing a large number of them of being criminals who would be thrown in prison for the rest of their lives if any of those crackpot notions were correct. It's pretty despicable.
    1
  12439.  @hlinville6034  So? A little zap you get when you rub your feet on carpet and then touch something grounded is often around 15,000 volts. So what? The amperage is what matters most, not the voltage. On the moon, where the grounding itself is the thing that's charged, how would this ever matter to the astronauts?
    1
  12440. Well, I agree that it's bad taste and inconsiderate to post the arrest video. However, let's also face reality here: nobody saw the arrest video until 2.5 years later, which was also 1.5 years after she was already dead. You don't get to accuse anybody of shaming her. Your issue from the start is trusting anything you see on Inside Edition.
    1
  12441. Huh? Nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive. This incident was 3 years ago. She died 2 years ago. The arrest video was made public a couple of months ago.
    1
  12442. Well, I think your family tree doesn't have any branches. What difference does your opinion make?
    1
  12443. Oh, so it's the COPS' fault, not the maniac they were chasing for kidnapping two people, vandalism, and then attempting to hold people in an office hostage, before running onto this bus? You wouldn't draw your gun against someone you were chasing like that? I have news for you, any of the other bunch of cops outside that bus would have gone in with the gun drawn also. Male. Female. Doesn't matter. If you don't go in with your gun drawn against someone you've been chasing for kidnapping two people, more often than not, you've got a real problem. They witnessed a bus load of passengers getting off the bus in fear, and a bus driver asking for help. Yeah, fine, you'd have been "correct" this time, because he wasn't armed. But, do that too many times, and yeah, you're going to run into someone armed, and you're the dead one, not the bad guy. It's amazing to me that people like you refuse to blame the bad guys. You just refuse. The kidnapper didn't surrender when the bus was surrounded by cops. Nope, he lunged at the officer and tried to take her gun. Oh, but in your mind, SHE is the bad one?? Um, no. YOU are the real asshole here.
    1
  12444. So, repeal the Freedom of Information Act?
    1
  12445. Well, because that begs the question about who owns the batteries, and whether or not you'd be willing to give up a brand new battery for one that's near the end of its lifespan, with far less capacity. Old batteries can't be charged up as much as new batteries. They do "wear out." And, when you're talking about batteries that cost over $100K, are you going to just turn them in and swap them out for batteries worth $1K because they're nearly at the end of their lifespan? The answer is that Tesla can choose to own the batteries, and just rent them out, in the style you're talking about. That's been proposed many times over. But, now you're talking about a whole different can of worms, because that's now increasing the total cost of ownership, needing to rent batteries every time you take a drive. Also, just FYI, electric vehicles know that batteries cannot be just completely drained and filled. Most are programmed to nurse the batteries along gently, not charging to fast, not discharging too fast, never dropping below 20% charged, never charging more than 80% charged, etc. When your electric car says it's 100%, it's actually 80%. When it says 0%, it's really 20%. They do this to extend the life of the battery. But, if you're just renting batteries and will be turning them in every couple hundred miles, are you going to go easy on those batteries? Or, are you going to beat them up? Tell me that the truckers won't hack their programming to drain the batteries to get more out of them (at the expense of the long-term life of the battery). Anyway, we may find out that the industry will go in that direction. Who knows? Never say never. But, by and large, the main reason is that nobody is going to purchase a brand new truck with brand new batteries costing more than $100K (yes, just the batteries), and then hand in those batteries after the very first drive. And, if you thought owning a sports car and then renting it out was a bad idea (because the renters will beat the daylights out of that car), wait until you see what truckers will do to those batteries if they don't own them.
    1
  12446.  @cd6583  "whats the point of hacking a battery to charge more" To get more miles out of each trip. But, yeah, in addition to charging more, there's also discharging more (using it down to 0%). Neither of those things is good for batteries. But, if it allows a trucker to turn a 200 mile trip on one charge into a 300 mile trip on one charge, tell me that the trucker won't do that. He's going to turn in the battery anyway. Yes, too many of them will abuse the batteries that way. And, that will wear out the the expensive batteries far faster. "trucker owns the battery they do need to replace them eventually" Yes, and if the trucker owns the battery, the trucker is more likely to nurse that battery the way it was designed, to get maximum longevity out of it. Else, they'll be buying new batteries every 6 months, rather than 6 years. "finally, i thought the shipping company owned the trucks not the truck driver but i could be wrong" It's both. There are independent truck drivers that own and drive their trucks. And, there are drivers that just work for trucking companies. Either way, if someone else owns the batteries, the driver, or the trucking company, is likely to hack their trucks and make them abuse the batteries. "so tesla could offer like a batter store and charge service at the charger for companies" Um, yeah. What do you think they're doing right now? Who do you think owns all of those charging stations?
    1
  12447.  @cd6583  I think you don't understand the point. They're NOT going to abuse a battery they own. It's too expensive. But, they WILL abuse a battery that they are going to only rent, and swap out a few hours later.
    1
  12448. I've been saying since Artemis was approved that congress only funded it at a pace for a crewed landing between 2028 and 2030. So, yeah, you might be right.
    1
  12449. Freedom of Information Act. What do you propose they do about it? And, it wasn't released until 1.5 years after she was already dead. So, I fail to understand your complaint.
    1
  12450. 12 years ago what? Are you really this incapable of forming a coherent thought?
    1
  12451. How does that answer what in the world you were talking about "12 years ago"? WHAT was 12 years ago? Now you're talking about China? China confirmed Apollo with its photographs from its Chang'e orbiter in 2021, not 12 years ago. What does a rover have to do with anything?
    1
  12452. Multiple people called the police. One of them recorded it and showed the video to the police. Needless to say, it wasn't the discreet act with nobody around that the woman described as she was trying to talk her way out of her millionth arrest, and didn't want to go back to prison again. And, what about her open warrants for failures to appear in court? If you're the cop, you're not arresting her?
    1
  12453. Let's hope. But, I'm not holding my breath.
    1
  12454. He says his reasons are religious, nothing to do with anything you just said.
    1
  12455. You are accusing thousands of people of being criminals, and you tell people to "wake up" - but then you say you respect people's opinions? Hilarious!!! Um, sorry, you're not fooling anybody. And, of course, you're positively wrong, but, you just don't care.
    1
  12456. You need to at least stay consistent. Don't pretend you respect opinions when you clearly don't. You have decided to flush your mind down the toilet, and that's your own problem. But, you definitely aren't respecting others while you do it.
    1
  12457. I'm not your friend. I will never be your friend. You don't get to spit in the faces of (and on the graves of) thousands of people who dedicated a decade of their lives, sometimes paying the price of their lives, to mankind's greatest technological achievement, and then pretend you respect others. You clearly have no respect for anybody. The evidence for Apollo is mountainous. There isn't a single space agency anywhere on Earth, staffed with the world's foremost experts on the topic, that agrees with you. There hasn't been a single paper that has ever passed the first level of scientific scrutiny in any recognized journal, anywhere on Earth, that claims Apollo didn't happen. Not one. Not ever. The only people who think otherwise are people with absolutely no understanding of the topic, falling for videos made by charlatans. And, you're sitting there telling me to "wake up"? Good gods, you really are the bottom of the barrel of sludge.
    1
  12458. Yeah, they wanted two viral rounds instead of one. She actually died 2 years ago. But, to get two rounds, they released the first video without telling you she was dead, then a few weeks later, released the "update" to say she killed herself.
    1
  12459. Welcome to Inside Edition.
    1
  12460. Who did? Who is "they"?
    1
  12461. Dewdrop, nobody here likes the government, nor blindly trusts them. The mere fact that you think the only evidence comes from the government just shows how little you know about the topic. There's enough evidence from 3rd parties to bury a mountain. You don't need a single piece of US government evidence in order to know Apollo happened, dewdrop.
    1
  12462. I'll give you $100 just to go learn English.
    1
  12463. Well, my reply doesn't directly address your exact sentiment. But, I'll put another twist on it, just for additional consideration (while admitting up front that this additional twist doesn't change one bit of your core points you were making... just a different thing to put on the table): See, the thing about the death sentence, while what you say is true, that it doesn't really appear to scare murderers from being murderers, it DOES give a hell of a bargaining chip after the crime is committed. Like, for example, the men in this case who received a life sentence instead of the death penalty, while their female counterparts were sentenced to death... see, that wasn't because of money, like the stupid "news" (not news) clip wants to pretend. They were ALL offered plea deals. Life sentences in exchange for no death sentence. The men jumped on that deal. So, while it's true that the death penalty didn't scare the men away from murdering people, it sure scared them into accepting a guilty charge. It didn't work on the stupid women in this video, though, who rejected the deal, and decided to roll the dice at a trial instead (especially stupid in the case of the one woman who had already confessed to participating in the murder, but I digress). But, at least in some cases, my point is that the death penalty served a very effective purpose of getting a guilty plea in exchange for their lives. If you take away the threat of the death penalty, what possible motivation would anybody have to accept a plea? Instead, you've got to actually go through the risk and massive cost of putting someone on trial for murder. And, you get one loopy juror (i.e. Rae Carruth trial), and you can't get the conviction. One procedural slip-up, and someone walks on a technicality. Justice is served a hell of a lot better if/when people just take the deals they are offered. But, if your "worst penalty" is the same as the penalty you really want, you have nothing to bargain with. Every single murder case is going to turn into a year-long fiasco costing untold amounts of money, risk, and unexpected outcomes.
    1
  12464. So, the USSR won a race that didn't have a finish line, and a race that was never declared?
    1
  12465. First of all, the word "its" exists for a reason. Use it. What you wrote was "the space race was by it is very definition...." Secondly, if you don't define a race, and have active participants of the race, it's not much of a race. There was a loose race to put the first person into space. But, there was no "race" to put the first satellite up there. The only "race" that was ever actually declared in any real way was the race to the moon. It's the only "race" that both sides actually accepted. The "gauntlet was thrown," or "they threw the ball over the fence," or whatever else you want to call a declaration of a race. But, the Soviets were only ever ahead of the race at the beginning (like during the Mercury program). By the time Gemini came along, the USA had surpassed the Soviets. During the entire Gemini program, all 10 manned missions, the Soviets didn't fly a single manned spaceflight. Not one. And, by the time they put Apollo up there, the Soviets were still struggling to get the N1 rocket off the ground without exploding (which they never did, and blew up all 4 of them that they ever built). Sorry, but when you can't even get your moon rocket to function without exploding, you've lost the space race. The Soviets threw in the towel on the race, and then completely shifted toward other things (lesser achievements). These were nothing more than stunts to pretend that there were still areas that the Soviets were ahead. But, let's face reality here, those were nothing more than, again, races that were never declared. They were the first to put a probe on Venus. Alright. So what? Was there ever a race to put a probe on Venus?
    1
  12466. Aww, you poor thing. Don't like being wrong, so you're going to storm off and declare victory? Good gods.
    1
  12467. Well, not only have you proven to be out of touch with reality, but, you've proven yourself to be a ridiculous child.
    1
  12468.  @kdlofty  Hey, I'm not the one who laughably claimed that the Soviets won the space race.
    1
  12469.  @chaoscarl8414  What ARE you talking about? The US hasn't lost any aspect of the space race once they completed Gemini.
    1
  12470. How's that delusion working out for you, macusina? Now that Armstrong has confessed to doping through all 7 of his TDF wins, and even more witnesses came out, do you still worship him and "fully support him no matter what"? How about the countless people he fraudulently sued for hundreds of millions of dollars? How about the innocent people he bankrupted just to shut them up? Still worship the man? How's that going for you?
    1
  12471. What is your suit based upon? And, against who exactly?
    1
  12472. Good grief. This wasn't self defense. If someone breaks into your house, you have every right to defend yourself. But, Smith went a million miles past that. I mean, I could sit here and spell it out point by point. But, do you know the level of "depravity" that they were talking about? Do you know what happened in the 24 hours after he took their lives, and before he called the police? Do you know he said, "cute" on the recording, and that the next day, they found her with her clothes open? This man not only premeditated what he did, but, he went so bananas that he chose to keep on violating them (her at least) after she was gone. Sorry, but, this isn't "self defense."
    1
  12473. Or, maybe you should be the one to feel guilty for pretending to know things you do not.
    1
  12474.  @Nautilus1972  And, you know this, how?
    1
  12475.  @stephenpage-murray7226  I don't know exactly why, but, I perceived that he was talking about some sort of secret MANNED Chinese missions on Mars/moon. Sorry.
    1
  12476.  @stephenpage-murray7226  Not nonsense. I really did somehow think he was saying Chinese PEOPLE were on the moon and Mars. If you think otherwise, I could probably point you to a few hundred times I've referred to the Chinese landers/orbiters in other message threads.
    1
  12477.  @stephenpage-murray7226  Yes, exactly my point.
    1
  12478. If you don't understand it by now, you're never going to understand it.
    1
  12479. And, since you personally know this, you have come to YouTube comments to reveal this. No, you didn't reveal this to the attorney general, press, the governor's defense team, etc. Nope. The proper place to reveal this inside knowledge you have is via a comment on YouTube. Sure.
    1
  12480. Because this "news" story (not news) is just a hit piece. It's slanted/modified to paint an incorrect picture of what happened. If you read the actual lawsuit filed by the family against the Mexican resort, and against the Florida company that booked the trip for them (they were apparently supposed to know that the resort used tainted alcohol, therefore the company that booked the trip is guilty), you will find that the kids started drinking at the pool at around 1pm, stayed a while, then left. Then, they returned to the pool after dark, when it was closed, nobody was around, and that's when the incident happened. The "news" (not news) story won't tell you that, of course. They want you to blame the hotel.
    1
  12481. "with temperatures high enough to melt aluminium?" Yes, they could definitely "melt" a few molecules of aluminum. Who cares? At that scale, the concept of "melting" doesn't mean anything. A drop of hot water might melt about a drop's worth of ice in an iceberg. It doesn't melt the iceberg. And, yeah, when complaining about temperatures in space, there are so few molecules/atoms/particles that it really doesn't matter how hot they are. The effect is going to be exactly the same as dropping hot water onto an iceberg. Did you think you understood this concept better than the entire planet's physicists and aerospace engineers? "I love it....all the deniers." You're the denier here, dewdrop. "Even Mr Petite admitted it....duh! Even modern astronots say they can't get higher than low earth orbit." Yes, and modern passengers say they can't get a ticket on a supersonic airliner also. That doesn't mean that a passenger a few decades ago couldn't do it. Yes, they retired the Saturn V rocket, the only rocket capable of lifting a manned craft past low Earth orbit. They retired the Concorde, the only plane capable of carrying 100+ passengers at mach 2 across the Atlantic. Why are you surprised that a modern astronaut would say he/she couldn't get higher than low orbit? Are you under the impression that they can? Soon, though. The next SLS and Orion capsule are being built.
    1
  12482. Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  12483. During a Kentucky summer, no less.
    1
  12484. Well, this is a Diane Sawyer fluff piece. This isn't journalism. They hand-select the criminals, and then try to twist the story into this crazy idea that these convicted murderers are just "victims" themselves.
    1
  12485. Performing that act in front of kids in public is an aggravated misdemeanor. Also, she had a bunch of open warrants from other prior arrests.
    1
  12486. Huh? Who's "hiding" behind what?
    1
  12487. But, none of the big news outlet covered it until after she was dead 1.5 years. She suffered nearly no shame or anguish from this arrest. Furthermore, with her mile long record, prison term for stealing cars, arrests for theft and drugs and alcohol, multiple judgements against her, repeated failures to appear in court, open warrants, etc., I'd say she must have been pretty used to getting arrested by this point.
    1
  12488.  @sup_with_a_duck5794  Nope. The release date of the arrest video was November 24, 2023.
    1
  12489.  @russellmckernan  So, your position is that the entire world's experts are wrong, and you're right, and you think the SANE people are the ones with this phenomenal mental condition, and you're not? Good gods, the irony.
    1
  12490.  @leecattell6548  No, Lee. The pity is that you're a grown adult who cannot kick your addiction/habit. As you've proven time and time again, you have zero education to speak of, you believe utter claptrap, and you feel badly about this. But, rather than bettering yourself, rather than finishing your high school education, rather than getting gainful employment and an actual career, you have chosen to try to drag others down to your level, by accusing the most accomplished people in human history of failing just as badly as you have.
    1
  12491. Nope, it was suicide.
    1
  12492. Wow, what a thorough comment. You leave nothing to the imagination at all. Congratulations.
    1
  12493. Brother me nothing yet.
    1
  12494. Do you even read the responses to your own questions?
    1
  12495. Well, thanks for demonstrating that you're not actually reading the answers to your questions. But, that makes me wonder why you continue to ask questions when you're not reading answers....
    1
  12496. So, you refuse to address any of the responses to your own question, nor reply to any return questions... but, you want people to believe you're reading the answers? Sorry, I don't believe you.
    1
  12497. How about this instead, dewdrop? How about quitting pretending you know things you don't?
    1
  12498. Why? Because you believe everything you see on trash news like Inside Edition?
    1
  12499. Well, that's one way to demonstrate that you have no idea what "baby daddy" means.
    1
  12500. Nonsense. If you pause at 0:08 and go frame by frame, you see the guy is pointing the gun right at the officer's head. And, you see the gun laying on the ground next to 2x4 piece of wood. And, the guy is wearing a balaclava mask, and pulling the car door open. "No threat to the officer." Watch out, your hatred is showing.
    1
  12501. The general rule is to blur for open investigations, and not blur for closed ones. Given that the arrest video wasn't released until 2.5 years later, and she was long dead by then, there was no need to blur.
    1
  12502. Armstrong moved it from the side of the lander to the spot on the tripod about 40 feet away.
    1
  12503. What in the world are you talking about? There have been thousands of geologists from all around the world who have examined the moon rocks. As a matter of fact, that's one of the primary ways that some of the rocks have gone missing.
    1
  12504. What in the world are you talking about? The cashier did NOT press charges. She could have, but didn't. So, you're completely backward. And, dewdrop, sorry, but that stuff in the store doesn't belong to the cashier to give away.
    1
  12505.  @gives_bad_advice  I'm assuming you meant "spacesuit" ... ?
    1
  12506.  @gives_bad_advice  There is no spacecraft at 38:25.
    1
  12507.  @pasisovi  "Enough is enough"? Yeah, then stop accusing thousands of people of being criminals, based on your entire lack of education and warped delusions.
    1
  12508. Strange that people on the internet pretend to know things they don't.
    1
  12509. How dare you make this accusation? The police did everything correctly. And, they prevented the release of the arrest video until 1.5 years after she was dead. But, you're blaming them?
    1
  12510. "if neil was the first person to set foot on moon than who took his live videos" Not a "who" - a "what" ... it's called a "camera." I'm sorry you can't use Google. Maybe someday you might figure it out. "NASA will say they first sent small Rover with camera attached to it to take Neil landing on moon" Nope. There is no such video, and NASA never made any such claim. You are just making things up.
    1
  12511.  @patty-pat-pat  Did you really just compare a cheap webcam to the highest grade 70mm film ever made?
    1
  12512.  @patty-pat-pat  Yet, you won't explain yourself.
    1
  12513. Huh? Who is "they" (drove her)?
    1
  12514. Sorry, but you have confused an infraction with a crime. And, with the witnesses, the video of the incident itself, her admission of guilt, her mile long arrest record and felony prison term, and the number of open warrants for her arrest for various failures to appear in court, there was NO WAY she was going home.
    1
  12515. Huh? She didn't steal. She had her receipt, just refused to show it.
    1
  12516. Well, at least nobody saw the arrest video until long after she was dead.
    1
  12517. Yeah, because the facts don't match that version. They said they herd the ruckus a month prior to finding her. The medical examiner's report said her last know date she was alive was 12 days prior, not a month prior. And, the scene fully matched a suicide. It's sad she didn't die instantly from the gunshot wound, and had to suffer and stumble around before she bled out. But, there's no evidence that any struggle resulted in her death.
    1
  12518. Because, blame the victim, and not the criminal, eh?
    1
  12519. Of course, not a single one of you "handle it differently" people ever say how exactly.
    1
  12520. Um, ok. But, where was your god and his "blessings" when the woman in the video died? He blessed the cop, but not the woman?
    1
  12521. So, you're blaming officers, and not the criminal herself?
    1
  12522. First of all, tickets don't apply. You've confused infractions with crimes. Secondly, she suffered nearly zero shame from this, since the bodycam wasn't released until long after her death. And, thirdly, really? With her mile long arrest record, her felony prison term for stealing cars, the tons of open warrants for failing to appear in court, the repeated charges for drugs and alcohol, the judgements against her for various thefts, do you really think they weren't going to arrest her?
    1
  12523. Well, I think she was found guilty already, right?
    1
  12524. Pffttt. Hilarious!!! So, in your mind, the cop shouldn't stop someone as they're leaving the store and heading to the car... nope... the cop is supposed to gain access to the security cameras, review them, and only THEN should stop the woman? Did it ever occur to you that she'd be long gone by then? Is that really how you want the system to work? Suppose it was your home being robbed. Then what? The thief is right in front of your house, about to leave, and you ask the police to stop him/her. Is the cop supposed to say, "oh, sorry, let's go inside and review your security system first"? Is that really how this goes, in your mind?
    1
  12525. Yeah, let's ban social music.
    1
  12526. Well, that's because, like many politicians, he said one thing but meant something else. His administration essentially killed the next phases of the Constellation program.
    1
  12527.  @occhamite  Beats me. It's been decades since I liked anybody who has been president. And, I don't follow the bouncing ball of their ever-changing opinions.
    1
  12528.  @occhamite  Tell me about it. I mean, I listened to my grandfather say that exact same thing decades back. And, I told myself I'd never become my grandfather, saying "back in my day...." But, here I am, thinking the same thing, that the choices just keep getting worse and worse.
    1
  12529. Because she was long dead and the investigation was no longer open. And, yes, she was a criminal also.
    1
  12530. Sorry, was too late by then. She had already been obfuscating and obstructing for the prior 10 minutes or so, before this video even started, and continued all throughout this video. It's an arrestable offense all on its own to refuse to provide identification (a subset of the obstruction laws). But, she added obfuscation and resisting arrest to the charges all on her own. At that point, the initial suspicion of theft was only a smaller part of the reason she was arrested, and it wasn't going to change anything. The cop tried to explain that, but she wouldn't listen. And, apparently, neither will you. If you act the way this woman does, then you're going to be in the same boat sooner or later.
    1
  12531.  @tammylewis1057  Seriously, why is it that every single person in this video who shares your massively wrong opinions is as equally unable to read and write? Don't you think that there's a correlation there? Like, if you can't read and write, then perhaps that's the core reason why you fail to understand basic principles in life? What did I say? What were my words? I said, "IF YOU ACT THE WAY THIS WOMAN DOES...." That's not an implication. That's a hypothetical. Did you never learn the definition of the word "if"?
    1
  12532. I really hate when people make me defend Trump. But, it's amazingly ironic that you would write the things you just wrote... which are completely incorrect. Yes, JFK got Apollo approved and funded by congress, which sent men to the moon. Until 2019, no president since him has been able to convince congress to fund further manned moon missions. Bush Jr. came close with Constellation, which was a three-phased project, (1) low Earth orbit with Orion, (2) moon missions with Orion, (3) Mars missions. The only thing that congress gave the green light was phase 1, and, now we have a couple of Orion capsules, and one Orion (unmanned mission) shot up through the Van Allen belts and back in 2014. The rest of Constellation was scrapped under Obama's/Biden's terms before it ever got started. Then, along came Trump, who became the first president since JFK to successfully lobby congress to actually fund a program to put people back on the moon. He kept asking for enough money to get it done by 2024 (which would be the end of his 2nd term, if he had gotten one). But, yes, congress actually approved Artemis in 2019. It's the first time since 1961 that congress has approved funding "manned" (and "woman'd") missions to the moon. Astronauts have been named, and are in training right now. Additional Orion capsules have been ordered. Jeff Bezos (Amazon billionaire) has been contracted to build the landers. SLS is accelerating production (which will be about the same size as a Saturn V). Now, congress didn't approve Trump's request to accelerate funding so that the goal can be accomplished by 2024. The current funding schedule would put people on the lunar surface in 2028-2030. But, here you are, bad-mouthing Trump, and comparing him to JFK, about the topic of getting congress to fund lunar missions?!!?!?!?!??!!??! JFK and Trump are the only two presidents in the history of the planet to get programs approved and funded to put people on the moon. Good grief, the irony.... Sheeeeesssssshhhhh. Meanwhile, well, personally, I think Biden's administration will get the funding cut for Artemis, much like Obama/Biden got the funding cut for Constellation. But, as of today, Artemis is funded, and they're getting ready to go back to the moon.
    1
  12533.  @michaelstillman1171  They have varsity in 2nd grade now?
    1
  12534. Huh? What does any of that have to do with this carjacking video?
    1
  12535. To blame for what? I'll never understand why some people think such a cryptic comment is supposed to mean something.
    1
  12536. Don't tell me to "think" when you didn't make it clear from the start. So many people blame police and media for her death, so, I didn't know if that's what you were saying also, or if it was something else.
    1
  12537. Let me guess, the "another source" doesn't understand photographic perspective either, right?
    1
  12538.  @michaelstillman1171  I've tried using railroad track photos as an example before. They still don't understand.
    1
  12539. I doubt she suffered much at all for this incident. It was just yet another arrest to add to her pile of a million arrests. And, big media didn't cover it until long after she was dead.
    1
  12540. How would you know if you're right or not, when you refuse to read what anybody writes?
    1
  12541. No, dewdrop, you don't.
    1
  12542. Dewdrop, why would I bother doing math for you? You're not listening to responses in any of the threads thus far. What would make you listen in this one? You don't get to sit there and say "the maximum cooling capability was X, therefore it was running at X the entire voyage, and do the math for me if you think I'm wrong." I've responded to you in a dozen other postings, and it always goes in one ear and out the other.
    1
  12543. I think the opposite. I think she refused to show her receipt because she WANTED to get Tased and arrested, thinking that she could turn a simple "can I see your receipt" into a payday lawsuit. And, the more drama, the bigger the dollar amount. Of course, she lost that lawsuit, and received $0.00.
    1
  12544. Yeah, when you see a guy cranking at the playground, leave him be.
    1
  12545. Just because it involves health and welfare, doesn't mean you can essentially "steal" a company's hard work, and let the rest of the world have it for free. If waiving patents happens this time, you can forget about getting "warp speed" vaccines for the next pandemic, or for new strains of this pandemic. Companies don't pour billions of dollars into developing drugs, if those drugs can just be copied by a different company for free. We are not talking about Martin Shkreli buying the rights to obscure drugs and then bilking millions out of those who need them. We are talking about reasonable profits for the companies that poured the work into developing vaccines.
    1
  12546. Sure, if you believe Inside Edition. The reality is that this certainly wasn't her first arrest. And, this arrest had nothing to do with her suicide.
    1
  12547. Huh? The video wasn't made public until she was already dead for 1.5 years.
    1
  12548. No. Why would you think that? Because Inside Edition says so?
    1
  12549. Um, no. Multiple people called this in. One of them even recorded it and gave a copy of the video to the cops. So, yes, they had her on video doing what she did. She probably spoke because she thought there was a chance that she could cry her way out of it, before they looked her up and found all of the open warrants she had. If she didn't talk, there was a 100% chance they'd look her up.
    1
  12550. And, the video that the witnesses provided? The video of the actual "event" she performed? How does that factor into your ridiculous conclusion?
    1
  12551. So, you're claiming that the 3 officers falsified the report?
    1
  12552. Or, you can just read the arrest report. You can stop pretending now.
    1
  12553. I wasn't debating about whether she should keep her mouth shut. My point was that she probably believed that talking and crying her way out of it gave her a chance that they wouldn't look her up, and just let her go. Not talking would give a 100% chance that they'd look her up. Besides simply not doing what she did (probably making "public beach" content for her fans), the other thing she should have done was show up in court. But, that's a whole different story. The reports say that she was down to about 80 pounds (with implants, probably in the 70s for her natural body). So, after this incident, she continued to go downhill fast.
    1
  12554. Awww, you poor thing. Your stupidity is showing.
    1
  12555. Well, first of all, she didn't end her life because of it. Secondly, the police didn't release the video until 1.5 years after she was dead. Third, lapse of judgement? Huh? This was her millionth arrest. If she didn't learn judgement from her felony prison term, I don't think she had any judgement to lapse.
    1
  12556. Wrong. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24,, 2023 = arrest video released.
    1
  12557. Side note: most ironic nickname on the internet. Reality check denies reality.
    1
  12558. Still denying reality, eh?
    1
  12559. Oh, I can answer your questions: 1) This was a misdemeanor crime, not an infraction. There's no such thing as a citation for this. Also, with her criminal history and open warrants, she'd be arrested either way. 2) They released the video because the Freedom of Information Act requires it. But, she suffered zero humiliation from it, because she was long dead before anybody saw it.
    1
  12560. As has already been explained, there is no telescope with the resolution required. Light doesn't work the way you think. There are limits to resolution due to the behavior of photons. The only way around it is to build a bigger lens. To barely do what you're asking would require a lens about a quarter mile in diameter. To see details would require a lens multiple miles in diameter. But, why are you asking for this anyway? There are already orbital photos of the landing sites from 4 different countries. In the other thread, you already rejected those photos. Why are you pretending you'd accept these new photos you're asking for?
    1
  12561. Of they? Of posting of video of Freedom of Information Act. Of didn't of ruin of her of life of because of nobody of saw it of until she of was dead for of 1.5 of years.
    1
  12562. Huh? Do you think the side of the road is a courtroom? Proof is for the courts, not the side of the road. A cop needs to demonstrate reasonable suspicion and probable cause, not provide proof. People get arrested every day for crimes they didn't commit. So what? A cop's job is just to decide if it's LIKELY that a crime was committed. There's no requirement for the cop to be 100% correct. The cop is not the judge and jury. Proof comes later. By your standard, if you were required to prove guilt before you could ever arrest anybody, there'd be no due process, and there'd be no need for courtrooms, and nobody could ever arrest anybody.
    1
  12563. How much humiliation do you think she suffered from? Who even knew about this arrest while she was alive? And, according to her landlord, she was a "dancer" at the gentlemen's club, and neighbors said she did "extras" for cash in her apartment. If she easily gets humiliated, she sure picked a strange career path.
    1
  12564. Well, I don't agree with that. I think you should show it. But, legally, you're not required to show it, unless you belong to a membership store that you sign a contract that allows them to inspect your receipts. But, that wasn't the main issue that got her into trouble. She wasn't being arrested for failing to show a receipt. She got arrested because she obstructed, refusing to show ID, obfuscation (all of which are arrestable all on their own), and, yes, because her actions increased the suspicion of the theft itself. The theft turned out to be wrong, because she had her receipt. But, if she chose not to show it, she's still required to comply with the rest of the laws, which she did not.
    1
  12565. Yes, everyone was questioned. But, the picture this "news" (not news) story has more holes than the Titanic. If you want a much more accurate picture, read the lawsuits.
    1
  12566. First of all, social media didn't cover this story until the arrest video was released on November 24, 2023. So, it had nothing to do with her death in March of 2022. Secondly, yes, the path through the restaurant was the way to get back to the police cars. Third, c'mon, get real here, with her mile long arrest record, and her felony time she served in prison, let's face reality, she must have been used to the cuffs by then. Fourth, she is the one who chose to do that on the beach in view of multiple people including children. I mean, you don't actually believe her story about nobody being around, do you?
    1
  12567. Well, supposedly the Cybertruck has 2 million preorders... not that I believe everything they say... but if it's even 25% of that, then the Cybertruck is what keeps them alive through a recession, not the cheap models with little or no margin.
    1
  12568. Yeah, it would have been much easier if she had just cooperated. But, nope, she converted an insignificant investigation for potentially minor shoplifting into this big mess.
    1
  12569.  @PleasentToBeAround  Another ironic nickname, huh? Dewdrop, you can see landers, shadows of flame deflectors, shadows of the 5 flags still standing, foot paths, rover tracks, etc. Have you even looked at the photos you're denying believing?
    1
  12570. I fail to understand what in the world you're talking about. Now you're acknowledging the photos exist? But, your new question is, if the photos didn't exist, how would I know the stuff is on the moon? Dewdrop, you don't understand the topic. You kept expecting telescopes to be able to see it, because you don't know the physical limitations of telescopes. You kept denying the photos exist, but, I assume now you've finally looked at them. You even confused orbital Earth photos with low flying aircraft photos. This is how little you understand anything. Stop pretending. Yes, there are mountains of other evidence for Apollo, beyond just the orbital photos. I do not understand why you're asking for it. You already know, in advance, that your only reply will be "nuh uh" because you've already decided that all evidence for Apollo is fake, no matter how real it actually is. So, why are you even asking? I'm not wasting more time on someone who refuses to listen to all input.
    1
  12571. Huh? She was a convicted felon who spent a term in a Florida prison, and had a million other arrests and convictions. Stealing cars. Other thefts. Drugs and alcohol. Failure to appear. You name it. But, she's not a "real criminal" in your mind?
    1
  12572.  @kitcanyon658  I think you made a typo. I would tell you where, but YouTube's new algorithms in the last couple of days would automatically delete my response.
    1
  12573. Well, other than the time his father spent in prison, it seems that yes, he was around. His self-conflicting interviews are so amazing to watch, as he tries to set up for the lawsuit.
    1
  12574. Alice, they always landed early in the lunar morning, long before the temperatures got that high. Most of the missions landed when the surface temperatures were about 40 degrees (F). The surface temperatures don't get up to 250-260 degrees (F) until late into the lunar afternoon.
    1
  12575. Yeah, it's perfectly normal to go up to a car to "check it out" while wearing a balaclava ski mask in the middle of a Kentucky summer, and point a gun at the driver's seat. No, that's not a carjacking at all. He had a gun in one hand, and tea and crumpets in the other.
    1
  12576. Says who? YOU? The guy goes up to the car with a ski mask and a gun, and YOU are declaring it wasn't a carjacking? What's wrong with you?
    1
  12577. Yeah, that's really strange, since she did have the receipt.
    1
  12578. The shadow question was answered already. The audio delay question, you already answered yourself. A lot of the delays get edited out for documentaries and in TV clips. The original recordings have all of the correct delays you'd expect from the perspective of Houston (where the recordings were taking place).
    1
  12579. How desperate do you have to be in order to make the leap from a cop investigating potential shoplifting, to ruling in tyranny? You may as well claim that jaywalking leads to becoming a murderer. It would be just as credible as your claim of tyranny.
    1
  12580. Well, the police did nothing wrong either. The blame is 100% on the school board.
    1
  12581. Who did it?
    1
  12582. It's worse than that. In another interview, the father said that his son was going to find out who was in the car (i.e. he did know someone was in the car). But, the story was different in another interview. Gee, do you suppose that his attorney told him in between the two interviews that it's a really bad idea to admit that the carjacker knew someone was in the car? So, the story changed as a result?
    1
  12583. Spare the world, seriously. Nobody goes up to someone who is in the middle of cranking it to have a conversation.
    1
  12584. Except one of the "audience" recorded it, and showed the video to the police. She DID lie. They describe the video in their police report as a very loud and public act in view of multiple people, including children. And, one of the witnesses said that it looked like she was putting on the show intentionally. Sorry if that doesn't match the words spoken by the convicted felon who is trying to avoid getting arrested for the millionth time, but, hey, I'll stick with the good guys on this one. She was getting arrested either way.
    1
  12585. Good gods, what IS wrong with you? Sheeesssshhhh. "what a loser employee." So, the store employee is the problem? She was acting in the best interest of her employer, and identifying theft when she saw it. But, SHE is the problem? The drug addled thief isn't the problem? "i could understand if this woman was taking multiple miscellaneous items" And, who's to say she didn't? With her track record, and the fact that the coat was still bulky after she removed the hat and gloves, who is to say there wasn't more stuff under there. You know what they say about drug addicts, right? "How do you know a drug addict is lying? His/her lips are moving." I mean, we'll never know if there was more stuff in that coat. But, given that she went right back to stealing from Walgreens immediately after this incident, and the coat still had bulges in it, I'm betting that she just gave up the hat and gloves in hopes that they wouldn't try to find out if there was more stuff in that coat. And, it worked. "but if you clearly see someone in need of something, you should help them." By willfully allowing people to steal from your employer? Huh? The store employee doesn't own that stuff, the store does. It's not hers to "give away." And, how is the store employee supposed to know all of the items the woman was stealing? I mean, even pretending that she was only stealing a hat and gloves (which I do not believe, but, ok, let's say that's true), how is the store employee supposed to know? "she could’ve said something to her and then bought the hat and gloves for her." But, as I said, the store employee doesn't necessarily know what's in that jacket. You're expecting the store employee to be a mind reader. "instead, she called the police" Gee, the "loser" employee called the police when someone was shoplifting. Surprise surprise. "probably expecting this woman to be arrested" Did you not watch the video, dewdrop? What IS wrong with you?!?!?! The store employee was the one who offered NOT to press charges, as long as the drug addict returned the stuff. Good grief. Where are you getting this parade of nonsense you're spewing? "and was probably embarrassed herself when the officer ended up just buying the items for her and letting her leave." Well, maybe, but, personally, I'd be wondering why the cop instantly believed the woman only had those two items. "just remember karma is everywhere." Sorry, but you can apply your imaginary "karma" all you want. There's always a way to tapdance something into seeming like "karma." But, how much "karma" do you think was involved by the fact that this woman learned absolutely nothing from this act of charity? She instantly continued to rob from Walgreens. And, when she died, was that from "karma"? Good grief. The store employee did the right thing. She reported theft when she saw it. She was lenient and offered to let the woman go, on just the terms that she give back what she was stealing. And, if you want to talk about "karma," how about the irony of the fact that maybe the woman would still be alive today if they had arrested her? Perhaps charges would eventually result in a prison term, where she would at least still be alive today. But, nope, she's dead now. Is that "karma" too? I'm betting that if she was alive, you'd say it was "karma," and if she died (which she did), you'll still say it's "karma." Tell me I'm wrong.
    1
  12586. I'll never understand why some people (i.e. you) are soooooooooo very proud to be sooooooooo veerrrryyyy st^#p1d.
    1
  12587. I have compassion for the baby. No others. Sorry, but when a guy goes up to a car wearing a ski mask and points a gun at the guy in the driver's seat, yeah, I'm not going to weep over him. When a woman arrives about 5 seconds after the shooting, screaming "that's my baby daddy," yeah, I'm pretty much assuming she's in on it, dropping him off at the car to jack it, and be his backup driver.
    1
  12588. What's the basis for your suit? It seems like everything was proper to the letter.
    1
  12589. I don't think you realize what you wrote. Too many nots in your statement.
    1
  12590. Furthermore, by the way, you do know that FINGERPRINTS and DNA are classified as circumstantial evidence, right? Those are some of the most powerful pieces of evidence in murder trials. Yet, you and your ignorant ass (which is apparently the part of your body that does your thinking) say that circumstantial evidence isn't allowed in a murder trial? As a matter of fact, nowadays, it's almost impossible to get a conviction without that stuff. I'm 100% done with your ignorant ass. You're too dumb.
    1
  12591. Dewdrop, they blur for open investigations, and don't blur for closed ones. She's been dead for more than 2 years. I'd say the investigation is closed.
    1
  12592. Arrest = July 1, 2021. Suicide = March, 2022. Arrest video released from legal FOIA request = November 24, 2023. So, no, dewdrop, nothing was "leaked," and there is no valid suit against anybody.
    1
  12593. YOU SAID: "all fake...." == Wrong. YOU SAID: "calling to the moon with a landline xD to the moon...." == Hold on just a second here. Are you REALLY suggesting that they strung a WIRE to the MOON?!?!?! Or, I should actually ask, do you REALLY believe that NASA even claims they strung a wire from Earth to the moon? What ARE you talking about? Nobody has ever claimed to have run a "landline to the moon." Good grief. YOU SAID: "and we cant recieve any signal as we drive into a tunnel with our mobile mwhaha" == Um, ok, did you expect to?
    1
  12594.  @jiriangills5867  YOU SAID: "do you even know what SEA-CABLES are ?" == Yes, of course I do. YOU SAID: "why is the internet running tru the oceans instead of space...." == Because you can send far more data through fiberoptic cable than you can via radio signals. The decrease in transmission speed through fiberoptic cable (which is only about 66% of light speed) is well countered by the sheer quantity of data that can be passed through that medium, as well as the fact that the distance of the transmission is shorter via the ocean than it is if you bounce signals through a few satellites). It's not even a close comparison. Also, it's cheaper (overall). It's more reliable. And, it's more secure. It's easier to intercept radio signals than it is to tap into fiberoptics (though, no transmission medium is to be considered "secure" anyway). Did you really want to understand this? Or, were you asking questions as if you think I don't know these things? YOU SAID: "why do you only recieve near towers if you have 10.000 active satelites surounding the ' ball' earth xD" == I haven't got the slightest clue what you're trying to say, and neither do you. What is "10.000"? Is that any different than "9.999"? What exactly is that a measurement of? And, what does that have to do with Apollo? Are you under the impression that your cell phone works via satellites?? Was your "10.000" supposed to be "10,000"?? What the hell are you talking about? YOU SAID: "President Richard Nixon makes a historic phone call from the Oval Office to congratulate the Apollo 11 astronauts on the lunar surface." == Yes, dummy. But, there was no land line TO THE MOON!!! Nobody claimed there was a cable strung from Earth to the moon, you moron. YOU SAID: "freakin idiot xD" == You are clearly a drug addict who never finished high school, with absolutely no understanding of communications systems.
    1
  12595.  J Calhoun  I guess my first mistake was to take the drug addict literally. His words were: "calling to the moon WITH A LANDLINE TO THE MOON." Now, any sane person would only write those words if they thought there was an actual LANDLINE TO THE MOON (a 240,000 mile long cable). But, yeah, when dealing with drug addicts, you have to first just realize that drugs addicts don't have the foggiest clue what they're even saying. And, what the drug addict was attempting to say (but failed to say) was that he doesn't understand how wired calls can be converted to radio. And, of course, if a drug addict doesn't know how to convert wired calls to radio signals, that must mean that Apollo is fake.
    1
  12596. With gunfire, it's very difficult to assess distance. He probably had no idea at the time he started on foot that it would be that far.
    1
  12597. Yeah, when you see a guy loudly cranking at the playground in front of kids, just go up and have a conversation.
    1
  12598. OK, but, that's not a very good reason. I believe it because I know about the evidence.
    1
  12599. Of they really? Of in a society, of we want to of have police of to handle crimes of of. That's of what we of pay them for of. We of don't want of people of taking of crimes into of their own hands of.
    1
  12600. Well, this was the cold war. And, they wanted to send a political message to the Soviets that the USA couldn't/wouldn't be beaten at anything we set our minds to doing. It's an expression of technological and industrial power. The purpose was to avert a nuclear war by making it clear to the Soviets wouldn't be able to beat us, therefore they should back off. Some people think Apollo saved tens of millions of lives that would have been lost in such a war. It's impossible to turn back time and see what would have happened if not for Apollo. But, is saving tens of millions of lives worth the money and effort?
    1
  12601. No, this is clearly CGI. It's amazing to me that you'd have to ask that.
    1
  12602. Can you name any social media that even posted anything about this incident before her death?
    1
  12603. The arrest video wasn't even public until 1.5 years after she died. Stop believing nonsense on Inside Edition, or any other sensationalist outfit like it.
    1
  12604. Read the police reports. Read the medical examiner's report. Look at the dates of everything.
    1
  12605. Just checking here... you do know that nobody saw the arrest video until she was already dead for more than 1.5 years, right?
    1
  12606. How do you bully someone after they're dead?
    1
  12607. Which is more likely? 1) She's a very honest drug addict and repeatedly convicted thief. She's being honest about not getting her meds. For no reason whatsoever, the prison is refusing to give them to her. And, for some stupid reason, the "news" channel doesn't bother asking the prison why she didn't get her meds. or 2) She's not only a drug addict and repeatedly convicted thief, but she's also a chronic liar. She's claiming not to get her meds. The "news" channel asked the prison why they didn't give her the meds, and they replied, "Get real, she's a convicted criminal and drug addict, and nothing she says can be trusted. Of course we gave her the meds. She always does this, claiming she didn't get them, just so she can make excuses and get more drugs." But, the "news" channel doesn't air that part, because it doesn't look good for their pathetic fluff piece that's supposed to tug at the heartstrings of gullible saps like you?
    1
  12608. Did they install MCAS on the SLS?
    1
  12609. "I still dont see how there was virtually no disturbance to the ground and no settled dust to be seen" Well, that's because you didn't listen to me from the start. I told you to look at the photo archive. You ignored it.
    1
  12610. "How does an exhaust thats being expelled from a rocket push back on the rocket, if the exhaust is experiencing ZERO resistance?" I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    1
  12611. "growing up, I never questioned any of this." And, you didn't question it in this thread either. You didn't ask a question. You spewed nonsense, accusing thousands of people of being criminals that would be thrown in prison for their entire lives for the crimes you're accusing them of. And, mainly, your basis is, "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." "when its being told to you by the government, lol." But, dewdrop, there are mountains of evidence for Apollo that have nothing to do with what our government says. I notice you never once asked for any of it. Nope. Your "questions" were, "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." And, of course, you believe you spotted things that no expert on Earth could spot, while you're accusing thousands of people of crimes.
    1
  12612. Yeah, surely, the cops should just let these armed felons and drug dealers go.
    1
  12613. You don't have the problems the USA has. And, sorry, but when an armed felon is wielding a gun, especially if he goes back to pick it up after dropping it, the odds are that he plans to USE IT. No, you don't need to talk about Trump, or socioeconomics, or the ills of society, or why the USA's citizens behave like animals, you need to deal with the immediate threat. And, for every time people like you think the cops should just let these thugs go, guess what happens? They go and murder someone moments later, or the next day, or whenever. This incident happened near Chicago. About 60 people per week are shot in Chicago, a vast majority of which are committed by people just like this guy. Several of those 60 end up dying. We don't have decades to solve this. Pretend you're a Chicago area cop, and you have an armed felon wielding a gun. What are you going to do? Let him go? Discuss politics and his upbringing? Or shoot him? How dare you accuse the cops of being criminals, who are risking their lives to deal with these savage people? The cops are the GOOD GUYS. That cop who did the shooting just saved people's lives when he killed the maniac with the gun. That's what happened here. INNOCENT LIVES WERE SAVED. Get that through your skulls.
    1
  12614. John, you have no understanding of the topic. You clearly don't know what kind of effort that going to the moon was, or will be in the future. There is nothing else like it in human history.
    1
  12615. Oh, and about the size of the Earth in the photos, same thing, you simply don't even understand what you're looking at. But, you can do that math also. Look up the lens used for each photo you have in question, the focal length to the 70mm film, look at the original photo (not the cropped version in this video), and do the math. Why are you on YouTube??? You can mathematically prove Apollo was fake by simply doing the math about these photos!!! Publish your results in science journals!!! Such a discovery would result in 7-8 figure book deals, prime speaking engagements at $70K per week on the lecture circuits, being a paid witness in congressional hearings that would result in shutting NASA down permanently, being a paid witness in international fraud trials from allied countries that spent billions to support Apollo. You'll be on all of the talk shows (paid). You'll never work another day in your life. I fail to understand why you amazing geniuses think that YouTube comments is the correct forum to publish your amazing findings, when you'd easily make about $35 million over the next 5 years by publishing your math in actual science journals.
    1
  12616.  @stevegagnon1539  Where did I get 40 degrees? Where'd you get 20 degrees? Where'd you get 30 degrees? First, you opened the thread by not even knowing the coordinates. You just blindly asserted the angle without even knowing it. That's how dishonest you are. Then, when told the coordinates were 30° 44' 58.3" east longitude by 20° 9' 50.5" north latitude, what did you do? You ignored the bigger number, and stuck with the smaller one, and just said it needed "correction" from the bigger number, but still asserting that, somehow, magically, the smaller number was the one that mattered (which is backward, illustrating your level of dishonesty... need to protect that delusion at all costs). Then, once corrected again, you increased the angle to the bigger of the two numbers (how generous of you), and ignored the smaller number, and actually thought that somehow it was more like an average between the two numbers or something like that (which is wrong), or that only the bigger number mattered (which is wrong). Now, you're coming here with your "lol" comments, as if you know things I don't know?? What? Not that it matters, the facts stand as they are with or without me telling you anything, but, yes, one of my degrees is in mathematics (highest honors, all kinds of awards, nobody cares, including me, that's long in my past, and even though I probably could call myself a mathematician because I have the degree for it, I have never called myself one). Anyway, I know how to calculate angles. You do not. And, you have already revealed quite well that you don't even understand basic geometry. Like, you're basically saying that if you go 30 degrees east... ok, that angle is 30... now, if you add on going 20 degrees north on top of the 30 degrees east, you somehow think that the net number is LESS??? I mean, you certainly don't add the two numbers together. But, any thinking person should know that if you go 30 east, and then 20 north, the net degree is MORE than 30. I need to dumb this down, apparently. So, forget the sphere, and start by just thinking of it like a simple rectangle. If the top/bottom sides of a rectangle are 30, and the left/right sides of a rectangle are 20, do you think magically that the diagonal is LESS than 30? No, of course not. The diagonal is A^2 + B^2 = C^2. C is bigger than either A or B. Well, a sphere is not the exact same formula as a rectangle, and requires some trig to calculate it, but, yes, when you have 30 east and 20 north, the net number is LARGER than either of those two. So, how did I calculate it? At first, in the earlier postings, I just spitballed, knowing that the angle had to be almost 40 because the two angles that fed it were 30 and 20. But, later, after a couple of messages, I wanted more accuracy, but, I was too lazy to do the actual trig, so, instead, I used a mathematical shortcut. I simply used a Haversine calculator to get the diagonal distance for the same dynamic on Earth, then divided for the circumference of the moon instead of Earth, and converted that back to degrees. That came out to about 36.5 degrees. Then, I, again, was too lazy to adjust for the fact that such an answer focuses on infinity from the "central" moon coordinates (0 degrees by 0 degrees), and that I'd need to add a bit more for the fact that the Earth isn't an infinite distance, it's only 238,000 miles, thus, we'd need a bit extra to accommodate. But, I didn't feel like making that exact calculation. So, I just figured the total is around 37-38 degrees, which was close enough to 40 to just say "almost 40." So, yes, subtracting from 90 (the only thing you did correctly), the moon to Earth angle in the sky was around 52 degrees (give or take a degree). But, now we have to deal with the 10 degree wobble (which I originally said was 8 degrees, and was wrong about). Well, you can only use half of that, because it wobbles in both directions from the "center" point. So, the maximum wobble from the 0/0 coordinate is 5 degrees. Thus, if the moon happened to wobble away from Apollo 17 during this mission, this easily puts the angle at around 43 degrees (or, in other words, 47 degrees from vertical once you subtract from 90). This is nowhere near the 70 degrees you opened by insisting. Anyway, you're a lost cause. Go publish. I cannot help you any further. You clearly have come to your conclusions without doing the math... or... frankly... before even *understanding* the math. You are deluded beyond hope.
    1
  12617. And, again, for some reason, it blocked one of my messages telling you where to get this information. So, I'll just ask, did you go look at the original uncropped photo, to discover that the entire bottom half is missing from this video (thus giving you the wrong impression about the angle)? Did you go watch the TV video of Cernan taking this exact photo (and see he's bent way over, tilting the camera at an upward angle toward Schmitt and the flag, to get the Earth in frame)?
    1
  12618. I will try one more time to tell you where to see this exact photo being taken, and if it blocks me again, I'm just going to give up. "Apollo 17 - 114 40 - 122 40" Three hours, forty six minutes, 9 seconds. That exact photo was taken.
    1
  12619. AS17-134-20384 = that uncropped photo. AS17-134-20455 = the correct angle to Earth (the dish is aimed at Earth).
    1
  12620.  @stevegagnon1539  Steve, let me honestly thank you for saying this. (Not joking.) 99.9% of the conspiracy nuts on YouTube will NEVER admit being wrong, even about a single aspect, no matter how much evidence you throw at them. Frankly, I shouldn't be shocked when finding someone on YouTube who admits being wrong, but, I am shocked anyway. So, thanks for the pleasant shock that you're admitting being wrong. Beyond that, remember, we have to also accommodate for the moon's wobble of 10 degrees (which is up to 5 degrees off-center). Again, I didn't try to hunt down where the moon was in the wobble cycle during Apollo 17. But, yes, this can mean that you might have to add up to 5 degrees more to your calculations, depending on the wobble cycle. Did you view the TV video I pointed out, showing Cernan taking the exact photo you're talking about? It clearly shows Cernan bending over really low, angling the camera upward. And, did you view the uncropped photo?
    1
  12621. "Moon Phase and Libration" - watch a couple videos showing the time-lapse of this wobble. You will understand why the angles change significantly enough to include them in the calculations, and why the 0/0 longitude/latitude moon coordinate doesn't always look 90 degrees upward toward Earth.
    1
  12622. It has blocked my reply (yet again, for the 49587398573498th time). So, again, I need to trim my response, and avoid stating anything about where/how to find things. You need to look at three hours, forty six minutes, nine seconds, into the video. That's the very second this photo was snapped. You will see Cernan bending way down, pointing the camera on an upward angle, to get Schmitt, the flag, and the Earth, all in frame. I hope this puts an end to any issues you have with that photo. A photo of Apollo 17 with the Earth and a boulder... catalog number or timestamp?
    1
  12623.  @stevegagnon1539  It must be blocking your postings as much as it blocks mine. I don't see a link.
    1
  12624. Note: one of the issues is that sometimes you can see your own postings, but other people cannot see them. I have made it a habit to keep one browser window open that's signed in, and another window open that's not signed in. That way, I can check the window that's signed in to see if the rest of the world can see the same messages that my signed-in window can see. My signed-in window thinks this message string is like 100 messages long (containing all of the messages that I attempted to post, but nobody else can see). But, the window that's not signed in can only see 22 messages. Anyway, I have been going through the photo archives, and I think I might know the one you're talking about. I'll post a catalog number shortly.
    1
  12625. Is this the one you're talking about? AS17-137-20910 If so, yes, the angles are deceptive there too. And, what you need to understand is that the entire ground there was really slanted. The entire wide surface in that area was fairly steeply sloped (for something that wide/big). That's the Lee Lincoln Scarp area of the moon. You think you're looking on a "flat" surface behind, but, it's not flat. It's like, if you're on Earth, and you're standing on a massive sloped hill, and you take a photo up the hill. The photo might look like a typical "flat" horizon line, but, no, it's actually uphill. Go research the Lee Lincoln Scarp slope. And, if that's not enough, look at a photo taken in the opposite direction. And, this "problem" is magnified by the cratering and meandering of the surface. Let me give you an example: AS17-137-20900 That's looking in the "downward" direction. Look at where the astronaut is in the photo, relative to the one taking the photo. Note: that's not the same exact boulder, but, it gives you an idea of the type of terrain they were dealing with, and really emphasizes the overall slope. Bottom line: the Earth is still at around 45 or 50 degrees (whatever we agreed upon), but, the photo itself is being taken "uphill" to begin with. Let me make this clear: they took that photo BECAUSE it was weird. They took the photo BECAUSE it looks amazing from those weird angles on the weird slope with the weird terrain. Go look up the Lee Lincoln Scarp, and then you'll see what I mean. These sorts of amazing geographic features are why they landed in Taurus Littrow in the first place.
    1
  12626.  @stevegagnon1539  Hence why, on the moon, most photos don't include the Earth... only photos that are taken from an upward slanted angle.
    1
  12627.  @stevegagnon1539  I gave you the catalog numbers. Did you not see that posting?
    1
  12628. Here if you want to understand why the Earth looks so low in the sky in the boulder photo you're talking about, this picture will explain it. a17pan22382-90ic This photo (pan) was taken from across the valley from that boulder/Earth photo you're undoubtedly worried about. See that huge wide flat massif (mountain) that is dead center in the pan? OK, well, that's where they went on EVA3, over to that huge wide flat massif you see in the distance of this pan photo I'm providing. Huge. Wide. Flat-faced mountain. And, your boulder picture was taken from there, looking up the flat/wide mountain. That's why it looks like a flat horizon line. But, it's not. It's a very steep angle. That's undoubtedly the photo you're worried about, because you think the Earth is low in the sky. But, it's not low in the sky in reality. It's just that the photo is being taken from that wide wide wide huge massif, that is quite "flat" looking on that side. Get it?
    1
  12629. If you don't know how to find catalog numbers: Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. Enter. Apollo 17. Image Library.
    1
  12630. And, sorry, but the image ID catalog number I gave you will apparently not be found on the Journal in the format I specified. Unfortunately, I just referred to my own library catalog on my personal NAS, and not the Journal. But, just for the sake of being thorough, I just checked the Journal, and they don't identify the photo the same way. Ugh. So, you won't find it under the name I gave. You'll find it under: Quote: "Ian Cossor has assembled a high-resolution, partial pan ( 1.9 Mb ) showing Bear Mountain, the South Massif and (West) Family Mountain. The frames are 22382 to 22390." If you look at that photo, you will see the wide/flat massif (in the distance) that they were looking upward in the boulder photo you're worried about. The wide flat face of that massif is the reason it appears to be "flat" toward a horizon line. But, in reality, they were at that massif/mountain, looking upward toward Earth, when they took the boulder/Earth photo. And, the massif is so wide and flat, it looks like a regular flat ground... but it's not. It's super steep.
    1
  12631. Yeah, when a man in a playground cranks in front of kids, just leave him alone. It's trivial.
    1
  12632. Are you under the impression that those little 9mm hollow points are going to penetrate a truck? Whatever shots didn't hit the suspect, hit the truck.
    1
  12633.  @Giambis  Hilarious!!! And, at 2:10 in this video, with the suspect firing numerous shots that cannot even break the glass, you're going to sit there and claim that they penetrate a truck? And, no, that's not bulletproof glass. Bulletproof glass breaks in a circular spiderweb pattern, because the glass is engineered to absorb and spread the energy. Regular glass does exactly what you see in this video. Those 9mm hollow points just don't penetrate. You'd have better luck if they were 9mm full metal jacket, I suppose.
    1
  12634.  @johnchristopher3544  There is no point in trying to interface with a drug addict like you.
    1
  12635. Doubtful it would have mattered either way. One of the "audience" took video of the event and showed it to the police. She was getting arrested whether she said anything or not.
    1
  12636. Thanks for proving, as has been proven thousands of times before, that none of you deniers can read or write past a 2nd grade level. Good grief. Maybe the reason you don't understand anything is because you can't read and write, eh? So, Apollo, which evidence is largely based on documents, is completely beyond your capability to understand. But, denying Apollo consists of watching conspiracy videos. So, you just stick with that, eh? "They literally admit to loosing 80% of all footage from the moon landings" Huh? You can go watch almost all of it on YouTube, or can order 100% of it by just paying the copying fees. Why would you think 80% is missing? Did a conspiracy video tell you that? Or, did you have an actual source? And, loosing? "and they admit to destroying the technology" It's a bit colorful to say it's "destroyed," but, essentially it's true. Just about everything used during Apollo is long gone, destroyed and replaced with more modern stuff. The factories and tooling that produced the Model A Ford have long since been destroyed also. So what? Does that mean a Model A Ford doesn't exist? And, what EXACTLY do you want them to do? Should all of the tooling and factories and training facilities and old analog communications systems and 1960s IBM mainframes, etc., have all been kept intact, and people maintaining them all for 50+ years, without any funding to do so? Who EXACTLY was going to keep all of those facilities and equipment in working order, after the program was ended? "if your a sheep" My a sheep? "that believes the government has never covered up anything ever then be my guest" Huh? That's it then? The government covered stuff up, therefore Apollo was fake? You're not interested in the actual evidence for Apollo? It's just "covered up" because the government covered up other things? That's how your mind works? And, how did "the government" get so many other governments to assist, including enemy governments?
    1
  12637.  @rebelp311  What in the world are you even talking about? The museums have the remaining lunar landers, a couple of Saturn V rockets, the spent command modules from every Apollo mission, etc. What EXACT artifacts from Apollo did you expect to see in museums, that you think aren't there?
    1
  12638. How did you know it was going to happen on this particular arrest, as opposed to the other millions of arrests she had under her belt?
    1
  12639. The arrest video wasn't released until she was already dead 1.5 years.
    1
  12640. And, when the woman in the video died, where were her "blessings"? Seems to me... the cop isn't the one who needed blessings.
    1
  12641. I fail to understand how that's an answer to my question.
    1
  12642. Sorry for the multiple attempts to respond. I'm having a difficult time getting it to post. Could you see my response now?
    1
  12643. Dewdrop, it's a simple matter of reading the mission reports. Or, you can read the books written by astronauts, or watch their interviews. But, as I said, you only watch conspiracy videos. Don't pretend otherwise.
    1
  12644. So, the gun pointed at the officer's head at 0:08, and can be seen again on the ground at 5:02 next to a 2x4 piece of wood... means he didn't have a weapon? The attorney representing his family said he was armed also. But, you're going to stick with this "unarmed" story? Huh? How about watching the video before declaring ridiculous nonsense?
    1
  12645. "given that man could supposedly land on the moon in the 1960s, with today's technology we ought to have manned moon stations exploring the moon" Given that we supposedly had technology to fly 100+ people at mach 2 across the Atlantic with the 1969 Concorde, we certainly must be able to fly 10,000 people across the Atlantic at mach 27 by now, right? Good grief. Dewdrop, technologies can't, and don't, advance without funding to advance them. And, just like Concorde, which was never advanced after the 1969 design, because it was a complete and total financial disaster, so the same thing can be said about Apollo. They spent the equivalent of today's (adjusted for inflation) $300 billion in hard costs, and $150 billion in soft costs and international support, so 12 people could walk on the moon for a total of 80 hours (2 guys at a time, x6 missions). That's about today's equivalent of around $5.5 billion dollars an hour. Yeah, nobody wants to spend that kind of money to keep advancing that technology. So, they accomplished the goal, then stopped. "with telescopes looking into deep space, etc. Why has this not happened?" Yes, dewdrop. Multiple telescopes are looking into deep space.
    1
  12646. "I am more of the opinion the moon landings didn't happen." But, dewdrop, you didn't once even ask for the evidence? Your parade of 7 questions was nothing but, "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." Most people, ya know, the sane ones, would want to evaluate the evidence itself, and these little 7 questions of yours would just be "nice to know" additions. The evidence dictates (for most people, the sane ones) what to believe and what not to believe. Not you, though. For you, "I don't know the answers to these questions, therefore Apollo is fake" is all that matters to you.
    1
  12647.  @occhamite  LRO, not LOR.
    1
  12648.  @stusue9733  And, of course, it won't post my reply.
    1
  12649. Oh, that holds up in court soooooo well. No written reports, just verbal. And, you cannot possibly be serious. If they bust a guy for cranking at the playground in front of kids, they show up with a therapist? Seriously? Dial 911, "hi, can you send a therapist?" I don't know what planet you live on.
    1
  12650. Good gods. You asked why they haven't been back. And, in your follow up reply, you were trying to "clarify" by stating that you're wondering what they found regarding resources and science? Yet, you couldn't just ask that from the start? And, you think silly emojis are the right way to respond?
    1
  12651. Good gods. I'm sorry that you don't get it. But, when you can't seem to even ask a question clearly, then I guess it's no surprise.
    1
  12652.  @jackb348  TRANSLATION: you're claiming you're only 1/2 insane.
    1
  12653. Well, maybe knowing the actual timeline would help. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released (FOIA request). Nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive. And, with the exception of a couple of obscure blogs nobody has ever heard of, no news outlet ever even mentioned it until long after she was dead.
    1
  12654. So, your complaint here isn't about the woman who committed a crime and got arrested for the millionth time, but, instead, your complaint is that the pathway back to the cars was through the restaurant, rather than trudging through sand and scaling fences to go around the outside of the building? Putting on a show at a public beach wasn't embarrassing, but, walking through the restaurant was?
    1
  12655.  @lldavidll  Soooooo, you think it's a good idea to burn a lot of fuel to stop at the moon first, then continue on toward a more distant destination? What? How does slowing down, landing, and taking off again, and accelerating, make any sense? It's not like a family vacation to Florida where you need to stop for gas. In space travel, any amount of fuel you burn to slow down and speed back up again is a complete waste.
    1
  12656.  @lldavidll  Hilarious!!! You think we can set up a moon base to assemble rockets using materials on the moon? Wow. Too much TV.
    1
  12657. Well, I was going to answer, but, your emoji makes it perfectly clear that you have no actual desire to know the answers to your own questions.
    1
  12658. Huh? Do you not think that a flag will move when it's handled? Do you not think a flag will move if the PLSS backpacks are offgassing nearby? Do you not think a flag will move if the lander is offgassing nearby also?
    1
  12659. When was there ever a right to privacy in public? And, if she wanted privacy, um, maybe don't put on "that" kind of show at a beach in front of children, huh?
    1
  12660. You think privacy is an inalienable right in public? Um, no. And, why do you think that a couple of obscure blog postings had anything to do with her suicide? Because Inside Edition asked the question about whether she was shamed? (Hint: the answer is no.)
    1
  12661. It's pretty clear to me that you know nothing about this issue outside of the 1 minute of Inside Edition coverage (where facts don't matter). The short version is that she was a convicted felon with a mile long arrest record and did a term in a Florida prison. Her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the gentlemen's club, and her neighbors said she did "extras" for cash in her apartment. She abandoned her career and family more than a decade ago to live a life of crime and drugs instead. And, if she wasn't making "public beach" content, but got reported, I'll eat my hat.
    1
  12662. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released due to FOIA. THAT is when the big coverage happened. Before then, only a couple of obscure blogs with a couple hundred hits.
    1
  12663. Of not? Of course of it shouldn't of happened of of. But, of the issue is that you of think privacy of is of a right in of public. And, of you don't of seem to of know that her of death had of nothing to do of with this arrest of.
    1
  12664. Nickname = "handsome brute" I sure hope so, because you have nothing going for you in the intellect department, and it would be tragic to have nothing else going for you.
    1
  12665. A) Secure the scene first, CPR second, unless you want cops to need the exact same medical aid as Mark did. B) Yes, I agree about the CPR not being great. C) As a medical professional, do you really think the guy was going to survive an upper chest hit like that? I'm assuming it was a .40 round, right? He stopped talking 20 seconds after being shot, and stopped moving 10 seconds after that, and was turning even more pale than he already was to begin with.
    1
  12666. Oh, spare the world, seriously. He was DEAD. You know it. I know it. Good grief. This wasn't "just" a gunshot wound. He was done in 30 seconds.
    1
  12667. Can you even listen to yourself? Good gods.
    1
  12668. "Why not any astronauts try to retell the story or write a book" Is this a joke? Are you truly not aware of the number of books written by the astronauts, nor the hundreds of interviews they gave? What in the world is wrong with you?
    1
  12669. Why would you think this arrest led to her suicide? Because Inside Edition asked the question?
    1
  12670. No. They asked the question and never answered it. And, regardless, sorry you blindly believe nonsense.
    1
  12671. Yes, dewdrop. Read some of it. Start with the fact that nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive, which completely negates the first message you posted.
    1
  12672. There were multiple callers. And, would you say the same if they called about a guy cranking at the playground? Don't call? Just let him be?
    1
  12673. Wow, did you not watch the video? What in the world are you talking about? The crime was being in the park at night. You can get arrested for that. But, the law is generous and gives you the option of getting out of an arrest by signing the ticket to acknowledge that you'll appear in court and/or pay the fines. You can avoid being arrested by signing for that option. If you refuse to sign for that option, then it goes right back to being arrested. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?
    1
  12674. That's proper for an infraction, but, this was a crime. For a crime, they really don't have that level of discretion.
    1
  12675. "It´s unsettling why space telescopes that reach far in the galaxy actually are blind to see the moon surface." Distance and resolution are not the same thing. Telescopes have no trouble with distance. Telescopes have trouble with resolution. There's a well understood concept in physics called "optical resolution" (it's a modern subset of the old Dawes' limit). Photons of light interfere with each other in transit, and the only way you can see items with higher resolution than Dawes' limit allows is by making the lens bigger. You can use the well understood formulas to calculate the size of the lens you'd need in order to see [whatever] resolution. In the case of the Apollo lander on the moon, it would require a lens about 75 feet in diameter to see it as just a dot. You wouldn't know what it was, it would just be a dot. In order to start to make out enough details to see that it's an Apollo lander, it would require a lens about a quarter mile in diameter. (The largest lens in existence is 5 feet in diameter, and costed $168 million to build, so, we're pretty far away from quarter mile lenses.) Don't believe me? Do the math yourself. I normally don't recommend Wiki for learning anything, because too much is wrong. But, Wiki has a nice little article on "optical resolution" which includes the formula to calculate lens size required. Be my guest. Do the math for yourself. Then, come back here and decide how "unsettling" it is that we don't have quarter mile wide telescope lenses. "The moon landing forgery is another crime against human history" No, dewdrop. The crime here is your slander/libel. "that equals religious beliefs" No, dewdrop. There's a mountain of evidence for Apollo, confirmed across dozens of countries with dozens of different mechanisms. No religion has anything like that. "that cannot stay dogmatic and unchallenged." FINE!!! But, if you're going to challenge it, then do so with something that actually makes sense. Thus far, your "objection" is that you think there should be telescopes that can see the Apollo stuff on the moon. This isn't a "challenge." This is only because you don't understand the physics of light. I mean, good grief, why do you suppose there aren't any physicists anywhere on the planet making this objection of yours? Do you think you're the first person in history who ever thought of pointing a telescope at the moon? Shheeeesssssshhhh. Get real. I mean, you're welcome to challenge Apollo all you want. But, if you're going to do that, maybe you need to first learn something about the topic you're challenging, huh? "This must be seen with reason and not with emotion." Being "unsettled" isn't an emotion? You opened your entire comment with an emotion!!! Good grief. "If you believe in it, it is faith not science." The irony. I wouldn't know how to be more backward, even if I tried.
    1
  12676. It's all about the bass the bass the bass, no trouble.
    1
  12677. And, I wonder, if it was a man at a playground, would you say the same? Just pack up and go to a different playground?
    1
  12678.  @ASMRaholic  No, I wouldn't. I don't know how I'd stop it. Freedom of Information Act, you know. But, that had nothing to do with her suicide, because the arrest video wasn't made public until 2.5 years later, which was also 1.5 years after she died. So, the arrest video had absolutely nothing to do with her death.
    1
  12679.  @ASMRaholic  Well, it certainly wasn't her only arrest. She had other arrests for stealing cars and public drunkenness. But, anyway, I feel that I should emphasize that, again, I wouldn't post the video. I would have no desire to drag a woman's name in the mud merely for ad revenue. But, again, I just don't know how to stop it from happening, given the Freedom of Information Act. It doesn't require faces to be blurred.
    1
  12680. And, you think there's a jury of 12 anywhere in the country that would award money to the family of the armed guy wearing a ski mask in the middle of a Kentucky summer, prancing up to police, and pointing a gun at the cop's head? Really? You think you can find 12 jurors who think like you do?
    1
  12681. It's simple, this falls under general relativity (no, not Einstein's ridiculously wrong model, but actual fact of relativity). Lasers are just as subject to it as anything else.
    1
  12682. It's Shepard, not Shepherd. And, he hit two golf balls, not one.
    1
  12683. Well, those are nice suggestions. But, keep in mind, the store never accused anyone. It never got that far. They suspected, and asked the cop to investigate, but never actually accused.
    1
  12684. No, she didn't even appear in court, let alone was there any conviction.
    1
  12685. So, you believe they "faked" 7000 surface photos, and 110,000 orbital photos? What?
    1
  12686. @Andre YOU SAID: "You made this just up." == Sadly, no, he didn't make it up. In some of the conspiracy videos, some of the "evidence" they present is the testimony of an old woman in Australia who claimed she saw a Coke can/bottle on the surface of the moon on the TV broadcast. No, she didn't have any special television connection to out-of-band broadcasting. No, she didn't have access to any behind-the-scenes stuff. Her actual claim was that she was watching the very same TV broadcast as millions of others were watching, and she saw a Coke can/bottle. And, conspiracy believers will attach themselves to any viewpoint that supports their delusions, no matter how ridiculous, and this is merely one of those examples. One old woman out of millions of viewers (watching the same exact thing) said she saw a Coke can/bottle, therefore Apollo was fake. Tangible evidence? No, of course not. Because an old woman in Australia thought she saw a Coke can/bottle, it's a conspiracy.
    1
  12687. And, Lance Armstrong never took performance enhancing drugs.
    1
  12688. C'mon Margie, you can figure it out, can't you? Think about it. Wouldn't you say that the woman got mad because they asked for her receipt, then did everything in her power to escalate this into a lawsuit?
    1
  12689.  @willbenton6419  YOU SAID: "2 people that've been boosted in the last week at my job; one had a seizure yesterday and the other had asthma attacks over the weekend." == Um, so? There's no mechanism for a vaccine booster to cause those things. Cold weather causes increased asthma attacks. Seizures have absolutely nothing to do with vaccines boosters. Coincidences do happen. The entire medical community across the entire globe has never found any indication that boosters cause the things you're talking about. If your car's radio burns out, and you get a flat tire the next day, did the car radio cause the flat tire?
    1
  12690.  @sps3r654  YOU SAID: "some of these people skipped waaayyy too many days of grade school" == They've substituted an actual education for their advanced degrees from YouTube University.
    1
  12691.  @user-bg2oi4bz3p  You can spew your nonsense until the cows come home. It doesn't make it true. Your ignorance bleeds through every word you type. If you think "most countries" are not affected by COVID, then you are out of touch with reality. "Most countries" do not have the testing and tracking that 1st world countries have. And, "most countries" do not have the massive amount of traveling that 1st world countries have. For example, it's no mystery about why Ghana would have fewer COVID cases than 1st world countries might have. There aren't many people going in and out of Ghana every day. And, they have extremely strict travel and vaccination policies. Compare that to the USA, with 45,000 flights per day, and relaxed COVID policies. What do you expect to happen? You want to "put two and two together"?? Alright, you can do that. There are about 30,000 medical journals worldwide, and you're welcome to supply your calculations and proof of your assertions. YouTube comments is where crackpots and clowns go to profess their anti-science gibberish. Meanwhile, we have the entire medical community around the world at our fingertips in the medical journals. THAT is where you should be publishing your "two plus two" logic. Show the world what you know. Publish in a medical journal. Show the world why the entire planet's medical community is wrong. By the way, when you write up your COVID medical journal paper, you might not want to compare countries that test people constantly with those that don't. Kind of makes you look silly. Nobody gets tested for the flu, dummy. If you get it, and you see a doctor, and get treatment, yes, it gets documented. But, if you think that's the same as COVID testing, you're just going to get laughed out the door at any medical journal you attempt to publish in. The countries that test people constantly will result in higher numbers. The countries that don't test will result in lower numbers. It means nothing when it comes to the actual contagiousness of the disease, nor the fatality rates. Those are different concepts. Good luck with your submissions to the medical journals. Clearly, you think you know more than the entire planet's experts. So, you can prove you're right via the scientific method in the medical journals, right?
    1
  12692. Even with her mile long record, time spent in prison, million other arrests, open warrants, etc., it's extremely doubtful that she'd be placed on any lists over this offense. This is easily negotiated down to a minor infraction. But, as usual (for her), she didn't show up at court to negotiate anything.
    1
  12693. He put on a balaclava ski mask in the middle of a Kentucky summer, pulled out a gun, and opened the door of a car, pointed the gun, at a friend?
    1
  12694. @Bendel Wolide How is anything you just said a response to anything I stated or questioned? Did you even read it? Or, did you just ignore 90% of it, and write this response of yours?
    1
  12695. @Bendel Wolide You don't answer anything I asked... but you want me to keep answering you?
    1
  12696. @Bendel Wolide You didn't answer a single question I put forth. I seriously doubt you even read anything I wrote. So, I'm not going to answer your questions when you refuse to answer mine.
    1
  12697. Again, proof positive that deniers NEVER fact-check claims made in denier videos. A denier video claims Armstrong never gave an interview, and bingo, the followers eat it up like candy, never once actually checking to see if it's true. The irony, of course, is that the dewdrops accuse SANE people of blindly believing everything WE see. Meanwhile, "why didn't Armstrong give an interview" --- who is it that blindly swallows anything?
    1
  12698. "we were able to jetison them through the safest area." For most of the missions, that's true. They skirted around the outside edges of the inner belt (the worst one). But, they went right through the middle on Apollo 14 (and it shows from their dosimeter records). In fact, it really wouldn't matter either way (whether they went through the middle or skirted around the edges) but, they had the fuel and the trajectories, and the moon was in the right position, to fling the craft around most of it for all but one mission, so, they did.
    1
  12699. "I can't remember the year or which crew. I only know it happened." So, you don't know the details, therefore nobody does?
    1
  12700. "one of the space shuttle trips. They flew within 200 miles or 2000. I can't remember. But they were fully in their flight suits and helmets, visors on. The entire crew became I'll." Wow, with iron clad evidence like that, you've really found a smoking gun!! Good grief. You can't remember details. You don't know why they got sick. You don't know the distances. Yet, this is your evidence that the entire planet's experts are wrong about Apollo?
    1
  12701. "And they returned back to iss, where they were treated for radiation sickness." There were no missions that the space shuttle went up into the Van Allen belts then came back down to the ISS. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
    1
  12702. "Nasa's position today, Nov 20, 2024, that they don't know how to safely traverse the van allen belts." Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. Cite a single paper, written by anybody at NASA, making that claim. Can you?
    1
  12703. "Which are larger than 1960s data showed." No, dewdrop. As a matter of fact, the early data is exactly why they were concerned that trips to the moon would be impossible. The early readings showed radiation levels that would mean a fatal dose in a week or two. They originally thought the Vah Allen radiation was everywhere in deep space, not just confined to belts. They thought that a mission lasting a week would be pretty harmful, if not fatal. But, as time went on, they gathered more and more data, showing that the belts were a lot smaller than the early data showed, and that the inner belt is the only one that can't be easily shielded. The outer belt is less harmful, and aluminum is a fine shield. And, the third belt hasn't been seen since 2013.
    1
  12704. "the pix with Nixon was staged" As opposed to what? Yes, of course they knew they'd be photographing the president with the astronauts. It's staged?
    1
  12705. "What people watched on their tvs of first steps live, were not." Oh, and that's a "small truth"? Really? It's not because you watched a conspiracy video that pointed out that they used an NTSC converter to adapt the picture to the international standard format, thus delaying it by a fraction of a second. And, now, the makers of those silly videos are implying that this somehow means it wasn't "live" because of the delay of the conversion machine by a couple of refresh cycles of a television signal?
    1
  12706. "It was a photo or video of the alleged original film" No, it was a video of a video. It's exactly as I said. You are intentionally misunderstanding. The live feed was not in NTSC format, it was a slow-scan low resolution picture, with a format not understood by any commercial television. In order for any television on the planet to show the picture, it needed to be converted to NTSC. That's the thing you dewdrops are complaining about? Because they needed to put it through a machine that took video of the video in order to convert the signal? As opposed to what? Requiring everyone on Earth to buy a non-standard television in order to watch?
    1
  12707. "cbs had to play on whatever device they had, and then film it, and that film from CBS is what the world watched." No. ALL of the networks had the same problem. So, they ran it through the one converter in Parkes, Australia, and then ALL networks were given the NTSC feed.
    1
  12708. "The lunar lander never worked on earth." Correct, dewdrop. At last, you've said something correct. The rest of your sentences were total nonsense. But, why is this [correct] sentence even an issue for you? How can they get a craft that weighs 33,500 pounds to fly when the engine only generates 10,500 pounds of thrust? See, in lunar gravity (1/6th of Earth's), it's not a problem, because the engine still generates the same maximum thrust, but the craft weighs a lot less. So, please explain how/why it's even an issue for you that they didn't/couldn't fly the craft on Earth?
    1
  12709. "People who worked on the Apollo program have come out and said we never went" I only know of one, and he didn't work on Apollo for very long. Bill Kaysing (he's actually featured in this video). He was an errand boy and writer for Rocketdyne, and left the company to go "find himself" long before the first F1 engine was produced for the Saturn V. So what? He wasn't an engineer, knew nothing whatsoever about rocketry, and he went off to live in a trailer with 30 cats. Do you know of anybody besides him? Why would you make such an outlandish claim without naming whoever you're talking about?
    1
  12710. "I respect your belief" All I'm saying is that the thousands of people who dedicated a decade of their lives to the program are actually criminals who would be sent to prison for the rest of their lives if I was correct. And, I don't know details, I don't know one mission from another, I can't remember, but, there's something about a shuttle and the ISS and some sick astronauts for a mission that couldn't have happened the way I described it, but, yeah, I've come to slander thousands of people on the basis of some silly stuff I saw on YouTube that I don't understand. But, I respect your belief.
    1
  12711. "they didn't fly to the moon in a tin can" Oh, you definitely know a lot about aerospace engineering.
    1
  12712. "I absolutely believe they were rocketed into space" Therefore what? The "tin" works in space, but, not if that space happens to be near the moon?
    1
  12713. "but they flew in low earth orbit until it was time to splash down" Then explain the dozens of countries that tracked the missions to the moon and back with radar and radio telescopes (including enemies). Explain why South Korea, India, and China have probes in orbit around the moon right now (in addition to USA's) that have taken photographs of the lunar landers still sitting on the lunar surface. How do you explain these things?
    1
  12714. "I'm hoping buzz aldrin will speak" He has spoken a million times over. He's the one who punched the charlatan who was accusing him of lying. How many times must he repeat the same message?
    1
  12715.  @stusue9733  "And if memory serves(which it often doesn't) Parkes image was converted at Honeysuckle." Well, thanks for the clarification. I would have assumed they had converters at each of the stations. But, I'm wrong every day, and will have to see if there are more details.
    1
  12716. Huh? How would you have handled it instead?
    1
  12717. Why are you still living in your mother's basement?
    1
  12718. Just checking here: you do know that virtually nobody even knew about this arrest while she was alive, right? You do know that this is just a highly modified and falsely skewed story by Inside Edition, right?
    1
  12719. What in the world are you talking about? What does the body cam have to do with anything? Not even this woman's team of attorneys found anything wrong with the actions of the police officer.
    1
  12720. No, one shoe fell off.
    1
  12721. Yes, little flakes of stuff often came off of the landing craft. In this example, it's likely a loose piece of mylar or something like that, which was blown off when an RCS thruster was fired. But, your guess is as good as mine.
    1
  12722. TRANSLATION: "So, I'm only half crazy."
    1
  12723.  @randyschissler5791  A bit oversimplified, but, for his purposes, close enough.
    1
  12724.  @bakervapor4143  Nope. The cop is under no obligation to watch tapes, check register logs, etc. This is already true as-is. But, deeper than that, if the cop cannot even get the woman to identify herself, and all she's going to do is obstruct, then he's doubly not going to help her. His obligation is to determine if there's reasonable suspicion and probable cause.
    1
  12725. Sure, keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, you've got a couple of drunken teens who went back to the pool at night after it was closed, with blood alcohol so high that they could start a car engine from an IV in their arm. But, yeah, it must be the fault of the 5-star hotel.
    1
  12726. Because a YouTube video said so. So, you believed it.
    1
  12727. The Bush era "get a free truck from the taxpayers" perks for company owners has to stop. However, the bottom 50% pay zero income tax. If you believe that company owners aren't paying tax either, where do taxes come from? Media cherry picks ONE tax category and says "look, he pays less than his secretary!" But, what about: ad valorem, capital gain, replacement, AMT, personal income, business, social security, medicare, sales, unemployment, etc. In reality, the top 5% pay 95% of the total taxes.
    1
  12728. Do you understand Dawes' limit or the Rayleigh criterion (basically the same concept stated a couple of different ways)? You cannot "magnify" or "zoom" photons that aren't there. Not because the craft aren't on the moon. But, because the photons interfere with each other in transit, meaning the photons do not arrive in your telescope, rendering the level of resolution you're asking for as completely impossible. The only way around this issue is to build a bigger lens (because then the photons are sufficiently far enough apart to be captured by a telescope. You routinely demonstrate that you have zero understanding of these things, and prefer to just deny Apollo because you don't understand it, so, I'll just skip to the end and do the math for you that you're unable to do yourself. A telescope's lens that would be capable of giving you the images you want would need to be a quarter mile in diameter (for the very basics), or about 6 miles in diameter (for more detail). The largest lens ever constructed costed $168 million to manufacture, and is 5 feet in diameter. There's a long way to go before you'll have a lens the size you need to do what you're asking.
    1
  12729. Is that what you do? You see a suspicious car, and instead of calling the police, you put on a ski mask and point a gun at the occupant?
    1
  12730. Well, technically, Tesla was busted for their accounting practices around 8 or 10 years ago....
    1
  12731. Every word you wrote is comically misinformed. Every single word. Special emphasis on the fact that the PD prevented the release of the video for 2.5 years, until the Freedom of Information Act request required it. Note also that they have never released the video of the actual "event" (the show she put on in public) due to content.
    1
  12732. She experienced nearly zero shame for this incident, because it never went viral until long after she was dead. (She died 2 years ago, you know.) She hadn't really had a relationship with her family in about a decade, when she walked out in favor of living a life of drugs and crime. She was so estranged from everyone that her body was left rotting away until her landlord went into her apartment looking for the overdue rent. Nobody even knew she was missing.
    1
  12733. Huh? They should make it by 60 years later.
    1
  12734. Huh? The cops would be perfectly justified in immediately shooting the guy carrying the gun. Instead, they begged him to put it down. What EXACTLY are you proposing instead? Police must wait to get shot before being allowed to shoot? How much time is there between raising your arm and pulling the trigger? Do you think cops are obligated to only shoot in that fraction of a second of time?
    1
  12735. And, when they say that they didn't release the arrest video until 2.5 years later, and she was long dead by then, what happens to your suit? And, when they explain that the Freedom of Information Act required them to release it, because the case was closed, and they could no longer block its release, then what happens to your suit? And, when they explain that the video of the incident itself remains blocked from release due to content, what happens to your suit? Did you get your law degree from YouTube University?
    1
  12736. John, there was no scrambling of the signals. Even backyard amateurs could aim their dishes/Yagi at the moon and listen to Apollo audio. It was just plain old basic analog. The video wasn't scrambled in any way either, it was just straight analog TV. But, yeah, you'd need to know the formatting of the signal (how many lines/rows of resolution). I'm not sure if the Soviets ever tuned in to the video. They might or might not have. But, they could tell there was a carrier signal coming from the moon. Furthermore, they tracked the missions with radar. There's no known mechanism to keep a radar bounce-back secret... hence why, today, there's so much effort being put into radar absorbing materials for fighter planes, and deflecting radar at odd angles. Why? Because still today, we have no idea how to keep a radar bounce-back from happening (i.e. radar is NOT secret).
    1
  12737. Dewdrop, are you under the impression that as soon as the sunlight hits an object, BING, it's 220 degrees? And, as soon as it goes into shadow, BING, it's -222? It takes A WEEK for the lunar surface to heat up. A WEEK. It's about 177 hours (a week) from sunrise on the moon until the lunar surface gets to 220 degrees. The astronauts were never there for a high noon. They were never there for an overnight.
    1
  12738. No, dewdrop. They didn't get sick. You don't know what you're talking about. I mean, just a couple of months ago, 4 astronauts went into the worst areas of the Van Allen belts on a 5 day mission. Are they sick?
    1
  12739. "Why has it taken this long for me to finally debunk everything about the moon landing" Huh? You're asking people who don't even know you to name why you didn't do something? What? "Since there’s so much footage of the astronauts jumping around on the moon why was there not 1 shred of evidence or footage of launch and journey" Is this a joke? You've never seen videos of the launch or journey? "from start to finish to the moon." You mean like running the camera constantly? Um, because they didn't have cameras that could do that, nor radios? As the Earth rotates under them, the signal must traverse from station to station. They couldn't just run a constant video. But, they did it often enough. And, sorry, but they really weren't interested in taking video of astronauts going to the bathroom, sleeping, changing in and out of their suits, etc. And, frankly, the camera and power systems were not designed to just run constantly anyway. And, for much of the journey, they were doing what's known as a "barbeque roll" (a slow rolling of the craft) relative to sun position, which means that the S-band dish wasn't going to stay perfectly aligned for video the entire time anyway. When they ran video, they'd nullify the roll of the craft, aim the dishes, and turn the camera on. What difference does that make to you? Why are you asking these questions, if you've already come to your conclusions? This is just "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." "Space race was not won by America" So, let me get this straight... you don't know why they did or didn't run cameras every single second, you have no understanding of that topic, yet, you feel confident enough to believe you know enough about the topic to label it as fake? What's wrong with you? "instead it was a race full of lies and deception." Yet, the best you could come up with was "why didn't they run video constantly?" "Shameful and an embarrassment on human history." No, the shame and embarrassment comes when you look into the mirror.
    1
  12740. Dewdrop, what fuel are you talking about? Why are batteries relevant? Do batteries develop thrust? Have you never heard of a free return trajectory?
    1
  12741. So, you can't answer simple questions, and just say "nuh uh" instead? Dewdrop, why are you here? Why are you not publishing your version of orbital mechanics in physics journals, if you think every single rocket scientist on the planet is wrong?
    1
  12742. So, after I just commented that you refuse to answer return questions, and just keep asking your own fake questions, what did you do? You refused to answer return questions, and asked a fake question again. Sorry, dewdrop, I already know you've been given the answer to that radio controlled camera question numerous times already. You've asked it about 30x in the last 24 hours across multiple videos. Maybe you should read the answers, instead of automatically rejecting it, and pretending you know more than the entire planet's communications engineers.
    1
  12743. Well, everyone is legally allowed to defend themselves from armed attackers. But, yes, it would be "imagination" to believe that everyone is capable of doing it so quickly, like the officer did.
    1
  12744. Yes, the family took video. But, I don't think it was ever made public. They showed it to the police, who wrote about it in their report, though.
    1
  12745. Of too have been of returning because of have of of.
    1
  12746. He just got out of prison and is now running for president in 2024.
    1
  12747. You do know that there was video of the incident, right? You don't actually think that a 1 minute video is enough to form an opinion, do you? You think you understand this topic better than the 3 police officers?
    1
  12748. So, with your 1 minute of knowledge, you know she was a convicted felon who served time in prison and had a million various arrests, and open warrants, right? And, you know there was video of the incident, which directly contradicts her notion about nobody being around, right? And, you know her landlord said she was a stripper, and her neighbors said she did "extras" for cash out of her apartment. Tell me, where's your money on this one? Was she the innocent soccer mom Inside Edition is presenting? Or, was she making "public beach" content?
    1
  12749. Icee Vice: YOU SAID: "People in the comments are so misguided and it’s disgusting to see them accept this. It’s pathetic that they believe the justice to be had for a murderer is to murder them, that’s absurd and wrong." == Hey, I personally don't care that much about the death penalty vs. life imprisonment. But, when people willfully take the lives of others, they've sacrificed their own rights to life in the process. YOU SAID: "People who support the glorified murder that is death row are nothing more than heartless murderers themselves." == And, you can write this with a straight face? You can honestly sit there and say that people who support the death penalty are on equal footing as the cold-blooded murderers who put themselves onto death row? When your "argument" sinks to that level, such that you believe people who support capital punishment are on equal footing as the heartless murderers on death row... yeah... you've lost, you're done, nothing you can say after that can be taken seriously in any way. If you can't tell the difference between law abiding citizens vs. cold blooded murderers, yeah, your brain has been flushed down the toilet. YOU SAID: "You think the death row is above murder, you believe they have just cause to take life from another person." == Yes. YOU SAID: "No person or government should have the right to take another’s life despite how heinous a crime." == Fine. That's a valid position that can be held. But, again, if you can't tell the difference between a law abiding citizen and a cold blooded murderer, let's face reality here, your thinking faculties aren't exactly functioning, are they? YOU SAID: "This isn’t justice, this has a foul taste of revenge." == Reductionist arguments aren't worth anything. YOU SAID: "Victim’s loved ones finding solace in more death, how grotesque. And the government allowing it, that’s even more despicable. They shamelessly kill. There’s a higher power that’ll judge all of you for your odious morals." == And, that's religion for you... look what it's done to your brain.
    1
  12750.  @iceevice  As I said, your thinking faculties are completely gone. YOU SAID: "Yeah you’re one of the sick people who support murder" == You don't even know the definition of the words you're using. Capital punishment is NOT defined as "murder." YOU SAID: "murder with an audience." == See, this is exactly demonstrating your mind slipping into insanity. I never once mentioned anything about an audience. I didn't even use the word "audience." This is a figment of your imagination going amok. YOU SAID: "Murder that the government agrees to. Yes, if you believe someone who kills and someone who watches the killing and looks at it like “they deserve it” shouldn’t be or isn’t on the same terms of guilt you’re blind." == Oh, the irony. You cannot distinguish the difference between cold blooded murderers, vs. legal capital punishment after the killers on death row have had their trials and appeals and juries, etc. The fact that you think these are "the same terms" just demonstrates your insanity. YOU SAID: "Look what religion has done to my brain?" == Yup. YOU SAID: "Because I have good morals and I know it’s disgusting and wrong to murder people." == You don't even know the definitions of the words you're using. YOU SAID: "Oh yes it’s trifled my brain, you’re completely mad." == Your hypocrisy and projection are stunning. YOU SAID: "People like you make me ashamed of humanity." == Better look in that mirror. YOU SAID: "You seem passionate about this topic" == Hilarious. My OPENING WORDS in this thread stated that I don't care that much about the death penalty vs. life imprisonment. Apathy is the EXACT OPPOSITE of being passionate. Your brain clearly doesn't function any longer. YOU SAID: "I’d think you’d have a better outlook. You’re probably one of those victims looking for some distasteful revenge" == Victim of what? What the hell are you talking about? Do you think I'm dead, and typing on my keyboard from the grave? YOU SAID: "I can’t believe there can be people so cold-hearted and delusional." == You are illustrating your insanity quite clearly. Sorry, but accepting the fact that killers have waived their own rights when they killed people... is not being "cold-hearted." And, as for delusions, wow, your projection and hypocrisy persists. YOU SAID: "You tell me that when I say “no person or government should have the right to take another’s life despite how heinous a crime” that you think it’s fine, then there it is." == Yeah, you have every right to hold that position. The rest of the world is not required to hold that position. YOU SAID: "A ‘law abiding citizen’ that says yes to heartless murder is a foul human being with twisted morals." == Well, thankfully nobody gives a crap about YOUR morals. You do not get to decide the world's morals. YOU SAID: "Any person in their right mind can say murder in any form is wrong, especially ones that are made a spectacle of like those on death row. I’ve been unfortunate enough to be present at a sentence, peace is impossible. I’ll rephrase the real issue. Glorified murder in a misguided attempt to exact justice or take revenge is revolting, shamelessly taking lives under the safety coat of law and justice is detestable, it’s spiteful killing in a so called claim to make peace is foul. I don’t know what you hoped to gain by trying to strike me down" == Hey, YOU were the one who came here to preach your insanity to the world. Don't blame others for responding. YOU SAID: "but I can soundly say I have better morals than you." == Says who? YOU? Nobody cares what you think. YOU SAID: "No one deserves death, not even a criminal and it’s wrong to think anyone is allowed to make that decision." == Hey, you can choose to support the lives of convicted killers all you want. Nobody cares. Thankfully for the rest of the world, your insanity does not affect anybody but yourself.
    1
  12751.  @iceevice  Good grief. Seek mental care, seriously. Your mind is completely gone.
    1
  12752.  @iceevice  Good gods, what an idiot. Hey, dumbass, you're not exactly "friendly" yourself. Hey, dumbass, have you looked at your own replies? Good grief. I replied directly, line-by-line, to your posts, addressing each item. I offered questions/challenges, many of which were completely ignored. Your replies have been a broken mess of disorganized nonsense. And, you have the audacity to think **I** am hysterical, while you sit there and write out disjointed crazy replies, 6 in a row??? Good grief. Your mind is lost. You can scream at the wind all you want. Nobody gives a damn about your stupid sense of morality. Ethics (which are often confused for morality, but are not the same) are far more important than morals. Your morals are useless to anybody but yourself. And, you're completely insane. My main point was that you are off of your rocker because you cannot distinguish between a cold blooded murderer, vs. the state giving murderers trials/appeals, and being found guilty by juries, and then capital punishment. To you, it's the same. And, if you can't see the difference (which you obviously cannot), your mind is lost. So, what do you do? You scream at the wind, trying to claim that YOUR sense of morals is superior to the rest of the world's morals. Well, la tee da. You can join the ranks of people screaming at the wind, claiming that cows are demigods, and that it's equivalent to cold blooded murder if I eat a steak (or in their minds, worse than murder). You can join the ranks of people screaming at the wind, claiming that premarital sex is a sin. You can join the ranks of people screaming at the wind, claiming that it's evil to own a gun for self defense. You can join the ranks of people screaming at the wind, claiming that it's immoral to eat shellfish, or to work on Sunday, because a particular holy book says so. Nobody gives a crap what your dysfunctional morals tell you. Your opinions are invalid, as has been displayed by your complete lack of ability to read words correctly, or even to understand the definitions of the words you use. No, dumbass, capital punishment is not "murder." The word "murder" has a definition already, which doesn't include capital punishment. Yet, you apparently choose to reject the rest of the world's mutually agreed upon definitions of words, just to suit your agenda. That's called INSANITY. You have lost your marbles.
    1
  12753.  @iceevice  Thanks for proving my point, dumbass.
    1
  12754. Good gods, man. You've got much bigger problems in life than worrying about silly conspiracies you don't even come close to understanding. You couldn't (and didn't) write a single coherent sentence in your entire rant. And, absolutely nothing you attempted to write was correct. Sheeeshhh. Go back to 2nd grade and work your way back up. Good grief.
    1
  12755. 1) The issue being talked about isn't technology. It's a matter of fundamentals. It takes 100 pounds of batteries to produce the same amount of energy as a single pound of diesel fuel. And, when you need to lug around that kind of weight just in batteries, it's a fundamental issue of how much weight you're allowed to carry in cargo. You might not care if a Hummer EV weighs 10,500 pounds, but, when you get into the trucking industry, yeah, weight matters. 2) So, you're talking about a 2nd gen or 3rd gen battery that will be lighter? Huh? Lithium ion batteries are as light as it gets for any known metallic substance. Have you looked at the periodic table of elements lately? Lithium is #3. The only elements lighter are hydrogen and helium (#1 and #2). I mean, not that you couldn't maybe cram more electrons into some sort of heavier metal or something... though, I can't imagine how... without basically turning it into a bomb... but, I'll leave that to you. There's a Nobel Prize with your name on it if you can pull it off... not to mention that you'd probably become the world's first trillionaire. But, whatever. Sorry, you don't get to just sit there and declare that there will be lighter batteries, just because your imagination says so. But, the true irony is that the Tesla 4680 battery, the one that's supposed to revolutionize batteries, because it can be charged and discharged more quickly, actually weighs MORE than the conventional counterparts. Why? Because they had to stick a ton more metal connection points inside the battery roll in order to do it. That's how they did it. They took a conventional battery roll, and added a whole bunch of copper to make hundreds of connections into the roll where there used to be only 2. So, now, you can stuff the energy into the roll quicker, and drain it out quicker. But, it's going in the exact opposite direction as you're saying. They're getting HEAVIER, not lighter. 3) Higher energy density? How? When you have to add all of that extra copper to make them charge and discharge faster, you do realize you're REDUCING the energy density, right? Sorry, blindly drawing an analogy to other industries doesn't magically produce batteries that don't exist. Cramming more electrons into a molecular lattice doesn't mean it's going to be chemically stable (or even possible). Batteries aren't some sort of new technology that just came out 50 years ago, and we're still trying to evolve them, or figure out how they work, you know. This is a well understood and well established industry. And, the only reason the 4680 never existed before was BECAUSE they wanted to keep the batteries simple and lighter and cheaper, and there really weren't any battery applications that needed ultra fast charging and discharging. Why am I wasting my time on this? You clearly don't even know how a battery works.
    1
  12756. So, basically, you don't have the foggiest clue how a battery works, and you're just counting on "the future" to make your dreams come true. Yaaaay!!! Buy some shares in Tesla!! Cult member.
    1
  12757. I can't help people who are proud to be stupid.
    1
  12758. Multiple callers. One of them recorded it and gave the video to the police.
    1
  12759. "I’m just calling it as I see it." Yeah. That's what I'm talking about. What "you see" is so far from reality that you're really not doing your demographic any favors. I mean, don't worry, I'm not judging the entirety of your demographic. I judge each individual separately. But, for those out there that do judge an entire demographic as a lump sum, well, sorry, but all you're doing is dragging your demographic down.
    1
  12760. It would be natural selection if he died BEFORE having children.
    1
  12761. Huh? What do you know that her own high profile attorney didn't know? He knew there was no case against the cops, hence he never filed one. What EXACT rights do you think the cop violated?
    1
  12762. Yeah, Carl, the entirety of the world's aerospace engineers and rocket scientists are "asleep," and barely literate high school dropouts know better. Sure.
    1
  12763.  @michaelstillman1171  "How many 300 lb astronauts were there?" All of them (if you include the PLSS and suit and stuff). Actually edging up toward 400 pounds. "What type of clown would jump very high and risk possible injury or death from landing improperly on the Moon?" Charlie Duke and John Young.
    1
  12764. "You clearly do NOT understand the moon's 1/6 the gravity of earth!" I understood that decades before you were born. "You would not fall down on the moon, you would float down!" Do the math. Demonstrate that the trajectories and acceleration were wrong in any Apollo video (except the ones shot at a low frame rate then sped up, of course). Don't just sit here on YouTube and pretend to know things you don't.
    1
  12765. Are you ever going to address ANYTHING written to you, dewdrop? Or, are you going to just continue to spew nonsense?
    1
  12766. But, this had nothing to do with her death. None of this was made public until 1.5 years after she died.
    1
  12767. And, do you think she was trying to avoid the Taser shot? Seems awfully obvious to me (especially since she repeatedly asked to be Tased) that she WANTED to get Taser shot... almost undoubtedly to bolster a lawsuit.
    1
  12768. First of all, the Freedom of Information Act disagrees with you. Secondly, they blocked the release of the arrest video for 2.5 years. This incident was from July 1, 2021. Her suicide was in March of 2022. But, eventually, once the investigation was closed long enough, they could no longer block it. So, it was released on November 24, 2023.
    1
  12769. Do you even know the difference between an infraction and a crime? Speeding = infraction. Fishing without a license = infraction. But, indecent exposure = misdemeanor crime. You get arrested for a crime. You get a ticket for an infraction.
    1
  12770. "My 2 cents" is your nickname? Yeah, I think you've overestimated quite a bit.
    1
  12771. When you feel the need to lie to support your incoherent gibberish, sorry, you've already lost.
    1
  12772. Well, that's the problem, you cannot actually know that there are no firearms. Since firearms exist, it's always possible that the intruder has one.
    1
  12773. Magic, you clearly know nothing about the legal system, nor what happened in this case. Stop pretending you do.
    1
  12774. Well, the key problem is that the deniers aren't actually questioning anything. They're PRETENDING to question. They have absolutely no interest in the answers.
    1
  12775. 1) She wasn't shamed. The arrest video wasn't made public until she was dead for 1.5 years. 2) She probably didn't even know what the word "shame" would even mean. According to her landlord, she was a stripper who put on shows like this all the time. 3) She should be pretty used to being arrested by this point. She served a felony prison term. She had an arrest record a mile long. Open warrants. Numerous charges and judgements for various thefts and crimes. Drug and alcohol. You name it.
    1
  12776. An officer is under no obligation to investigate registers or videos. The officer determines if there's enough reasonable suspicion of a crime, and performs the arrest. That's it. With the store employee telling him that she stole, and her refusal to cooperate or provide a receipt, that's enough reasonable suspicion of the crime. The rest is up to the courts to determine guilt or innocence. And, sure, she has a right to be offended, ok, whatever. But, personally, when people ask me to prove I bought something, I thank them for trying to control the losses, and to catch people. I know they aren't 100% correct 100% of the time. But, if people relax their standards to the point that they need 100% certainty before investigating whether someone might have stolen, then these stores would almost never stop anybody from stealing. Yes, the price of being cautious is that sometimes a false accusation is made. But, it's better than the reverse, when the store never accuses anybody, and criminals get away with it all the time.
    1
  12777.  @RaphaelAshanti  Yeah, and he articulated it. So what? He said that the store suspected she might have stolen. That's articulating it. Why are you getting hung up on a word that makes no difference for your viewpoint? And, frankly, I have no understanding whatsoever about what the sentence, "reasonable suspicion alone is not a misdemeanor nor felony" means. It's not a crime to suspect things. That's what suspicion is. Why would I think that a cop's suspicion is a felony or misdemeanor? And, the courts are where the videos can be presented. The cops don't often go view tapes before making an arrest. Yes, they check the tapes all the time, but, that's usually after the arrest, while preparing to prosecute. The cops usually leave those details up to the courts/prosecutors/store. Again, the cop just determines if there's enough suspicion that a crime took place. The cop isn't the judge and jury. I mean, there's no coincidence that the people who hold your viewpoint are also the very same ones who write at a 2nd grade level. "Camera's"? Like, you think you make words plural by adding an apostrophe or something? Suspicion isn't a crime? Like, huh? Who ever said it was? This is why it's so difficult. If you can't even formulate coherent sentences, what could you possibly understand about how the law works?
    1
  12778.  @RaphaelAshanti  HILARIOUS!!! You want ME to brush up on vocabulary? You read and write at a 2nd grade level!!! I cannot even understand half of the stuff you write. Violence? What violence? Wow, you really take the cake, man. Your ship has sailed into oblivion, and you don't even know it.
    1
  12779. Multiple people called to complain. One of the "audience" recorded it and gave a copy of the video to the police. Needless to say, it doesn't match her version about a quiet act with nobody around (the story she was trying to tell while attempting to avoid her millionth arrest and potentially going back to prison again).
    1
  12780. I never said "lose his life" - I said "life gets ruined" --- And, yeah, if/when people have pissed their brains so far down the toilet that they cannot see reality, and they go as far as defending criminals, yeah, their lives need to be ruined.
    1
  12781. Well, congratulations. You have discovered something that's been known for a century. There are no perfect vacuums. Space comes pretty close. You're basically counting molecules at that point. For all practical purposes, it's a vacuum. But, even with an enclosed space, there still aren't any perfect vacuums.
    1
  12782. Ask for a new trial? Huh? Look, if you are making that comment, then it's painfully clear that you know nothing about this case. After he was [rightfully] found guilty, he went to the appellate court, who denied his case on merit (because he was extremely guilty, and didn't stand a chance in the appellate court), state supreme court (same reason), and a couple of years ago, the USA Supreme Court (the highest court in the country), and all denied his appeal. Why? Because he committed two double murders. Sorry if this 2 minute video didn't cover the facts of the case, but, don't sit there and base your opinions on gibberish, and then conclude that you know better than every single court we have. He planned and committed those murders, whether you like to believe it or not.
    1
  12783. So, you believe they shouldn't do their jobs correctly?
    1
  12784. Well, she did sue the store, and lost badly, and rightfully so. The case was dismissed last December, and she's been barred from ever filing it again. The problem is that you don't actually understand what happened.
    1
  12785. She didn't steal. However, you obviously know the exact same amount about her rights that the woman in the video knew (zero). If she actually understood her rights, she would know that Florida is like most states, and you're required by law to provide identification if being investigated by the police. The cop asked her 100x for her ID (mainly in the longer version of the video, not this one that picks up in the middle, and cuts out the beginning and end). She refused. That alone is arrest worthy under the obstruction laws, with or without any theft charge. She also further obstructed and obfuscated by lying, diverting, and in her overall behavior. And, she resisted arrest. She doesn't have any rights to do those things. As for violating her civil rights, your conclusion is that she needed better attorneys? She had three attorneys, one of whom is very high profile, who specializes in rights violation cases. But, you apparently think you understand the law better than her own three attorneys, eh? Let's get real here, Mary, you don't have the slightest clue. You know it, and I know it. Don't pretend. If they had anything even remotely like a civil rights violation case, they'd have sued the cops for 7-figures, and settled out of court for $500K. But, nope. No such suit was even filed, because her attorneys didn't see a case against the police. They sued the store, and only asked for $50,000. And, that case was thrown out the window, and she is barred from ever filing it again, that's how bad her case was. So, what's next? She needs better judges now too? Is that your basic rule? Anybody who doesn't agree with you, should be replaced by someone better? And, what for? Do you actually condone the behavior of this irate woman?
    1
  12786. You hear some pops as they are driving and chasing. But, you can actually see him shooting at 2:12 also.
    1
  12787. Yeah, there's almost no atmosphere on Mars (about 1% of Earth's atmosphere). So, yeah, typical internal combustion engines won't work that great there. So what? He's not trying to sell these trucks on Mars.
    1
  12788. Really? And, where'd you get your legal degree? YouTube University?
    1
  12789. More than 2 years ago is "recently" in your mind?
    1
  12790. No, dewdrop. Apollo was mainly a political message during the Cold War. It was a mechanism to avoid nuclear war by expressing such technological and industrial dominance that the Soviets would back off.
    1
  12791. Have you read these comments? Yeah, most are positive. But, there's no shortage of people who still say the cops did it wrong. Those people cannot be pleased. There are some people who will always say the cops are doing it wrong, and, whatever happens, they say the cops should have done the opposite.
    1
  12792. Freedom of Information Act. What's the basis for the suit? They blocked the release of the arrest video for 2.5 years. She was already dead for 1.5 of those years. So, how would you propose that the police could continue to block a legal FOIA request? Please share your massive legal expertise.
    1
  12793.  @enidpicard5288  Well, it looks like it worked in his favor, for a while (because he sounds insane). He was declared incompetent. But, then, about a year later, they flipped it back to declaring him competent.
    1
  12794. Who publicly shamed her, and how?
    1
  12795. Dewdrop, he's wearing a ski mask in the middle of a Kentucky summer, and wielding a gun, and opening doors on cars he doesn't own. Why exactly would you conclude that he wasn't robbing anybody? And, dewdrop, if you're not going to watch the video, don't comment on it. Yes, they performed CPR. What happened, did you watch 10 seconds of the video and not the rest?
    1
  12796. So, you don't remember much about the video, but, you think you know enough to conclude Apollo was fake, huh? Hey, dewdrop, stop watching conspiracy videos, and start ACTUALLY studying Apollo. Guess what? The conspiracy videos are always wrong. When you're actually ready for answers to your questions, I'd be happy to provide them. But, I've been on this rodeo too many times already. None of you people are ever interested in the answers to your silly questions. When all you're doing is repeating talking points from conspiracy videos, as fed by out of context quote mining from videos made for children, and little one-line nonsense that you think proves a point that it doesn't prove, yeah, there's not really much hope that you can return to sanity. Let me know if you ever REALLY want to understand things. But, beyond that, just please put all of this stuff you're spewing onto every job application you ever fill out, will you? It makes the hiring process so much easier.
    1
  12797.  @marksprague1280  Furthermore, for added clarity, that video was from before the 2014 successful test.
    1
  12798.  @maverick4462  You haven't got the foggiest clue what you're talking about.
    1
  12799. Well, maybe that's because he's been dead for 15 years, huh?
    1
  12800. A ticket or warning for an aggravated misdemeanor? Where'd you get your law degree, YouTube University?
    1
  12801. Dewdrop, multiple people called. One of them recorded the incident, and gave a copy of the video to the police. It doesn't match her version about nobody being around. She had a criminal history a mile long, but, you'll go with whatever she says while trying to avoid her millionth arrest? Thanks, but, I'll stick with the innocent bystanders and the video of the incident, before I'll trust a word out of her. She's not exactly the most credible person, you know. Stealing cars. Other thefts. Drugs and alcohol. Etc. With her criminal and drug history, including a felony term in prison, it's tough to get a straight job, so, her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the local club, and neighbors said she did "private extras" for cash in her apartment. If she wasn't making "public beach" content, I'll eat my hat.
    1
  12802. Why? How did that cause her suicide?
    1
  12803. Multiple people called it in. One of them recorded the incident, and showed the video to the police. The arrest report says the video showed the incident was in view of children.
    1
  12804. Tell me, will you say the same about a guy who cranks at a playground in front of the kids?
    1
  12805. But, who do you believe humiliated her? A couple of obscure blogs that nobody has ever heard of? Nobody else really covered this story until 1.5 years after she died. And, according to her landlord, she was a stripper at the local club. Neighbors said she also did "private" cash transactions in her apartment with numerous men. Does that sound like someone who would feel shame over being exposed? And, why this arrest? Why not her other million arrests? Why not her felony term served in prison? None of those caused this massive shame you're talking about.
    1
  12806. Your prayer didn't work very well, huh?
    1
  12807. So, you refuse to answer a single thing I asked. And, you change topics, while claiming you're not changing topics. Bravo.
    1
  12808. Dewdrop, if you didn't want answers to your questions, why did you ask them?
    1
  12809. Again, you clearly aren't reading the answers to your own questions. I already addressed that. You ignored it. So, why do you ask questions when you have no interest in the answers?
    1
  12810. Well, she was married, and had two sons (by two fathers). But, yeah, she left them all behind about a decade ago to live a life of crime and drugs. So, virtually single, and the rest of what you wrote was pretty accurate, according to all of the reports.
    1
  12811. Huh? Her face never went viral until 2.5 years later, which was 1.5 years after she was already dead. So, WHAT did you see coming?
    1
  12812. Note: 5 flags are still standing. Apollo 11's blew over (as Aldrin claimed). LRO imagery at a sun angle of about 12:35 does show a bright spot that is likely the flag on the ground, exactly where the flag was located.
    1
  12813. What do you think the cops did wrong? The school board asked the guy to leave, he wouldn't leave, and the school board trespassed him for it. The cops have no choice but to arrest. The real problem is that the school board itself should never have done what they did in the first place, and I hope every member of the school board is removed from their position, and that the school must pay the parents an 8 figure settlement. But, again, the cops had no choices here.
    1
  12814.  @keymaker2112  Pfffttt. So, the comment you made has nothing to do with this video? That's your response? Then, you basically backtrack 12 hours later, saying that (essentially) yes, your comment DOES have to do with this video? Good grief. Look, backtracker, the cops have ONE decision to make in a situation like this, and that's it. Just one. If the board asks them to trespass the guy, and the guy refuses to leave, then the cops must decide whether there is enough cause for arrest, or not. They don't decide whether it's right or wrong that the board asked them to trespass the guy. They don't act as judge and jury about whether the guy is guilty of trespassing. They make one decision, and one decision only, and that is: did the person refuse to leave when asked? That's it. That's the only decision the cops can make in this situation. From there, it's up to the courts to decide whether the trespass was legal or not. Sigh. Just stop pretending to know things you know nothing about. It's really that simple. You don't need to backtrack. You don't need to tapdance. You just need to admit (to yourself) that you don't really understand the civics of these situations, and ask questions before you spew your nonsense. Is that REALLY that difficult?
    1
  12815.  @keymaker2112  Man is asked to leave by the proper authorities of the facility. Man won't leave, thus he is trespassing. If you think cops had a "choice" in the matter, then you'd have to imagine what would happen if they DIDN'T arrest. It's not up to them. That's what the courts are for. The cops must make the arrest, and leave it up to judges and juries and attorneys after that. That's the way the system works. Don't tapdance back and forth.
    1
  12816.  @keymaker2112  Pffffttt. And, what EXACTLY do you think would happen to a cop who doesn't trespass someone when the authorities of that building ask the cop to trespass the person? If someone was in your house, and he refused to leave, and you called the cops to trespass the person, and the cop said, "I'm sorry, I don't really believe this person should be trespassed, it's your own problem," what EXACTLY would you do? Good grief. Look, clown, you can sit there and pretend to know things you don't know all day long. It seems to be what YouTube comments are for, for people like you. You like to pretend you know things you don't. But, as much as you want to sit there and pretend, the reality is that if an authority of a facility asks for someone to be trespassed, then the cop must trespass that person. The cop doesn't make a judgment call. The cop doesn't override the law. Trespassing is a very clear and straightforward concept. If you are asked to leave, you have to leave, otherwise you're trespassing. From there, it's up to the courts to decide whether the authorities should or shouldn't have trespassed the person, whether those charges will stick, or not. But, a cop doesn't make that choice. Good grief. Cops are not judge and jury. That's why we have a court system, and not just cops alone. In this case, I hope the person who was arrested sues the school/board, and gets a huge settlement, like $200K or higher. And, I hope every parent of a child in that school gets $40K for the ridiculous stuff they're doing. But, the cops did nothing wrong. The cops didn't have a choice but to arrest the guy. He refused to leave when asked repeatedly, therefore he was trespassing. The board should never have trespassed the guy in the first place, of course. But, the cops themselves must abide by the direction of the school board, and trespass the guy, whether the cops agree with them or not. Go ahead, keep on pretending you know things you don't know. I couldn't care less. People like you are just clowns.
    1
  12817. Do you know how many counts of perjury he'd be busted for? Do you know how many counts of fraud he'd be busted for? Do you know how many countries would bust him for drug trafficking. YES!!! The rest of his life!!! You don't even understood the quantity and depth of his crimes!! All you think is, "oh, he cheated, the sport is dirty, who cares." You've missed the entire point. It just sailed right past you. Dirty cycling isn't what makes Armstrong a criminal. The CRIMES make Armstrong a criminal.
    1
  12818. Ridiculous. You don't have the foggiest clue.
    1
  12819. Many reasons, starting with the fact that the arrest video wasn't made public until 1.5 years after she died.
    1
  12820. Huh? On what charge?
    1
  12821. So, after I answered your question, everything goes in one ear, out the other, you refuse to answer my return question, and yet you want me to answer more questions?
    1
  12822. Military bases on the moon? For what? Aliens? Good gods, congratulations on knowing absolutely nothing.
    1
  12823. But, the news never covered it until 1.5 years after she was dead.
    1
  12824. He's probably single (can't imagine anybody would actually be able to stand to be around him for more than 5 minutes), why don't you approach him? What good is that comment here?
    1
  12825. Really? What's so special about this arrest, as opposed to her other million arrests? She didn't commit suicide when she did her felony term in prison. She didn't commit suicide over any of the other numerous arrests or judgements against her. But, THIS one did the trick? Why? Because a couple of blogs posted about the arrest? 99.99% of the media coverage never even happened until long after she was dead. And, what do you think would "shame" her anyway? Her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club. Don't tell me you think she's embarrassed because someone saw her.
    1
  12826. Well, nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive. And, it was released as the result of a FOIA request. What do you expect?
    1
  12827. Yeah, sure. Mark goes up to the car wearing a balaclava ski mask in the middle of a Kentucky summer (no, not for warmth), pulls a gun, opens the car door, and points it directly at the cop's head. But, it's not a carjacking? Instead, it's the cop's fault? What exactly should the cop do instead? Just sit there and get killed?
    1
  12828. Open investigation vs. closed.
    1
  12829. Yeah, definitely not in good taste. But, how do you prevent it? Freedom of Information Act. I guess the only saving grace is that nobody saw the arrest video until long after she was dead.
    1
  12830.  @devilsoffspring5519  Yes, you and I understand the same thing. It doesn't change the fact that astronaut Don Pettit said the technology was "lost" and "destroyed" in the exact context I outlined. And, it doesn't change the fact that the conspiratards now use Don Pettit's words against NASA. They intentionally infer the wrong definitions of the words they are hearing, just to fuel their delusions.
    1
  12831. The type of vehicle is indicated on the title, not the plates. Also, if it has an open bed, it's a pickup truck, no matter what plates you buy.
    1
  12832.  @jameswulzen590  YOU SAID: "you just can;t bring yourself forward to see the other side," == Other side? You don't know the difference between one craft and another. You think that the life support systems wouldn't fit inside the lunar module, basically saying that the 7,000 Grumman engineers who designed and built the lunar lander were universally too stupid to realize that they forgot the life support systems. What "other side" do you want me to see here? YOU SAID: "hear what was said by highly educated people in the system" == No highly educated person would say ANYTHING like what you're saying. You didn't even know which craft was which, remember? YOU SAID: "said about all aspics of the shots." == Aspics of what? What does that even mean? Do you even understand the words you're typing? What does an aspic have to do with Apollo? What shots are you talking about? Are you just typing words at random? Good grief. Do you think it's merely a coincidence that you know so little, and are simultaneously almost completely illiterate? Don't you think it's possible that the reason you don't know anything is BECAUSE you're illiterate? YOU SAID: "Open your mind, I do" == You opened this thread claiming that the 7,000 engineers who designed and built the lunar module have all forgotten to make the life support systems fit inside it. You then proceeded to talk about a completely different craft altogether, confusing it with the lunar module. That's not an "open mind." That's just plain ignorance. YOU SAID: "that's why I'm where I am, on the fence, looking over but not one way or the other." == Dummy, you opened this comment thread saying: "there is no way the three men had all that life support gear on and fit inside the LEM." Now, I didn't bother with responding in full to that at the time, because I had said enough to demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about. But, even further than I already said, guess what, they didn't have 3 men in the LEM. The LEM was built for TWO people. The 3rd astronaut stayed in lunar orbit while the other 2 went down to the surface in the LEM. So, this is yet another thing you're ignorant about. And, no, your claims are not "on the fence." When you make the claim that there's "no way it fit inside the LEM," that's not being "on the fence." That's downright claiming that it didn't happen. YOU SAID: "whit that answer I can feel the steam coming coming out of your neck. My next door neighbor was the head of the Agena Moon project being build in the silicone valley in the early years and if you would like to hear what he said ???" == This is just downright ridiculous at this point. There was no Agena moon project. None of the Agena vehicles ever went to the moon. The Agena vehicles were used during Gemini in low Earth orbit. And, unless you are talking about silicone breast implants, or silicone chemical adhesive products, there was no such thing as "Silicone Valley" in the 1960s during the Agena project. I assume you were trying to say "Silicon Valley" (in your barely literate fashion). But, that didn't exist until the 1970s either, long after the Agena project ended. The last Agena mission was in 1966. The term "Silicon Valley" wasn't even coined until 1971. So, if you have a neighbor who is telling you that he headed up "the Agena Moon project" in "Silicone Valley," um, yeah, sorry, I really don't think his input is worth anything. Good grief. You sure are proud to know NOTHING.
    1
  12833.  @jameswulzen590  YOU SAID: "I think your a hot head" == You think my a hot head? Was that your crippled attempt at saying "you're"? YOU SAID: "and don't want to hear anything except yourself." == How backward can you be? *I* am the one who read and answered every word you wrote. *YOU* are the one who has refused to address the answers to your own questions, nor a single question/challenge made to your position. From that, how can you conclude that *I* don't want to hear anybody but myself? How backward can you be? This is absolutely ridiculous. YOU are the one who refuses to address anything, refuses to answer questions, refuses to read answers to your own questions. Yet, you claim *I* am the one who doesn't want to hear anything except MYself?? This has got to be a joke. Nobody can be this backward, not even you. YOU SAID: "At least I have an open mind" == No. People with open minds actually want answers to their questions. You've proven in this thread, and your other threads, that you don't want any answers. You are happier with your barely literate delusions.
    1
  12834. Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  12835. Well, the police can block a Freedom of Information Act request for any videos for an open investigation. But, since this video was from 2.5 years ago, and she already died 1.5 years ago, they could no longer block such a request, because she's been dead a long time, and the case is long closed. So, yeah, they had to release it.
    1
  12836. So, let me make sure I understand this viewpoint of yours... if someone commits a crime, police shouldn't arrest the person, for fear that he/she might kill themselves? Is that really your position?
    1
  12837. Um, ok, but, how does that pertain to this video?
    1
  12838. Good grief. Some people just outright refuse to understand reality.
    1
  12839. "John Glenn first walk on the moon" Need I say more?
    1
  12840. No. That's just stupid. But, I mean, while there ARE certainly examples of that, let's face reality: 99% of the reason rich people aren't in prisons as much as poor people is because rich people don't commit as many violent crimes. When that does happen, however (cough, cough, OJ Simpson), obviously, rich people can apparently buy their way out by staffing the most impossible-to-beat attorneys on the planet.
    1
  12841. Maybe. Who's to say he didn't fake his death? He faked his paralysis.
    1
  12842.  @icypictures  Yet, Stalin knew about the bomb before Truman. Yes, like the atomic bomb, there'd be hundreds of leaks.
    1
  12843. Huh? Do you really not understand that most of them wear those cameras on their chests nowadays? It's mandatory in many big cities now.
    1
  12844. Well, that basically did happen. She got a lot of press for this. She lost her case in dramatic fashion, as it was thrown out of court and she is barred from ever filing it again. She will be getting $0.00 for her lawsuit. And, it's pretty clear to most viewers that she was just offended to be asked to provide proof of purchase, and then decided to throw all of her reasoning faculties out the window, and did everything to turn "can I see your receipt" into a lawsuit.
    1
  12845. What procedure should they have followed instead?
    1
  12846. Tell me about it. They delete about 1/2 of the messages nowadays.
    1
  12847. Well, you're half right. She didn't actually steal anything, so, she's not a thief.
    1
  12848. And, the first nuclear bomb used in combat was made from Uranium, stuff that costs nearly nothing, scooped out of the ground. So, I just can't wrap my head around why it costed billions of dollars in 1940s money.
    1
  12849. Dewdrop, what do you think they're doing now? They're DEVELOPING a brand new spacesuit for brand new needs.
    1
  12850. The point is the same either way, whether you're talking about Apollo suits, or new suits.
    1
  12851. Loan's what? You didn't finish your sentence.
    1
  12852. I agree, but, how would you propose to prevent it?
    1
  12853. Damage to her? She's dead. How much damage could happen because of the release of the arrest video?
    1
  12854. Secure the scene and get backup first. If you take your focus off of the scene, and point your focus at rendering aid, then who knows how many other armed attackers might spring out of the woodwork? Pretty soon, you're the one needing the exact same medical aid that the carjacker needed.
    1
  12855. Trigger happy? What exact method do you propose in order to make those little 9mm hollow points penetrate a truck, if not to keep on firing?
    1
  12856. Don't know. But, don't forget, they already patched an ISS hole/leak with duct tape in 2018.
    1
  12857. Or, how about not shooting for a payday at all, and just act like a human being for the sake of being a human being?
    1
  12858. I mean, I realize this is a dead end, but, good grief. With the exception of Apollo 11, they landed exactly where they published that they'd land. Didn't give coordinates? Huh? How hard is it to find St. George crater and Hadley Rille (Apollo 15)? How hard is it to find the smack middle of the Taurus-Littrow valley (Apollo 17)? How hard is it to find Cone Crater and look west (Apollo 14)? I mean, good grief, the coordinates ARE published, down to a margin of a few inches. But, even if you were correct (which you're not), these are not difficult places to find.
    1
  12859. Who shamed her, and how?
    1
  12860. I keep asking, which conspiracy video tries to make this ridiculous comparison to scuba diving. But, none of you nuts will answer. Will you be the first?
    1
  12861. He wasn't convicted for shooting two robbers. He was convicted for planning the murders in advance, then performing the murders.
    1
  12862. So, the only crime anybody can get arrested for is killing hundreds of people in Ecuador?
    1
  12863. First of all, it's called the Freedom of Information Act. Secondly, how do you get consent from a dead person?
    1
  12864. Well, at least it wasn't shared to the world until long after she died.
    1
  12865. Except for the video captured by one of the "audience," right?
    1
  12866. 1) Nearly zero media covered any of this when she was alive. While she was alive, one blog posting on a website I had never heard of said that she was arrested. But, the viral news coverage didn't happen until long after she was dead, when the arrest video was finally made public. She suffered zero shame from the arrest video, because nobody saw it while she was alive.
    1
  12867. 2) Why do you believe she was alone? Because she said so while attempting to avoid her millionth arrest? People try to say "I didn't do it" in a million different ways to try to avoid getting arrested. The witnesses who called the police tell a very different story. They said that she wandered up and down the beach, and specifically chose a spot in view of others. One witness even captured the event on video, and showed it to the police. The arrest report says that it was a very loud and public act in front of multiple people including children. I tend to trust innocent bystanders and the police more than I trust a convicted felon who served time in prison and had a million arrests for other stuff. You apparently go with whatever the felon says?
    1
  12868. But, dewdrop, she WASN'T humiliated over this. Did you not bother to read my replies?
    1
  12869. If you're not going to read anything, I really cannot help you. So, you just keep on swallowing everything Inside Edition feeds you, ok? They need viewers like you.
    1
  12870. And, you believe she killed herself over this, why? Because Inside Edition says so?
    1
  12871. Don't you ever get tired of spewing nonsense, Kenny? When, after 50 years of crackpots coming up with nothing but gibberish, you are now being reduced to "you can see it in their faces"? Really?
    1
  12872. Well, she lost the lawsuit against Publix, and got $0.00, and rightfully so. And, even her own three attorneys didn't see a case against the police. What do you think the police did wrong, that her own attorneys couldn't figure out?
    1
  12873. Yeah, those pensions from the 1970s are definitely at stake when most of the participants have been dead for decades by now.
    1
  12874. Flagged for hate.
    1
  12875. Well, first of all, what do you propose we do about it? Repeal the Freedom of Information Act? And, secondly, while I agree that she shouldn't be publicized after she's dead, the silver lining is that she didn't suffer any of this shame while alive.
    1
  12876. Hilarious!! You want a "government employee" or "robot" to provide you answers to silly questions? Hey, I'm not the one talking to robots, you are. How far gone are you to think that anybody would bother writing a robot program to respond to [error=input_missing/call^147.392_Apollo/mode_automate_response/emoji12:.29]
    1
  12877. So, robots are frightened, in your mind?
    1
  12878. Aww, you poor thing.
    1
  12879. Ablative heat shield.
    1
  12880. But, she did lie. She said she thought nobody was around. But, the multiple people who called the cops said it was deliberate. And, one of them even recorded it and showed it to the police. The video didn't show someone who thought nobody was around. It showed her very loudly performing in view of multiple people, including children. But, I agree with you anyway. She should have just gone along, showed up in court, and negotiated this down to a minor infraction. Even though she was a convicted felon who served time in prison, and had a million arrests for other stuff, it's pretty doubtful that this particular arrest would have done much harm... if only she showed up in court.
    1
  12881. Pareidolia.
    1
  12882. I agree that new laws need to be implemented. I agree with you, and disagree with the current laws. However, it is legal in public places to film people. But, those laws existed at a time before the internet, and the entire concept that it's trivial to post video for all the world to see.
    1
  12883. What in the world? The police quietly took her aside from the restaurant, so nobody could see or hear what was going on. And, then the police kept the arrest video private for 2.5 years. It was probably a legal FOIA request that got the video released. But, that was 1.5 years after she was already dead. She suffered ZERO humiliation from the release of the arrest video, because she wasn't alive to feel any of that shame.
    1
  12884. Um, what? Let's pretend that's correct (it's not, but, let's pretend). So, you want the officer to go inside, ask for security camera footage, wait for them to be able to pull it up for viewing, watch it, and THEN turn around and hope the woman isn't long gone by then? Huh? It would take at least 10 or 15 minutes to get all of that done. You don't think she'd have driven off by then?
    1
  12885. Well, I think the cop did the right thing. However, ironies do exist. And, ironically, maybe she'd still be alive today if she had been thrown into prison.
    1
  12886. Yes, I agree. But, I imagine the media feels entitled to modify/edit the story to paint a false picture of what's going on, because of who she was in the first place. I doubt they'd actually run with the story if she was a wholesome woman who really just did a minor mistake that she thought was outside the view of anybody (the false story they're painting in the video). The reality is, however, that she was a convicted felon who spent time in prison for stealing cars, had a legal/arrest history a mile long, charges for drugs and alcohol, judgements for various thefts, numerous failures to appear in court with open arrest warrants, etc. And, with her legal history, it's tough to get a good job, so, according to her landlord, her profession was, well, one of those words that's not allowed to be written in YouTube comments... ya know... one of those careers that involves cash transactions with lots of men. So, I imagine the media knows all of that, thus concludes that it's ok to drag her name through the mud after she died. I disagree, and I think that if they're going to paint a picture, they should paint it accurately. But, overall, it would just be better not to have given this story any air time at all.
    1
  12887. Huh? I clearly said that I oppose the idea of making this video public. I said I agreed with you. Now, you're asking if I had something to do with the video? Good grief.
    1
  12888. First of all, it's fairly doubtful that anybody is reading that comment besides you and me. Maybe a few others now and then. But, the "damage" done by all of the videos viewed by millions upon millions of others is far more than what I could ever write in a comment. Secondly, at least I'm giving the accurate portrayal, rather than the heavily edited and skewed view designed to provoke reactions and made to go viral, just in the interest of ad revenue. Third, as I said, I was just trying to illustrate why I think these people feel "ok" about dragging her name through the mud. It's tough to make that point without actually stating the reasons.
    1
  12889. Oh, and everything I typed is readily available by reading the police reports, her criminal history, the medical examiner's report, listening to the interviews, etc.
    1
  12890. Most are dead, dewdrop. The ones who are still alive mostly don't waste their time on nuts. But, yes, there are a few that worked on Apollo, and float through these videos from time to time, and make comments.
    1
  12891. Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  12892. I will also add that every arrest is public record. They don't have to release the arrest video until the investigation is closed. But, they cannot prevent anybody from knowing that the arrest took place. As for a judge, well, maybe if she bothered to show up at court....
    1
  12893. You're waiting for people to "zoom in"? From where? Earth? Do you have any idea of the size of the telescope required for that? In the meantime, how about the 4 countries that have taken photos from lunar orbiters (USA, China, India, and Japan)? Three of those four orbiters had/have cameras capable of seeing the landers. Two of those four had/have cameras capable of seeing foot paths, rover tracks, etc. No? That doesn't matter to you?
    1
  12894. Dewdrop, what don't you understand here? You cannot resolve to the levels you think. Photons interfere with each other in transit.
    1
  12895. Secure the area first, and make sure you have plenty of backup. Else, someone else might pop up out of nowhere and try to finish the job the carjacker started. Then, the cop would have needed first aid also.
    1
  12896. YOU SAID: "I do not believe we quit going to the moon simply because the public lost interest in the Apollo program. There is a whole lot more to the story than "the public had lost interest."" == Um. OK. Congress pulled the funding. They pulled the funding because most people really didn't want to keep pouring that kind of money into having a couple of guys walk around on the moon for a few hours each. And, um, yeah, the public HAD lost interest. Everyone knew Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. They were household names. They couldn't go out in public without getting mobbed. But, Gene Cernan and Jack Schmitt?? Those guys could go to the grocery store, and rarely would anybody know who they were. Yes, the public had lost interest. YOU SAID: "To believe the United States just stopped cold turkey from traveling to places outside of Earth's orbit is naive." == Pffttt. So, what are you saying? Are you saying the didn't actually stop going past Earth orbit? Um, silly maniac, it took about 3000 people to get a Saturn V off the ground. A Saturn V launch was visible and audible for hundreds of miles. And, given that a Saturn V was the only booster capable of lifting a craft big enough for humans past Earth orbit, um, yeah, they kind of needed a Saturn V to do it. Are you proposing they didn't actually stop traveling past Earth orbit, but somehow kept that a secret? YOU SAID: "What is sad is that there is only a very small number of people who benefit from what is taking place out in the Universe in 2020. The Deep State is very, very real." == What ARE you talking about? Have you seen a doctor? YOU SAID: "Hell there are still secrets from back in the 1950's and '60's known by NASA which are ridiculous to keep classified." == Oh, but YOU know those secrets, huh? YOU do? YOU SAID: "Don't ever take what you are shown at face value, because we've been lied to time and time again." == Fine. Who cares? How/when/where did they continue to build and launch Saturn V rockets without anybody knowing about it? What ARE you talking about?
    1
  12897.  @pittmanfh  YOU SAID: "To believe what I've said is possible, one needs to believe the Roswell crash back in 1947 was alien. You have to understand there is a black budget which has been used for more than 70 years back engineering alien technology. If they have visited here, they did not get here using jet fuel." == See a doctor. YOU SAID: "There are people like Bob Lazaar who have been there with hands on the product." == Says who? Him? The convicted felon who claimed to work at Area 51, and claimed to be a graduate of MIT (though he can produce no transcript, nobody who remembers him there, no lease for any apartment rented there, not a single receipt for a meal bought there, no knowledge of any of the instructors who taught there at the time, no evidence whatsoever... the guy claiming he converted a Corvette into a nuclear powered car, with no evidence whatsoever...)?? That guy? And, you believe him, why? What possible reason would any sane person believe a single word out of that nutbag? What evidence has he produced to back up his claims? YOU SAID: "I am fairly certain that with seventy years of work, the USA has figured it out." == Figured WHAT out?? What EXACTLY do you think you know about it? YOU SAID: "The people working on this technology had the equivalent of iPhone and iPad technology in the 1970's. They are way ahead of the curve than what is known. Your reality is not the reality. It is naive to think the Space Shuttle program was utilized in the manner we were told. It is equally as naive to believe the US just stopped exploring space." == Good gods, just go see a doctor. Not kidding. You are apparently unable to distinguish between delusion and reality.
    1
  12898.  @Lemingtona-x5g  The live TV signals. I'm not talking about 16mm film. But, yes, for 16mm film, you have to adjust the frame rate if they're not 24 frames per second.
    1
  12899. Yet, interestingly, there's a bill proposed to congress banning anybody from ever visiting Apollo 11's or Apollo 17's landing sites ever again. How they plan to enforce such a law... who knows? But, c'est la vie, they're proposing it.
    1
  12900.  @quadeappenheimer8135  Just so it's clear, they're not proposing to ban visitation to every Apollo site, only Apollo 11 and 17 sites. As for tourist attractions, well, only if the tourists are hundred-billionaires. The cost of sending people to the moon is never going to be within the reach of a common person. Thermodynamics. It takes a couple million pounds of rocket fuel/oxidizer alone, per person, and that doesn't include the costs of everything else (which is even more expensive). As for 2024, well, that's a date that's been thrown around. And, it's pretty clear that Trump/Pence/Bridenstine wanted that date because it would have put people on the moon within their second term (if they had gotten one). But, in all reality, congress didn't approve the funding at a rate fast enough to put people on the moon by 2024. The rate of funding puts them on the moon by around 2028/2030. And, that's greatly stripped back, no space station around the moon, no permanent presence, etc. But, who knows? Funding can go up, funding can go down, whatever. But, at least it's moving forward, and it doesn't appear that Biden is going to petition congress to stop it, in the same manner that Obama/Biden pushed to stop Constellation a decade ago. Now, the weirdest thing is that they selected that hideous SpaceX lander. That was a shocker to me. I thought Blue had it for sure.
    1
  12901. Huh? July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released to the public.
    1
  12902. Part of all arrests is being cuffed.
    1
  12903. YOU SAID: "You should look at de link Ive sent to you most off it as Nasa people stating they need to solve the van alen belts problem before sending humans into deep space" == FOR ORION, you moron. Orion is a different craft, with different computers, and different mission parameters than Apollo. Apollo went through the belts in a couple of hours. Orion, a different craft entirely, has missions planned to spend WEEKS in the belts. I mean, what is it with you morons that you object to things being redesigned 50 years later? Did you object to the Boeing 747 wings being redesigned and tested, under the argument that a WWI biplane 50 years prior already had working wings, so why do they need new wings? No? So, why would you object to Orion, a different craft, larger, with different mission profiles, needing different/new shielding? And, Orion passed its shielding tests in 2014, so what's your complaint? YOU SAID: "one off those ocaisions theys was asked wait a minute but nasa as been to the moon 6 times so how the they did it to solve that problem the answer was this one is vert" == Your entire understanding comes from a 30 second clip from an "introduction to Orion" video made for CHILDREN. That's your level of understanding. Yet, from a 30 second clip, you think you know more than the thousands of engineers who do this for a living, huh? YOU SAID: "funny we lost all that technology" == No, dumbass, nothing is "lost" (in the sense that nobody can find it). It's "lost" in the sense that none of it exists any longer. Do you see any functional Saturn Vs laying around? Do you see any CSMs? Do you see any working landers? Do you see any launch facilities? Do you see any training facilities? Do you see any LLRVs or LLTVs? The 400,000 people who made Apollo happen are long retired or dead. It's only "lost" in that sense. The knowledge isn't lost. YOU SAID: "THIS is cientists from Nasa stating they lost technology of 6 missions to the moon lol si no my friend that missions are fake as they come" == You're a moron. YOU SAID: "wach the documentary Ive sent the link its by some one who did profund investigation with facts well addressed if you wanto to be blind by all means be but dont try to want to make me follow the heard" == Hey, dumbass, anybody can make a "documentary." There are "documentaries" stating that the Earth is flat. There are "documentaries" that say aliens built the Egyptian pyramids. There are "documentaries" that say people can talk to the dead, and/or control metal with their minds, and stuff like that. None of those "documentaries" are worth a damned thing. Scientific peer review is the way you do science. If people have any objections to the moon landings, the correct thing to do is to write up their calculations, write up their experimentation, write up their objections, and submit it for scientific peer review in an actual peer reviewed science journal. A "documentary" is only worth the knowledge level of the person making it... and in the case of conspiracies, that amount is ZERO. YOU SAID: "The 1 + 1 is 11 well this is your interpretation of things I junp the subjects on different areas to give you a perspective of over all the incoherences that as been statedl as fscts by Nasa any way best ti leave it alone you clearly choose to be a believer in tee official version on my country we have a say a lie told a 1000 times becomes true this is onre example of this a good one loll 1969 shure" == You have NO IDEA what you're talking about.
    1
  12904. Huh? The police blocked the release of the arrest video for 2.5 years. She was long dead before anybody saw it. Please elaborate on what you think they should have done differently?
    1
  12905. Trillionaires are Sry few got one to Saturn and wars are nuclear lieing real of few they moon been having bases one got having blast about the of be real going space is verge Jupiter of landing the people.
    1
  12906. I cut her a little more slack than you do, but not by much. Yeah, I don't applaud people who take a step toward normality after 20 years of being a hateful maniac. Sure, welcome them, forgive them, that's fine. But, to sit here and applaud? To give her a stage and make her into some sort of hero figure? Um, no. Not by a long shot.
    1
  12907.  @Elaphe472  I cannot tell if you're agreeing with me or not. I acknowledge the same things you're saying. But, this is a bit like someone who spends most of her life failing to learn to add/subtract/multiply/divide, then finally, after decades of failure, she learns 3rd grade mathematics, and then the crowd claps and cheers like she just won a Nobel Prize in mathematics or something. The concepts she talks about in this video are BASIC. Listen to others. Quit running around hating everyone. Stop judging people by how they were born. And, the crowd cheers her for it. Sorry, but the rest of the civilized world knows this stuff already. I'm happy she stopped being as ridiculous and evil as she once was. But, I'm not going to herald her like she's got something to teach the rest of the world, and deserves a stage for it. She should just be saying, "sorry for being a monster for most of my life, I'm done with that, please forgive me, I'd like to join civilized society now." That's pretty much it.
    1
  12908. Because a meteor impact is almost always round in appearance, despite the angle of impact. Only the super-shallow angle hits are not round. A simple search for "why are craters round" would tell you a lot. I don't think people should replace an actual education with Google or YouTube searches. But, in your case, anything is better than the train wreck nonsense you believe.
    1
  12909.  @yazzamx6380  Weird, your reply shows that it was posted before mine. But, on the number of seconds, it says mine was 49 seconds ago, and yours was 41 seconds ago. YouTube comments... always glitchy.
    1
  12910.  @yazzamx6380  Well, I was referring more to the fact that YouTube cannot seem to get their messages straight... yours was "first," yet simultaneously says that mine was "older" (contradiction). But, thanks.
    1
  12911. She chose to put on a show in front of multiple people including children. That's a misdemeanor.
    1
  12912. YOU SAID: "They never have explained why they stopped exploring the moon?" == Of course they did. Congress pulled the funding on the Apollo program. YOU SAID: "We couldn't go back because the plans on how to do it were thrown out ????" == That's obscenely stupid. Where would you get that crazy notion?
    1
  12913.  @travailer594  Pfftt. So, let me see if I understand you correctly... you think there's some sort of NASA engineer who said that the plans on how to do it were thrown out. And, you blindly accepted that?? Did you lift a finger to verify if that kind of stupid claim was accurate?? I mean, good gods, it seems like you're so gullible that you'll just believe anything you see/hear. And, how important could it be, if you can't even find it now? You don't think such "news" would be front page on every newspaper on the planet, the leading story of every news channel, the first line item on congress' docket, etc.? No? Some "NASA engineer" said that "all of the Apollo plans were lost," and n'ah, nothing happens. Nobody says anything more about it. No congressional hearings. No indictments. No front page news. Nope. It's just something for internet idiots to talk about, that's it. Has it ever crossed your mind that (a) you don't remember what was said, and you've taken it out of context, or (b) maybe it never happened, and you've fallen for a spoof video made by conspiracy clowns?? Nope, it's on YouTube, it's GOT to be true, right? Look, just forget about stupid moon conspiracies, and do this instead: give every dime of your money (now and in the future) to someone very trustworthy in your family who is good with money. You are doomed without outside help. With your level of pathetic gullibility, sooner or later, someone is going to dupe you out of every dollar you ever make. Don't worry about the moon. Just worry about your personal finances. The same sort of people who have convinced you that "NASA lost all of the plans" are the types of people who will use your gullibility to trick you into giving them money. It's not a matter of "if" - it's a matter of "when." It's GOING to happen. So, turn over all of your money to someone in the family who truly has your best interest at heart, and let that person control all of your finances. Your money is best in someone else's hands. Gullible people like you shouldn't be in control of your own money.
    1
  12914.  @travailer594  Oh, and by the way, I suspect you cannot post links in this video anyway. If you do, you're probably going to be the only one who can view that posted message. YouTube doesn't tell you when they block messages with links, but, if the video is marked for having no links allowed in the comments, all messages with links are blocked, yet, you can view the messages yourself (but nobody else can see them).
    1
  12915.  @JohnsonFE  Why are you so proud to be an idiot?
    1
  12916. Who does?
    1
  12917. And vegetable slicer.
    1
  12918.  @critthought2866  Thanks for answering. This last couple of years of posting on YouTube has gotten completely ridiculous. The censorship has gone bananas.
    1
  12919. Because this was an arrest.
    1
  12920. The police managed to keep the arrest video private for 2.5 years. That's 1.5 years after she was already dead, and then they just couldn't prevent it any longer, because the case was long closed. Freedom of Information Act. They can only stop a video from going public if there's an open investigation.
    1
  12921. What? You do know that Armstrong sued her for millions, leaving her financially devastated, right? And, for what? Because she told the truth? I truly hope YOUR life gets ruined by some crazy but popular athlete who drains you of every dime to YOUR name, simply because you accidentally found out he was cheating, so he sues you to shut you up. What will you say then? Will you say, "oh, who cares, life is short, the cheater is just doing what he needs to do to win, I am fine with being devastated."
    1
  12922.  @HappySmilingDog-d7u  She looks healthy? Huh?
    1
  12923.  @DabsOnDabs  Just look at her arrest record.
    1
  12924. Huh? Who even knew about it while she was alive? And, who in her life would "make fun"?
    1
  12925. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. Oh, but keep on pretending to know things you don't. That's what YouTube is for, right?
    1
  12926. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released.
    1
  12927. Just keep pretending to know things you don't. Right?
    1
  12928. What family? The one she abandoned more than a decade ago to live a life of crime and drugs?
    1
  12929. Innocent? With her mile long criminal history, felony term in a Florida prison, and a million other arrests? You do know that her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the local gentlemen's club, right? If she wasn't making "public beach" content, I'll eat my hat.
    1
  12930.  @HappyFlamingoBirds-xz6yb  Huh? The arrest video was not made public for 2.5 years. She was already dead for 1.5 years before anybody ever saw the arrest video.
    1
  12931. "Police didn't have to release footy," So, the police should commit a felony and not abide by the Freedom of Information Act? Huh? "but pleasuring yourself on the beach means, you're not doing to well up there already." True, but, I wonder if she also wrote/spelled like a 2nd grader, just like you? "Suicide ultimately was her choice and I don't think this video would have prevented suicidal thoughts, it just would have made thee action take longer to occur if anything." Dewdrop, the video had nothing to do with her suicide. The arrest was in July of 2021. And, she went free and wasn't convicted. Her suicide was in March of 2022. The video was released in November of 2023, more than 1.5 years AFTER she committed suicide. "She was definitely planning to end her life at some point." Instead of playing armchair quarterback about incidents you know nothing about, how about going back to school to learn to read and write, huh?
    1
  12932. Dewdrop, if you can't manage to see the gun pointed at the officer's head in this video, it is highlighted in "Body camera video shows undercover LMPD officer fatally shoot suspected carjacker WLKY News Louisville." You can also see the gun on the ground at multiple points in this video.
    1
  12933. OK, but, what does any of that have to do with this woman? Almost nobody in the media even covered this story until 2.5 years later, and she was already dead a very long time before going viral.
    1
  12934. Oh, I see. So, if there are kids in the car, police should never investigate potential theft. By your logic, all anybody needs to do is go around stealing while having their kids with them, because nobody is allowed to investigate near kids, right?
    1
  12935. Sadly, it costs even more to execute someone.
    1
  12936. The police didn't post the arrest video. They released it because of a legal Freedom of Information Act request. But, that wasn't until 2.5 years later. She was long dead before anybody saw the arrest video.
    1
  12937. Yeah, welcome to Inside Edition, where facts don't matter.
    1
  12938. Nick, stop posting nonsense in every thread.
    1
  12939. Well, not that I'd know about the Secret Service, but, for whatever little it's worth, I understand that they have automatic weapons also.
    1
  12940.  @mmgee  And, that relates to whether or not the Secret Service carries automatic weapons, how?
    1
  12941. The board ended the meeting, and asked everyone to leave. From that point forward, if anybody refuses to leave, it's trespassing.
    1
  12942. What in the world are you talking about? There are loads of evidence in favor of Apollo. And, there has never been one single piece of evidence against it that has withstood even the most simplistic scientific scrutiny. Why are you so backward?
    1
  12943. Yet, you cannot seem to name it? Yeah, what solid ground you're standing on. Not a single space agency on the planet agrees with you, in friendly or enemy countries, but, yeah, you'll stick with videos made by taxi cab drivers and warehouse workers that you saw on YouTube. Bravo, dewdrop. What a hero.
    1
  12944. First of all, there are two Van Allen belts, not one. There are even sometimes three. The fact that you only know about one of them is confirmation that you have no expertise on the topic. So, stop pretending.
    1
  12945. Secondly, they just sent people into the inner belt (the harsher one) a couple of months ago. Back in the 1960s, the Soviets sent two dogs into the worst area of the Van Allen belts for 3 weeks (about 50% of the time anyway). They lived long and healthy lives afterward. They also sent turtles and plants to the moon and back, with no consequences. You clearly have no understanding of the topic. Stop pretending.
    1
  12946. Thirdly, there are literally thousands of scientific papers outlining the exact opposite as your claim. Sorry, your degree from YouTube University is not worth anything.
    1
  12947. How you you explain the fact that 5 different countries have sent orbiters to the moon, and they disagree with you? No evidence, you claim? Japan's orbiter was the first to photograph the landing sites, and didn't have the resolution to see landers, but, they confirmed the Apollo photography in a level of detail not available in the 1960s/1970s (except by being on the moon). LRO, China's, South Korea's, and India's orbiters have all photographed the landing sites with enough resolution to see the landers. Some of them have good enough resolution to see rover tracks and foot paths. No evidence? Why? Because your favorite conspiracy videos don't tell you about it?
    1
  12948. "a few independent thinkers" Well, that counts you out. All you're doing is regurgitating a bunch of silly claims made by other dewdrops who don't understand anything about the topic.
    1
  12949. "Even at 350 miles in 1998 they proved that the radiation was just too much" Yet, just a couple of months ago, people went to 870 miles altitude. Again, why are you pretending you understand things you do not?
    1
  12950. "radiation coming from the sun in deep space makes it impossible to survive" Are you even reading replies? I covered this already.
    1
  12951. "thick walls of lead on the spacecraft" Dewdrop, this is EXACTLY why it's obvious that you are regurgitating absolute nonsense you've seen in silly videos made by deniers. No aerospace engineer would EVER use lead for shielding in the Van Allen belts. Heavy metals like lead don't react very well to that particular form of ionic particle radiation, and create secondary Bremsstrahlung radiation which can often be worse than the primary radiation. The very core of your "objection" - the Van Allen belts - is the exact reason that lead is a BAD idea. Polymers and lighter metals are far superior for that particular type. Yet, you don't know this. All you know is whatever denier videos tell you, and you merely regurgitate.
    1
  12952. "They should have studied the matter before trying to convince the world that they’re going to the moon" Then, dewdrop, how do you explain why there are no space agencies on the planet, in friendly or enemy countries, who agree with you? Has nobody else on the planet "studied it" besides you? Sorry, but watching videos on YouTube made by taxi cab drivers and yoga instructors isn't "studying" anything.
    1
  12953. "you can’t take such a long journey unless you have a space station" Why?!?!! What purpose would a space station serve for an Apollo moon mission?
    1
  12954. "Because of fuel issues" OK, so, calculate it. The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, the cornerstone of all of rocketry for over 100 years, says you're wrong. If you think that rocket equation is incorrect, why aren't you publishing?
    1
  12955. "Werner Von Braun said that it would take 3 of those rocket ships (of Apollo 11) to hold the amount of fuel needed to reach the moon" So, you want to use even more fuel to put up a space station that serves no purpose for an Apollo moon mission? And, dewdrop, there were many different mission profiles considered early on. One profile including putting a dozen people on the moon, staying in a massive landing craft, staying for over a month. Yes, they kept pruning back on the profile until they ended up with 2 men in a very small lander, staying for a maximum of 75 hours. You are inappropriately quoting requirements for a different mission profile.
    1
  12956. "going to the moon makes no sense" Based on WHAT? All you've done is regurgitate utter nonsense!!
    1
  12957. "the radiation from the sun (which is thousands of times worse than the Van Allen Belts)" No, dewdrop. The Van Allen radiation is far worse than the sun's radiation. It would take about a week or two of consecutive exposure in the worst areas of the Van Allen belts to get a fatal dose. Once past them, it takes about a year or two of exposure to routine sun exposure. If they get a huge coronal mass ejection, that's a different story, but, those only happen every 10-20 years.
    1
  12958. "There are too many things to mention" But, dewdrop, you haven't mentioned ONE thing that isn't laughably incorrect.
    1
  12959. "Never mind the doctored photos" What doctored photos?
    1
  12960. "the landing pad being unblemished by the spacecraft" I don't know what that means, and neither do you.
    1
  12961. "No stars in the footage" Dewdrop, if there were stars in the footage, that would mean it was fabricated. You can't expose stars with a low-res TV camera, nor on 16mm film running with 1/250th of a second exposure times.
    1
  12962. "-250 degreesFahrenheit in the dark or shadow, 200-250 degrees in the sunlight" No, dewdrop. It doesn't work that way. It doesn't get to that high of a temperature until the lunar high noon, and that low of a temperature until the lunar overnight. Learn something about thermodynamics. It's not like the temperature is 250 degrees, and then, BING, you make a shadow and it drops to -250. Or, it's in a shadow at -250, and then BING, sun hits it and it goes up to +250 instantly. It takes a long time to heat up and cool off. You don't know what you're talking about. All Apollo missions landed early in the lunar morning, long after the cold overnight, and long before the high noon.
    1
  12963. Dewdrop, I also asked you a bunch of questions, which you avoid addressing. I asked how you explain the 4 countries that have photographed the Apollo landers on the lunar surface. Why can't you answer?
    1
  12964. My favorite thing on YouTube is "they should have done this better" with absolutely no suggestion about how. It's experts like you who make YouTube the wonderful authority that it is, and why we don't need legal experts any longer.
    1
  12965. No, she was 20.
    1
  12966.  @danieldornyo3041  Given that over 95% of the experts certified in aerospace engineering either work for one of the world's 77 space agencies directly, or work for one of them as a contractor, yeah, I think the meaning isn't lost.
    1
  12967. Nobody saw the arrest video until she was already dead for 1.5 years.
    1
  12968. World's dumbest question award: you.
    1
  12969. Pffttt. Yeah, decades of spreading pure hate and bigotry. Wonderful person. Sure. Look, just because she rehearsed this speech 429 times, and sounds nice and calm now, doesn't mean she's magically a wonderful person by just merely nudging herself slightly off of the ultra-extremist position her church took. To me, it's a bit like listening to people who are heralded as heroes because they quit drugs or something. Meanwhile, the people who never took drugs in the first place... they're nobody's heroes. We can/should forgive people like her, but, to herald her? Nope, I can't go that far.
    1
  12970. Public vs. private. In front of children vs. adult only.
    1
  12971. Apollo Lunar Surface Journal.
    1
  12972. Put it like this you don't know what you're talking about every dime of NASA's money is allocated by congress and they decide what missions to fund or not fund and this means when Apollo was canceled by congress NASA couldn't do any more moon missions until congress funded a new program for it which they didn't do until Artemis in 2019 so your comment about anything in the last 30 years is completely irrelevant because congress never funded any moon missions during that time and your opinion about moon rocks is silly because you're not a geologist and wouldn't be able to authenticate a moon rock if you saw one so your statement that you will wait to decide until you view a moon rock yourself is useless and maybe you should learn to read and write before even worrying about Apollo because you seriously don't know how to punctuate.
    1
  12973. "Jaggers can’t just be written off as some criminal thug." He was wearing a ski mask in the middle of summer, quickly went up to a car, yanked the door open, and pointed a gun at the officer in the driver's seat. His accomplice/girlfriend was seconds behind him in her car. Seems like a criminal thug to me.
    1
  12974. So, you're allowing for the possibility that Jaggers watched the car for 3 hours (this is according to his own father and attorney), walked up to the car wearing a balaclava ski mask, pointed a gun at the driver, but wasn't just a criminal thug?
    1
  12975. Huh? If you go frame by frame at 0:08, you see the carjacker has a gun pointed directly at the cop. You also see the gun on the ground at 5:02 next to a 2x4 piece of wood. And, they talked about the gun in the video. Why in the world are you sitting there claiming he didn't have a gun? What's wrong with you?
    1
  12976. Inside Edition (spelled correctly) never even covered this story until she was already dead for 1.5 years.
    1
  12977. No, you don't get to use the words "quite reasonable" while asserting unreasonable things. Is it "reasonable" that these "inconsistencies" (which you refuse to name) are spotted by taxi cab drivers and warehouse workers, but not a single actual aerospace engineer across all 77 space agencies (friendly and enemy) for 50+ years can spot them? Or, is it more "reasonable" that crack meets pot internet dewdrops have no understanding of the topic, and gravitate to things that make them feel good about themselves by slandering others?
    1
  12978. What would you suggest? She made it very clear that she wasn't going to comply, short of being Tased. So, how would you have done it instead?
    1
  12979. Yeah, lots of people make videos about topics they know nothing about.
    1
  12980. Well, that's one way to 100% prove that you never read the arrest report. Um, no. Multiple people called, and 3 officers were dispatched. One of the "audience" recorded the incident and gave a copy to the police. It has never been released due to graphic content, but they give a pretty good written description in the report.
    1
  12981. Why? Because she said so, while trying to avoid her millionth arrest?
    1
  12982. Well, I'd dare say that if you don't even know how many missions there were, you probably don't know anything whatsoever about the topic. There were 9 manned missions to the moon, and 6 of them landed successfully.
    1
  12983.  @occhamite  Sibrel doesn't believe his own lies.
    1
  12984.  @occhamite  He just honed his acting skills. He's still just manufacturing "evidence" in his editing room. He knows darned well that he faked his "round window trick" from his big "Funny Thing" movie by editing out the stuff that proved himself wrong. But, like many charlatans, they have a hard time ever changing careers. I'm not saying he even wants to change careers. But, he's useless to the world in every other aspect of life. He certainly could never hold down an actual job, except sweeping floors or something. Nobody in corporate America would ever respect him. He'd be a menace in any workplace, and nobody would want to actually associate with the guy. His only income is to keep on producing fake content to dupe gullible nuts. So, that's what he does. His latest "claim to fame" is that he interviewed the son of a security guard, who said Apollo was fake. That's how far down the barrel he's digging. The well is pretty dry for him now. He knows darned well that when his biggest "gotcha" in the past several years is an interview with someone who wasn't even alive during the moon landings, um, yeah, he's got nothing left. He knows this. He's just perfected his acting skills to pretend he believes his own nonsense.
    1
  12985. "flags waving" Why would a flag waving be impossible?
    1
  12986. "incorrect shadows" According to who? You? Sorry, dewdrop, there were no "incorrect shadows."
    1
  12987. "would not even swear on the bible" Aldrin punched that guy in the face. Was he supposed to swear on his bible? Huh? And, Armstrong wasn't a Christian. Why would he swear on a bible? Especially Sibrel's?
    1
  12988. "show us a good photo of the buggy" Oh, shifting the goalposts? There are good photos of the landers. But, you can't deal with that, so, you shift the goalposts and ask for photos of something smaller. And, what happens someday when you get those? Ask for the serial numbers off of the equipment?
    1
  12989. "your right" Oh, shocker. Another denying dewdrop who reads and writes at a 2nd grade level.
    1
  12990. "altitude RECORD" Yes, at that time. So what?
    1
  12991. "why not just swear on it" It's called INTEGRITY, dewdrop. Nobody should give that charlatan the time of day, let alone play the bible game with him. But, what do you have to say about the astronauts who did swear on his bible? This was before they realized that he was putting together a hit piece. So, did those 3 astronauts go to the moon, but the rest didn't?
    1
  12992. "don't you think there is something strange in the fact no man has gone beyond a few hundred miles from. Earth except for the Apollo missions" But, dewdrop, you don't know anything about the topic. There are many reasons this has been the case, starting with the fact that there really aren't a lot of reasons to send people above low orbit, UNLESS going to the moon. I'd explain more reasons, but, you clearly have no chance of understanding them. You don't know anything about the topic, and you don't want to know anything about the topic. Your purpose here is to PRETEND you know things that the entire planet's experts don't.
    1
  12993. I asked you what you thought of the 3 astronauts who did swear on Sibrel's bible. Did they go to the moon, but the others didn't? Why can't you respond?
    1
  12994. "the speed they travelled there is another elephant" Huh? Do you mean it's another topic you know absolutely nothing about?
    1
  12995. "the 2 that swore on the bible obviously have no faith" Dewdrop, as I said, THREE swore on Sibrel's bible. Do you have difficulty reading numbers? And, how does this work, in your mind? You want astronauts to swear on the bible of a convicted criminal taxi cab driver? Three of them did. But, you don't care? If it didn't matter to you whether they swore on the bible or not, why are you so insistent that they do? Clearly, you're just going to disregard it either way. So, why is it important to you?
    1
  12996. "take a buggy up" So, you don't understand that topic either, huh? What in the world is wrong with you? Do you think you're actually smart by listing out a bunch of topics you don't understand?
    1
  12997. No, dewdrop. I don't have to "wonder" about stuff like that, because I know the topic. You do not.
    1
  12998. No, dewdrop. I'm not playing your games. You spewed line after line of utter nonsense that demonstrates that you don't even have a 8 year old's understanding of the topic. You ignore virtually every reply. You refuse to answer return questions. Or, on the rare occasion when you do, you butcher the topic even worse. You clearly do not want answers to your own statements/questions. So, no, I'm not chasing you down more rabbit holes. Get back to me when you really want answers. Don't pretend.
    1
  12999.  @extravagantpanda7962  You forgot a phrase: "some uneducated basement dwellers WHO KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE TOPIC who make youtube videos did?"
    1
  13000. You clearly have no idea what "trespassing" means. The cops didn't arrest the man for speaking. They arrested him for trespassing. And, what? "Natzies"?? How much could you possibly know about it if you cannot even spell it?
    1
  13001.  @Damowthablacksheep  Pfftt. The case was dismissed with prejudice. That means she lost, and has been barred from ever filing it again.
    1
  13002. "Greatest respect" -- while you accuse them of committing the biggest criminal fraud in human history, and would be sent to prison for their entire lives if you were correct? That's "the greatest respect"?
    1
  13003. When was the "original story" in your mind? And, what version?
    1
  13004. You're clearly the legal expert here, not me, so, can you please enlighten me about when they started just giving warnings for aggravated misdemeanors? And, while you're at it, please explain about why, with all of her open warrants for prior arrests, you think they'd ever even be able to just let her go?
    1
  13005. Well, it depends on what you mean. Large donations to private universities are legal. But, if the applicant is massively unqualified, usually the university still won't allow admission, even with large donations. On the other hand, bribing individuals to cheat on the SAT scores, bribing other individuals to falsify sports status, etc., isn't legal, and falsifies the qualifications, so a university doesn't even have the correct information to decide if an applicant is qualified.
    1
  13006. So that there's no grounds for appeal. "They wouldn't even let me speak."
    1
  13007.  @Tim22222  I'm almost never willing to deviate from talking about Apollo (in an Apollo video anyway), and I rarely embark on distractions. But, do you really think they'll find a jury of 12 who are willing to unanimously convict Trump of anything? You don't think he has enough followers to find at least 1 member of the jury to nullify?
    1
  13008.  @Tim22222  Never happening, man. Prepare yourself for letdown. They couldn't even convict OJ.
    1
  13009. Huh? But, he didn't buy it, not by himself, because he COULDN'T AFFORD IT. He borrowed the money. Good grief.
    1
  13010. The police blocked the release of the arrest video until 1.5 years after she died. What more do you expect?
    1
  13011. Sorry, you don't get to go back and edit out the part where you blamed police, and pretend you never said what you said. The police don't have any choice, dewdrop. They can only block the release while an investigation is open, or for other special circumstances. After that, they have to abide by the Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  13012. So, you edited your comment, and changing what you said? Sorry, dewdrop, I don't play that game. You and I both know what your original comment said.
    1
  13013. Exactly what are you proposing that the police do instead? Sit there and get shot?
    1
  13014. Did you even read my message before rejecting it? Why didn't you answer me? Sorry if you have the attention span of a chipmunk, but, seriously, that's your own problem.  @russellmckernan 
    1
  13015. A) How is that an answer to anything I asked? Have you looked for the telemetry? Which telemetry? Where have you looked so far? B) Like all hoax nuts, you are clueless. In 2006, NASA said they wanted to find two backup video tapes from the Apollo 11 moonwalk. Those two tapes had never been watched, not even once. They never even built a device capable of playing those two tapes. Those two tapes were from the pre-NTSC conversion. They made those two tapes in the event that the NTSC conversion didn't work. So, if the NTSC conversion failed, they would construct a machine capable of reading the tapes. But, the NTSC conversion worked, so, there was no need for those two tapes. Decades later, someone wanted to take a look at those two backup tapes, and intended on building a machine capable of reading them. But, he discovered they were missing. They searched for a year or two, to no avail. Their best guess is that the tapes were somehow mixed in with a bunch of similar tapes, and were recorded over. But, nobody really knows for sure. Over the years since then, you hoax nuts have decided that those two tapes are somehow important. None of you people wanted to watch those two backup tapes before, and, as I said, those two backup tapes had never even been viewed by ANYBODY. But, now, oh, they mean something to you? Why? What makes them important to you? How does this mean Apollo was fake? Over the years, the hoax nut videos keep increasing what was actually lost. First, they decided that the primary copies were missing, rather than the truth that they were backup copies. Then, magically, they concluded it was the data, and not just the video. This is because the hoax nuts don't realize that the word "telemetry" also applies to video, and, they blindly assumed that if "telemetry is missing," this means data. But, the hoax nuts are wrong. No data is missing. Why would you blindly trust a conspiracy video? What possible reason would you have to think any of that claptrap is actually true?
    1
  13016. Sorry, but Inside Edition is never going to tell the real story. "Embarrassed soccer mom kills herself after being caught by evil police" goes viral. "Convicted felon who cannot stop getting herself arrested... gets arrested yet again, and kills herself a year later due to unrelated reasons" doesn't go viral.
    1
  13017. Let's face reality here: most meteorites are not even the size of a grain of sand. They're moving fast, yes, but, they're so small that they really don't carry a lot of energy. The astronauts' suits had an outer garment that had 13 layers of micrometeorite shielding. And, the inner garment layers included a self-sealing rubberized layer that would actually fill small holes, similar in spirit to the WWII fighter planes that had self-sealing fuel tanks that would close up bullet holes (not the exact same mechanism, but same general idea). On the extraordinarily remote chance that they get hit by a large meteorite, well, obviously they die. But, you'll find several articles online that calculate those odds. It's something on the order of one person every couple million years will get hit by a large enough meteorite. Big ones just don't hit very often.
    1
  13018. Stores and police are allowed to ask for proof of purchase. Receipts are for your own protection, not for the store's protection. You might understand some of this if you had the reading and writing skills of an adult, so you can educate yourself on these matters. But, when you have the reading and writing skills of a 2nd grader, yeah, there's not much surprise that you don't understand very much. You're correct when you say that she's not legally required to provide the receipt. However, the consequence is that she must live with the possible results of not doing so, including being arrested. And, she IS required by law to provide ID (which she refused to do), and not to obstruct or obfuscate (she did both).
    1
  13019. Are you even reading the replies to your own questions? What's wrong with you?
    1
  13020. You can get a ticket for an infraction. Speeding. Fishing without a license. Parking in a handicap spot. Etc. But, for a crime, you get arrested.
    1
  13021. So, you don't understand the difference between a crime and an infraction, despite that I just explained it? And, trespassing? On a public beach? Where'd you get your law degree? In a bubble gum pack?
    1
  13022.  @Jason-lk9yi  Thanks, when I want advice from a clown, I'll seek it out.
    1
  13023. Pfftt. Wow. I don't think I've ever seen so much butchery of math and physics. Hey, if you think you understand this stuff so much better than every physicist on the planet, hey, what are you doing on YouTube!?!?!? Go ahead!!! You've done the math, right? Go ahead and write it up in a scientific paper, and submit it for scientific peer review to your favorite journal!!! Your Nobel Prize is in the mail (if they don't laugh you out the door).
    1
  13024. ann onn - I don't know why YouTube has lost the function where it tells you who the response is directed at... but just FYI, my response was directed at the conspiracy clown who started the thread.
    1
  13025. As opposed to?
    1
  13026. Your credibility is absolutely zero. Why? Because there is no "radioactive belt," dewdrop. The Van Allen belts are not radioactive. Good grief. What's wrong with you people?
    1
  13027. Huh? She was obviously a repeat offender. She ended up getting busted by Walgreens within a month after this, for stealing more stuff, including drugs.
    1
  13028. "did she get in front of that family and looked at them while pleasuring herself?" Yes, that's exactly what the witnesses said happened. They said she wandered up and down the beach looking for somewhere to do this, and plopped down in view of multiple people including children? One of the "audience" even caught it on video and gave a copy to the police.
    1
  13029. "i don’t think so" Why? Because that's what she said while trying to avoid getting arrested for the millionth time, and perhaps ending up back in prison again? Tell me, is this the first time you ever heard a felon saying "I didn't do it" when being arrested?
    1
  13030. "she did nothing wrong" Indecent exposure is a misdemeanor crime. It is aggravated when in front of children.
    1
  13031. "nothing really bad that would do something to the other people" Really? And, if it was a man at a playground, cranking in front of kids, would you be saying this?
    1
  13032. "Who ever called the police should be...." Sorry, that's not the definition of homicide. And, by your logic, nobody should ever call the police, for fear that the criminal might harm him/herself. What kind of society would that be?
    1
  13033. "because of them she killed herself" No, dewdrop. That's just this little fake story promoted by Inside Edition (where facts don't matter). She was a convicted felon who served time in prison, and had an arrest record a mile long. Why would this one arrest matter all that much? And, she waited 9 months? C'mon.
    1
  13034. "media/news has the same guilt" Dewdrop, no news station even covered this story until after the arrest video was released on November 24, 2023. She's been dead for 2 years. So, um, no.
    1
  13035. The woman in the video had numerous drug and alcohol charges, yet, you're complaining that someone ELSE might use drugs? Good gods.
    1
  13036. Um, no. You apparently don't know what happened here.
    1
  13037.    He was arrested for trespassing.
    1
  13038. Good grief. What a train wreck. "it is proven it wasn't a high jack but a tik tok video." Sorry, but, I'm not buying this silly story. First of all, in one interview, the dad of the guy shot said that the son was asking who was in that car, and went to go find out. In another interview, the dad said the son "definitely didn't know anybody was in that car, that much he knows for sure." Now, gee, do you suppose that the attorney might have talked to the guy between the two interviews and told him that it's a bad idea to say that the son knew someone was in the car? This entire story about a Tik Tok video doesn't jive with what actually happened on video. The guy quickly walked up to the car with a ski mask on in the middle of summer in Kentucky, with a gun drawn, and pointed it straight at the driver as the door opened. And, he had a backup (his accomplice/girlfriend) a few seconds behind him. Does that sound like he thought the car was abandoned? Or, does that sound like a carjacking? "windows tinted so he thought no ones inside" Yet, he walked right by the windshield, which wasn't tinted. And, his father had said (as I illustrated above) that the son knew someone was in the car (until the story changed). "there were abadonded cars in this place before" You cannot even spell it. What do you know about abandoned cars? And, who cares? Call the police. Don't storm up to the door with a gun drawn. "so the dude get to stupid idea that his friend will record on the phone how he approached a car and take it for a "joyride"" Joyriding in an econobox piece of junk Nissan whatever? And, sorry, you don't need a ski mask and gun for a "joyride." "He was unlucky that there was cop in a car" Unlucky for him, lucky for the rest of society. "it is proven it wasn't a highjack attempt" Proven, huh? Why? Because that's the story that the family and their attorney (who is suing) came up with? That makes it "proven"? "I didn't dig deep enough" You didn't dig AT ALL. "but his family state he didn't have a gun" No, his father clearly said that he wasn't sure why his son went there with a gun. And, his attorney said that he had a gun, "like any normal person would." "and I red somewhere" But, you can barely read and write!!! I've seen better English from a 2nd grader. You constantly misspell, don't punctuate, use lousy grammar, etc. I seriously doubt you graduated high school. And, I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't even make it through 7th grade. "it was actually a paintball gun" It doesn't look like one to me. You see it on the ground at 5:02 in the video.
    1
  13039.  @Nickxxx85  "So what is more likely, that he wanted to steal a car just outside of his house" What difference does it make? "with propably a fake gun" So, now you acknowledge the gun, huh? In thread after thread after thread in this video, you claimed there was no gun. Then, you switched to calling it a paintball gun. And, you're still saying it's a fake gun, huh? Dewdrop, people attempt to do carjackings with fake guns also, you know. It doesn't change the fact that this was an attempted carjacking. As for the rest of your gibberish, if you're not going to answer my questions, why should I answer yours?
    1
  13040. Natural or not, you're not allowed to put on a show in front of children.
    1
  13041. Amazing. You have discovered that stars don't show up on film that is set for short exposure times. Shocker. It's not like the entirety of the photography community has known that for 100+ years or anything....
    1
  13042. Yes, it's true that every sentence needs to exactly spell things out, or those people will intentionally misunderstand things. But, unless every sentence is 600 words to spell things out, I just don't know if it's even possible to NOT leave room for them to misconstrue. Those are people who WANT to misunderstand the facts.
    1
  13043. Huh? That's exactly why we have courts. You're proving yourself to be incorrect, without even realizing it. An officer's duty is to determine if enough evidence exists for reasonable suspicion of a crime. And, if there is, his duty is to perform an arrest. He's not required to prove or disprove anything at the side of the road. That's for a courtroom. So, did he have reasonable suspicion of a crime? Well, "Anna" (the store employee) told him that she saw the woman go through the checkout area without paying. The officer asked the woman for a receipt, and she refused to provide it. He asked for identification (which is required by law during such an investigation), and she refused to provide it. And, she resisted arrest. Um, yeah, I'd say that's enough reasonable suspicion. You hit the nail on the head when you said you're not required to prove/disprove guilt at the side of a road, but, somehow, you then threw logic completely out the window, and magically somehow think that the side of the road IS where proof is required. No. Courts are where that's done, not the side of the road. The cop doesn't need to be correct at the side of the road. The cop only needs to justify whether there was reasonable suspicion.
    1
  13044.  @BrokenSmokinSpokes  Yes, of course. Why wouldn't he? If his job is to determine if there's a reasonable suspicion of a crime, asking for a receipt is a natural way to do that. What did you expect him to do? NOT ask for the receipt?
    1
  13045. I don't think I've ever heard such a well thought out and comprehensive argument. Clearly, you've demonstrated superior knowledge than the entire world's aerospace engineers, physics PhDs, rocket scientists, etc. Thank you so much for sharing your convincing argument with the world of YouTube. I'm convinced now.
    1
  13046. Was it drugs? Is that what did this to your mind?
    1
  13047.  JackC-o9q  Dewdrop, how about stopping pretending you know things you don't? Is that too much to ask?
    1
  13048. Well, I don't like the story either. It's massively inaccurate. But, she never suffered any humiliation from Inside Edition. She was already dead for 1.5 years before they reported anything about it. So, liable for what, exactly?
    1
  13049. How would a mask help prevent you from getting/spreading COVID when it doesn't cover your nose? I think it's safe to include the mask in your factors.
    1
  13050. Well, Indonesia is also a country that commits mass murder on its own citizens. So, I guess it's no surprise.
    1
  13051. Well, your ultimate point is valid. However, in this case, he died pretty quickly. Chest shot like that... yeah, he probably wasn't going to make it anyway. It's not as if the guy made it for 3 hours, and had they acted faster in the first few minutes... maybe.... Nope. He stopped talking about 30 seconds after being shot, and stopped moving about 10 seconds after that, with his head slumped to the side. Everything after that was a formality.
    1
  13052. Another YouTube University School of Law proud graduate, huh? Every sentence you wrote was wrong. Welcome to Inside Edition, where facts don't matter.
    1
  13053. The biggest "lie" and "fake it" in human history was indeed committed by the USA. After dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, the USA told Japan (paraphrased) "we have a thousand of these bombs, and we're going to wipe your country off of the face of the Earth one city at a time from now on until you surrender." In reality, they only had one more, and it would be a year before they'd have another. Japan did not believe the lie. But, when the USA used its remaining bomb on Nagasaki, Japan reconsidered, and surrendered... basically on a lie/bluff. But, that doesn't mean Apollo was fake. Apollo was, in fact, very real.
    1
  13054. "I have seen clips" Provided by conspiracy videos, no doubt.
    1
  13055. "the belt and that they can’t go past it yet" There are two main factors. First, they haven't had a man-rated rocket capable of lifting a manned craft that high since the retirement of the Saturn V. No rocket = not going that high. The only rockets capable of going that high are ones that carry a much smaller payload (i.e. unmanned probes that weigh 4,000 pounds). Stick a 100,000 pound stack of command/service/landing modules on top, those littler rockets won't even get off the ground, let alone carry anybody high enough to get past the Van Allen belts. But, now the SLS is man-rated, so, the next mission will carry people. Second, modern electronics consisting of micro-circuitry that is literally a few atoms across are more sensitive to ionic radiation than 1960s electronics consisting of wires. Yes, they wanted to test the modern craft before putting people inside.
    1
  13056. "slow your roll" "I’m not saying" "I just don’t understand" Gee, maybe, if you wanted to be taken seriously with your "questions," perhaps you should have backed off on comments containing emojis, "lol," and "little green men." Do you think that might have something to do with why nobody can take you seriously?
    1
  13057.  @TexMex421  Apollo 14 went right through the middle, FYI.
    1
  13058. "After that, everything was all on monitor screens like a movie." Really? You think the veracity of Apollo depends on movie screens? The radar tracking done by many countries including enemies? Those were "movie screens" to you? The countless countries/people around the world that could tune in to the Apollo audio by pointing dishes at the moon? Those are movie screens, in your mind? The laser reflectors left on the lunar surface, used by dozens of facilities around the world in dozens of countries? Those are "movie screens"? Who told you that movie screens were the only evidence? Why would you believe ANYTHING is based on "movie screens"? Personally, I think the photos and videos are decent evidence, but, not important next to all of the 3rd party evidence. You don't even seem to know about any of it. Why not? Didn't your favorite conspiracy videos tell you about any of it?
    1
  13059. "Think about it the President picked up the landline phone from his desk to speak with Buzz on the moon. If that's not a dead giveaway, then I don't know what to tell you" Really? What do you think YOU know about telecommunications technology? When he picked up the phone aboard Air Force One and made phone calls, was that too mysterious for you to grasp also? When he picked up a phone and called ocean ships, were you under the impression that they strung long cords from the ships back to land? Since the 1940s, decades before Apollo, anybody who owned a phone could call a car phone operator and be patched through to radio based phones in anybody's car who owned them. Is this a "giveaway" that car phones don't exist, in your mind?
    1
  13060. It's online (the whole encounter). I'm sure you can find it.
    1
  13061. Hilarious!! Backup? In Jacksonville, FL? The murder and high crime capitol of the state? "Calling all cars, calling all cars, stop investigating those murders and felonies, I have a woman who is upset because the store thought she might have stolen a piece of chicken and a loaf of bread. Stop what you're doing. Come help me. Mayday!! Mayday!!!" Sheeesssshhhh. You really do live on another planet, don't you?
    1
  13062. "Buy apollo11 didn’t go through the central part of the belt apparently" Buy is didn't central apparently go belt of you're.
    1
  13063. "tell me why not if the central part was not dangerous ?" Sure, I'll just teach you orbital mechanics over YouTube.
    1
  13064. "See how the story falls apart ?" Dewdrop, just stop pretending to understand things you don't. There isn't an aerospace engineer on the planet who says the things you're saying. You don't even know how many belts there are. Stop getting your "education" by watching videos made by yoga instructors and taxi cab drivers.
    1
  13065. "why not if it’s safe ?" Orbital mechanics.
    1
  13066. "why don’t they use it for every mission ?" Well, if you're asking about why they didn't go right through the middle of the belts, then the answer is that they did so on Apollo 14. But, they didn't do that on Apollo 11 and most of the other missions. Orbital mechanics, month of the year, position of the moon relative to Earth, landing spot on the moon, etc. Do you really think I can teach you orbital mechanics over YouTube comments?
    1
  13067. "That is another contradiction in the official story" No, dewdrop. It's "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake" logic on your part. Stop pretending otherwise.
    1
  13068. " if the Apollo 11 flightpath which avoided the inner belt and was successful" No mission completely avoided the inner belt. Apollo 14 went right through the middle. Apollo 17 went dramatically south of it, but still scraped through some of it anyway. Apollo 11 didn't go through the middle, but, didn't go as far north as Apollo 17 went south, and still went through some of it. Who cares?
    1
  13069. "Why have all missions since not used it ?" Gee, maybe it's the orbital mechanics that dictate it, huh? Like, the 23 degree tilt angle? The relative position of the moon during the mission, etc.? Again, how many times do I have to tell you?
    1
  13070. "It makes no sense" No, dewdrop. It makes no sense that you pretend to understand topics you don't. It makes no sense that you sit there and question the decisions of hundreds of aerospace engineers while knowing absolutely NOTHING about orbital mechanics. Stop pretending, and maybe I'll go a bit deeper. But, you're disingenuous, and it shows. It makes no difference to you about the belts you don't understand. You just watched some videos made by roofing contractors and taxi cab drivers, and you think you understand things you don't.
    1
  13071. Dewdrop, why do you suppose there isn't a single aerospace engineer on the planet who complains about the trajectories or the Van Allen belts? What do you think you learned by watching videos made by lawnmower repairmen that the world's experts don't know?
    1
  13072. "You get them to sign NDA" Every aerospace engineer on the planet in all countries signed NDAs? Really? And, dewdrop, NDAs aren't enforceable if it involves a crime. So, any NDA would be null. Good grief. STOP PRETENDING YOU KNOW THINGS YOU DO NOT.
    1
  13073. "Where is the fuel data for the new flightpath" What new flightpath? Are you even capable of forming a coherent thought?
    1
  13074. "Without exception all flight maps had the space craft flying through the centre of the belt" Dewdrop, what in the world are you talking about? I mean, good grief, the most famous photo ever taken of Earth was on Apollo 17 (labeled the "Blue Marble" photo), and what are you looking down at? The southern tip of Africa, and you can even see the whole of Antarctica. Does that seem like it would be right through the center of the belts to you (which are EQUATORIAL)? Once again, you are pretending to understand things you do not.
    1
  13075. "Why not before the mission ?" Is this a joke? Dewdrop, if they slipped the launch window by even as much as 12 hours, it dramatically changed the trajectory they'd take. Trajectories varied even more dramatically if you launched in July vs. December. Tilt angles, remember? Orbital mechanics, remember? It's that topic you know nothing about. The physics involved were well understood, but, the exact flightpaths weren't established until just before launch. Once again, you know nothing whatsoever about the topic, and need to quit your "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake" mentality.
    1
  13076. So, you went back to your prior messages and edited them? Good grief. "Why did NASA destroy the technology and much of the flight data for instance ?" They didn't. You watched a video made by a lawnmower repairman who told you that, and you decided to believe it for no reason.
    1
  13077. "Apollo 11 chose that path purely for safety reasons and to avoid radiation. Nothing to do with orbital mechanics ." No, dewdrop. There is no issue with going through the center of the belts. If they had the flexibility, they went through some less dense parts, but, there is was nothing stopping them from going right through the middle if the orbital mechanics of the mission dictated so. As a matter of fact, Apollo 11 didn't even deviate all that far off the center. Apollo 14 went right through the middle. Apollo 17 went the furthest away from the center. It all has to do with mission timing relative to the moon's position, the tilt angles of the Earth, which month they flew, and the ORBITAL MECHANICS that you know absolutely nothing about. Stop pretending.
    1
  13078. "if the van Allen belt was not dangerous why did they need another flightpath ?" Orbital mechanics dictated the flightpaths.
    1
  13079. "They had flight path maps handed to the media for every mission" Only very rudimentary. As I told you, the flightpaths changed based upon when they launched. They'd never publish an exact flightpath ahead of time, if it would change dramatically due to a delay. Stop pretending you understand this topic.
    1
  13080. "It was always the same flightpath for every mission" No, dewdrop. How many times must I tell you that it varied from mission to mission? How many times? Are you even reading the replies to your own questions?
    1
  13081. "It is still the same flightpath for Orian" You cannot even spell it. What do you think you understand about it? Orion is a CAPSULE, dewdrop. And, they sent the two Orion capsules on two different flight paths already. The path the capsule takes is dictated by the goal of the mission, and the timing of the launch, and orbital mechanics, and the launch booster used.
    1
  13082. "Straight through the centre" Sure, especially because the two missions they sent so far were specifically designed to test the Orion capsule's electronics in the Van Allen belts. So what?
    1
  13083. "Once the flight path was confirmed they went by that flight path , never changed it . Except for Apollo 11." Ridiculous nonsense. Instead of watching videos made by drywall contractors, how about watching "Launch Windows For Lunar Landing" instead? It's only 20 minutes, and is extremely basic, but, it gives you a basic understanding of the conditions. Actuality is far more complicated, but, for 20 minutes, it's a good introduction. They even outline how the launch changed with merely a 12 hour delta.
    1
  13084. " they wouldn’t have bothered handing out the flight path to the media" Dewdrop, what flight plan? A line on a picture?
    1
  13085. "You don’t know what you are talking about" Hilarious. The guy who can't spell "Orion," the guy who didn't know (until I said so) that there were multiple Van Allen belts, the guy who gets his aerospace engineering "education" by watching videos made by taxi cab drivers, is the guy telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about. Comic gold.
    1
  13086. "They changed the flightpath after because the original plan didn’t make sense" Dewdrop, how do you change the flight afterward? That makes no sense. Dozens of countries tracked the Apollo missions using radar and radio telescopes. The accuracy yielded by the type-C radar, the transponders, and Doppler shift was within a margin of error of one mile. Did you not learn this from the videos you watched made by roofing contractors?
    1
  13087. "They destroyed the technology and omitted some data because they wanted nothing scrutinised" Hilarious!!! And, who "destroyed the technology"? Once again, you have gotten your education by watching 1-sentence clips posted out of context in videos made by grocery store clerks who let you pretend to understand things you do not. There are no aerospace engineers anywhere on the planet who agree with you, dewdrop.
    1
  13088. "there would be something called the internet" Yeah, the place where taxi cab drivers and yoga instructors can post videos telling dewdrops like you (who know absolutely nothing) that they're smart (when they're not).
    1
  13089. "unexplained anomalies" But, the only thing you've named is the flight paths, which you don't understand. And, you don't even have enough courage to answer basic challenges. You said the flight paths were all right through the middle, right? Yet, in the Apollo 17 photo, you can clearly see that the flight path was extremely far south of the equator, thus proving that it wasn't right through the middle of the equatorial belts. I pointed this out. You ignored it. I mean, seriously, are you even reading the responses to your own questions. Can you demonstrate it by writing "green" at the top of your next reply?
    1
  13090. Dewdrop, don't tell me what I can or can't explain while simultaneously making it clear that you're not even reading responses.
    1
  13091. Stop pretending. I've asked a bunch of questions, which you ignored. I gave answers to your questions, which you ignored, because you asked the same questions again. And, I asked you to write "green" in your reply to demonstrate that you were reading responses. You didn't.
    1
  13092. Again, you can stop pretending now.
    1
  13093. Dewdrop, you wouldn't know what my responses even were, because you didn't read them. Stop pretending.
    1
  13094. Thanks for proving, once again, that you never read most of my replies. I'm not going to keep replying to the same questions again and again, while you continue to demonstrate that you don't read the answers.
    1
  13095. "Just answer the questions" And then you ask a question I already answered, but you ignored... while you didn't answer a single one of my questions. Good grief. No, dewdrop. You've made it quite clear that you don't want answers to your own questions. I asked you to prove you were reading the answers by typing "green" in your reply. You didn't. So, don't pretend you're reading anything.
    1
  13096. Dewdrop, is it REALLY that impossible for you to stop pretending? Is it so ingrained in your personality that stopping is just plain impossible? You pretend to ask questions, but you make it clear that you don't actually want answers. You pretend to know things you don't, about topics that you don't even remotely come close to understanding. And, you pretend that the entire planet's experts know less than you do. Good gods, man, just stop. This is beyond ridiculous.
    1
  13097. But, nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive. So, how was she humiliated by it?
    1
  13098. Oh, quit your lies. You know darned well that you would still reject it by calling that fake too.
    1
  13099. "We are hurting to find another planet because of our pollution and overpopulation." Huh? Who's looking for another planet? And, isn't it a better solution to clean up the pollution, rather than "find another planet"?
    1
  13100. "being better Stewart’s" You know, education is one of the main mechanisms to make the world a better place. It doesn't do our world any good to have a bunch of adults who read and write like 6 year old kids. The word is "stewards," dewdrop. No apostrophe. Not a proper name. I mean, if you actually want to be taken seriously, how about trying to be literate first?
    1
  13101. It was left inside the lunar module, and probably crashed back into the lunar surface. Technically, we don't know for sure that Apollo 11's lunar module crashed into the lunar surface, or is still in orbit. But, it's highly unlikely that it's in orbit and nobody has picked up any radar on it since 1969. But, just a stickler for detail here: there was no camera that captured the liftoff itself. They didn't start running the camera until it was quite high above the lunar surface, on its way to orbit.
    1
  13102.  @soriac2357  No, you are thinking of Apollo 15/16/17. They didn't have those cameras for Apollo 11.
    1
  13103. What a pathetic display. Jordan needs to go sue the virus for causing the shutdown, not argue with Fauci as if he caused it. And, Fauci needs to give an actual number, like, for example, "when we reach 1,000 cases per day, we can go back to normal." What nonsense. Fauci has had a year to contemplate where the "finish line" should be, and how to quantify it. And, Jordan needs to stop screaming at the wind, yelling as if Fauci caused the virus. We have had a half million deaths from the virus, and it would have been 10 million if we didn't take the precautions we did. Neither one of these people behaved appropriately in this meeting.
    1
  13104. Um, ok. Yeah, it went to the appellate court, then the state supreme court, and eventually (like 2 years ago, or so) to the Supreme Court of the USA. There are no higher appeals than that. His appeals were all denied, and rightfully so. Why would you want more appeals? Do you want this madman to go free?
    1
  13105.  @johnchristopher3544  Hey, moron, if you're going to use this stupid "petrified wood" story as ammunition against Apollo, learn something about it. I mean, get real here. NASA gave out hundreds of samples from Apollo 11 and 17 to countries. If one was petrified wood, don't you think that some of the other hundreds would have been investigated by now? No? You think that one sample was petrified wood, and the rest of the planet just sat there and never checked theirs? Why was this petrified wood sample at an ART MUSEUM?? Could it be that it was given to an art museum because an art museum wouldn't know how to authenticate it? Could it be because the national science museum would have said, "What are you talking about? Our genuine samples are right over there on display, this can't be a moon rock." Why would NASA even give a sample to a 1940s era prime minister anyway? That would be like China going to the moon tomorrow, and then bringing a moon rock back, and giving it to Bill Clinton. I mean, good grief, this "petrified wood" story has so many holes in it that it's insane. Yes, the art museum got duped, and accepted a fake moon rock without verifying its authenticity. Why would you blame NASA for this? Why would you blame Armstrong or Aldrin for this? The art museum themselves admit that they shouldn't have accepted that rock without verifying it. If a museum accepts a fake Rolex watch without verifying it, is it Rolex's fault? Does this mean real Rolex watches don't exist? Good grief, you conspiratards are dumb.
    1
  13106. I found a couple of obscure blogs. But, none of the big stuff dropped until long after she was dead. And, why do you even blame the media in the first place? Is there no accountability for a person's own actions? What about her other million arrests? What about her felony term spent in a Florida prison. She didn't lose her life for those? No? It was THIS particular arrest that did it, and she waited a year after THIS arrest?
    1
  13107. Sure, but, not when it's planned in advance.
    1
  13108. But, that's not what happened. They kept the arrest video private for almost 2.5 years. That means she was dead for 1.5 years by the time anybody ever saw the arrest video. After the case has been closed that long, they can no longer block a legal FOIA request.
    1
  13109.  @andymath1523  1) Andre asked you a bunch of questions. You didn't reply to most of them. 2) You don't know the definition of the word "atom." 3) You are dead wrong about your understanding of what the term "absolute zero" means. 4) Go get an education, seriously. The stuff you're spewing is a barely literate pile of garbage. I realize that you're one of "the good guys" and that you're enthusiastically trying to defend science from the parade of YouTube clods who think Earth is flat, Apollo didn't happen, etc. But, with all due respect, you lack the scientific understanding of these concepts to make a coherent point. Most of what you're asserting is just plain wrong. I'd break it down for you, but, Andre is already trying to do that, and you're basically ignoring him. You're responding, yes. But, you're not absorbing what he's trying to tell you. So, I doubt that I'd have any better luck in trying to explain it to you either. Andre is correct, and you're incorrect. That's about all I can say.
    1
  13110. No major media covered any of this until after she was dead. She ruined her own life.
    1
  13111. Why? On what grounds?
    1
  13112. They give fines for crimes now? Where'd you get your law degree? A bubblegum package along with baseball cards?
    1
  13113. How do you "destroy" someone who already killed herself?
    1
  13114. Bingo. You are 100% correct. You must ID yourself if a cop is investigating a possible crime, and you can remain silent after that, if you wish. But, you must also live with the consequences of that choice, which might include getting arrested.
    1
  13115. Well, you cared enough to watch this video. You cared enough to post a message on YouTube to expose your complete ignorance. You cared enough to expose to the world that you're a crackpot. Why don't you care enough to say what kind of evidence you've looked for? You're the one who claimed that it's bad to believe things without evidence or proof. Yet, you won't provide any to back up your own belief?
    1
  13116. Huh? NASA did want to keep going back. Congress killed the program. What do you propose NASA do about it? And, what "lie" are you talking about? Congress ended the program. Is that a lie?
    1
  13117. I wonder if she wore that cross while doing her job? I mean, what with being a convicted felon who spent time in prison for stealing cars, with tons of arrests for drug and alcohol problems, open warrants for failures to appear in court, multiple judgements against her for various thefts, etc., I can imagine that it must be pretty tough to get a regular job after that. So, her landlord says that her "profession" was, well, one of those words you're not allowed to write in a YouTube comment without getting blocked... ya know... one of those "careers" that involves cash transactions with large numbers of men, right? It might be interesting to know if she wore her cross while "working."
    1
  13118. What don't you understand about the "stop and identify" laws?
    1
  13119. Your Texas comment is no longer visible, but, I see it in the notifications. Yes, you're correct about Texas. Not the same in Florida.
    1
  13120. Well, you've done a fine job of throwing enough legal sounding words around, pretending to know things you don't actually know. Bravo. But, sorry, YouTube University isn't a real thing, despite that you're proudly displaying your degree. The ACTUAL fact is that the cop is required to investigate when the store employee identifies someone who might have stolen something. That's why he was on duty there in the first place. There's no requirement for any open case numbers, if the store employee stands right there, and tells the cop, "that woman right there went through the register without paying." Yes, the cop needs to go detain the woman and investigate. No, he doesn't need to go file a case first. The store employee never filed anything either. Why would the cop arrest the store employee? This is very simple, she thought the woman might have stolen, and asked the cop to go investigate. That isn't a crime. There's no such thing as a search and seize warrant to find a receipt. A receipt is for the buyers' protection, not for the cops' sake. The cops may ask for it. It makes things a lot easier just to provide it. But, you're actually correct when you said she doesn't legally need to provide it. However, if that's the route she chooses, then she legally must provide her ID (she refused), she must not obstruct or obfuscate (illegal, and she did both), and she must no resist arrest (also illegal, which is exactly what she did). Yeah, but you go right on with your advanced degrees from YouTube University, and think you understand things you do not. It's why you do what you do, right? So you can pretend?
    1
  13121. "Mastermind." Hilarious!! I guarantee, that's the one and only time in her life that she hears that word spoken about her.
    1
  13122.  @occhamite  No. On the moon. The "wind" blew the flag a number of times. But, the "wind" is created by the off-gassing of the lunar module's systems, purge valves, porous plate sublimators, etc. The PLSS backpacks and spacesuits had similar off-gassing systems. There were times when the lunar module's systems and the suits/backpacks made the flags move. Not in this video. This video shows the flags moving when being handled. But, "American Moon" and some of the other nut videos complain about those other times.
    1
  13123.  @bradleyrex2968  That happened more than one time, just FYI.
    1
  13124.  @AshutoshSrivastavaTimetraveler  First of all, I don't know who subscribes to my channel, nor why. I have never once posted a video. I would venture the guess that when some people see my posted comments, they subscribe whether there are videos or not. But, I cannot speak for the 47 people that I know nothing about. Secondly, how far out of the dock has your ship sailed (without you on it) if you would think anybody would pay me to answer questions on YouTube? That's just silly, and riddled with ridiculous paranoia. But, hey, if you know of someone who wants to pay me, I'm all ears.
    1
  13125. Yup, lots of videos tell lots of silly lies to get hits.
    1
  13126. Both.
    1
  13127. A) So, the media is never supposed to talk about arrests because they would be responsible if the person commits suicide? No accountability goes on the person herself? B) The arrest video was released on November 24, 2023. Her suicide was in March of 2022. So, um, no.
    1
  13128. It's called the Freedom of Information Act. Once a case has been closed long enough, police do not have a choice, and must abide by a legal FOIA request. And, given that this was 2.5 years ago, and she had already been dead 1.5 years, yeah, the police probably had no choice but to release it. But, enlighten me, because I'm not a legal expert, what exactly is the basis for your lawsuit?
    1
  13129. Imagine if you actually knew what you were talking about.
    1
  13130.  J Calhoun  Not only do they operate on 12% of the relative budget, but they also have 10x the number of programs they need to run.
    1
  13131. Yes, that's how they planned this story. They got two rounds of viral videos for the price of one. They released the video and didn't mention that she was already dead. It went viral. Then, they came back a few weeks later to say she died, and got another round of viral video out of it. The reality is that she's been dead for 2 years, they just didn't say so in their first round of reporting.
    1
  13132. Hilarious!!! They even gave tours of the practice facilities, and showed them on television, long before going to the moon. Hardly aligns with your notion that they changed their minds and called them practice facilities after the fact.
    1
  13133. Typical nut. You can't address the actual topic that YOU laughably brought up, so, you change topics.
    1
  13134. Wearing a ski mask in the middle of summer in Kentucky? Carrying a gun? Pointing it at the person inside the car the moment the door opened? Girlfriend/accomplice waiting in the wings in the car? Yeah, I think we both know he wasn't there innocently to check out an abandoned car in a high crime area.
    1
  13135. You have the right not to provide a receipt. But, by law, you must provide identification when under investigation of a crime. And, you cannot obstruct or obfuscate the investigation (she did both). And, if you choose not to provide a receipt, you must face the reality that the cop might arrest you, and not resist that arrest. How dishonest of you to take a case like this, and extrapolate it to this condition of beating someone to death. There's no possible way you can actually draw any remote escalation or analogy between a cop investigating a potential theft and asking for ID, vs. beating someone to death. This is absolutely ridiculous.
    1
  13136. What's wrong with you?
    1
  13137. "When I think about it" Don't pretend that you're thinking. That's not what you're doing. "I believe they went indeed to the moon" OK, so, you believe it then? "but when I get outside in my yard and see the moon at night shining in the sky and realize how difficult it has to be to get there" So, that's it? You looked at the moon from your yard? You didn't study the evidence or anything? No? Evidence doesn't matter to you? The main thing you could come up with is looking at the moon from your yard? And, you think anybody could possibly take you seriously? "and then take a look at my smartwatch and think that its technology is far superior than anything in posession of NASA in the 60s" How much thrust does your smartwatch generate? "then I realize, they faked it all out." Why? Because you have a smartwatch? You don't bother to name the technology they actually lacked? I mean, you can use this "smartwatch logic" to deny anything you feel like. "How did they place a phone call in the 1960s, when I have a smartwatch today that's better?" "How did they make atomic bombs in the 1940s, when my smartwatch is better?" Seriously? This is your "logic"? Can you name the actual rocket technology that they lacked? Smartwatches weren't required to go to the moon, dewdrop. If you want to argue about technology, you need to name the specific technology you think they lacked. Then, you need to explain why none of the thousands of engineers working on that particular technology ever realized that they failed to build technologies that worked. Can you? Explain why none of the thousands of engineers knew that their technologies weren't good enough to do what they designed them to do. Can you? "By the way, I wonder how they went to the bathroom while on the moon." So, this is basically, "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." You don't know about the topic, therefore, nobody does. Right? Or, you just don't understand that particular solution? If that's the case, well, all I can really tell you is that you clearly don't know very much about Apollo as a whole. I fail to understand why you think you know enough to say that the entire planet's experts are wrong, and you're right, when you don't even know how the various systems worked. "I wonder how their psychology was not affected" EVIDENCE, dewdrop. EVIDENCE!!! Go look at the EVIDENCE for the moon landings. Good grief. Why does their psychology even matter to you? "in spite of training when it must have been absolutely terrifying" Well, guess what, dewdrop, there are those of us in the human population that don't experience fear the way others do. I'm one of them. I'm not an astronaut, and never have been, but, for whatever it's worth, there are some of us that just don't really have "fear" in the same way that you do. I've gone diving with Great White sharks, no cage. I've got about 1500 skydives under my belt. I've hung from suspension bridges with no safety rope. I doubt that my heart ever skipped a beat. Ironically, I imagine the most dangerous thing I've ever done, however, was riding motorcycles without a helmet. But, whatever. 99.99% of the time when I post in these comments, I don't want to make the comment about me personally. I don't matter one bit. The facts matter. But, in this case, I'm speaking from personal history because it matters toward what you're claiming. Some percentage of the population just doesn't have "fear" the way most others do. I mean, my version of "fear" is to worry about how my kids are doing, or worry about whether my wife was injured in a car wreck that happened to her, stuff like that. But, I have no "fear" of any experiences. That's what the astronauts were like. These were test pilots, combat pilots, etc. Gene Cernan, for example, before he was an astronaut, would train to fly nuclear bombs under the wings of his planes, high speed at treetop level, then flinging the bombs straight up in the air, and boogying out of there at supersonic speed before the bomb would go off and take him out with the target city. That's what he was training for: WWIII. He was the same. No real "fear" like other people have. "to be in the surface of the moon alone so far from anything you know." Gee, and some others figure that's a sense of adventure, not fear. "I have no doubt they faked it" Yet, you pretended otherwise when you opened the comment, saying you believed it. Sure. You're really honest. And, what's the basis for your belief now? Because of fear? Because you have a smartwatch? Did you ever even a single time mention the evidence itself? No. Did you even ask what the evidence was? No. For you, none of that matters. What matters is fear and smartwatches. And, you're PROUD of this ridiculous babble of yours?
    1
  13138. "I and no one else ever claimed reticles were being painted onto a set." Shocker. Another denier who reads and writes at a 2nd grade level. And, you're wrong. Many of you "disappearing crosshair" people think exactly that. And, sorry, but YOU were the one who used the words "impossible for one of these crosshair marks to be behind." Yeah, if you're implying that missing crosshairs means that the crosshair is BEHIND the object, then, yes, you're basically implying that the crosshairs are on the "movie set" somewhere away from the camera, behind objects in the foreground. "You're depiction" I am depiction? "totally false representation of the claim" Nope. "Who are you to determine what and how the world is to think?" I'm the guy who understands the topic. You're the crank who believes silly nonsense. "An indisputable interruption of a reticle" I explained the reason for it. You can replicate this on Earth. "or improper position of the largest center reticle on a photo" There is no such issue, except in composite photos. Your favorite guy Percy kept making those arguments all of his "career" (sigh), but, he kept using composite photos instead of the original photos. This had been pointed out to him repeatedly, and he kept on using composites anyway. He's dishonest to his core. "image manipulation." Yes, composites are manipulated. They take multiple photos and splice them together to depict a wider field of view than a single photo represents. But, there isn't a single original photo anywhere in the Apollo library that has the center crosshairs in the wrong spot. You only see it in the wrong spot for the composite photos. "You obviously don't fully understand the claim." Hilarious!!! You're referring to people like Percy, and then claiming **I** don't understand? That guy is the king of misunderstanding things (intentionally). "No one is talking about "washed out" images." Oh, good, then provide examples of missing crosshairs on dark colored objects. And, no, not on composites. I'm talking about the original photo library. "All you need is one forged check to prove forgery" But, dewdrop, all of the composites are labeled as composites. Don't blame me if your favorite conspiracy video take known composites and then pretend there's a problem. "Those that view the evidence will decide for themselves, and judge you accordingly." But, dewdrop, that's not what you're doing. You are deciding in advance what to believe, then you hunt down conspiracy videos that tell you what you want to hear. "This is to any rational person that wishes to see the evidence and with an open mind." But, dewdrop, your mind is sealed shut. What in the world would YOU know about an open mind? "These paid actors" Yeah, gotta go where the money is. The lizard people pay pretty well. Also, it's time I increase my investment in Reynolds Group (the people who make tinfoil wrap). I suspect that there's a large investment in hats coming up from people like you. Quack quack.
    1
  13139. Why do people wave around this "technology" word as if it's supposed to mean something? Sending people to the moon requires funding from congress. Congress has only granted that funding twice. Once in 1961 when it approved and funded Apollo. And, again in 2019 when it approved and funded Artemis. That's all. Only two times in history. And, Artemis 1 is sitting on the lauchpad right now, just 3 years after being funded by congress (with approximately 1/10th of the budget that Apollo had, when adjusted for inflation).
    1
  13140. Because it's a public place.
    1
  13141. Ok, I'd love to see that, but, I'm not sure what the actual lawsuit would allege. Can you clue me in?
    1
  13142. In some states, employers have every right to fire anyone for any reason (with the exception of "protected" classes, such as race). In other states, an employer cannot fire someone without a bunch of documentation showing wrongdoing. I wouldn't fire my employees over this incident alone. However, if horribly bad judgment exists in this case (which it does), then it's likely that horribly bad judgment is an overall theme in this idiot's life, and he probably does a lot more wrong than just this.
    1
  13143. Are you under the impression that the landings were filmed from the surface of the moon? What in the world are you talking about?
    1
  13144. Sounds nice and all, but how could you ever achieve 100% certainty? I mean, even if you have it on video, someone could say that it's a 0.0001% chance that it's all computer generated, and they've been framed by Lucasfilm's special effects department. I certainly understand what you mean. It's horrifying to think of innocent people being put to death. But, the fact of the matter is that you have to pick a side, and face the reality that 100% is not achievable. It's a fantasy.
    1
  13145. My attacking you? What does that mean?
    1
  13146. Anton: What utterly stupid things to say. YOU SAID: "I would love to think we as mankind went to the moon." == Bullshit. I don't believe you for a single second. I think you'd prefer a delusion to the reality. YOU SAID: "But I doubt it very much. We did not have the technology at the time." == Oh no. You don't get to just throw that blanket out there, claiming that the technology wasn't available. Name the EXACT technology that was lacking. And, then explain why the subject matter experts in the EXACT technology lied to the entire planet and said it was available. YOU SAID: "When asked to show the technical details, we are told the technology is ‘lost’." == Bullshit. Absolute bullshit. Nobody has said the technology was "lost" upon any question to show the technical details. Don Pettit said the technology was "lost" when asked why we can't go back right now, and/or why HE cannot go to the moon. He wasn't asked to show technical details. And, while I am not very fond of the fact that he used the word "lost" (because it creates confusion for dummies like you), the truth is that it **IS** lost. But, it's not lost in the sense that nobody knows where the blueprints are. That's just stupid. It's "lost" in the sense that we don't actually have any of the Apollo program around any longer. There are no functional Saturn Vs. There are no functional landers. There are no functional launch facilities. There are no training facilities. There are no companies remaining who built everything, and/or they have completely converted to building other things now. The 400,000 people who worked on Apollo are long dead or retired. THAT is the sense he was talking about when he said "lost." And, you are now proving that you would NOT "love to think we went to the moon" (as you claimed). You are willfully taking words out of context, intentionally, to suit your delusion. I mean, get real here, are you going to honestly say that you believe Don Pettit was claiming NASA never went to the moon? How dumb can you be? Sorry, dummy, when your "education" on a topic consists of 1-sentence increments of out-of-context 'knowledge" -- no, that's not an education at all. That's a quote mine. No more, no less. YOU SAID: "If we had been to the moon, then why don’t we have saturated coverage of these events and commemorate anniversaries of the dates of significant events with moon exploration." == Are you fucking insane, or intentionally stupid. Good grief. They have anniversary charity events, celebrations, speeches, $3,000 per plate dinners, etc., all the time. But, if you're wondering why there's not wall-to-wall coverage by the media, sorry, but the world needs to hear about Bruce Jenner turning into Caitlyn Jenner. That's more important. YOU SAID: "sometimes referring to doubters as ‘conspiracy theorists’ is very misleading." == So, people who are proposing that Apollo was a conspiracy shouldn't be called "conspiracy theorists." Oh, you're a real fucking genius. YOU SAID: "Until I see more or any technical details ie radio communication systems used... I will continue to have severe doubts." == Good fucking gods. Hey, dumbfuck, have you heard of this new thing... it's called "THE INTERNET"? On this new thing called "THE INTERNET" there are these things called "search engines." You key in words and phrases, like, oh, I dunno, maybe "radio communication systems used on Apollo," and voila, you get about 12 million results, giving you "links" to articles, schematics, specifications, frequencies used, etc. Fucking asshole. YOU SAID: "If it was achieved, we would be swamped with all the technical data and artefacts from these explorations..." == You are either one of the dumbest people alive, or you're just posting stupid things to sound like one of the dumbest people alive. Every technical detail about Apollo is available. But, guess what, asshole, before you go slandering 400,000 people, accusing them all of being massive frauds and liars, you should LOOK FOR THE EVIDENCE YOU CLAIM DOESN'T EXIST. Good fucking gods. Hey, dipshit, you don't get to just spit on the graves of all who died for Apollo, claiming they are liars and frauds. Sorry, no, it doesn't work that way.
    1
  13147. Sand that dates back 4+ billion years old, and has never been exposed to oxygen and moisture. Yeah. Sure.
    1
  13148. There's that "technology" word that you deniers love to use, but don't understand. Dewdrop, what exact technology do we have today, that we didn't have during Apollo, that would affect our ability to go to the moon or not?
    1
  13149. Huh? She abandoned her career and family more than a decade ago in order to live a life of crime and drugs. She served a felony term in a Florida prison, and had a million other arrests/convictions/judgements. She destroyed her own career, and, it's difficult to get a straight job after that. So, her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the local gentleman's club, and her neighbors said she did "extras" for cash in her apartment. I highly doubt this arrest would have any effect whatsoever on that "career," other than maybe INCREASE it. If she wasn't making "public beach" content, but got reported and was trying to cry her way out of it, I'll eat my hat.
    1
  13150. Huh? It was forgotten. It was in the past. The arrest video wasn't even made public until 1.5 years after she died.
    1
  13151.  @AM-rd9pu  And 30+ second exposures.
    1
  13152. It wasn't made public until she was already dead 1.5 years.
    1
  13153.  @sub2me543  No. Arrest = July 2021. Suicide = March 2022. Arrest video made public = November 2023.
    1
  13154.  @sub2me543  So, you're just going to delete your comment and post the same wrong stuff again? Um, no. I mean, this is very simple, if you think the video was released before November 24, 2023, demonstrate it. Show anywhere on the internet that this video existed before then. I just did an advanced Google search, and found only two articles/videos from before March 31, 2022, that show the arrest video. One had the meta data modified in the date field, and the site says it was actually only posted a month ago. Another was dated back in July of 2021, but, the video was added as a recent "update" to the article. Nowhere else does this video get shown to the public before 11/24/2023, at least not that Google knows. So, yeah, I'll stick with the official release date, thanks. Make up stories all you want. But, don't expect anybody to believe you.
    1
  13155.  @sub2me543  Oh, and 2nd reply in a row here. Your credibility is zero anyway, because I now see why you're going around and deleting your responses. You said in one of your postings: "she died about 1 month after the incident." Now, you're correcting yourself, and realizing it was +8 months later, not 1 month later. And, by the way, March 31, 2022 is the date she was found. It is uncertain about the exact date. The medical examiner's report says she was last known to be alive on March 19. It's a minor quibble about an insignificant thing. But, I'm just demonstrating, yet again, that you don't know what you're talking about.
    1
  13156. No. There was a pretty big amount of time between the two murders. The boy went in first. Smith killed him, gathered up his body into the tarp he had prepared, moved it to the other room, then reset the room with a fresh tarp for when the girl would come in. He watched on his video monitors for when she was on her way in. If memory serves, I think it was about 10 minutes later.
    1
  13157. Yes, long after (the next year).
    1
  13158. Howso? Only a couple of obscure blogs published anything about this arrest while she was alive. Nothing was shown in any significant media until long after she was dead.
    1
  13159. On what basis? I see a million comments like this, but, nobody ever explains what the basis of the suit would be.
    1
  13160. Huh? The video of the incident disagrees with you.
    1
  13161.  @GazaRatts  Well, this arrest was in 2021, not 2024. But, it doesn't matter. The laws haven't changed since then.
    1
  13162. Denying it wouldn't have mattered. One of the "audience" recorded it and gave a copy of the video to the police.
    1
  13163. That's quite an exaggeration. There were a couple of unrelated chuckles between two of the three cops, completely outside the view of the criminal, and none were directed AT her. They handled this arrest just fine. I imagine she probably saw much worse over her other million arrests, and while serving her felony term in prison about 6 years ago.
    1
  13164. Spare me. You don't know what you're talking about.
    1
  13165. What are you talking about? Do you even know the evidence of the case?
    1
  13166.  @low-keyrighteous9575  Pffttt. Right. I wouldn't want to disturb you while you are busy posting your utter ignorance on the internet.
    1
  13167. According to the witnesses, it seemed that she knew people could see her. And, it doesn't appear that she suffered much humiliation over it. I'm sorry if you blindly believe a woman who is trying to wiggle out of getting arrested for the umpteenth time, but, yeah, criminals often say, "I didn't do it" in one form or another.
    1
  13168. Making stuff up out of thin air doesn't mean anything.
    1
  13169. But, the arrest video wasn't published until 2.5 years later. Nobody saw it while she was alive. And, it was eventually released due to legal FOIA request. The video of the incident itself was never released, and probably never will be. So, what exactly is your complaint?
    1
  13170. I will never understand why people would believe a crackpot like Bob Lazar. He's never offered a shred of actual evidence to believe these outlandish claims. His only "evidence" is his own words. I mean, even if his crazy stories were true, there'd be no reason to actually believe them. Bob Lazar said he went to MIT. Yet, he can't produce a report card, a diploma, a canceled check for rent on an apartment there, a credit card receipt for a meal on campus, nothing. Nada. OK, so, fine, somehow the super secret government authorities have erased all of that, right? OK, can he produce a classmate who remembers him? A professor that remembers him? Nope, can't do that either. Oh, but, somehow, his felony record is still intact, and people DO remember him at the unaccredited junior college where he took a couple of electronics classes. I guess he's the first MIT student in history to ever attend a junior college also, huh? Yeah, soooooo believable. But, people believe him anyway. Why? Because they WANT the story to be true. It has nothing to do with credibility, feasibility, or evidence. Nope. None of those things matter. All that matters is whether someone WANTS to believe this stuff. That's the only criteria for determining what's believable or not... how much the viewer WANTS to believe.
    1
  13171. An 18 year old with this particular kid's "intelligence" (using that term loosely) doesn't know what a conservative is.
    1
  13172. But, she really didn't suffer from much humiliation over it. A couple of blogs mentioned the arrest while she was alive. But, none of the really big coverage happened until long after she was dead.
    1
  13173. They blur faces for an open investigation. Since she's been dead for 2 years, there is no open investigation. But, the police department had nothing to say about the release of the arrest video, because the Freedom of Information Act required it. They blocked the release of the arrest video for 2.5 years, which was long after she died, but, could no longer block it. And, "defamation" applies to things that aren't true. This woman was arrested for this crime. There's nothing untrue there. As for another suit, what's the basis?
    1
  13174. Yes, but, I don't think the thumbs up / thumbs down is necessarily a 100% representation of whether people think Apollo happened or not. Partially, you're correct, sure, it represents that. But, for example, I've thumbs-downed many Apollo documentaries that I think were done very poorly. I thought the 1989 "For All Mankind" "documentary" (not a documentary) was junk, and I gave it a thumbs-down (I've had a copy of that movie long before YouTube, and didn't like it then, and still don't like it now). Some of the 1,400 people who thumbs-downed this video are those who think Apollo was fake. But, some are people who just dislike the way this documentary was done. And, on the flipside, some Apollo deniers may thumbs-up this video so that it is in their "liked" profile, and can find it more quickly that way. But, yeah, the Apollo deniers are a fringe minority. But, they tend to be more vocal than normal people, hence the comment fields are peppered with a higher proportion of them, while the average viewer will simply never make a comment.
    1
  13175. "I mean when they sent one first into space, they did a test drive with a dog." Dog. Chimp. What's the difference? "So how come you just put an American human into space without that" You just got done saying they sent a dog (chimp) first. Why are you asking one sentence later about why they didn't do the very thing you said they did? "Secondly, you would at least have a mission where you will intent to study something and you will bring moon soil back, I never heard of anything of that sort of that happened." Huh? They brought back 850 pounds of rocks and lunar soil across the 6 missions. What in the world are you talking about? "So moon landing was fake for me" But, you don't know what you're talking about. Why in the world do you think you know enough to make that kind of conclusion?
    1
  13176. But, contrary to the false picture painted by Inside Edition (trash news), she suffered nearly zero humiliation from this incident, because almost nobody covered it until long after she was dead.
    1
  13177. No, you have fallen for a media trick. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released (FOIA request). None of the big press happened until after the video was released. But, they wanted two viral rounds for the price of one. So, they released the story without saying she was already dead. Then, the released the 2nd wave showing the "update" that she died, pretending that the first wave caused the death.
    1
  13178. Strange that Japan, India, and China have confirmed that the Apollo 11 site is exactly where it's supposed to be, on the moon.
    1
  13179. How far gone are you if you think dozens of countries are out to get you?
    1
  13180. Another clueless dewdrop who tries to "logic" (sigh) his way into disbelief. What about the EVIDENCE? Why does that not matter to you, dewdrop?
    1
  13181. Well, then they should have taken the plea deal they were offered.
    1
  13182. He's fine, only minor injuries.
    1
  13183. They never released the video of the "show" itself, but, they describe it in the arrest report. It was a very loud and public act in view of multiple people including children. Get real here. Nobody is going up to her in the middle of that. And, sorry, but this was an aggravated misdemeanor, so, yes, an arrest was warranted.
    1
  13184. You're still a child, so there's quite a good chance. My personal prediction is 2028-2030. But, what do I know?
    1
  13185. There's a concept called "optical resolution," tied to "Rayleigh criterion," and "Dawes' limit." In short, these things in physics dictate how large a lens must be in order to see things of [whatever] size at [whatever] distance. There's a well understood formula you can use to make the calculations. Would you care to take a guess at the size of the lens needed to see the Apollo stuff on the lunar surface?
    1
  13186. Well, that's a nice sentiment, but, do you even know what a purple heart is?
    1
  13187. Good grief. Sorry, but giving a purple heart to someone who wasn't wounded is ridiculous.
    1
  13188. Did it ever occur to you that maybe you don't understand things because your skills in reading and writing are that of a kindergartner?
    1
  13189. Where can someone find one of these "civilian telescopes" to see any items left by humans on the moon? Can you name one?
    1
  13190.  @wildrose2748  You don't have the foggiest clue.
    1
  13191.  @wildrose2748  Yes, dewdrop. I'm well aware that there isn't a telescope on Earth that can see the Apollo stuff. Stop pretending otherwise.
    1
  13192. Rough night? Or, still working on graduating the 2nd grade?
    1
  13193.  @stadtfahrplan  YOU SAID: "Are you stupid?" == I'm not the one who ignored every single statement, every single question, every single challenge. That's YOU. I posed dozens of questions/challenges, and you couldn't bring yourself to answer a single one of them. Not one. You don't get to ask if I'm the stupid one here. It's YOU. YOU SAID: "First of all, you should be aware of how it ended. This guy died, right?" == And, you think I didn't know that? YOU SAID: "What does it mean "it can only end in one way" then?" == Well, if you had bothered to read and absorb what I wrote, you'd already know the answer to that. You are clearly ridiculous. There were only two possible outcomes, given what we see in this video. Outcome 1) the cop lets the guy go before doing anything at all. Outcome 2) the guy is getting killed. Any outcome in between was outside the control of the cops, and the criminal is the one who was escalating, not the cops. If he had cooperated, there could have been an outcome in between. But, when the criminal refuses to comply, and instead escalates to using potentially deadly force, yeah, there's only one outcome from that point forward. That thug sealed his own fate when he escalated to swinging the baton, and refusing to stop. YOU SAID: "That the perpetrator always dies, right?" == No. YOU SAID: "Semantics, right?" == No. YOU SAID: "You can't tell me that this is the case every time" == I didn't. YOU SAID: "stop denying the fact that a different outcome is possible." == I explained this already. YOU SAID: "It has nothing to do with reality" == Pffttt. What?? YOU SAID: "it's just a self-righteous cruel killing fantasy." == You are a complete asshole. You are a complete and total asshole, period. If you're the cop, and you watch the guy beating the other cop with the baton, and the guy comes at you with that baton in a position like a baseball bat, it's not a matter of any killing fantasy, you asshole. The cop was justified in shooting, and you already admitted that. I already explained that the guy was still charging after the first 6 shots. Shots 7, 8, and 9 were made when the guy was getting back up in a position to lunge toward the cop. This was not as easy to see on the video, but it was 100% confirmed in the coroner's report. It is unknown when the fatal shot to the head was finally made, but it was either shot 8, 9, or 10. I explained all of this. So, AT BEST, you could complain that maybe shot 9 or shot 10 was unnecessary. AT BEST. YOU SAID: "No consciousness, the real armchair heroes," == What a fucking hypocrite. I mean, I realize that you aren't going to actually answer a single question or challenge I asked, because everything that's been said has gone in one ear and out the other. So, I'll just jump to my own conclusion. You have had ZERO firearms training. ZERO. None. Nada. If you had firearms training and experience, you wouldn't be saying some of the things you've said. YOU SAID: "who always behave tough, while some police officer have to cope with the consequences in real life." == Do you even realize that this argument goes AGAINST you? YOU are the one blaming the cop here, while the cop was the one out there dealing with a drugged up multi-convictions criminal who took the first 6 shots without breaking stride. That's YOU who is sitting in your armchair, doubting whether shots 9 and 10 were justified. Good gods, what an asshole. What a hypocritical asshole. YOU SAID: "If you never do the hard work, the shortcuts may cut you short." == How proud of being an asshole are you?
    1
  13194.  @stadtfahrplan  Good grief, once again, you don't answer a single question or challenge I put forth. You say the shooting was justified, but then you don't specify at which exact point you think it transitioned to being unjustified. You just leave that challenge (repeatedly) for people to just guess at what you mean. You avoid every line-by-line specification I made. You avoid every question. You avoid every challenge. You seem to change your tune constantly. And, you very obviously have not had an ounce of firearms training, yet you think you can dictate how the cop should use his firearm. You're an idiot. And, you're an asshole. This case was universally ruled as justified by all of the judges, internal investigators, and attorneys who examined it. And, the two coroners who examined the body reinforced the case. Yet, YOU know better than all of those people, without a single ounce of firearms training under your belt. You're a moron. And, yet, you have the audacity to say that *I* am wrong??? I'm on the side of all of the experts who analyzed this case. You are against all of the experts. You have never had firearms training. You don't know what you're talking about. Yet, **I** am the fool? Good gods, only on YouTube... land of the fucking imbeciles to pretend to know things they don't know.
    1
  13195.  @stadtfahrplan  You will not answer any of my questions/challenges, I'm not answering yours. You're an uneducated asshole with no firearms training. Quit pretending you know more than the experts. I'm done with you. You're another YouTube asshole who just likes to hear yourself talk, and refuses to answer any questions or challenges that go counter to your own [ignorant] position. I clearly outlined each and every shot (more than once), outlining which shots were justified, why they were justified, and were backed up by two coroners' reports, as well as the experts in the internal investigation, judges, and attorneys who reviewed this incident. What do you have? Wild speculation based on your own ignorant opinions about gun training (that you do not have). And, you refuse to answer about which shots you found unjustified and why. You're an idiot. That's all there is to it. I am done with you. You're simply too dumb to be worth any more of my time.
    1
  13196. Yeah, that's an interesting point, about the gun... with her prior arrest history of stealing cars and public drunkenness, I wonder if she was already a felon, and therefore shouldn't have been allowed to own a gun. But, of course, the reality is that anybody can get guns regardless of whether it's legal to own them or not.
    1
  13197. You need to watch the highest resolution copy available, and even then, it's grainy, but, if you go frame by frame as the door opens, the carjacker points the gun directly at the officer's head. The gun is also more clearly visible at 5:02 on the ground, next to a 2x4 piece of wood. It's visible at other points in the video also.
    1
  13198. I cannot help people who are proud to be stupid.
    1
  13199. Dewdrop, I answered your initial question, and gave you the exact method you could use to see the gun for yourself. What did you do? You responded with laughy emojis and said you don't have time to deal with the answers to your own questions. Yeah, I stand by my second reply.
    1
  13200. I cannot help people who are proud to be stupid.
    1
  13201. Yes, it's quite fake. They're painting the incorrect picture that this led to her suicide.
    1
  13202. YOU SAID: "I cant believe almost everyone in this thread is blaming the brother or the girl herself for drinking in a pool and getting drunk." == Um, yeah, because the brother and the girl drank to the point of getting drunk. YOU SAID: "They both passed out simultaneously!" == And, you know this how? Where is the evidence of that? YOU SAID: "Somethjng was most likely in their drinks!" == Yes, alcohol was in their drinks. And, they drank too much of it. Hence the rip roaring drunk levels of blood alcohol. If something was in their drinks, why did nobody else get sick? If something was in their drinks (i.e. methanol), why didn't the blood tests at the hospital show it? YOU SAID: "So many people acting like these are 2 naive stupid kids." == Um, yeah, get yourself ridiculously drunk at the pool, then go back to the room, get more drunk, then go back to the pool at night after everybody was gone, and sneak in for a drunken swim, um, yeah, pretty stupid. YOU SAID: "If they were not experienced drinkers then at least one of them would have gotten woozy or gotten out to throw up or somethin" == Um, seemed pretty woozy to me... couldn't even keep their faces out of the water after they snuck back into the pool after it was dark. YOU SAID: "they wouldnt have just both passed tf out simultaneously like that face down!" == Who said it was simultaneous? One lived, one died, doesn't sound very simultaneous to me. Are you just going to take the boy's word for it? You don't see a problem with his version of the story? How did he know it was simultaneous, if supposedly he has no memory of the event? (Ooopss, kind of a hole in that story, eh?) YOU SAID: "Seriously the know it alls sayin dont drink in the pool or sayin they went to the resort themselves and everyone was so friendly etc! Ru that clueless." == Hmmm. Let's see if I have this correct. Everyone ELSE is clueless? You're not the clueless one? Why didn't the police find any tainted alcohol at this 5 star resort? Why didn't they EVER find any in prior inspections? Why didn't anybody else get sick? Why did their blood alcohol levels test THAT high? If it's tainted with methanol, sorry, but it doesn't cause alcohol levels to test high. Why wasn't methanol found in their blood? YOU SAID: "So just becauae u went to this resort mean no foul play could ever happen here!" == So, are you saying that a teen couldn't have simply gotten too drunk? That could never happen? YOU SAID: "All it takes is one disgruntled or crazed bartender and maybe they preyed on them because they were young and alone!" == Who is alleging that? Even the family isn't saying that's what happened? The lawsuits don't accuse any bartenders of that. Why do you? What do you know about this case that none of the experts know? And, again, if that was the case, why was the blood alcohol level so high, and why didn't they find any other drugs in the bodies? YOU SAID: "Look at natalie holloway!" == Wait, what? So, your tactic is to refer to a different case? That's how you make your argument? OK, would you like me to name the thousands of people who have died from alcohol poisoning from drinking too much, and say, "look at XYZ"?? Is that how this goes, in your crippled little mind? Because something bad happened to someone else, this means that all cases are the same? YOU SAID: "With the reasoning of most of the people in these comments then just because you have vacationed in Aruba and treated like royalty by the locals then its nobodys fault but her own right!" == Well, I read the lawsuits. I also read the reports from the police. I also read the toxicology reports. And, sorry, but the family's story is just not credible to me. And, they lost any remote level of credibility that they might have ever gotten when they sued the USA-based company that booked the travel for them, saying that they "should have known" the 5-star resort served tainted alcohol (even though there was no history of it whatsoever), and now the booking company should pay them for the loss of their daughter. Yeah, sorry, I'm not exactly going to side with a family like that. YOU SAID: "And in this case just because 99% of the guests at this resort didnt die doesnt mean these kids were not victims!" == Fine. Produce the evidence of tainted alcohol!!!!! Where is this evidence that only YOU know about!!!!???!?!?!? The family is saying that there was methanol in the alcohol. That's their accusation, right? That's what their lawsuits say, right? So, why wasn't there methanol in the kids' bodies? Why was the alcohol level well beyond the rip-roaring-drunk level (methanol wouldn't cause that, only real ALCOHOL causes that)? What do you know that the medical experts didn't know? I hope you served at a witness in these lawsuits, since you know so much more than every expert who examined the situation, right? Why are you on YouTube comments, since you know so much about this case? Why aren't you an expert witness instead? And, as for this "news" (not news) story, please explain to me why they had to stoop to talking about finding tainted alcohol at OTHER resorts? Why would they do that? Why not just talk about the tainted alcohol found at THIS resort?? (Um, maybe because there was none to talk about??) Hey, just because you're proud to make a clown out of yourself, doesn't mean you should criticize the sane people who can see through media hit-pieces like this one. Like, good grief, the best they could do to show a nice innocent girl is the video clip at 7:05 - 7:10 (the only clip they show), and she's acting like a drunken party girl?? THAT'S the best they could muster? Good gods. Grow a brain. Seriously.
    1
  13203. Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  13204.  @occhamite  Huh? Me?
    1
  13205.  @occhamite  Oh, sorry, I thought you meant I was the one making those claims.
    1
  13206. Don't know, but, I'm guessing she was their primary customer.
    1
  13207.  @twinflames4249  Well, at least you admit being on drugs.
    1
  13208. Capitalism has nothing to do with it. She was a meth junkie, and that's where her money went. She had two kids, but, meth was more important to her.
    1
  13209. Well, yes and no. There are challenges. First of all, they selected that monstrosity oversized lander, which has a load of crashes in their maiden flights. And, they are going to try to stay on the moon for an entire month or more (Apollo never stayed more than 74 hours). So, there's a lot they need to do to make those missions work. But, it should be successful. We'll see.
    1
  13210. Well, thankfully, society disagrees. We employ police to handle crimes, rather than trying to take care of them ourselves.
    1
  13211. Dewdrop, an arrest doesn't need proof, just probable cause. Proof is for the court case. And, nobody even prosecuted her, because she never showed up at court. Do you not feel any obligation whatsoever to know something about a topic before you spew gibberish?
    1
  13212. China is fake.
    1
  13213. Well, if you're really Nicole Kessinger, clearly you have no sense, and you're lucky you're not in prison with your boyfriend. As for Apollo, your opinion about that is about the same as your opinion on what to do with married men.
    1
  13214. Well, with her extensive criminal history, including a felony term in prison, and a million other arrests, I'm betting she knew that. But, I also bet that she figured she was between a rock and a hard place. She had been attempting to change her name to evade the police, but, they kept denying it due to her history and open warrants and everything. So, when facing yet another possible arrest, she probably knew that being silent would guarantee that they'd look her up, and find warrants, and arrest her. But, if she tried to talk her way out of it, there'd be a 50/50 chance that they'd let her go before looking her up.
    1
  13215. Well, first of all, nearly zero media covered anything about this incident until she was already dead for 1.5 years. So, um, no. Secondly, according to her landlord, she was a stripper at the local club. I don't think they get fired for exposing themselves.
    1
  13216. I'll bet it was the biological and chemical and biological weapons that put it over the top.
    1
  13217. There is a lot more to the story... mainly in the fact that the real story doesn't match what these sensationalist journalists want you to believe.
    1
  13218. Most of this stuff can be Googled pretty easily. But, in brief, the admission department, and the university as a whole, is also a victim. They bribed the coach of the crew/rowing team to help falsify the application and credentials. But, there's no evidence that the university (as a whole) knew that the credentials were falsified. The plan was to falsify the athletic credentials to get them into the school's crew/rowing team (thus, admitted to the university), then fake an injury before ever needing to actually get into a boat and row. The university can't kick them out because of an injury. So, they would get into the university, and never actually contribute to the team that they were brought in to be a part of, and then get their degrees without ever rowing a boat. The main two people who got the money were (1) the coach of the crew/rowing team, Laura Janke, who helped falsify the documents and launder the money, and (2) the "academic admissions advisor" William Rick Singer, who set up the bribes and also laundered the money, by passing it through a fake charity. EDIT: Note, he was not a university employee, he was an independent "consultant" who helped many rich people get their kids into schools via fraudulent means. You didn't ask, but, the other irony is that the fake charity was supposedly to help underprivileged kids get into schools. Meanwhile, the actual purpose was to do the exact opposite, by blocking underprivileged kids from gaining admission, and to promote over-privileged stealing their admission spots. And, the icing on the cake is that Lori Loughlin (and her husband) then claimed those bribes as a tax deduction.
    1
  13219. Doesn't it ever bother you that you're not even entertaining EVIDENCE, and instead your opinions are based upon what Granny said?
    1
  13220. Huh? Thousands upon thousands of copies of the original photos had been distributed throughout the world to press organizations within weeks of the missions returning from the moon. If there were any "touchups" to the photos after that point, the thousands of media outlets in the world could/would compare to the original copies, and spot instantly that the images changed. How do you propose these "touchups" happened without anybody noticing?
    1
  13221. And, of course, YouTube is blocking my #2 and #3. Sigh.
    1
  13222. Terry, get real here, do you REALLY believe that 3.5 PSI is going to blow up a spacesuit consisting of 13 outer layers and 11 inner layers? Really? From only 3.5 PSI? A child's balloon can handle that much (well, one of the thicker ones anyway). Do you REALLY believe that none of the thousands of engineers ever noticed that the suits wouldn't work? Really? How far out to sea has your mind set sail?
    1
  13223. I also notice that you asked a question, but didn't wait for an answer before coming to your conclusion. Yeah, you're super honest.
    1
  13224. Yes, what do you call it? Why do you think the 12 jurors are wrong? What do you know that they didn't know? 1) They weren't strangers. He knew them, and they had stolen from him before. 2) He placed his car away from the house so they wouldn't know he was home. 3) He unscrewed some of the lights so they wouldn't turn on, even if they flipped the switch. 4) He ran a recording device while he waited in the basement, clearly he knew they were coming. 5) Before either one of the teens arrived at his house, he rehearsed on that recording device what he was going to say to the police after he killed them, including "in the left eye" (he later shot the girl in the left eye). I repeat: hours before the teens even got there, he rehearsed, on tape, what he was going to tell the police about shooting them. 6) He had a tarp ready for the bodies. 7) He gathered up the bodies, and put them in the other room so they wouldn't ruin his carpet. 8) He didn't call the police until the next day. 9) After killing the first thief, he then sat quietly waiting for a long time for the other thief to arrive, then shot her too. 10) Her shirt was found opened, make of that what you will. 11) After shooting the girl in the torso, she was still alive and incapacitated, yet he didn't want her to live (his own words), and wanted to make sure she was dead (his own words), so put two bullets into her left eye (exactly as he had said on the prior recording), and then waited, and then shot another bullet under the chin up into her brain (his own words). 12) While waiting for the criminals to arrive, he was armed with two different guns, one of which was a little bit faulty. 13) After he shot one with the faulty weapon, it wouldn't fire again. So, he literally apologized to the criminal (who was still alive) for not successfully killing right away, and switched guns for the fatal shots while the criminal was on the ground.
    1
  13225. Wait, what? You BELIEVE her when she said she didn't do it? Then please explain her two confessions stating that she DID participate in the murder. And, hey, what's your complaint anyway? They offered both the male murderer and female murderer a deal... life imprisonment, no death penalty, in exchange for a guilty plea. He took the deal, so that's what he got. She rejected the deal, decided to recant her confessions, changed her story a half dozen more times since then, and decided try to face a trial instead. The jury found her guilty. So, what EXACTLY is your complaint? Or, you know absolutely nothing whatsoever, but you love to hear yourself talk?
    1
  13226. Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  13227. What in the world are you talking about? Do you just spew out legal sounding words and hope something is correct? Good grief. Want to try this again? You're wrong completely. There's no such "ticket" as "shoplifting." This isn't a traffic infraction. And, the officer isn't required to know "for sure" if she stole anything. He just needs reasonable suspicion to investigate, and probable cause to arrest. And, yes, the woman is required by law to provide ID, at a minimum. She can also provide her receipt when asked, but, it's not against the law for her to decide not to provide it. But, if she doesn't, she still must cooperate at a very basic level, not resist, not obstruct/obfuscate, etc.
    1
  13228.  @flyingonetwofive  What in the world? I can barely even cut through your broken English. I'm sure you write in English better than I write in your language. So, thanks for trying. But, still, it's a whole bunch of gibberish. First of all, her own high profile attorney disagrees with everything you said. You don't even need to take my word for it. Secondly, there was no attempt to search her. He asked for a receipt. That's not a "search." The probable cause was refusal to ID, obstruction and obfuscation. And, of course, there was the original suspicion of theft, but, that was secondary by the time the woman got herself arrested. And, sorry, but the testimony of an eyewitness IS evidence. The store employee Anna said the woman walked out without paying. That's evidence enough for reasonable suspicion to perform an investigation. There is ZERO burden of proof on the officer. NONE. Good grief. Proof comes weeks later in the courtroom. The officer can help get the proof, but, the burden is on the prosecutor, not on the cop. Sorry, but the cop isn't the judge and jury. I don't know how it works in your country, but, here in the USA, we don't want cops to have that kind of power. We want them to work on reasonable suspicion and probable cause, and leave the "proof" up to the attorneys in the courtrooms. The charges were dropped, but not because of anything you're talking about, but because it turns out that she didn't steal anything. And, it's very difficult to get convictions on the secondary charges, even though she was guilty of them, when the primary charge gets dropped. So, she got lucky. Her own high profile attorney doesn't agree with anything you're saying at all. He knew there was no case against the police, because nothing you're saying is even remotely true. They sued the store for $50,000. It was thrown out of court, and she won't be getting a dime, but, at least they tried to sue the store. They never even tried to sue the police. Now, you tell me... why would her high profile attorney sue the store for $50,000, if he had an obvious 7-figure case against the police for excessive force and arresting without cause? Could it be that you have no understanding of this? Or, could it be that her attorney doesn't know what he's doing? Did you call him up and let him know how badly he botched this case by NOT filing action against the police?
    1
  13229.  @flyingonetwofive  So, you're PROUD to know absolutely nothing? What's wrong with you?
    1
  13230. Freedom of Information Act. Arrest video was not published anywhere until after she was dead 1.5 years. Warnings do not apply to crimes. You have that confused with infractions. This woman with an arrest record a mile long and a felony prison term for stealing cars put on a public show in view of multiple people, including children, which was recorded by one of the "audience" and shown to the police. Read the police report yourself. You'll find out that the video version doesn't match the claims made by the woman who was trying to avoid her millionth arrest.
    1
  13231. Mary said she liked guys with capped teeth, and, like Matt Dillon, was so obsessed....
    1
  13232. About a decade ago, they dropped LRO to an orbital height of about 12 miles above the lunar surface, and took hundreds of photos of every landing site from every possible sun angle. It made no difference to the nuts, who just claimed those photos were fake. India and China have recently released their orbital photos of the landing sites also. It made no difference to the nuts, who just claimed that India and China have joined "the deception" 50+ years later. What do you propose we can show the nuts today that would ever convince them? As for telescopes today, um, no. There's no telescope in existence big enough to see the Apollo landing sites. Not even close. I'll give you the short version of the answer, and you can take it from there. To see the Apollo stuff from Earth would take a lens or mirror about a quarter mile in diameter. We don't have anything like that. There are no rovers on the moon anywhere near any Apollo site.
    1
  13233. Sometimes. It depended on cadence and how hard they hit the rocks. Sometimes, you couldn't hear the hammering because it was never enough to open the automatic mic. Other times, you could hear it. So what? Are you unaware that sound conducts through any physical medium, including gloves and spacesuits?
    1
  13234. Well, you could read the arrest report to learn that information. But, beware, it will also shatter your delusions about this incident. She was a convicted felon with a term spent in a Florida prison, and a million other arrests. One of the "audience" recorded the incident, and gave a copy of the video to the police. It doesn't match her "nobody was around" sob story. To the contrary, it was a very loud and public show, in view of multiple people including children. Her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club, so, if she wasn't making "public beach" content, I'll eat my hat.
    1
  13235. Huh? Yes, people are innocent until proven guilty. But, what does that have to do with doing an investigation, questioning, or arresting? Are you under the impression that the cop must have a trial with a jury at the side of the road, before performing an arrest? How would that even work? On what planet must you prove guilt before you can arrest?
    1
  13236.  @joshuabacon4564  It wasn't an investigation? Huh? What do you think it was, if not an investigation? What legal authority did he step over? Asking for ID? Requesting to see a receipt? The rest of what you wrote is pure nonsense. Even her own attorney didn't sue the police, because there's no case there. If you cannot even understand what the word "investigation" means, what could you possibly know about how this works?
    1
  13237.  @joshuabacon4564  Huh? The police DID have evidence, the statement of the store employee. That IS evidence. So, not only do you fail to understand what the word "investigation" means, but you fail to understand what "evidence" means also. As for legal grounds to demand a receipt, well, the word "demand" is a bit liberal there. He asked for it. Yes, he's entitled to do that. But, at no point did he say anything remotely like, "this is a legal demand for your receipt." And, once again, you don't even know the definitions of the words you're using. You can get a warrant to search, but, there's no such concept as a warrant to demand a receipt. And, there'd never be any warrant to search for a receipt, because the receipt is for the person's own protection, not for the store's protection. The rest of what you're saying just sounds like a bunch of YouTube SovCit gibberish. The bottom line is that her own attorney disagrees with you. They never even claimed the police did anything wrong in this case.
    1
  13238. Good grief. The concept of hearsay doesn't even apply to this situation. But, even if it did (which it doesn't), what the store employee said isn't hearsay. Hearsay would be if the store employee said she heard a rumor that the person stole. But, that's not what happened. The store employee described what she herself saw, not what someone else told her. Sheeeesssshhhh. Why do you keep using this "demand" word? I covered that already. And, oh, gee, thanks for telling me about the $50,000 lawsuit. It's not like I read that lawsuit myself long before posting a single message in this video (errr, wait, I did). Do you even know what happened in that lawsuit? It was thrown out of court, "with prejudice." (This means that she is never allowed to file it again, that's how bad the lawsuit was.) She will be getting $0.00 for her lawsuit. And, my point wasn't about the lawsuit against the store anyway. I said he never filed a lawsuit against the police, which is 100% true. That's because there is no case against the police, and her own attorney knows it.
    1
  13239.  @joshuabacon4564  Again, that's not what hearsay means. By your definition, no cop could ever accept input from anybody. Imagine if your house gets robbed, and you call the cops and tell them you saw a person running off with your stuff. What should the cop say in return? "Sorry, that's hearsay"? I mean, good grief, why are you pretending to understand things that you don't? And, just FYI, hearsay is fine while investigating something. You can't use hearsay in a court. But, you can absolutely use hearsay to track stuff down and investigate further. But, again, this wasn't hearsay to begin with, so, what you're claiming is wrong anyway. Again, the rest of what you wrote is a bunch of YouTube SovCit nonsense. Don't pretend otherwise. I'm done here. It's 100% clear to me that your mind is not open to any input whatsoever. You're happier with your delusions than you are with reality. And, when that's the case, there's no way to penetrate the wall you've built. You truly prefer NOT to understand anything.
    1
  13240. Right around the corner from Armstrong's suit is Cernan's pair of lunar overshoes/overboots, which instantly explains what you're claiming. Did you actually go to the museum, or, did a conspiracy video tell you this, and you just swallowed it?
    1
  13241. She didn't get arrested for suspicion of theft alone. By this point in the video, the main reason she was being arrested was for obstruction and obfuscation. See, in most states, including Florida, you are required by law to provide ID when being investigated for a crime. She refused 100x to do this (mainly in the full version of the video, not as many times in this shortened version). This is an arrestable offense, with or without the theft charge. False arrest? Then explain to the world why her own three attorneys don't agree with you. They never filed anything about any false arrest. Who knows the Florida laws better? You? Or her own three attorneys? Suspicion isn't a crime? Huh? Who ever said it was? Crimes are like murder and theft and forgery, etc. I wouldn't even be able to imagine why you'd feel the need to say that suspicion isn't a crime. You think she doesn't need to provide anything? Huh? Sorry, you're wrong. In any "stop and identify state" (most states), she must provide an ID when being investigated for a crime. Refusing to do so is a crime by itself. And, sorry, but, yes, if you refuse to comply, and decide to resist arrest, yes, you might get hurt. There are only two choices, you're either going to get tackled into submission, or you're going to get Tased into submission. The officer chose the less aggressive of the two options. How else would you propose it should work? If you resist arrest, the cop is just supposed to give up and go home? She knows her rights? Huh? Even her attorneys didn't sue for any violation of rights. She clearly doesn't know anything about her rights (and neither do you). There is no obligation to ask for help. This is Jacksonville, the murder and felony capitol of Florida. Do you really think he needs to escalate a case of some crazed lunatic who got upset because the store wanted to see her receipt? "Calling all cars, calling all cars, stop investigating high crimes and murders, and come help me with a woman who is upset because the store thought she might have stolen a piece of chicken and some bread. Mayday! Mayday!" Get real. Good grief. You're a bigger drama queen than the woman herself.
    1
  13242. Multiple people called. Read the arrest report, and you'll find their names and what they said they saw. One of them even recorded it and gave the video to the police. How did this go down, in your mind? 3 cops dispatched to just frame some random woman?
    1
  13243. I think they believe that getting Taser'd and arrested will increase their lawsuit.
    1
  13244. He'll knows government in world joke is liked ways of the
    1
  13245.  @theeraphatsunthornwit6266  Thanks, dewdrop. I'll stick with White House OMB, not Wiki.
    1
  13246. No, dewdrop. All Apollo missions landed very early in the lunar morning (the moon equivalent of Earth's 6:30am). You don't get to repeatedly pretend that this would be the same as the high noon temperature. No Apollo mission was ever on the surface for a high noon, so why do you keep quoting high noon temperatures?
    1
  13247. Dewdrop, you don't get to just make stuff up out of thin air, and pretend that Apollo 16 landed at high noon. The UTC time on Earth has nothing to do with the sun angles on the moon. Go look at any of the mission photos. Go watch the Apollo 16 landing video. Very clearly, the sun is at a low angle. The sun angle for the first Apollo 16 moonwalk was about 22 degrees, not 90 degrees. Why do you persist on spewing absolute nonsense?
    1
  13248. Dewdrop, take a look at AS16-113-18343 as an example. Notice the super long shadows casted by the lander and the astronaut? Notice that even the rocks cast a shadow sideways? Notice that you can see the details inside the footprints due to the sideways shadow angles? Does that look like high noon to you? All lunar landings were conducted EARLY IN THE LUNAR MORNING, dewdrop. You don't get to name a time of day on Earth and then assume this somehow equates to the shadow angles on the moon.
    1
  13249. It seems my responses show up under some conditions, and not others. In short, no, dewdrop, Apollo 16 didn't land at high noon. You don't know what you're talking about. View any of the photos or the landing video and you'll see a very shallow sun angle. And, yes, as I said, all missions landed early in the lunar morning. It's a well understood part of the mission profile.
    1
  13250. Still spewing garbage every chance you get, huh? Why do you ask questions when you know, in advance, that you have no intention of paying attention to the answers? You've proven this over and over again. But, for the sake of any other dewdrops that don't understand reality: "Why are there no track marks either side of the 'moon buggy's' wheels at the 28.50, 40.35, and the 47.23 minute mark?" The first one is AS17-134-20444, and if you look at the high rest version, you clearly see the tracks. The second one is AS17-134-20421, and this is on a section of very rocky surface, but, behind a couple of feet, you can see the faint tracks. The third one is difficult to take seriously. It's AS17-137-20979, and it shows the photo after they were just standing there where the tracks would be, working on the rover on the fender fix. Undoubtedly, any track that was there, would be obscured when the astronauts were working at length to fix the fender, kicking up lots of dust as they worked. I really can't see why you'd even ask, given that it's painfully obvious. But, it doesn't really matter anyway. None of your examples compare to the ones I can name. I've seen photos where one side of the rover leaves tracks, and the other side doesn't. I've seen photos where there are clear tracks, then the tracks stop, then a few feet later, the tracks start up again. There are many reasons for leaving tracks, or not leaving tracks. The rover could hit a bounce, go airborne for a bit, and stop making tracks for a few feet. The rover could be going very slow, and therefore the dust just filters into the wire mesh wheels, and right back out again, leaving almost no tracks. The rover can hit a patch of ground with very thin dust, such that it's pretty solid rock directly underneath, very difficult to see tracks. The astronauts can work around the rover, kicking up dust to cover the tracks, or trampling the tracks. They can take a photo when only one astronaut was driving the rover, thus the left side digs deeper than the right side, leaving tracks on one side, and almost no tracks on the other side. I can show you thousands of examples of cars on Earth sometimes leaving tracks in dirt, and sometimes not leaving tracks in dirt. Who cares? Why are you asking? "The rock ... can hardly get it moving." Force = MASS x acceleration. Not weight. MASS. Mass doesn't change in low gravity. Mass remains the same. Did you flunk out of physics 101? Are you telling me that you believe that if you were on a planet that had 1/1,000th gravity, such that an entire house would weigh a few pounds, you think you could kick it around like a soccer ball? Are you telling me that you don't understand that you can extremely slowly lift the house, but, you'd have absolutely no chance of ever throwing the house? Do you really not understand physics THAT badly, such as being able to understand force = MASS x acceleration? No wonder your mind is so scrambled.
    1
  13251. Huh? I don't quite understand what you're attempting to say. Yes, you're never alone with people around. But, wasn't that the entire point? She was doing this with people around.
    1
  13252. The arrest footage wasn't released until 1.5 years after she died. It was probably the result of a legal Freedom of Information Act request. They would never have released it during an ongoing investigation. Welcome to Inside Edition, who would NEVER actually give you these dates: Arrest = July 2021. Suicide = March 2022. Arrest video made public = November 2023.
    1
  13253. Wrong. The cases are surging, likely because we just passed the holidays, and holiday gatherings cause rampant spread. Spain, for example, just hit 100,000 cases yesterday. That's in the same basic ballpark as the USA hitting 1,000,000 cases in one day, because Spain's population is roughly 1/10th of the USA's population.
    1
  13254. Multiple people called about this incident. One of them recorded it and showed the video to the police. Needless to say, it doesn't match her story about nobody being around. So, it wouldn't have mattered what she said.
    1
  13255.  @TheWokeFlatEarthTruth  Just another reminder: Arizona State University's LRO camera has taken countless photos of ALL of the Apollo landing sites, not just 12, 14, and 17. You really should check them out. They've even got an web app that allows you to slide through the images of the landing sites to see the multiple sun angles, and can gradually "watch" the sun come up, go through all of the angles, and sun go down, including even following the shadow of the flags traverse across the lunar surface as the sun angle changes. (This is done by assembling a whole bunch of the photos from the various sun angles into a little slideshow.) Not that I object to you just saying Apollo 12, 14, and 17. I'm just amplifying what you said to be more inclusive of the amount of photos we're talking about, and emphasizing that they didn't just do those 3 sites. India also released their Apollo 12 photo, by the way.
    1
  13256. Huh? Charged with what?
    1
  13257. What in the world are you talking about? Nobody used a Taser over a receipt. He used the Taser because she was resisting arrest. And, nobody is free to terrorize anybody.
    1
  13258. I have news for you, if your god had anything to do with it, he should have stopped the guy from murdering his own father before this chase, and should have stopped the chase from happening at all.
    1
  13259. Um, I think you don't know what the term "baby daddy" means. She isn't his mother.
    1
  13260. We'd have been vaporized by aggressive nations that don't care about space exploration.
    1
  13261. Well, one of the "audience" recorded the incident on video, and showed the video to the police. They describe it in their report as a very loud, and very public act, in view of multiple people, including children. So, yes, there was plenty of probable cause to arrest. Furthermore, with her mile long arrest record, prison term for stealing cars, multiple judgements for theft, drugs, and alcohol, and warrants for failure to appear in court, um, yeah, I'd say that she's getting arrested.
    1
  13262. Huh? On what planet were her rights violated? Name the rights you're talking about?
    1
  13263. Let her go? She had multiple calls and complaints. One of the audience even recorded it, and showed the video to the police. Why would they let her go? And, other than a couple of obscure blogs, what media even covered it while she was alive?
    1
  13264. a) People tend to hate armed carjackers. It's just a fact of life. b) How is it a "spin" to also hate the woman who was clearly in on the crime? How did she show up so fast, if she didn't know what was going on? How'd she know who the carjacker was, while he was wearing a balaclava ski mask, unless she was involved? When she was told about the carjacker's gun, why did she not say, "What gun? What are you talking about? Mark doesn't have a gun."? Nope, she readily accepted that there was a gun without blinking an eye. Why would she react that way to a gun, unless she knew darned well ahead of that he went to that car with a gun? c) As for the moral high ground, um, yeah, because it IS the moral high ground!! I mean, as opposed to what? Claiming that the armed carjacker and his accomplice have the moral high ground?
    1
  13265. Don't play around like you can't be reasonable. If you're honestly going to sit there and claim that you can't figure out if she knew what was going on, there's really not much more I can say.
    1
  13266. So, what's your solution? Cops shouldn't arrest criminals?
    1
  13267. Yeah, don't subscribe to Inside Audition. Hilarious!
    1
  13268.  @frankrizzo5710  I'm not laughing. It's just the painfully obvious truth. People like him are illogical, whether they pass or fail Sunday School.
    1
  13269. It's pretty doubtful that this incident had anything to do with her suicide. And, "a moment of weakness"? She was arrested a million times for various crimes, and even spent time in prison. Seems like a long streak of "moments of weakness."
    1
  13270. Yes, there were children there. Why don't you simply read the arrest report? Good grief. And, yes, she did it intentionally.
    1
  13271. Yeah, and, with her extensive criminal history and time spent in prison, you'd think she would know that. But, my guess is that she was hoping to cry her way out of it before they looked her up and found open warrants. If she had stayed silent, they'd 100% look her up.
    1
  13272. Plus, sorry if you you blindly swallow stuff you see on Inside Edition (where facts don't matter), but, according to her landlord, she was a "dancer" at the local club (yeah, THAT kind of "dancer"), and her neighbors said she did "private extras" out of her apartment for cash with a parade of men. If she wasn't making "public beach" content for her fans, I'll eat my hat.
    1
  13273. And, of course, YouTube's censorship has gone bananas again, and I can't talk about the cold war.
    1
  13274.  @therealzilch  Yup. YouTube's over the top censorship is back.
    1
  13275. Dewdrop, emojis don't mean anything. You can sit there until the cows come home and post a million emojis. All you're proving is that you don't have any understanding of the topic.
    1
  13276. Why are you soooooo proud to know absolutely nothing?
    1
  13277. It's called the Freedom of Information Act. The police do not have a choice. But, they did manage to block the release of the video for 2.5 years. So, nobody saw the arrest video while she was still alive.
    1
  13278.  @therealzilch  The cameras in the Saturn V 2nd stage (that filmed the separation, then got ejected and parachuted down into the ocean) were slightly fish eyed. Just FYI.
    1
  13279.  @therealzilch  Yeah, but the flat Earthers look at those videos as the stages separate, and say, "Look!! A fish eyed lens!! Therefore, it's flat!!"
    1
  13280. Esthersar, let me guess... you watched all of Bart Sibrel's movies, and not once did he show you the rover fitting into the lander, right? As I said to you before, you're not actually studying Apollo. You're just watching anti-Apollo videos, and believing every single word, no questions asked, never once fact-checking any of them. And, now you come here, first declaring the rover wouldn't fit, and then asking questions second. Ironically, you are correct. The rover didn't fit. But, they still got it to the moon, with the rover hanging off the side of the descent stage, some of it sticking out, because, yeah, it didn't fit all the way. There are a million photos and videos. But, sorry, you're not going to find them in any of Sibrel's videos. ap15-KSC-71PC-415 is a fine example. See those gold colored wheel fenders sticking out?
    1
  13281.  @lorichet  Sorry, you don't get to pretend you know ANYTHING. I mean, how far gone are you when you think that the rover didn't fit? I mean, yeah, it didn't fit, as I illustrated. It couldn't tuck all the way in (exactly as I said). How would that even happen? Don't you think any of the the thousands of engineers and technicians might notice if they never made a mechanism to bring the rover to the moon? And, given the amount of gibberish you've quoted from Bart Sibrel (in other threads of yours), yeah, it's 100% clear that you're just going to swallow anything you see, that aligns with your predetermined conclusions. His nonsense has been debunked a million times over, and, as I pointed out in the other thread, debunks ITSELF. Yet, you buy it, hook line and sinker. So, don't sit here and pretend you know anything. The rover almost fit into the lander, and the bits that didn't fit, simply hung off the side. If you can't figure this out after 50 years, your credibility is zero.
    1
  13282.  @lorichet  Repeat the same incorrect garbage all you want. Rocketdyne themselves said Keysing wasn't an engineer. Who said he was? Himself?
    1
  13283. A service engineer isn't an engineer. That's a glorified repairman. That's like when the guy who fixes the toilets in a company is called a "building engineer." And, Kaysing (thanks for the spelling correction) left Rocketdyne long before a single Apollo rocket even lifted off the ground. Once again, you don't know anything. You've come here to reply that he was a repairman? And, you think you know stuff because an ex-repairman who left the company before Apollo even got going told you it was fake? Bravo. You're a real genius. None of this changes the fact that your opening comment in this thread said the rover wouldn't fit, remember? And, you said you never saw anything showing you that it fit. And, since those comments demonstrated how little you know, you've now continued to try to deflect and dodge and change topics.
    1
  13284.  @lorichet  It's not my fault that you don't know what a service engineer is. Kaysing was a writer, not an engineer. And, why does it matter to you? As has been pointed out repeatedly, Kaysing left long before the first Apollo rocket ever lifted off the ground. And, sorry, but this is just plain silly. All you're doing is grasping at straws, and trying to avoid your own original topic of the lunar rover.
    1
  13285.  @lorichet  You're wrong. That's all there is to it. You can keep pretending you're not, but, that doesn't change anything. And, as usual, you refuse to stick to your own original topic. You will do ANYTHING to avoid it.
    1
  13286.  @lorichet  We are done here. I am not playing this game with you. I answered you already in two different threads, including this one. You clearly don't want answers to your own questions.
    1
  13287.  @davidkeenan5642  Laterally by a few miles? Um, no. A few hundred feet. But a few miles, the background would change significantly (and did).
    1
  13288.  @davidkeenan5642  Yup. And, with the moon that is 1/50th the size of Earth, how far away do you think mountains even could be, before disappearing off of the horizon?
    1
  13289.  @davidkeenan5642  Math isn't your strong point, eh?
    1
  13290.  @davidkeenan5642  Here, I did a little bit of quick trig for you: Let's say the mountain is about 300 miles away (you said hundreds of miles, so, I figured I'd just go with 300). This would mean that, in order to see the peak of that mountain on the moon, it would need to be about 58 miles tall. If we take Apollo 17's South Massif mountain as an example, it is 1.4 miles tall. Mount Everest is about 5.5 miles tall. So, in order for you to be correct, you'd need a mountain 10x the height of Everest, or about 40x taller than Apollo 17's South Massif. This was just quick math, and I did a bit of rounding here and there, but, it's pretty accurate for these purposes. I mean, while it's true that the diameter is approximately 1/4th of Earth's, lots of people just don't realize what that means in terms of pure size. 50 moons can fit inside of Earth's volume. And, the moon's horizon drops really fast.
    1
  13291.  @lorichet  That was an editing error from a 3rd party documentary, not reflected in the original footage. Mistakes happen in documentaries all the time. So what? I saw a documentary about WWII, in which they showed some footage of a battleship firing its guns in a certain battle, but, that battleship wasn't even constructed yet at the time of that battle. The editors of the documentary had placed some footage in the wrong part of the video. Does this mean WWII is fake? Watch the original footage, not documentaries that sometimes contain errors.
    1
  13292.  @lorichet  What in the world are you talking about? What footage do you think was lost? Let me guess, you're talking about the 2006 paper in which NASA said that they lost two backup tapes from one mission. And, since that time, you people keep escalating it to the point that you think it was the primary copies, and then escalating to the point that you think everything was lost from all missions. Right? Sorry, but all you're doing (for the millionth time) is regurgitating nonsense you got from conspiracy videos, which are always wrong.
    1
  13293.  @lorichet  " I couldn't finish reading your post after that line." Yeah, typical paranoid delusional behavior. You refuse all input that puts cracks in your predetermined conclusions.
    1
  13294.  @lorichet  You continue to simply deny what a service engineer is (and what it isn't). Sorry, but the ACTUAL engineers didn't need technical support from a writer with no engineering credentials whatsoever, who doubled as a minor fixit guy with an inflated title of "service engineer." He witnessed testing of F1 engines? When? 8 years before they ever flew? Wow!! So, you're telling me that rockets need development and aren't always reliable on their first try? Say it ain't so!! Good grief. Sorry, but it's Kaysing's own statements that don't make sense. Quote from his book on page 84: "the Saturn C-5 moon rocket assembly was built to specifications with one major modification: instead of the totally unreliable F-1 engines, five booster engines of the more dependable B-1 type as used in the C-1 cluster for the Atlas missile were used." Yes, Kaysing proposed that there were littler engines secretly tucked inside the engine bells of the larger F1 engines... as if the actual rocket engineers were never able to solve the problems in the several years after Kaysing was long gone. This claim of his is about as outlandish as it gets, because there are camera angles underneath the rocket that show no such engines tucked in there. And, magically, none of the thousands of people working in the vehicle assembly process ever noticed that they removed the lander, and the innards of the other stages of the rocket, to reduce the weight so that the rocket could get off the ground with smaller engines. Sure. Right. You are amazingly able to simply dismiss the silly things Kaysing claimed, and you pretend he never even claimed them. Well, guess what, EVERYTHING he claimed is ridiculous. I mean, even pretending you were correct about his credentials (you're not, just hypothetically), why would you even grant an ounce of credibility to someone who was long gone for years and years before the first rocket even lifted off? Is it THAT difficult to stomach the notion that actual engineers fixed the reliability issues with the engines in those years? Sue for libel? Like he sued Lovell, and lost? You actually think that Kaysing could win a lawsuit against someone on YouTube who pointed out how ridiculous his notions were? And, what "libel" are you talking about? He quoted directly from Kaysing's own book (which you ignored). Yes, Kaysing claimed that there were little engines tucked into the bigger engines. Page 84 of his own book. So, where's the "libel" in quoting him directly? 7,000 engineers worked on the lunar lander, hundreds more on the rover. You are the one who claimed that it doesn't fit. And, your basis is because people said the dimensions were too large to tuck into the quadrant in the lander. I acknowledged that you were correct, and pointed you to a photo showing the rover sticking out of the side of the lander, because it didn't fit all the way in. I questioned why you thought this meant they couldn't take it to the moon. You said you couldn't even find any photos at all, yet, all you need to do is flip through the photo archive and see tons of them. Sorry, but it's very clear that if you don't see it in conspiracy videos, you simply don't know about it. The ONLY things you're aware of are the silly things that those videos present to you. You have never lifted a finger to actually fact check any of them, nor to study Apollo itself. You watch videos, you swallow everything they say, and you are so desperate for validation that you cling to the notion that a writer who was never an engineer, holding no credentials whatsoever, who left the program years before a single rocket lifted off the ground, somehow knows more about Apollo than the actual engineers. This is how far out to sea your ship has sailed, and you're not on it.
    1
  13295.  @lorichet  Nope, not playing this game of yours. You cherry picked one or two sentences, and ignored the rest, as usual. If you don't have the courage to deal with being wrong, sorry, I'm not going to sit here and entertain you.
    1
  13296.  @lorichet  Pffttt. Right. Sure. You've heard it all before? Then, why did you deny that Kaysing said that the Saturn's F1 engines weren't actually F1 engines, and had smaller engines tucked inside them? It's on page 84 of his own book, yet, you denied he ever said it. How does this mean that you've heard it before? Why won't you answer any questions asked of you? Too afraid to deal with them, huh? Why can't you admit being wrong about the rover "fitting" into the lander? I provided the exact photos you didn't think existed. I explained why the geometry is what it is. I explained that the rover had to stick out of the side of the lander because it didn't fit all the way in (yet, they still managed to carry it). Yet, even with the exact photographic evidence you asked for, you refuse to admit being wrong. How far gone are you? Have you been diagnosed yet? Is it dementia starting to creep in? Or, is there a chemical imbalance issue?
    1
  13297.  @lorichet  You refuse to answer anything I've ever asked. You refuse to admit being wrong about anything whatsoever, even when give point-blank irrefutable evidence that you're wrong. What choices do you give me?
    1
  13298.  @lorichet  Hilarious!!! Um, silly person suffering from some sort of imbalance or early onset of geriatric degeneration, guess what... I've both refuted your ridiculous arguments, illustrated in no uncertain terms why they're wrong, AND I've done ad hominems. You're one to talk anyway. Your entire list of posted messages is a giant ad hominem against the thousands of people you think are/were criminals who would get a lifetime in prison if you were correct. "Don't fling ad hominems at me while I'm committing ad hominem attacks against thousands of others." Right. Sure. I think it's time you seek some therapy.
    1
  13299.  @lorichet  Nope, not playing your distraction game. You said you didn't think the rover fit. I provided you a photo that you didn't believe existed. I'm not going to sit here and listen to distractions from you. There are dozens of questions you've refused to address, and you never admit being wrong.
    1
  13300.  @lorichet  "I saw no photo from you." Pffttt. That's because you don't read the answers to your own questions. You are very married to this silly belief of yours, and reading answers to your questions would mean that you'd have to admit you're wrong. I provided you the photo catalog number in my very first reply to you in this thread. You read the first half of the message, but not the second half. "Even IF there's a photo (not a drawing) of a Rover fitting on the Lander" There are HUNDREDS of photos of the rovers being folded and unfolded, being put into the landers, and the rovers attached to the side of the landers (while sticking out, because they didn't quite fit, as I explained to you a million times, but good enough to get them to the moon). I provided you with a very nice one from a good angle so you could see the fenders sticking out from the side of the lander. There are many more photos like it, including ones from space where you can clearly see fenders sticking out. "that proves nothing" It proves many things. It proves you're wrong. It proves that you haven't actually looked for the photos you think don't exist. It proves you ignore answers to your own questions. It proves that the makers of the silly videos you're watching are able to calculate that the total volume of the folded rover wouldn't fit all the way into the equipment bay, but, like you, it proves that they never bothered to look at how GM, Boeing, and Grumman managed to make it work anyway, by allowing the rover to hang off the side, fenders exposed. "unless the Rover was assumbled on the moon" It WAS assembled on the moon!! Go watch the video from Apollo 15 where you see the rover being deployed. Good grief. See what I mean? David Keenan in this thread posted links to videos that would show you exactly what you're denying. But, you ignored them. You ignored all input from me. You ignored all input from him. You stuck your head in the sand, and pretended nobody ever provided you these things, as if nobody could scroll up and see all of the stuff you ignored. Good grief. The base of the rover and its wheels folded up, but, they still had to put together all of the other stuff that couldn't be folded up, like the radio dish, the equipment carted around, the rover camera, etc. You know absolutely nothing about the topic, nor do you want to know about it. You'd rather pretend you understand things you don't, watch a bunch of conspiracy videos, and then assume that the makers of those videos know what they're talking about. Hint: they don't. Most of those videos are made by people who know just as little about Apollo as you do. And, some of the other videos are made by charlatans who know darned well that moon landings happened, but have chosen to edit videos and present them in dishonest ways, just for a cash grab. You gobble up every word they feed you, and you've never fact checked a single thing they say.
    1
  13301.  @lorichet  Still denying things you've been presented? Good grief. Sorry that you don't understand how YouTube works, but, they block links to most outside sites. Many channel hosts block all links, even to YouTube videos. This one allows those links, but, not other links. Is your Google broken? You're unable to find the catalog number I provided? Sheeesssssshhhhh. I mean, I knew your ship had sailed, and that you suffer from some pretty severe issues. But, being unable to key in a catalog number... yeah, you're even further out to sea than I thought. Insults aren't answers? Hilarious!! I've given you answers... repeatedly. You've ignored them... repeatedly. You are quite deserving of every comment I've made. And, this is particularly ironic because I must have asked you about 3 dozen questions in this thread and others, and you've refused to answer any of them. Now, YOU're complaining about not getting answers? Sheeeessssssshhhh. Even just now, you've ignored 99% of my response (as usual), and you focus on one thing, and you cannot even get that one thing correct. I mean, most sane people would actually want to be correct. Most sane people would listen to the answers to their own questions. Not you, though.
    1
  13302.  @lorichet  ap15-KSC-71PC-415 (repeating from my first posted message in this thread). And, yes, there are hundreds more. You can deny it until the cows come home, but, all this proves (yet again) is that you've never actually looked for the photos you deny exist.
    1
  13303.  @lorichet  What catalog number? You posted this in the very next message after I just gave you the catalog number (for the 2nd time in this thread)? Good gods. Your credibility had long been lost, but, this is just plain ridiculous.
    1
  13304. For any others in this thread who might be interested, but not getting notifications because you're not addressed directly, you might want to take a look at the latest exchange from our resident super-expert, Esthersar. He kept asking for me to post links to the photo I kept telling him to look at (despite that external links are not allowed). I gave him the catalog number instead (again, for the 2nd time in this thread). Then, his immediate next reply is "what catalog number?" (demonstrating for the millionth time that he refuses to actually read the answers to his own questions). It was literally 1 hour after I just had given him the catalog number for the second time, his immediate next response was to (yet again) deny that he had been given the catalog number. And, he wonders why nobody can take him seriously... good gods.
    1
  13305.  @lorichet  If I have to explain the photo, there's really no hope here. Well, there never was much hope anyway. I'd have better luck teaching calculus to an earthworm. But, if you're not capable of understanding the photos, there's no point here.
    1
  13306.  @lorichet  Pffttt. So, now it's your position that the lunar lander in the photo isn't the same as the one they took to the moon? Hilarious!! Right. Sure. If you don't like that photo because it was taken before they were done assembling the lander, fine, instead, you can go look at some of the other hundreds of photos, including the ones taken in space on the way to the moon, or in lunar orbit. I chose that particular photo because it made it very clear how the rover didn't quite fit, but, they made it work anyway, with the fenders sticking out. Now, just because the photo was taken before they were finished assembling the lander, you're going to claim it wasn't the same lander? Hilarious!!! Remember, you were the one who refused to even look at the photo until just now, dozens of messages later. You are the one refusing all input. You don't know anything about the topic. You also denied that Kaysing claimed that the Saturn rocket had littler engines tucked inside the engine bells of the bigger F1 engines. His notion was that they couldn't get the F1 engines to be reliable enough, therefore they used the shells of F1 engines, but, secretly used smaller engines inside them. You said that was wrong, and denied that Kaysing ever said such a thing. I gave you the exact page number and quoted a line from his book. You ignored it, refusing to admit you're wrong. And, now, you finally got around to looking at one of the hundreds of photos you thought didn't exist, and you still refuse to accept it. You said you wanted to see a photo of the rover mounted to the lander, showing how they made it fit. I gave you EXACTLY what you asked for. And, now, you stick your head in the sand, yet again, and simply brush it away, while you declare victory. Seriously, I think it's time you put your Medicare policy to work for you, and make some visits to some of the professionals that can help you. Show them this thread. Show them the other threads. Maybe there are meds that can slow the progression of this obvious degeneration.
    1
  13307.  @lorichet  Let me see if I've got this straight... we're 82 messages into this thread. I've asked dozens of questions you refuse to answer. I've supplied you with the exact type of photos you pretended you were asking for, which you ignored repeatedly until just now. I refuted many of your claims with iron clad evidence that you're wrong, including quoting directly from Kaysing's own book, and giving you page numbers... which went in one ear, out the other, and you wouldn't admit to being mistaken. You not only ignore all input from me, but you ignore it from everyone else too. You've outright admitted that you're not reading what I'm writing. And, after your non-stop refusal to ever respond to any questions asked of you, you're now wondering why I won't answer your unrelated and irrelevant questions? So, basically, I'm just supposed to keep on answering every question you ask, while you ignored every single one I've asked. Right. We're done here. You have proven what kind of person you are repeatedly. But, it was my favorite when I gave you the photo catalog number, and then you came back in the very next message and asked for the catalog number.
    1
  13308.  @lorichet  Quote: "why is it you feel the need to consistently make things up? I didn't read his book, and I for sure wouldn't take anything you say without knowing what he wrote" YOU were the one who denied that Kaysing said what he said. Yassassin told you what Kaysing said (that they secretly didn't actually use the F1 engines on the Saturn rocket, and inserted smaller engines inside). You then claimed Yassassin was wrong, and accused him of libel, saying that Kaysing would sue him if he was still alive to do so. But, all he did was quote from Kaysing's own book!!! So, don't sit there and pretend people are making things up, while simultaneously saying you didn't read Kaysing's own book. Typical, "you're wrong, but I didn't even read it" response from you. Good grief. Guess what, we aren't your problem. Your actual problem is yourself.
    1
  13309.  @lorichet  Again, you obviously haven't read anything past the first sentence. You ignore all input, as usual.
    1
  13310.  @lorichet  Sorry, what was that you asked? I only read the first sentence you wrote.
    1
  13311.  @lorichet  Sorry, could you repeat that? I didn't read anything after your ad hominem attack against my reading comprehension in your first sentence.
    1
  13312.  @lorichet  Is your scroll-up broken?
    1
  13313.  @lorichet  And, by the way, I've had quite enough of your excuses about not reading anything because of ad hominem attacks on you. You have avoided reading anything from square one. In my very first posted message in this thread, I gave you the catalog number of one of the photos that you asked for (but obviously didn't want). You pretended you wanted to see photos of the rover fitting into the lander, yet, when provided with one of the hundreds of them, you ignored it, and continued to insist that it didn't fit. 70+ comments later, I gave you the catalog number again. Your very next reply was "what catalog number?" after I had just given you the catalog number (again) in the very first word of the message. So, don't sit there and pretend you feel like you're attacked, and that's the reason you refuse to read anything. You're not reading ANYTHING that goes against your predetermined conclusions. Or, more accurately, you do read it, but, you ignore it and pretend you didn't read it, and then make up excuses about why you didn't read it. I even gave you a brief summary of the positions you hold, not a single "attacking" word in it, and you came back and said you didn't read past the first sentence. You have refused to answer 99% of the questions I've asked, yet, the moment I refuse to answer something you ask, you go bananas and wonder why I won't answer you. I'm not doing this any longer. I'm not going to sit here and entertain your silly fantasies about knowing more than the entire planet's aerospace engineers, while you refuse all input. And, after 80+ messages into this thread, when you finally looked at the photo that YOU pretended to ask for, what did you do? You denied it was the same lander that went to the moon. Well, you're only saying that because the lander was unfinished. It didn't even have legs on it yet, among many other parts that were not yet assembled. But, the photo served the exact purpose you were asking for. If you didn't like it because the lander wasn't finished yet, you can go look at hundreds more photos, including the ones taken in space on the way to the moon, or in orbit around the moon. But, that's not what you wanted to hear. You wanted to believe the rover couldn't be taken to the moon, and that the thousands of engineers who worked on the lander and rovers were all unaware that they forgot to make it fit. THAT is how ridiculous your position is, and it has nothing to do with any ad hominem anything.
    1
  13314. Have you never looked at the moon? Of course there are sunrises and sunsets. There's no such concept as the "lit side" or "dark side." What do you think a full moon is, vs. a quarter moon, or a new moon? The "lit side" changes constantly, because the moon is rotating. However, a single lunar day is about a month on Earth. It doesn't get up to 250 degrees until well into the lunar afternoon. The astronauts were never there during that timeframe. They always landed early in the lunar morning, about a week before temperatures got that high, and were long gone by the lunar afternoon.
    1
  13315. Well, the silver lining is that the woman herself didn't suffer any embarrassment. The arrest was in July of 2021, the suicide was in March of 2022, and the arrest video was made public in November of 2023. She was dead over 1.5 years before the public saw the arrest video.
    1
  13316. I had always heard it was Jack Schmitt. Or, well, I should say Jack Schmitt says he took it. I'm not sure why this video says it's not clear who took it.
    1
  13317. Dewdrop, how about actually knowing something before spewing nonsense everywhere? This arrest = July 1, 2021. Suicide = March 2022. Arrest video made public = November 24, 2023. She suffered zero humiliation over the arrest video because nobody saw it until long after she was dead. And, sorry, but these little conspiracies about cops selling footage instead of a simple Freedom of Information Act request... well, you already lost your credibility because you didn't know the timeline of events... and you just made your credibility drop even further.
    1
  13318.  @Mooseracks  As usual, you refuse to address the material, and duck-and-dodge instead. That's all you ever do. Duck. Dodge. Change topics. Duck. Dodge. Change topics.
    1
  13319. What are you talking about? Why would you say there weren't any deaths?
    1
  13320. Just looked it up... 2,366 COVID deaths in the USA yesterday.
    1
  13321. Inside Edition told you so!! Therefore it must be true!! Whatever you do, NEVER fact-check Inside Edition!!
    1
  13322. That's LRO. The camera was built and is managed by Arizona State University. You cannot see actual detail of footprints, because the resolution isn't good enough for that. But, you can see the foot paths showing where they walked. And, more distinctively, you can see the rover tracks. There are hundreds of photos of all of the landing sites, and ASU even has some tools that lets you see the sites from just about every sun angle possible. You can see the shadows of the 5 flags that are still standing, as the sun goes up and down, and the shadow angle changes. Check it out.
    1
  13323. You have dramatically misunderstood the legal system. An officer has the right (and duty) to arrest people if there's reasonable suspicion of a crime. There is no requirement for "proof" of anything until it goes in front of a court. So, what evidence was there? Well, a store employee named "Anna" saw the woman go through the checkout area without paying, and then told the officer. That's reasonable enough suspicion to stop the person. And, it gets worse from there, because she refused to offer a receipt, while claiming she has one. And, she refused to identify herself, which is required any time an officer asks during an investigation. That's how the law works. If you don't like it, find a country that has different laws (good luck). We have courts for a reason. That's where all of the proof and evidence comes forth. At the side of the road, an officer needs only determine if there's enough evidence to perform an arrest. That's it. He doesn't need to be correct, he needs only determine if enough evidence exists to suspect someone of a crime. And, yes, a store employee witnessing someone going through without paying, plus the fact that the woman won't provide a receipt, plus the fact that she won't identify herself, is more than enough evidence to arrest her, and let the court decide whether she's guilty or not. Then, it got compounded when she resisted the arrest. Just imagine if the law worked the way you're proposing. Imagine that an officer needs to prove a case at the side of the road, rather than in a court, otherwise he cannot arrest. Just imagine that situation, and come back here and tell me that's really how you think the law works... ??
    1
  13324. Dewdrop, if you wanted to be taken seriously, your question would have been, "I don't know how the camera worked, can someone explain?" But, nope, instead, you decided to spew a completely ridiculous question, that you knew was ridiculous, as if the entire planet wouldn't have noticed this glaring "error" you think you spotted. You deserve every bit of ridicule you get.
    1
  13325.  @bradleyrex2968  He will think you are affirming his viewpoint.
    1
  13326. Well, in case you didn't notice, they were trying. But, you can't just command a 9mm round to penetrate a truck.
    1
  13327. Yes, and I fail to understand your point. Are you under the impression that the cops should shoot the guy after he's not a threat? You don't think that would result in a gazillion dollar lawsuit by his family?
    1
  13328.  @russellmckernan  "why did they not continue with the many presentations of great success?" There are a million reasons. But, first and foremost, I'd ask how many would be enough for you? They sent 9 manned missions to the moon. They landed 6 of those times. How many more would it take to convince you? Are they never allowed to end the program? They must keep going endlessly, or you'll call it fake? They funded the Apollo program for 12 years for moonshots, and another 3 years for missions like Apollo-Soyuz and Skylab. The total cost to walk on the moon was about $16 billion for each of the 12 men who did so in hard costs, and approximately another $8-$12 billion in soft costs and international support, so, minimally, about $24 billion per person who walked around on the moon for a few hours each. Apollo's main objective was to beat the Soviets to putting a man on the moon. Apollo was 99% a political display of technological dominance, and 1% a program of exploration. Once that main objective was met, and the Soviets threw in the towel, congress had no interest in continuing to fund Apollo. If they were going to spend that kind of money on something, they wanted it to benefit millions of people, not 12. And, frankly, they got lucky. The Apollo program was very rushed, and killed enough people on the ground, and had enough near fatal incidents in space. They stretched it to the limits, and they got everything out of that program that they wanted. So, they ended it. And, after Apollo, NASA's budget was decreased from 4.5% of the entire federal budget (plus another 2 or 3% in soft costs) down to 0.48% of the federal budget. Want more reasons? Or, are you getting the point? I mean, I've seen a lot of your comments in these threads, and your arrogance is completely off the charts. You literally don't know the most entry level concepts about Apollo, yet, you're sitting there in your armchair declaring that everyone else (the sane ones) have some sort of disorder... while refusing to look into the mirror. Absolutely astounding.
    1
  13329. This is a joke, right? Do you actually believe that 100% of the tests came back positive? Really?
    1
  13330. This is a joke, right? Do you actually believe that 100% of the tests came back positive? Really?
    1
  13331. This is a joke, right? Do you actually believe that 100% of the tests came back positive? Really?
    1
  13332.  @55points  Fine, but what makes them the "best police department" if they're not doing their jobs (for whatever the reason)?
    1
  13333. Yes. I agree. And, the one saving grace is that she died 1.5 years before any of the public knew anything about this incident. So, she never personally had to suffer the consequence. She had enough bad stuff going on in her life already.
    1
  13334. Maybe. That's what the news stories say. But, I certainly wouldn't put it past him to fake a death. He faked paralysis for years, why not a death also?
    1
  13335. Huh? The police took her away from the restaurant to question her outside anybody's earshot. And, then the police kept the arrest video private for 2.5 years. Nobody saw it until long after she was dead. How did the police violate her privacy?
    1
  13336. Huh? July 1, 2021 = this incident. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released.
    1
  13337. She walked up and down the beach, looking for a place to do this, plopped down in front of people, and put on a public show. The police describe the video as a very loud and public event in view of multiple people including children. You think anybody is going up to her to have a conversation? And, yeah, as for bad decisions, yeah, tell me about it. With her mile long criminal history, time spent in prison... and her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club... bad decisions seem to have been her norm.
    1
  13338. Some points of clarity: It's even worse than that, because those weren't her kids. They were someone else's kids. So, she chose to sit there and break a bunch of laws right in front of someone else's kids, not exactly a good example. If I were the kids' parents, that's the last time this woman would ever babysit them. And, Walmart is an exception because when you get a membership, you sign a form that says they can ask for your receipt. That's not true in most stores. So, she's not legally required to provide a receipt, but, yeah, it sure would have been the better choice than what she did. Instead, she obstructed and obfuscated, refused to even provide identification (required by law in Florida), and resisted arrest.
    1
  13339. Huh? Well, she did eventually give the receipt (in the full version of the video, not this edited version). So, I really don't understand you.
    1
  13340. They didn't put anything on the news until she was dead 1.5 years.
    1
  13341. Let's see, 6th grade geometry, vs. the bible?... Gee, I wonder which is correct?
    1
  13342. She wasn't guilty of theft. She had her receipt, but lied and said she didn't have it. But, it was long too late by the time she asked to go back inside. She had already failed to identify (illegal), obstructed and obfuscated (illegal), and was going to get arrested no matter what. Yes, she does have to show ID. Florida is an identify state, as most states are. She doesn't legally need to show a receipt. But, failure to identify is an arrestable offense on its own. Supervisor? In Jacksonville, FL? What planet are you on? Do you really think that the murder and violent crime capitol of the state really needs to go around sending supervisors to deal with an irate woman who was upset because the store thought she might have stolen a piece of chicken and some bread? Seriously? You want to stop a supervisor from dealing with violent criminals, and come help in this situation, because the lunatic woman was going bananas over being asked for a receipt? Please tell me this is a joke. A Taser isn't used for an imminent threat. A firearm is used for that. A Taser is used to force compliance upon someone resisting arrest. And, had he gotten a supervisor, the supervisor would have told him to use the Taser. You sure are very proud to be wrong about every single thing you wrote. How does that feel? What's that like, to actually walk around as if being wrong is a badge of honor?
    1
  13343. Did you graduate high school? If so, go back and demand they give you another 4 years. Good grief.
    1
  13344. Is it REALLY that much to ask for someone to read and write in English? Really?
    1
  13345. Oh, so it's the officers' fault? What EXACTLY do you think the officers did wrong here?
    1
  13346. No, you have fallen for a classic Inside Edition skewing of the facts. This arrest was from July 1, 2021. She died in March of 2022. The arrest video was released (FOIA request) on November 24, 2023. So, they saw an opportunity to get two viral videos for the price of one. In late November (2023), they ran the viral story about the arrest, while not mentioning that she had already been dead 1.5 years. Then, a couple of weeks later, they ran this "update" story that she had committed suicide. Notice they ASK "was she shamed to death?" But, they never actually give the answer ("no"). Instead, they spew a bunch of stuff to make people falsely believe that this arrest led to her suicide. In reality, she suffered nearly zero shame, because the only ones that even covered this story while she was alive were a couple of obscure blog posts. Also notice that they don't mention that she abandoned her career and family more than a decade ago to live a life of crime and drugs instead, and that she was a stripper at the local club. I'd eat my hat if she wasn't making "public beach" content, and was reported, so she was trying to avoid her millionth arrest and another term in prison.
    1
  13347. Maybe someday. No time in the foreseeable future, though. Such a mission will cost more than anybody would/could pay for those artifacts. It's akin to diamonds and precious metals. We know there are lots of diamonds and precious metals that are hundreds of miles (or sometimes over 1000 miles) deep under the surface. The deepest mines in the world are only a couple of miles under. Digging hundreds of miles deep would cost more than you could ever sell that stuff for. So, nobody does it. Same for Apollo artifacts. Yeah, I'm sure plenty of people would pay a fortune for that stuff, but, it still costs far more to go get it.
    1
  13348. Well, anybody can do whatever they want with their own money, and I certainly don't have the kind of money it would take to go to the moon, but, if I was going to visit an Apollo site, I'd have to say that Apollo 15 or Apollo 17 would be where I'd go.
    1
  13349.  @TexMex421  Commercial orbital flights will probably be about $50 million per seat, not $10 million. They were charging $10 million per seat for the little quick shots that go up and back down. That's come down. StarshipTwo charges half a million now. But, orbital flights are another animal entirely.
    1
  13350. That's Chopin's Death March.
    1
  13351. First of all, the arrest video wasn't released until 1.5 years after she died. Secondly, Freedom of Information Act. How do you propose the police prevent the release?
    1
  13352. Huh? You do know she died, right?
    1
  13353. Poor woman? You don't think she was in on it?
    1
  13354. Multiple people called the police. One of them took video of the incident and showed it to the police. Needless to say, the video doesn't match this version she's telling about a discreet act with nobody around, as she's attempting to avoid her millionth arrest. Sorry, but, if someone puts on that kind of show in front of children (which is what happened here), that person is getting arrested. You also have your timeline very wrong. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video made public. So, no, the arrest video had nothing to do with her suicide, because nobody saw it while she was alive. The video was released (1.5 years after her death) due to the Freedom of Information Act. I'm sorry that you don't understand anything about the law, but, you apparently feel very comfortable pretending you do.
    1
  13355. She abandoned her family including a husband and two boys (one was 6 months old) about a decade ago in order to live "wild" and "off the rails" (her family's words). She ended up becoming a convicted felon who served a term in prison for stealing cars. She also had multiple judgements against her for other thefts and crimes. And, she had an arrest record a mile long for other things including drugs and alcohol. And, there were numerous warrants for failure to appear in court. She tried changing her name a few times to evade police, but, the courts wouldn't let her do that. After all of that, yes, it's difficult to get a straight job, so, according to her landlord, she was a stripper at the local club. Neighbors said that she also did "private" cash transactions with men in her apartment. So, let's face reality here, it seemed that "shame" wasn't even part of her vocabulary. And, the witnesses at the beach also said that her "performance" appeared to be quite intentionally in front of others. The video showed a very loud and public act in view of multiple people including children.
    1
  13356. "Dust causing overheating" And, this is a problem for you, why?
    1
  13357. "Singing in spacesuits while leaping like a kangaroo" Just because you want to live your life in fear instead of with a sense of adventure doesn't mean everyone else should live that way too, you know.
    1
  13358. "pulled to one side like being suspended by cables" Do you have a timestamp?
    1
  13359. "full sunlight at approx 130degrees centigrade" No, dewdrop. All lunar landings were early in the lunar morning. The surface doesn't get that hot until the lunar afternoon.
    1
  13360. "I am in disbelief" Yes, but, your disbelief is based upon shoddy "logic" (sigh) and incorrect facts.
    1
  13361. "Was the rover left behind?" Hold on, you don't even know this trivial thing, but, you think you know enough to doubt the entire planet's experts?
    1
  13362. "Can we see some shots of it? Unless there is no telescope powerful enough?" From Earth? Do you have any concept of the size lens you'd need? Hint: to see a rover as about 4 or 5 dots, you wouldn't know what it was, just a dark spot of a few pixels, would take a lens about a quarter mile in diameter. If you want to be able to see it in enough detail to see that it's a rover, it would take a lens a few miles in diameter. Do you know of any such telescopes? I'm beginning to doubt your expertise, if you are unaware of the concept of "optical resolution" which is limited by the Rayleigh criterion and Dawes' limit. These outline the properties of light that you obviously know nothing about. The only way to counteract those concepts is to build a bigger lens.
    1
  13363. Bravo, dewdrop. You ask questions, then, when you get answers, you don't read them, you ignore all return questions, and prove that you never wanted answers to your own questions in the first place. You're a true genius alright. And, what a great stand-up honest guy.
    1
  13364. Well, what this "news" (not news) story is omitting is the 6-7 hours in between when the kids were drinking at the pool, and when they came back later after dark when the pool was closed.
    1
  13365. Well, I think we're on the same side, but, I truly don't understand what you mean about the arrests being different. The cop pursued the woman that the store employee identified (he didn't pick her, the store did). And, from there, the woman got herself arrested because of her own actions. So, I just don't follow your logic about the arrests being different.
    1
  13366. Mak Parhar thought he was normal, and everyone else was "weird af" also. Look where that lead.
    1
  13367. Really? When did they start giving warnings for crimes? I thought that was only for infractions. But, you're the expert here. Can you enlighten me?
    1
  13368. Would those be the family and friends that she abandoned more than a decade ago in order to live a life of crime and drugs?
    1
  13369. First of all, it wasn't released until 1.5 years after she died. Secondly, Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  13370.  @Jackspaniel1  I only replied to you once. I don't know what you mean.
    1
  13371. So, getting attacked and killing 3000 people in the twin tower attacks is "all the best"?? Huh?
    1
  13372. As a general rule, they blur for open investigations, but not for closed ones.
    1
  13373. So? Do you think proof comes at the side of the road? Do you think you have a burden of proof to get a conviction before you can arrest someone? How would such a system ever work?
    1
  13374. Why? Because some people made videos that distort the facts and pretend like she was murdered? Yes, indeed, read the details. Read the police report. Read the medical examiner's report. The only "odd" thing was that she lived with the gunshot wound to her head for a short while before dying. And, guess what, that happens sometimes (about 10% of the time) with low caliber bullets that only hit the prefrontal cortex, and no areas of the brain that actually control bodily functions. There's no evidence of any sort indicating that this was other than a suicide.
    1
  13375.  @saintmte5076  In one ear, out the other. I posed a bunch of questions/challenges. You ignored every single word. You didn't address ANYTHING I asked. And, instead, like all conspiratards, all you've done is duck and dodge, and then change topics. That's all you people ever do. Not a single one of you people know what you're talking about. None of you. YOU SAID: "Ok Einstein, so where are the deleted documents???" == What deleted documents? Which documents are you looking for? Or, did you just blindly trust a conspiracy video that told you documents were deleted? YOU SAID: "All I hear from you is that you do not feel U.S were SMART enough to pull off a fake moon journey." == Nobody is "smart enough" to fake radar and radio telescope signals. They cannot be faked. Nobody is "smart enough" to prevent future generations from sending probes to the moon to either find Apollo evidence (or not find it). Nobody is "smart enough" to make lasers reflect off of reflectors on the moon, if the reflectors aren't there. YOU SAID: "You don't think they had some of the smartest minds around to build a narrative around why it was indeed REAL. Think about it. You blast a rocket off into space, but it doesn't ACTUALLY ever get there but the trackers that were on that shuttle were ALSO in the hands of the U.S and they used that to manipulate info." == Congratulations on failing to read ANYTHING. Um, dummy, the Soviets tracked our craft too. I also listed a bunch of other countries that tracked our craft. You don't know what you're talking about. YOU SAID: "Not to mention how the men that were on the moon could not speak about it. Why do you think that was?" == That makes no sense. They all spoke about it. Lectures. Books. Interviews. What ARE you talking about? YOU SAID: "The ACTUAL PEOPLE THAT WERE THERE cannot (or more accurately NOT ALLOWED to) give you detailed accounts of what happened. EXPLAIN THAT??" == Sure, the explanation is that you don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about. All of the mission debriefs are available. They all wrote books about their experiences. There are countless interviews. You could talk to them yourself and ask any questions you want. There are only four of them left alive. You should go meet them. YOU SAID: "But instead you want to listen to the accounts of people that WERE NOT THERE????" == I never made any such claim. Where are you getting this idea from? I merely understand that you will not listen to the actual astronauts themselves, because you are too busy slandering them to actually pay attention to what they say. So, I pointed out that you can find numerous 3rd party evidence. But, did you even listen to yourself here?? If you're saying that you want me to listen to the actual astronauts who went to the moon, and THAT is your ultimate authority, you just shot yourself in the foot, dummy. All of them said they went to the moon. YOU are disregarding what they say, not me. YOU SAID: "What type of logic is that." == Oh, the irony. You want me to listen to the actual moonwalkers... while you are the one who won't listen to them. YOU SAID: [insert a pile of utter nonsense that has nothing to do with Apollo] == Just more distractions. Just more ducking and dodging. Your understanding of Apollo is so crippled that you felt the need to change topics to mortgages and pedophile sex rings. That's how little you understand about Apollo. You can't deal with the Apollo topic, so, your only recourse is to change topics. No, I'm not responding about your insane attempts to distract and dodge. YOU SAID: "Looool Like you didn't watch VIDEOS yourself to come to your conclusion." == No, dummy. Video evidence is some of the weakest evidence. I mean, sure, I've watched all of the Apollo videos. But, they have little bearing about how I know about Apollo. I'm sorry that you think videos are an education, but, you're wrong. YOU SAID: "YOOUU watched videos that confirmed it was real FOR YOU." == Nope. YOU SAID: "IIIII watched the same videos, but then watched OTHER VIDEOS (took two sets of notes, that you are calling CONSPIRACY VIDEOS), and came to MY OWN CONCLUSIONS." == No, you watched conspiracy videos, and swallowed everything they told you, hook line and sinker. YOU SAID: "Lastly" == Pfffttt. Lastly?? You haven't even begun to answer a single question or challenge I put forth. Not one. You ignored everything. And, this is your "lastly"?? Then, you ramble one like an insane maniac for more paragraphs after this? How is this "lastly"?? YOU SAID: "you do realise you COMPLETELY jumped the gun as I NEVER ACTUALLY said it was NOT REAL. I CLEARY said whoever does not have 'ANY DOUBTS'." == Sorry, wasn't born yesterday. You don't get to play that card here. We all know exactly what you think. YOU SAID: "But I see you cannot ask people to question something without them throwing their toys out the pram." == But, you AREN'T questioning. You're PRETENDING to question. IF you were actually questioning, you'd deal with the answers. But, you didn't. You ignored the answers. You refused to address anything. You let it all go in one ear and out the other. You ducked. You dodged. You avoided the topic. You changed topics to mortgages and sex traffic rings. And, now you're sitting there, again pretending to ask questions?? Um, no. That's not what you're doing. You pretend to ask questions because you know that's how to appear intellectually honest. You need to pretend you have an open mind. But, anybody can see right through you. You're shallow, and extremely dumb. YOU SAID: "Do some parts make sense to me. YES or course. Like why would they make AAALLL that effort to fake something like this. With all others reporting that they also tracked the journey. But I feel that U.S had ENOUGH INTELLIGENCE to pull it off." == How? How did they fake the laser effects on the reflectors Apollo left on the moon? How did they, in 1969-1972, prepare to fake Japan out in 2008, when their orbiter confirmed Apollo? How did they make it so China would then confirm Apollo again a couple of years ago? How did they make it so that Arizona State University's LRO would confirm Apollo starting in 2009, and still confirming it today? Sorry, you don't get to just brush that under the rug as "enough intelligence to pull it off." I mean, good grief, at that point, why not just go to the moon? Why not just go?!!?!?! If they had the capability to put all of the Apollo artifacts on the moon to be discovered by probes decades later, why not just go?? Sheeesssshhhh. Do you even listen to yourself? You're crediting NASA and its contractors with the intelligence to pull off "faking" going to the moon, but you apparently don't give them the credit to just go to the moon instead of faking it? Why not just go? They had the rockets big enough to do the job. Why not just go? YOU SAID: "And like I mentioned, what was the point in deleting ALLL the evidence??" == Your conspiracy videos told you it's deleted. But, that's pure insanity. What EXACT evidence are you looking for? YOU SAID: "'Oh because it was not needed anymore'. WAIT..WHATT!!?!?! So they CLEARLY KNEW people MAY have doubts that they ever went there so instead of keeping the evidence to show them in case of any questions, they delete them. But not only do they delete them, they tell the astronauts to NEVER speak on it, and I should just sit back like a good ol' boy and believe EVERY LITTLE THING THEY SAY. So I should believe a country on such a matter when they KNOWN to lie to their citizens TIME AND TIME AGAIN." == None of that makes any sense. None of the evidence is "deleted." They lost two backup tapes from one mission. The primary copies are all still intact, and countless other copies. But, every year that goes by since they announced that the two backup tapes were lost, you conspiratards keep escalating what you think is missing. And, now, you insane maniacs have escalated it to the point of thinking everything has been deleted. It's pure nonsense. You don't know what you're talking about. YOU SAID: "Yeah, errrmm mate, you can gladly be one, but I don't plan on being ANYONE'S FOOL!!!" == Oh, the irony. You are a massive fool, and you don't need anybody's help to show it. You're showing it just fine on your own.
    1
  13376.  @marksprague1280  You think he even attended college?
    1
  13377.  @marksprague1280  Yeah, but, most of them know they're functionally illiterate in science/technology. With the moon landing deniers, they're completely unaware of how little they understand. Dunning-Kruger. And, you're being more generous about granting them the benefit of the doubt about their education than I would be.
    1
  13378. Perry, that sounds nice and all, but, it's just not correct. You have missed the point entirely. I mean, you're correct in that she doesn't need to legally provide her receipt. However, the law requires that she must identify herself during a police investigation. He asked her a million times to provide ID (mainly in the longer version of the video, but also does it here). She refused. She can be arrested for that alone. The cop tried like crazy to get her to just make it easy on herself. But, instead, she chose to obstruct and obfuscate, accusing the cops of things that make no sense whatsoever, and then she chose to resist arrest. I agree with you about the notion that she wouldn't win her lawsuit against Publix, even if she provided her receipt. Publix did nothing "wrong" in the sense of anything actionable. They were wrong about the theft. The woman didn't steal. But, that's just a minor human error. If you are ever going to stop anybody for suspicion of theft, this comes with the brutal reality that sometimes you're just going to be wrong about it. But, there's no crime in that. What's the other option? Never investigating anybody, and just letting theft run rampant? Yes, I agree, she'd have lost either way.
    1
  13379. That's your "proof"? There are YouTube videos that say what you want them to say? Sorry, but with that standard, then this means there's proof that psychics talk to dead people, proof that Bigfoot exists, proof that there are chemtrails poisoning the world, and just about anything you choose to believe. Um, no. Sorry dewdrop. But, "YouTube videos showed me" doesn't cut it. I have no idea why you'd just blindly believe what you see in YouTube videos. But, there's a very strong irony here. You live your life thinking that YOU are the skeptical ones, and the rest of us, ya know, the sane ones, just blindly believe what WE are told. Meanwhile, you just proved that YOU are the one who blindly believes things you're told. Sorry, no, YouTube videos are not proof of anything. Every single claim made in those YouTube videos you're so proud of has been debunked a million times over, and those claims fall apart instantly under the slightest bit of scientific scrutiny.
    1
  13380. Well, the original intent of Apollo was to just keep going to the moon with no particular end. I mean, sure, all programs eventually come to an end. But, originally, nobody suspected that there would only be 6 landings. So, the way it was planned out, the first 6 landings were to be with a fully experienced test pilot as commander, with fully experienced backup pilots as LMP. After those first 6, they would start bringing geologists, and, yes, several geologists were trained as astronauts, not just the one (Jack Schmitt). Well, over time, congress kept pruning back and back on Apollo, intending to end the program earlier and earlier. Eventually, congress reduced the program to only flying to the moon through Apollo 17, and then no more. So, they picked one of the geologists (Schmitt) that were in training, and moved him forward from Apollo 18 to Apollo 17, so that they'd finally have a geologist on the moon. As for your comments about the Republican party, I will say this: I long ago gave up any allegiance to any particular party. But, I can do math. And, if you look at NASA's funding since Apollo ended, you will find that, without exception, any time a Republican president took office, NASA's budget was increased, and it was higher when he left office than when he took office. Any time a Democrat president took office, NASA's budget was decreased, and it was lower when he left office than when he took office. Of course, to calculate these numbers, you need to adjust for inflation, and you have to remember that the NASA budget is set in the prior year. So, you have to keep in mind that, for example, when Clinton took office in 1993, the NASA 1993 budget had already been set. The first year's budget Clinton had an influence upon was 1994. So, anyway, if you go look at the actual numbers, adjust correctly for inflation, and have an understanding about when the budgets get set, you will find that every single Democrat presidential term since Apollo ended has resulted in a decrease of NASA's budget, while every single Republican president's term has resulted in an increase to NASA's budget.
    1
  13381. I'm not sure which tax money you're talking about? The tax money that went toward the costs of the prosecution?
    1
  13382. Don't forget the gun.
    1
  13383. No. The issue here is trespassing. That's why the cops arrested him. It had nothing to do with civil rights. Let me give you an analogy. If the man was standing naked, saying the exact same things, the cops would arrest him for being naked in public, not for the things he's saying. Yet, there'd be an ignorant clown like you, thinking that the cops were arresting him for what he was saying, and not because of public nudity. Good grief. If the school board asks him to leave, whether it was right for them to do that or not, then he must leave, otherwise it's trespassing. The cops are not the judge and jury. The cops don't decide whether it was right or wrong to trespass the person. That's for the courts to decide, not for the cops to decide themselves. I mean, this is the real irony about people like you. If the cops follow procedure correctly, you scream about civil rights and stuff, which don't even apply. If the cops decide to be judge and jury, and decide for themselves who to arrest or not, then you scream about cops overstepping their boundaries. Get a clue. You don't know what you're talking about.
    1
  13384.  @Nah.ImCool  No. That IS how the law works. Like, you know, if a bank robber gets killed while trying to rob a bank, the accomplices get charged with murder. Same thing here. If they can prove that the woman was "in on it," they can charge her with felony murder.
    1
  13385. So, you believe 50%?
    1
  13386. She willfully put on a show at the beach in front of children. The arrest was justified. And, sorry, no "leaks" required. Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  13387. Huh? Is there a language gap here or something? I never said I thought the Apollo missions were fake. But, I think maybe your first language isn't English, so, it's not clear what you're trying to say.
    1
  13388.  @PierreBrandominiBrandomini  I know you're trying to make a point, but, I confess I still don't understand it. Sorry. I think there's a bit of a language gap. But, I'm sure your English is better than my [whatever your native language is]. So, I'm not really complaining, and I thank you for trying. But, I just don't really think I'm going to understand the point you're attempting to make. I tried, though.
    1
  13389. Nick, get real, and quit posting your pure gibberish. The guy had a gun pointed at the cop's head. You can see it at 0:08 in the video if you go frame by frame. You also see the gun on the ground at 5:02 in the video, next to a 2x4 piece of wood. If you think that's a paintball gun, that's your own problem. You're as misinformed about guns as you are about the English language (which you have butchered to death in every single post you've made in this video). And, just because YOU bought into this silly excuse about a Tik Tok video, doesn't mean that the rest of us (you know, we sane ones) should buy into it also. It doesn't matter anyway. If you walk up to a car with a ski mask on in the middle of a Kentucky summer, and point a gun at a cop, YOU ARE GOING TO GET SHOT. Why you'd go from thread to thread trying to defend the actions of this obvious carjacker, I'll never understand.
    1
  13390. Huh? Multiple people called the police. One of them even took video of the incident and gave it to them. Sorry, but it didn't match her version of nobody being around. Quite to the contrary. Plus, she was a convicted felon who served time in prison about 6 years ago, and had been arrested a million times, and had multiple failures to appear with open warrants. But, you claim she shouldn't have been arrested?
    1
  13391. It's not about taking down mad dogs. It's about the fact that the criminal was pointing a gun at the cop. Even wielding the gun in the first place is enough reason to shoot, let alone pointing it. That's what justifies the shooting, no more, no less.
    1
  13392. Huh? Nothing about her was ever on the news or national television until long after she was dead. And, her family? The one she abandoned for a life of crime and drugs and hadn't even seen for over a decade? Work? Her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the local gentlemen's club. I don't think any of her "coworkers" would care one bit about putting on this kind of show.
    1
  13393. You'll have to be more specific about which time the flag moved, in order to answer why it moved. Can you give a timestamp or something? Stars are very difficult to capture in video or on film. You can't even do it with modern cameras without using very long exposure times and a tripod. You're not going to capture stars with a hand-held camera and exposure times that are set for lunar daytime.
    1
  13394. And, you just blindly believe her, right?
    1
  13395.  @GAVACHO5150  Well, I don't trust Fox or any other "news" channel either. I think they're ALL out to forward their agendas, using slanted/twisted plays on words, or manipulated numbers, to accomplish these goals, and honest reporting went away decades ago.
    1
  13396.  @ApolloKid1961  Um, ok, and?
    1
  13397.  @ApolloKid1961  I figured probably so, but, on YouTube, you just never know.
    1
  13398.  @ApolloKid1961  Yeah. But, he's laughing all the way to the bank right now. They handed him $3 billion for a craft that doesn't work. And, I'm betting that they hand him another $3 billion for "upgrades." Then, they'll finally tell him that they're switching to Blue altogether, and Starship HLS will be canceled. Meanwhile, he will get $6 billion for producing nothing.
    1
  13399. Wow. Well, that's one way to demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing about this incident. Multiple people called. One of them recorded it and gave a copy of the video to the police. It remains unreleased due to graphic content. But, they describe the contents in the report. It was a very loud and public act in view of multiple people including children.
    1
  13400. And, sorry, but she was getting arrested no matter what. With her extensive arrest history, time served in prison, and open warrants, yeah, there wasn't a different way this was going to go down.
    1
  13401. Just checking here... you do know that her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the local club, and neighbors said she did "private extras" out of her apartment for cash with parades of men... right? If she wasn't making "public beach" content for her fans, I'll eat my hat.
    1
  13402. Or, did you prefer the Inside Edition viral version? "Innocent soccer mom gets busted by evil police, can't stand the shame." Or, "woman who abandoned her career and family to live a life of crime and drugs, who can't stop getting herself arrested, gets arrested again, then commits suicide a year later for unrelated reasons." Which version goes viral? And, who believes a single thing on Inside Edition in the first place? (i.e. you)
    1
  13403. The point is, she had a criminal record a mile long, and was a "dancer," which lends zero credibility to the "innocent soccer mom was so ashamed" storyline.
    1
  13404. There were six landings, and you reject the first one? I presume this means you think the other 5 were real. Why exactly would they fake one of them, and not the others?
    1
  13405. Why is high school diplomas not on walls in conspircy beeleevier trailer?
    1
  13406. As usual, people like you never actually seem to care about THE EVIDENCE. You spew a parade of gibberish, claiming "inside knowledge" about the notion that something in history is a deception. But, do any of you people ever offer any evidence to back up your notions? Nope. Sorry, but all that proves is that you will believe whatever you feel like believing, and nothing you say can ever be proven correct or incorrect, because evidence plays no role in your beliefs at all. By that standard, there's no way you're ever going to be able to tell what's correct or not, because it's all based on whatever your drug addled mind feels like believing on whatever day.
    1
  13407. The rovers weren't used until Apollo 15 - 16 -17. This video is only about Apollo 11.
    1
  13408.  @Naismer1  Not his mother. I think you don't understand "baby daddy."
    1
  13409. Mostly, it's because they like to pretend to know things they don't know. They feel bad about knowing nothing, and accomplishing nothing, so, they want to feel "superior" by pretending the most accomplished people in the most accomplished program in human history were just as big of failures. It's an offshoot of schadenfreude, except more focused on compensating for their own failures in life, as opposed to just reveling in someone else's failure.
    1
  13410. "Is it possible for you to google" -- That would require him to actually want an answer to his question. We know he doesn't.
    1
  13411. 1) You don't know the facts. 2) That's how it works, police arrest people for crimes. 3) It doesn't matter, one of the "audience" had it on video, and showed the police. 4) Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  13412. "This poor women was shamed for something" -- Huh? How do you shame a dead person? What shame do you think she really suffered?
    1
  13413. She was a convicted felon who spent time in a Florida prison about 6 years ago. She walked out on her family, including a 6 month old son (and another son) over a decade ago, because she wanted to live a life of drugs and crime. Stealing cars, other thefts, drugs and alcohol, failure to appear, you name it. She had an arrest record a mile long. And, her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the gentlemen's club, and neighbors said she did "extras" for cash in her apartment.
    1
  13414. And, this train wreck was your edited version? How bad was your first version? 60 years? So, you think they landed in 1962? And, as for taking 10 years to go back, well, take it up with congress. Trump and Pence and Bridenstine asked congress to fund it at a pace to put people back on the moon by 2024. But, that funding pace was denied, and instead, they funded it at a pace to land in around 2028-2030. Yeah, about 10 years. What's your point? Are you capable of doing it faster for the amount of money congress funded it for?
    1
  13415. Yes, and lots have absolutely no issues.
    1
  13416. You're supporting the murderer? Do you even know the facts of the case?
    1
  13417. Don't be ridiculous.
    1
  13418. No. The arrest video wasn't released until 1.5 years after she died.
    1
  13419. People need to return to grammar school also.
    1
  13420. I will ask you again, what makes you think dust wasn't disturbed? Why would you believe such a thing? Did the conspiracy videos you've been watching all show you photos from bad angles, and tell you that no dust was disturbed, and you just decided to believe it without checking for yourself? Those videos don't show you photos like AS11-40-5921, for example? See those radial striations from the rocket blast? Notice that almost all of the dust layer is gone, blown down to the compacted regolith layer? No? You've never actually looked at the photos yourself? Instead, you watched a conspiracy video that told you the dust wasn't disturbed?
    1
  13421.  @patb.0168  YOU SAID: "we lost all the technology... LOL" == And, why do you think this is laughable? Why do you conspiratards intentionally twist those words into meaning it's fraudulent. Yes, dummy, the technology is lost. It's lost in the EXACT same sense that Concorde supersonic airliner technology is lost. We used to have the technology to fly 150 people, plus their luggage, at mach 2 for 3000 miles. Now, our supersonic capability is a tiny fraction of that, since the Concorde was retired decades ago. That is the sense that it's "lost." Everyone still knows how Apollo was done, just as everyone knows how Concorde worked. But, we don't have those capabilities any longer, so, some people colorfully use the word "lost" to describe it. I don't know if I'd have used the word "lost," but, whatever, some people do. Why is this a problem for you to understand? Why do you go from message to message and post this nonsense? Is this REALLY that difficult to grasp?
    1
  13422. On Apollo 11? It fell over as the rocket blast hit it during liftoff.
    1
  13423. There is no video of the flag during the Apollo 11 liftoff. I'm guessing that you saw a video somewhere, that maybe substituted the liftoff from a different mission, and told you it was Apollo 11. I've seen plenty of documentaries do that sort of thing, borrowing video segments from other missions. But, in reality, no, there is absolutely no video of the flag during liftoff of Apollo 11.
    1
  13424. Correct conclusion, HORRIBLE reasons. There are no telescopes with that kind of resolution. And, you don't understand laser ranging.
    1
  13425. The law doesn't work that way. You clearly know nothing about the difference between an infraction and a crime.
    1
  13426. The police did their jobs correctly, but, you blame them?
    1
  13427. Dude, no, I'm not going to stop insulting. I find your attitude ridiculous and insane. Therefore, I think you are ridiculous and insane. Again, sweep his crimes under the rug all you want. It doesn't change the fact that he's committed enough crimes that (if he could ever get convicted, which won't ever happen due to hero worship), YES, for the millionth time, add up all of the perjury, fraud, and drug trafficking charges, and YES, the sentences would add up to the rest of his life.
    1
  13428. Tell me about it. To not even test it on some sort of substitute first....
    1
  13429. Nobody saw the arrest video until long after she was dead. So, um, no.
    1
  13430. Well, the dad changed the story a couple of times. In one version, he said that Mark saw someone inside the car and wanted to see who it was. I imagine the attorney told him that it was a really bad idea to admit that Mark knew someone was in the car and then walked up with a balaclava mask and with a gun in his hand. So, the story changed to "he definitely didn't think anybody was in the car."
    1
  13431. I don't know who the old lady was, nor what country she was in, but, I definitely believe she saw a Coke bottle. Old ladies never see things that aren't there.
    1
  13432. Rule 1: All evidence for Apollo is fake, no matter how much of it there is, or where it comes from. Rule 2: All evidence against Apollo is real, no matter what crackpot spews it, or how ridiculous it sounds. Those are the only two rules to the game they're playing.
    1
  13433. What news station ever aired it until after she was dead?
    1
  13434. So, basically, you just enjoy making comments straight out of your....
    1
  13435. I'm not the one here talking out of her be.... that's you, dewdrop.
    1
  13436. Rose, he asked you to name a single NASA employee. You didn't. Instead, you spewed gibberish. And, sorry, but you clearly don't know what skepticism is. No surprise, since you can't even spell it.
    1
  13437. Do buggy lunar come small from question would be.
    1
  13438. If these two rant about irony, I wonder if they have looked in the mirror.... What's going to happen in a decade or two when medical technology advances to the point that a fetus is viable from the point of conception? It's coming. To believe otherwise is lunacy. What will these two be arguing at that point?
    1
  13439. Let me make sure I understand you correctly... you want to give a citation for a crime? I mean, you do know the difference between crimes and infractions, right? (No, apparently not.) But, you think you know enough about the topic to fire the officers, huh?
    1
  13440.  @philipaubin4679  Yup, it's not news. It's viral media designed for ad revenue, no more, no less. It just bugs me that, not only shouldn't they have covered it at all, but, they did it by basically manufacturing a fake story. Yes, the arrest was quite warranted. But, why drag her name through more mud?
    1
  13441. Huh? 1 less what?
    1
  13442. Why would you say that?
    1
  13443. What family? The one she abandoned more than a decade ago in order to live a life of crime and drugs?
    1
  13444. She was a convicted felon with a term served in a Florida prison, and a million other arrests.
    1
  13445. Her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the local club, and neighbors said she did cash "extras" in her apartment. So, spare me "dignity" comments.
    1
  13446. After she died, nobody was looking for her. The coroner's report said that she was dead so long that she was well into the maggot phase of decomposition, and weighed 84 pounds (with the implants, so, that's in the 70s without). That's how long she was dead with absolutely nobody looking for her. Family? Huh? Like I said, she left her family more than a decade ago.
    1
  13447. YES!!! Absolutely. Inside Edition's rendition of this story is horribly inaccurate, and doesn't serve anybody any good to paint this false picture. It's just there to generate ad revenue, and is massively deceptive. And, sorry I had to break up my reply into pieces. YouTube blocks so much stuff.
    1
  13448. The fact is that she was "wild" and "off the rails" (her own family's words). She walked out on her husband, and 6 month old son, and another son, more than a decade ago, because she wanted to live a life of crime and drugs. One of the audience recorded this incident, and gave the video to the police. It didn't match her sob story about nobody being around. So, again, "dignity" has nothing to do with that woman. She had none.
    1
  13449. I'll eat my hat if she wasn't making "public beach" content, but, got reported, and was trying to cry her way out of her millionth arrest before they looked up her open warrants.
    1
  13450. Dewdrop, I'm not the topic here. There's no "self righteousness" involved. You spewed a heck of a lot of garbage into your postings, and didn't like being wrong. That's all that happened here.
    1
  13451. The command module had a TV camera also. They didn't need to bring the lander's TV camera home.
    1
  13452. How do you get permission from someone who is dead?
    1
  13453. He accepted the plea deal he was offered, life sentence in exchange for no death penalty. She, on the other hand, is an idiot. After confessing (twice), she rejected the deal she was offered, and decided to go to trial and proclaim herself innocent. She was found guilty, and got the death penalty.
    1
  13454. I agree that it would be nice if the arrest video wasn't released, but, I'm just not sure how anybody would have prevented it. It was 2.5 years later, and she was already dead for 1.5 years. They can't block a legal FOIA request for the arrest video at that point.
    1
  13455. Oh, and no, there is no video of Apollo 11 lifting off of the moon. Sorry, you've got that confused with other missions. Or, you watched a documentary that borrowed other launches and presented them as if it was Apollo 11.
    1
  13456.  @DeputyNordburg  He's playing the role of a nut. He's one of the good guys.
    1
  13457.  @DeputyNordburg  No. Scott Wallace.
    1
  13458. Whoever posted what stuff should be held accountable for what?
    1
  13459. Huh? The guy murders his own father, and dumps him in a lake... then gets into this chase and shootout. What EXACTLY do you propose? The guy was shooting the entire time during the chase. And, even after the cop rammed his truck, you can still see the guy shooting at the cops through the windshield. How EXACTLY would you propose they get this murderous maniac to stop doing that? Invite him for tea and crumpets?
    1
  13460.  @tombolo4120  Translation: "I dropped out of the 8th grade, and don't know anything. The government won't tell me anything, therefore everything is fake."
    1
  13461.  @tombolo4120  Dewdrop, about 40-50% of my posted messages disappear, and I have to reword them before anybody can see them. It happens to everyone. YouTube censorship has gone bananas. A while back, any message with the word "breathe" in it was immediately banned. Who knows why? There is no reason that anybody can figure out, other than YouTube is seeking to torpedo their own comment capability.
    1
  13462.  @Eigil_Skovgaard  Good grief. Just go see a doctor. Don't worry about ridiculous moon conspiracies that you don't even understand. Just go see a doctor. You're in desperate need.
    1
  13463.  @Eigil_Skovgaard  Part 1: YOU SAID: "I am telling the truth." == You might think you are. But, no, you're not. YOU SAID: "You believe in an illusion." == No, YOU believe in a DELUSION. YOU SAID: "I have investigated this for more than two decades." == Sorry, but watching conspiracy videos isn't "investigating" anything. And, if you've spent two decades on this, and are so pathetically wrong STILL, then yeah, you need a doctor. YOU SAID: "It's impossible for a human being to leave LEO." == Um, no. YOU SAID: "If you look for it you will find the evidence, lots of it." == Conspiracy videos aren't evidence. YOU SAID: "The "Moon event" has not been repeated" == It WAS repeated!!! They sent NINE manned missions to the moon, SIX of which landed on it. YOU SAID: "because it didn't happen in the late 60's and early 70's and not later." == Pure delusion. YOU SAID: "Otherwise the technology would have been reused. Nothing could be used." == They used the technology NINE TIMES to go to the moon. After that, those particular technologies were retired by congress. The leftover stuff was used for Skylab, and Apollo-Soyuz, but then that was about it. Most of the rest of the hardware remained incomplete. There were a few landers that were never completed (congress pulled the plug on the funding, so they stopped building them after they were already started). The ones that we close enough to being complete were put in museums. They flew the last Apollo capsule on Apollo-Soyuz. But, yeah, that was that. What EXACTLY is your point? The program was never allowed to stop happening? In your mind, Apollo was only "real" if it never stopped? Congress was never allowed to pull the plug on the program, otherwise that means the program was fake? YOU SAID: "I am not stating this to take anything away from US." == No, you obviously are. YOU SAID: "The astronauts were CIA agents and had good reasons to support the official narrative at that time. They were never allowed to admit the fakery and they will die before they break the secret, though it has been close. But NASA could reveal the truth, now that the strategic importance of "US first on the Moon" is gone. But unfortunately NASA is run by CIA, and psychopaths never admit a lie or a crime. Just as a principle." == Pure psychosis. You don't get to just "declare" that CIA runs NASA. You don't get to just "declare" that astronauts were CIA agents. No. Instead, you need to see a doctor. YOU SAID: "Right, but the cost-benefit part caused those projects to end." == Yeah, and the same was true of Apollo. They spent (adjusted into today's dollars) about $150 billion in hard costs, plus another $50 billion in soft costs and international support. And, what did they get for that money? 12 people walked on the moon for a few hours each. If you do the math, it's approximately $50 million PER MINUTE spent walking on the lunar surface. Yeah, sorry, but, as much as I love to study Apollo, I'm the first to acknowledge that it's a very low return on investment, dollar for dollar, minute for minute. YOU SAID: "The technologies involved are not comparable with the Apollo project at all because it theoretically operates in outer space, though these former projects had a political aspect too. Money was of no importance in the 60's when NASA was given the task to realize the Moon vision - one way or the other." == Congratulations on the first thing you've said that has been correct. Yes, they spent a whopping 4.5% of the entire federal budget on NASA in the mid-60s in the height of Apollo's development. Add soft costs and international support, and it's even higher than that. Yeah, that is very certainly a "money is of no importance" attitude. YOU SAID: "Unfortunately reality limited the project to be a television and media show exclusively, but that was sufficient to convince the American people and other civilians around the world about the US superiority in space. USSR was not convinced" == This is absolute rubber-room insanity. What ARE you talking about?!?!?! The Soviets tracked Apollo missions to the moon and back using radar and radio telescopes. MANY countries did!! There were radar and radio telescope tracking stations around the world, Canary Islands, Hawaii, Guam, Australia, Spain, UK, Madagascar, Indian Ocean, Pacific Ocean, etc. etc. etc. The Soviets had their own radar and radio telescopes around the globe also. Even backyard amateurs around the world with some decent radio telescopes were able to receive Apollo broadcasts by pointing their dishes AT THE MOON. The bigger dishes and more advanced stuff (at that time) that were run by bunches of countries were used with a degree of accuracy of less than a mile. Yes, they could tell where the Apollo craft was within about a mile of accuracy. You can still go to many of those countries and facilities today, where they proudly display their radar and radio telescope capabilities, and talk about the role they played during Apollo. The Soviets even sent up Luna 15 (unmanned) a couple of days before Apollo 11, which waited in lunar orbit for Apollo 11 to get there. Radar tracking stations around the world were used by both the Soviets and the USA to track both Apollo 11 and Luna 15. The USA was even suspicious that the Soviets intended to crash Luna 15 into Apollo 11 to sabotage the mission. As it turns out, no, there was no such plan. Instead, the Soviets' plan was to land Luna 15 in the Sea of Tranquility while the astronauts were still on the lunar surface, grab some lunar samples, then race Apollo 11 back home. It was a rushed mission, and they made some mistakes, and Luna 15 crashed into a lunar mountain because of some incorrect calculations. But, it doesn't change the fact that the Soviets tracked BOTH CRAFT to the moon. So, spare the world your delusional notion that the Soviets were not convinced. That is just your delusion talking, and is so far outside reality that you really need to see a doctor. YOU SAID: "but had good reasons to shut up." == No, they would have had very good reasons to "reveal the truth" (your delusional version of the "truth"). You are completely backward. YOU SAID: "Just look at Space X and how they 50 years later struggle to perform a vertical landing on Earth," == Yeah, big huge tall rocket with very high center of gravity and crazy crosswinds and a non-throttleable engine. Not the same AT ALL of landing a lunar lander on the moon, with no wind, low center of gravity, and a throttleable engine. YOU SAID: "even when transmission is over a short distance. Then imagine the precision it would take to navigate 240.000 miles to a small body in the space, land on it, walk on it, then take off from it, navigate 240.000 miles in a new constellation and finally hit the small Earth and dive trough the atmosphere so precisely that nobody was burnt." == You don't have to "imagine" it. This is what some aerospace engineers do for a living. They calculate these things, write algorithms for the spacecraft they design, etc. So what? Yes, that's how aerospace engineering works. You don't get to just declare it "fake" because you don't understand the jobs of aerospace engineers.
    1
  13464.  @Eigil_Skovgaard  Part 2: YOU SAID: "The more you think about the details and investigate the still existing sixties technology (unfortunately all blueprints and flying records have been lost!)" == Pure delusion. No, the records haven't been lost. This is a manifestation of delusional conspiracy nutjobs. Around a decade ago, NASA discovered that they had lost TWO BACKUP TAPES from Parkes, Australia (one of complexes that tracked Apollo with radar and radio telescopes, and received the video signal from the Apollo 11 video camera). The primary tapes were safe and sound, and bunches of other copies. But, after decades went by, someone wanted to take a look at the Parkes backup copies (which had never been viewed since they were recorded in 1969), and discovered that they were missing. They searched for a couple of years, and never found them. They guess that they were either lost in transit, or incorrectly identified and erased with a bunch of other useless tapes, or something (they actually do not know what happened). But, ever since that was announced, you conspiracy clowns keep escalating (in your minds) what was lost. First, you clowns thought it was the primary copies. Then, you clowns declared that it was the primary and backup copies. Then, you clowns thought that all tapes from that mission were lost. Then, you clowns declared that all tapes from all missions were lost. And, now you clowns say that EVERYTHING is lost. It's pure insanity. No, dummy, none of that stuff is lost.... Except, yeah, maybe some blueprints are lost. They have tons of them. But, yes, it's entirely possible that some blueprints may be lost. And, that's because of what a "blueprint" is. A blueprint is merely the thing that tells a machine shop how to manufacture a certain part. So, yeah, is the blueprint for manufacturing some random flange for Apollo lost now? Yeah, maybe. Who knows? The schematics aren't lost. The design papers aren't lost. Is an individual blueprint lost for manufacturing an elbow joint/tube that connects one piece of the engine to another piece of the engine?? Sure, maybe. But, this is pure insanity to think that everything is lost. No. That's unfounded nonsense. Everything important about Apollo has been preserved. YOU SAID: "the more obvious it becomes that this enormous project was a propaganda stunt" == No. The only "obvious" thing here is that you don't actually know anything about Apollo, outside of what conspiracy videos tell you. Two decades studying this? And, you can't figure out to simply go on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal website and download the terabytes of schematics and stuff on the lunar lander? No? You can see the wiring diagrams, schematics, computer algorithms, etc. All of this stuff that you declare is "lost" is sitting there, waiting for you to download it. But, for two decades, you can't find it, huh? Not the brightest bulb, eh? YOU SAID: "to raise the spirit among Americans at a point when the Soviets were ahead in space on every account. The truth is, that such a Moon project still can't be realized. If it could, several presidents would have grabbed the opportunity to make themselves ad immortal as J.F. Kennedy." == The president doesn't decide these things, dummy. Presidents have tried, but congress has shot down those requests. It's amazingly expensive to go to the moon on a per-person-per-minute basis. And, there isn't much public support for spending that kind of money to send a few more people to the moon. But, you know, Trump/Bridenstine/Pence pushed for Artemis to get approved. And, it was, in late 2019. Congress only approved it at a pace that would put the next people on the moon by around 2028 or 2030. Trump/Bridenstine/Pence have asked congress to approve more money to accelerate the program to put people back on the moon by 2024. Thus far, congress hasn't approved the increase in rate of spending. But, they haven't killed the program either. So, who knows? Maybe the funding will increase. Maybe it'll decrease. Maybe it'll stay the same. Maybe it'll get canceled altogether. Anything can happen. But, see, the point is, the SANE people (i.e. not you) understand that Apollo happened, and they're working on developing Artemis to return to the moon. Jeff Bezos was contracted to build the next generation lander. SLS has been under construction for some time now. Orion is basically ready to go. Yeah, as of this moment at least (unless something changes and they stop funding it), yes, they're going back.
    1
  13465.  @Eigil_Skovgaard  YOU SAID: "Your language tells me that you are desperate. It's called cognitive dissonance." == Hey, dummy, don't just sit there and post comment after comment, then act all surprised when someone responds to your idiotic conspiracy garbage. Yeah, when you sit there and accuse thousands of people of being criminals, based on the utter nonsense you believe, guess what, people are going to correct you. You don't know ANYTHING about Apollo, after "two decades" (your claim) of investigation. That's a very sad condition to be in. And, it's 100% obvious that you haven't investigated ANYTHING, outside of just blindly swallowing whatever conspiracy videos feed you. The largest part of the irony is that you insane clowns are accusing the SANE people of blindly swallowing what we're told. In reality, it's YOU who blindly swallows garbage. And, that's painfully evident because you cannot even address a single question or challenge put to you. You do the same thing all delusional idiots do. Instead of actually addressing the facts presented, you duck and dodge, avoid the questions/challenges, and try to shift the topic onto the person who's presenting you with the facts. That's EXACTLY what you've done here, dummy. One example: I presented you with the fact that many countries tracked Apollo missions to the moon and back with radar and radio telescopes. Those countries still, to this day, allow you to visit their facilities, and will tell you about the dishes they used to track Apollo. The Soviets not only did the same, but sent Luna 15 to the moon a couple of days ahead of Apollo 11, to race it back with lunar samples (the intended goal). You don't have to rely on me. You don't have to rely on the USA. You can listen to what the Soviets said about it. You can listen to what any of those other countries (that tracked Apollo) said about it. You can read the MIT papers on how it was done, the mathematical accuracy of those facilities, etc. You don't even need to listen to a single thing NASA says, and still, across the globe, people tracked Apollo. How do you explain this, you nutbag?
    1
  13466.  @Eigil_Skovgaard  YOU SAID: "The subculture running USA today is totally dependent of citizens like you, who from the basic education system had their lips stitched to that asshole called the official narrative so they on daily basis are able to swallow anything from TV and the mainstream media (CIA) in general, NASA (also CIA), Hollywood (CIA)." == Good gods, once again, you're doing EXACTLY what I said you do. You ignored every point, every question, every challenge I put forth. You've ducked and dodged, and shifted the topic onto anything EXCEPT the very things you originally brought up. I responded line-by-line, and everything went in one ear, out the other, and you refuse to address ANYTHING!!! Nothing!!! YOU SAID: "The official information is put forward by cooperating institutions like The White House, MIC, astronomy facilities, the military, the government, the legal system, the presidency, etc., etc." == Fine, so, don't rely on any of that. As I said (and you ignored), the Apollo missions were tracked by radar and radio telescopes by many countries, including our enemies. Madagascar (one example of dozens) tracked Apollo missions to/from the moon. Were they in on the "hoax"? Japan has an entire section of their JAXA space agency website dedicated to how they've confirmed Apollo with their Selene orbiter in 2008. Did they "join the hoax" four decades later. China confirmed Apollo. The Soviets confirmed Apollo. Australia confirmed Apollo. Guam confirmed Apollo. See, dummy, the thing is, you can use this "logic" (not logic) to deny ANYTHING YOUR DELUSIONS DICTATE. You want to deny the Civil War, ok, it was a massive government hoax that modified all of the records. You want to deny the revolutionary war, ok, it was a massive government hoax that modified all of the records. You want to deny that Thomas Jefferson was president, ok, it was a massive government hoax that modified all of the records. See, dummy, this is why your "logic" fails so badly. You don't get to just arbitrarily deny Apollo because you feel like it. You don't get to accuse thousands of people of committing crimes that would get them a lifetime in prison just because it suits your delusions. You need EVIDENCE to back up your claims. And, thus far, nothing you've said makes any sense, or stands up to any kind of scrutiny. YOU SAID: "Everything around you is owned and controlled by the Black Sea mafia that primarily has occupied Palestine, GB and USA and is led by the chief terrorist of the world today, the genuine psychopath Ben Netanyahu. Each day he tells your president what he is allowed to do and say and what the American people is allow to know. Only people deprived of basic imagination and without any stimulus to look for alternative information (real conspirations) are able to believe in the Moon play. You probably also believe in Lee Harvey Oswald being the lone killer of Kennedy, and Osami Bin Laden the genius behind 9/11, right? On top of your ignorance you have to elevate yourself by calling people with a differing opinion all kinds of primitivity. The mafia loves you, my friend. You are a perfect product of their indoctrination and brainwash." == Go see a doctor, immediately. You are 100% pure psychotic. YOU SAID: "Let me share a simple observation with you: An official video from "the Moon" allegedly shows the lunar rover with an astronaut driving around at a relative high speed - and from the wheels is nice moon dust in the shape of rooster tails thrown high into the "air". The interesting part is, that the characteristic shape of a rooster tail is the result of moving particles meeting resistance from an atmosphere." == Pffttt. More conspiracy garbage. No, actually, it doesn't. If there was air, a dust cloud would form. But, that doesn't happen. Instead, the grains of dust follow a parabolic arc, with the exception of dust grains that HIT EACH OTHER. In actuality, that clip (it's famous, because you obviously just listen to conspiracy videos only, and all of you morons complain about the exact same thing) has been some good evidence that they were NOT in an atmosphere. YOU SAID: "And even you know that there is no atmosphere on the Moon. So, apparently the video was not filmed on the Moon? Let me hear your explanation. If it's good I will give you 9 questions more." == No, you dummy. This is it for me. I have asked you a million questions, and offered a million challenges. You've ignored every single one of them. I've refuted every point you've made. In one ear, out the other. No, I'm not going to sit here and answer your questions, when it's clear that you have no intention of listening to answers. If you have a point to make, dummy, YOU WRITE IT UP IN A PAPER AND SUBMIT IT TO A SCIENCE JOURNAL!!! You want to debate the physics of moon dust? Fine, write it up in a paper and submit it to a science journal!!! What are you waiting for??? Only crackpots and idiots think that YouTube comments are a forum to disprove Apollo. If any of you idiots had ANYTHING of merit for the past 50 years, it wouldn't be on YouTube, you dummy. It would be IN SCIENTIFIC PAPERS!!! Good gods, you're dumb.
    1
  13467.  @Eigil_Skovgaard  So, I said I wasn't going to answer your questions, because you made it clear that you weren't actually reading my responses (nor responding to any questions I asked). And, you chose to spew more babble anyway. Thanks for confirming that you're not actually reading replies. Next time, dummy, if you have decided ahead of time not to listen to answers to your own questions, don't bother asking questions.
    1
  13468.  @Eigil_Skovgaard  No, dummy. You don't get to ignore every single statement I made, every single question I asked, every single challenge I put forth... then declare that you need someone "more qualified" to answer your 8 additional questions. No. I'm not answering your 8 additional questions because you refused to even answer ONE thing I wrote. Not one. Ultimately, you dummy, your idea of "more qualified" merely means that you're going to keep asking your bunches of questions until other people either agree with you, or until they can no longer stand to answer you either. I cannot stand to answer you further. I'm not going to keep answering questions from a delusional brick wall who doesn't even read the answers, and who refuses to address ANY return questions. Again, dummy, just submit your calculations for scientific peer review!!!! WHY ARE YOU ON YOUTUBE?!?!?! Why do you believe YouTube is a science journal!?!?!? Go PUBLISH your calculations in a science journal!!! What are you waiting for!?!?!?!
    1
  13469.  @Eigil_Skovgaard  Then, dummy, SUBMIT YOUR CALCULATIONS TO A SCIENCE JOURNAL FOR PEER REVIEW!! How many times must I tell you the same thing??!?! What are you waiting for?
    1
  13470. Spare the world, seriously. You clearly know nothing at all, so, don't go passing judgement about the people who called the police.
    1
  13471. You accused the family of causing her death. It's ridiculous.
    1
  13472. What a deepity.
    1
  13473. Don't tell me to look it up, dewdrop. Name one telescope. Or, stop pretending to know things you don't.
    1
  13474. So, you modified your original statement and removed the concept of using a telescope, huh? After telling OTHERS to "look it up"?
    1
  13475. She gave up that career more than a decade ago in favor of living a life of crime and drugs. Her image was already beyond repair when she served a felony term in prison about 6 years ago, and had numerous judgements and convictions for a million other arrests. But, you want her to sue the witness that took video of her public show at the beach? I mean, I'll eat my hat if she wasn't taking video of it herself for her fan base. Her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the gentlemen's club. But, you think there's a valid suit when someone takes video of her at the beach committing a crime? Or, did you mean the arrest video taken from the chest-mounted camera? Either way, what exactly is the suit based upon?
    1
  13476. 1) No news stations even covered it until after she was dead. 2) What about the Freedom of Information Act?
    1
  13477. YOU SAID: "What's that on 21.08..?" == A reflection of an astronaut as they look down at a crater. YOU SAID: "Why is it reflecting the astronaut?" == Because glass reflects.
    1
  13478. Yes, and she did sue Publix, and lost the lawsuit. She will be getting $0.00.
    1
  13479. It's unlikely this particular incident contributed to her choice a year later to end her life. Or, if it did, it was probably just a drop in the bucket. One more arrest to add to her pile of arrests probably wasn't going to matter one way or the other.
    1
  13480. That's really what this is about for you, right? You have no understanding of the topic on any level, outside of what conspiracy videos tell you. But, you want to feel smart. So, you believe every word of the nonsense, and use it as a mechanism to feel like you understand it better than the entire planet's experts.
    1
  13481. Yeah, not much company 6 feet under.
    1
  13482. One example of many: "Apollo Seventeen" channel, "Apollo 17 - 114:40 - 122:40 V2.1" - timestamp 4:34:44.
    1
  13483. OK, but, just making sure you know... social media never posted anything about this until long after she was dead... you know this, right?
    1
  13484. That's probably very good advice. But, it wouldn't have mattered here. One of the audience had it on video and showed it to the police (it didn't match her version of a discreet act with nobody around). And, with all of the open warrants for prior offenses when she refused to show up in court (which she repeated for this arrest also), she was getting arrested no matter what.
    1
  13485. It's actually worse than even that. In one interview, the dad said the son was asking who was was in the car, and went to go check it out. In another interview, the dad said that the son "definitely didn't think anybody was in the car, that much he knows for sure." So, it seems to me that the attorney probably told the dad that it's a bad idea to tell everyone that the son knew somebody was in the car, because in the other interview, the dad totally changed his tune and said the opposite, and it seemed like it was the ONLY thing the dad was certain about. (Yeah, sure, right.) So, the criminal son went to a car with a mask and gun, but "wasn't going to rob it." And, the dad can't keep his story straight, and pretends to know things he couldn't possibly know (almost undoubtedly so he can try to cash in on his son's death).
    1
  13486. Keep your obvious hatred to yourself, and stop spreading nonsense about topic you don't know anything about.
    1
  13487. Freedom of Information Act. They don't have any choice but to release it. The only way they can block it from being released is if there's still an open investigation. But, given that the arrest was 2.5 years ago, and she was dead 1.5 years ago, yeah, they can no longer block a legal FOIA request. The arrest video was never seen by anybody in the public until it was released on November 24, 2023. Her suicide was in March of 2022. Congratulations on spewing hateful garbage.
    1
  13488. Huh? The police prevented the release of the arrest video for 2.5 years. She was dead for 1.5 of those years before it was released. Accountable for what? And, how would you prevent its eventual release due to a Freedom of Information Act request?
    1
  13489. Mary likes capped teeth. And, we all know, there's something about Mary. Can't blame him.
    1
  13490. Well, she committed LOTS of crimes. An arrest record a mile long. A felony term in a Florida prison about 6 years ago. Bunches of drug & alcohol charges, stealing cars, other thefts, failures to appear, you name it. As for getting help, yeah, if she had bothered to show up in court for this incident, maybe they could have mandated that help. But, given her number of open warrants, it seems "no show" was her normal way of dealing with her arrests.
    1
  13491.  @stusue9733  Are you one of the tens of thousands?
    1
  13492.  @stusue9733  I know what you were saying. I was just asking.
    1
  13493. Great job pretending to understand things you don't. Sorry, but in 15-20 minutes, that woman would have been long gone. The store employee said she thought the woman didn't pay, and asked the cop to check it out. As for the Taser, it made no difference about whether the initial suspicion was for murder, or tax evasion, or theft, or jaywalking. If you resist arrest, you're going to get the Taser. Spare your disgust about things you do not understand. This cop asked that woman a hundred times to show her ID, and to cooperate at a basic level. Go watch the whole video, not this one that picks up in the middle. By law, she is required to present her ID when being investigated by police. She refused. That's an arrest worthy offense right there. Furthermore, she obstructed and obfuscated the entire time (also illegal). She was accusing the cop of stuff that made no sense whatsoever (he didn't profile her, he went after the exact person the store employee identified), just to provoke an arrest, and made it really clear that her objective was to get Taser'd, because she repeatedly told the cop to do exactly that. Now, I don't know if you can add 2+2, but, I can, and this makes it very clear that she was trying to turn "can I see your receipt" into a payday lawsuit. You are correct in that she isn't legally required to show a receipt. But, she did everything else wrong here, and shame on you for focusing on something that didn't even matter. If this woman's behavior is something you encourage, then you're the problem here, as much as she was.
    1
  13494. Hilarious!!!! So, you went and deleted your other message thread. Couldn't bear to let that one still be visible, huh? Too embarrassing for you? But, you kept this one? Pfffttt. What in the world does $500 have to do with anything? If they don't yet know what she stole (or, since she didn't actually steal, I'll say supposedly stole), then how would they know if it was $500 or not? Good grief. It's like basic entry-level logic 101 is just completely beyond your capability. And, sorry, but it's not up to you what Publix determines is worth investigating or not. If they want the cop to chase someone down for something as small as a stick of chewing gum, that's their own prerogative, not yours. And, great job just completely ignoring the point about the Taser. I explained it already, but you don't care. You're quite determined to stick your head in the sand, and that's exactly where it remains. The Taser wasn't for the potential theft, the Taser was for resisting arrest. Why do you struggle to understand this? As I explained in the thread you deleted, this woman brought this on herself. All the store did was thought she didn't pay. They were wrong, but, so be it. If you're going to sometimes stop people at all, yes, the consequence is that sometimes you're wrong. No big deal. The woman must cooperate at a very basic minimal level, but, she refused. She dug a hole, and jumped right into it. And, that's why her own attorneys didn't file a case against the police, and why they lost the case against the store.
    1
  13495. I don't think you know what "baby daddy" means.
    1
  13496. Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  13497. Well, even among the ever changing versions that the father has told, the one thing he has consistently admitted is that Mark was armed.
    1
  13498. Just checking here: you do know that virtually no media covered this until 1.5 years after she was dead, right?
    1
  13499. The Freedom of Information Act was responsible for releasing the video. But, accountable for what? It wasn't released until 2.5 years later. She was long dead before any of the big media covered it.
    1
  13500. What the board did about every topic was ridiculous, outlandish, and I hope they all get thrown out of office. But, the cops do not get to make that call. If the school officials trespass someone, the cops must trespass that person. It's really that simple. The cops are not judge and jury. They make the arrest, and leave the rest up to the courts. Imagine that the cops took a personal stand about someone who refused to leave your home, for example. Would you want the cops to say, "sorry, we're not taking the guy off of your property because we don't agree with your politics, so we're letting him stay"? Oh, and before you say something like "public property, he has a right to stay," nope, sorry, that's wrong. There's a difference between public property like a sidewalk, vs. a building that happens to be owned by the public. The officials CAN trespass people from the building.
    1
  13501. Huh? The police managed to keep the arrest video out of the public's eyes for 2.5 years. She was already dead for 1.5 years before it went public. And, that was probably because of a legal FOIA request. After the case was closed for that long, they can no longer block requests to release the video. I don't understand what you think should have been done differently here... other than the media pretending that this arrest video had anything to do with her suicide....
    1
  13502. YOU SAID: "It's a CRIME that the rest of the scheduled APOLLO landings were cancelled by President Nixon" == Nixon didn't have that kind of power. Only congress can approve such a program, and only congress can kill such a program. Sure, the president has a lot of influence, and I will grant you that. But, the efforts to kill Apollo started before Nixon even took office, before the first manned landings. And, after the first landing, congress was itching to kill the program as soon as they could. YOU SAID: "and then #14 which followed it with ALLAN SHEPHARD commanding it." == If you cannot even spell his name, what could you possibly know about it? It's "Alan," not "Allan." It's "Shepard," not "Shephard."
    1
  13503. Sorry about your dad. But, you shouldn't call him lucky to get killed.
    1
  13504. PART 1: YOU SAID: "More theories. No facts or proof." == What facts would you accept? I mean, quite simply, the reason they never did any manned moon missions after Apollo 17 was because congress killed the program. And, they didn't fund another program to send people to the moon until 2019. They control the money. They decide which programs get funded, and which ones don't. NASA doesn't decide how its money gets spent, congress does. And, that's the simple answer. We can talk all day long about why, etc. But, boil it all away, and the fact is that NASA hasn't gone back to the moon because congress stopped funding it. And, those 450,000 people who worked on Apollo to build rockets and spacecraft and communications systems and suits, etc., etc., etc., do not work for free. I have no idea why you want "proof" of this. You can look up the congressional history here. That's all the proof you should need (about why NASA stopped going to the moon). YOU SAID: "At least none that are available for public viewing." == Wrong. YOU SAID: "We're kept in the dark( no pun intended), for multiple reasons. 1 The world or maybe just NASA because of our violent and warlike nature were kicked to the curb and warned to return." == What are you talking about? Warned to return? Warned by who? Return where? YOU SAID: "They can't expect us to believe that we've lost the technology" == Pfftttt. Do YOU think we have it? Yes, it's "lost" (in one sense of the word). It's exactly like Concorde. That technology is "lost" in the exact same way. We couldn't put a Concorde into the air today if our lives depended on it. Same for the SR71. Same for the X15. The golden age of flight was the 1960s, and all of those 1960s craft were retired, including Apollo's craft. That is the sense it is "lost." Everything that it took to make an Apollo rocket or spacecraft has long been destroyed, torn down, retooled, etc. All of the people are long retired or dead. The launch facilities to put a Saturn V into the sky have all been torn down and replaced. We have no functional craft remaining. No rope-memory computers. None of those old types of radar and communications systems. No big S-band radio transmitters/receivers. It's all gone. YOU SAID: "can't afford it" == Once again, yes, they can't "afford it" (in that sense). When congress pulls the plug on a program, NASA cannot just decide to disobey and keep going to the moon, you know. Congress makes those choices. And, if congress cut the program, then the program stops. They can't "afford it" because congress never allocated a single dime to putting people on the moon after Apollo 17, until Artemis was funded in 2019.
    1
  13505. PART 2: YOU SAID: "or the hype about the Van Allen Belt." == What does this have to do with anything? Are you one of those dullards who thinks Apollo was fake? Thus far, you've only complained about why they haven't gone back to the moon after Apollo 17. Now, this gibberish about the Van Allen belts? There are two of them, you know. Sometimes three, actually. Not just one, like your singular tense would indicate. If you don't know how many there are, what can you possibly know about them? James Van Allen certainly didn't believe that the Van Allen belts were a problem for Apollo. Why do you? I mean, you say that they were warned not to go to the moon, so I would presume you acknowledge they went there. But, now I fail to understand this comment about the Van Allen belts. Why do you think they're relevant to your point?
    1
  13506. PART 3: YOU SAID: "Musk has done more in 10 years than NASA in 50 years. Why?" == Because that's NASA's entire purpose!!!!!!! The main function of NASA is to pioneer new air and space technologies. This is because it's quite expensive to test new technologies in air and space. NASA (which was NACA before the name change) was formed because private industry couldn't afford to sink billions of dollars into development and advancement. New types of wings, new types of engines, new types of fuselages, failed more often than they succeeded. So, private industries were not very interested in spending billions of dollars being pioneers. They just wanted to build the planes they were used to building, and not gamble their entire existence on development. Hence, NACA was formed to help with the development and advancement of aviation technologies.
    1
  13507. PART 3 (b): YouTube isn't letting me post this message, which is why I keep needing to divide it into chunks. Who knows what problem they have with these words, but, whatever. The point is, NASA's job is to develop the new stuff, and later turn it over to private industry to do it better/cheaper. Now, they're trying to do this with SpaceX, but, it still isn't effective, because it's still too expensive. And, SpaceX still gets most of its money from NASA. Meanwhile, you apparently blame them for doing exactly what they're supposed to be doing?
    1
  13508. PART 4: YOU SAID: "Elon Musk will have a highly skilled population on Mars before NASA can design and build something to break low Earth orbit. == Pffttt. Don't count on it. YOU SAID: "Why? Secrets. They have plenty." == No, dummy. It doesn't work that way. NASA is the one paying Musk's SpaceX most of its money, you know. NASA not only subsidizes SpaceX, but also pays for the rockets built by SpaceX. And, yes, NASA is paying them an additional $2.9 billion now to build a lunar lander. Good grief. You obviously know absolutely nothing. YOU SAID: "They're used them against us for money." == Want to try that sentence again when you're sober? What does it even mean? YOU SAID: "Big Oil, they don't want free energy for vehicles and homes and businesses." == Pffttt. Um, dummy, oil is predominant for stuff like automobiles and airplanes because it's CHEAPER than green energy sources!!!! And, what do you mean "free energy"? There is no such concept. Did you skip school the day they taught thermodynamics in physics class? YOU SAID: "They don't want the cures for disease." == Dummy, the government just funded a massive program to develop very effective vaccines against the worst disease that the country has seen in over 100 years. Good grief. YOU SAID: "They don't want us to be able to plant agraculture in a desert." == When you can't even spell it, what could you possibly know about it? Is this a joke? Who's preventing you from planting agriculture in a desert? I think the bigger reason is because there's not enough WATER!!! This HAS to be a joke. YOU SAID: "So. We were warned, " DO NOT RETURN" and we haven't. Because the Lunar tech is way advanced over what we're God we have." == Which drugs did this to you? Seriously? Look at what they've done to you.
    1
  13509. The sun = a studio light now?
    1
  13510. You're correct. She paid for the items. So what? That doesn't excuse the rest of her actions.
    1
  13511. Sarah K. Moss video recorded the incident on her cell phone. Sarah called the police after she left the beach and walked toward a bar. The police viewed the video, and described it in their police report. Apparently, it was a loud and graphic public display, far longer than the "few seconds" the girl is trying to say. But, I fail to understand how this relates to her suicide. Her arrest (one of several different arrests for different offenses) for this beach incident took place in July of 2021. She killed herself in March of 2022. And, the video wasn't made public until November of 2023. Her arrest had nothing to do with her suicide.
    1
  13512. Well, not a thief anyway. Liar, and party's over, yeah, you got those parts right.
    1
  13513. Yeah, they gave that younger girl another chance. She was busted again within a month.
    1
  13514.  @melysuarez2260  YOU SAID: "it clearly said it , because he hired an expensive lawyer." == Pffftt. And, you believe Diane Sawyer, why? Good grief, would you like to buy a bridge I have for sale?
    1
  13515. Look, insane man, I'm well aware that 95% of the riders doped, and I'm no fan of Betsy or others in on the secret. That doesn't mean it was an even playing field (Armstrong's team had a BETTER doping program, and it was the chemists who won the races, not the riders), and that doesn't justify Armstrong's ridiculous behavior by suing so many people that even he can't remember how many. It also doesn't justify Armstrong ruining other people's careers and endorsement contracts for his own gain.
    1
  13516. Yes, that reconnaissance mission took place 15 years ago. The deniers simply say that mission is fake also. So, now what?
    1
  13517. Well, all I can tell you is that you shouldn't put that much faith in a crackpot conman.
    1
  13518. If you feel the need to pray, you should be asking for a better brain. Yours doesn't work very well.
    1
  13519. Um, no. The video was not released until 2.5 years later, which was 1.5 years after she died. She suffered ZERO embarrassment from the release of the video (which was probably a result of a legal FOIA request), because she was already dead when it was released.
    1
  13520. Um, what? Did the cops just kidnap two people before running onto this bus? Or, wait, no, that was the crazy man who did that. Oh, but the COPS are the problem, not the guy who just kidnapped two people?
    1
  13521. We need more officer's what?
    1
  13522. No news even covered this story until long after she died. So, no, the news didn't cause anything. As for trying to be discreet, sorry, but the witnesses (and the video they took of the incident) disagree with you. Why would you believe her anyway? She was a convicted felon who spent a term in a Florida prison and had a million other arrests before and after.
    1
  13523. YouTube has some pretty weird rules about that stuff, and whether ads are allowed (revenue), how much money they pay, and which advertisers will even sponsor videos with certain words, etc. If you're talking about fundamentally, society shouldn't care, well, I can't argue with you. If you're talking about the practicality of why they censor, well, it's to make it through the screening, search engine priorities, ad revenue and sponsorship, etc.
    1
  13524. You can't spell it, but you think it's real. Hilarious!
    1
  13525. Yeah, but, what was so special about this particular arrest that you think made her kill herself about a year later? She didn't kill herself when she was serving her felony prison term. She didn't kill herself for any of her other million arrests. But, you think this little insignificant arrest made her wait about a year, then kill herself?
    1
  13526. Huh? How?
    1
  13527.  @jeffdeer683  No, but she's required by law to provide ID (she refused). And, she cannot obstruct/obfuscate (she did). And, she cannot resist arrest (she did).
    1
  13528. Huh? The arrest report? What do YOU think it caused?
    1
  13529. Right. Sure. I really trust someone's expertise about Apollo, when he cannot even spell it correctly. It's not "APPOLLO," dewdrop.
    1
  13530. Just one clarification: you're saying that you know she thought she was alone, because that's what she was saying to the police while trying to avoid her millionth arrest. But, let's face reality here. The witnesses said that they thought it was intentional, and one of them took video of the incident and showed it to the police. Needless to say, it doesn't match this idea of thinking nobody was around. Quite to the contrary. And, given her mile long arrest record, her felony conviction and term she served in prison, her numerous charges for drugs and alcohol, and that her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club, yeah, frankly, I don't have a difficult time believing that she did it intentionally. Her family said that her biggest problems were the drugs and alcohol. So, yeah, her mind wasn't exactly stable.
    1
  13531. Agreed. But, how do you prevent it?
    1
  13532. I am not so sure about that. A guy wearing a balaclava mask carrying a gun? I doubt you'd be prosecuted.
    1
  13533.  @yassassin6425  I think he's saying the CONSPIRACY is debunked.
    1
  13534. "a lot of the footage and film magically disappeared" No footage has disappeared. No film is missing. Who told you otherwise? A conspiracy video? See, the problem is, all of those videos lie constantly. The only thing that went missing was the pre-NTSC backup copy of the Apollo 11 moonwalk. Guess what? Nobody had ever even watched it. Nobody has even constructed a machine capable of playing it. They only made the backup in the event that the primary mechanism failed. So, they would construct a machine capable of reading the pre-NTSC format, to salvage the moonwalk video, if the primary mechanism failed for some reason. But, since the primary mechanism worked as designed, they never bothered to even attempt to build a machine to watch the backup copy. That backup copy resided on two telemetry tapes. And, yes, those two tapes were discovered to be missing. So what? Why is it important? Sorry, but no footage nor film has ever been lost. The only reason you believe that is because conspiracy videos like to twist the words around to change the meaning, in order to push their false agenda. "NASA said it all got lost somehow" Nope. Not even close. A conspiracy video says that NASA said it was all lost. But, NASA never made any such statement. "NASA doesn't even launch our own spaceships anymore and pay Russia 50+ million to send one astronaut up to the space station wouldn't it be way cheaper to use our own space craft" Yes, but they established those contracts with Russia for the purpose of non-proliferation. Why don't you just look it up? Both the USA and Russia have published that non-proliferation is the exact reason for those contracts. Do you disagree? By the way, go learn English. Seriously. It's painful to read a single sentence you write. Believe me, you're going to serve yourself far better in life by learning to read and write, than wasting your time on silly conspiracies you don't even come close to grasping.
    1
  13535. Probably because of a legal Freedom of Information Act request.
    1
  13536. Huh? Proof comes weeks later, in the courtroom. By your standard, do you really believe that you need to prove a case before you can detain or arrest? How would any cop ever arrest anybody if proof was required first? Um, no. Cops are not judge and jury. Cops operate under things like "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause." Basically, if you don't understand those things, they just establish whether it's likely that a crime happened or not. The proof comes later. An arrest isn't a conviction. You are innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW. There is no obligation to prove anything at the side of the road.
    1
  13537.  @randyjohnson6845  YOU SAID: "you saw it before landing" == Yes, if you know what to look for, you can see it before landing, from the command module while viewing the lunar module in lunar orbit. YOU SAID: "and while landing" == Wrong. The lunar rover was not visible while landing. The only camera running while landing was the one from the LMP window, which couldn't see the rover. YOU SAID: "and before you saw the rover on the surface you never saw any indication of it being stowed on the side of the lander." == How do you know? Have you checked all of the footage and photos? I mean, I'm certainly not going to check myself for your sake. But, I know that there were plenty of photos and videos of Apollo 15's and Apollo 16's rover on the lander. I presume it would be the same for Apollo 17. But, I wouldn't know for sure without watching/viewing all of it again. Have you done that? YOU SAID: "theres only 3 possible sides it could have been on ." == Wait, what? You don't know where it was stowed? YOU SAID: "this video never mentioned or filmed the rover deployment and assembly." == Correct. They only took video of that for the Apollo 15 deployment. They didn't bother on Apollo 16 or 17. That's because this would require them to set up the camera twice. See, on Apollo 15, the very same camera that they used for taking the video of the rover deployment was the same camera that they then mounted to the rover itself. They had to waste time deploying the camera, setting it up, hooking it up to the S-band on the lander, etc. It was worth it for the Apollo 15 rover, because it was the first time they were doing it on the lunar surface. If there were problems, they wanted to have it on video. But, once they did it on Apollo 15, and there weren't too many problems deploying it, they didn't feel the need to take video of that event again for Apollo 16 or 17, wasting a bunch of time setting up the cameras, only to take that small video, then tear back down the camera, and set it up again on the rover-mount with the rover's S-band. So, yes, you're correct, they don't have the rover deployment on video for Apollo 16 or 17. If they had, would you magically become smarter? Or, would you still believe the same nonsense you believe now? YOU SAID: "I'm my opinion this is fake" == Why? Because you love ignorance? YOU SAID: "and the rover is probably the same rover on apollo 15 16 and 17." == This is too absurd to deserve a reply. YOU SAID: "I saw a deployment and assembly on another mission and it was totally ridiculous." == So, you got what you wanted to see, and you reject it?? Why? Did any of the thousands of engineers and technicians at Boeing, General Motors, JPL, or Grumman believe it was "totally ridiculous"?? They're the ones who designed and built those things. Why don't any of them come forward and claim that the rover deployment was ridiculous? YOU SAID: "I don't believe they figured out the van allen belts" == Why? James Van Allen himself said that Apollo astronauts would receive less than 1% of a fatal dose. What's there to figure out? Why would you believe you understand the Van Allen belts better than James Van Allen? Have you done the calculations? Where are they? Why are you on YouTube with this amazing world-changing revelation? Why aren't you submitting those numbers to scientific peer reviewed journals? YOU SAID: "and how to deal with high radiation on the surface" == What "high radiation" would that be? Again, what are your numbers? Why are you here, instead of publishing these "high radiation" numbers in peer reviewed journals? What EXACT radiation are you referring to? YOU SAID: "and I dont believe they figured out how to get that radioactive dust off there here suits in the lander." == HILARIOUS!!!! Radioactive dust?!?!?!?! What in the world are you talking about?!?!?! WHAT "radioactive dust"?? YOU SAID: "and I don't believe they could conquer the temperature extremes on the surface. In the shade its - 200 to -250 and in the sun it's at least 225 degrees Fahrenheit. It's just too much" == Well, it's a good thing they were never there during those extreme surface temperatures, then, right? The surface temperatures don't get that low until the lunar nighttime. The surface temperatures don't get that high until well into the lunar afternoon. I mean, it's a very popular misconception that the moment there's shade, the rocks all cool off instantly to -250 degrees (F). The moment there's a ray of sunshine, the rocks instantly heat up to 250 degrees (F). But, it doesn't work that way. That would be ridiculous. Thermodynamics doesn't work that way at all. Objects/rocks/whatever do not instantaneously swing from -250 to +250 degrees the moment you put them in shade, or the moment you put them in sunlight. It takes a long time to build up the heat, and a long time to shed the heat. And, the astronauts were never there for those extremes. All Apollo missions landed in the lunar morning, after the super-low temperatures of the lunar night, and before the super-high temperatures of the lunar afternoon. Bottom line: you have NO IDEA what you are talking about. You are laughably wrong. No wonder why you think crazy things. Garbage in, garbage out. And, you're quite full of garbage.
    1
  13538. Well, the grass is always greener. For something like this, I'd agree with you. On the other hand, when public officials get busted for stuff, we want to see it. I wouldn't know how they could appease everyone.
    1
  13539. "she thought of it that after being blasted on the news" She did? Can you name a single news program that covered this while she was alive?
    1
  13540. "she would have to register" Get real. Even with her million other arrests and time spent in prison, this was easily negotiated down to a minor infraction (had she shown up in court instead of ditching).
    1
  13541. "for people to see the embarrassment" Huh? Her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the local club (yeah, that kind), and neighbors said she did "private extras" with parades of paying men in her apartment. In all probability, she was making "public beach" content for her fans, but, got reported, and tried to cry her way out of her millionth arrest.
    1
  13542. "friends" She didn't have any. As a matter of fact, nobody even went looking for her after she was gone. Not her husband or kids (she left them more than a decade ago to live a life of crime and drugs). Not her parents. Nobody. The coroner's report said that, by the time the landlord went in looking for the overdue rent, she was gone so long, and in such an advanced state of decay, that her body weighed 84 pounds. I'm guessing that's below 80 pounds without the implants.
    1
  13543. "Back off on it" Oh, yes, I really want to take instruction from somebody who buys into fake stories made by Inside Edition (where facts don't matter).
    1
  13544. "After watching a bbc documentary" Translation: "documentary" = a conspiracy video made by a crackpot. "the surface of the moon reach the boiling point of 250* Fahrenheit" A) So what? Why does this matter to you? Why would you quote the lunar afternoon's surface temperature? All Apollo missions landed early in the lunar morning, long before it got that hot. None of the astronauts were on the lunar surface during those high temperatures. B) A standard fireman's suit withstands about 1000 degrees (F). Really good ones withstand 2000 degrees. Yet, you think it was too hot for the Apollo suits to handle? C) C'mon, nut. Get real here. Do you REALLY think you've "discovered" something by watching a wacky video on the BBC that the entirety of the world's experts all somehow overlooked? I'll bet there are "documentaries" about psychics talking to dead people on the BBC also. Do you believe those also?
    1
  13545. Well, first of all, two of the landings (Apollo 11 and 14) were done with the engines on all the way past touchdown. But, the rest of the landings, yes, they shut the engine off after the 5'8" probes touched the lunar surface. The craft was designed with honeycomb mesh crushable struts, which softened the landing. And, in 1/6th gravity, dropping 5 feet isn't as big of a deal as you think.
    1
  13546. Well, Apollo, at its peak of spending, costed about 4.5% of the entire federal budget in hard costs, and another 2% in soft costs and international support. The program started in 1961, and went through 1972 for the moon part of the program, and through 1975 for the Apollo applications program (such as Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz). And, for all of that, throughout the 15 years of the program, they managed to launch a total of 13 Saturn V rockets, 9 of which went to the moon, resulting in 6 landings. Now, of course, there are economies of scale that would be gained by making it much more of an assembly line process, sure. But, in rocketry, you still can't scale it up like producing automobiles or something like that. Just curious, what percentage of the federal budget do you think weekly missions would cost?
    1
  13547. Huh? How is the government responsible for hats and gloves? And, maybe if she didn't spend all of her money on drugs, and spent it on hats and gloves, not only would she have those hats and gloves, but maybe she'd also still be alive today.
    1
  13548. So says a delusional twit who fails to answer a simple question: What evidence WOULD convince you that Lance doped? Would a full confession even do it for you, or would you still fail to believe it even then? You act as if you know the man personally or something. Is it THAT hard for you to believe that he's guilty? If so, why? We see athlete after athlete getting busted/confession doping, even after testing clean hundreds of times. Yet, you find it hard to believe in this case? Why? Delusional.
    1
  13549. Fact checking? OK. Well, the sun angle is wrong (it isn't as far south as represented in this video). The orientation of the laser reflector array is wrong (it isn't facing Earth). Same problem for the EASEP experiment package and its solar panels (facing slightly the wrong way). They're missing quite a few minor items laying on the surface (the major items are represented here, but there's a bunch more of the little stuff that isn't in this video). What other fact checking were you looking for?
    1
  13550. How should they have handled it instead?
    1
  13551. The rovers were sent on Apollo 15, 16, 17 missions, not on Apollo 11.
    1
  13552. None of this was ever on the news or YouTube until she was already dead 1.5 years.
    1
  13553. But, almost nobody covered this story while she was alive.
    1
  13554. There's no shortage of idiots in the world. But, where/how did the poll take place, and how many people participated? Most intelligent people won't participate in stupid opinion polls. Also, a lot of polls are just conducted at the mall, stopping whatever strangers are willing to talk to a pollster. And, some of the people polled just give wrong answers to stupid questions in order to mock these dumb polls. There's definitely an idiot factor that skews the numbers.
    1
  13555. Or, you can skip that, and just thank the man himself.
    1
  13556. Another graduate of YouTube School of Law, huh? You think they give citations for crimes? Do you understand the difference between a crime and an infraction? (Obviously not.) And, sorry, but nobody saw the video while she was alive. It wasn't released until she was already dead 1.5 years. Did YouTube University not teach you the Freedom of Information Act and how it works?
    1
  13557. Huh? Embarrassed twice?
    1
  13558. You're joking, right?
    1
  13559.  @gives_bad_advice  Japan's JAXA Selene didn't have the resolution required to see that level of detail.
    1
  13560. Wow, what a profound statement. Um, who? And, on what basis?
    1
  13561. Um, what? YOU SAID: "About the boulders that it is said rolled down the hill. It seems the surface of the Mountains is very bumpy and hilly. That said, How is it that the rocks while hitting these raised obstructions and after traveling a long distance, never diverted from a straight line?" == Who said they didn't? Go look at the LROC photos. Yeah, maybe that one rock may have rolled fairly straight. But, within a couple hundred yards of that one, you'll see the rolling trails of a bunch of others that didn't roll nearly as straight as the one you're [probably] talking about. YOU SAID: "Next, is it not interesting that it looks like indentations seem to follow one after another so much that they look like craters after craters and so on?" == Um, yeah, it's a fragmented segment of rock. It's not going to roll like a perfect basketball or something. It's going to flop around as it rolls, leaving various indentations as it does so. Why is this surprising to you? Go try it yourself. YOU SAID: "We should work through these questions before we should accept this persons statement." == Yeah, you go work it out. Pffftttt.
    1
  13562. Huh? I have been stopped and asked to provide a receipt. I don't feel offended. Human mistakes happen. It's not worth getting into a huff over. Someone got their facts wrong and thought I took something I didn't. Who cares? I just provide my receipt and that puts an end to it.
    1
  13563. Oh, get real. The man obviously was not going to cooperate with the cops in any way, at any point in time. His deeply seeded hatred for police was apparent in every word he spoke. There wasn't going to be any "de-escalation," or "talking him down," etc. This guy was going to go down, because he was either going to get shot first, or shot after he took a couple of cops with him. HE made that his own last day. There were no polite words or nice treatment that was going to get this guy out of that car without a gunfight.
    1
  13564. There were radio remote controlled airplanes (full size) during WWII (1940s), used by multiple countries. The Radioplane company produced about 10,000 remote controlled airplanes for use in training fighter pilots, and for artillery gunning practice, during the war. They continued on after the war to produce tens of thousands more. Yet, you're complaining about remote controls for TV sets? (By the way, those were available also, a full decade before Apollo happened in 1969.) And, no mobile phones? Huh? The first car phone network was established in the 1940s. Color TVs had been around a while also, by the way. You know, if you're going to offer some sort of weird objection to Apollo based upon your own incredulity, maybe you should at least look up the facts first, huh?
    1
  13565. "I always wanted the landing to be real. But always felt there was something wrong with Evidence." But, you don't see a million things wrong with Bart Sibrel's movies? Good gods. How far gone are you?
    1
  13566. C'mon. They knew it was her. They just needed to wait until they fully informed the family before "confirming" the identity.
    1
  13567. The arrest video wasn't released until long after she was dead.
    1
  13568. Which media is to blame for what exactly?
    1
  13569. The media had nothing to do with her suicide. So, I wanted to know which media you were blaming for what exact thing?
    1
  13570. You clearly don't know the difference between an infraction and a crime. Police have discretion for the former, they don't for the latter. And, you think they humiliated her? Exactly how did they do that? What do you mean?
    1
  13571. Pffttt. With HIS money? Um, no. He uses public funding for this, as well as most of the rest of his claptrap.
    1
  13572. Absolutely incorrect. He cannot arrest on an accusation alone. That is enough for reasonable suspicion to investigate, but not arrest. The arrest requires probable cause, which she supplied in ample quantities when she refused to ID, obstructed, and obfuscated (crimes all by themselves). And, sorry, but there isn't a police department in the country that takes down an address, and lets a potential criminal just go home, to then arrest her later. He is to determine if it's likely a crime happened, and then arrest. And, sorry, but you have no concept of burden of proof. It's not on the accused, it's on the accuser. And, that doesn't happen until a courtroom. The side of the road is not a courtroom. At the side of the road, there is no burden of proof. You just determine if a crime is likely to have happened, or not. Proof is up to the store, and prosecutor. A cop can help gather the proof. But, it's not the cop's job to prove anything. We have due process for that. You apparently want to skip due process, and turn the side of the road into a courtroom, and turn the cop into the judge and jury. Sorry, but the rest of the world doesn't want to give cops that kind of power, and we leave the burden of proof up to the prosecutors.
    1
  13573. Weeellll, correct and incorrect. 1969, 1970, 1971, and 1972 = 4 years. But, ok, there weren't actually any landings in 1970, so, 3 years, yes. As for making it look easy, well, immediately, I'd have to argue that it wasn't easy. And, the reason there weren't any landings in 1970 was because Apollo 13 exploded half way to the moon. Hardly making things look "easy." As for "saving some of the tech" for Elon and Bezos: well, Musk is a conman, and Bezos didn't get the contract. So, I fail to understand your point.
    1
  13574. Yet, you can't name these people? Is that like the proverbial "they"?
    1
  13575. And, you believed she thought she was alone, why? Because she said so as she was attempting to avoid her millionth arrest?
    1
  13576. I'm not sure I understand your question. She had an arrest record a mile long, and served felony time in prison. But, given that her landlord said that she was a stripper at the local club, and her neighbors said she did "private" transactions for cash in her apartment, yeah, I think it's safe to say she's put on these displays before.
    1
  13577. OK, and?
    1
  13578. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released to the public.
    1
  13579. Noon Tolands are filming how buggy done nope studio threw there o who's if 1st 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
    1
  13580. Nice slander/libel there.
    1
  13581. You obviously have no understanding of what happened here.
    1
  13582. "The wrong lander schlepped of as actually being on the moon" I have no idea what you're talking about, and neither do you.
    1
  13583. Why? What did they do wrong?
    1
  13584. Actually, your attitude is the problem. We'll never advance society if the attitude is that there's no personal accountability. She chose to do that in public. She got arrested for it. That's not society's fault. That' fault is squarely on her. And, the more people that take your attitude, the more our society regresses.
    1
  13585.  @cometochristtoday  Dewdrop, when you cannot even form a sentence, why in the world would you pretend to understand aerospace engineering? Good gods.
    1
  13586. Sorry, dewdrop, but conspiracy videos that lie to you aren't evidence of anything, except your own gullibility.
    1
  13587. Huh? Have you looked for it?
    1
  13588. Huh? In what way? What in the world do you think the police did wrong here?
    1
  13589. OK, what evidence have you considered?
    1
  13590. So, exactly as I said, you watched conspiracy videos, and believed every word without question. Your posted message was straight out of the standard handbook of ridiculous claims. And, since you're not honest enough to just spell out that you got all of your "objections" from conspiracy videos, I'll just reply on one topic that makes it irrefutable that I'm correct in where you get your information. You made the claim: "there was no dust on the tops of the landing pad." Well, you couldn't possibly have been looking through the photo archives yourself, because there was dust on some of the landing pads. The only people making the claim you just made are the ones who blindly believe everything they're told in those silly videos that lie to you. The rest of your list of claims falls apart just as easily, but, again, if you don't have the honesty required to simply admit where you got your claims, I'm not going to waste my time talking to you any further. Nobody likes liars.
    1
  13591. But, this video wasn't made public until she was already dead for 1.5 years. What's the basis for your suit?
    1
  13592. Monopoly on violence? So, nobody is violent other than police? Good gods.
    1
  13593. A) You don't get a warning for crimes, you can get warnings for infractions. B) What "damage" do you think was done by the police?
    1
  13594. suback are epublic now is disuced peopel neve know you questuned gain honselty conspper ac ee relevunt i didnt step Amerca matter supose 60 why
    1
  13595. Welcome to Inside Edition, where facts don't matter.
    1
  13596. OK, then your next step in that crusade is to get the Freedom of Information Act repealed.
    1
  13597. By not taking the film out of the canisters.
    1
  13598. I don't think most people understand the moral duty to make profits. The average person just thinks companies are evil when they make money. But, in reality, companies owe it to shareholders and employees to fortify the company's future by making profits. Companies that operate on razor thin profit margins will eventually face some sort of economic trouble that will take them down, and then you have a pile of unhappy shareholders, and thousands of unemployed workers. The real irony is that most of the people I've seen complaining about profitable car companies are devoted Apple/Mac computers, which is the biggest price hiking company on the planet. They'll complain about car markups, but gleefully pay Apple double the market price for one of their tablets or computers.
    1
  13599. "Where do they have oxygen for breathing hours, what they have on their backs cannot be oxygen for even one hour, just look at classic divers, they have two oxygen tanks for one hour." Good gods. Why do you cranks think a conventional scuba tank has anything to do with Apollo? When you go scuba diving with a conventional tank, what happens? You're breathing in and out, and every outward breath releases the air, wasting bunches of oxygen. Furthermore, the air in a scuba tank is mostly nitrogen. That's not true of Apollo, because they used 100% oxygen. And, the Apollo suits and backpacks were essentially big rebreathers, not offgassing very often.
    1
  13600. Huh? So, the multiple witnesses who called in, one of whom recorded it and gave the video to the police... those don't count?
    1
  13601. The Saturn V first stage produced 7.5 million pounds of thrust. How much thrust does the Sega produce?
    1
  13602. Do you mean "Shooting Stanley Kubrick" (2015) by Hollywood director T. Patrick Murray, with Tom Mayk playing Kubrick? That mockumentary aimed directly at people like you?
    1
  13603. Huh? First of all, that's nonsense. Secondly, how does that answer my question?
    1
  13604. Hang on just a second here. You just demonstrated that you fell for a video that was made to mock YOU. That's what YOU fall for. It was an obvious spoof that used an actor that doesn't even look like Stanley Kubrick to play Kubrick, and you fell for it hook line and sinker. And, you have the audacity to claim that **I** fall for things?
    1
  13605. Self defense??? What ARE you talking about? The man knew the kids were coming. The girl was the daughter in a family he was feuding with. The boy used to work for him. They had been robbing him many times, and he established their pattern. He parked his car far away so that the kids would think he wasn't home. He had video cameras set up so he could see them coming. He had prepared tarps for their bodies right next to where he planned to kill them. He disabled the lights so that they couldn't see him, even if they flipped the light switch. He rehearsed (on tape) what he was going to say and do, long before the teens arrived at his house. He even said he planned to shoot "in the left eye," and then shot the girl twice in the left eye, exactly as he said he planned on doing hours beforehand. In his confession, he said that he did not intend to let the girl live, despite that he knew that she had been disabled by the first shots, and was no longer a threat to him. How does this count as "self defense" in your mind? What part of what happened here was defensive? Do you even understand what "self defense" is?
    1
  13606.  @JESUS-ek9po  So, in your mind, premeditated murder is fine, as long as the people you murder are criminals already?
    1
  13607.  @JESUS-ek9po  So, in your mind, being a vigilante is fine, and murdering someone for the crime of theft is fine. Good gods, what a pig.
    1
  13608.  @JESUS-ek9po  Who didn't do anything to the girl? What are you talking about? And, if you think that premeditated murder is fine, as long as someone is in your house, what's to prevent you from inviting someone over, then gunning that person down, and claiming it's a robbery? What mechanism would you use to prevent that? Or, hey, dummy, how about just CALLING THE POLICE instead of planning in advance to murder people who are on their way to your house to rob you?? Good gods, you're as stupid as anybody can get.
    1
  13609.  @JESUS-ek9po  You have got to be one of the dumbest people alive.
    1
  13610. Shamed her? The police managed to keep this video out of the public eye until about 1.5 years after she died. Who is "they"? Whoever made the FOIA request?
    1
  13611. And, one of the witnesses recorded this beach incident and gave a copy to the police. Needless to say, it doesn't match her version about a quiet act with nobody around.
    1
  13612. As for the video release, Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  13613. It is blocking some of what I was posting. So, shorter version. Timeline: July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released.
    1
  13614. History is alphabet, inventions calculate forever, my laptop needs technology.
    1
  13615. The police weren't on his property. He was wearing a balaclava mask in the middle of a Kentucky summer... and you don't know why? Carjacking!?!?!? And, c'mon, are you REALLY going to let the screaming banshee go near the gun? Really?
    1
  13616.  @franknorthcuttmusic  As I told you before, China DID release their photos, but you need to register to get an ID to see them.
    1
  13617.  @franknorthcuttmusic  China photographed all 6 landing sites, not just 11 and 12.
    1
  13618.  @franknorthcuttmusic  Japan's SELENE took tons of photos of every landing site. (Not enough resolution to see the landers, just that they confirmed the landscape in the Apollo photographs at a level of detail not available in 1969-1972 without actually being on the moon. They also say that they recognize the soil disturbance at each landing site because it's discolored.
    1
  13619. "go and read about the telescopes and imaging devices that can see the surface of the moon from the Earth." Um, yeah, nobody argues that we can see the lunar surface. We can see it with the naked eye, and even better with telescopes. But, there's no such telescope with the resolution required to see Apollo artifacts. "they exist as patents" So, someone filed a bunch of patents on something that was never built? Surprise surprise. So what? I can file a patent for hypothetical mechanisms to build a Star Wars lightsaber. It doesn't mean anybody can actually build one. "and are not for civilian use." Name the patent numbers, then. I want to read these patents that say something about how/who should use them. That's not how patents work.
    1
  13620.  @franknorthcuttmusic  Is my response visible?
    1
  13621.  @franknorthcuttmusic  Figures. I responded to your question. Apparently, that's a forbidden topic.
    1
  13622.  @artforlife2770  Just FYI, "attilafry" is a complete mental case. He goes from comment to comment, making all kinds of insane postings, including talking about their "supple bodies," and stating that he thinks that they should be let go instead of spending life in prison. He's clearly a mental case himself, like to the point that these crazed killers could be stabbing him in the liver repeatedly, and he'd still not understand that these maniacs need to be kept behind bars, he'd want to let them go, as he's dying on the floor. He's a lost cause, completely.
    1
  13623. a) If you cannot even spell "hungry" correctly, why should anybody take you seriously? b) Her own attorney didn't find any reason to sue the police. What do you know that he didn't know?
    1
  13624. Harsh warning? For a crime? Um, no. That's not how it works. You have confused infractions and crimes. Learn the difference. Police have discretion for infractions. But, we want the courts to deal with crimes.
    1
  13625. "She was facing a year in prison and a lifetime on the sex offender registry." For this? Not likely. Even with her extensive criminal history, time served in prison around 6 years ago, and other million arrests, this incident is easily negotiated down to a minor infraction. But, of course, she'd have to show up in court for that to happen, which, of course, she didn't (seemed to be that failing to appear was her usual way of dealing with her arrests).
    1
  13626. YOU SAID: "1:43 who took this picture??? I need names." == Neil Armstrong took the photo. Buzz Aldrin is the main astronaut in frame. Armstrong is the astronaut reflected in the visor. YOU SAID: "We all know we've been fed the most B.S lies our entire life, shout out to the most unhelpful , untrustworthy, corrupt, greediest, unethical, repulsive U.S government." == Wow. While I'd never advocate blindly trusting the USA's government, it's a mighty huge statement to call the USA the "most" bad. Indonesia slaughtered a million of its own people in a single mass genocide campaign. Do I even need to mention Mao Zedong? Saddam Hussein? Was he corrupt enough for you? 100% of the 11 million votes went to him, and not a single voter voted against him? Do you believe that claim? Or, was he corrupt, rigging his own election, and threatening to have his military kill anybody who casted a vote against him? Should I go on? Can you name any federal government that doesn't have any corruption within it? YOU SAID: "I don't recall being taught that in school." == Um, ok, were you taught in school that the USA is evil?
    1
  13627. And, by then, the woman would be long gone. Yeah, you're a real genius.
    1
  13628. "there is no photos of the stuff on the moon" China, India, South Korea, and the USA (Arizona State University) have all published photos of the Apollo landers on the moon. Some of them even have the resolution required to see foot paths, rover tracks, shadows of flags, etc.
    1
  13629. "It would be instantly debunked that we ever even went there if so." Yet, China, India, and South Korea didn't say they debunked anything. Instead, they said they confirmed Apollo, and showed photos.
    1
  13630. "When NASA's photos they gave to us were shown to a top AI program it said they were not real" Yes, dewdrop, a Russian AI bot said a couple of the 7000 photos taken from the lunar surface were not real. These same AI algorithms sometimes cannot figure out the difference between a military tank and a crop of trees, but, you're going to rely on them? Furthermore, they never revealed which photos they were, or what they found "wrong" with them. For all we know, they pumped one of the composite photos through the AI. If they don't spell out what they think is wrong, and won't even give the image numbers, why do you trust anything about this claim? All you're basically saying is that you'll blindly trust anything anybody tells you that confirms your predetermined conclusion, and reject anything that goes against it.
    1
  13631. "where it identified the Chinese probe's pictures as real" Yeah, and how about the Chinese photos of the Apollo landing sites from orbit?
    1
  13632. "Not even the Hubble space telescope could settle this for us" Are you even reading the responses to your own comments? How many times must it be spelled out to you that we don't have Earth based telescopes that can see the Apollo stuff? Hubble is in orbit, sure. But, it's only 300 miles closer to the moon than telescopes on Earth. One single pixel from Hubble equates to a square on the moon that is 160 feet wide by 160 feet long. How do you expect to see a 14 foot by 14 foot lunar lander, when it doesn't even come close to occupying a single pixel from Hubble?
    1
  13633. Of course they exist. Check this: "GUJCOST Celebrates Vigyan Utsav (STI Ecosystem for Atmanirbhar Bharat) | 3rd September 2021." At one hour into the video, the head of India's space agency shows you one of the photos of an Apollo lander as taken from their lunar orbiter.
    1
  13634. But, dewdrop, you're not even reading the replies. How can you even pretend to know what I believe or not, when you refuse to read anything I've written?
    1
  13635. And, so did Smith. He's a murderer, and got the proper prison sentence for it.
    1
  13636.  @Everythingisgoingtobealright  No. He should have called the police, rather than planning these murders for months.
    1
  13637. He accepted the deal he was offered, to accept a life sentence in exchange for no death sentence. She (after confessing twice) decided to reject the same deal, and instead went to trial, was found guilty, and given the death penalty.
    1
  13638. So, you don't know the facts of the case. But, you already place blame? What? Sorry, you're wrong. She is required by law to show her ID. The receipt, well, it's probably wiser to just show it, and she chose not to. But, you're right about that one, she's not legally required to provide the receipt.
    1
  13639. Yet, here we are, +50 years after the moonlandings, and what do we have in support of the cranks who think the moon landings were faked? Silly conspiracy videos. That's it. Nothing but a bunch of wild assertions that are disproven with ease. Not a single one of the world's 77 space agencies, staffed with the virtual entirety of experts on space travel, satellites, communication with things in space, etc., have ever disputed the moon landings. Not a single one. And, on your side, who do we have? We have a bunch of unqualified people such as cab drivers, warehouse workers, drywall workers, etc., who have never set foot inside a university classroom on any topic relevant to space travel, making foolish videos on YouTube, undergoing not a single shred of scientific scrutiny. Yeah, really strong. Sure.
    1
  13640. The show is obviously not telling the whole truth here. The lawsuit doesn't even claim he was face down in the water.
    1
  13641. Because her role isn't successful because the stuff she says is accurate (it's not). Her role is successful because she tells the audience what they want to hear.
    1
  13642.  @elizaw1741  I wasn't disagreeing.
    1
  13643. Well, after he just murdered a woman right before this incident, I mean, c'mon, he wasn't exactly going to ever be a free man again.
    1
  13644. Who? The sky? Poseidon? The aether?
    1
  13645.  @sebencopeak9839  What did I expect him to do? Call the police. What don't you understand here? Good grief. He should have gone to the police many months before this happened. But, no, he was bloodthirsty and wanted to kill them. At the very least, when he knew they were coming that day, he should have called the police to say, "hi, the two thieves are coming to my house today to rob me again, can you send a cop here to help catch them in the act?" What would you do when you know who's coming to your house, and when? Would you do the same that Smith did, and plan to murder them? Or, would you call the police?
    1
  13646.  @sebencopeak9839  Thanks for proving that you aren't even bothering to read a single thing. You're saying that if you knew, in advance, that two people were coming to your house to rob you, you wouldn't call the police, because why? Because you'd be afraid that they'd arrest YOU? How does that even work? If the criminals didn't even arrive at your house yet, why would the police arrest you? What ARE you talking about? And, you have the audacity to talk about the guy arrested for killing a catalytic converter thief? Um, yeah, when you shoot someone for the crime of theft, then attach the person (still alive) to the hitch of your truck, and drag him around town, um, yeah, you hardly get to claim self-defense. It's pretty clear that you're not even reading anything. You don't even know what happened here. I explained it already, but, you're simply not paying attention. This wasn't a surprise break-in. Smith knew they were coming. He prepared the house for their arrival. He went outside, gathered up two tarps to use as body bags, and placed them exactly where he planned on killing them. He recorded himself rehearsing what he planned on saying to attorneys, neighbors, and police, BEFORE the criminals even arrived. He said he planned on shooting "in the left eye," and then, later, when the girl arrived, he shot her twice in the left eye, exactly as he said he planned to do. He said in his confession that he didn't intend on giving them a chance to live. For example, when he shot the girl, she was on the ground in pain, and he then went up to her while she was completely incapacitated, and put two shots into her left eye (just like he said he was going to do), then, later, he shot up through her chin and into the brain to make sure she was dead. Then, he said "cute," and kept the bodies for 24 hours before calling the police, and she was found with her shirt open (I'll let you figure out for yourself what that means). But, I really doubt you're even reading anything, based on your silly comments. Can you even prove you've read this message? Can you open your next comment with the word "green" to demonstrate you've read this comment? Anyway, if you really would do the same thing that Smith did, about all I can tell you is that you're doomed to the same prison sentence that he has. This case went through police investigators, district attorneys, judges, jury members, was reviewed by the appellate court, then the state supreme court, then the Supreme Court of the USA. None of them agree with you. None. You are either just as out of touch with reality that Smith was, or, you lack the understanding of this case. This wasn't a case of a surprise break-in, where a homeowner used a firearm for self defense. This was a case of premeditated murder.
    1
  13647. It's blocking my reply from being seen, so, I'll try to divide it into parts to see where it's being blocked. Thanks for proving that you aren't even bothering to read a single thing. You're saying that if you knew, in advance, that two people were coming to your house to rob you, you wouldn't call the police, because why? Because you'd be afraid that they'd arrest YOU? How does that even work? If the criminals didn't even arrive at your house yet, why would the police arrest you? What ARE you talking about?
    1
  13648. And, you have the audacity to talk about the guy arrested for killing a catalytic converter thief? Um, yeah, when you shoot someone for the crime of theft, then attach the person (still alive) to the hitch of your truck, and drag him around town, um, yeah, you hardly get to claim self-defense.
    1
  13649. You don't even know what happened here. I explained it already, but, you're simply not paying attention. This wasn't a surprise break-in. Smith knew they were coming. He prepared the house for their arrival. He went outside, gathered up two tarps to use as body bags, and placed them exactly where he planned on killing them. He recorded himself rehearsing what he planned on saying to attorneys, neighbors, and police, BEFORE the criminals even arrived. He said he planned on shooting "in the left eye," and then, later, when the girl arrived, he shot her twice in the left eye, exactly as he said he planned to do. He said in his confession that he didn't intend on giving them a chance to live. For example, when he shot the girl, she was on the ground in pain, and he then went up to her while she was completely incapacitated, and put two shots into her left eye (just like he said he was going to do), then, later, he shot up through her chin and into the brain to make sure she was dead. Then, he said "cute," and kept the bodies for 24 hours before calling the police, and she was found with her shirt open (I'll let you figure out for yourself what that means). But, I really doubt you're even reading anything, based on your silly comments. Can you even prove you've read this message? Can you open your next comment with the word "green" to demonstrate you've read this comment?
    1
  13650. Anyway, if you really would do the same thing that Smith did, about all I can tell you is that you're doomed to the same prison sentence that he has. This case went through police investigators, district attorneys, judges, jury members, was reviewed by the appellate court, then the state supreme court, then the Supreme Court of the USA. None of them agree with you. None. You are either just as out of touch with reality that Smith was, or, you lack the understanding of this case. This wasn't a case of a surprise break-in, where a homeowner used a firearm for self defense. This was a case of premeditated murder.
    1
  13651.  @sebencopeak9839  OK, no idea why it blocked my reply, but, it seems to have worked by dividing it up into multiple messages instead.
    1
  13652.  @sebencopeak9839  Thanks for demonstrating that you actually read the message(s). It still seemed you weren't reading, but, you apparently are reading, but not fully absorbing. Let me spell out why the law doesn't look at this situation like you are. You can only shoot in self defense. And, the concept of self defense doesn't include planning two murders months beforehand. It also doesn't mean you can shoot someone stealing a catalytic converter, then drag the guy around town strapped to your trailer hitch (your own example). The issue you seem to ignore here is that ALL parties are guilty. It's not merely a matter of who does something first. You don't get to say, "they stole from me, so I murdered them." This is not all that different (conceptually) than gangland violence, where a bunch of criminals shoot at another bunch of criminals. ALL of them are guilty. Smith went a million miles past the concept of self defense. And, if you can't see why, then you're going to eventually end up in prison yourself. I notice that you also refuse to answer the question about how/why the police would arrest you for calling them before the shooting even happens. Why won't you answer? You claimed that you wouldn't call the police because they'd arrest you for it, right? Again, how does that work? Why would they arrest you? What charges would they issue you? Me: I'd have called the police months before, and shown them the video recordings of the teens stealing from me. Or, at the very least, I'd have called them a couple of hours before the teens came to my home, so I can have the police waiting to catch them in the act. Smith chose not to call the police until 24 hours AFTER the murders. He could have called them beforehand, but, he refused to do so, because he had been feuding with their family for years, and had planned to kill them. But, you: You won't call the police because you fear that they'd arrest you for something? What would they arrest you for? Why can't you answer?
    1
  13653. Sorry that you fell for a silly posting made by a Russian troll on Twitter. But, hey, apparently there's no shortage of people willing to fall for just about anything. Congratulations.
    1
  13654. Hopefully, by the next time people are sent to the moon, you've kicked your drug habit.
    1
  13655. Yeah, well, that's one rule of warfare I've never understood. You can drop nuclear bombs, you can shoot people with 50-cal or 30-cal high energy rounds that will take someone's head off, but, a hollow-point 9mm is against the rules. You're correct, yes, those are the rules. But, yeah, given the track record of these street criminals shooting back, um, yeah, I'm not going to begrudge cops using hollow points.
    1
  13656. Do you REALLY believe that all of the people in those higher class seats are paying those fares? Are you saying that you don't know anything about mileage programs where you get upgrades for free for having airline loyalty? Yes, of course, they do sell some of the seats at full fare. But, I'm afraid that if you aren't factoring in the idea that lots of people get upgraded for free or by using accumulated mileage, you are painfully ignorant of the airline business. Thumbs down, sorry, I just don't think you know what you're talking about on this topic.
    1
  13657. Well, multiple people called the police. So, there's that. Plus, well, let me just ask, if it was a man at a playground, would you go and strike up a conversation, asking him to stop? Also, did you read the police report that talked about the video taken by one of the audience? According to the arrest report, the video showed a very loud and active event in view of multiple people including children. If there was a man putting on a loud and active show at a playground in view of children, would you try talking to him during the show? Or, would you call the police?
    1
  13658. As opposed to what, exactly? People shouldn't try to learn lessons from real-life incidents? People shouldn't question anybody's actions? Everyone's actions in these situations are 100% perfect, and nobody should ever attempt to demonstrate some room for improvement? What EXACTLY are you proposing here? Only people who have been in these exact situations are capable of producing videos about them? Most people will never be in this situation. And, if someone is in this situation, it's probably a once in a lifetime thing. So, in your mind, nobody should create a YouTube channel to consolidate hundreds of these incidents, because nobody on the planet has ever been in hundreds of these incidents personally? I'm curious about what EXACTLY you propose he should do? Tear down the channel and never provide critiques/lessons?
    1
  13659. No. It has to actually BE self defense. But, this case wasn't. Smith knew in advance that they were coming there, and had been planning their murders for quite some time.
    1
  13660. Pffttt. I'm wrong? Let's see who agrees with me? The police. The prosecutors. The judges. The jury. The appellate court. The state supreme court. And, the Supreme Court of the USA. All of them found him guilty, and/or denied his appeals because of lack of merit (i.e. he was guilty). No, dewdrop, you are not allowed to plan murders and follow through on those plans, regardless of if it's in your own house. It must BE self defense. This wasn't self defense, not by a long shot. Smith went a million miles past self defense. Do you even know the facts of the case?
    1
  13661.  @Grathom15  So, you don't want people arrested for aggravated misdemeanors?
    1
  13662. Wow. Pure gibberish. First of all, I don't even know the basis of this suit you encourage. What is it, exactly? And, against whom? The ether? Don't just say, "sue!!!" Tell people who you think should be involved in the suit. Secondly, this woman didn't suffer any embarrassment from the arrest video being put onto the internet, because it wasn't released until 2.5 years later, which was 1.5 years after her death. Nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive.
    1
  13663. "They did not go to the moon. There is more evidence that they did not go." Yes, they did. And, there has never been a single piece of evidence against it that has ever been offered by anyone on Earth that doesn't crumble immediately under rudimentary scientific scrutiny.
    1
  13664. Amazing that you left out the part about the criminal wearing a balaclava mask and pointing a gun.
    1
  13665. What ARE you talking about? If the school board calls the cops and asks to trespass an individual, do you think the cops can just decide for themselves, as if the cops are judge and jury? Good grief. Grow a brain. The fault lies 100% on the school board itself. The cops have no choice but to arrest someone for trespassing if they won't leave when asked.
    1
  13666.  @shooks555  Good grief. You just supported my EXACT position, but you're too dumb to realize it.
    1
  13667.  @shooks555  Good gods, could you get any dumber? The 1st Amendment has nothing to do with it. The guy wasn't arrested for speaking. The guy was arrested for TRESPASSING. Sheeeessssshhhhh. Here are the concepts you do not understand: 1) You don't understand the difference between public property (like a sidewalk), vs. a building that the public owns (like a school or courthouse or government offices, etc.). You think that people are allowed to just be in a government building when they're asked to leave?? Um, no. Since you don't understand this example, I'll use other examples to illustrate the point: Do you think you're allowed to wander around a school when kids are there? No. Do you think you're allowed to go into a ladies' room and say, "this is public property, I'm allowed to be here"? No. Can you go into a judge's chamber and say "this is public property, I can be here"? No. When the school officials say that someone needs to leave, else be trespassed, then that's how it goes, public building or not. Public property (like a sidewalk) is NOT the same as a building that happens to be owned by the public. Good grief. 2) The cops make one decision, and one decision only, in a case like this. Did the person refuse to leave when asked? If yes, arrest. If no, don't arrest. They don't get to decide whether the trespass will hold up in a court or not. They decide only whether there is enough cause to make the arrest. And, the only cause involved here was whether the guy refused to leave (which he did). 3) Yes, courts throw stuff out all the time, for many reasons. Sometimes it's just leniency. Sometimes it's a wrongful arrest. Sometimes people take a plea. Sometimes there are multiple charges, and the judges/juries have to pick from them. You sit here and cite examples of people getting trespass charges dismissed, as if that's any different than the billion other charges that get dismissed. Yes, getting charges dismissed happens every day. So what? It doesn't mean that the cops shouldn't arrest. 4) The cops don't get to decide about the merits of a case. The cops are not the judge and jury. But, apparently, you demand them to be exactly that. You want the cops to decide whether or not the board had the right to trespass the guy. That's ridiculous. The BOARD decides that!!! Not the cops!!! Sheeessshh. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Look, dummy, I hope that every member of that board gets kicked out of their positions. I hope the man who was arrested sues the school/board. And, frankly, I hope every parent of any child in that school sues the school/board also. I would like to see the man who was arrested get at least $200,000 for wrongfully trespassing the guy, and for the underlying ridiculous policies they're trying to implement. And, I hope every other parent in that school system gets $40,000 from a lawsuit like this also. But, the cops DID NOTHING WRONG, you moron.
    1
  13668. Shame on you for pointing blame at people without knowing anything.
    1
  13669. Huh? They're called "body-cams" and they're required in most places nowadays. How exactly did they kill her?
    1
  13670. From showing the video? They got money.
    1
  13671. "accept things without evidence" Gee, where are you looking for the evidence, dewdrop? In videos made by taxicab drivers and yoga instructors that intentionally deceive you? No evidence? How about the fact that China, India, South Korea, and the USA, have all photographed the Apollo landers on the lunar surface? Some of those photos can even see foot paths, rover tracks, etc. No evidence?
    1
  13672. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. (Some details that Inside Edition will never tell you, for fear that it would ruin their false narrative.)
    1
  13673. Open investigations vs. closed.
    1
  13674. Wow. I mean, I know you deniers mainly do it so you can pretend to know things you don't. You have this secret knowledge that smart people don't have. But, this really takes the cake. Talk about being completely and totally out of touch with reality. Good grief.
    1
  13675. How would you have done it instead of the foils they used?
    1
  13676. Yes, that's called "incredulity." It's part of the psychological makeup of a delusional mind. People in that state just don't care one way or the other about evidence, or answers to their questions, or expertise, etc. The only thing that matters to that type of person is the incredulity.
    1
  13677. Yes, the sound is produced through the hammer, into the suit, and is picked up by the mic.
    1
  13678. Oh? Please elaborate. You work for the police department. It's been 2.5 years since this arrest. The woman in the video has been dead for 1.5 years, so, the investigation is long closed. You get a legal Freedom of Information Act request to release the video. Now, you have a choice: you can (a) release the video per the law, or (b) you can commit a felony and refuse to release it. Which would you choose?
    1
  13679. Thanks. I don't have time right now to deal with it. I'm heading out of town for a while, and don't know how much I'll be on this video. But, I've copied this message for when I get back.
    1
  13680. So, the police were supposed to just violate the Freedom of Information Act, and refuse to release the video? They already blocked its release for 2.5 years, you know. But, after she was dead 1.5 years, they can no longer block it from getting released. You do know she was long dead by the time anybody saw the video, right? Or, did your YouTube University education not tell you that?
    1
  13681. So, you think the moon landings were fake, and you're saying that those who correct you are no different than flat Earthers? Huh? Sorry, I'm with stusue, you didn't watch the video.
    1
  13682. I don't understand how radio works, therefore it's fake.
    1
  13683. Dewdrop, the first cell phones (just called car phones back then) were in the 1940s. Dewdrop, spare the world your infantile knowledge of how phones/radios work. If you don't understand that they can easily patch phone calls into radio transmitters, you can not make any claims whatsoever about understanding communications technologies. Dewdrop, Nixon was able to call to/from landlines and Air Force 1. He could call captains of ships in the ocean from his phone. Dewdrop, S-band analog radios are not like modern cell phones, and you have no business even asking about why/how one technology works, and another one doesn't, when you don't even understand the most entry level principles of radio. Not to mention, your version of "the conspiracy" would require that thousands of engineers designed and built the worldwide DSN communications network that made Apollo possible, yet, were unaware that it wouldn't work. Don't pretend that you're "skeptical," dewdrop. You wouldn't know what skepticism was if your life depended on it.
    1
  13684. Well, Apollo was born in the cold war. Its primary purpose was to express technological and industrial dominance over the Soviets. It was a message. "Mess with us, and we'll beat you, we will always beat you." And, this all came in a time when World War III was a real possibility, and nuclear weapons would undoubtedly have been involved. Many people think Apollo was the tip of the sword in an effort to make the Soviets back off before resulting in a massive nuclear war that would kill tens of millions of people. And, while we cannot turn back time to know for sure what would have happened without Apollo, I'd say that averting tens of millions of deaths is NOT a waste of money.
    1
  13685. Yeah, the blue moon with white clouds. Right.
    1
  13686. Don't you find it at least a little bit curious that the moon landing deniers all read and write exactly like you do? Did none of you people graduate the 3rd grade?
    1
  13687. He was not a scientist.
    1
  13688. Um, ok, a couple of things wrong here. First, this is a crime, not an infraction. Police can give warnings for infractions, but, not for crimes. It doesn't work that way. Secondly, multiple people called the police for this incident. One woman took video of the event, and showed it to the police. The report says that it was certainly not the discreet act the woman says as she's trying to avoid getting arrested. Instead, they describe the video as a very loud and publicly visible act, in view of multiple people including children.
    1
  13689. You're not sorry. You're extremely proud of it.
    1
  13690. Well, two things: (1) Nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive, because it wasn't released until 1.5 years after her death. And, (2) What happens to your suit when they say "Freedom of Information Act"?
    1
  13691. They say the same about you, and they'd be correct.
    1
  13692. YOU SAID: "Even if we could travel to the moon it would be impossible to land" == Why? What EXACTLY would prevent a landing? And, why do YOU know this, but no aerospace engineers from any country on Earth know this? YOU SAID: "we only see one landing ." == What do you mean? We have video of all 6 landings. And, how does this address your notion that it would be impossible? It's impossible because you think we only see one landing? YOU SAID: "it was staged" == On the moon. YOU SAID: "space capsule went around the earth once landed ." == Yet, amazingly, the Soviets (as well as dozens of other countries) tracked the Apollo missions by using radar and/of radio telescopes. If the capsule was around Earth, not the moon, why didn't the Soviets (and the dozens of other countries) say so? Why did they all show that the Apollo capsules were around the moon, not around Earth? YOU SAID: "the indivduals took an oath of secrecy" == Why would YOU think YOU know this? If they took an oath of secrecy, then where is your evidence of this? And, wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the oath of secrecy, if it's so commonly known, that YOU know about it? YOU SAID: "nixon took minds off vietnam atrocities happening ." == Dummy, oh dummy, Apollo 8 went to the moon before Nixon was even in office. The Apollo program was started in 1961. Nixon happened to become president when the program was sending the missions to the moon, but, Nixon had absolutely nothing to do with that. That's like saying Joe Biden developed the vaccine for COVID19. The vaccines were developed before he stepped into office. Same for Nixon and Apollo. Apollo was already sending missions into space, and one manned mission to the moon, before Nixon ever took office. You don't have any idea what you are talking about. YOU SAID: "two types of teachers sophists will deceive common folks and philosophers will tell the truth" == WHY DO YOU THINK THAT LANDING WAS IMPOSSIBLE!?!?!?!?!?!? Don't talk about philosophers. You made the claim that a moon landing was physically not possible. Why do you make that claim? YOU SAID: "did we go to the moon in a soup can" == Many people use that phrase "soup can" or "sardine can" because they were really small craft, barely enough room to accommodate the 3 astronauts. But, these were the most sophisticated piece of engineering ever developed at that time. YOU SAID: "we also have a picture with nixon with his arm around walt disney" == So what??? What does this have to do with anything? Tell me, dummy, if you believed the moon landings were real, would that mean that Nixon was never allowed to meet Walt Disney? "Sorry, Walt, I cannot meet you in person, because there are moon landings." How does this make sense to you? YOU SAID: "it shows one walking down a ladder but not coming out the window" == Because there wasn't a camera at that angle. So, in your mind, the moon landings could only be "real" if there were cameras at every possible angle? YOU SAID: "the back pack was larger than the window" == It's a door, not a window, but, I know English is not your native language. So, that's fine. But, listen to yourself. Does this even make sense to you? Do you REALLY believe that the 7000 people who designed the lander would all simultaneously forget to make the door big enough? Is that how this goes, in your mind? Or, hmmmm, maybe, just maybe, the thousands of engineers built it the correct size, and the conspiracy video you watched was lying to you? Which is more believable? YOU SAID: "the russians are aware of van allen radiation belts around the earth" == Yes. And, they still intended to go to the moon anyway. And, they acknowledged Apollo happened, because they know the radiation levels wouldn't have harmed the astronauts. And, James Van Allen himself said that the Apollo astronauts would get less than 1% of a fatal dose of radiation from the belts. What do you know that none of those people know? YOU SAID: "we will never land on the moon never" == Why? YOU SAID: "the camera was filming from the surface" == Which one? You have to be more specific. There were numerous cameras used across the 6 landing missions. I cannot respond to such vague claims. YOU SAID: "putting a camera on the moon is impossible" == Pfftttt. So, now all of the space agencies that put cameras on the moon are lying about it too? China put a camera on the moon a couple of years ago. Was that impossible also? YOU SAID: "area 51 air force base within nevada was the scene" == Funny, the mountains and surface features don't match Nevada. They match THE MOON!!! YOU SAID: "all politicians are puppets" == Well, one could sometimes argue that they have the same intellectual capacity as puppets. But, that's a whole different story. YOU SAID: "trump and clinton mentioned it at the debates." == WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO LAND ON THE MOON!?!?!?! When you need to mention people in debates from 50 years later, sorry, but you have NOTHING. This is all a major distraction from the main topic. You're spewing mountains of gibberish into YouTube to avoid illustrating why you believe what you wrote in your original posting. .
    1
  13693.  @dharakis  Did you even read anything I wrote? What's wrong with you? Why do you post so much nonsense, and then refuse to address a single question or challenge to your ridiculous opinions?
    1
  13694. Huh? Why?
    1
  13695. I think virtually all countries will arrest someone for putting on this kind of show in front of children. The police didn't shame her. The took her away from the restaurant to question her outside of view of anybody else. And, they kept the arrest video private for 2.5 years, and nobody saw it until long after she was dead.
    1
  13696. Do you even know what trespassing is? Why would you think the cops arrested them for free speech? The charge was trespassing.
    1
  13697.  @mikehenkes  YOU SAID: "I do not care what that charge is." == OBVIOUSLY!!!! If you cared, then you'd know how wrong you are. But, you don't care if you're right or wrong. YOU SAID: "He was arrested because an elected government body decided they did not want to hear a/multiple citizens grievance with them." == Yes, that is what it boils down to. Congratulations. You finally got something correct. YOU SAID: "Period all stop the end." == Wrong. The arrest is where the process BEGINS, not where it ends. Good grief. This will have its day in court. And, it will likely be followed by lawsuits. This is probably going to go on for at least 2 years. So, spare me the "the end" comment. This is only the beginning. YOU SAID: "It's foolish to even consider that an elected body can have a scheduled meeting open to the public with a scheduled time and for you to even assert that within that time he could be trespassing." == Wrong. The officials can trespass someone at any point they see fit. If they do, then the police must abide, and arrest for trespassing. YOU SAID: "Stop defending the Blue Line." == Stop slandering the Blue Line. YOU SAID: "It as it always does will only defend the elites." == Pffttt. Hilarious!!!! You think those ridiculous clowns in the school board are "elites"?? What's wrong with your brain? They are an incompetent band of buffoons that deserve to be kicked out of their positions for their ridiculous policies. I hope that the man who got arrested sues the board/school and gets at least $200,000 for their hideous actions. And, I hope every other parent joins a class-action lawsuit, and gets at least $40,000 each. And, I hope the school board members are booted out the door, and never serve on any board ever again. But, you're calling them "elites"?? What??!?!?!? Good gods, you are one backward individual. Seriously, you have a lot of loose screws. YOU SAID: "They will make up and or charge you with BS to do it." == Wrong. Trespassing is a real charge. If the officials ask you to leave, you must leave. That's what trespassing is. It's not "BS," it's a real thing. And, the cops must abide. YOU SAID: "They are the elites paid protection service not ours." == Oh, spare me, you backward clown. If someone was at your house, and you asked the person to leave, and the person refuses, you can call the police, and they will trespass the person and arrest him. They'll protect you in the same way that they'll protect a school board. Like it or not, public building or not, the officials are allowed to trespass people. That's just the reality that you do not understand. The school isn't a sidewalk. You can't be trespassed from walking on a sidewalk. But, a publicly owned building is not all that different than a private home, when it comes to trespassing. The officials of that public building can trespass someone, the same way a private individual can trespass someone. Look, dummy, the cops are not there to pass judgment. They are not judges and juries. They determine if a trespass is occurring (which it was), and make the arrest. The rest is up to the court system. THAT is where the real battles are done. But, people like you don't seem to understand that. And, frankly, you fail to reason how much stronger the man's legal case is after being arrested. The board is going to go down even HARDER because they had the man arrested. They're going to wish they never stopped that meeting. They're going to wish they never trespassed the man. But, now that they did, those "elites" (sigh, they're as stupid as you are), are really going to go down even harder because they did that. They're certainly not getting elected back into their positions. And, frankly, I doubt they'll even be able to serve the rest of their current terms. Look, clown, just admit that you have no idea what you're talking about. Is it really that hard? What's so difficult about just being wrong? Why do people like you refuse to see reality?
    1
  13698. Good gods, I sure hope you're 12 years old. If you're an adult, you're past all hope.
    1
  13699. Good job demonstrating that you didn't watch the video before commenting. This video is making a mockery of the conspiracy nuts.
    1
  13700. Sorry, but that's pure nonsense. Of course you can defend yourself. But, it has to BE self defense. This Smith case was nowhere near self defense. Not by a mile.
    1
  13701.  @gematria101  .toidi na er'uoY
    1
  13702. Of course Patrick doesn't watch the full video before making comments. He just doesn't want to take in any information that counters his delusions. Yes, Patrick, the sharp edged dust did quite a lot of damage to the Apollo suits, and the longest Apollo mission spent 74 hours on the lunar surface, and they only walked on the surface for around 23 hours. Sorry, those same suits cannot be used for super-long missions with tons more EVAs.
    1
  13703. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake. That's essentially your entire viewpoint. Sorry, but, I'm not going to sit here and explain stuff to you over and over and over. All it ever results in is you running off and starting new threads of gibberish. You're not studying Apollo, Patrick. You're watching videos made by people who know just as little as you do, then regurgitating the same nonsense. The suits held up, they were damaged, and wouldn't hold up to a whole bunch more EVAs, but they held up. They weren't going to scrap their mission plans over that.
    1
  13704. Pffttt. So, you abandoned your first thread, and now started a new one, stating the exact same garbage again? You are simply refusing to face facts, and no matter how many times it's explained to you, you will just refuse to listen. No wonder you think the way you do. If your mind is incapable of ever accepting outside input, you're doomed to think this way forever.
    1
  13705. Still spewing gibberish, huh? The courts have ruled that you're absolutely wrong. And, as has been displayed in your prior postings, you have no knowledge whatsoever of the topic. You even say now that you simply cannot be convinced. That's the very definition of having a delusional mind. You have decided, in advance, to reject all input. Enjoy your inevitable prison term.
    1
  13706.  @nonope5414  Yes, she did. It's in this video description, it's in her lawsuit against the store (which she lost), and it's in a million journalist articles online.
    1
  13707. Probably not. I'm sure they (there were multiple callers) know darned well not to trust a single thing Inside Edition says.
    1
  13708. But, if they reported honestly without politicizing it, how would they ever get enough hits and ad revenue?
    1
  13709. No, she had a lousy position. And, it was too late by then to go in and look at the evidence. This video picks up in the middle. But, you still see the tail end of the cop repeatedly asking for her ID. In the full version, you'd see that the cop asked many times for her ID, which she refused to give, but is legally required to do. I mean, personally, I always just show the receipt. It's easy, and puts an happy end to the situation very quickly. But, ok, if she wants the crusade instead of presenting her receipt, alright, that's fine, it's within her rights not to show the receipt if she doesn't want. However, she must identify herself (she refused), and cooperate on a very basic level (which she did not). She is not allowed to obstruct/obfuscate/resist (she did all three). So, sorry, but, she put herself in deeper hot water than just investigating a potential theft. She escalated this situation by committing those additional crimes, and she was very lucky that they dropped those charges also, when they dropped the theft charge.
    1
  13710. I sense a Nobel Prize in your future, for sure. Just go right ahead and disprove Newton's 3rd law of motion. Go ahead and disprove the law of conservation of momentum. Rewrite the entirety of physics. Sure. Post it on YouTube too... not a physics journal... sure.
    1
  13711. It's the very same burn-in effect on the vidicon that happened often back in those days with that kind of setup. Basically, the background gets "burned in" and the stuff in the foreground then looks transparent. Go look at old security camera footage from department stores with the similar kinds of cameras mounted to the walls, and you'll see the same thing. Everyone looks like a ghost because the background gets burned in. Given your next posting, it's highly doubtful that you really wanted an answer to your question, though.
    1
  13712. I love the USA... but yes, I'm very concerned that it's going downhill fast.
    1
  13713. Multiple people called for this incident. One of them DID record it, and gave a copy of the video to the police. Needless to say, it didn't match her sob story about nobody being around. To the contrary, it was a very loud and public display in front of multiple people including children. And, sorry, but with her extensive criminal background, felony term spent in prison, and a million other arrests, with open warrants, guess what? ... she was getting arrested no matter what.
    1
  13714. Multiple witnesses called. One recorded it and gave the video to the police. She admitted it while being arrested.
    1
  13715. Are you under the impression that ionic radiation is like bullets? You get hit and then instantly die? Um, no. That type of radiation is more of a cumulative effect. Yes, it's deadly, but, it takes about a week or two of exposure before you'd get a fatal dose. That's why they avoid the belts for the orbital missions that last a long time. But, for missions that can zip right through, it's no big deal.
    1
  13716. It's the burn-in effect. The background got "burned in" to the vidicon. That stuff happened quite frequently with that old style equpiment.
    1
  13717. Well, sure, once upon a time, a realtor. But, she abandoned her career and family (including a 6 month old son, and another son) more than a decade ago in order to lead a life of crime and drugs. She did a couple of years in a Florida prison back in 2018, and had a mile long arrest record before and after. According to her landlord, her new career was as a "dancer" at the local gentlemen's club, and her neighbors said she did "extras" for cash in her apartment.
    1
  13718. The police didn't post anything. But, after 2.5 years, which was also 1.5 years after she was already dead, the police can no longer block a Freedom of Information Act request for the video.
    1
  13719. Huh? Just read the police report if you want to know who the 3 officers were. And, they never released the arrest video until 2.5 years later, long after she was dead, and that was the result of a legal FOIA request. What more do you want here?
    1
  13720. Yes, let's do away with the police altogether. If people might harm themselves when police do their jobs correctly, this means that we should not have any police at all, so criminals won't harm themselves.
    1
  13721. It's for ad revenue.
    1
  13722. Huh? How did they kill her?
    1
  13723. Um, alright. But, what exactly would the family sue for? What's the basis of any kind of claim?
    1
  13724. What isn't ethical? Putting on a show in front of children? Yeah, I agree.
    1
  13725. I don't know what you're talking about, and neither do you.
    1
  13726. "The lander came in at an angle but after it landed not only no dust but not even a slight skid mark." He had canceled nearly all of the horizontal movement by touchdown. But, if you're interested in seeing skid marks, check out some of the other landings, namely Apollo 14. Check out AS14-66-9255 and the surrounding images. The lander slid to the north by 6 or 8 inches after touching down.
    1
  13727. "Those mission control computers were loaded with test scenarios so they could have received test data the whole time thinking it was real data." Hilarious!! And, dewdrop, how do you "fake" the radar reflections and radio telescope signals as observed by dozens of countries (including enemies)? You do know that there were tracking dishes all around the world, right? You do know that the Soviets were tracking Apollo also, right? "Easy to fake." OK, explain how to fake radar and radio telescope tracking to all of the various countries that did so. Can you?
    1
  13728. A) Would you say the same if it was a man in a playground? The parents should just take their children to a different playground and let the man do his thing? B) Arrest = 2021. Suicide = March 2022. Arrest video made public = November 2023. Sorry, but the arrest video had no relevance on her suicide, because nobody saw it until 1.5 years after she died. Congratulations on being EXACTLY the audience Inside Edition wants. Ignore the facts. Go on emotion. Never double check to see if what they're saying is accurate. Bravo.
    1
  13729. Yes, they did. The police didn't release the arrest video until November 24, 2023. They could no long block a FOIA request, that long after she was dead. (She died 2 years ago.)
    1
  13730. News producers watch all feeds.
    1
  13731. I've tried many times to elaborate (both yesterday, and in response to you from a few hours ago). But, it's blocking my replies. You'll have to go learn how news producers do their jobs, but, for whatever the reason, I cannot post it here.
    1
  13732. I give up. It won't let me post the details without blocking.
    1
  13733. Did your parents try to chemically abort you in the womb, and you survived somehow (with massive brain damage)?? What IS wrong with you? I explained how to find the videos you asked for, dummy. Links are not allowed in this comment section. So, instead, I gave you the name of the video channel. Is your search engine broken? Good gods, you're dumb.
    1
  13734.  @DC_R  YOU SAID: "I love the part where they FAKE their WHEREABOUTS" == They never faked their whereabouts. YOU SAID: "Haaaa!!! They wont even let you see the link I provided. Gee I wonder why?" == Because, as I already told you, and you apparently ignored, links are not allowed. The channel owner is blocking any messages with links. That's why I spelled out the YouTube channel to you, because, ya know, there's that thing called a "search bar" that you can use instead. YOU SAID: "I Only send the link with no words attached and it gets deleted . Yeeeeah these people are trust worthy" == Get used to it. I mean, at least nowadays, YouTube sort of lets you know it's being blocked, because it disappears (at least sometimes). But, a few years back, it was worse. You'd be the only one who could see your own messages. You'd post a message, and the only way you'd know if it was blocked or not is to use a different browser that's not signed into YouTube, so you can find out if everyone else could see it or not. To me, that's ridiculous. YouTube would be blocking everyone else from seeing your message, but you yourself could see it (thus, you'd assume everyone else could see it too). As for being "trustworthy," spare the world your silly conspiracies. Links are either blocked or allowed by the channel owner.
    1
  13735. YOU SAID: "Since they won't respect me I wont respect you." == Wait, what? Since WHO won't respect you? YouTube? So, if YouTube comment rules don't "respect" you, then you won't respect me? What? I don't work for YouTube. I have no idea what you're talking about. YOU SAID: "I'm not EVEN going to read what you sent" == Hey, dummy, don't ask questions if you don't want answers. If you don't want to read what I write, then that's fine, don't. But, at the same time, don't sit there and declare I'm wrong about what I write, when you refuse to even read it. And, don't sit here and pretend you want answers to questions, then ignore the answers. YOU SAID: "talk to me on the other thread where I sent the link" == Dummy, oh dummy, what don't you understand here? I told you THREE TIMES now, links are blocked by the channel owner. If you posted messages with links, I cannot see those messages. Not in this thread, and not in the other thread either. YOU SAID: "I don't have time to play with these children" == "I'm not going to read what you wrote, but you're wrong about what you wrote, and I'm going to continue to post links, even though it's been repeatedly explained to me that links are blocked. If YouTube disrespect me, I'm going to disrespect someone else for no reason." Um, no, you don't get to call OTHER people "children." Good grief, your projection is amazing.
    1
  13736.  @DC_R  YOU SAID: "All I'm doing is providing a link. Genius. WHERE ARE YOURS? EXACTLY" == Dummy, don't sit there and tell me that you refuse to read what I wrote, and now ask me the same questions (that I've already answered about 4x now). I'm done here. You're too ridiculous for me.
    1
  13737. These levels of inflation aren't sustainable without the bubble eventually bursting. But, the key economy driver is productivity. If overall productivity stays up, the bubble can't burst all that badly. A "correction," but not a collapse. But, we'll see. If productivity doesn't survive the bubble burst, and drops along side, then yes, a depression could happen.
    1
  13738. Hold on just a second. You posted a half dozen times, and asked the most remedial easy questions. If you don't understand very simple concepts, such as "how did they get back if the lander is still on the surface," sorry, but you're in no position to question what makes sense or not. It's quite clear that you're asking questions expecting there to be no answers. But, this is just downright ridiculous. Your answers are readily available. And, get real here, do you REALLY believe that the 450,000 people who worked on Apollo forgot to include a mechanism to come back home? Really? And, seriously, not a single one of them for 55 years has ever said, "hey, wait a minute, we never built something to get back home, something is wrong here!!!"?? No? But, YOU figured it out, and you're pretending to ask questions about it now?
    1
  13739. But, they didn't. None of this was posted until she was already dead for 1.5 years.
    1
  13740. Huh? What outcome would that be?
    1
  13741. The police kept the arrest video private for 2.5 years. But, eventually, when the investigation has been closed long enough, they can no longer block a legal Freedom of Information Act request. And, given that she was already dead for 1.5 of those years, yeah, they had to release the arrest video. What course would you have taken to do it differently?
    1
  13742. Huh? Not the brightest bulb, eh?
    1
  13743. Yet, not a single expert on Earth can find this evidence you think you have. And, instead, all we have are conspiracy videos presenting what they think is evidence, but all of it falls apart instantly under scrutiny. Right. Sure. You really know what you're talking about alright. You claimed in another posting that the Van Allen belts would cause people to burn up. That's how little you know about the topic.
    1
  13744. Please produce your evidence that the hotel workers and the hospital workers took money and split it?
    1
  13745. "NASA made a mechanically perfect moon buggy running faultlessly on the lunar hostile environment" Dewdrop, NASA doesn't make anything. They don't make rockets. They don't make spacecraft. They don't make moon buggies. NASA just facilitates. Contractors design and build everything. In the case of the rovers, they contracted GM and Boeing to design and build them. And, perfect? Huh? Every single one of them had broken fenders. The rear steering on Apollo 15's rover didn't work correctly. The tilt mechanism for the Apollo 15 rover camera mount broke. I mean, good grief, do you know NOTHING about this topic? "with a perfect functioning solar panel" See what I mean? You know NOTHING about the topic. No rover used solar panels, dewdrop. The only attempt to use solar panels on Apollo missions failed miserably, and that was on Apollo 11 to power the EASEP instruments. They failed in 3 weeks, never to work again. And, that was the last time (and first time) they ever used solar panels. Just quit pretending to know things you don't. Nobody likes people like you.
    1
  13746. Huh? Were you intentionally trying to get every word wrong?
    1
  13747. She never showed up at court for this arrest. So, no, she never made it onto any such registry. Had she shown up, even with her extensive criminal history, it's very likely that this would have been negotiated down to a minor infraction.
    1
  13748. Her "job" (according to her landlord) was as a stripper at the local club. You don't lose that job for this offense. You probably get MORE fans and money.
    1
  13749. She was a convicted felon who served a term in a Florida prison about 6 years ago. She lost her gun rights long before. But, she managed to have a gun anyway, and used it on herself.
    1
  13750. Reputation? Huh? WHAT reputation? She was a convicted felon and drug addict who couldn't stop getting herself arrested. That WAS her reputation!!
    1
  13751. This has GOT to be a joke. Or, please tell me it's a joke. So, in your mind, it's WORSE to be educated. And, the "smart" ones are the ones who listen to 10-second quote-mines, rather than actually learning about the technology. Good gods.
    1
  13752. Do you really think you have a valid opinion when you cannot tell the difference between "right to bare arms," vs. "right to bear arms"? One of them means that you don't have to wear sleeves. The other means you may carry a firearm. Guess which one you're talking about....
    1
  13753.  @AdamAdamHDL  I'm not the one who can't read and write.
    1
  13754. Dyslexia doesn't result in confusing "bare" with "bear." And, your opinions about the right to "bare arms" (sigh) make no sense either. Criminals will not care whether they have the right to bear arms or not. They're going to bear them. Now, you can either decide to bear arms to give yourself a 50/50 chance against those criminals, or you can not bear them, and give yourself a 1/99 chance against those criminals. Your choice. But, given that you have the reading and writing skills of a 2nd grader, I don't exactly trust that you make very many good choices in life.
    1
  13755. Your delusion exists on too many levels to even list. But, for starters: No, you don't have advanced writing skills. I didn't commit any personal attacks. I already elaborated on a position that had absolutely nothing to do with you at all (hence also not a personal attack). We're done here, right? There's no getting through to people like you, because you live on another planet.
    1
  13756. Yeah, it'll be interesting to see who's correct. Maybe somewhere in the middle? But, the fact remains, the only reason anybody has to even speculate is because Musk refuses to reveal the weight (or the price) of the truck. There isn't a truck manufacturer anywhere on the planet that would ever get away with that... outside the cult of Musk.
    1
  13757. "There's no covert effort to hide something" Correct, they are quite overt about hiding it.
    1
  13758. Huh? At this point, you have got to be joking. Obviously, revealing the weight of the truck will allow buyers to determine if the truck can haul enough cargo to make it worth their while to buy one.
    1
  13759. Karen, do you REALLY believe the lying criminal thieving drug addict prisoner didn't get her meds? Or, maybe, just maybe, did the thieving drug addict simply claim not to get her meds, because she went through her 2 week supply in 2 days to get high?? Ask yourself why we don't see the part of the "news" story where they went and asked the administrators why she didn't get her meds. Do you suppose it might be because the answer was, "of course we gave her the meds, but she lies constantly, because she's a drug addict, and those things are powerful stuff with a lot of street value, or she just blew through them to get her daily fix"? Maybe? Maybe? C'mon. Want to buy a bridge I have for sale?
    1
  13760.  @jmrico1979  I would argue with your term "original." The tapes that were lost were from Parkes, Australia (as you probably know). But, they were never considered "original." The primary copies were always going to be the ones in Houston. The ones in Parkes were a bit unique because they were closest to the source, and were recorded in the raw pre-NTSC format. All other copies were in NTSC format, after the conversion. But, the word "original" doesn't really apply.
    1
  13761. Weeeelllllll, "probably" was the reason he found "probable cause" - what with all of the obstruction, obfuscation, and resisting. But, in the end, yes, she had her receipt.
    1
  13762. Huh? You wouldn't call in someone putting on a show in front of children? And, how did police "escalate" it?
    1
  13763.  @01mustang05  Because it's easy and friendly. You're not required by law to provide a receipt. But, not showing it is a can of worms that is just so unnecessary.
    1
  13764.  @01mustang05  Typical. When you're completely wrong, and proven so, you just change topics.
    1
  13765.  @01mustang05  I'm right and you're wrong because her own attorneys do not even agree with anything you've written in these threads you keep posting in. They never even filed a lawsuit against the police. And, they lost the only lawsuit they did file (against the store). The courts have spoken. Her own attorneys have spoken via their actions. And, on top of all of that, you have demonstrated repeatedly that you have no understanding of the topic.
    1
  13766. Quit making stuff up. No, you didn't. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released to the public.
    1
  13767. It's blocking my replies, not sure if you saw them. Bottom line: July 1, 2022 = arrest. March 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released to the public.
    1
  13768. July 1, 2022 = arrest. March 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released to the public.
    1
  13769.  @michaelstillman1171  So, your sayin they lauched da rovar two da mun wit a trampoleen?
    1
  13770. Well, sure, who could argue with that? But, maybe she'd be alive today if he just arrested her and she was serving a prison term. At least then she'd be "safe" (relatively)?
    1
  13771. Nope, sick and tired of you shoving more and more ads down people's throats. Not watching. Thumbs down based on excessive ads alone.
    1
  13772. WHY WON'T YOU WRITE IT UP FOR RADIOBIOLOGY JOURNALS!!??! Why are you on YOUTUBE?
    1
  13773. And, in the years you've been posting gibberish like this, you still haven't learned a single thing. What's that like, to have your mind completely frozen like that... unable to accept any new input?
    1
  13774. Dewdrop, yes, MANY of the photos on NASA's website are "fake" (modified, photoshopped, cropped, combines, whatever). They tell you which ones they modified, and which ones they didn't. But, when this "Russian AI" doesn't specify which photos, and what was wrong with them, and just say, "a couple are fake," it doesn't mean anything at all. It just demonstrates that you will believe ANYTHING that supports your predetermined conclusion. And, it's utterly hilarious that you'd focus on "a couple of photos" anyway. They took 7,000 photos on the surface, and 110,000 photos from lunar orbit. Did this Russian AI discover any more fakes, or just a couple? What's wrong with you? Seriously, how can you function when your mind is so far gone?
    1
  13775. Um. OK. On what basis? What's the claim you want to make?
    1
  13776. For doing their jobs correctly?
    1
  13777. To answer you directly, he was arrested for trespassing because he was asked to leave, but refused. The board ended the meeting early, and asked everyone to leave. Now, I hope they get sued into oblivion, and are kicked out of their board positions, and never serve on another board for the rest of their pathetic lives. But, whether you like it or not, it is within their purview to trespass people.
    1
  13778. See, there's this thing called a "truck" in between the criminal and the cops. There are these things called "bullets," which do not penetrate this thing called a "truck." And, until/unless they give cops some beefier weapons and ammo, those little 9mm hollow points just aren't going to penetrate very well. They did exactly as their training would indicate, which is to keep on firing until the attacker is stopped. Yes, that does mean that almost all of the bullets either won't penetrate at all, or, if they do, there won't be much energy remaining to do much damage to the attacker. But, yes, eventually, enough of them do get through to get a few hits. I mean, did you see the guy's chin? He got hit straight in the face, and all it did was cause a minor scar on his chin. Now, is that because the cops didn't shoot correctly? Or, is that because the bullet had to penetrate a truck or glass first, and almost all of the energy was gone by the time it his his chin? Did you watch 2:10 in this video? The same is true in reverse. The attacker fired numerous shots at the cop, and the bullets just bounced off of the glass, barely even causing a mark, not even breaking the glass. No, it's not bullet proof glass, because that type of glass actually absorbs the hit, not causing it to bounce off.
    1
  13779. Leon Silver, yes, excited geologist.
    1
  13780. Open investigations vs. closed.
    1
  13781. Yes, especially because the arrest video didn't even get released until 1.5 years after she was dead.
    1
  13782. No. She suffered virtually no humiliation. As a matter of fact, given her public display (which, according to the police and the videos and witnesses, wasn't the discreet little act she's pretending when she's trying to avoid getting arrested), it seems that "shame" isn't part of her vocabulary. And, the arrest video wasn't made public until 1.5 years after she died. So, I hardly think she suffered any shame from it.
    1
  13783. Secure the area first.
    1
  13784. Well, at the time of her death, the medical examiner's report said that her body weighed 86 pounds, and that her implants were jutting out quite unnaturally from her emaciated body that emphasized how unhealthy she had become. I haven't seen photos of her toward her final days, but, clearly, in the year or so between this arrest video and when she committed suicide, she changed a lot, and didn't look the same.
    1
  13785. How do you shame someone who is already dead?
    1
  13786. A) There are no store owners per se. Walgreens isn't franchised, and the stores are owned by the publicly traded company. If you have a retirement plan at your job at all, odds are pretty strong that you're one of the owners, by virtue of the fact that you probably own stock. B) Karen's what? Or, was that your barely English attempt to write "Karens," but, you wrongly think an apostrophe makes a word plural?
    1
  13787.  @Luis-gm1go  Well, he was wearing a helmet. But, the rest of what you said was correct.
    1
  13788. Homer's car was awesome, though.
    1
  13789. YOU SAID: "Man has never been to the moon." == 24 men went to the moon, and 12 walked on it. YOU SAID: "JFK was told it was possible, be he was not a scientist, astrophysicist, rocket engineer, nor a hollywood director." == Oh, so JFK was advised wrongly, and the reason he fell for the wrong advice was because he wasn't a scientist, astrophysicist, rocket engineer, or Hollywood director. So, by that logic, because YOU know better than JFK did, this means, by your own logic, that YOU are a scientist, or astrophysicist, or rocket engineer, or Hollywood director. See, in your mind, you are saying that someone can be wrong about the capabilities to go to the moon if that person isn't one of those things. Thus, if you're claiming to know the opposite, you are, by definition, claiming to be one of those things. Otherwise, you'd be in the same boat as JFK, and not knowing what you're talking about, because you aren't one of those things. Which one are you? YOU SAID: "Today, we have not been back, and NASA says we can't go back because "We lost all the technology from the 1960s."" == Yes, that technology IS lost. Do you think it isn't? Do you see any working command modules, lunar modules, Saturn V boosters, S-Band global analog radio communications networks, launch facilities capable of launching a Saturn V, training facilities, etc.? Yes, the technology is "lost" in the sense that we don't have it any longer. But, it's not "lost" in the sense that we forgot how. That would be ridiculous. YOU SAID: "We can go to Mars, but not back to the moon," == What??? Who said we can go to Mars? There is no such program anywhere on Earth to send people to Mars, nor is there any hardware to do so. What ARE you talking about? YOU SAID: "Mr. Elon Musk? lol 😂 It's all a hollywood movie." == What ARE you talking about? What's wrong with you?
    1
  13790. Just as a matter of note: you might want to be careful of getting flagged for spamming. You have copied and pasted the same messages many times within the same video, and others. Eventually, YouTube deletes your account for that. It took a long time, but there were some very ignorant spammers doing the same thing (i.e. felix mendez, jeanette loveridge, and Thomas Pickering), who consistently posted the same messages over and over across multiple videos, multiple times, and eventually, YouTube shut them all down, and they're gone now. I don't want to see one of the "good guys" suffering the same fate. YouTube doesn't give a damn about what you believe or don't believe, but, they don't tolerate people spamming the comments with repeated messages every day. My two cents.
    1
  13791.  @scottcrawford3745  No, Scott. They were fiberoptic.
    1
  13792.  @scottcrawford3745  You know, Scott, the most annoying part about people like you... you do your stupid "lol" and "son" in your comment, disgustingly laughing at others, as if you're so superior... yet, you're dead wrong... but, you won't admit it, will you? How annoying. Does anybody in your life actually like you?
    1
  13793.  @scottcrawford3745  I'm not the one saying "lol" and "son." That was you. And, how did your mistake turn into a conversation about my opinion of myself? Hey, next time you want to laugh at others for what they say, maybe you should make it a point to actually be CORRECT about your assertions, huh? Yes, you condescending maniac, the Cadillac had a fiberoptic system to show when the lights were on. You asserted that it didn't have that system (which they did, for almost 20 years by that point), and you disrespectfully said "lol" and "son" in the process. So, basically, now, you're demanding respect?? You just disrespected others, but you want respect in return? Is that how this goes?
    1
  13794. Yeah, it's people like this that are ridiculous. There are approximately a million police officers and marshals and sheriffs/deputies, etc., in the USA. Most incidents of shooting are completely justified, like when facing armed and combative criminals. The police shoot or injure about a quarter million people per year. A vast majority of those aren't even shootings. And, for the few that are shootings, most of those are completely justified, dealing with hostile and armed criminals, who would shoot police if they didn't get shot first. There are approximately 25-30 incidents per year that are even questionable. And, most of those end up still being in the cops' favor. So, out of the approximate million officers in the country, how many of them are "running around shooting people"? 5 or 10? And, we hear about every single one of them in the press. The press doesn't talk about the 50-100 shootings per week in Chicago. Every single week. Nope. But, if there's a bad cop somewhere in Oklahoma, yup, we hear every single bit of it. And, we get dewdrops like this, going around and accusing cops of just running around and shooting people. It's outlandish.
    1
  13795. I'm sure the people who called the police know the real story, not the 1 minute long snow job by Inside Edition.
    1
  13796. Is this a joke? You expect people to go up to someone in the middle of cranking in front of children, and have a conversation? Also, the police didn't make anything a public matter. They kept the arrest video private until 1.5 years after she was dead. You don't know what you're talking about.
    1
  13797.  @TheWokeFlatEarthTruth  I realize you were just joking, but, the tripod wasn't set up by the time Aldrin was stepping out of the lander. The photos of Aldrin coming out of the lander were taken by the 70mm Hasselblad Armstrong had.
    1
  13798. "just moving his vehicle was "bait", so all the cops ...." Um, yeah. If he had called the cops ahead of time also, to help set up the "bait," that would have been fine. You're allowed to trap criminals. You just don't get to gun them down.
    1
  13799. "officers put an entire clips into 1 person to "neutralize"" Sometimes it takes that much. Sometimes, even that's not enough. But, they don't sit there and stew and taunt, wait a while, then unload some more. When the threat is neutralized, they stop. That's not what happened here.
    1
  13800. @ "He had no idea the people would come that day." Is this a joke? He parked his car a quarter mile away. He unscrewed the lightbulbs in his house. He went outside, got two tarps to use as body bags, brought them back inside, and placed them exactly where he planned to shoot them. He then recorded himself rehearsing what he planned to say to authorities. He also said on that recording that he planned to shoot "in the left eye" (and, later, that's exactly where he shot the girl from point-blank range as she was crying on the ground from the torso shots). Yet, you're going to say he didn't know they were coming? You have GOT to be joking.
    1
  13801. Huh? Want to try this message again when you're sober? Nothing you say makes any sense.
    1
  13802. I wouldn't know, but, my guess would be that they're well aware never to trust Inside Edition (where facts don't matter).
    1
  13803. Well, your point is that there isn't a "finish line" in that race. Nobody had really declared what "first" would define who "won." But, I disagree. I think the finish line was declared on May 25, 1961, when Kennedy said that the goal was the moon. And, I think the Soviets acknowledged that race when they began their own moon program simultaneously. None of those other "firsts" were ever even part of the consideration of the "finish line," once both countries engaged in that race.
    1
  13804. What charges would those be?
    1
  13805.  @randyschissler5791  A) Just FYI: they could only see the solar corona from orbit. B) Just FYI: the astronauts couldn't see stars from the lunar surface because it was daytime. The exception is if they used the optics in the LEM. There were some comments that a couple of them made, thinking they may have seen a couple of stars here and there. But, it's more likely that they were planets. The planets are visible at dusk on Earth, and then it takes a while longer before you can see stars. A similar concept may have been true with astronauts while on the moon. They might have seen a few planets, but probably didn't see stars. C) All astronauts saw stars just fine when on the night side of the moon in orbit.
    1
  13806. The Taser is used for resisting arrest, not for refusing to provide a receipt.
    1
  13807. The guy was wearing a balaclava ski mask in the middle of a Kentucky summer, pointed a gun straight at the officer's head (visible if you go frame by frame at 0:08, and visible again at 5:02 next to a 2x4 piece of wood on the ground), and you have the audacity to claim that he was unarmed? Sorry, dewdrop, your hatred is showing.
    1
  13808. Not to mention, his own father and attorney said he was armed.
    1
  13809. Not the brightest bulb, eh dewdrop?
    1
  13810. Um, silly dewdrop, I'm not the one claiming the guy was unarmed, while you can see the gun in the video, his own father said he had a gun, and his own family's attorney said he was armed. But, you think he wasn't. You're definitely not the brightest bulb.
    1
  13811. Huh? So, it's my fault that you don't understand photography?
    1
  13812. Which "original" did you see? The video of the beach incident itself, as taken by one of the witnesses? I didn't think that was ever made public.
    1
  13813. Nope. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. The arrest video had nothing to do with her suicide, because she was long dead before anybody saw it.
    1
  13814. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. The arrest video had nothing to do with her suicide, because she was long dead before anybody saw it.
    1
  13815. Incorrect. The arrest video wasn't released until long after she was dead.
    1
  13816. Why did she commit suicide? Well, I won't pretend to know her, but, her life was in shambles for a decade. She served a prison term for stealing cars. She had an arrest record a mile long for various things. Multiple judgements for other thefts and crimes. Drug and alcohol charges galore. Numerous open warrants for failing to appear in court. She tried to change her name to evade the police, but the courts wouldn't let her. She had left her family behind to live a life of drugs and crime about a decade ago. After she died, it took a long time before anybody even knew, because the landlord had to find her when she went looking for the overdue rent. She must not have had many friends or family, if she was left rotting away like that, with nobody looking for her. According to her landlord, she was a stripper at the local club. Neighbors said that she also did "private" cash encounters with numerous men in her apartment. I mean, again, I didn't know her, I merely read the police reports and her arrest/prison record, and the interviews with her landlord and neighbors, but, it sounds like she had a heck of a lot more problems. I'll let you decide why she killed herself.
    1
  13817. Did you look at the meta data on any posting of the arrest video before November 24, 2023? You'll see that those were "updates." The arrest video was not released until long after she was dead.
    1
  13818. This arrest was July 1, 2021. She committed suicide sometime in February or March of 2022 (unknown about exactly when, because she was discovered on March 31, but, she had been dead a while). November 24, 2023 was the release date of the arrest video due to FOIA request. If you found any article or posting before that date, you must look at the meta data and see that those were updates added later, or you can see that the website shows it was only uploaded a month or two ago, despite the date shown on the article.
    1
  13819. Well, it's pretty doubtful that this had anything to do with her suicide. I mean, why this arrest? Why not any of her other million arrests? Why not her felony prison term she served? Why not all of the drug and alcohol charges? In the bigger scheme of things, this little incident meant nothing.
    1
  13820. It's called the Freedom of Information Act. Police managed to block the release of the arrest video for 2.5 years. That's 1.5 years after she was already dead. What more do you want from them?
    1
  13821. "camera that took shots of the first steps and the leaving was left behind?" Yes, they left behind anything that wasn't necessary. Since they no longer needed that camera, they left it. But, that camera never took shots of "the leaving." It used the dish on top of the lander to communicate, thus, it couldn't have sent video of "the leaving," because the dish left with the craft, and was no longer connected to the camera.
    1
  13822. Really? Can you name a single one of those "decent telescopes" that you're talking about?
    1
  13823. First of all, the police managed to keep the arrest video from going public for 2.5 years, which was 1.5 years after she died. What EXACT role do you think the police played in her suicide? Secondly, what choice do the police have, if it's the result of a legal FOIA request? What's the basis for your lawsuit? A deceptive story published by Inside Edition?
    1
  13824. The arrest video wasn't released until after she was dead for 1.5 years. There were no "consequences" because nobody saw the video while she was alive.
    1
  13825. The repeatedly convicted criminal is NOT the "bitch." But, the non-criminal sister IS the "bitch?" How much do you want to bet that her entire family got sick and tired of her stealing everything in their homes for drug money, so they will only take her in for a short period because they know they can't trust her one little bit?
    1
  13826. She lost the lawsuit, and got $0.00.
    1
  13827. I originally thought the same. But, if you go frame by frame, you'll see that the cop is about to grab the handle to open the door, but, doesn't actually touch it. The carjacker opened the door.
    1
  13828. Huh? You're correct about the fact that she didn't steal. But, as for the rest of what you wrote, it's absolute nonsense. Those aren't her kids. And, whether she stole anything or not, she violated several laws when she refused to provide ID, obstructing and obfuscating, and resisting arrest. If she was taking care of my kids that day, I assure you, she'd never take care of them again. She's a horrible example for others. Show the receipt and go about your day. Don't break a bunch of laws merely because the store made a simple mistake.
    1
  13829.  @monkeyb1820  Gee, then why are the clouds not moving by the window at 17,500 mph in his video? Ooops, Sibrel forgot about that with his bad editing when he tried to manufacture that lie, didn't he?
    1
  13830. The three primary pieces of evidence are: Radition patterns The layout of the galaxies Red shift
    1
  13831.  @Jupi446  Yet, a simple reading through the arrest reports, and her prison history, tells you the facts. But, you'd rather believe the fantasy.
    1
  13832. So, you wanted the cop to let the banshee near the gun the criminal dropped?
    1
  13833. Her $50,000 lawsuit was thrown out of the court with prejudice. She will not receive any check.
    1
  13834. A) Artemis was given a green light by congress (funded) in 2019. They intend on having the next manned landing take place in about 8 or 10 years from then. So, I don't know what you're talking about when you claim it's 20 years (and you don't know what you're talking about either). B) If you adjust for inflation, Apollo costed about $300 billion in hard costs, and another $150 billion in soft costs and international support, with a vast majority of the budget being spent in the mid 1960s. You can go very fast with that kind of money. Artemis' budget is about $8 billion per year right now. Sorry, you can't go as fast with a tiny fraction of the money. Yes, Artemis has a bit of an advantage because some of the stuff was already under development, and they had the entire knowledge from Apollo to make things easier. But, either way, it's very difficult to go faster without the money to do so. The White House OMB under Trump requested that congress increase the funding to get Artemis onto the lunar surface by 2024, but, congress denied the increase in funding. C) You have no understanding of the topic. So stop pretending you do.
    1
  13835. A) And, the carjacker pointed a gun at the cop's head. B) Secure the area first. Otherwise, it could be the cops who need the exact same medical aid.
    1
  13836.  @stusue9733  Thus far, Starship hasn't carried ANY payload. And, even on its 4th attempt, the fins/ailerons were burning up... with no payload on them. Now, that issue certainly wouldn't matter for landing on the moon, but, it indicates the shoddy engineering they're dealing with. But, with Musk and Shotwell at the wheel, and a bunch of barely graduated engineers who were born in years beginning with "20," yeah, forgive me if I put no faith in its ability to even deliver payload to the moon.
    1
  13837.  @bvskyfacer4377  I think he's making a reference to the 1994 Dumb and Dumber film.
    1
  13838. YOU SAID: "you make all those statements with absolutely no concrete evidence" == Dummy, you didn't ask for evidence. He was responding to your statements. And, this is an amazing stroke of irony, because you offered no evidence whatsoever for the continuous slander/libel YOU are committing. You just spew unsubstantiated garbage, no evidence whatsoever. Then, if someone illustrates why your garbage makes no sense, you just reply with "you didn't tell me evidence"??? What? When did you ask for it? There are mountains upon mountains of evidence for Apollo. Sorry, but your favorite conspiracy videos aren't going to give you the evidence. And, neither will anybody else, when you have decided to ignore the evidence anyway. What EXACT type of evidence do you expect to see? What evidence is lacking? I mean, most conspiratards will never say what evidence they expect. Those who do, smugly state they want XYZ evidence (expecting that it doesn't exist), then run for the hills when you give them what they ask for. Others ask for evidence that can't even exist (like seeing Apollo landing sites with a telescope on Earth), demonstrating their amazing ignorance. Which category do you fall under? (A) Refuse to state what type of evidence you expect, (B) Will state the evidence you expect, and will be shocked to find out it already exists, or (C) You're going to ask for evidence that CAN'T exist? Is there a category (D)... you will ask for evidence that can exist, but doesn't?? You'll be the first.
    1
  13839. YOU SAID: "How about a image that looks convincing from the 6 landing sites, and not some tiny little spot on the moon surface, that looks like a photo montage" == Have you looked at Arizona State University's website? They have hundreds of photographs of the landing sites, taken from their LRO camera. You can see the landers, the rover tracks, foot paths, etc. You can even see little dots where each of the experiment packages are located. They have these photos from almost every sun angle possible, so, you can scroll through sunrise to sunset, and even see the shadows of the flags moving across the lunar terrain as you scroll the angles. How does this conspiracy go, in your mind? Did generation after generation of NASA officials pass down the moon conspiracy torch, until modern day, where they threaten Arizona State University professors and students into falsifying hundreds of photos of the Apollo landing sites over the last 12 years? Or, hmm, are you one of the ones who says, "not good enough, I want to be able to read the serial numbers on the equipment, otherwise Apollo is fake" (shifting the goalposts)?
    1
  13840. Oh, great job deleting your own comment. Bravo. Rather than admitting you were wrong, you simply delete the comment. We're done here, right?
    1
  13841. Nope, the real shame is located in your mirror. You don't know anything about this incident, and shouldn't make such judgements.
    1
  13842. Well, I won't weep for the teen thugs. But, Smith is the one who brought this sentence upon himself.
    1
  13843.  @franksmith613  So? That's like gangland logic. Sorry, but ALL parties here were guilty. A guilty pair of thieves got killed by a guilty murderer.
    1
  13844. I don't know about legends. But, in reality, she is dead now.
    1
  13845. Sorry, but there are no videos of the dust falling back to the lunar surface as a result of the rocket blast. All landing videos had the cameras facing nearly straight down, and you simply cannot see the arc of the dust being blown. As for kicking the dust up with feet, yes, there are videos of that. However, those clearly show 1/6th gravity, if you do the math. The main exception is when they play the 16mm film at 24 FPS after it was shot at 12 FPS. (So, the videos are sped up.) Lots of deniers are unaware of the frame rates, and they falsely assume the 16mm films depict real-time speed, when most of them do not.
    1
  13846. Haunt WHO? You say this, but you don't specify who you're talking about. And, sorry, but she seems like the wicked one here... or was that what you were saying?
    1
  13847. Well, yes, lying and acting. But, yes, she had the receipt.
    1
  13848. So, how do you think the system should work? Cops should be empowered to be the judge and jury in the field? No due process? No courts? Just the cops deciding for themselves who gets arrested and who doesn't?
    1
  13849. Really? For what?
    1
  13850. He sued far more than those people. Remember, we'll probably never even know more than about 10% of the people he sued, because almost every lawsuit ends with a non-disclosure contract. So, for every one person you find, there are 9 more you'll never find. As for LeMond, yeah, it's tough to know for sure. The work/energy equations indicate that he could have been clean. Was he really? I have no idea. But, saying "oh well, everyone is a cheater" is not an excuse for what Armstrong did.
    1
  13851. No, dewdrop. She did this to herself. She put on a public show in front of children, probably making "public beach" content for her fans at the strip club her landlord said she worked at, and got reported. Then, a year later, she committed suicide. If you think this particular arrest was the cause, then you'd have to explain why none of her other million arrests didn't cause it, and why her felony prison term 6 years ago didn't cause it...? Why THIS arrest? Because Inside Edition said so?
    1
  13852. This arrest video had absolutely nothing to do with her suicide, because it wasn't even made public until 1.5 years after she was already dead. Inside Edition will never tell you that.
    1
  13853. Um, no, unless you can actually name something they did wrong, the joke is in your mirror.
    1
  13854. Well, at least nobody shamed her while she was alive.
    1
  13855. Um, I'm not sure that you understand the term "baby daddy."
    1
  13856. Here's the answer to all of your thoughts: the guy was dumb.
    1
  13857. WOW, you must be very proud to know absolutely nothing. YOU SAID: "just like we went to the moon in an antiquated capsule" == At the time, it wasn't antiquated. What ARE you talking about. Name the EXACT problem with the capsule that wouldn't allow it to go to the moon? Can you? YOU SAID: "that could'nt hold one computer the size of a car back then," == Correct. There was no way it could hold a computer the size of a car. Thankfully, the Apollo guidance computers were about 70 pounds, quite a bit smaller than cars. Frankly, you owe your modern computer technology to Apollo. Apollo single handedly accelerated computer technology by about 20 years. If not for Apollo, you'd be using a 2000 era flip phone today instead of a 2020 era smartphone. YOU SAID: "a walky talky was as big as a foot stool," == Hilarious!!! I think you're off by a few decades there, dummy. YOU SAID: "couldn't make a cell phone back then," == Why not? What ARE you talking about? The first "cell phones" (though not called that at the time) were in the 1940s, decades before Apollo. Again, your history knowledge is apparently off by a number of decades. YOU SAID: "can't get through the van allen belt that surrounds the earth." == What are you talking about? First of all, there are TWO Van Allen belts, even three sometimes. Not just one. Secondly, James Van Allen disagreed with you, and said that Apollo astronauts would get less than 1% of a fatal dose of radiation from their round trip through the Van Allen belts. What do you know about the Van Allen belts that James Van Allen didn't know? Where are your calculations? Why would you believe such nonsense? YOU SAID: "LOL. ANOTHER THING? WHO FILMED THE MOON LANDING?" == Which landing? Buzz Aldrin filmed the Apollo 11 landing. Alan Bean filmed the Apollo 12 landing. Mitchell 14. Irwin 15. Duke 16. Schmitt 17. YOU SAID: "WAS THERE ANOTHER SHIP IN THE VACINITY AND SAID " WOW LETS FILM THIS HISTORIC EVENT " ! LMFAO !" == Are you really this dumb? Are you seriously suggesting that the entirety of the planet's experts in aerospace engineering and physics somehow missed this amazing revelation that they couldn't have filmed the landing? Hey, dummy, they pointed the 16mm film camera out the LMP window. That's how they filmed the landings. How about actually asking questions and WAITING FOR ANSWERS before you sit there in your smug stupidity and "LMFAO" at things you don't even come close to understanding?
    1
  13858.  @michaelstillman1171  He was in favor of it.
    1
  13859. "the flag waves 7 times well after the pole movement had stopped" Without air friction, yes, it will tend to sway like a pendulum for even longer without air. Have you ever even stepped inside a university physics classroom? And, no, sweeping up the garbage after everyone goes home doesn't count. "the dust or total lack of dust" Have you looked yourself at the photo archives? Or, are you just going to blindly trust what a conspiracy video says? "the lunar Rover didn't even cause a dust storm" Pfftt. It went a whopping 6 miles per hour with wire mesh wheels. And, you expect a dust storm? "huge problem temperature the power in BTU required to cool down the astronauts is a total impossibly" Why? Based upon what model? "and this is very easily proven" Yet, for +50 years, nobody has proven it. Instead, we're left with people like you, making wild claims in a YouTube comment, with no understanding of the topic, and no math to back it up. "with temperatures exceeding 200 degrees in the sun this would be a massive problem" What temperatures? Sorry, but things don't just magically turn 200 degrees, you know. It takes a lot of time. The lunar surface, for example, doesn't hit those kinds of temperatures until closer to the lunar noon. All Apollo landings were early in the lunar morning. "I have the national geographic 4 page foldout of the moon fake Wich show shadows at 180°" Another barely literate denier who doesn't understand photographic perspective. Shocker. "being an AC tech I can prove they don't have the power needed to cool" Well, dewdrop, they didn't use AC. So, I'd say it's pretty safe to say that you don't have the foggiest understanding of the topic. "and someone should tell them not to use duct tape on the Rover it will simply fall off" Yes, dewdrop. It did fall off after a short time. That's why they had to forget about the duct tape and switched to spring loaded clamps. "at 200 plus degrees,it really looks bad." Again, why do you keep quoting that temperature? They landed early in the lunar morning, long before 200+ was ever reached. You quote late lunar morning and early lunar afternoon temperatures. Why?
    1
  13860. Ooooh, strike one. The arrest video wasn't released until November 24, 2023. This incident was on July 1, 2021. And, her suicide was in March of 2022. She suffered zero shame from the arrest video. Want to try again?
    1
  13861. Well, then don't worry, it wasn't the cause. This was her millionth arrest, and she had a million other bigger problems. Inside Edition went with the "innocent soccer mom gets shamed to death" angle, rather than the more accurate "convicted felon who was also a local stripper gets busted for the millionth time" story.
    1
  13862. Huh? Did you read the police report? One of the "audience" got it on video, and showed the video to the police. Why did you write this comment?
    1
  13863.  @arlonfoster9997  Welcome to Inside Edition. If you want to blindly believe stuff that is blatantly wrong, that's on you. But, don't blame ME for giving the facts. If people don't want facts given to them, then they shouldn't post their opinions in the first place.
    1
  13864.  @arlonfoster9997  Good grief. But, she DIDN'T end her life because of humiliation over it. That's my entire point. Inside Edition is perfectly happy to make deceptive videos that go viral. But, the reality is that no big social media outfits covered any of this until 1.5 years after she was dead. They didn't cause it, because she wasn't alive to see any of the social media stuff. You really have missed the entire point.
    1
  13865. Of should of it? Why of would you think of that would of been of necessary? Of if of you of make of your own video of of, you can of label it of however you of want.
    1
  13866. And, you believe that why? Because you watched a minute long video on Inside Edition?
    1
  13867. Sorry. Your common sense failed you.
    1
  13868. Huh? The store employee Anna told the cop that she thought the woman went through without paying. So, yes, you got your wish. So, what's the point of this babble? It's true that Anna was wrong, and the woman didn't actually steal anything. But, the cop certainly had a good reason to question her. He was told by the store that they suspected she stole. That's called "reasonable suspicion," which means that the cop should stop the woman and investigate about whether the theft had occurred. You seem to want the cops to all have time machines or something, such that there'd never be an occasion that they're ever wrong. Sorry, this is reality, not the movies.
    1
  13869. Because that's all they had available?? Better than nothing. But, for battery fires, it won't make much difference anyway. You basically need to just wait for them to burn all the way through the stored energy. At least the water might help it from spreading too much.
    1
  13870. There are many reasons, but, I will give you my top one: you don't want to waste ammunition on warning shots. It often takes many shots to land a hit, and it can take many hits to actually stop someone. If you waste rounds on warning shots, you might leave yourself out of rounds when the person is still on the attack. If the person didn't run away after saying "I have a gun," and the person is still attacking, then it probably isn't going to make any difference if you fire warning shots.
    1
  13871. Yeah, it's truly amazing... these women clearly rehearsed what they would say... or not say... it's as obvious as the blue sky. Their attorneys coached them, no doubt, because they're in the middle of an appeal process. They have had YEARS to come up with this version of their story, rehearse it, pretend to be innocent and loving life. Meanwhile, when the crimes happened, the one woman murdered her neighbors who were trying to HELP her, buried them alive, stole their money, then partied. The other woman TWICE confessed to actively participating in the murder of her boyfriend's wife, then somehow thought she could talk her way out if it, changed her story, rejected the plea deal she was offered, and went to trial, was found guilty by a jury of 12, and now wants to change her story again. And, what happens?? Gullible saps listen to this 5 minute "news" clip, and instantly conclude that the justice system got it all wrong. Some people are such gullible saps.
    1
  13872. It IS relatively a "walk in the park" to return. Apollo costed (adjusted for inflation into today's dollars) about $220 billion in hard costs, and about $80 billion in soft costs and international support, totaling about $300 billion. Artemis has a budget of about $30 billion (not that I think they'll stick to that number, but, you get the point). And, they're operating Artemis with not only a tiny fraction of the money that Apollo had, but also a tiny fraction of the people. I fail to see how your "doubts" can mean much, when the answer is staring you in the face.
    1
  13873. Yeah, you'd think that with her mile long arrest record, and the felony prison term she had already served, she'd have learned that lesson by then. But, I suspect she probably wasn't the brightest bulb. Or, maybe all of the drugs and alcohol ruined her mind. But, anyway, just FYI: it probably wasn't going to matter at all about whether she said anything or not. One of the "audience" recorded the incident, and showed the video to the police. Needless to say, it didn't match her version of a quiet and discreet act with nobody around. She was getting arrested no matter what she said (or didn't say). And, if that wasn't enough, she'd have been arrested on any of her open warrants for all of her failures to appear in court.
    1
  13874. Watch out, your hatred is showing.
    1
  13875. Helium rises on Earth because it's lighter than most of the other gasses in the atmosphere, and is lifted by its upward buoyancy. On the moon, with nearly zero atmosphere, helium has no upward buoyancy force. Did you REALLY think that no physicist on Earth was aware that the moon has helium, and simply couldn't figure out this "gotcha" moment of yours? Good grief.
    1
  13876. WHAT??? So, you're saying that women's sports should either consist of world record breakers, or it doesn't matter? Only 1 or 2 women should be competing? What? Um, sorry, no, doesn't work that way.
    1
  13877. WHAT??? So, you're saying that women's sports should either consist of world record breakers, or it doesn't matter? Only 1 or 2 women should be competing? What? Um, sorry, no, doesn't work that way.
    1
  13878.  @ojogbaneamedu2501  It's not my fault that you make no sense.
    1
  13879.  @ojogbaneamedu2501  You're the only one who thinks it makes sense... you are delusional.
    1
  13880.  @ojogbaneamedu2501  You just proved me correct, but you're too thick to even know why.
    1
  13881. But, the arrest video wasn't made public until 2.5 years later. She was long dead before anybody saw it.
    1
  13882. "NASA can photograph galaxies Billions of light years away" So, basically, you don't know the difference between distance and resolution.
    1
  13883. "blurry with no detail" Yes, resolution. That thing you confused with distance.
    1
  13884. "rovers and drones to Mars but how cool would it be to revisit the site" Well, sure, but, it's not very high on the priority list. There are a hundred different sites on the moon that they'd rather visit first, rather than revisiting a site they've already been.
    1
  13885. "See the flag, the rover, and all the footprints" There was no rover on Apollo 11. And, sorry, but nobody has any scientific interest in seeing footprints or flags. If they send probes to the moon, they want to learn NEW things. Go to NEW locations. Discover NEW geological features.
    1
  13886. "We have Google earth but no Google Moon" How far gone are you? Did you try looking for it before you posted this?
    1
  13887. "There's a scientific prize that no one seems interested in claiming and that's the first truly detailed photo of the landing site taken from earth. A photo that shows the astronauts footprints." Have you calculated the size of the lens you'd need? It would take a lens about 75 feet in diameter to see a lander as a single dot. You wouldn't know what it was, it would just be a dot. It would take a lens a quarter mile in diameter to begin to see the lander in barely enough detail to know what it was. It would take a lens about 3/4ths of a mile across to see a footprint as a single dot. To see it in enough detail to the standard you're talking about would require a lens about 5 miles in diameter. The largest lens ever constructed costed $168 million to produce, and is 5 feet in diameter. Gee, I wonder why nobody has claimed such a prize. How much is the prize? And, if it took $168 million to build a lens 5 feet in diameter, how much would it cost to build a 5 mile diameter lens?
    1
  13888. "We need a mission that maps the entire moon as good as Google earth" Well, there's LRO, which is about as good as Google Earth back when the photos were just from satellites. But, given that today's Google Earth is based mainly on low flying airplanes, how do you propose to replicate that on the moon?
    1
  13889. "fuels suspicion" How? Because we don't send missions to the moon for ridiculous tasks that you'd reject anyway?
    1
  13890. "no detailed photos" There are enough details to know Apollo was there. Have you looked at the hundreds of photos of the landers, foot paths, rover tracks, etc.? No, they're not good enough to read the serial numbers. But, they're good enough to know what they are. If they had double the resolution, you'd believe it? Spare me. You'd just reject those photos also. The photos we have are definitely good enough to see the Apollo stuff in enough detail to know what it is. You're just saying "not good enough" to shift the goalposts. Double the resolution, you'll just ask for triple. Triple it, you'll just ask for 8x resolution. Tell me I'm wrong?
    1
  13891. ""best" ones were released by the Indian Space Agency last month" 2021 wasn't "last month."
    1
  13892. "they're useless, blurry" Again, spare me. They're good enough to make out the landers. And, those landers are exactly where they're supposed to be. You can sit there and say "I want better resolution." But, that's just a game you're playing in order to reject what you're seeing. I mean, what do YOU think those images show, if not the Apollo landers? Just some rocks that happened to have landing legs, flame deflectors, and an octagonal shape?
    1
  13893. Yet, the autopsy couldn't find any poison or tainted methanol in the alcohol, they only found alcohol. And, ABC isn't doing a hit piece for ratings? Why'd the feel the need to talk about what happened at OTHER resorts? This particular resort didn't have any tainted alcohol, before, during, nor since. Yet, you're accusing them of being murderers? The girl and her brother didn't just get completely sloshed, go back to the pool at night after it was closed, and put themselves at risk? No? The hotel was out to murder them?
    1
  13894.  @ThxChan  The castle doctrine does not allow you to plan in advance to kill people. Do you even know what happened in this case? Do you even know why no court agrees with you? Why do you refuse to answer?
    1
  13895. No. A vacuum doesn't have a temperature.
    1
  13896. What do you think all of those deeper prints are, if not footprints?
    1
  13897. What "backlash" do you think she suffered?
    1
  13898. Huh? What did he do wrong?
    1
  13899.  @donnasoborowicz4519  It's a Taser. And, he pointed it at her body.
    1
  13900. 1) You are correct in that photos are not the best evidence of the moon landings. I mean, it would be pretty difficult to fake that amount of photographic evidence, but, sure, theoretically, it can all be faked. The best evidence comes in other forms. However, when India's and China's lunar orbiters also deliver photos of the Apollo stuff on the moon that match exactly with the LRO images and the original mission photography, well, you have to ask yourself how sane you can possibly be if you believe that those countries decided to join a deception 50+ years later. India might be indifferent. But, China would absolutely love to expose any kind of lies in Apollo. But, instead, they confirmed Apollo. 2) Kubrick never said any such thing. You weren't duped by a silly mocumentary where they got an actor to portray Kubrick, set him up with bad lighting, and directed him to say this stuff just to mock people like you, were you? 3) Evidence against the landings? What evidence? Thus far, you've not provided any. And, every single piece of "evidence" ever offered by any denier has fallen apart with the slightest bit of actual scientific scrutiny. What "evidence"?
    1
  13901. Well, according to the police report, one of the women in the crowd took video with her cell phone, and showed that video to the police. The report describes it as a very loud and public display in full view of a number of people, including children. So, I kinda doubt binoculars were involved.
    1
  13902. Is that how it works? I can commit a crime and say I'm stressed, and they're supposed to let me go?
    1
  13903. OK, but, you said that they did her wrong. How?
    1
  13904. Oh, yet another dewdrop that sets up silly and useless criteria for belief or disbelief. None of you people ever ask about the EVIDENCE. Nope. It's "why haven't they gone back?" Or, "what did we learn?" Or, "where are the stars?" None of you dewdrops want the evidence. Nope. You pretend that if only you understood things better, you'd believe. Not a single one of you is truly interested in the answers to your own questions.
    1
  13905. Yes, the brother's version of the story lights up red flags left and right. I don't find his story to be convincing. But, yeah, she was 20. It's legal in Mexico to drink at 18.
    1
  13906. What in the world are you talking about? Astronauts have given thousands of interviews. Good grief.
    1
  13907. But, nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive. It wasn't released until 2.5 years later. She was long dead by then.
    1
  13908. But, the arrest video wasn't released until 1.5 years AFTER she died. Nobody saw the video while she was alive.
    1
  13909. I fail to see anything his attorney did wrong. He literally had just been assigned the case, and didn't even meet the defendant yet. What EXACTLY do you expect him to be able to say at that point in time?
    1
  13910. Good grief. She asked "WHERE'D you shoot him?" She didn't ask WHY. He said he "doesn't know right now" because he wasn't yet sure of exactly what part of the body the bullets hit.
    1
  13911. Fine. But, who are you blaming? Personally, I think people need to take responsibility for their actions, whether they have a rough background or not.
    1
  13912. No. Sexual misconduct allegations are very hard to prove. Nobody would be arrested on someone's word alone, especially when so much time has passed. It might be different if the incident was last night or something. But, "regular person" or not, nobody is being arrested for something like this until a much deeper investigation is done.
    1
  13913. Single indiscretion? Huh? So, her million other arrests and her felony term served in a Florida prison don't count? And, you do know that the video wasn't posted anywhere until long after she died, right?
    1
  13914. First of all, it really helps to pay your bills when you're not blowing all of your money on drugs. Secondly, I agree that the officer did a very kind thing, however, there are always ironies in life. And, it's a bit ironic that she might still be alive today if he had just arrested her and she got thrown into prison. At least it's "safer" (relatively).
    1
  13915. Why are you asking questions while making it 100% clear that the answers do not matter to you?
    1
  13916. Waving flag: The flag waves when being handled, or directly after being handled. This is just physics. The flag slightly waves when an astronaut's suit/backpack is offgassing nearby. Why do you people think those things were closed systems? The flag spun a 180 when they opened the purge valve on the lander, and oxygen rushed out over the surface. Not a surprise.
    1
  13917. "Insufficient shielding against deadly radiation" Why? Because a silly video made by a taxi cab driver told you there should be lead for shielding? That's what you seemed to allude to in your other thread. Why do you suppose that there are no aerospace engineers who use lead in the Van Allen belts? Maybe because heavy metals like lead cause secondary Bremsstrahlung radiation while struck by ions found in the Van Allen belts, which actually often has a worse effect than the primary radiation? Why would you trust the taxi cab driver who told you that, as opposed to every single aerospace engineer on Earth?
    1
  13918. "Functioning 60's cameras in supercold" Ironically, they were far more concerned about the cameras heating up, than they were about cold. You clearly do not understand thermodynamics, so, don't pretend you came up with this "objection" on your own. You were seeking your YouTube University PhD in online claptrap, found a video that told you it was cold, and just swallowed it without understanding it. And, you've come here now to demonstrate your "knowledge" (sigh) because it makes you feel good to pretend to know things you don't. Tell me I'm wrong.
    1
  13919. The police should be ashamed of the Freedom of Information Act? Huh?
    1
  13920. News producers decide what to publish.
    1
  13921. I tried elaborating, but, it's blocking everything I write.
    1
  13922. You are absolutely correct. And, a close second place is the fact that dozens of other countries did exactly the same thing. Plus radar tracking.
    1
  13923. Huh? The arrest video wasn't released to the public until 1.5 years after she died. What embarrassment do you think she suffered from it? And, frankly, if she wasn't too embarrassed to plop down on a beach and put on a loud and graphic public display, I seriously doubt "embarrassment" was even part of her vocabulary.
    1
  13924. And this mess was your edited version? How bad was your first version?
    1
  13925. Huh? The woman went to the beach and put on a very loud and public show in view of multiple people including children. You're blaming the "audience"?
    1
  13926. Are you really that dumb?
    1
  13927. But, she suffered near zero humiliation. She was long dead before any of the big "news" outlets covered it.
    1
  13928. Is this a joke? "I studied this extensively" Translation: you watched a heck of a lot of conspiracy videos. "and throughout my research I have never seen a quote from JV Allen stating this." Yet, in this very thread, I gave you one. "He always stood by the fact that the radiation is too strong and could not be crossed safely." Completely wrong. Not only did he say the opposite himself, but, in the thousands of articles written about Van Allen belt radiation readings from the hundreds of probes sent into them, not a single one of those say what you're saying either. Next time, if you actually want to understand something, how about reading the replies to your own questions?
    1
  13929. Huh? Yes, that's how they handle aggravated misdemeanors. They make an arrest. What else did you expect? And, the Freedom of Information Act is what released the arrest video. What difference does it make? It wasn't released until 1.5 years after she died.
    1
  13930. You do know that almost no media published this story until she was dead for 1.5 years, right?
    1
  13931. So, the police don't understand what you do, eh? You got your law degree from YouTube University, so, you're the expert, eh? Tell me, when did police start issuing citations for misdemeanor crimes? Can you? I always thought it was a citation for an infraction, but, that there was no such citation for this type of offense. But, you're the expert here. Please enlighten me. And, by the way, with her mile long arrest record, felony term spent in prison, and number of open warrants, I have news for you, she was getting arrested no matter what.
    1
  13932.  @01mustang05  You're criticizing someone else's English? Pffttt. In another thread, you said, "I demanded people stop my daughter and I being alienated and estranged from my son...." The correct sentence would be "I demanded that people stop my daughter and me from being alienated...." But, for whatever reason, people like you seem to think that the word "me" doesn't exist any longer. Take your daughter out of the sentence to see what words you're supposed to use. "I demanded that people stop me from being alienated." You wouldn't say, "I demand that people stop I from being alienated."
    1
  13933. She clearly wasn't trying to avoid the Taser. She wanted to get Tased, and said so. She undoubtedly figured it would increase her lawsuit if she was Tased.
    1
  13934. How do you "bully" a dead person? I mean, I agree, they shouldn't really capitalize on her suicide. But, I fail to understand how it's called "bullying" when the woman is dead...?
    1
  13935. Armstrong ejected from one of the LLRVs, not one of the LLTVs.
    1
  13936. Bullets don't penetrate windshields very well, especially if they're just .22 or 9mm.
    1
  13937. Huh? That same neighbor who accuses one of her "boyfriends" of murdering her with no valid evidence? That neighbor who blames the police for doing their jobs correctly? That neighbor?
    1
  13938. But, the bodycam video wasn't released until 2.5 years later. That's 1.5 years after she died. Nothing you're saying makes any sense.
    1
  13939. During the landing, yes. All landings were early in the lunar morning, facing west (the sun was behind them during the landing). But, of course, in the lunar afternoon, it flips to the other side. But, yeah, in this video, the shadow angle probably isn't possible. I don't think there's a time in the lunar day that the sun would be that far south at that landing site, such that it could cast the shadow that far north.
    1
  13940. Huh? Remorse for what?
    1
  13941. And, she waited a year for this "protest"?
    1
  13942.  @firstmotorhome8024  And, the cops didn't release the video until she was already dead 1.5 years. This video is 2.5 years old. It was not made public until November 24, 2023. Freedom of Information Act. They can no longer block it from being released once the case is closed this long.
    1
  13943.  @bobfrommars5434  The neighbors didn't know anything. A couple of vague comments about a possible scuffle from a month before she was found on 3/31/22. But, the medical examiner's report says that she was last known to be alive on 3/19/22. So, that doesn't jive with any scuffle that would have been on about 2/28/22. A bunch of wild speculation from people who don't know anything is not worth reporting.
    1
  13944. Pffttt. Translation: "I've come to a public comments forum to spew my uninformed opinions around, but, I don't want anybody to ever correct me. Stop posting return comments on a public comments forum. I want to pretend to know what I'm talking about, and I don't want to be interfered with."
    1
  13945. If you don't understand it, it must be fake.
    1
  13946. Well, if it turned out to be fraudulent, then that's what it is. However, do you have any concept of the scale that would be required? Dozens of countries tracked the missions with radar and radio telescopes. Dozens of countries over the next decades have confirmed Apollo in other ways. China and India even took photos of the landing sites from unmanned orbiters around the moon, and could see the landers. India's camera was good enough to see rover tracks, foot paths, shadows of flags, etc. I could type for hours upon hours about all of the 3rd party evidence. Yet, you act as if "the news" is the only piece of evidence?
    1
  13947. The government doesn't hire convicted felons with a million arrests.
    1
  13948. Well, first of all, that's not what the word "skepticism" means. Secondly, which are you saying was the first time? Are you talking about Apollo 8, or Apollo 11? Third, if you're talking about Apollo 11, how do you explain the Arizona State University LRO photos, as well as the photos released in the past couple of months from both China and India, all showing the Apollo 11 lander exactly where it's supposed to be?
    1
  13949. Huh? And, if they did what you said, and went to check cameras first, you don't think the woman would be half way home by the time they finally got the cop to go out and stop her?
    1
  13950. Since it's blocking my reply from being seen, I'll try to divide this up into multiple messages. First of all, learn to control your breathing better. I can routinely last 80-90 minutes on a single tank, even when diving deep.
    1
  13951. Secondly, a scuba tank is not a good comparison anyway,
    1
  13952. because every
    1
  13953.  @SpaceTime773  Still pretending to know things you don't know, eh? 6x less oxygen because of 1/6th gravity? Huh? Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Oxygen consumption was determined by how much oxygen your body consumed, not by how much gravity there was. With the rebreather apparatus and CO2 lithium hydroxide scrubbers, the suits and craft only supplied oxygen at a rate to replace the exhaled CO2 with new oxygen. I mean, by your logic, when in zero G, they'd need no oxygen whatsoever, right? Good grief. I'll truly never understand why you keep making posts in these threads when it's 100% clear that you have absolutely no understanding of things.
    1
  13954.  @SpaceTime773  And, of course, it's blocking my reply from being seen. Bottom line: it's time for you to quit this hobby. You don't know what you're talking about.
    1
  13955.  @SpaceTime773  And, it blocked two of my replies in a row now. I give up. Go learn what you're talking about before you try to "educate" others. Watching you "correct" people about Apollo stuff is like watching a 3rd grader trying to teach a 2nd grader about politics.
    1
  13956.  @SpaceTime773  And, now you've escalated to lying. I didn't use any bad words, and you know it.
    1
  13957.  @SpaceTime773  Let me make sure I understand you correctly... you have, for years, spewed an endless train of absolute claptrap, demonstrating that you don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about... and *I* am to blame because I'm too "aggressive" for your fragile little ego to handle? SOLUTION: STOP SPEWING NONSENSE ALL OVER THE PLACE, AND PRETENDING TO UNDERSTAND CONCEPTS THAT YOU DO NOT.
    1
  13958.  @SpaceTime773  Oh, and sorry, but you don't get to sit there and point any blame at me whatsoever after you just lied and claimed I used any "bad words."
    1
  13959.  @SpaceTime773  And, of course, it blocked one of my replies. So, I'll make this shorter: don't blame me for your problems. You're the one spewing ridiculous garbage everywhere (and have done so for years). 1/6th G = 1/6th oxygen consumption? So, zero G = zero oxygen consumption? Sheeeeessssshhhhhhh.
    1
  13960.  @SpaceTime773  This is ridiculous. It blocks 75% of what I post in this thread. Bottom line: you don't know what you are talking about, and never have. Don't blame me for your own issues.
    1
  13961.  @SpaceTime773  So, "good charisma" full of incorrect nonsense is desirable, but, correct information with "bad charisma" is a problem. You're just the same as these people you're woefully attempting to correct. You refuse to actually address the core of the issue, which is that you have absolutely positively no understanding of this topic.
    1
  13962. And, yet again, it blocked my attempt to explain how the rebreather works.
    1
  13963. Of they opinion of rover is that of would of, because of you people of would just of denied it of anyway. Of also, they of have EPIC/DSCOVR satellite of taking pictures of Earth of of every of day. Why would they of wanted of to spend all of that of fuel to land a telescope on the moon of of, if they can just park of a camera in space of?
    1
  13964. That's what they do during all arrests.
    1
  13965. Sorry, dewdrop, but when you don't even understand the difference between a traffic infraction and a misdemeanor, forgive me if I laugh at your legal expertise.
    1
  13966. "actions were done within the nearby area visible to many people" Did you watch the entire video? I didn't see a single person in the area they questioned her. Also, are you serious? She had just plopped down in front of a group of people and put on a show. You're worried about privacy after that?
    1
  13967. "Like traffic tickets" They don't issue tickets for this misdemeanor. Learn the difference between crimes and infractions, and the different levels.
    1
  13968. "a Judge" But, dewdrop, your opening comment said that you wanted the officers to step outside and issue a fine and ban her from the beach. That's the OPPOSITE as arresting her and putting her in front of a judge. That was my exact first reply, that you were BYPASSING due process. Now you want due process? Pretending you "knew it all along" now?
    1
  13969. "Departed her house" A HOUSE? She was a strung out drug addict with a record a mile long. She hadn't lived in a house since something like 15 years ago when she walked out on her husband and two children (one was 6 months old) to live a life of crime and drugs instead. Do you know ANYTHING about this case beyond the 1 minute Inside Edition silly gibberish?
    1
  13970. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. So, how did this footage push her into anything at all, when nobody even saw it while she was alive?
    1
  13971. Well, the story is trash. But, this channel never posted a single thing about her when she was alive. So, no, they had nothing to do with her death.
    1
  13972. Liability for what? Nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive.
    1
  13973. Not even close. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide (unknown exact date). November 24, 2023 = arrest video made public due to FOIA request.
    1
  13974. Freedom of Information Act. News outlets basically FOIA just about everything constantly, combing for stories.
    1
  13975. It's part of his tackit agreement.
    1
  13976. No. Shame on you for blaming the victims. And, sorry, but the arrest video wasn't released until 2.5 years later, long after she was already dead. You cannot mock a dead person. It was released under the Freedom of Information Act. What kind of world do you want to live in anyway, where people who witness a crime shouldn't call the police?
    1
  13977. Yeah, his 78 combat missions, his test pilot experience, his X15 hypersonic experience, his Gemini experience, his degrees in aerospace engineering, and his reputation for being cool under pressure... yeah, none of that means anything once you watch a Dean Martin roast.
    1
  13978. Pfftt. I don't think you know what her career was. And, if you believe a single word out of Inside Edition, I have a bridge to sell you. Arrest = July 2021. Suicide = March 2022. Arrest video made public = November 2023. Her career (and her life) were already over for 1.5 years before this arrest video was ever viewed by anybody in the public.
    1
  13979. Paulanderson79: You clearly know as little about the law as you know about Apollo (which is nothing). No, NASA cannot sue for libel. Good gods.
    1
  13980. coisasnatv: YOU SAID: "Nasa say that the data is gone, they publish a document about it, but rockethead7 say the data still there," == Yes, the data IS still there. Good grief. They reference it all the time. You simply have no understanding of how those systems worked. NOBODY kept those big 2-inch wide tapes in storage. They're not meant for storage. They weren't made for storage. Those systems were designed to have the data transferred off of those "high speed" (by 1960s standards) temporary tapes and onto the archive tapes. That's what they did. That's what ALL COMPANIES and government organizations did. That's how those systems were designed. That's how it works. Yet, you stupid conspiratards know nothing about these things, so the minute you don't understand something, you scream "conspiracy" in your ignorance. An analogy (as best as can be done anyway) would be to have a modern digital camera, and transfer all of the photos off of the camera and onto your computer hard drive every day, and then back your computer up to to an online archive, or maybe an external drive, or something like that. 50 years later, someone comes along and says, "What do you mean you don't have the original camera memory? You transferred them to a different machine and different hard drives? Your photos are therefore fake." Get a clue, you idiot. The method of storing the data back in the 1960s was to transfer off of those big 2-inch wide fragile (but fast) temporary tapes, and store them in the permanent encased (but slower) archive tapes made for long storage. That's how it works. That's how NASA did it. That's how EVERYBODY did it. And, you don't get to intentionally misread an article and declare that because they didn't have the actual 2-inch wide tapes any longer, that must mean that it was all faked. Good gods, you're dumb. YOU SAID: "prove it Sherlock! You have no evidence." == They pull data from the archives CONSTANTLY. And, no, I'm not going to sit there and respond to more of your demands, when you don't even bother to lift a finger to reply to a single challenge or question I put forth. It's in one ear, out the other with you. No. I don't play your stupid game. I could present you with every damned piece of the telemetry data, and you'd just say it's fake anyway. You haven't even answered the main question, which was WHAT PIECE OF THE DATA DO YOU NEED? You just like to assert that it doesn't exist, and that somehow this "missing" (not missing) data somehow would have adequately proven Apollo. I call bullshit. I say there's NO AMOUNT of evidence that will ever convince you. And, I say that you don't even have the slightest clue about what data is even on those tapes. YOU SAID: "Say what ever you want, acting like a child and calling people names" == In your ignorance, you are calling national heroes all liars and frauds. You're saying that the 400,000 people who worked on Apollo wasted their lives on a lie. You're spitting on the graves of the people who DIED for the space program, astronauts, engineers working with rocket fuels, construction workers, etc. You are saying they died for nothing. Yet, you think nobody should call YOU names?? Good fucking gods, what an asshole. YOU SAID: "only proves that we didn't go to the moon" == So, if I call you a name, that proves we didn't go to the moon? That's your logic? What a fucking imbecile. YOU SAID: "it's all fake, deal with it." == You're wrong. Deal with it. YOU SAID: "If you have something else to say, show us some evidence." == Evidence of WHAT? You're not answering a single thing I've said/asked/challenged. Good grief.
    1
  13981. Huh? Arrest = July 2021. Suicide = March 2022. Arrest video made public = November 2023. Plastered on the internet = December 2023.
    1
  13982. Well, first of all, he was on duty, staking out a completely unrelated criminal. Secondly, who is "they"? The laws vary from state to state a bit, but, I thought you're well within your rights to use firearms to defend yourself in the conditions you're outlining.
    1
  13983.  @mrBDeye  And, you'd believe a single word of that gibberish you're spewing, why?
    1
  13984. Just out of curiosity, what do you say to people who give you the exact same speech, but substitute "Poseidon" in place of "Jesus"? Or, "Thor"? Or, "Allah"?
    1
  13985.  @thearamsay9578  Were you under the impression that you even remotely answered the question?
    1
  13986.  @thearamsay9578  No wonder you believe nonsense. You don't even understand basic questions/sentences.
    1
  13987.  @thearamsay9578  You can't manage to muster up an answer to my questions, but you want me to answer yours?
    1
  13988. Huh? The police didn't release the video until she was dead for 1.5 years.
    1
  13989.  @rutomeds  I don't even understand your comment. And, neither do you.
    1
  13990. Yes, by all means, if you see a guy cranking it in front of children at a playground, just leave him alone, else he may hurt himself a year later. And, no, dewdrop, the cops didn't do anything wrong. You don't know what you're talking about.
    1
  13991. Um, ok, what EXACTLY are you saying they did wrong?
    1
  13992. Let me just make sure I understand you correctly here. The driver had just murdered his father and threw him into a lake before this chase. Then, in the chase, the driver was constantly shooting at the cops, who did NOT shoot back at him until they were close enough to make sure they didn't hit something/somebody else. Even after the cop rammed into his car, you can still see that the driver is reloading and keeps shooting at the police. But, you think the police should be less "trigger happy" by shooting back at him?? And, your concern is that there might be a baby in the car? Did it ever occur to you, if the driver was willing to murder his own father, maybe he'd murder the baby too? Then what? Then you'd be saying, "why didn't the cops shoot him before he could kill the baby?" Good grief. People like you are ridiculous. You're just not the brightest bulb, and you're extremely proud of it for some reason.
    1
  13993. Man, if you can't actually articulate anything, why are you even pretending to understand this topic? Do you seriously think a 9mm bullet will penetrate a door or wall? Good grief. You are sure very proud of yourself, aren't you? Meanwhile, you know absolutely nothing.
    1
  13994. You are completely wrong about the capability of spy satellites. Sorry that you've been duped. And, c'mon man, let's get real here, if we had a telescope capable of seeing the stuff on the moon, would this even be a discussion? You have absolutely no understanding of the topic here. There are no telescopes on Earth capable of seeing the Apollo stuff on the moon, and there are no spy satellites that can read ranks on a uniform.
    1
  13995. "Justice" would come if they paid the 1/2 million to the two *qualified* girls who were denied admission because the criminals bribed their two daughters into those positions.
    1
  13996.  @CC-db4bg  She did the OPPOSITE of "leveling the playing field"!!! She used her money and power to bribe her daughters into the crew rowing team (the only chance they had, because there's no way they'd make it on academic qualifications). And, the plan from the start was to fake injuries and never even row a single minute on the crew teams that they were admitted to. But, since the school can't kick you out for injuries, they would continue attending, leaving the crew team short two girls, and getting degrees on false pretenses. How in the hell is that ever "leveling the playing field"??? It is the complete opposite. It's using power and money to keep the playing field the OPPOSITE of level.
    1
  13997.  @CC-db4bg  I'm not fan of affirmative action. But, if you can't tell the difference between affirmative action vs. bribery, fraud, money laundering, tax evasion, falsifying credentials, etc., then there's a hole in your head, and you need to see a doctor. At least the affirmative action students actually intend on doing what they are admitted to do. Lori Loughlin's kids were admitted to the university to be members of the crew rowing team, when the plan from the start was never to row a single day on the team. They faked "injuries" and never performed the tasks they were admitted to perform, relying on the knowledge that they can't kick you out for being injured. At least the affirmative action students actually do the stuff they are admitted to do (row crew, play basketball, learn physics, whatever). Lori's kids, nope, the plan was to NEVER do what they were admitted to do. And, they committed a parade of illegal actions in order to do it.
    1
  13998. Huh? She was a convicted felon who spent time in prison about 6 years ago, and came out and had a million arrests since. Clearly getting arrested has never stopped her from repeating crimes.
    1
  13999. Welcome to Inside Edition, where facts don't matter. "Innocent soccer mom got caught in an embarrassing moment commits suicide due to evil police" goes viral. "Convicted felon turned stripper gets arrested for the millionth time" doesn't.
    1
  14000. Yes, she served felony time in a Florida prison. Make no mistake here. She's not the innocent soccer mom Inside Edition is portraying. She had a record a mile long in multiple states. She had multiple judgements against her for various thefts, was busted for stealing cars, numerous drug and alcohol charges, failing to appear in court numerous times, etc. She left her family including a husband and 6 month old son (and another son) around a decade ago in order to lead a "wild" and "off the rails" (the family's words) life of crime and drugs. She had little or no contact with them, and they didn't attend her funeral. She attempted to change her name a few times to evade police. But, the courts blocked that. According to her landlord, she was a stripper at the local club. And, her neighbors said she did "private" encounters in her apartment for cash from numerous men. I mean, I can't say for sure, but, I figure this might be why Inside Edition felt entitled to skew the story and put this woman's name out there for something so minor. Maybe the news producers have some sense of morality on some level (maybe) and figured that someone with her history was fair game. Ironically, they even portray her far better than reality. Most of all, think of this: nobody knows when she died. Why? Nobody was looking for her. She was found in her apartment only because her rent was overdue, and the landlord opened the door to find out what was going on. Her body was already into the maggot phase of decomposition, and weighed 86 pounds. She was dead for quite a while. And, yet, no family or friends even knew to look for her? Let's face it, that's because she must not have had any real relationships with anybody. Hardly the sweet soccer mom, huh?
    1
  14001. Also, please understand (if you don't already), almost no media covered any of this until long after she was dead. She's been dead for 2 years. This arrest video was released on November 24, 2023, and only after that did this whole thing go viral.
    1
  14002. Or, you could just read the arrest report, and find out that you're completely wrong.
    1
  14003. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    1
  14004. Not the brightest bulb, eh Jahfar?
    1
  14005. Well, 2024 is more about talk, and less about actual funding to do so. At the current pace, it's more realistic to say 2028-2029. There's almost no hope left for 2024 at this point. Congress just isn't granting the funding required.
    1
  14006. Huh? What does that have to do with this video? And, what in the world are you talking about when you say that it's time to pass laws allowing people to sue police and police departments? That's already the case. People sue the police all the time.
    1
  14007. And, it's blocking my reply, so, I'll keep this shorter. Boot, you have absolutely no understanding of the topic. None whatsoever. You don't know the delays involved (you're just plain wrong). You don't know how they did what they did. And, sorry, but thousands of people built the radio network that made this all possible, mainly in Spain and Australia, and not a single one of those communications engineers would ever say anything like the stuff you're saying. Your entire position boils down to "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." Well, the thousands of people who built the radio network understood it. You just don't.
    1
  14008. Is this a joke? Did you really just compare the signal lag time to an object 7 million miles away to the moon which is 238,000 miles away? And, what difference does 2022 technology have to do with the speed of radio (speed of light)? Radio traveled at light speed in the 1960s, and it still travels at light speed today. Technology doesn't change the speed of light. And, sorry, with Apollo, there was no digital signal processing delay, because the signals were analog. I mean, I've seen my fair share of clueless comments in my time, but, wow, this is absolutely off the charts.
    1
  14009. Now that Lance said "no contest" to the charges, and willingly handed in his titles and olympic medal, and many witnesses ready to testify, and new test methods show that his old samples FAILED, you still believe he's innocent? Let me put it another way, what evidence WOULD convince you that Lance doped? I mean, I sure would hate to see you on a jury for a murder trial. It seems that the only evidence you accept is a full confession? Witnesses and new tests mean nothing to you? Delusional twit.
    1
  14010. Was it drugs? Is that what did this to you?
    1
  14011. So, the drugs came AFTER you lost your mind. Well, I guess that makes sense also.
    1
  14012. Hilarious!! Actually, no. Refusing to ID is considered one of the subsets of obstruction. Obstruction is any act that impedes the investigation, physical or not. Secondly, what in the world are you talking about? The woman never even moved her car, let alone did anybody block any streets. The cop stopped her in the parking lot, before she even pulled out of her space. This wasn't a traffic stop. Good grief. Third, what follow-up after the lawsuit are you looking for? She lost. Badly. Her suit was thrown out of court, she got $0.00, she's been barred from ever filing it again, and her own three attorneys never appealed, nor would they get anywhere if they did appeal. It's an open and shut case (NOT in her favor).
    1
  14013. The news outlets didn't cover this story until long after she was dead.
    1
  14014. Secure the scene first, render aid after plenty of police are on the scene.
    1
  14015. How much do you know about thermodynamics? (Apparently zero.)
    1
  14016. Huh? Multiple people called the police. One of them even recorded the incident on video and showed it to the police. Needless to say, they describe the video very differently than the woman described when she was attempting to avoid getting her millionth arrest. And, broadcasting her? That didn't happen until 2.5 years later, and she was already dead 1.5 of those years.
    1
  14017.  @therealzilch  To add, not only is it implausible that they could keep that many people quiet, but, Manhattan isn't even a fair comparison from the start. To keep that secret (which they didn't, but, just hypothetically) doesn't break any laws, nor does it betray the people of the country. To keep an Apollo a "secret" (if the nuts were correct), would be criminal fraud, requiring all knowledgeable participants to be willing to be criminals, and be willing to betray the country.
    1
  14018. You cannot argue with the cool factor of this amazing car. But, the performance is roughly a mirror image of the new ZR1 Corvette. For the same amount of money, you can buy 25 of such Corvettes, and carry golf clubs and groceries, and get it serviced at the local dealership.
    1
  14019. This video is focused on Apollo 11's landing site. There was no lunar rover on that mission.
    1
  14020. Hypocrite. Why don't YOU build it? This is just as friendly joke by the poster of this video. This is a well-known parlor trick. He even says it's too good to be true. I'm sorry if you are so uneducated that you believe pure nonsense, but don't try to shift the burden of proof away by telling ME to try to build that which has been proven impossible for centuries. The laws of thermodynamics are still intact, despite hundreds of hoax videos on YouTube that say the contrary.
    1
  14021. Not that I really want to defend the screaming banshee, but, she yells "Mark" numerous times.
    1
  14022. These aren't WWII 101 Airborne troops here, who came under fire constantly. These officers probably never had a shootout before, and probably never will again. Under that level of stress, I think they did just fine.
    1
  14023. Why exactly do you think she was shamed into ending her life? Because Inside Edition said so?
    1
  14024. "The lunar module itself is the size of a Volkswagen beetle" A 20+ foot tall, 31 foot wide, VW Beetle? What in the world are you talking about?
    1
  14025. "Something doesn't add up" EXACTLY!!! Your math is wrong. The lander was over 20 feet tall, 31 feet wide, and weighed 33,500 pounds. A Beetle is 5 feet tall, and 13 feet long, and weighs 1,800 pounds. Good grief. What "doesn't add up" is your knowledge of the topic.
    1
  14026. "How did they do that in the 1960s?" By using the camera mounted to the rover that you don't understand. Remember that, you don't understand it. But, you reject it anyway.
    1
  14027. "They didn't have the technology." Says who? YOU? You just got done saying that you thought the lander was the size of a Beetle. You just got done saying you don't know how the rover worked. What do you think you know about communications technology? Over 1,100 people worked on designing and building the communications network that made it possible to control the camera. None of those people thought it wouldn't work. Why do you?
    1
  14028. "you acting like a an expert" No, dewdrop, that is what YOU are doing. You are declaring that the entirety of the world's aerospace engineers and communications engineers cannot recognize how aerospace engineering and communications works, but, you're pretending YOU do. You think you know enough about the topic to reject it, right? You think the 450,000 people who worked on Apollo all forgot to make a working communications system to control a camera, right?
    1
  14029. "putting down people?" Treat me with respect while I accuse thousands of people of being criminals who would spend their lives in prison if I was correct. Be nice to me while I pretend to understand engineering and communications better than aerospace and communications engineers.
    1
  14030. (part 2) It's amazing that you find this unbelievable. It just shows how gullible you are. Like, you think it's not possible to dope up and still pass a blood/urine test? How the fuck do you think those tests work? Put the sample in a magic machine and press a button and "bing" it tells you every molecule? Sigh. No. Testing techniques are only as good as the chemistry of the day. All big name cyclists dope up, period. They all know how to avoid the current tests. To think otherwise is stupidity.
    1
  14031. Conclusion first. Misspell Apollo second. Ask question third. Oh, you're really knowledgeable and honest.
    1
  14032.  @variousmusik4all870  YOU SAID: "if you took the info from media, then you took it from where other million people took other info." == As opposed to what? Yes, I've viewed the schematics of the cameras. RCA produced them. There are many similar cameras that they tried to market on Earth also (field sequential scanning with rotating color wheel). But, very few sold, because the poor picture quality and the rainbow color effects were not desirable. And, on Earth, nobody cares how much the TV cameras weigh, because they're going to be mounted to a huge rolling stand anyway. So, there simply wasn't/isn't any need for a super lightweight camera with inferior picture quality. But, it was a perfect fit for Apollo. What's your point? If I read the schematics for the camera, this means it's wrong? If I understand how the cameras work, I'm wrong? By your criteria, it sounds like you can pick and choose whatever you want to believe about ANY topic. Oh, you don't like what happened during the French Revolution? Oh, ok, since the documentation came from "the media," we can disregard it, and pretend the French Revolution never happened. You don't like that Magellan was the first to sail around the world? Oh, ok. That information came from "the media," therefore we can just forget about that, and pretend the first to sail around the world was the Carnival Cruise Line in 1987. What EXACT mechanism would be "acceptable" to you in order to learn how the cameras on Apollo worked? If you're going to reject it because I read the schematics, then, what is the EXACT method that I should use to acquire the information about how the camera worked? Should I just do like you do? Should I just pick and choose what I feel like believing, and feel like rejecting, and then just reject anything that comes from "the media" in that particular subject matter? If RCA's camera didn't work the way I'm describing, why hasn't RCA come forth and said, "Hey, wait a minute, we didn't build the camera the way the schematics say!! Who is promoting these schematics?" And, thanks for proving me correct. I said in my original response that you didn't actually care about the response. And, you have proven that you don't. You were going to reject any response you got. You only asked because you wanted to sound like you found a "gotcha" to use to slander Apollo. YOU SAID: "Do you have too an explanation for the USA flag waving on a Moon with no atmosphere?" == The flags moved under three conditions, and three conditions only: 1) When handled by a person, or directly after being handled by a person. 2) When the oxygen purge valve was opened on the lunar module, and the oxygen rushed over the surface, blowing the flag (Apollo 14). 3) A couple of times on a couple of missions, the flag had very slight movement when an astronaut was nearby, due to offgassing of the life support backpacks. These were designed to occasionally release sublimated water/oxygen (that's how heat was extracted from the suit). Those are the only conditions under which the flags ever moved. But, you don't care. You only want to spew your ridiculous questions in order to slander Apollo. You don't actually care about the answers. You'll just respond the exact same way as you did last time. "How do you know how the PLSS backpacks worked? Because you read the schematics in media? We need to reject anything the media says when it goes against our predetermined conclusions." That's how you operate. It's pure insanity. You don't actually want answers. You just like to waste people's time.
    1
  14033. Here's an idea: instead of watching videos that tell you what you want to hear about dust and marks, how about actually looking at the photos for yourself. You'll find that the makers of your favorite videos are the ones lying to you, not NASA.
    1
  14034. With a gun drawn.
    1
  14035. Well, the silver lining is that she didn't live to know that her name went all over the internet.
    1
  14036. YOU SAID: "No man has ever landed on the moon" == Wrong. YOU SAID: "it was impossible then and is impossible now." == Sorry, you don't get to just sit there and declare it to be impossible. If you think it was impossible, you need to name the EXACT pieces of technology you think that was lacking in 1969-1972, and then explain why none of the thousands of people who designed and built that technology were ever aware that their technology couldn't do what they designed and built it to do? YOU SAID: "Why people believe these silly stories is beyond me." == Yeah, something tells me that a lot of things are "beyond you." YOU SAID: "Can you imagine America going to the moon and not building a military base." == For what purpose? Who would they need to fight on the moon? YOU SAID: "Can you imagine them going and never going back." == They DID go back!!! What's wrong with your brain? They sent NINE manned trips to the moon, SIX of which landed. What ARE you talking about... "never going back"?? That's the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time. Or, were you trying to say that Apollo should have never ended? What? Programs are not allowed to ever stop? YOU SAID: "The sole scam was invented to give Americans the idea they were superior" == Yet, amazingly, dozens upon dozens of countries, including our enemies, tracked Apollo to the moon, on the moon, and back from the moon, using radar and/or radio telescopes. None of those countries (which included the Soviets) ever had a problem with what they saw. Why do you? YOU SAID: "yet America is third world" == Well, there's a first for everything. I don't think I've ever seen that claim before. YOU SAID: "they can't even build a MagLev railway." == Well, with the exception of the stupid Virgin Hyperloop (which is doomed to failure because of what a ridiculously stupid idea it is, at least in its past/current iterations, unless they retool the design entirely), yeah, mainly they don't build those things because of two main reasons. (1) Maglev is remarkably inefficient, when high speed rail gets the job done for almost the same speed, for a fraction of the cost. And, (2) the USA has become such a massive FIRST WORLD spoiled nation, that almost nobody is really satisfied with the idea of merely traveling at mag-lev or high-speed-rail speeds, when they can simply jump on an airplane instead. The USA is such a FIRST WORLD country, that there literally just isn't much of a market for long distance train travel, because everyone just flies instead. YOU SAID: "The so called international space station is Russian built." == Did you get dropped on your head as a child?
    1
  14037. No. She took her own life for unrelated reasons.
    1
  14038. The Chinese probe could only see the landers as a few pixels each. You don't know what you're talking about.
    1
  14039. Well, her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club... soooooooo......
    1
  14040. Planning it out, pulling the lightbulbs, moving the car a quarter mile away, getting two tarps ready for the bodies ahead of time, recording himself rehearsing what he was going to say about the murders (before they happened), etc., didn't help the "self defense" case either.
    1
  14041. Yes, it came out a few months ago. She committed suicide more than 2 years ago. So, no, it wasn't because of this. I mean, why this arrest anyway? Why none of her other million arrests? Nice person? Felony term in a Florida prison. Stealing cars. Other thefts. Drugs and alcohol. Failure to appear. You name it. And, her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club, and her neighbors said she did "private extras" for cash with a parade of men in her apartment. What a keeper!
    1
  14042. Two of the officers were male, dewdrop.
    1
  14043. Just read the arrest report. It's public information.
    1
  14044. Well, the short answer is that a pickup truck (open bed) is different than an SUV (that open bed is replaced by an enclosed passenger compartment).
    1
  14045. Secondly, why in the world would you believe she was alone? Because she said so, as she was crying to the police about nobody being around, when she was attempting to avoid her millionth arrest, and didn't want to go back to prison again? See, unlike you, the police know very well that criminals will try to talk themselves out of being arrested.
    1
  14046. Third, one of the witnesses gave a copy of the video of the incident to the police. It doesn't match this version about nobody being around.
    1
  14047. Fourth, her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club. How do you know she wasn't creating "public" content to promote herself?
    1
  14048. First of all, this was a misdemeanor, not an infraction. What you're asking for doesn't apply to this crime. And, she did this in front of children. C'mon man.
    1
  14049. Why is it always some silly "logic" (broken logic) with you people? How about the EVIDENCE? No? That doesn't matter? It's always some weird logical fallacy that you fall into. Why shouldn't congress be allowed to cancel a program? Are you under the impression that once congress funded Apollo, they were never allowed to pull that funding? Really?
    1
  14050. What's the basis for your suit?
    1
  14051. Yeah. The guy wearing a ski mask during a Kentucky summer, wielding a gun, yeah, that's not evidence at all. Are you proud of yourself for spewing absolute nonsense?
    1
  14052.  @danielebrparish4271  No. You don't get to call the armed carjacker wearing a ski mask the "good guy."
    1
  14053. Yes, please tell the world how to "fake" radar and radio telescope tracking from dozens of countries (including enemies)? Can you?
    1
  14054. Um, no. You're correct in that she didn't steal. But, she did do things wrong here. If an officer is questioning you, and articulates reasonable suspicion of a crime, you are required by law to provide ID. This means you either need to produce an official state ID card, or you have to verbally give your name, address, and birthdate. She refused to do that. Furthermore, during such an investigation, you certainly have the right to remain silent (with the exception of identifying yourself), and you do not have to provide a receipt if you don't feel like it. But, you do not have the right to obstruct and obfuscate the investigation (she did both). Those things are crimes right there, let alone the original theft she was suspected of. And, if she chooses not to show her receipt, she must live with the potential consequence of being arrested, and should not resist if that's what happens (yet, she resisted, which is an additional crime). I admire the concept of standing up to false accusations. That's fine. But, the last thing anybody should ever do is herald this woman's actions. A store and police have the right to ask for proof of payment. Yeah, I get it, it sometimes makes people feel bad, when they didn't steal. But, whenever I get stopped to provide proof of payment, I just politely provide it, and thank the person for being vigilant and trying to reduce theft and losses. It helps everyone to keep the overall costs lower, because the stores lose less inventory, and stops people from repeating the same crimes. Nobody is required to have my same attitude, but it sure would help if they did.
    1
  14055. Huh? Did you even read my reply?
    1
  14056. So, you read my "ramblings," then asked me questions that I already answered? Pfftt. Nice try. If you aren't going to read, just say so. Don't pretend otherwise. No proof? Yeah, that's correct, there's no proof, nor is there ever proof at the side of the road, nor is there supposed to be. Proof is for the courtroom, not for the side of the road. No witness? Huh? The store employee said she saw the woman go through without paying. That's a witness. As it turns out, the witness was wrong, but, for you to stand there and say there wasn't a witness ... sheeesshhhh. I already illustrated the reasonable suspicion and probable cause. You ignored it, then pretended you read it.
    1
  14057. Well, it's doubtful she'd have to register over this anyway. Even with her extensive criminal history, this probably would get negotiated down to an infraction... if she had bothered to show up in court anyway.
    1
  14058. "Fully proven"? Huh? Why are there no space agencies on Earth that agree with you? Proven to whom? Cranks on the internet?
    1
  14059. Hilarious!!! So, the USA paid dozens of other countries (including enemies) to acknowledge Apollo? Like, when China's Chang'e orbiter photographed the Apollo landing sites? India did the same with its Chandrayaan orbiter? The Soviets tracked Apollo with radar and radio telescopes, and this was "paid"? Really?
    1
  14060. It's worse than that. The dad said in one interview that the son was asking who was in the car, and in another interview, he said the son "definitely didn't think anybody was in the car, that much I know for sure." Do you suppose the attorney said it's a bad idea to admit the son knew someone was in the car, so the dad changed his story accordingly? And, how would he know "for sure" what his dead son knew or didn't know?
    1
  14061. How would a dead person give consent?
    1
  14062. Of course they're shown. But, not during an open investigation. Most of the time, they blur the face and keep the identity private if the investigation is open, but they publish the face and identity if the investigation is closed.
    1
  14063. But, the arrest video wasn't put onto the media/internet until November 24, 2023. She died two years ago.
    1
  14064. Huh? The arrest video wasn't released until November 24, 2023. It was a documented FOIA request. Furthermore, you can use Google's advanced search algorithms to find that there were ZERO postings of the video before November 24, 2023. (Well, there were two, but, if you look inside the meta data, and read the text, you'll find that one was merely a recent update to an older posting, and the other's meta data was manipulated, because it shows a date of July 1, 2021, while simultaneously saying it was posted 2 months ago.) Anyway, no, the video was not put onto the internet before November 24, 2023. Why would you think you know otherwise? And, circle of professional peers? Is this a joke? She was a convicted felon who spent time in prison for stealing cars. She had an arrest record a mile long. Just because Inside Edition says she was a real estate agent (a career she left behind about a decade ago, in order to live a life of drugs and crime), why would you believe it? Her landlord said that her "profession" was as a stripper at the local club. Her neighbors said that she also did "private" cash encounters in her apartment with numerous men. So, if her "professional peers" saw this video (which they didn't, but, just hypothetically), you think they'd care, why?
    1
  14065. Um, no, dewdrop. Photons do not have a temperature. If you think otherwise, then why are you choosing YouTube comments to reveal this amazing new physics to the world? Why are you not publishing in the science journals? "For orbiting bodies, around earth, with an orbital period of 90 minutes, cooling on the night side isn't long enough to lose much heat." So? What does this have to do with the moon? The moon's orbital period is about a month, not 90 minutes. "there's no magic about vacuum thermal dynamics" Just a friendly piece of advice here: when you're writing your future Nobel Prize winning article that will revolutionize everything we understand about light and energy and temperature, you might not want to use the term "thermal dynamics" in place of "thermodynamics." "Thermal Dynamics" is an equipment manufacturer. "Thermodynamics" is the study of energy. Reversing those terms kind of makes it seem like you don't know what you're talking about, and might ruin your chances at that Nobel in physics.
    1
  14066. Are you really pretending to be an expert, while you don't even know that the correct term is "thermodynamics" (not "thermal dynamics)? Good gods, man. You don't know anything, and should stop pretending.
    1
  14067. Well, maybe had she shown up for court, they could have negotiated this incident down to a minor infraction, and made that therapy part of the judgement. But, from the long list of open warrants, charges, etc., it seems that she stopped showing up for her court dates long before this incident.
    1
  14068. "nasa admits there was only one photo of earth till 2015" This is a well understood property of psychology. People who would lose a checkers match against a squirrel simply don't have the horsepower necessary to understand words and phrases very well. And, those people just tend to omit the words and phrases they don't understand. Like, when NASA says there has only been one full Earth photo taken by a human, those people don't really know what any of that means, or why that is, so, they just omit some of the words, so all they hear is "there was only one photo of Earth." Dewdrop, due to the sun angles required of each Apollo mission, there was never an opportunity to place the capsule directly between the Earth and sun at sufficient altitude to take a "full Earth" photo. (Get it? Like a "full moon" photo?) All Apollo photos of Earth show a crescent Earth, or a quarter Earth, etc. However, Apollo 17 was an exception to that rule, because it launched at night (it was the only night launch), which placed it above Africa directly between the Earth and sun when about 20,000 miles in altitude. The famous "blue marble" photo was the result. And, no other mission could have taken that photo, because the sun angles wouldn't yield a "full Earth." But, there are hundreds of other Earth photos taken during Apollo.
    1
  14069.  @critthought2866  Yes, but, they're basically the same photo, and while I was aware of that, I'm also aware that NASA has called the blue marble photo "the only full Earth photo taken by a human." So, I didn't want to confuse the guy even more than he already is.
    1
  14070. You can see thousands of photos taken from the surface of the moon by looking at the photo archive on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal website. Many of those photos show the stuff they left behind. But, I fail to see how this will matter. You conspiratards just call all of the photos fake anyway. So, what's the point in showing you photos that you're going to simply deny are authentic?
    1
  14071. Well, you remember wrong, then. He hasn't stated that landing rockets wouldn't work. He stated that landing rockets has been done for decades, and SpaceX pretending that landing rockets is a "new" thing is incorrect. He also pointed out that the claimed cost advantage of doing so... isn't real... because there's no actual cost advantage. And, it wasn't Thunderf00t who said SpaceX was failing, it was Musk himself, who said that SpaceX was on the brink of bankruptcy last November.
    1
  14072. You are very correct about everything, but, I will clarify about the receipt. They can ask for it. It is the easiest path to a friendly resolution, and there's no harm in requesting to see the receipt. But, technically, by law, she doesn't need to show it. It's probably easier for her just to do so. But, if she refuses to show the receipt, ok, that's fine, but, you're correct, she must show ID and cooperate at a very basic level. But, of course, she refused to do that also, which is what turned this into a nightmare.
    1
  14073. Bingo. The number of people in these comments that blindly believe trash news is absolutely stunning.
    1
  14074. Dewdrop, if you didn't want answers to your questions, why did you ask them?
    1
  14075. Blame the police instead of the criminal? What do you think the police did wrong?
    1
  14076. I'm sure that's what your parents wished happened about you.
    1
  14077. What public shame do you think she really got? This video wasn't released until she was dead 1.5 years.
    1
  14078. Well, at least it didn't go viral until she was already dead 1.5 years.
    1
  14079. How about just calling the police if you see a suspicious car? Why would you take the law into your own hands?
    1
  14080. So, because the crackpot in the video thinks it's a wire, you think it's a wire? I mean, are you PROUD when your assertions are so easily defeated by simply looking at some of the photography? That's the VHF antenna. It's really that simple. But, oh, you go on and keep pretending that the entirety of the world's experts somehow can't notice this wire you think you noticed.
    1
  14081. Huh? They didn't broadcast anything. It was released as a result of a legal FOIA request.
    1
  14082. Well, I tend to agree. But, how can we prevent it? It's part of the Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  14083. "Why was her arrest was broadcasted ?" It was probably released as a result of a FOIA request. But, at least she didn't suffer at all from it. Arrest = July 2021. Suicide = March 2022. Arrest video made public = November 2023. I mean, you don't actually believe a single word out of Inside Edition, do you?
    1
  14084. So, let me see if I understand you correctly... numerous countries have verified the moon landings in numerous ways. Dozens of countries (including enemies) tracked them with radar and radio telescopes. There are the laser reflectors used by dozens of countries. Three different countries in modern days (USA/China/India) have photographed the landing sites, and found the landers, rover tracks, foot paths, etc. You're not willing to believe any of that. But, AI, you will believe? Do you actually believe anybody can take you seriously?
    1
  14085. Quite far from it... fat anyway. I don't know about ugly, because I haven't seen photos of what she looked like right before she died. But, the medical examiner's report said that her body was 86 pounds, and that her implants were jutting out from her emaciated body in such a way that really emphasized how unhealthy she had become. Apparently, she looked very different in her final days than she looked a year prior during her arrest video.
    1
  14086. Yes, that's what ignorant people say. They don't understand the actual science and evidence. So, instead, in order to feel better about their failures in life, they chalk it all up to "common sense" and reject the achievement of others. "Common sense" is the excuse given by people with no actual understanding of the topic.
    1
  14087. So, you make a comment like that, then insist that you don't want rebuttals? Good grief. This means that you are sooooo deluded that you cannot stand to listen to an opposing view. Are you really under the impression that the driver has that gun legally? And, if hypothetically he does have the correct permits and bought it legally, when he gets out of prison, are you under the impression that he wouldn't simply buy an illegal gun? Nobody wants this maniac to have a gun, not even the most pro-gun people. But, the pro-gun people are aware of the fact that a guy like that isn't going to care whether he gets a gun legally, or illegally, he's going to get one.
    1
  14088. "Deserve" isn't the issue here. Had they broken into someone's house, and the owner was defending themselves, well, they "deserve" what they got. But, this particular case isn't that simple. He PLANNED this. He wasn't "defending" himself.
    1
  14089. Yes. It's in the arrest report, but, the video has not been released due to content.
    1
  14090. Note: Her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the local gentlemen's club. I have no knowledge about how those clubs work, but, if they keep videos of their "dancers" (and sell them), you might see something similar by tracking down which club. It's also my guess that she was making "public beach" content, but got reported, and was trying to sob her way out of her millionth arrest. But, maybe she's done other videos and you might find them that way. I have no idea how that stuff works.
    1
  14091. Huh? You want a suit for this? What do you think the police did that you want such a suit?
    1
  14092. Lose her job? Huh? According to her landlord, she was a "dancer" (yeah, THAT kind) at the local club. You don't lose that job over this incident. And neighbors said she did "private extras" with a parade of men out of her apartment. If she wasn't making "public beach" content for her fans, I'll eat my hat.
    1
  14093. July 1, 2021 = this incident. March, 2022 = no longer alive. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released due to FOIA. What more do you want? What's the basis of your suit?
    1
  14094. Pray for her family? Huh? The family she abandoned about 15 years ago to live a life of crime and drugs? That family? Her husband and son didn't even go to her funeral.
    1
  14095. Links aren't permitted, dewdrop. Are you seriously saying that you can't find the LRO photos for yourself?
    1
  14096. Dewdrop, they're not blurry, they're zoomed in. I'm sorry you don't understand this, but, if you want the non-blurry format (massive huge files covering many square miles of the lunar surface), ok, fine, go download those files from ASU yourself. I have. You can do it too. But, if you want to see the landing sites, you need to zoom in. And, yes, by zooming in, you can see the landers, rover tracks, etc. Again, you're just looking for reasons to deny them. You people can no longer complain that those images are only coming from the USA, therefore they're fake. China and India have also taken similar photos of a couple of the landing sites with their orbiters, and released them to the public. So, people like you are left with no choice but to just conclude that other countries have decided to join a 50 year old "hoax," or come up some other reason to reject the photos. You've chosen the latter, by just saying they're "blurry" (because you don't understand digital photography). It's the "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake" argument. Besides, let's pretend you're correct, and that they're "blurry." Alright, now what? You still see the rover tracks. You still see the landers. They are a 100% perfect match for the photos from the Apollo missions, located exactly where the 1969-1972 photos showed them, oriented exactly how they were oriented, with the exact same rover track pattern, "blurry" or not. So, how do you explain it? Because they're "blurry" (in your mind), this means they're fake?
    1
  14097. Huh? I don't understand the question. Why are you under the impression that cameras can't work in a vacuum?
    1
  14098. Are you just going to re-read the entirety of "Enron: Smartest Guys in the Room," steal all of their imagery, and pretend it's your own "research"?? That's how this works? 2 million subscribers, and all you do is re-read someone else's documentary?
    1
  14099. A) Freedom of Information Act. B) Nobody saw the video until after she was dead for 1.5 years. So, um, sorry, no.
    1
  14100. First of all, you clearly don't know the timeline. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. Inside Edition never covered this story until after the arrest video was released, nor did any other major publication. Nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive.
    1
  14101. But, she wasn't humiliated. Did my first message not post correctly?
    1
  14102. That was his accomplice/girlfriend screaming. Not his mom.
    1
  14103. Both should be charged? How do you charge someone who is dead?
    1
  14104. Well, given her track record, I suspect there were a lot more stolen items in that coat. Within a month of this incident, she was arrested for stealing from Walgreens, but not only items like this, but also drugs. And, who knows? Maybe she'd still be alive today if this cop had simply arrested her. While your god was blessing the officer, was he also blessing the woman when she died?
    1
  14105. Well, I'd never argue with the core of your sentiments. But, when you talk about "might have saved his life," let's get real here. An upper chest hit like that? He says his last words 20 seconds after getting shot, and stops moving 10 more seconds after that? He's turning more white than he already was? Yeah, he was gone either way, medical aid or not.
    1
  14106. And, when you lose the bet, would you pay up?
    1
  14107. So, if you win a bet, you will want to collect the money. If you lose a bet, you have no intention of paying what you owe. Oh, you're a real hero.
    1
  14108. Because you believe a 1 minute story told on Inside Edition?
    1
  14109. Can you name a social media outfit that even published this while she was alive?
    1
  14110. Huh? What do you know of her intent? It's my belief that she was making "public beach" content for her fans. And, with her extensive criminal history, time spent in prison, and the fact that her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the adult club, I think my assumption has some pretty good odds of being right. I mean, I certainly don't base my beliefs on a deceptive Inside Edition video, do you?
    1
  14111. No, dewdrop. You asked how the petrified wood got to the moon. Since it never was on the moon, your question is moot.
    1
  14112. Yeah, like all of those conspiracy videos fooling gullible followers that know even less than they do about Apollo.
    1
  14113. And, you know this, how? Why would the Soviets fall for it? What do YOU know that they didn't know?
    1
  14114.  @aemrt5745  And, you think that ridiculous lander is going to be ready by 2025? NASA has already announced that they're "ready to" change the mission for Artemis III, to go again without a lander. I haven't got the slightest clue why they chose SpaceX for the lander, but, it was never going to be ready by 2025, nor did congress fund it at a pace to land by 2025. But, you have to really be out of touch with reality to think there will be a crewed landing by 2025.
    1
  14115. Yeah, I need to agree with you, that was a weird thing to say. This cop did everything else right, but, that was a very confusing statement. Ultimately, I think he probably just meant that he doesn't have access to that stuff quickly enough before running out to stop her, or he meant that he doesn't have access to it until he is in the process of detaining and arresting her, etc. But, yeah, he generally shouldn't say that he can't access it. I mean, he technically can't by himself, it has to be provided to him. But, yeah. The rest of this encounter was fine, he didn't do anything else wrong. So, I don't get to hard on him for just a single sentence in the heat of this nightmare. The woman very clearly was out of control and irate, and she was full of far more lies. But, yeah, weird sentence.
    1
  14116. Yes, people trust computers today more than back then. Was there a point to this question?
    1
  14117. YOU SAID: "With end 60's Technology, not a single test landing on the Moon, it all happened in the first go." == Good grief. What are you talking about? They landed probes on the moon before Apollo ever went there. They sent Apollo 8 and 10 to the moon before Apollo 11 even attempted to land. And, they had many Earth orbital practice flights to make sure all of the craft worked the way they wanted, and that the systems and rendezvous methods worked. YOU SAID: "It took the wright brothers hundreds of test flights before they made their first successful flight" == Wrong. They flew on their first actual attempt. You don't know what you're talking about. Your incredulity and ignorance are not an argument. It's just plain ignorance and incredulity.
    1
  14118. Pointing a gun also. Don't forget that part.
    1
  14119. Really? You think they give warnings for this misdemeanor? And, what about all of her open warrants? You think they wouldn't need to take her in for those?
    1
  14120. Concealed carry vs. open carry. Some states allow open-carry (other people can see the gun). Other states do not. But, yes, all states allow concealed carry (nobody can see the gun).
    1
  14121. So, one landing was real, and the other five landings were fake?
    1
  14122. YOU SAID: "I don't believe the Americans landed on the moon," == Shocker. Ignorant person expresses ignorance. YOU SAID: "it was staged" == On the moon. YOU SAID: "how is the shadows in the wrong place" == Um, hold on just a second. Why are you asking questions AFTER you came to your conclusion? See, this is the amazing thing about you conspiratards, you ALWAYS come to conclusions first, then try to retro-fit your questions into your predetermined conclusions. And, you have no understanding of the questions you're asking. You just ask them because conspiracy videos tell you to ask them. You don't understand photographic perspective, nor what shadowing you're supposed to see. You just ask because a YouTube conspiracy video told you to ask it. The answer is that there's never been an Apollo photograph with any wrong shadows. YOU SAID: "how is the Americans flag blowing in the wind?" == 99% of the time, the flag moves because it's being handled, or shortly after being handled. But, yes, there were two or three times when the flags were blown by "wind" (so to speak). One was on Apollo 14, when they opened the LEM's oxygen purge valve, and it rushed out over the lunar surface and blew the flag. And, there were one or two times when an astronaut was walking near the flag, and the flag moved ever so slightly without being touched. This is almost undoubtedly due to offgassing of the PLSS backpack, causing a slight "wind" (so to speak). The movement is so slight that it's barely noticeable, but, yes, that's what would happen in a vacuum, when even just a small amount of gas can cause something to move (because there's no atmosphere to block that gas). YOU SAID: "There is too much everdence" == Everdence? Good gods. YOU SAID: "showing it was staged and very badly at that." == Oh, and the guy who can't even SPELL "evidence" is the one who is an expert on the evidence? Are you in a mental institution, by chance?
    1
  14123. Just curious... when the woman in this video died, was that because your god was too busy blessing the officer, and not the one who really needed the help?
    1
  14124. Huh? How is that an answer to my question?
    1
  14125. You clearly know absolutely nothing about the Webb telescope, so, don't pretend you do. And, we have images of the Apollo landers sitting on the lunar surface from lunar orbiters from the USA, India, China, and South Korea. Deniers simply say that all of those photos are fake, and that more and more countries are joining "the deception." So, please explain why you believe photos from Webb would make any difference? Why would deniers believe those photos, if they already reject all of the other hundreds of photos produced by 4 different countries?
    1
  14126. You don't actually think I am going to play this game with you, do you?
    1
  14127. Once again, all you have done is demonstrate that you're just playing games. You came back and basically said that you weren't interested in anything I said. Then, about a minute later, you asked me more questions. Why ask me questions when you've made it perfectly clear that the answers don't matter to you? You spew formulas, pretending to know what you're talking about, but, you won't use the formulas to actually demonstrate that you're correct. As I pointed out, you can use those formulas to calculate the arc that any astronauts should take when walking/jumping on the moon. But, instead of doing that, you just spew formulas, because you think I don't understand them, not because you have actually made any kind of point. You've stuck your head in the sand, refused all input, then you sit there and chide and try to shift focus onto me, instead of onto Apollo. Typical strategy of someone playing games, not of someone actually analyzing anything. So, here's what you do: do that math you're so proud to pretend to understand, use it to demonstrate that Apollo missions didn't conform to that math, write it all up, and submit it to aerospace engineering journals. You seem to believe YouTube comments are a method of scientific analysis, but, you're wrong. The journals are where scientific analysis is really done. Go knock yourself out. I refuse to play your game. You weren't interested in my replies anyway, and all you're trying to do is get me to waste my time on you.
    1
  14128. The president lies about the polling data. CNN lies about the reason the pollsters got fired. And, people wonder why nobody trusts them??
    1
  14129. That's because the person wasn't still standing there. If the person was still there, the first thing the cop would do is detain him.
    1
  14130. Well, we'd have to debate about how smart someone would have to be to get into one of those hideous SpaceX Starships adapted into being a lunar lander. But, the other issue is that I don't think there's any way it's going to happen within 2 years. I realize that they have been promoting that timeline, but, congress controls the money, and they didn't grant the money at a pace to actually put people there that quickly. My bet is 2028-2030.
    1
  14131. There were multiple people who called for this incident, not just one. And, I'm pretty sure they're aware that Inside Edition is trash news, and isn't giving you the real story.
    1
  14132. Um, you do know she's dead now, right?
    1
  14133.  @LetsUniteNow  Wrong again. You just keep spewing this same incorrect gibberish.
    1
  14134. The photos aren't good enough? You want video now?
    1
  14135. First of all, why are you so convinced that they were forced to do these things? You are ridiculous. Secondly, hey, it's easy enough for a 2nd grader to understand (maybe you're not that old yet?). The men took the deal they were offered: life imprisonment in exchange for no death penalty. The girls rejected the deals they were offered, and decided to go to trial, and were found guilty.
    1
  14136.  @unicornart5934  Yeah, good answer to my questions/statement... right... pfffttt. Good job missing the point entirely.
    1
  14137. When they got back? Let me guess, you're another nut who is referring to the same press conference that all of you nuts refer to... which you didn't watch except for whatever bits a conspiracy video fed to you... and you have no idea when it took place. Am I right?
    1
  14138. Yeah, I know... being asked to read a script that essentially lies without technically telling a direct lie. Horrible job to have.
    1
  14139. How many more years do you need? It's been 52 years since the last manned landing. And, still to this day, the best you deniers can do is say, "look at their faces during the press conference," and "I don't understand the Van Allen belts, therefore James Van Allen was wrong, and going through them is impossible, and "who placed the camera for the first steps, it must have been done on a movie set." So, when and how are you people ever going to prove your point? And, what about the multiple countries that have photographed the Apollo landing sites and found Apollo landers there? Are they "in on it"?
    1
  14140. He'd have gotten a much worse sentence in Texas.
    1
  14141.  @jimmyalamo839  And, any of that is relevant to the murders this man committed, how?
    1
  14142.  @jimmyalamo839  So, in Texas, you're free to plan two murders in response to the crime of theft? You think that in Texas, if two people rob you, the state gives you the right to plan two murders, and follow through on that plan? Pffttt. Why do I not believe you?
    1
  14143.  @jimmyalamo839  So, can you name some cases of jury nullification for premeditated murders of thieves? Thus far, you've named a couple of jury nullification cases for crimes involving deaths or rape. Certainly, you must be able to name some cases of jury nullifications involving the premeditated murder of teenager thieves, right?
    1
  14144.  @jimmyalamo839  In this video, it's because they don't tell you very much about what happened, and that's why some people side with the psychopath. Nobody who knows anything about the case says he did good. None of the jurors in his trial thought he did any good. The attorneys and investigators don't think he did any good. The appellate court didn't agree with you. The state supreme court didn't agree with you. And, the federal supreme court didn't agree with you. But, whatever, you're obviously a crackpot. You can't name a single parallel case to back up your opinion that in Texas, he'd get away with it due to jury nullification. So, you just pretend it doesn't matter. Congratulations, you're a real winner.
    1
  14145. Bingo. Congratulations on being one of the rare sane ones in these threads. It seems that most people who comment in these threads seem to think one party must be innocent, and the other party must be guilty. These are people who can't think straight, and fail to realize that *ALL THREE* were guilty.
    1
  14146. Yes, one of the audience recorded it and gave the video to the police. Needless to say, it didn't match her version about a quiet and discreet act with nobody around.
    1
  14147. Where are you getting this nonsense? The man planned these murders in advance. We're not talking about a surprise break-in, and someone defended himself. That's not what happened here.
    1
  14148.  @Republic996  Do you have any clue what happened in this case? This wasn't just a matter of Smith defending himself against intruders. He PLANNED these murders. Good grief. You don't have the slightest understanding of what happened, do you?
    1
  14149.  @Republic996  Yes, that's murder. You are allowed to defend yourself against surprise attacks, including the use of a firearm to do so. But, you are not allowed to plan out two murders for the crime of theft. You CALL THE POLICE if you know who's robbing you, and that they're coming again that day. You don't get to just murder them.
    1
  14150. D Deusdat: YOU SAID: "The painful thing is not that the Moon trips were staged on Earth, which they were, but the fact that the dozen US astronauts who died during the real - and failed - Apollo program will remain unknown for another hundred years. Top secret..." == So, if YOU know about it, that means that YOU must have top secret clearance, right? Yet, you just came to the internet and advertised it to everyone, huh? Wouldn't that be a violation of your top secret clearance? Or, hmmm, let me guess, some idiots on the internet said so, so you just believed it, and you don't actually have any top secret clearance??
    1
  14151. "then questioning official narratives of national history is treated as heresy or even blasphemy" - No, questions are fine. But, none of the deniers ask questions. They only pretend to ask questions, while they ignore the answers. "I say, Space X should land within sight of the (alleged) Apollo 11 landing site location" - Well, sorry, but Artemis wants to land at the poles so they can stay longer. And, nobody is interested in landing there just to prove people who insist on sticking their heads in the sand. LRO has hundreds of photographs of all of the landing sites, and the deniers don't care, and just label LRO as fake also. So, all they'll do is label Artemis as fake if you got your wish. So, just because you want something, doesn't mean the rest of the world will listen to you. "disturb it's historic integrity" - Disturb it is historic integrity? I mean, do you think it's just a coincidence that the people who cannot read and write are the ones who deny the moon landings? The word "its" exists for a reason. Use it. "insuring" - Insuring? Like, call State Farm or something? Not "ensuring"? "Currently, NASA has requested that the landing site be off limits to all would be visitors." - No, they got a law passed that says no private contractor can have any funding if they go there and disturb the equipment left behind. Going there is fine, but it's "look but don't touch." "Bart Sibrel" - How far gone does someone need to be, in order to believe a single word out of that guy? Every single claim he has ever made has fallen apart under the slightest bit of scientific scrutiny. And, his videos are packed with the most ridiculously unbelievable lies. Why would you even mention a guy like that? "I'd like to see photos of the awesome starscapes visible from the surface of the moon" - Then go look at them. They took 125 of those photos. What are you waiting for? "given that there's NO scattering of sunlight because there is no atmosphere." - Scattering isn't the issue. Exposure time is the issue. "Just stand in the shade" - Yes, that's where they placed the Carruthers camera when they took the 125 photos that you don't think exist. I just love how people like you believe yourselves to be smart. It's amazing to me.
    1
  14152. And, it's blocking my reply, so, let me try to divide it into chunks. "then questioning official narratives of national history is treated as heresy or even blasphemy" - No, questions are fine. But, none of the deniers ask questions. They only pretend to ask questions, while they ignore the answers. "I say, Space X should land within sight of the (alleged) Apollo 11 landing site location" - Well, sorry, but Artemis wants to land at the poles so they can stay longer. And, nobody is interested in landing there just to prove people who insist on sticking their heads in the sand. LRO has hundreds of photographs of all of the landing sites, and the deniers don't care, and just label LRO as fake also. So, all they'll do is label Artemis as fake if you got your wish. So, just because you want something, doesn't mean the rest of the world will listen to you. "disturb it's historic integrity" - Disturb it is historic integrity? I mean, do you think it's just a coincidence that the people who cannot read and write are the ones who deny the moon landings? The word "its" exists for a reason. Use it. "insuring" - Insuring? Like, call State Farm or something? Not "ensuring"?
    1
  14153. So, you refuse to address a single question I asked, nor respond to any of the points/challenges I brought up, but, you have new questions you want to ask me, completely unrelated ones at that? Good grief.
    1
  14154.  @buttafan4010  Really? That's the only question you could find? We're done here, right?
    1
  14155. No, you are supposed to secure the scene right after. There's a screaming woman who might be armed. There are more people in the background. Who knows who else might have come to finish the job the carjacker couldn't? But, I'd definitely agree that the other cop was basically just going through the motions with the CPR. But, let's get real here, a chest hit like that? The guy stopped talking after about 30 seconds. And, he stopped moving altogether another 10 seconds later, with his head slumped to the side. He didn't even respond to his girlfriend's screaming. He was gone, man.
    1
  14156. Well, I don't know if they have any scruples at all, and they might drag anyone's name through the mud to get ad revenue. But, I'd like to think that maybe they felt that she was fair game because she had no family or friends to speak of, was a convicted felon who spent time in prison, had a million arrests, and according to her landlord and neighbors, was a stripper who also did "private" encounters in her apartment. So, by portraying her this way... "innocent soccer mom gets busted while she thought she was alone," vs. "convicted felon who can't stop getting arrested gets busted again while putting on a show in front of kids" - which goes viral?
    1
  14157. You're correct about everything... except the receipt. She did have her receipt. But, because of her own actions, there was enough reasonable suspicion for him to arrest her. And, she won exactly $0.00 in her lawsuit, which was thrown out the window by the courts.
    1
  14158. You have forgotten the most important part of "innocent until proven guilty" -- "IN A COURT OF LAW." Sorry, but proof isn't required at the side of the road. It's just not. Proof happens during due process and in the courts. The burden at the side of the road is "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause." An arrest isn't a conviction. And, the cop isn't judge and jury. The cop just decides if it's probable that a crime happened, and the rest is up to due process with the prosecutor and courts. You apparently want a trial before an arrest, but, it doesn't work that way. Of course, for all practicality, if this woman hadn't violated a bunch of laws during this detainment, and been more cooperative, the cop probably would have just taken her back inside to flesh things out. But, she didn't. Instead, she lied, she obstructed, obfuscated, resisted, refused to provide ID, etc. (all illegal), which didn't help her one bit, and only resulted in adding to the probable cause for arrest. So, by the time anybody even mentioned looking at security recordings for the suspicion of theft, she had already violated other laws, and it was basically too late to try that route. She dug her own hole, then jumped right into it.
    1
  14159. Hilarious!! So, you don't know what state this is in? You didn't make it to the 3rd word in the title of the video? You didn't read the description? Your Google is broken? Anyway, we're done here. It's pretty clear that you're just going to make up whatever fantasy suits your predetermined conclusions. Sorry, you're wrong about every sentence you attempted to write, but, you don't care. For you, YouTube is just a place you go to pretend to know things you don't.
    1
  14160. Agreed. But, the only saving grace is that it wasn't blasted on the internet until 1.5 years after she died. At least the poor woman didn't suffer any embarrassment over it. Or course, that's something that Inside Edition doesn't mention. Gotta churn out viral videos, after all.
    1
  14161. I'm not sure that I follow your wording. But, just making sure here... you do know that nobody ever saw the arrest video until 1.5 years after she died, right?
    1
  14162. Police don't need to get video footage before making the arrest. There was enough probable cause without it.
    1
  14163. But, we have this thing called the "Freedom of Information Act" that dictates that the video is public property. The police can only block its release while there's an open investigation. And, that's what they did. The video remained private for 2.5 years. But, since she was dead for 1.5 of those years, the case was closed long enough that they couldn't block its release any longer. It was released on November 24, 2023. She died in March of 2022.
    1
  14164. Well, you might be right, you might be wrong. But, I think the important part is that we have no idea how much they weigh, because Musk refuses to ever release the weight of the Semi. Who knows? They could be hollowed-out barriers, good for camera, good for saving weight. We cannot tell. And, none of this would be an issue if Musk published the weight of the darned truck.
    1
  14165. What you saw was a manufactured and choreographed story to get two viral rounds instead of one. She died two years ago. The arrest video was released on November 24, 2023. So, they aired the story while not mentioning that she was already dead. Then, they aired a second round to say that she committed suicide, falsely painting the picture that the first round of exposure caused her death, basically hoping that nobody would look up the fact that she died in March of 2022.
    1
  14166. You haven't seen any credible evidence against Apollo because there is none. Every single piece of evidence ever offered against Apollo falls apart the moment it undergoes any actual scrutiny. That's why the anti-Apollo crowd consists almost entirely of people with zero knowledge or expertise in the subject matter, and why you can count the number of actual certified experts who deny Apollo on one hand. If there was any merit to the denials, they wouldn't be making videos about it, they'd be writing it up for scientific scrutiny and peer review. But, that's not what happens. Instead, all we have are anti-Apollo videos made by people who have no understanding of the topic. Those videos wouldn't even exist if they had anything of merit to say, because those people would be arguing their points under scientific scrutiny, if those points held water. But, they don't hold water. So, they avoid actual scientific scrutiny, and just bypass the scientific method altogether, and just make videos for people who are gullible enough to believe them.
    1
  14167. Wow. First of all, there's no such thing as giving a ticket for crimes. You should learn the difference between a crime and an infraction. Secondly, the police WERE as discreet as possible. They quietly took her away from the restaurant, out of people's range to hear what was going on. And, they kept the arrest video private for 2.5 years. She was long dead before anybody saw this video.
    1
  14168.  @DeputyNordburg  For clarity, Luna 15 didn't observe or track Apollo 11. It was the ground based radar (both from our side and their side) that tracked all of the craft. But, yes, Luna 15 was designed to orbit the moon, wait for Apollo 11 to arrive, land, then race home with lunar samples. It crashed, though.
    1
  14169.  @DeputyNordburg  Yup. But, I don't think Luna 15 had any type of capability to actually track another craft. I never understood it to land before Apollo 11. It was to orbit, wait for the landing of Apollo 11, then land, but take off before Apollo 11 took off. This is one of the reasons that NASA was extremely suspicious (or so I understand it), because it sounded as if they were going to try to crash Luna 15 into Apollo 11 on the surface. The intended landing spot was not all that far from Apollo 11's (relatively speaking), so we might not recognize a ramming attempt until it's too late. This is why MIT had to re-engage on short notice to increase the radar tracking capability to 3 craft instead of 2. Originally, radar tracking was only designed to simultaneously identify the command/service module, and the lander. There wasn't the capability to track 3 craft at the same time. But, MIT did whatever they do (I don't know the details) and expanded the tracking capability to 3 craft, so they could keep an eye on Luna 15, and try to see if it looked like it was on a ramming course. I doubt they'd do all of that if Luna 15 was supposed to land first. But, I'm not exactly a Luna 15 expert. So, who knows, maybe I'm wrong about all of it, and you're right?
    1
  14170. Why should the veracity of Apollo depend on what a Google search engine returns? Why should the integrity of the 450,000 people who worked on Apollo be in question because of what 80% of the people know about it? This is downright ridiculous. Not a single one of you nuts ever actually looks at the EVIDENCE. The EVIDENCE is what matters, dewdrop. It doesn't matter about what 80% of people know. It doesn't matter about what a search engine returns, that didn't even exist during Apollo. Every single one of you nuts avoids evidence like the plague, and you go off on these little crusades to find the most irrelevant "gotchas" you can imagine. I dare say that 80% of the people don't know who cured polio either. Does that mean Salk didn't exist?
    1
  14171. Well, even taking this silly fantasy seriously (which is difficult), are you under the impression that NASA owns Google or something?
    1
  14172. It's not "harassing" by anybody's definition. I don't know where you'd get that idea. And, if he had stopped to check security cameras before detaining her, sorry, but she'd be long gone.
    1
  14173. Huh? Is that how you think investigations go? Let the person leave? Really?
    1
  14174. Um, alright. But, I guess I'm missing your point. Can you explain? What exactly is "utterly wrong" that people need to speak up about? I truly do not understand your point here.
    1
  14175. Are you ok? Do you need medical help? You think there's some sort of nuclear test at 12:41 in the video? Huh?
    1
  14176.  @ericelam5656  So, let me make sure I understand you correctly here... yesterday, you typed a whole bunch of gibberish that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Today, it's your position that you did this in order to provoke a reaction, because your true mission was to blame police for doing things in the pile of gibberish you typed yesterday? Huh? How about this instead? "Sorry, yeah, I messed that up badly, and I shouldn't pretend to know things I don't." And, just leave it at that. It's pretty darned clear that you have no clue what police procedures are or aren't.
    1
  14177.  @ericelam5656  Hilarious!!! Right. So, your claim is that you spewed a bunch of gibberish just to make others reply to tell you that you spewed a bunch of gibberish. Sure. Do you have a bridge for sale, I'm definitely looking to buy one.
    1
  14178. Um, what? Alien craft? Stray meteorite? I don't understand what you're trying to say (?).
    1
  14179. OK, nice thought, but, how do you prevent it?
    1
  14180. Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  14181. "we all again have an opinion thx for sharing yours ….I just have a different one" But, you don't know anything!!! Sorry, dewdrop, but when every single thing you write is so completely incorrect, your opinions are demonstrably wrong. Good grief.
    1
  14182. So, not only do you ask questions, ignore the answers, then tapdance around and pretend to be superior, but, you also have the reading and writing skills of a 2nd grader. Bravo. Pure genius at work. Your Nobel Prize is in the mail. Next time, dewdrop, instead of pretending to ask questions, when you intend, in advance, to ignore the answers, just save yourself the effort, and go spend that time learning to read.
    1
  14183. Huh? Yes, that was an arrest. As for suits, she's dead, you can't really launch a suit against her now.
    1
  14184.  @critthought2866  Well, everyone has an opinion about how much resolution is adequate. To get LRO level resolution (except doing it from Earth) would require a lens or mirror about a quarter mile in diameter (about 1300 feet), not just 250 feet. But, yes, the minimum diameter is about 75 feet just to see the landers on the moon as just a dot. I guess you're correct in that you could probably get decent enough resolution at 250 feet to start making things out a bit.
    1
  14185. The person in the "audience" who took video of the event didn't post it online, as far as I'm aware.
    1
  14186. Well, then we agree on that topic. Hero worship of public personalities is ridiculous. Actors. Athletes. Musicians. Whatever. If you want to enjoy watching someone play a sport, or go to a concert, fine. But, to make a hero of someone?? Why? So, we agree on that. But sorry, the blame still falls on Armstrong for what he did. He didn't just cheat. He cheated, then ruined your life if you said one word about it. I can't blame society for Armstrong's fraudulent lawsuits. They are unprededented.
    1
  14187. "MADE MONEY OFF OF SELLING "MOON DUST"" As far as I know, only one legal sale of moon dust has ever taken place. They took a piece of tape, put it on one of the astronauts' suits (I think it was Dave Scott's suit, if I recall correctly), and pulled the tape off (and some lunar dust that stuck to the tape). They then sold the piece of tape (and the dust it picked up) at an auction (I think it went for $30,000, again, if I recall correctly), and the money was donated to charity. Beyond that, well, I am not aware of any time that NASA has sold any moon dust. Of course, there's plenty of fake moon dust out there, just like there are fake Rolex watches, sold by whoever to gullible buyers. And, I'm sure there are authentic moon samples out there also, which were stolen. More than one geologist has "checked out a lunar sample for examining," but then died, and mysteriously, nobody can find the sample he checked out. Almost undoubtedly, these geologists wanted to leave something for their families when they died, so, when that time came near, they checked out actual moon samples to sell them on the black market, never to be seen again (outside of the people in the black market itself). And, of course, there are the people who just outright steal samples by breaking in and getting them. But, beyond that, I fail to understand your point about "selling moon dust," because, as far as I know, NASA has never sold any (except for the one time for charity). "BECAUSE THERE WAS NO "CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION"" Let's be realistic here, ok? You'd just call the certificate fake also. So, don't sit there and pretend that a signed certificate is going to change your mind.
    1
  14188. The sky? Poseidon? The beach? Who?
    1
  14189. And, that answers my question about the target of this suit you're asking for, how?
    1
  14190. So, you wanted the multiple people who called to NOT call? Isn't that why we pay police? To handle crimes instead of taking things into our own hands?
    1
  14191. It's standard, even mandatory in some places, to take those arrest videos.
    1
  14192. The "decision" to release the arrest video is called the Freedom of Information Act. So what? It wasn't released until long after she died.
    1
  14193. The Freedom of Information Act is what released the arrest video, not a "decision." So what? Nobody saw it while she was alive.
    1
  14194. What in the world are you talking about? A cop's obligation is not "beyond a reasonable doubt." That's the standard for conviction in a courtroom, not for arrest. The standard for arrest is called "probable cause." This basically just means that the cop thinks it's likely a crime happened. Nobody ever said the cop must prove something beyond a reasonable doubt, because the cop is not the judge/jury/attorney. But, hey, look at it this way: you were able to use a few big words, you used some terms that sound legal-like, and you were really confident. Great job. Nothing you said was actually correct, but, hey, beautiful pretending.
    1
  14195. Oh, and by the way, the original theft (or not theft) was irrelevant. She refused to identify, which is a crime in all of the "identify" states (including Florida). Go watch the entire video, not this one that starts in the middle.
    1
  14196. No, they didn't move the camera 30 feet away until a little later. (I'm not sure that it was 30 feet, I'm just echoing what you said. Accurate enough for conversation, though.) The first steps were from only a few feet away.
    1
  14197. Arrest = July 1, 2021. Suicide = March, 2022. Arrest video released to the public = November 24, 2023. Viral videos = December, 2023. She suffered nearly zero humiliation from this arrest, because nobody saw the arrest video until long after she was dead. And, with her mile long legal/arrest/prison history, I seriously doubt that one more arrest was going to make a bit of difference to her.
    1
  14198.  @texmex9721  708 hours.
    1
  14199. What are you talking about? The execution came before this video, when the driver killed his father right before this chase. Nobody was executed in this video.
    1
  14200. A) Society has decided the laws, and society has decided you cannot do that in front of children. B) Social media had nothing to do with this incident until she was dead for 1.5 years.
    1
  14201. Not the brightest bulb, eh?
    1
  14202. What's "adding up" is the ad revenue from the hits that viral videos get, for manufacturing a story via manipulating the wording to make it seem like stuff happened that didn't actually happen.
    1
  14203. She stole to be alive... then took drugs to make her die. You do know she died, right?
    1
  14204. OK, then you should contact your local congressional representative to get the Freedom of Information Act repealed.
    1
  14205. Read the police report. There were multiple callers. One of them even took video of the incident, and gave a copy to the police. It doesn't match her sob story about nobody being around.
    1
  14206. It's called the Freedom of Information Act. They have no choice but to release the video. However, they can (and did) block its release for 2.5 years. Nobody saw it while she was alive. So, she suffered ZERO embarrassment from it.
    1
  14207. Well, maybe if she showed up for court, they could have mandated the counseling you're talking about.
    1
  14208. Blame who for putting what online?
    1
  14209.  @eventcone  No problem. No thanks required. As for YouTube censorship, the other thing I didn't mention is that sometimes they block my comments and I have a very hard time figuring out which words they don't like. It's not because of swearing. You can post almost any swear words you want, those don't get blocked. But, if you directly call someone something involving certain words (swearing or not), it blocks. I had a real struggle with the word "ignorance" if it's included in a sentence with the word "your" before it, getting my comment blocked. But, if I switch it up and write it as a noun ("ignorant"), it doesn't get blocked. Insane. What's next? If I quote the main character's name from "Meet the Parents," I'll be blocked for that too?
    1
  14210. So, he says he's an aerospace engineer... and you say he needs an education? You're a high school dropout, and you think HE needs an education?
    1
  14211. You definitely need to watch in the highest definition possible, but, yes, it's grainy even then. If you pause at 0:08, you see he pulls the gun out of his shirt and points it at the officer as he opens the door. You also see the gun on the ground next to a 2x4 piece of wood at 5:02 in the video (much more clear, not grainy).
    1
  14212. YOU SAID: "You can't be trespassed from public tax payer funded property with out committing a crime or breaking an ordinance." == HILARIOUS!!! Go to Area 51 (top secret facility) and try that speech. Demand entry, and refuse to leave. Watch how long it'll be before you're either dragged out or shot. Try that at the White House. Demand entry. It's a public taxpayer funded property, right? Tell them that you have the right to be there. Try walking into a judge's private chamber in a courthouse. How many seconds do you think will go by before you're arrested? YOU SAID: "A constitutionally protected activity cannot be turned into a crime or used as a reason for disorderly." == Well, it can. But, that's what the courts are for. The school board was way out of line for their policies, for not listening to their constituents, and for ending the meeting early. But, again, that's what courts are for. You sue them. That's how this works. But, if you refuse to leave when asked, yes, you're trespassing. YOU SAID: "These deputies are not enforcing a law" == Yes, trespassing IS a law. YOU SAID: "they are feeling enforcers working in the interest of the school board. They are tyrant oath breakers who swore to uphold our rights hold them accountable." == Wrong. They are enforcing the law correctly. And, why are you crying about it? The case against the board just got stronger because the guy was arrested. The cops didn't do anything wrong. They were obligated to trespass people when the board says so. But, the board... they should be thrown out of office. And, I hope the parents sue the school board into oblivion. Sorry that you don't understand the law, but, until you do, keep your ridiculous cop-hatred to yourself. The cops don't have a voice on the politics. They don't get involved with free speech violations. They don't exercise their own personal opinions during an arrest, nor would you want them to do so. If an official of the school demands that someone is trespassing, the cops must do the arrest. The cops are not judge and jury. That's why we have courts.
    1
  14213. Funny. Teaming? Like a baseball team? Not "teeming"?
    1
  14214. Huh? If he would have done the same thing to anybody, that's the exact reason to keep him locked up!!
    1
  14215. Pan Cytryna: YOU SAID: "Actually you can use telescope to see LEM i think." == No. There is no Earth-based telescope with enough resolution to see any of the LEMs (descent stages) left on the moon. There is, however, the LRO camera (orbiting the moon right now), which has been sending back hundreds of photos of the landing sites, and the LEMs are clearly visible (and rovers, and foot tracks, and rover tracks, and experiment packages, and the shadows of the 5 flags still standing, etc.).
    1
  14216. Make a FOIA request.
    1
  14217. I don't know it. The channel that first published it (which was in November) was deleted. But, my guess (which is worth nothing) is that it was indeed a "news" outlet that wanted to make this sort of viral video, and created a channel just to get the video out there, then deleted the channel. At least the woman didn't suffer anything from it, though. But, I feel bad that her name is dragged through this after she died.
    1
  14218. Um, no. This incident was on July 1, 2021. The arrest video was released on November 24, 2023 (FOIA request). Since it was about 2.5 years since the incident, and about 1.5 years since she was alive, they could no longer block the release of the arrest video.
    1
  14219.  @connectthedots5678  What's your point?
    1
  14220.  @anabarbaro3591  "Lunar rover deployment."
    1
  14221. Really? How? What rights of hers were violated?
    1
  14222.  @Tim22222  Your response from the other thread isn't visible, but I see it in my notifications. First of all, Amy is great, but, she doesn't know very much. I've seen her video about how many rockets were used, and she got it mostly correct, but, not entirely. She's not very technical. Her Master's is in space history, not aerospace engineering. But, FYI, there were no ullage motors on the lunar module (I couldn't see your entire message, but, from what I could see, it seemed like you said you thought there were ullage motors on the LM??). They used RCS for that function. But, yeah, I forgot the ullage motors on the lower stages of the Saturn V. I'm getting old, and, frankly, I rarely even look things up any longer. Mostly, for Apollo stuff, I operate on my own memory nowadays, and don't feel the need to look things up. But, clearly, my memory is failing. When I was a kid, I could recite an entire movie script from one watching. Today, not a chance. And, yup, I forget stuff like the ullage motors. Thanks for the correction.
    1
  14223. Only if you blindly trust trash TV like Inside Edition. The facts, however, say something else.
    1
  14224.  @marksprague1280  Weeeellll... mostly, but, not quite. The engine bell does reverberate some would-be sound, and you can hear a slight hum through the metals and into the suits/microphones. It's not much, but, yeah, if you listen closely, you hear a very tiny amount of sound.
    1
  14225. Everyday citizen? Worst part of her life? So, her felony prison term wasn't the worst part of her life? The other million arrests weren't the worst part of her life? This one little insignificant arrest was the worst?
    1
  14226. Are you serious? The guy's hand was on his gun, and he was clearly going to draw it on the cops. You'd suggest that the police should bet their lives on the notion that grabbing his hand was enough to secure him?
    1
  14227. "I am sorry mom, but you should have raised you baby" You clearly do not understand the term "baby daddy." "in love with the fear of God." How does that even work? Who would want to be in love with fear? And, why would you think that's a good idea? "the younger generation are taught God is dead" Huh? In Kentucky? In the bible belt? What in the world are you talking about? And, frankly, I have never even heard of anybody being taught that your god is dead. People are taught that your god never existed. People are taught that your god disappeared from human lives 2000 years ago, and hasn't come back to do much since then. But, I've never once in my life heard anybody say that your god died. Most people who believe in your god don't even think it's possible for him to die. "so, they have no fear of their crimes." You are backward. Most people who don't believe in your god, or other gods, are under the impression that they only have one life to live, and they had better make the best of it. They believe that if they get killed, that's it, their lives are over, with no afterlife. So, they are MORE likely to try to preserve their current lives, because they don't think there's another one afterward. "Have you seen the games these parents let these kids play? like Grand Theft Auto?" Kids can tell real from fake, you know. A good upbringing doesn't depend on whether or not a child plays certain video games. "They play it is fun to act like this kid just did." Once again, you are backward. People who want to do this sort of thing are drawn to those games. It's not a matter of games making kids want to do those things. I mean, I sometimes play race car games, and I like watching races on TV sometimes. But, when on the road, I drive like the old man that I am, and haven't had a speeding ticket in probably 25 years. Playing games doesn't make kids want to do things they wouldn't ordinarily want to do. I mean, I would agree that you wouldn't want 8 year old kids playing Grand Theft Auto. But, I wouldn't say that for the sake of fear that the kids would want to commit crimes as a result. It's because the overall themes are too adult for them. But, you're acting like video games make children want to do things they wouldn't normally want to do. And, yes, you're backward. "I pray that Jesus Christ opens all our eyes to truth before we lose any more of us to hell." And, do you think that's effective? Tell me, if Christ was going to do what you're praying for, should it really rely on whether or not YOU pray about it? As if, Christ will not do this unless you pray, and will do this if you do pray? How does that work, in your mind? Why should Christ care whether you pray or not, when deciding about what to do for everyone else? Like, he's going to say, "well, I wasn't going to open anybody's eyes, I was just going to let everyone flounder in life without knowing the truth, but, hey, thanks for that prayer, it was a good idea, I hadn't thought of that, and now I'll open everyone's eyes." Is that how this goes, in your mind?
    1
  14228. Doubtful she was embarrassed by anything. You didn't trust anything you saw on Inside Edition, did you?
    1
  14229. "Like a aluminum paper model, gold paper," Funny that none of the 7,000 engineers who built the lunar module ever found this stuff you think you know about it, huh? "passed the Van Hallen belt?" And, once again, just as in your other thread, you can't spell it, so what could you possibly understand about it? And, wait, are you really trying to say that you're worried about the lander through those belts? You're not under the impression that anybody was inside that craft when they passed through the belts, are you? "Didn't the lunar module thrush formed a landing crater?" A CRATER? No, of course not. That would be silly. "Who was filming the takeoff on the moon" Are you getting it yet, dewdrop? See, most people, the sane ones, ask their questions first, get the answers, and come to conclusions later. Not you, though. In this thread and the other, you have come to your conclusions first, and asked questions second. All this means is "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." Well, dewdrop, nobody cares if you understand it or not. But, you shouldn't go around accusing thousands of people of being criminals because you don't understand how the camera worked. Did you REALLY want the answer? Are you even reading the replies? Can you prove you're reading this by responding with "green" at the top of any return reply? Else, all this would mean is that you never wanted an answer in the first place. "and how did they send the "tape" from the camera to the earth?" Why would you think there was any "tape" involved at the camera? "President Nixon called the moon, and forgot about Delei" Was that supposed to say "delay"? Um, dewdrop, why would Nixon wait for a delay before responding to the astronauts? Do you even know where the recording took place, and which direction to expect a delay, and when not to expect one? "And the funeral face of the 3 nautos actors in the interview?" Did you watch the whole thing? Or, just the few seconds fed to you by conspiracy videos? "Didn't you see stars, but today at ISS actors see the stars of the day?" Under what exact conditions? Inside the craft or outside? Did they use optics to assist, or bare eyes? What direction were they pointed? The details matter, dewdrop. Don't just quote from a conspiracy video that jumbles all of these statements out of context. "The size of the earth seen from the moon should be much larger than the moon seen from Earth !!! .. They were not." Calculate it. What are you waiting for? "hahahaha" Look in the mirror, dewdrop.
    1
  14230. I asked you to write "green" in your response to prove you even bothered to read before replying. Nope, you didn't do it. Hence, you didn't read what I wrote, and you didn't want answers to your own questions. I can't help you. You'll need to consult a mental health professional. You are WAY too gone.
    1
  14231. A) Learn the difference between a crime and an infraction. B) You cannot humiliate a dead person. She was long dead before anybody saw the arrest video.
    1
  14232.  @VBG9284  What angle?
    1
  14233. Does that even make sense to you? I mean, if the 450,000 people who designed and built everything to go to the moon weren't "in on it," and you think it's only a small handful of people, why not just go? If the thousands of engineers were all under the impression that they built stuff capable of going to the moon, ok, just go to the moon, right? Why fake it?
    1
  14234. So, basically, you know absolutely nothing about the topic.
    1
  14235. Then answer the question I asked, and stop ducking and dodging.
    1
  14236. Oh? You prefer the guy with 30 cats living in a trailer? Or, the unemployed (now dead) goon with a leaf blower?
    1
  14237. "no clear photo confirm the USA landed on Moon, at the moment the resolution of the moon still way low" Huh? With the images from Arizona State University's LRO camera, China's Chang'e orbiter, and India's Chandrayaan orbiter, yeah, there's plenty of resolution to confirm Apollo. You can see the landers, foot paths, rover tracks, etc. You can even see the shadows of the 5 flags that are still standing (Apollo 11's flag fell over). Go page through Arizona State University's hundreds of photos in the LRO Apollo photo archive and then come back and tell me that the resolution isn't good enough.
    1
  14238. It's even more ironic because this was your edited version.
    1
  14239. The police were as discreet as possible. They quietly took her away from the restaurant, out of people's range to hear what was going on. And, they kept the arrest video private for 2.5 years. She was long dead before anybody saw this video. Sorry, but your obvious hatred is showing.
    1
  14240. Huh? They hit the truck. And a few even managed to hit the person inside.
    1
  14241.  @zap...  What is it about YouTube that makes you think you should pretend you know things you do not? The guy was hit in the chin, the shoulder, the arm, and the butt. And, his truck was hit a gazillion times. Oh, but you go right ahead and pretend to know things. It's what you do best.
    1
  14242. I cannot help people who are proud to be wrong.
    1
  14243.  @zap...  And, how do you explain the other videos showing his gunshot wounds, and the 25748937593485724972073098 articles online that said he was shot?
    1
  14244.  @Tim22222  I said the OPS was NOT attached. I said they removed it.
    1
  14245.  @Tim22222  Ah, I see. I thought you were trying to respond to what I wrote about the Apollo 14 photos. But, I see that you were addressing the video. OK, sorry, I understand now.
    1
  14246. No, I wouldn't buy one. But, I don't understand your comment about Cybertrucks being the only thing you can buy, while you were walking right by a whole bunch of other models in the last couple of minutes of the video, most of which didn't have license plates and looked new....?
    1
  14247. Huh? First of all, multiple people reported her. One woman video recorded it, and showed the police. It's described as a very loud and public display, in full view of multiple people including children. Sorry if that version doesn't match the little discreet incident the woman is claiming when she is trying to avoid being arrested. But, hey, which do you want to believe? A crowd of people and a woman who recorded it on her cell phone? Or, the woman trying to avoid arrest? And, tell me, if it was a man at a playground, would you be saying the same? People should be ashamed to report a man at a playground in front of children? But, you got your wish anyway. She wasn't convicted. So, what's your beef? And, nobody "drove her to it" over this incident. Sorry if you believe Inside Edition. But, the arrest video wasn't made public until 2.5 years later, which was 1.5 years after her death. Doubtful she suffered any shame whatsoever, except maybe the prior year when the arrest actually happened.
    1
  14248. Um, ok, was there a point you were trying to make?
    1
  14249. Nice words and all... probably fairly accurate... but, my sentiment is that this was an adult, and we can no longer put that much blame on the parents. Most of the blame goes onto the criminal himself. But, yes, it sure would have helped if he had good parents in the first place.
    1
  14250. YOU SAID: "How did the guy get a golf ball size lump on his head if they passed out in the pool?" == Well, who knows? That's the whole point, nobody knows how. YOU SAID: "This story doesn't make any sense." == Yup. YOU SAID: "How about we get the other victim in the pool to speak out instead of the mother." == Are you extremely stupid, or extremely evil (or both)?? Hey, dumbass, SHE IS DEAD AND CANNOT SPEAK OUT. What's wrong with you? YOU SAID: "She's just upset and wants to blame Mexico resort for not watching her grown ass children. Over it. == Yes, I agree, that's how it appears. But, for you to say something as rude and callous as to say that the dead daughter should tell everyone what happened... hey, fuck you, asshole... fuck you. Have some respect for the dead.
    1
  14251. When? 2.5 years later, which was 1.5 years after she was dead?
    1
  14252. Who did what which way? Your sentence means nothing.
    1
  14253. Sorry for the order and structure of my replies. I tried posting my reply many times, but YouTube kept censoring something for an unknown crazy reason. YouTube censorship has gone out of control lately, and many of my messages just don't get posted, for no reason whatsoever, and it ends up being a mess. Anyway, look, crazy clown, the reason you hear these things "a million times" from people is because they are correct, and you are wrong. There's a very distinct reason that you don't find your objections heralded by physicists and mathematicians and aerospace engineers, and that reason is because those people understand this topic, and you do not. I mean, good grief, your entire objection can be obliterated by simply realizing that sometimes they were on a hill, therefore the rover was also on that hill, therefore the camera was on that hill also (thus messing up the viewing angles, so things will look more slanted). And, combine that with the fact that they weighed under 60 pounds on the moon, standing up is going to be easier than on Earth. Listen to yourself. Think before you speak (write). Good grief. You're accusing these astronauts of being criminals, because one of them stood up easily in the moon's gravity? You're accusing them of being criminals because their bellies didn't hit the ground when they fell?? THAT's your basis to accuse the astronauts, and thousands of others, of committing crimes that would land them in prison for the rest of their lives? You have lost your mind.
    1
  14254.  @Domzdream  YOU SAID: "Ok. This is gonna take me a couple days to read becauseI can see you started crying there and got all emotional" == Good grief, what an idiot. YOU are the one who posted a long stream of garbage. Don't blame me if it takes a long time to clean up your mess. YOU SAID: "calling me a maniac, because I'm skeptical" == That's not what skepticism is. That's the OPPOSITE of skepticism, you just don't realize it. YOU SAID: "about a few astronauts who ''apparently'' went to the moon completely unscathed, when even the Russians" == Yeah? The Soviets, who tracked all of the Apollo missions to the moon and back with radar and/or radio telescopes, just like many other countries did? Those guys? Hey, dummy, you don't even get to mention the Russians if you don't know what role they played. YOU SAID: "(who were a t least a DECADE) of experience ahead of americans," == WHAT?!?!!?!?! A ***DECADE***?? Good gods. The Soviets put their first cosmonaut into space on April 12, 1961. The USA put its first astronaut into space on May 5, 1961. They weren't even a MONTH ahead, let alone a decade. Good grief. You're just making this stuff up as you go along. They were ahead of the USA in total lifting capability, but, that was by around 8-9 months, still nowhere near a decade. YOU SAID: "wouldn't send their best men into space" == They wouldn't? So, the cosmonauts they sent into space were their worst, not their best? What?? Where do you get this garbage? YOU SAID: "knowing very well they'd come back at least completely with radiation to the point of being scorched alive." == You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Oh, but hey, thanks for confirming that you are an all-out Apollo denier, not the "open minded" guy you pretended. I mean, I saw right through it, of course. Anybody could. But, your position was "well, maybe they went to the moon, but the videos are fake." Now, since you're insisting that they couldn't survive the radiation, you're basically exposing exactly what was obvious anyway, that you're actually saying that they didn't go. Of course, again, you're welcome to publish your numbers, crackpot. Why are you on YouTube? Why would you think that radiation in space would scorch them? What type of radiation? How much of it do you think there was? Why aren't there any radiobiologists who say this?? Why aren't there any cosmologists who say this?? What is the source of this amazing radiation that scorches people in space? YOU SAID: "Anyway. Dry those tears off....give me a couple of days to read the over emotional text, and I'll get back to you." == Don't bother. You're an idiot.
    1
  14255. Yeah, with her long criminal history, she should know that. But, I'm betting that she knew that staying silent would mean they'd check her record for sure, and find a bunch of open warrants. Perhaps by trying to cry her way out of it, she figured there'd be a 50/50 chance of them letting her go before looking up her record.
    1
  14256. Pure delusion. A cop is not required to get 100% proof of anything at the side of the road. Cops rarely watch security tapes and review register transactions. The cop's job is to determine if there's enough reasonable suspicion and probable cause to arrest. That's it. After that, the case is proven or disproven in the courts. The cops can assist in gathering some of that information, but, that comes later. This is especially true when the woman refused to identify herself (which she is required by law to do), and acts completely non-cooperatively (which she did). There was more than enough evidence that a crime potentially happened, and to make the arrest. I would agree, yes, if the woman had cooperated, provided her receipt, or provided ID and asked to talk to the store, etc., sure, the cop probably should have done that. But, in a situation like this, the cop is under no obligation to to jump through hoops before making the arrest. She did it to herself.
    1
  14257. "Plastered over the news and internet" didn't happen until 2.5 years later. She was long dead by then.
    1
  14258. Well, once upon a time, she was a realtor, yes. But, she hadn't sold a house in an extremely long time. It's kind of hard to get a regular job when she had a legal record a mile long, did prison time for stealing cars, judgements against her for various thefts, arrests for drugs and alcohol, many failures to appear in court, etc. She had long since abandoned her family and regular life, in favor of what her family members said was so she could go "wild" and "off the rails" (their words). And, as for her "profession," well, according to her landlord, it was one of those career paths that cannot be posted on YouTube comments, involving cash transactions with men.
    1
  14259.  @therealzilch  It's a former Russian admin who made a Tweet recently of a few sentences to stir up trouble. It's all the rage among the nuts now. He compared Apollo missions to the Soviet space station missions, asked how the Apollo astronauts were able to walk, when the Soviet astronauts suffered from muscle atrophy. But, of course, the Soviet missions lasted numerous months, even over a year sometimes. And, muscles don't atrophy quick enough for the Apollo astronauts to have troubles in just 10 days or so. I suspect the Russian admin knows this, but just is bitter right now during a time when the entire planet is against them. Or, he has no idea what he's talking about. Either way, I don't really care. The answer is the same either way. Muscles don't atrophy that quickly.
    1
  14260. Except that's not true. Multiple people called the police. And, one of the "audience" took video with her cell phone, and showed it to the police. I'm sorry if that doesn't match what this woman is claiming as she's attempting to avoid getting arrested for the umpteenth time.
    1
  14261. Fairly? Like, what should the cops do instead of arrest her?
    1
  14262. Huh? So, the cops should kick rocks instead of doing their jobs? That's "fair" in your mind?
    1
  14263. "Willfull"? Seriously? Is that like filling up a will? You're an attorney who can't spell? Capitalizing "Insurance Company" as if it's a proper noun? No comma or semicolon, just broken sentences? Good grief. That's all the world needs, attorneys who read and write like they are 2nd graders.
    1
  14264. Can you name any media that even ran a story on this before she was dead?
    1
  14265. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. Suicide = March, 2022. Arrest video released = November 24, 2023. So, um, no.
    1
  14266. Well, the USA got half of them, and the Soviets got half of them. And, while I'm not one to try to ignore the contributions from the Germans who worked on the space program, the fact is that the USA would have been successful with or without them.
    1
  14267. SpaceX won't be selling any trips to the moon any time soon. Their dearMoon project was nothing more than a publicity stunt, and has finally been canceled (it's stunning that anybody actually believed that was real). This ridiculous notion that they're going to sell tickets to Mars for $200,000 each is outrageous, and, again, I cannot fathom how anybody can swallow such dribble. And, after wasting $3 billion (and counting) on SpaceX's ridiculous Starship HLS, and they still can't get the thing to work right, I'll bet it's only a matter of time before the government stops funding that silly thing, especially because its biggest proponent within NASA has left NASA to work at SpaceX (gee, I wonder how long that had been arranged?). Their commercial trips to the moon are as much of a pipe dream as their commercial Starship city-to-city travel they're advertising on their website. It's not impossible that they get their act together someday... not very likely with existing leadership, though.
    1
  14268. The cops didn't make the arrest video public until 1.5 years after she was dead. So, no, there was no humiliation from it.
    1
  14269. Oh, you poor thing.
    1
  14270.  @erac5855  They fixed the sun problem for Apollo 15/16/17's video cameras. There are many video shots of the sun.
    1
  14271. "What had me question moon visits" And, c'mon, are you HONESTLY seeking those answers? I think not. Start with the obvious. During the peak of Apollo's spending, it costed about 4.5% of the entire federal budget in hard costs, and approximately 2% more in soft costs and international support. After Apollo, congress cut NASA's budget to about 0.5% of the federal budget, and no longer would allow them to put nearly their entire budget into a single program. Instead, it was spread out over hundreds of programs.
    1
  14272. "huge advances in space exploration" Like what? We have a space station now that's bigger than the space stations in the 1970s. So what? What "huge advances" have there been?
    1
  14273. "the promise of visits and the promise of possible stations on the moon" Promises made by... who? Presidential candidates? You do know that congress determines NASA's budget, right? You do know that congress selects what programs get approved, right? Would you care to start a list of false promises made by politicians? Sorry, I think the internet is capped at 68 quadrillion terabytes, so there's not enough space to list false promises. Why are false promises about moon missions any different (in your mind) to false promises about healthcare, border walls, immigration polices, tax programs, etc.?
    1
  14274. "Why has nobody been able to repeat the feat" Because nobody has been willing/able to spend that kind of money since then. Apollo costed more than the entire gross national product of 80% of the nations on Earth at that time. And, it produced 12 guys walking on the moon for a few hours each.
    1
  14275. "makes for absolute doubt" Well, sane people use EVIDENCE to analyze what's true or not. You, however, seem to think that "I don't understand the reasons, therefore it's fake" logic. Sorry, but that's not logical at all. EVIDENCE dictates that it happened, regardless of your doubts.
    1
  14276. "Your explanation is lack of money" Well, lack of funding anyway. I mean, I have the money required to buy a solid gold toilet seat. But, I have opted not to fund such a purchase. Same for congress and moon missions. I guess they "could" spend the money on doing that again, but, they elected not to do that until they funded Artemis in 2019.
    1
  14277. "India and China have both visited the moon" Yes, and both of those countries (and South Korea also) have photographed the Apollo landing sites, and can spot the landers exactly where they're supposed to be. India's orbiter even can see foot paths, rover tracks, shadows of flags, etc. So, you seem to acknowledge those unmanned orbiter missions happened, but reject what those orbiters show us?
    1
  14278. "nations have all suggested colonising the moon with permanent bases" So what? People can "suggest" things until the cows come home. Until congress funds it, NASA can't spend a dime on a stick of chewing gum, let alone colonies on the moon. Why do these "suggestions" mean ANYTHING to you? Who cares what anybody "suggests"?
    1
  14279. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    1
  14280. Huh? You seriously don't understand that?
    1
  14281. Well, there's this concept called "crime." As it turns out, not everyone does the right thing in life. So, we have these things called "laws" that people in a society must follow. And, we have these things called "police" who are in charge of enforcing those things called "laws." If a crime of "theft" is suspected, a police officer will ask for a "receipt" in order to know whether or not those "laws" were violated. Hope this helps.
    1
  14282. Pffttt. I know she didn't. Who cares? You didn't ask if she got charged with theft. You asked why people request to see a receipt.
    1
  14283. Concorde lost money on every flight it flew, and required massive subsidies to be able to operate. And, you're arguing that domestic flights would INCREASE profitability?? Good grief. People are not going to pay THAT much more money to cut down a flight that takes 2-3 hours down to a flight that can do it in less than an hour. You've got it backward. Concorde's only remote hope for success was always in the long range flights. And, they couldn't make money on those, even flying the entire plane as 1st class seating.
    1
  14284.  @simon7790  YOU SAID: "Both Air France and BA both reported making a profit on Concorde, albeit not huge amounts after the 1970's oil prices rises." == Then why did they lose money like crazy and need so many subsidies to stay flying? Or, did they report profits AFTER the subsidies? YOU SAID: "But there were other benefits. Who needed an advertising budget when you had Concorde." == I'm not sure what entity you're talking about. YOU SAID: "And no I don't mean domestic flights. There are other destinations you can reach in the US from Europe that are not on the east coast, such as the west coast cities," == Pfffttt. Let me get this straight... you think the Concorde had the range to go from London to the west coast of the USA? Sorry, with a 4,000 mile range, if you're talking about west coast flights, yes, you're talking about domestic flights. There's no way an international flight was going to get to the west coast. You obviously don't know what you're talking about. YOU SAID: "but if you are not licensed to fly to them it removes your market opportunity." == Yes, it's a strange dynamic, such that outside carriers cannot fly domestic, and USA carriers can't fly domestic in other countries, etc. But, Concorde has/had nothing to do with that dynamic. That dynamic exists with or without Concorde. YOU SAID: "The US government focused on ensuring Boeing had an advantage so closed the market by banning supersonic flight over land." == Just Boeing, eh? Good grief. What ARE you talking about? The ban on foreign airlines flying domestic flights has nothing to do with supersonic or not. And, this is just silly at this point. If it was the way you're talking about, any number of things could have happened differently. Boeing (or any USA manufacturer) would have just built supersonic airliners. Domestic carriers would have just bought Concordes (just like they buy Airbus planes today). Sheeeesssshhhh. The ban on supersonic flight is mainly because they don't want sonic booms making all that noise over cities. YOU SAID: "Concorde was the first and last iteration of its type," == Except for the Soviet version that was actually first, right? Did you even know they had one before Concorde? Or, are you just making this up as you go? Why are you calling the Concorde the first? YOU SAID: "no subsequent R&D was done to develop it and improve on it, such as develop more fuel efficient engines, or make a bigger cabin because the real market opportunity was closed to it." == Complete and total nonsense. Utter garbage. The Soviets didn't continue their Concorde copy either, and not because there was a "market" problem. It was because flying supersonic is an amazing fuel hog, is hard on the equipment, requires far more expensive craft, and doesn't have a market of people willing to pay that much just to save a few hours of time. Why are you so focused on the US market anyway? Do you think none of Europe would want supersonic flights? Do you think none of the Soviet Union wanted supersonic flights? Do you think flights around Africa or Asia or South America wouldn't benefit from supersonic flights? Or, hmmmm, is it because it's amazingly expensive to fly supersonic, and there aren't enough people willing to pay THAT level of premium to save a few hours? Hint: the answer is the latter. Develop a bigger cabin?? You are BACKWARD. Bigger cabin = more drag. More drag = even more expensive to fly supersonic. They had a hard enough time filling the cabin they had, let alone a bigger one. And, supersonic flight is not able to achieve the economies of scale in quite the same fashion as subsonic flight. There are diminishing returns at those high speeds. That's why the modern development of next gen supersonic airliner development is trying to go SMALLER, not larger. And, as for more efficient engines, yes, that's always nice, but, I'm afraid there's just not all that much more efficiency to be had, that would make it that much more economical to make a difference in a large enough way to tilt the dynamics in favor of supersonic flight. Look, there's a reason that nobody in the world has bothered trying to build a new supersonic airliner since the failure of the Soviet supersonic airliner and the Concorde, and it has nothing to do with USA's domestic policies on supersonic flight over land, or protection of Boeing, or anything else you are choosing to make up as you go along. It's because of the cost of it. And, yes, I'm aware that your argument is that further development could bring costs down. And, back in the 1990s, some people were just as delusional about that as you are now, and actually funded a NASA program to try to develop EXACTLY what you're outlining. The goal was to produce an airliner that would be more efficient, quieter, carry more passengers, and fly at mach 2+. It failed miserably. 10 years of development yielded nothing. Why? Because of physics. Flying supersonic is very taxing on the airframe, requires exotic and expensive materials, and burns fuel quicker than a meth addict loses brain cells. This also kind of kills your notion that the USA was opposing supersonic flight, eh? They spent the entire 1990s trying to see if they could pull off a next-gen airliner to do EXACTLY what you're outlining, but eventually came to the conclusion that it wasn't viable. YOU SAID: "The design stayed in the 1960's. Who knows which direction things may have headed if there had been a level playing field and some further development." == But, we already know the answer to that. It ended up in the trash bin!!! The "further development" was scrapped!!! YOU SAID: "Maybe there would be room for a more modern passenger supersonic aircraft." == Well, there are a couple of companies trying to do exactly that, nowadays. But, they've scrapped the notion of doing it with a big plane. They're trying to go small, like 20-50 passengers, max. They know the market is quite limited for people willing to pay that much of a premium. And, they know that staying small is the key to burning less fuel at supersonic speeds. Personally, I'll be honest with you, I don't really think they're even trying. I think these are probably actually investment scams. They're raising money, hundreds of millions for development, and, it's quite easy to just have that money evaporate and then just say at the end that they couldn't make it work (pocketing large salaries and whatever else they can siphon along the way). But, what do I know about it? Nothing. Maybe they're making an honest attempt. I think probably not. But, hey, maybe. Will they make it work? Well, I wouldn't hold my breath, but, at least they have a formula that makes more sense than what you're proposing.
    1
  14285. Well, what you're describing works for an infraction, but, isn't the way a crime is handled. Furthermore, with all of her open warrants for all of the various failures to appear in court for her prior list of arrests, yeah, they were going to arrest her no matter what. There's no way around it.
    1
  14286. Side note: I seriously doubt her embarrassment was anything more than an act as an attempt to avoid her millionth arrest. Let's face reality here. Her landlord said that she was a stripper at the local club, so, it's pretty doubtful she feels much shame over that particular act, because that's probably part of her nightly show at work anyway. And, the witnesses of this event said that she did this in plain view of others. One even captured it on video, and showed the video to the police. It's described in their report as a very loud and public act in view of multiple people including children. I realize that it doesn't match this version she's trying to paint about a quiet and discreet act with nobody around. But, I tend to trust innocent bystanders and police, more than I trust a convicted felon who got out of prison to continue her crime spree.
    1
  14287. Um, no. Basically, Inside Edition is painting a false picture of what happened here, in order to generate ad revenue from viral videos made for people who believe every word they say.
    1
  14288. Google has a free translator.
    1
  14289. Secure the area first.
    1
  14290. Dewdrop, once the others arrived, they DID render aid. And, if you think the carjacker was going to live through a couple of rounds of .40s through the chest, you have no understanding of firearms. He turned pale and stopped moving or talking 20 seconds after being hit, man. Get real here, and quit pretending to understand things you do not.
    1
  14291. Hilarious!!! You have forgotten the most important part of that phrase. You are innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW. There's absolutely no burden to prove anything at the side of the road. A cop makes a determination about whether or not there is "reasonable suspicion" to detain someone. The store employee Anna provided that, because she said the woman went through the register without paying. She was wrong, as it turns out, but, there's no way the cop could know that at the time. Yes, a store employee saying someone stole is enough reasonable suspicion to investigate. From there, the cop's duty is to determine if there's probable cause to arrest. This merely means that the cop must decide if it's likely a crime happened. And, the woman provided that likelihood in spades. First, her behavior just added to the suspicion of theft, because most of the time, when someone acts the way she's acting, it turns out that the person is guilty. But, beyond that, she provided plenty of additional probable cause when she refused to identify (an arrestable crime itself, with or without the theft), obstructed and obfuscated (also crimes), and eventually added resisting arrest to the list of charges. So, yes, plenty of probable cause. Sorry, but you simply have no understanding of how the law works. But, you don't even need to take my word for it. You can trust her own three attorneys instead. They didn't find anything wrong with the cop's behavior. They never even mentioned in their lawsuit against the store. And, they never even sued the city/police. Now, you tell me, why would the three attorneys only file a $50,000 lawsuit against the store, because their employee Anna told the cop to pursue this woman... if they could have had a case 10x larger against the police for a rights violation case, as you're outlining? Do you understand the law better than her own three attorneys? Is that your level of pure arrogance? Or, maybe, just maybe, the side of the road isn't a courtroom, and cops don't have the burden of proof that you think? See, here in reality, on planet Earth, we don't want cops to have that kind of power. We want them to just make the arrest, and let the due process of law take over from there, where attorneys and judges and juries decide what's right or wrong. We want the "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" to actually happen in a court of law, not the side of the road. We don't want cops to be judges and juries. But, you don't think so, and you think you know this better than her own attorneys, huh?
    1
  14292. Oh, and by the way, she lost her lawsuit, and will be getting $0.00.
    1
  14293. I'm not slinging mud. You are. You opened by claiming that you cannot believe anybody is taking the cop's side. That's ridiculous. The woman went absolutely bananas over being asked for a receipt. And, her behavior was abhorrent. For you to take her side is outlandish. You then went on to spew a bunch of legal gibberish, demonstrating that you have no understanding of the legal process on any level. And, you continue to do so. Now your claim is that if she had just cooperated on a basic level, didn't resist, didn't obfuscate, and didn't obstruct and fail to ID, that she'd have been arrested anyway. That's just plain silly. There's absolutely no reason to believe anything would happen that way. She got HERSELF arrested via her actions. None of us have time machines to change history, but, I think it's pretty safe to say that if she had at least calmly said "I don't feel comfortable showing my receipt, but here's my ID you keep asking for, and I'd like to confront the store itself on this matter," that he would NOT arrest her. He made it pretty clear that the arrest was more about the subsequent actions (obstruction/obfuscation, refusing to ID, etc.). So, your hatred of the police is quite clear here. You just automatically assume he'd just arrest her without cause.
    1
  14294. Oh, spare me. I'm not the one pretending to know things I don't even remotely know. That's YOU doing that. You're sitting there trying to find every reason under the sun to blame police for the actions of this ridiculous woman in the video. And, as I said, you don't have to take my word for anything. Of course a store employee thinking someone might have stolen something is reasonable suspicion. If not, why didn't her attorneys sue the police. If you see someone stealing your bicycle, and you tell the police who did it, are they going to say, "sorry, that's not enough reason for us to investigate, you're on your own"? Look how easily your own position completely crumbles. I never said she was required by law to show her receipt. She's not. But, any reasonable human being would do so. There's no harm in the police or a store asking for it. And, there's no harm in providing it. It's quick and easy, and puts things to an end instantly. If she wanted the crusade instead of the simple answer, that's her prerogative. But, look at what you're advocating. Look at what you're defending. I recognize that you're not saying it's a good idea to be irate and irrational, you're merely saying it's not a crime to be that way. You're correct from the literal word of law, but, you're still promoting chaos instead of a nice friendly life. There is no burden of proof at the side of the road. Good grief. That's for a court. And, yeah, if you wrongfully and willfully accused me of theft, go right ahead, call the police. See where that gets you. In the meantime, look at how far you're shifting the goalposts here. This is a store, with thousands of transactions a day. So what? The person made a minor mistake and thought something was perhaps stolen that wasn't. That's not willful, that's just a simple mistake. So, don't try to spin this story into some twisted version about you calling the police on me. And, by the way, that HAS happened to me. A neighbor called the police, I proved I was not guilty of anything, and they went back and scolded the guy, and he moved out shortly thereafter. Listen to how ridiculous you are. You think the employee needs to know what was stolen? In a store that stocks a billion items, she's going to know what was in the bag? You cannot even be serious. Once again, your total hatred of the police bleeds through every word you type, when you make these outlandish leaps of logic. Asking for a receipt and ID isn't harassment. I refuse to read another word from you. You are well beyond reach of logic or reason. I hope you enjoy your inevitable prison term.
    1
  14295. But, nobody saw the arrest video until long after she was dead.
    1
  14296. Sorry, but are you under the impression that the side of the road is a courtroom, and pronouncement of guilt or innocence is done by a cop? Do you think the cop is judge and jury? Um, no. We don't want cops to have that kind of power. Guilt or innocence is decided weeks later, via the legal process. They have time to interview the people, gather any physical evidence, review the videos, register transactions, inventory records, etc. And, they have time to get her side of the story, via her attorney or otherwise, etc. You're acting as if no cop could ever make an arrest until after there's a conviction. Well, how would that ever even make sense? On what planet would you ever prove someone guilty BEFORE you can arrest them?
    1
  14297. Another dewdrop who asks a question, but doesn't want the answer.
    1
  14298.  @deanhall6045  I'm not playing this game with you, dewdrop.
    1
  14299.  @deanhall6045  Thanks, I'll stick with credible people, not those who rely on AI to support gibberish.
    1
  14300. If you're saying that it sounds like they were drugged, your first question shouldn't be about the lump on the head (but, yes, that's a good question, just shouldn't be your FIRST question)... the better first question would be to ask why no drugs were found in their systems, and instead, only amazingly high alcohol levels were found in their systems?? That's what you should be asking.
    1
  14301.  @JKDVIPER  Huh? Yes, you finally said things that are correct. However, you still didn't answer anything I asked. And, your own most recent comment flies directly in the face of your earlier comments, but, you just don't understand why. Your original position was that this wasn't a legal arrest, and that her rights were violated. Now, you're outlining that this was a legal arrest, and you never even mentioned anybody's rights. You have changed your position without even knowing it.
    1
  14302. Huh? This video was never seen by anybody until 1.5 years after she was dead. Blurring her face wasn't going to change history.
    1
  14303. Oh, I agree. I wish the video was never shown to anybody. But, your comment was "maybe this wouldn't have happened," which makes no sense.
    1
  14304. But, your story now is different than the first posting. Your original posting talked about blurring the face to prevent suicide. The point remains, nobody saw it while she was alive, so, the face blurring wouldn't have mattered.
    1
  14305. Multiple people reported this incident. Yes, they were "at the arrest." I mean, this is all as simple as reading the police report, you know. You did that, right? You didn't just watch 1 minute on Inside Edition (where facts don't matter), and then ask a bunch of silly questions without caring about the answers, did you?
    1
  14306. Well, with your massive expertise, such that you can diagnose exactly what happened by watching a few minutes of a "news" clip, I sure hope that you're called as an expert in the trials. Given how weak the lawsuit looks to me, they can use the help of a world renowned legal expert in toxicology like you.
    1
  14307. Yeah, when you see a guy at the playground, cranking away in front of kids, leave him alone!!!
    1
  14308. So, when did police start giving warnings and follow up later for misdemeanor crimes like this one?
    1
  14309.  @dr_redbanRL  Monkeys also sometimes kill each other. So, we shouldn't arrest murderers?
    1
  14310. Well, if it's any consolation, he wasn't feeling anything, because he was dead moments later.
    1
  14311. 1) They weren't strangers. He knew them, and they had stolen from him before. 2) He placed his car away from the house so they wouldn't know he was home. 3) He unscrewed some of the lights so they wouldn't turn on, even if they flipped the switch. 4) He ran a recording device while he waited in the basement, clearly he knew they were coming. 5) Before either one of the teens arrived at his house, he rehearsed on that recording device what he was going to say to the police after he killed them, including "in the left eye" (he later shot the girl in the left eye). I repeat: hours before the teens even got there, he rehearsed, on tape, what he was going to tell the police about shooting them. 6) He had a tarp ready for the bodies. 7) He gathered up the bodies, and put them in the other room so they wouldn't ruin his carpet. 8) He didn't call the police until the next day. 9) After killing the first thief, he then sat quietly waiting for a long time for the other thief to arrive, then shot her too. 10) Her shirt was found opened, make of that what you will. 11) After shooting the girl in the torso, she was still alive and incapacitated, yet he didn't want her to live (his own words), and wanted to make sure she was dead (his own words), so put two bullets into her left eye (exactly as he had said on the prior recording), and then waited, and then shot another bullet under the chin up into her brain (his own words). 12) While waiting for the criminals to arrive, he was armed with two different guns, one of which was a little bit faulty. 13) After he shot one with the faulty weapon, it wouldn't fire again. So, he literally apologized to the criminal (who was still alive) for not successfully killing right away, and switched guns for the fatal shots while the criminal was on the ground.
    1
  14312. But, that would defeat the purpose of making "public beach" content.
    1
  14313. Yes, the stuff is still there. What's your point?
    1
  14314. So, you refuse to answer the questions. Undoubtedly because you didn't read them.
    1
  14315. Huh? What are you talking about?
    1
  14316. Oh, spare the world your obvious hatred that bleeds through every word you type. A vast majority of cops are very good. You only ever hear about the bad ones.
    1
  14317. The short version is that she was a convicted felon who served time in prison, and had a million other arrests. Her landlord and neighbors said that she was a stripper at the local club, and that she also did "private" cash encounters out of her apartment. There were many witnesses of the incident, not just the one family mentioned here. One of the "audience" even recorded it, and gave the video to the police. It didn't match her version of being a quiet thing with nobody around. In all likelihood, she was probably making a video of herself at a public beach, but, police came, so she was trying to cry her way out of an arrest, hoping they wouldn't look her up for open warrants. And, the arrest video wasn't released until 2.5 years later, and she was long dead by then, it didn't cause her suicide.
    1
  14318. Welcome to Inside Edition, where facts don't matter.
    1
  14319. Good grief. The case against the store was thrown out "with prejudice," not because of prejudice. This is a legal term that means that she is never again allowed to sue for the same thing. If they threw the case out "without prejudice," this would mean that she could try to re-file the case again in the future, after gathering more evidence and stuff. But, basically, "with prejudice" means that her case was so bad that the court is essentially saying, "get out of here with your lousy case, you've got no claim, and you cannot ever come back with this BS." And, her own high profile attorney knew that there's no case against the police, because they did nothing wrong. What do you think you know that her attorney doesn't know?
    1
  14320. Violation of the 4th amendment? How? He asked for the receipt. He's allowed to ask. He didn't forcibly search her. What are you talking about?
    1
  14321. Back in the 1960s, they ran vacuum chamber trials with approximately 180 dogs, and subjected them to a nearly perfect vacuum for various lengths of time. Anything under 1.5 minutes, all of the dogs survived with no permanent damage. At around 2 minutes, that's when it started to result in damage or death in some of the dogs. It's probably a fair assumption that human tolerances would be about the same.
    1
  14322. No social media plastered anything until long after she was dead. It didn't ruin her life, because (a) almost nobody knew or cared, and (b) her life was already ruined long before this incident.
    1
  14323. @ismzaxxon 5 hours ago Surely cosmic winds on the moon would have covered the footprints by now. Reply 10 replies @rockethead7 @rockethead7 5 hours ago Um, no. Reply @ismzaxxon @ismzaxxon 3 hours ago @rockethead7 My Mistake, only larger planets have cosmic winds. Reply @rockethead7 @rockethead7 3 hours ago Strike two. Reply @ismzaxxon @ismzaxxon 2 hours ago @rockethead7 It is on the NASA wesite. Seems Mars (for example) has regular solar dust storms. Reply @rockethead7 @rockethead7 1 hour ago Yikes, strike 3. Reply @ismzaxxon @ismzaxxon 31 minutes ago @rockethead7 I have no idea what you mean, Use your words if you have something to say other than UM, Strike. It would seem you feel the need to make a point, feel free to advise where NASA is going wrong. Reply @rockethead7 @rockethead7 27 minutes ago Or, how about stopping pretending you know things you don't? How about that for an idea? Reply @ismzaxxon @ismzaxxon 19 minutes ago @rockethead7 Is that your fallback position? I say "Surely cosmic winds on the moon would have covered the footprints by now." That makes you think I am making statement of fact? I was hopeing you were going to give me some facts, educate me further... This is not really a big issue for me at all. Sorry if it seems to upset you. Reply @rockethead7 @rockethead7 17 minutes ago We are nowhere near any stars with cosmic wind. Planets don't make cosmic wind, stars do. You then switched to solar dust storms on Mars, but, you didn't understand that either, because the solar wind doesn't cause the dust storms. The sun does, but, not the solar wind (which isn't the same as cosmic wind). It appears you don't know the difference between types of stars, and shockingly, you even claimed that planets give off cosmic wind (or solar wind, for that matter), which is ridiculous, because only a star can do that. Are you done pretending now? Reply @rockethead7 @rockethead7 15 minutes ago I'll just never understand it. Never. I truly will never understand why people like you feel compelled to pretend to know things you don't. Reply @ismzaxxon @ismzaxxon 10 minutes ago @rockethead7 That is where you should have started. Now I know. Are you okay? Are things going okay? You know your comments were a bit OTT. Reply @rockethead7 @rockethead7 5 minutes ago Surely, boats cannot float. They have those spinny propeller things that face straight downward, but, that's not enough to push boats upward. Also, all boats are made out of solidified sugar, so, the water would dissolve the sugar, and the boats would basically just melt away. That's exactly what you sounded like, talking about a topic you knew nothing about. Reply @ismzaxxon @ismzaxxon 44 seconds ago @rockethead7 I am concerned for your mental health. Read back, and tell me your response is a rational one.
    1
  14324. So, in a massive stroke of poetic irony, when I said something as silly as you did (intentionally, to outline why what you said was silly), you came back at me and told me I had mental problems... simultaneously to demanding a more professional discourse. Not many mirrors where you live? You can't look into the mirror and see the amazing irony of spewing silly gibberish about a topic you know nothing about... then getting a silly response (intentional)? Then, you do EXACTLY what you accuse me of doing? You don't see the irony in that, dewdrop?
    1
  14325. All anybody needs to do to see your lies is to scroll up, dewdrop.
    1
  14326. The guy is so far disconnected from reality that he said that planets give off solar/cosmic wind. He apparently loves to pretend to know things he doesn't.
    1
  14327. I confess I don't quite get it. Is that a reference to her implants?
    1
  14328. Well, you're correct with most of what you said. But, she did have her receipt, and didn't steal anything. The rest of what you said is correct.
    1
  14329. First of all, learn English. Or, if English isn't your native language, then just write in your language and others can translate. Good grief. Secondly, your hope and optimism sounds nice and all, but, it's not reality. An upper chest hit like that, with what is probably a .40? He says his last words 20 seconds after getting shot, and stopped moving 10 seconds after that? Yeah, he was gone, man. No amount of aid was going to matter at that point. Thirdly, the officer's first order of business was to secure the area. A guy just came up and tried to shoot him. He thankfully shot first. But, then the woman arrived so quickly, and she was a risk. And, the officer had no idea if there were a dozen more people coming, or what. Had he stopped immediately and given first aid, rather than secure the scene, who knows? Maybe the woman would have shot him also, then the cop would have needed the same kind of aid. You acknowledged yourself that personal safety was the top priority, then, in the same sentence, reversed that opinion for some reason.
    1
  14330. @Andre I'd never actually criticize stuff you write. I know your track record from a hundred other of your postings. But, just a friendly statement here... we don't actually know he is arguing that there is a "problem" with it. If we take his words literally, he simply asked a question. And, unlike the masses of conspiracy believers, he didn't immediately negate/refute his own question. Now, I'll grant you, 8 times out of 10, when someone just asks a question like the one he asked, it means he is not actually interested in the answer, and is only pretending to ask the question. But, for people who ask questions (without immediately demonstrating that they don't care about the answers), I just give a straight answer without blindly assuming he is trying to say the moon landings didn't happen. Anyway, we're on the same team here, so, far be it for me to say "you're doing it wrong."
    1
  14331. What nonsense. Blame the cops, not the guy who just murdered his father and then got into this police shootout and chase? The maniac was shooting the entire time. The cops didn't shoot until they were close. The driver is the problem here, not the cops. The cops didn't hit anything besides the guy's truck, and him. Stop complaining about topics you know nothing about.
    1
  14332. No. The quantity of shots doesn't matter. You can shoot someone 15 times, 9 times, 1 time, whatever. But, what you cannot do is plan ahead to murder two people, and then proceed to murder them. That's what the man in this video did. He planned ahead to kill them.
    1
  14333.  @915buck  Then that juror came to the correct conclusion for incorrect reasons.
    1
  14334.  @915buck  No, not according to me. It's according to every single defensive firearms training course operated in the USA. You're entitled to defend yourself with as many shots as it takes. If you empty the clip, you empty the clip. Nobody convicts you for that. But, there's a difference between defending yourself vs. murder. What made it murder wasn't the number of shots, but the fact that he planned it ahead. And, if the juror thought the number of shots mattered, she was wrong to come to her conclusion on that basis. Though, this could all be just a slight misunderstanding, because, perhaps she merely meant that the guy shot the female intruder, she was laying on the ground saying "oh my god," the guy apologized for not killing her, switched guns, put two shots into her left eye, then waited, and when he saw some slight movement, pressed the gun against the underside of her chin, and fired into her brain. From that perspective, perhaps the juror merely meant "number of shots" to mean the extra shots he took after she was already completely incapacitated, and not a threat, yet the guy went back and shot some more. Maybe she just means the difference between "bang bang bang bang bang," vs. "bang bang," (wait), "sorry for not killing you," "bang bang," (wait), "oh, you're still not dead yet," "bang." Again, the number of shots is fairly irrelevant. The pattern/manner of the shots, and the fact that he set out to murder them before they even got there, and then proceeded to murder them and make 100% sure that they were dead with additional shots... that's what we're talking about here.
    1
  14335.  @915buck  Wow. I don't think I've ever quite seen someone literally agree with me, while simultaneously telling me I'm wrong. Good grief.
    1
  14336.  @stusue9733  I haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about, and neither do you.
    1
  14337.  @stusue9733  "Now see if you can find a type in my comment." Was that supposed to say "typo"?
    1
  14338. Yeah, I can't tell. Was that window washing tool a 9mm, or a .22?
    1
  14339. Hilarious!! She was a convicted felon who spent a term in prison about 6 years ago. She had a million arrests, both before and after. Stealing cars. Other thefts. Drugs and alcohol. Failure to appear. You name it. She abandoned her family about a decade ago, including a husband and 6 month old boy, because she preferred to live a life of crime and drugs. Her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club. Her neighbors said she also did "private" cash transactions out of her house with a parade of men. Oh, but you watched a minute long Inside Edition video, so, you know better!!
    1
  14340. Multiple people called about this incident, and one caught it on video and gave a copy to the police. Needless to say, it doesn't match her version about nobody being alone. To the contrary, it was a loud and public event in front of multiple people including children. Oh, but wait, she cried on video, therefore you believe her.
    1
  14341. China has photos of the landing sites. Japan does not... at least not in enough detail to see anything more than a vague disturbance/discoloration of the landing sites.
    1
  14342. Cops have bodycams now. That's just a fact of life.
    1
  14343. The amount of thought power behind your sentence is already too much for them. Thinking people don't do what these people are doing.
    1
  14344. Do you really not know that cuffing is policy? The restaurant was the path to the cars. And, the arrest video wasn't seen by anybody until 2.5 years later (long after she died). What more do you want here?
    1
  14345. Huh? What exactly do you think the police did wrong? What would you have done differently?
    1
  14346. What exact statements has this resort made that you think are lies? And, how do you know they are lies?
    1
  14347. The university (as a whole) was also a victim. The bribes were to specific people who helped falsify the applications. Yes, one of the bribes went to a university employee. But, the university (as a whole) admitted the students under the impression that the credentials were correct. Analogy: if you bribe a bank security guard to help you rob that bank, the bank (as a whole) is still the victim, even if one of the bank employees helped commit the crime. They paid a university employee to help falsify the students' athletic record, thus the university accepted the students under completely fraudulent credentials. They expected to get two students who would participate in the sports rowing team. What they got was two students who faked "injuries" immediately after getting admission, because that was the plan from the start, and the sports rowing coach was paid to lie to his own employer (the university) about the credentials of the applicants. So, the students got in, and never rowed for the team at all.
    1
  14348. I also fail to understand why you commented about "the taxpayer"?? We are all taxpayers. Which "taxpayers" are you talking about? Lori Loughlin and her husband? What do the "taxes" have to do with anything?
    1
  14349. That is a complete butchery of what was said. It came from a Russian scientist who said that, because his English was quite rough, and about 30 seconds later, he corrected himself. Little tiny atmospheric particles extend out past the moon, but, nobody actually calls that an atmosphere, not even the Russian you're quoting from.
    1
  14350. In a court of law. Proof is for a courtroom. To stop and detain and question, you only need "reasonable suspicion." The burden of proof doesn't come until weeks later.
    1
  14351. Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  14352. Oh, you're a real genius alright.
    1
  14353. Yeah, the cop could invite the woman over to his house to meet his kids, and she could put on a show for them too. They can become lifelong friends, and build a relationship. That's the cops' job, after all, right? Befriending hardened criminals, right?
    1
  14354. Hilarious!!! It's like straight out of the plot of Robocop II.
    1
  14355. Well, why should anybody base any opinions on some random sentence by some 3rd party who had nothing to do with anything? How about actually caring about THE EVIDENCE instead of whatever a documentary's quote says?
    1
  14356. No, she didn't show up for court, and they had a hard time tracking her down because she kept trying to change her name. So, she was never convicted (of this arrest anyway). Also, it's pretty doubtful she'd have to register anything for something this minor. Even with her mile long criminal history and her felony term in prison, I'd bet this would easily be negotiated down to a minor infraction with a little community service and time with a counselor, no registered anything.
    1
  14357. Police have that kind of discretion for an infraction. For a crime, however, we don't want police playing judge and jury.
    1
  14358. Yes, this was probably the least severe of her long list of crimes. But, a crime nonetheless.
    1
  14359. Well, maybe if she had bothered to appear in court (which she didn't), they could negotiate her crime down to a minor infraction, and mandate that she get some of the help you're recommending. But, nope, like most of her other arrests, she chose not to appear.
    1
  14360. I'll tell ya, NASA sure is impressive. I mean, I've never met anybody with a perfect hiring record. I have interviewed and hired hundreds of people over the decades, and I have a decent track record. Yet, still, there are plenty of examples of people who are pretty good during interviews, but don't pan out once they're actually on the job. NASA, on the other hand, has a 100% track record of hiring people who are quite willing to become criminals, eh? Kubrick, he went along. The death defying astronauts who were military test pilots and combat pilots, yup, they all went from bold type-A personalities, and flipped sides, and converted to becoming meek little criminals who just did what they were told. The thousands of brilliant engineers, yeah, brilliant enough to be aerospace engineers, while simultaneously somehow not brilliant enough to figure out that their jobs were fraudulent. I guess they don't know how to watch conspiracy videos made by taxi cab drivers and warehouse workers that figured it all out. Yes, their 100% perfect track record of hiring people willing to be criminals is more impressive than landing on the moon!!!
    1
  14361. They don't release the video if there's an open investigation.
    1
  14362. July 1, 2021 = this video. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = video was released.
    1
  14363. She was dead for 1.5 years, and there wasn't an open investigation any longer.
    1
  14364. Sorry for breaking up the reply. I've tried 8 times to get it to post, and finally had to break it into pieces. It's still blocking a bunch of stuff, but, I can't figure out why, so, figure out the rest yourself.
    1
  14365. OK, so what? It's a 50 minute video. Did you expect every possible question to be answered?
    1
  14366. Her death is on whose hands?
    1
  14367. What the board did about every topic was ridiculous, outlandish, and I hope they all get thrown out of office. But, the cops do not get to make that call. If the school officials trespass someone, the cops must trespass that person. It's really that simple. The cops are not judge and jury. They make the arrest, and leave the rest up to the courts. Imagine that the cops took a personal stand about someone who refused to leave your home, for example. Would you want the cops to say, "sorry, we're not taking the guy off of your property because we don't agree with your politics, so we're letting him stay"? Oh, and before you say something like "public property, he has a right to stay," nope, sorry, that's wrong. There's a difference between public property like a sidewalk, vs. a building that happens to be owned by the public. The officials CAN trespass people from the building.
    1
  14368. Why do you think moon conspiracy videos are correct? Why do you base your entire "education" about Apollo on 1-2 sentence clips you found in conspiracy videos, instead of the millions of pages of Apollo documentation, and the mountains of evidence? And, by the way, if you're going to call someone an "imbecile," it helps to spell it correctly, else, you just look like one of those "imbicils" (your spelling). Amazing, and this was your edited version.
    1
  14369. How many commenters here actually knew anything about this when she was alive?
    1
  14370. Well, they managed to prevent the arrest video from going public until 2.5 years later. At least that's a silver lining of sorts. At least she didn't have to suffer any public humiliation for this arrest video while she was alive.
    1
  14371. Yeah, not only did this video not show the "after," but also didn't show the "before." It picks up in the middle, and ends early also.
    1
  14372.  @Tim22222  I believe he's mocking the nuts, not that he IS a nut. But, hey, I've been wrong before....
    1
  14373.  @LousHouseSalonSpa  Hilarious!!! Yes, the courts, police, etc., DO have authority over you. If you want to live in this thing we call a "society," this means that you must abide by the laws and authorities in that society. Innocent until proven guilty is a concept in a courtroom, not at the side of the road. I mean, just imagine if the law worked the way you're pretending. Just imagine it. The cops could never arrest anybody until they prove you guilty? How would that even work? You cannot prove someone guilty before you even complete an investigation. And, the cops don't even determine guilt or innocence, nor do we want them to. A cop needs to establish "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause." That's all. Proof of guilt happens inside the courtroom. And, the store employee isn't a "regular person." If you are an employee for an established business, you speak on behalf of that business. In your fantasy world, who could ever ask a cop to stop you, if not an employee of the store? Do you expect the chairman of the board at the company to call the police?
    1
  14374.  @AM-rd9pu  You saw the man's posted message. Do you really think he's capable of reading anything more than the menu at McDonald's?
    1
  14375.  @jnieuwenhuis8504  So, you're proud to know nothing.
    1
  14376. Hence why I don't trust a word he's saying.
    1
  14377.  @camdengraves1442  There are no reports of drugs/roofies. The family isn't accusing anybody of giving roofies in their lawsuits.
    1
  14378. "There is no need to call me names" Don't call me names while I accuse thousands of people of being criminals. Be nice to me while I'm slandering people.
    1
  14379. "just because I am searching for truth." And, you think it's going to be found by swearing on a dishonest conman's bible?
    1
  14380. "I do NOT have any biases. one way or the other." Yeah, and I'm the tooth fairy. I really believe you. "All I do is look for proof of truth." Yet, you aren't even asking for EVIDENCE!!!! EVIDENCE, dewdrop. "Truth" isn't found in the broken "logic" of whether astronauts would cooperate with a conman who was producing a bunch of dishonest accusatory videos. Good grief.
    1
  14381. "Why do you seem so upset at the possibility that man has never stepped on the moon?" There are no problems with people asking questions. But, when those people don't care about the answers, yeah, that's an issue. I don't like when people run around and tell a million falsehoods that accuse thousands of people of committing crimes. And, that's exactly what Bart Sibrel does. He doesn't even believe his own nonsense, he just makes money by grifting people to fall for his "swear on the bible" videos. I also don't appreciate when people (i.e. you) don't know anything whatsoever about the topic, and instead, go straight to conspiracy videos as your source of information, gobbling it all up. You are claiming you only know of Aldrin's refusal to put his hand on a bible, while, you don't know about the astronauts who did. And, frankly, I have little tolerance for the fact that I ask questions, and you refuse to answer.
    1
  14382. "I do not refuse to discuss any truths." Yet, you avoid all but a couple of sentences I've written. You don't answer questions/challenges. And, you don't have the common courtesy to even Google the astronauts who swore on Sibrel's bible before sticking your head in the ground and pretending it never happened. "I have yet to see any proof of your three out of twelve astronauts who actually swore to their experience." See what I mean? It's not hard to find, dewdrop. You refuse to look.
    1
  14383. "Even Neil Armstrong was VERY tight-lipped about the experience" Nonsense. He gave many lectures and interviews. Not as many as some of the others. But, still, lots. I tried elaborating here, but my response keeps getting blocked. You don't know what you're talking about.
    1
  14384. Dewdrop, if you were on a "quest for truth," then it wouldn't matter to you how one astronaut reacts to being slandered. You can try to convince yourself all day long that when someone accuses you of being a felon, you'd go out and have a beer. But, not ONCE in this entire thread have you sought EVIDENCE. Not once. You are seeking "truth" in whether or not astronauts cooperated with a convicted criminal and swore on his bible. It's ridiculous. Sane people would seek "truth" by looking at the actual evidence.
    1
  14385. Great woman? With a felony prison term about 6 years ago? A mile long arrest record for numerous thefts, stealing cars, drugs and alcohol, failure to appear, etc.?
    1
  14386.  @bargeman100  As opposed to what? Are you someone that doesn't want answers to questions/statements? The original poster spewed incorrect garbage. I asked what he meant, and corrected his garbage. What would you have preferred? Leave the incorrect garbage as-is? (You obviously DO prefer that. You would rather believe claptrap, than have correct information. And, when someone like me provides the correct information, your mind can't handle it.)
    1
  14387.  @bargeman100  Irrelevant. The facts stand as they are, with or without my intellectual status. I don't matter one bit. The mission photography includes hundreds of photos pointed at the sun (something the original poster denied existed). I do not matter one bit. I just pointed out that he was demonstrably wrong. And, for you, you still spew the most ridiculous garbage over all of your posts in the various threads. You do this whether I am a genius or not. You don't pay attention to input, whether I am a genius or not. You ignore questions, whether I am a genius or not. You refuse to address the facts, whether I am a genius or not. So, my status makes no difference.
    1
  14388. Huh? Sorry, but you have your facts wrong. There isn't any lawsuit against the cops. The case was filed against the store (and the woman lost that case badly). And, sorry, sticking up for yourself doesn't include violating a bunch of laws in the process (which is exactly what she did).
    1
  14389. Dewdrop, other than a couple of obscure blog posts, virtually nobody even knew anything about this arrest while she was alive. The "millions of people" didn't happen until after the arrest video was released a few months ago, on November 24, 2023. She died more than 2 years ago. So, no, there were no "millions of people" who knew anything while she was alive. And, yes, she walked out on her family and career more than a decade ago in favor of living a life of crime and drugs. She spent a felony term in prison about 6 years ago. According to her landlord, she was a stripper at the local club. And, her neighbors said she was doing "private extras" for cash out of her apartment. Meanwhile, she racked up countless other arrests for stealing cars, drugs and alcohol, other thefts, etc. If that's not a downward spiral, what is?
    1
  14390. Congratulations for acquiring your YouTube University PhD. You have successfully surpassed an actual university degree with a YouTube University degree, by learning from videos made by taxi cab drivers, yoga instructors, and warehouse workers. They have taught you to use heavy lead to shield against ionic particle radiation instead of light metals and polymers. Meanwhile, those people who actually spend years going to accredited universities will tell you that lead is a horrible choice for ions because of the secondary Bremsstrahlung radiation that often is just as bad as the primary radiation. But, if it's not mentioned in YouTube University video classes made by moon landing deniers, it doesn't count, right?
    1
  14391. But, this arrest was never on YouTube before she died. Other than a couple of hundred hits on obscure blogs that nobody ever heard of (and didn't include the arrest video), nobody even knew about this arrest until long after she was already dead. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released due to FOIA.
    1
  14392. But, the arrest video wasn't posted anywhere until long after she was dead.
    1
  14393. 1) Learn English. 2) Write it up then. Show your calculations. Submit it to science and engineering journals. What are you waiting for? Spewing gibberish on YouTube comments proves nothing other than you're a crackpot. If you actually believe what you're spewing, you'd be demonstrating it mathematically in the appropriate journals for peer review.
    1
  14394. Kilowatthours are not the same as kilowatts. You cannot convert kilowatthours to horsepower. You convert kilowatts to horsepower. Power and energy are two separate (but related) concepts. Hope this helps.
    1
  14395. I disagree. I think her suicide had nothing to do with this incident, and would have happened with or without this beach arrest.
    1
  14396. Are you even capable of staying on topic? You opened by complaining that there was no proof of the moon landings, and wanted a rover to go and photograph the landing sites. He replied and told you that there have been 4 lunar orbiters that have photographed the landing sites already, and that some of them had the resolution required to see the landers, foot paths, rover tracks, etc. Did you respond? No, of course not. Instead, you changed topics. You then talked about one press conference. You were asked if you watched the whole thing, or just a deceptively edited copy. And, you were asked if you saw the other press events where the astronauts were smiling ear to ear. No answer. Dewdrop, if you're not going to address your own topics, and all you're capable of doing is changing topics, what is your point? It's clear you won't accept reality. You probably don't even read the answers to your own comments.
    1
  14397. Are you simply not capable of answering a single question?
    1
  14398. The arrest video wasn't released until 2.5 years later. They prevented its release as long as they could. But, because she was no longer alive, the investigation was closed, and they could no longer prevent Freedom of Information Act requests from releasing it.
    1
  14399.  @annabellelee4535  For an open investigation, the FOIA release is usually blocked. It's usually not until the investigation is completely closed.
    1
  14400. "How does Biden have peace?" == By sleeping at the White House with an army of armed guards at his disposal.
    1
  14401. How do you think the police shamed her?
    1
  14402. What do you propose? It was an aggravated misdemeanor. And, she was a convicted felon with a million other arrests, and open warrants. Let her go?
    1
  14403. You guessed wrong. She had it. But, it seems awfully obvious that she was trying to turn it into a lawsuit. But, that backfired, and her lawsuit was tossed out of court.
    1
  14404.  @matchit0419  YOU SAID: "maybe those stupid teens shouldn't of broke in?" == First of all, I have never claimed that the children should break into houses. Those are words you're putting into my mouth as you follow me from thread to thread. Secondly, look, I try very hard not to harp on illiteracy too much, but, in your case, I just can't stay silent about it any longer. In this thread, and the others in which you're chasing me around and following my comments, every post you make is riddled with massive illiteracy. There's no such concept as "shouldn't of broke in." That's not even a phrase. You clearly don't know one word from the next in the sentences you write, and it's difficult to cut through your broken English. The phrase "shouldn't HAVE BROKEN in" would fit better. But, whatever, you're clearly not listening anyway. Why does it matter? I'll explain it. It's probably because you are illiterate that you do not understand these concepts. People who cannot write very well, undoubtedly cannot read very well. People who cannot read very well, undoubtedly have very low reading comprehension. And, that's probably why you just can't understand these concepts. As I outlined in other threads, you're also apparently incapable of digesting the fact that many court cases include guilty victims, and guilty perpetrators. You seem to fail to grasp the notion that ALL PARTIES can be guilty of crimes. You have outlined repeatedly in these threads that you apparently believe that one side simply must be innocent. Why? I have no idea. But, this trait in your personality makes it impossible for you to function as a normal member of any jury (someday) that might involve a gangland shooting, or similar crimes. I have news for you: lots of cases involve guilty people all over the place. Not all crimes involve an innocent party and a guilty party. Some crimes are guilty people against guilty people, and this incident is one of those times. YOU SAID: "I hope people like you get robbed man to see how terrible it is." == So, your solution is that you hope I get robbed? Pfftttt. What ARE you talking about? I'll tell you this much, I'll never be in Byron Smith's shoes. If I get robbed by a boy who used to work for me, and a girl in a family that I'm feuding with, I'm going TO THE POLICE. If I have them on video recordings, I'm taking those recordings TO THE POLICE. If the girl wears my stolen flight jacket to school, thus it's even more evidence on top of the recordings, I'm going TO THE POLICE. I'm not going to plan to murder two children because they robbed from me. I mean, sure, if I had no idea who they were, and all of the sudden they broke into my house by surprise, and I feared for my own life, or the lives of my family, yeah, I'm likely going to empty a couple of clips into them. But, none of that is relevant to this case. Smith knew they were coming. Smith knew who they were for MONTHS, and never again went to the police once he knew who was stealing from him. He did the right thing at first, and went to the police for the first couple of robberies. But, after he installed the cameras, he stopped doing the right thing, and decided to murder them instead of going to the police ever again. Your wishes that I get robbed are completely irrelevant to the case at hand. YOU SAID: "I mean killing people is bad right?" == Correct. Killing children for the crime of theft is bad. YOU SAID: "Wait till your the next one getting your stuff stolen, you wouldn't hesitate" == Again, it depends. If someone breaks in unexpectedly, and I had no idea what their purpose was, whether they intended to harm me or my family, you're probably correct, I wouldn't hesitate to put a bunch of .45 rounds into them. But, that doesn't accurately reflect what happened in Smith's case. In Smith's confession, he even said that he had no intention of letting them live. For example, after he gathered up the boys body in the tarp he had prepared ahead of time, and moved it to the other room, he went back to his chair and waited for the girl to come in. He shot her. And, then his gun jammed. He then apologized to her for not killing her more quickly, switched guns, and went right up to her while she was laying on the ground in pain, and put the gun point-blank up to her left eye (exactly as he said he planned to do hours prior to the children arriving), and shot twice. He said in his confession that he knew the girl was already incapacitated, and was no longer a threat, but he wanted to make sure she died. Then, he went back after all of that, and put the gun to her chin, and put a round up into her brain from below, once again, just to make sure she was dead. There is absolutely positively nothing in these actions that falls under any notion of "self defense" for a robbery. And, again, as I said before in the other thread, he then said, "cute" onto his recording. And, he kept the bodies in his basement for 24 hours. And, the girl was found by police to have her shirt open, and her body exposed. (Figure this out for yourself.) This isn't an act of defending a household against a couple of thieves. This is premeditated murder, followed by a bloodlust to do the most possible damage to the female child, not only ending her life, but violating her even in death. Smith deserves never to see the light of day again. YOU SAID: "stop with this high horse stuff" == I don't know why you find this so difficult to comprehend. It's not MY horse. I'm just regurgitating the facts of the case, and the findings of the police investigators, findings of the attorney prosecutors, conclusions of the judges, conclusions of the appellate court, conclusions of the state supreme court, and conclusions of the USA Supreme Court. You don't have the foggiest understanding. And, if you really think that this wasn't a premeditated murder case, and you really think it was just a case of defending your home against intruders, then there's simply no hope for you.
    1
  14405. "a radio call from 240,000 miles away with no atmosphere there and back Is a joke." Really? Maybe you can explain how backyard amateurs have been doing it since the 1950s? Or, wait, I guess you'd have to somehow deny that countless people have done this every single day for the past 70 years or so. Dewdrop, anybody can go buy a radio transmitter and a 2-3 foot dish, and bounce radio off of the moon. It's called a "moon bounce" or "EME" (Earth-moon-Earth). There are literally thousands of videos and articles that tell you how to do it, hundreds on YouTube alone. People do this with as little as 20 watts. Some say they do it with only 10 watts (a small fraction of the energy of a lightbulb). Yet, there they are, amateur ham radio operators making "phone calls" every day, by bouncing radio off of the moon, right in their backyards, talking to people half way around the world using the moon as a radio reflector. Oh, but you think it's a joke, eh? Maybe you can tell the entire planet's ham radio operators that they don't do what they do. Yeah, once again, your mantra is: "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake."
    1
  14406. "with today's tech we could map out stars and easily see that they wouldn't match" Pffttt. So, ancient mariners used star charts to position themselves on the globe to quite a good degree of accuracy. Yet, you think it wasn't possible to simply do the reverse, and position a star chart based on the position on the moon? Hilarious!! Yeah, you're a true genius alright.
    1
  14407. "a 480,000 mile journey not showing one star on the way in or out doesn't atleast raise an eyebrow?" Dewdrop, they used the Carruthers UV telescopic camera to take 125 photos of the stars from the lunar surface. And, every mission took star photos from lunar orbit. Why do you not know this? Did a conspiracy video tell you that they never took star photos? Why would you believe it?
    1
  14408. "Did you see the press conference when they asked the astronauts about the stars?" Did you pay attention to the question asked in that press conference? Moore asked if they saw stars IN THE SOLAR CORONA IN SPITE OF THE GLARE. But, here's what happened: it's a well understood psychological effect. See, people of high IQ will immediately realize that they don't understand what that means, and will try to find out. But, people on the other end of the spectrum, ya know, closer to the animals, well, when they hear words they don't understand, they just mentally delete them. So, all you heard was "did you see stars?" And, you completely omitted the phrase about seeing stars in the solar corona. You don't even remember it. Your mind didn't know what that meant, and completely just didn't process the words at all. It was as if the words were never spoken. That's what happens with people at the lower end of the bell curve. This has been understood since before any of us were born. So, in your mind, you think the astronauts were saying that they don't remember if they saw stars or not. But, to anybody on the upper end of the bell curve, they know that Moore was asking about very specific conditions. And, that's what the astronauts answered about. I mean, didn't it even dawn on you that Armstrong said he didn't remember if he saw stars or not WHILE PHOTOGRAPHING THE SOLAR CORONA? Why do you suppose he didn't just say he didn't ever remember seeing stars? Why even mention the solar corona at all? Oh, wait, silly me, that's right, your mind didn't process that either... because you haven't got the slightest clue what the solar corona is, nor when the astronauts could/couldn't see it.
    1
  14409. "No nation, country or any other space program has had a manned spaced flight past earth's low orbit since the 'moon landings' 50 plus years ago. Why?" Because it's remarkably expensive for very little return on investment. "Name me one technology that we haven't improved upon since it's invention." Supersonic airliners like the 1969 Concorde. Mach 3 spyplanes like the 1960s era SR71. Mach 7 hypersonic planes like the X15 from the 1950s/1960s. See, dewdrop, that was known as the "golden age" of aviation, and that included Apollo. Limitless funding for exotic and expensive projects. All of that has been retired in favor of less expensive stuff. "Could it be the lethal doses of radiation" Huh? Who told you that there were lethal doses of radiation? A conspiracy video? "i dont know." Congratulations on the only thing you're correct about.
    1
  14410. "to chart the stars as if you were on the moon would be a completely different view" No, dewdrop. They're the same stars. There's no "different view" merely because it's 240,000 miles away. I mean, they have a hard enough time detecting the slight difference in star positions when using the 180 million mile parallax effect when we swing around to the other side of the sun. You think anybody will ever notice the slight difference of a mere 240,000 miles? "But they haven't shown you not one star from any of those missions" How about reading my responses before replying with more nonsense, eh? "One star not in its right position would compromise the mission so they rather remove them completely." OK, well, now that you know that they took hundreds of star photos, go use them to disprove Apollo. What are you waiting for? "Apollo stellar photography" is one starting point. And, you can see all 125 photos of the stars from the Carruthers camera. So, have at it. Use those hundreds of photos to disprove Apollo!!! Why are you wasting your time on ME? For 50+ years, crops of deniers just like you have been looking for a smoking gun, and nobody has ever found one. Here's your chance, hero!!
    1
  14411. And, what in the world is wrong with you? Why have you abandoned your original topic? You thought it wasn't possible to send radio to the moon and back. I told you that backyard amateurs have done it with ham radio equipment since long before the Apollo program even started. In one ear, out the other, duck and dodge, refuse to address it, change topics, duck and dodge more, etc. Are you just completely incapable of admitting you're wrong?
    1
  14412. Quote: "The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight. The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months' duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure. A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week. However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. -- James A. Van Allen" Now, let me guess, you only absorbed the first half of the paragraph, and ignored the second half, right?
    1
  14413. Think of it this way, dewdrop: there isn't a radiobiologist on the planet that believes what you believe. And, they're the experts on understanding how radiation affects the human body. Not a single one of them, anywhere on Earth, would ever spew the nonsense you're spewing. And, James Van Allen himself disagreed with you... let alone every cosmologist, particle physicist, etc., on the face of the planet. Oh, but you think you saw a quote somewhere, right? And, a conspiracy video told you the Van Allen belts would be fatal to the Apollo astronauts, right? Therefore you believe it? A conspiracy video made by a criminally convicted taxi cab driver tells you what to believe about radiation, so you blindly accept it, right? And, you have the audacity to think that the world's experts are the ones who don't understand as much about the topic as you do? Think of it like a hot tub. Being in 103 degree water can be lethal to the human body. Yet, hmmm, why aren't people all around the world dropping dead in spas and resorts, or even in their own backyards if they happen to own a hot tub? Could it be because a week in 103 degree water will kill you, yet 15 minutes in that water won't? That's like the Van Allen belts, dewdrop. A week in the worst areas will kill you. 15 minutes won't.
    1
  14414. I don't want any "thanks" for my knowledge. But, answering questions might be a nice way to express that "thanks" (if you actually meant it). I posed a couple of dozen challenges/questions to everything you wrote. Letting it all go in one ear, out the other, refusing to ever admit being wrong about ANYTHING, is certainly not any way to "thank" anybody. You don't get to thank people while ignoring all input. That's quite ingenuine.
    1
  14415. Look, dummy, nobody can understand you, as usual. You are completely incoherent, as usual. About the only thing I could even digest is the part about Apollo 17 PLSS backpacks lasting 7.5 hours, while Apollo 11's PLSS backpacks only lasted 2.5 hours. Yes. They redesigned lots of things for the later missions, including the PLSS backpacks. Look it up. The later backpacks were larger, heavier, had bigger batteries and tanks, and withstood more pressure. They're called "upgrades." Do they not have those in your mental ward?
    1
  14416.  @ChrisPBacon777  YouTube's censorship algorithms have gone even more bananas than they were before. And, they know darned well that what they are doing is annoying. You post something, and it never tells you that the rest of the world can't see it. They let you see your own postings, while blocking everyone else from seeing them, and you never realize you completely wasted your time.
    1
  14417. Spare the world your persecution complex. There's absolutely no harm in the store or cops asking for a receipt. It makes it a whole lot easier. And, there's no need to turn a molehill into a mountain, just because a store employee suspected somebody might have stolen something. It's a GOOD thing that store employees are looking out for stuff like that, rather than just letting crime run rampant, and everybody must pay more for goods because the store suffers so much in losses. Yes, sometimes this means that a mistake will happen, and somebody gets falsely identified. But, just provide your receipt, thank them for being diligent, and go about your day. But, if you want the crusade route, alright, fine, you don't technically have to provide a receipt or assist the cop in an investigation. However, you do legally have to provide identification, and cooperate on a very basic level. This means that you are not permitted to obstruct, obfuscate, or resist.
    1
  14418. It's as if you're proud to be wrong in every single sentence you write. Good grief.
    1
  14419.  @valentinobyrd2753  Rebudle? Hilarious! You know, perhaps if you didn't drop out of school in the 2nd grade, you might not think the things you do, nor read and write the way you do. I'll be honest here, I've replied in a lot of detail to a lot of people in these threads. But, I just didn't think you were going to be able to grasp anything, so, I didn't waste my time.
    1
  14420. By using a rocket.
    1
  14421. Does it ever dawn on you that nearly every moon hoaxer is borderline illiterate? The word "its" exists for a reason. Use it. Good grief. I mean, I know I'm not addressing the outlandish claim itself, and just focusing on your literacy. I normally don't do that, at least not very much. But, shhheeeeeeeessssssssshhhhhhh. Lern 2 spel, dumbey.
    1
  14422. "Extreme range of temps only 250 miles above earth, Astronauts, avionics, satellites and rockets would be destroyed long before reaching the moon." Huh? We have hundreds of satellites in orbit that do this every day, you know. "Just look up at our moon surface with the naked eye, one is able to see lunar surface is parched !" Was there a point here? Do you think this is because the moon was molten when it was forming, and there's no ecosystem to form an atmosphere and rivers and oceans and soil and plants to change that? So, it remains a massive cooled rock in space, basically unchanged for billions of years? Or, it's because the sun "parches" it? "Lunar Module: So we sent rockets to the moon? Picture, So rocket is above the lunar surface, lunar module separates from spaceship and it has decended toward and has landed on surface of the moon, Never Happened!" Huh? Did you forget to get to a point here? What does this even mean? The rocket went down to the surface. And, picturing this in your mind means it never happened? What? "at that time lunar lander supposedly had one engine in center of lander," Again, I fail to understand the point you're trying to make. "It would take "at least three main engines, and/or small engines on out perimeter to be able to maneuver/operate as needed." Is this a joke? First of all, what difference does it make how many "main engines" it had? If one "main engine" is capable of decelerating the craft, why would it need three? Secondly, there were 16 small engines on the perimeter of the craft for this maneuvering you're talking about. Have you ever even looked at a photo of the lander? See those four thruster quads (4x4=16)? Those were doing the exact job that you just got done complaining about, because you didn't think it had those.
    1
  14423. "With all those Billionaires in this world, wouldn't this be the perfect business format?" By bankrupting billionaires? Huh? "Going to update with much more information in future." What information? All you've done thus far is spew stuff you don't understand. Sorry, but, "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake" is all you've managed to really say here. "In some videos online, one will see just how silly astronauts were actually acting while supposedly collecting rocks, conducting experiments, etc, No one, would be even close to conducting themselves in such a manner if actually on the lunar surface, One would be filled awe and curiosity." So, basically, you're saying that you're going to take a couple of sentences here or there, out of the total of hundreds of hours astronauts spent going to/from the moon, walking on it, etc., and then conclude that those few sentences shouldn't have happened. Oh, bravo. You're truly brilliant. "I have observed videos of astronauts supposedly walking/running on lunar surface, I can say for sure, they were Not on the surface of the moon, Lookup Gravity on lunar surface according to NASA, Ofcourse they don't know, It is what they think it should be." So, do the math. Why are you on YouTube? If you believe the gravity is incorrect in the mission videos, do the math, and prove it. "If gravity was actually what they say it is man would be able to hop/ jump in much greater distances in what we see in these videos." Huh? You're not comparing Earth's jumping and hopping to the astronauts on the moon, are you? Sorry, but if you even want to start on that topic, you need to make a fair comparison. Apples to apples. So, go strap on an 88 pound pressure suit. Add an 80 pound backpack. Add another 20 pounds tools and hoses and stuff. Wear some double-layered bulky moon boots. Pressurize your suit to 18 PSI to simulate lunar pressure. Then, tell the world how well you can jump and hop. Then, tell me that the astronauts didn't do just fine while on the moon. See, dewdrop, you don't get to compare hopping and jumping on Earth in a t-shirt and sneakers to hopping and jumping on the moon, and say, "see, it's 1/6th gravity, therefore they should be jumping/hopping 6x more." No. If you want to play that game, you need to compare EXACTLY the same conditions on Earth, full suits and backpacks, THEN you can compare to how they jumped on the moon. "Camera speed is manipulated." Well, sure, lots of the shots were "sped up" because of the frame rates used in the 16mm DAC. But, that's not what you meant. And, sorry, but your complaint about slowing down the footage to match gravity just doesn't work. For a few simple motions, sure. But, when you get into the more complex motions, your supposition just doesn't hold water. "Lunar Liftoff: Just those lunar lift-off's will show these video are fake," Yet, amazingly, not a single aerospace engineer on the planet has spotted this. "Notice in some videos how module blasts of with no dust" Wrong. Every liftoff video show dust being blown. "or plume, Impossible, even in space one can observe exhaust because of liquid oxygen in the fuel," They didn't use liquid oxygen for the liftoff. They used N2O4. And, what does "in the fuel" mean? And, sorry, but the wavelength of light produced by burning fuel and oxidizer isn't dependent upon whatever your imagination dreams up. It depends on the distance that electrons jump during the chemical reactions. "one is able to observe this in videos of space shuttle dock with ISS," Huh? Sorry, but a sentence ago, you just demonstrated that you didn't even know what oxidizer was used on the lander. That's how little you know about the topic. You don't get to pretend you understand anything about this. "Also notice how the camera footage is sped up, Absolutely No need to manipulate camera footage speed" How would you have done it instead? If you have 3.5 minutes of film at 24 frames per second, but you want to film something that takes longer than 3.5 minutes, or you just want to conserve on film overall, how would you do it, if not to lower the frame rate? "Unless Ofcourse, someone is trying to hide/fake something !" Or, they simply didn't want to change film rolls every 3.5 minutes. "By many comments It sure doesn't take much to fool the gullible." All it takes is a massive insecurity, a feeling of a lack of self worth, and a whole lot of Dunning-Kruger, and people like you will believe anything.
    1
  14424. Huh? What does that have to do with this case?
    1
  14425.  @VBG9284  Sorry, dewdrop, if you're not going to read my post before you ask me questions about it, I'm certainly not going to repeat myself. Unless maybe you use more emojis. That'll help a lot.
    1
  14426. Huh? You're not blaming the criminal for his own actions?
    1
  14427. Good grief. You don't know what you're talking about in the slightest. First of all, sorry, but that wasn't his mom that pulled up. That's his "girlfriend." The term "baby daddy" is slang for "the father of my child." Their son (a tiny baby) was in the back seat of the getaway car. Secondly, the criminal was 21 years old, not a child. Why? Why do pretend to understand things you don't? What possible reason?
    1
  14428. You do see the cross on her neck, right? Not good enough for you?
    1
  14429. Let's face reality, Musk instructed the staff that no matter what happens, they were supposed to cheer.
    1
  14430.  @ronoc9  If she was an innocent soccer mom who got caught while trying to be discreet while she thought she was isolated, there's no way she'd end up on any such list. It would be negotiated down to a minor infraction rather easily. But, given that she was a convicted felon who served a term in prison for stealing cars, and had a mile long arrest record for a bunch of different crimes, drugs and alcohol, etc., yeah, maybe. We'll never know because she never showed up in court for this arrest. But, embarrassment of telling her neighbors? Huh? They all knew she was a stripper at the local club, and suspected that she also did "one-on-one" work also. I don't think "shame" was part of her vocabulary.
    1
  14431. Well, she gave up her real estate career and her family over a decade ago to live a life of crime and drugs. She spent a felony term in a Florida prison about 6 years ago. And, this was her millionth arrest.
    1
  14432. From the perspective of lunar orbit.
    1
  14433. Huh? She abandoned her family including a husband, a 6 month old son, and another son, more than a decade ago, to live a life of crime and drugs. She's been arrested a million times and spent a term in a Florida prison about 6 years ago. Stealing cars. Drugs and alcohol. Failures to appear. Other thefts. You name it. It's difficult to keep a straight job with that kind of history, so, her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the gentlemen's club, and neighbors said she did "extras" for cash in her apartment. A very nice person and great citizen indeed.
    1
  14434. Your god didn't stop them from killing innocent people in cold blood. But, you expect your god to "touch Judge heart" (?), whatever that means?
    1
  14435. If her worst experience in her life is being slapped on the butt by a child, she must be living an extremely sheltered life.
    1
  14436. How many hours are you up to now? 6? 8? Let us all know when you get up to 12 hours between getting high. Those drugs aren't good for you, you know.
    1
  14437. So, where are the armies of reports from the other thousands of guests at this very busy 5-star resort, who also must have suffered the same effect? Why does the "news" story need to stoop to giving examples of people at completely different bars and resorts to illustrate the "tainted alcohol" connection? They couldn't find ONE other person at this particular resort with tainted alcohol?
    1
  14438.  @timg185  YOU SAID: "there are lots of stories like this . There is a entire website for people to post their stories. Stories of people being poisoned" == Yet not a single one from this particular resort? Anyway, I'm sure it happens at some places in Mexico. But, sorry, an "entire website for people to post their stories" is not convincing at all that it happens AT THIS RESORT. Anybody on the internet can say anything they want. There are entire websites for people to claim the earth is flat. There are entire websites for people to give their stories about being abducted by aliens. I don't give a crap. Yes, tainted alcohol is a problem in Mexico. But, if you can't connect it to THIS HOTEL, then you've got nothing. Where are the police reports and hospital reports of tainted alcohol AT THIS RESORT? YOU SAID: "and then charged large amounts of money to get out of the hospital." == Imagine that. The hospital wants to be paid for their services. Shocker. Hey, just because hospitals in the USA will treat you and not get paid, doesn't mean that hospitals in Mexico will do the same. YOU SAID: "Or resorts unknowingly purchasing tainted alcohol . Methanol is a by product of making moonshine and is poisonous." == Again, fine, so what? Where's the evidence of THIS hotel purchasing tainted alcohol? The "news" (not news) clip had to stoop to talking about OTHER bars/resorts. And, they showed one getting a gazillion gallons of it taken away. And, by the way, your version of the story isn't what is being asserted in the lawsuit. I've read every page of it (the USA suit anyway... I don't know how to find the suit for the one filed in Mexico). They aren't claiming that the resort unknowingly purchased tainted alcohol. They're asserting that the travel agency in the USA knew that the resort was purchasing tainted alcohol, and therefore the travel agency shouldn't have booked the trip, and they are suing the travel agency for the death of their daughter. Yet, the lawsuit doesn't draw any direct connection to tainted alcohol ever being found at that resort. And, frankly, if they're suing the travel agency, reading between the lines a bit, I think that's a red flag of WEAKNESS of their case against the resort itself... as if the travel agency was supposed to know the 5-star resort poisoned guests (???)... when there's no history of it, and no direct connection to this hotel actually ever doing that before?? YOU SAID: "When these kids passed out they probably dumped the bottle ." == Where's your evidence of that? You're just going to slander those people blindly? Even the family isn't making that accusation. And, how does this go, in your mind? There are a gazillion bottles of tainted alcohol found at other bars/resorts, but never one at this particular one, and BAM, all of the sudden, there's this one bottle that shows up there? Do you think the resort ordered 99,999 bottles of the good stuff, and 1 bottle of the bad stuff? YOU SAID: "Other guest may not have had as many drinks from that bottle. There is a million variables." == Sorry, you don't get to just claim "a million variables" and then leave off of your list THE FACT THAT BOTH OF THEM HAD A BLOOD ALCOHOL LEVEL OF MORE THAN 0.2. Hers was 0.25. Convenient that you didn't list, "they might have just drank too much" as one of your variables. YOU SAID: "What’s the chances they both would pass out at the same time if there was nothing wrong with there drinks." == What are the chances that the hotel ordered 99,999 bottles of good alcohol, and 1 bottle of bad alcohol? == What are the chances that nobody else in the hotel suffered from tainted alcohol? == And, what makes you think they both passed out at the same time? Nobody knows when they passed out, or how. The incident happened after dark. Nobody saw them in the pool until a guest passed by the pool, saw them, and alerted one of the staff in the hotel. We have no clue about what happened, or when each one of them passed out. I mean, the "news" (not news) story just glosses right past the fact that this happened after dark. They gloss right past the fact that the person who saw them in the pool didn't run to alert anybody in the pool to help those people, but had to run to someone else at the hotel. Why do you suppose that is? Maybe because NOBODY ELSE WAS IN THE POOL??? They apparently want you to believe that this was some crowded pool in broad daylight with the bar open and everyone just seemed to let the girl drown, and the boy come close himself to drowning. But, the facts don't add up, do they? YOU SAID: "It was a family vacation not a spring break party vacation with friends." == Oh, so that means that the two did NOT drink themselves into a stupor? I mean, good grief, what lengths will you go to here? What picture are you painting? Is it even remotely possible, in your mind, that the kids drank too much? Is that simply not possible, in your mind? No 20 year old girl ever just drinks herself past the point of control, and drowns on her own? Explain the 0.25 blood alcohol level (completely ripped)? Explain why there is no report of Methanol in the blood tests, if you think that there was 99,999 bottles of good alcohol, and one tainted with Methanol? Explain why nobody else reported the same thing at this hotel? For all we know (which we don't know, because the boy isn't talking), they went back to the pool after dark, he slipped into the pool and bumped his head, and his massively drunken sister drowned while going in to rescue him. Or, for all we know (which we don't know, because the boy isn't talking), the girl was drowning, and the drunken boy hit his head jumping in after her, and nearly drowned himself also. We DO NOT KNOW. Your version of "the story" is blind speculation, as is mine. But, sorry, "there's a website where people can complain about bad alcohol in places in Mexico" doesn't cut it. If you cannot make a direct connection to bad alcohol AT THIS RESORT, you don't get to just claim that, because some other bar/resort across town purchases cheap/bad alcohol, therefore the 5 star resort also purchases bad alcohol. And, sorry, but "maybe there was one bad bottle among all of the good bottles" doesn't cut it either. And, how would they even know what bottle to "get rid of" (your version)? Hundreds of guests are drinking, it's an all-inclusive resort, so there's no paper trail of which particular alcohol these two drank. And, why do you think you know more about what happened than the family themselves, and the investigators, none of whom are asserting this "one bad bottle" story that you're asserting? Bottom line: You have no idea what you're talking about. And, you shouldn't slander the people at the hotel based on NOTHING but blind speculation. And, the fact that you don't even include the remote possibility of the brother and sister just drinking themselves out of their minds... well, that just shows your intellectual dishonesty. You listed "a ton of variables" but didn't even include that one on your list. Ridiculous. Hey, guess what, 20 year old girls sometimes drink too much in Mexico. And, well, it's anecdotal, but I have a pet peev here... sorry, but if the best video example that a "news" story can get their hands on to show this virtuous young 20 year old being victimized by the big bad evil 5 star resort is showing her at 7:05 gyrating around like a drunken party girl... that's their best example of her personality on video... sorry, I'm not exactly impressed to believe that she's a virtuous young victim. And, again, anecdotal, but, again, if the family is suing their travel agency for the death of the daughter, and it took them about 22 months after the death before file the suit, yeah, sorry, this, to me, doesn't tell me they have a strong case against the hotel themselves. This looks like they're grasping at straws. And, I've read the lawsuit. I'm not impressed.
    1
  14439. Please name the type, quantity, and source, of the radiation you think would kill them?
    1
  14440.  @tenpercentfordabigguy8550  You think the solar wind would kill people? Why? It could be a bit harmful if a person wasn't inside a proper spacesuit. But, inside a spacesuit, it really can't hurt anybody. Before you ask others if they are on drugs, you need to look in the mirror. If you think that, somehow magically, the entirety of the world's radiobiologists, astrophysicists, particle physicists, and aerospace engineers, have somehow missed this little "detail" you've spotted, and you think YOU have discovered this major "flaw" that would have killed the astronauts, which no expert for 50-60 years has realized, yeah, I'm not the problem here, you are. But, hey, it doesn't matter what I say. There's a simple solution that doesn't depend on me in any way. Just publish your calculations in a scientific journal on astrophysics. It's really that simple. If you believe a spacesuit cannot protect people from something as trivial as the solar wind (barring any major solar events, of course), then you can calculate that all out, write it up into an article, and submit it to a recognized worldwide science journal. If you're right, I'm sure a Nobel Prize will have your name on it, for rewriting everything known about the physics of the solar wind in space. Go for it. What are you waiting for? And, why would you be asking random people in YouTube comments about the solar wind, rather than "asking" the scientific community itself via the scientific peer review process in journals? You didn't think YouTube comments were a science journal, did you?
    1
  14441.  @joedoe-sedoe7977  Brandon Lee.
    1
  14442. Why? Because Inside Edition told you that her suicide had anything to do with this arrest?
    1
  14443. Huh? She's been dead for two years. How did this video result in her death, when nobody saw it while she was alive?
    1
  14444. Hilarious!! If there wasn't anybody around, why did multiple people call the police? How did one of the "audience" capture it on video if they weren't around to see it?
    1
  14445.  @marksprague1280  The command/service module and lander together weighed 100,000 pounds (fully fueled).
    1
  14446. "We just brought back a sample of an asteroid that has a chance of hitting us in 150 years.. all done by robots.. You realize how much harder that is to do than collecting samples from the Moon?" Justin, I'm sorry here, but, you don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about. Not in the slightest. You're not an engineer. You're not a NASA program manager. You don't know what it does or doesn't take to do these things. Stop pretending you do. And, again, why are you not the slightest bit interested in THE EVIDENCE? What's wrong with you? Why is it just a pile of incredulity that you base your notions upon? You've not once even looked at the evidence, nor even mentioned it. It's just a lot of uninformed notions, backed by "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake" logic. "If it's so easy to walk on the moon." Nobody claimed it was easy, dewdrop. "Why did Russia send robots to collect samples of moon?" Because they couldn't get their N1 rocket to work. The USA had the Saturn V. The Soviets didn't have anything that big (that worked anyway... their N1s kept blowing up... so they eventually scrapped it). Are you getting it yet, dewdrop? Do you even understand these concepts in the slightest degree? I mean, it's very clear that you don't understand, but, c'mon, at least this should be obvious to you, right? If you want to lift 100,000 pounds to the moon (command module, service module, and lander), you need a really big rocket. If you don't have a really big rocket, you can send small probes, and that's it.
    1
  14447. "I didn't know about the surveyor program" Because the conspiracy videos you watch never told you about it. If it's not in a conspiracy video, you have never heard of it. That's your ONLY source of input. "but that does explain how we got the moon rock samples" Dewdrop, Surveyor probes could land, but not take off again. Once again, you know NOTHING. You literally just heard about Surveyor one message ago, and you're already jumping straight to conclusions that align with your predetermined notions. You clearly have NO understanding of how rockets work, and what is required to have a return vessel. "All you're doing is telling me something that someone else told you." The utter hypocrisy. No, dewdrop. YOU are the one regurgitating claims you saw in conspiracy videos. YOU are repeating things that people told you.
    1
  14448. So, that's it then? Ignore 95% of what I wrote, refuse to answer any questions or challenges, and then declare yourself correct? Hey, dewdrop, YOU are the one who doesn't understand anything about the topic. Stop pretending this means you're in the superior position.
    1
  14449.  @randyschissler5791  He's the Charlie Zelenoff of moon nuts. (If you don't know who that is, he's a boxer who has a 0 win, 1 loss, professional boxing record, yet declares himself to be world champion, bought himself boxing championship belts... among a long series of purely insane garbage.)
    1
  14450. YOU SAID: "I actually believe the guy" == Believe what? He's not saying anything. He said he blacked out after 1 drink. He isn't saying anything (beyond that) to believe or disbelieve. YOU SAID: "what they had was cheap alcohol" == And, you know this, how? Were there other guests that blacked out after 1 drink? No. Was there a recorded history of tainted alcohol at this resort? No. So, what's your evidence of "cheap alcohol" at this resort? YOU SAID: "and to me it hits u quick and u will pass out." == Pffttt. So, let me make sure I understand your version of how this happened. You're saying they quickly passed out from 1 drink at around 3:30pm, and nobody noticed two passed out bodies in the pool until after dark at about 7:30pm? Um, ohhhh kaaaayyyy. Sounds ridiculous to me. Also, how do you explain the 0.25 blood alcohol level in the girl, and the +0.2 level in the boy? If one drink made them pass out, how'd their blood alcohol level get that high? Even if "tainted," the blood alcohol level isn't going to get that high. And, if they had Methanol in the alcohol, why aren't they claiming to have found any Methanol in the blood tests? YOU SAID: "it gives u alcohol poisoning" == No, drinking too much alcohol will give you alcohol poisoning. YOU SAID: "its not that they drank to much" == She had a 0.25 blood alcohol level, but she didn't drink too much??? Are you insane? YOU SAID: "it was given to them." == Says who? YOU??? So, you have some knowledge about this case that the family themselves don't know? I hope you're a witness in the case, then, right? You're not just some idiot on the internet spewing absolute gibberish all over the place, right? You can back up this slander you're committing with actual evidence and facts, right?
    1
  14451. Thanks for the stats. Was there a point beyond that, which you were attempting to make?
    1
  14452. 1 - She dit something illegal. And, this was your edited version? How bad was the version before you edited it? 2 - Depends on your definition of "harm." And, yes, it's just like a guy at a park. 3 - Nobody is making that comparison besides you. 4 - Why do you believe she thought she was alone? Because she says so while trying to avoid getting arrested for the umpteenth time? The video of the event, and the witnesses, do not agree with you. 5 - Freedom of Information Act. They can only stop videos from being released if there's an open investigation. But, since she was already dead for 1.5 years, they couldn't block the video from being released, because the case had been closed a long time. 6 - Yes, but, she didn't show up. She had a very long history of not showing up for court for all of her various crimes and lawsuits, etc. Even after her prison term (which was a couple of years before this arrest), she still apparently didn't learn to respect the legal process. And, sorry, I seriously doubt this woman knew what the word "shame" even meant.
    1
  14453. So, you've doubled down, and proven even more that you don't know anything?
    1
  14454. Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  14455. Doesn't it ever occur to you that flat Earthers, moon landing deniers, etc., such as yourself, are almost always functionally illiterate?? YOU SAID: "Just one of the many lies do to indoctrination...." "Do to"?? Look, I'm not here to pick on your pathetic spelling or grammar. But, has it ever dawned on you that, perhaps, maybe, just maybe, the reason you know sooooooo little about the world around you... just might, maybe, be because you're basically illiterate? People who cannot write very well usually cannot read very well. People who cannot read very well will have a very low reading comprehension level. Perhaps the reason you have the scientific understanding of a 5 year old is because you read like a 5 year old? You don't understand things because you're basically illiterate.
    1
  14456. Well, then you'll be relieved to find out that she wasn't shamed to any great degree. Other than a couple hundred hits on a couple of obscure blogs that nobody has ever heard of, none of this story went anywhere until long after she was dead. Nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive. And, no major media outlet covered it until the arrest video was released 2.5 years later. She's solely responsible for her own actions.
    1
  14457. And, you'd believe that silly video made by a convicted criminal taxi cab driver, why? Have you watched the actual original videos from that scene you're talking about? Or, have you only watched the edited version from that movie? Also, if they were in low Earth orbit, like Sibrel claims, why aren't the clouds zooming by the window at 17,500 mph? Why are the clouds stationary, as if, ya know, they were half way to the moon? There are a million different ways to know that Sibrel lied to you in that video clip he edited, but, first and foremost, his own version (that they were actually in low Earth orbit, and those are localized clouds from 100 miles up, instead of continental clouds from half way to the moon) CANNOT be true from his own edited version, because if they were, those clouds would be zooming past the window. Also, as I said, you can just go watch the unedited version of that very same video, and see that the astronauts moved the camera from window to window, and there are no round cutouts like Sibrel claims. The list goes on and on for why you can instantly know that Sibrel was lying in that video you watched. Shame on you for blindly listening to it. But, again, how do you explain the fact that the clouds don't move?
    1
  14458. Once again, confirming that you didn't read a single word I wrote past the first sentence.
    1
  14459. Yes, did you think that's wrong or something?
    1
  14460. So, you're saying that the cornerstone of rocketry since 1903, the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, is wrong? And, the entire planet's rocket engineers don't know this? But, YOU do? And, you've come to YouTube comments with this amazing revelation? Not a physics journal? Not a rocket engineering journal? You are announcing to the world that the main rocket equation that has been used for 120 years is incorrect... in a YouTube comment? Oh, I can sense it, I can feel it, your Nobel Prize is in the mail.
    1
  14461. Please put that on every resume you ever send for any job.
    1
  14462. You are one sick puppy.
    1
  14463. Manned? Because they didn't have a man rated booster big enough to launch a large manned craft that high (once the Saturn V was retired). But, SLS is human rated now. So, the next one will do that.
    1
  14464.  @SSran-iv4lu  The camera wasn't digital. It was an RCA field sequential scanning camera (analog). The multi-color effect was due to the spinning color wheel. Anything in frame that moves faster than the wheel can spin will get the rainbow color effect. It actually happens all throughout Apollo 15/16/17. But, the conspiracy dummies only know what their favorite conspiracy videos tell them. They don't watch any of the original videos. They watch conspiracy videos that tell them to call it "confetti," and complain about the multi-color effect. And, like the braindead little followers that they are, they never actually look anything up, and just do what they're told, and call it "confetti."
    1
  14465.  @SSran-iv4lu  Yeah, no problem. Just to expand a bit on the rainbow color effect: the root of the issue is that they wanted the camera mounted to the rover to be very lightweight and small/compact. But, color TV cameras of the day weren't small/compact/light. They typically used three big lenses with three big pickups (red/green/blue). So, it was basically three cameras in one. Then, they used rather large/bulky electronics to combine the three signals (red/green/blue), making the cameras even bigger. In order to avoid that on Apollo, yet still have a color image, they needed to use a different type of camera. Thus, they went with a single-lens and single Vidicon tube pickup. So, how do they get the colors with only one pickup? They put a spinning color wheel in between the lens and the pickup. This is called the "field sequential scanning" method. This saves on a lot of weight and size. But, the down side is that things that move very quickly in frame will tend to change positions faster than the color wheel can spin, thus producing rainbow colors. By the time the wheel spins to the next color position, the object has already moved, thus causing the colors to pretty much go crazy. Apollo was, by no means, the first time this type of camera was used. But, outside of Apollo, it just wasn't very popular, because nothing could ever move very fast in frame, without causing the rainbow effect. So, most of the time, TV producers just used regular large/heavy TV cameras with 3 pickups and 3 lenses (until the technology changed altogether, and color could be captured with one lens and pickup). So, the field sequential scanning camera systems with a spinning color wheel behind the lens pretty much just died, because the picture quality was more important than the camera size/weight. But, those cameras had their days of glory during Apollo.
    1
  14466. Let me guess: call you instead?
    1
  14467. No license, evasive/incoherent answers, a rap sheet a mile long, driving erratically/dangerously, acting nervous... yeah, I'd say there was enough to ask him to step outside... and I mean, what are you talking about? Go find a video of some innocent guy asked to get out of his car. Why would you choose to defend a convicted felon who lied and said he didn't have a weapon, then shot two cops while running? THIS is the video you're choosing to defend the criminal?? Sheeesssshhh.
    1
  14468. You clearly have no understanding of high school civics... nor how to read and write past a 2nd grade level.
    1
  14469. That ship had sailed. This video picks up in the middle. The cop had been asking for her ID for a while, and she refused to provide it (which is against the law). Had she been cooperative in at least a minimal sense, then I'd agree with you. But, nope. She went bananas, and failed to ID, obstructed, and obfuscated. Then, she resisted arrest.
    1
  14470. YOU SAID: "It's totally fake" == Wrong. YOU SAID: "look who z filming 2 astronaut s from different angles and the camera moving" == So, let me get this straight... before you even got the answer to your question... and actually, before you even ASKED the question, you already came to your conclusion?? That's how this works for you?? What a moron. Um, dummy, do you REALLY think that NASA managed to fool every country's space program on the planet, bluffing all of the radar stations around the world tracking all Apollo missions to/from the moon, bluffing all of the radio telescopes pointed at the moon to receive the radio signals, fooling every geologist on the planet who analyzed the 850 pounds of lunar rocks, somehow creating fake laser bounce-backs from the landing sites on the moon where there are reflector arrays... but... all of that... then somehow stupidly forgot to make it possible to control the camera remotely?? That's how this goes, in your mind?? Why are you so very proud of being so very dumb?
    1
  14471. How about stopping pretending, eh?
    1
  14472. Notice any leaves on those trees? No? That means it's winter.
    1
  14473. Oh, and "dressed as if it was warm"? Like the person in the opening shot? Bundled in a jacket and hood?
    1
  14474. Freedom of Information Act. And, um, no. The arrest video wasn't released until she was dead for 1.5 years.
    1
  14475. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    1
  14476. Ask question, don't wait for answer, declare conclusion. You're really honest.
    1
  14477. That's some mighty powerful libel there. Would you care to explain why cops should be blamed for doing the jobs we hire them to do?
    1
  14478. Most police always wear the cameras. And, the arrest video wasn't released until 2.5 years later, long after she was dead.
    1
  14479. And, the Freedom of Information Act disagrees with you.
    1
  14480. Prosecuted? On what exact charges?
    1
  14481. Well, first of all, it's unlikely that this arrest had anything to do with her suicide about a year later. Secondly, how do you charge officers for performing a lawful arrest? That's what we employ officers for in the first place.
    1
  14482. Criminal negligence? Do you really think that the police recklessly caused her suicide about a year later merely by arresting her?
    1
  14483. You haven't got the slightest clue. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. And, it was released as the result of a legal Freedom of Information Act request. Nobody saw the arrest video while she was still alive, so, the arrest video had nothing to do with her suicide. And, the irony is that the police would have been committing a felony by NOT releasing the video after the case had been closed that long.
    1
  14484. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. And, it was released as the result of a legal Freedom of Information Act request. Nobody saw the arrest video while she was still alive, so, the arrest video had nothing to do with her suicide. And, the irony is that the police would have been committing a felony by NOT releasing the video after the case had been closed that long.
    1
  14485. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. Nobody saw the arrest video while she was still alive, so, the arrest video had nothing to do with her suicide. And, you're asking the police to violate the Freedom of Information Act? What?
    1
  14486. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. Nobody saw the arrest video while she was still alive, so, the arrest video had nothing to do with her suicide.
    1
  14487. Dewdrop, nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive. So, no, it didn't cause her suicide.
    1
  14488. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. Suicide = March, 2022. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released.
    1
  14489. Freedom of Information Act, by the way. Is it really too much to ask that maybe you should know SOMETHING about a topic before you call for people's arrest?
    1
  14490. Sorry for the multiple replies. It wasn't posting for some reason, so, I kept reposting with different wording, then, it all posted at once.
    1
  14491. Yeah, they should just let criminals do anything they want, right?
    1
  14492. Yeah, sounds nice and all, but, sorry, this comment means nothing. What have YOU "judged" in this case? What EXACTLY do you think the family and police did wrong, such that you'd make this comment?
    1
  14493. "i was watching a documentary and it said yyey capped out at the 3rd stage ay 17200mph" The third stage was fired again to send it to the moon. You're talking about the first time they shut the 3rd stage engine off.
    1
  14494. "which isnt enough for full earth orbit" Depends on the altitude.
    1
  14495. "where are the lateral motors" Dewdrop, there were no rocket motors on the ascent stage. All were engines. In rocket terminology, there's a difference. And, there are 16 of them plainly in view. Why can't you find them?
    1
  14496. "The fuel requirement" This again, dewdrop? How many times must you be told how to calculate it? How many times did I ask you why no aerospace engineer on Earth has ever spotted that there wasn't enough fuel? Why can't you answer?
    1
  14497. "Too many things just leave me shaking my head" BECAUSE YOU KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT ROCKETS!!! Good gods, man, stop pretending. You are a TRUCK DRIVER. You have had ZERO engineering education.
    1
  14498. "how does it get back, decelerate the command module/splashdown" This is just like your thread in the other video. You know NOTHING about Apollo. You don't know how the craft worked. You don't know how things connected. You don't know where the 16 RCS thrusters are on the lander. You don't know where the wiring goes. You don't know how they maneuvered. NOTHING. But, you are extremely confident that you know the topic better than the entire planet's aerospace engineers, all of whom you think are wrong about aerospace engineering. See the problem, dewdrop?
    1
  14499. "What is the orbital speed of the moon" See how offensive this is? You could discover the answer, but, no, you'd rather just stick with knowing nothing, and pretending to ask questions, while refusing to understand the answers, exactly as you did in the other video before you ran away.
    1
  14500. "so it has to slow down" A vast majority of slowing down was due to Earth's gravity. The rest was done with the SPS.
    1
  14501. "get into an I rbit with a moving satellite with tidal influence" Sure, just keep making up words and phrases to pretend you know what you're talking about (again). Why not?
    1
  14502. "break orbit to lunar escape velocity" Yeah, because they retained most of that speed in the orbit itself. It didn't take much to nudge it out of orbit. It was just a 2.5 minute burn of the SPS.
    1
  14503. "then slow its speed and maneuver for perfect reentry" No, dewdrop. They didn't slow down for reentry. Who told you that?
    1
  14504. "Remember they were using kersong for the main truster" No, dewdrop. Kerosene was used only on the Saturn V first stage. After that, they used Aerozine50 or liquid hydrogen for fuel (depends on which stage/craft). Again, all you're doing is demonstrating that you know absolutely nothing.
    1
  14505. What's wrong, dewdrop? You said (in the other video's comments) that you've been studying this for 50 years, right? But, you STILL haven't calculated the rocket equation to verify whether you're correct about the lack of adequate fuel? Most people can do the math in a few minutes. It takes you 50 years?
    1
  14506. So, just like in the other video, you ignore all return questions that you don't like. You refuse to explain why you believe that no aerospace engineers on the entire planet have calculated the fuel requirements. And, yet, your arrogance is off the charts, and you honestly believe you understand this topic better than engineers, despite that you have zero education, and zero experience. And, you run away rather than admitting being wrong.
    1
  14507. "at what point earth gravity becomes more relevant" Hilarious. Hmm, let's see... Earth's gravity is 6x greater than the moon's gravity. What do you think the answer is?
    1
  14508. ANSWER THE QUESTION: WHY DO YOU BELIEVE NO AEROSPACE ENGINEER ON THE PLANET HAS EVER DONE THE MATH??
    1
  14509. ANSWER THE QUESTION: WHY DO YOU BELIEVE NO AEROSPACE ENGINEER ON THE PLANET HAS EVER DONE THE MATH??
    1
  14510. What a cop-out. You've been analyzing this for 50 years, you say (until now, you changed the story to 15 years, but, whatever), and you are going to sit there and pretend that you'd never wondered why there are no aerospace engineers on the planet who have done the entry-level student math, using the known rocket equations that have existed since before we were born?
    1
  14511. "You dont even bother calculating how much fuel is needed" Dewdrop, space travel isn't a speedboat, nor a truck. You don't know anything. Stop pretending you do.
    1
  14512. "what would the near escape velocity need to be to reach such an apogee" FIFTY YEARS, and you don't know the escape velocity of Earth? Yet simultaneously, you know they don't actually need to quite hit escape velocity, but close (near)? Yes, dewdrop, they accelerated to about 24,500 mph.
    1
  14513. "Russia did first man in space then all of the suddenbwere landing on tye moon without having enough development time to accomplish this" So, you know better than the 450,000 people who put a decade of their lives into the program. Right. Sure. Did you go tell them that none of them figured out that the stuff they designed and built to go to the moon... wouldn't do what they designed and built it to do?
    1
  14514. "The saturn vsvwere mass produced" They launched THIRTEEN Saturn V rockets. THIRTEEN. That's not "mass produced," dewdrop. Each and every one was hand built.
    1
  14515. Note: your comment about not being 50 years old yet was shadow banned, and I had to view it by sorting by date. I didn't see that response until just now.
    1
  14516. "look at the legs no sign of any contact sensor" Dewdrop, it's the MOST FAMOUS PHOTO IN HUMAN HISTORY, and the contact probe (a 5'8" gold covered rod) is clearly visible sticking out from under the landing pad, right in front of Aldrin's feet. Sorry, but you are too far gone for reason.
    1
  14517. "green was mentioned once i thought it was a reference" Dewdrop, I clearly said that I didn't believe you were reading the answers to your own questions, and asked you to write "green" at the top of your next reply to prove you were. How is this "thinking it was a reference" to something? You obviously do not read most of the responses. Don't pretend otherwise. And, if you don't have the common courtesy to read the answers to your own questions, I am done with you.
    1
  14518. So, you're admitting you were wrong? But, you're still somehow claiming you were right? Only 3 of the 4 landing legs had the sensor probes, dewdrop. And, yes, the wiring was internal. Why in the world would they make it external? Do you think they'd use such a ridiculously poor design to have the wires on the outside just to appease a truck driver 55 years later who denies Apollo to compensate for the fact that he knows absolutely nothing? If you don't believe me, take a look at the east landing leg of Apollo 14, where the Kapton foil was blown away, and the wire was exposed. Are you reading this message this time? Can you prove it by writing "green" this time?
    1
  14519. "I dont think it matters" Then why did you bring it up? Why does it matter when you think you're correct, and then magically NOT matter the moment you find out you're wrong?
    1
  14520. "With so many things wrong" But, dewdrop, you keep naming these "things wrong," and it turns out that YOU are wrong every single time. You just refuse to admit it without being dragged kicking and screaming. Or, more often, you simply don't read responses to show you that you're wrong.
    1
  14521. "No blast crater." Please explain why you'd expect one!!?!?! Good gods. Why in the world would the 7,000 engineers at Grumman use an engine bell that would create a blast crater? Sheeessshh. Did you ever wonder why they used a 20 sq. foot engine bell? What would you propose? You want a 4 inch engine bell instead, just so it could dig the hole you're pretending you want to see? Again, you are PRETENDING to understand things you do not. This whole "blast crater" nonsense is stuff fed to you by silly videos made by taxi cab drivers and yoga instructors who know just as much about Apollo as you do (zero).
    1
  14522. "the engine was cut when the probes made contact" Only if the commander hit the button. On Apollo 11 and 14, Armstrong and Shepard didn't, and they left the engines running all the way past touchdown. Scott did it correctly on 15, though, otherwise that could have been a pretty devastating day if the engine bell smacked the lunar surface while still running.
    1
  14523. "wouldn't the atmospheric exit exert the same kind of pressures and compromise the lunar module" So, now you're expanding all of the companies that you think were all "doing it wrong." You keep stating thing after thing that you believe Grumman's 7,000 engineers who worked on the lander did wrong. Now, you're expanding this to include McDonnell Douglas company, to say all of their engineers couldn't successfully build the panels that protected the lunar module inside. Bravo. You're a true hero.
    1
  14524. And the Gish Gallop continues. Dewdrop, I asked you even more questions, and, as usual, you refuse to answer. But, you keep spewing more and more and more questions, expecting answers. I'll make you a deal. If you actually address the questions I asked, and actually acknowledge when you're wrong (which is EVERY TIME ABOUT EVERY STATEMENT YOU MAKE), I'll answer any question you have. Short of that, sorry, I'm a dozen messages past the point that I said I didn't want to deal with you any longer. Your refusal to admit when you're wrong, and your refusal to reply to any questions, is indicating the exact type of person that you are... and it ain't good.
    1
  14525. "on Apollo 11 the shocks didn't crumple as much as expected." Because Armstrong didn't cut the engine when he was supposed to, and let the craft land while the engine was running, instead of just falling.
    1
  14526. "super shocks" Grumman's main gig was in making planes that landed on carriers, in good weather, bad weather, whatever. If they could make landing gear for a 75,000 pound F14 that could smack into a carrier deck in turbulent weather, they could make landing gear for a 2,500 pound lunar lander.
    1
  14527. To preempt any question about why the lander was 2,500 pounds, here's the math: 33,500 pound lander fully loaded. Burns 18,000 pounds of fuel/oxidizer on descent. Therefore, 15,500 pounds upon landing. Divide by 6 for lunar gravity. 2,583 pounds on those struts. Sorry, I rounded by 83 pounds.
    1
  14528. So, I just offered to answer your questions only if you stopped continuously asking new questions while ignoring my return questions. And, your reply is to ignore my questions, and continue asking new questions.
    1
  14529. Dewdrop, there were THREE probes on all of the actual landers (the 4th one was removed after Apollo 9).
    1
  14530. Re: 16 thrusters you cannot find: This is absurd. "Apollo lunar lander thrusters." The very first hit takes you to schematics and statistics. "Images" show you pictures. You say you've been researching for FIFTEEN YEARS (after you modified it from 50). But, you still can't find something that any child could find in 5 seconds on Google?
    1
  14531. Dewdrop, did you just AGAIN compare rocket fuel to fuel economies while driving a truck down the road? AGAIN? How many times must you be told to use ROCKET EQUATIONS, not Peterbilt equations?
    1
  14532. "missed that one" Because, as you've already demonstrated, you don't read the answers to your own questions.
    1
  14533. "there just isnt the fuel to elevate" Because Peterbilt's semi truck fuel economies riding down the road don't match the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation you refuse to use?
    1
  14534. Huh? Do you have magical 9mm bullets that can penetrate a truck?
    1
  14535. Well, nothing else was working. The woman was very determined to turn a simple proof of purchase into a lawsuit, and did everything humanly possible to make trouble.
    1
  14536. Huh? How would you have handled it instead?
    1
  14537. So, you don't have an answer.
    1
  14538. Once again, you have no answer.
    1
  14539. If you didn't want an answer to your question, why did you ask?
    1
  14540. Huh? Nobody saw the arrest video until long after she died, so, um, no.
    1
  14541. So, basically, you didn't even wait for a single reply before you changed topics. Yeah, you're a true genius.
    1
  14542. Pffttt. And, you'd be saying the exact opposite if he had manhandled her to the ground instead. Either way, you were going to make the same accusations. The taser was the more passive option than bodily wrestling this woman to the ground. But, you don't care. You just love to express your hatred.
    1
  14543. And, what happens to your suit when the news outlets say that they never published this story until long after she was dead, and also say "Freedom of Information Act"? Then what?
    1
  14544. Blame the victim, never the criminal, right?
    1
  14545. Huh? Who was "seeking" to release this video?
    1
  14546. Huh? The police BLOCKED the release of the arrest video for 2.5 years. Nobody saw it while she was alive. But, eventually, once the investigation was closed long enough, they could no longer block a FOIA request. What more do you want here?
    1
  14547. July 1, 2021 = this incident. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. Nobody saw it while she was alive.
    1
  14548. Talk about intentionally missing the point!! Good grief.
    1
  14549. But, that's exactly the opposite of the way the system is set up in the USA. Without requiring any work or education to get your weekly handout, all you're really doing is perpetuating the lower class, and making it more appealing to stay in the lower class than to work hard to improve. Show me poor who are disadvantaged mentally/physically, I'll be the first to give money. Show me the endless stream of able-bodied highschool dropouts on perpetual welfare, and I say that's a broken system.
    1
  14550. Yeah, it's strange, but, all three rovers (Apollo 15/16/17) lost fenders. But, I think this was the only time they attempted to "fix" it. I think the others lost fenders that weren't quite as bad to lose (like, front fenders instead of the back ones on Apollo 17, which was too close to all of the equipment that they didn't want to get too dusty).
    1
  14551. Typical. If nobody answers questions, it's because it's a conspiracy. If people answer questions, it's because it's a conspiracy. You have created (in your mind) a condition where it's impossible to even address the crackpots. If nobody answers them, then it's because the crackpots are "correct" and there's no answer. If people answer the crackpots, then it's because it's a conspiracy, and it's questionable that anybody even answers them. Sure. Keep on going down that rabbit hole. Eventually, you'll become a flat Earther, with no hope of returning to sanity.
    1
  14552. If you want to make a fool of yourself, be my guest. But, I really wish people like you would put this sort of thing on all job applications you ever fill out in your life. It makes the hiring process much easier.
    1
  14553. A loose piece of Mylar? Ice crystals that formed on the lander and are just now getting jogged loose? Not sure.
    1
  14554. "the ribbon he holds in his hand "falls" is drawn too strongly towards the lunar soil" Huh? It doesn't fall. It's still in his hands. He's actually moving it around. "gravitational field significantly greater than that of the moon" Dewdrop, it's not moving the way it is because of being dropped. It's moving the way it is BECAUSE HE IS HANDLING THE PIECE OF TAPE. Good grief. You people will grasp at anything.
    1
  14555. And, how do the police prevent the release of the video when they get a legal FOIA request for it?
    1
  14556. You do know that the video wasn't released until long after she was dead, right? July 1, 2021 = this arrest. Suicide = March, 2022. Arrest video released = November 24, 2023.
    1
  14557. And, why do you believe she thought she was alone? Because she says so when they're questioning her, and she is trying to avoid her millionth arrest, and doesn't want to go back to prison again?
    1
  14558. One of the "audience" recorded it, and gave a copy of the video to the police. Needless to say, it doesn't match her version about being alone.
    1
  14559. Your photo shows you're a police officer, yet, with your experience, you believe her claims?
    1
  14560. She was a convicted felon who spent time in a Florida prison about 6 years ago, and continued her life of drugs and crime right where she left off, with a million arrests. Stealing cars. Other thefts. Drugs and alcohol. Failure to appear. Etc. With that record, you do know it's not easy to get a straight job, so, you do know her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club, right? How do you know she wasn't making "public beach" content, and was just trying to whine her way out of being arrested before they looked her up?
    1
  14561. This WASN'T the cause of her suicide. And, as I stated, the arrest video wasn't even released until she was already dead for 1.5 years. You aren't proposing anything about how to change the Freedom of Information Act, you're just saying "it would be nice if...." If there's a lesson to be learned here, it's that Inside Edition doesn't care one bit about facts, and will manipulate any story they feel will get ad revenue.
    1
  14562. Let's see... you hold the theory that the moon landings were a conspiracy... but, you reject the words "conspiracy theory"? Huh?
    1
  14563. Oh? And, you'd know this, how? One of the "audience" members who took video of the incident itself (and turned that video over to the police) disagrees with you, as did the officer who reviewed the video. But, I guess you know better, right?
    1
  14564. Huh? You think this incident had anything to do with her decision a year later? Tell me, when she was serving her felony term in prison 6 years ago, why didn't she make that same decision then? How about her million other arrests? None of those caused that decision either. Stealing cars? Other thefts? Repeated drug and alcohol charges? And, what choice did they have? With all of her open warrants, they couldn't just ignore the new offense. And, if she wasn't making "public beach" content for her fans at the "dance club" (yeah, that kind) where she worked, I'll eat my hat.
    1
  14565. Public shame? What? She was doing this thing almost undoubtedly as public beach content for her fans. You do know she worked as a "dancer" and her neighbors said she did "private extras" for parades of paying men in her apartment, right? And, the arrest video was not seen by anybody until 2.5 years later (long after she was gone).
    1
  14566. Why would you believe a single thing this woman says? Why?
    1
  14567. Well, we'll never know for sure, but, it's pretty likely that she gave up the hat and gloves because she had a lot more items under that coat that she didn't give up. I mean, that's her track record, as she kept stealing from Walgreens after this incident, including more than just "the essentials," such as drugs. And, yes, I commend the officer for what he did also. But, there's a certain irony in labeling him as a "hero" for his acts here. Had he arrested her, maybe she'd still be alive today.
    1
  14568. Can you name a single NASA program that explored underwater things when NASA was formed? Or, are you merely regurgitating a ridiculous claim you saw in a conspiracy video, and decided to believe for no reason at all?
    1
  14569. FOX cutting salaries lately? THAT was the best toupe you could afford?
    1
  14570. So, when she confessed earlier, twice, that she actually DID participate in the murder... rejected the plea deal that was offered to her... got a trial, jury found her guilty, and now, while in prison asking for an appeal, she said she didn't do it... and THAT, you just blindly believe, huh? You're one of those people that just blindly believes anything you see/hear, huh? No filter whatsoever, huh? No ability to tell the difference between reliable information vs. unreliable information, huh? Good grief. Seriously, give every damned dime you ever earn to someone trustworthy who isn't such a gullible nitwit. Not joking. With your obvious impairment of mental faculties, I promise you, someone is going to dupe you out of all of your money sooner or later. Better to turn over all money to someone else for safe keeping. You are clearly unfit to handle your own money.
    1
  14571. Only if you buy silly Inside Edition stories, where facts don't matter.
    1
  14572. If you go frame by frame, you can see the carjacker pointing the gun at the cop as the door is opening. It's grainy, but, you can make it out. You also see the gun several times on the ground throughout the rest of the video, as has already been pointed out. At 5:02, you see the gun next to a piece of 2x4 wood.
    1
  14573. Huh? Two white cops and one black? What?
    1
  14574. Hilarious!!!! So, that's how you think this works?? Amazing. Absolutely amazing. It's clear that you don't know the difference between public property (like a sidewalk), vs. a building owned by the public. I mean, I could explain it. But, maybe it's just easier for you to find out for yourself. Why don't you march over to the White House and demand entry, claiming that you have a right, as a taxpayer, to be inside a publicly owned building? See how that works out for you. Or, go march into a judge's chamber in a courthouse, and refuse to leave, under the premise that it's a taxpayer office, therefore you think you have the right to be there. See how that goes. Or, go walk into City Hall, and try to get into a mayor's office, and refuse to leave, because it's a public building. I'll bet you could even hold your breath for the time it would take to be locked up in the city jail. No civil rights were violated here, dummy. The issue here is that the school board asked the police to trespass the person from the building, the man refused to leave, so he was trespassing. The police had to arrest him. That's it. End of story. Now, I hope the man who was arrested will sue the school/board, and win tons of money. And I hope the board gets kicked out of office, and will never serve on another school board again in their lives. But, if a proper authority of the school asks the cops to trespass a person, then the cops MUST trespass the person. It's not a civil rights issue. Good grief. People like you are ridiculous. The cops did their jobs correctly, and you want them fired for it? How about blaming the school board instead of blaming the cops? That's where the real blame is here.
    1
  14575.  @Jaems_Scott  So, you didn't read my reply. Good grief. You are permanently doomed to misunderstand how things work.
    1
  14576.  @Jaems_Scott  Wow, you sure are stupid. Everything you said is wrong.
    1
  14577.  @Jaems_Scott  Hilarious!!! You opened by saying their civil rights were violated. And, from there, you drifted from concept to concept (getting each concept wrong). Sorry, dummy, you can sit there and pretend to know things you don't know until the cows come home. It doesn't change anything.
    1
  14578.  @Jaems_Scott  Repeating your stupidity doesn't make you correct.
    1
  14579.  @Jaems_Scott  No, what makes me correct is the law. I mean, not only is there a mountain of case law that goes against what you said... not only did you wander all over the spectrum of ignorance, talking about civil rights, then shifting aimlessly to other concepts (wrongly)... not only are you completely illiterate, and don't know how to spell or punctuate... but, why do you suppose that this story hasn't even been reported like you're saying? Neither the right wing media, left wing media, or anything in between, are making the claims you're making. None of them. Nobody. The only people parading around, touting this stuff you're touting, are the completely ignorant. Sorry to say, there are too many of you ignorant YouTube warriors, who have NO CLUE what they're talking about on any level. You're all imbeciles, and quite proud to be imbeciles. It's very sad.
    1
  14580.  @Jaems_Scott  And, now you're back to civil rights again. What does that have to do with whether or not the person was trespassing when officials asked him to leave, and he refused? Good grief. What a total mess you are. Look, just go back to school. Go learn something. You can barely write a sentence that doesn't have a million grammar/spelling/punctuation mistakes. That might not sound important to you, but, it's representative of why you don't know anything. If you can't write well, you can't read well. If you can't read well, you have very low reading comprehension. And, if you have low reading comprehension, you will fail to understand a lot of things (case in point). Start there. Go back to school. Take some reading and writing classes. Then, in a few years, maybe then, if you dive into the law, you might understand it better. I didn't claim that media were any sources of virtue. The fact that you think that... is a product of your low reading comprehension skills. My point was that NO media outlets are reporting this story like your interpretation. I used that angle because you refused to absorb the other (more relevant) angles. I thought maybe there'd be a chance that you'd understand it better if I chose that angle instead. But, your mind is too far gone. You need about 6-8 years of reading and writing skills before you can absorb what you need to absorb to understand these concepts. Come back here when you get those skills.
    1
  14581. Apollo's main purpose was a political demonstration of power and technology. The space race to the moon was a cold war achievement with the goal of sending a message to the Soviets that the USA cannot be beaten. It also demonstrated that, if we could do precision landings on the moon, we could certainly rain a whole bunch of nuclear bombs on them, so, they had better back off. It's impossible to confirm what would have happened without Apollo, but, had the cold war escalated into a real nuclear war, the Earth wouldn't look the same now. There'd be a whole bunch of holes in the ground where cities used to be. I'd say that Apollo did a fine job of taking care of Earth.
    1
  14582. That's some mighty slander/libel you're asserting. Why do you know this? Because you watched a 1 minute Inside Edition video?
    1
  14583. YOU SAID: "if you had a family member or friend in prison, i'm sure you'd still love them and not think they're pieces of shit." == You're wrong. If I had a family member who was nurtured and helped by some neighbors, and my family member murdered and stole money from those people, yeah, I would think she's a piece of shit. == You're wrong. If I had a family member who was screwing a married man, then helped that married man murder his wife, then confessed twice to actively participating in the murder, then recanted the confessions and tried to proclaim innocence, yeah, I would think she's a piece of shit. == And, hey, turn your own logic back on yourself. Suppose you had a family member brutally murdered. Wouldn't you think the murderer was a piece of shit? So, stop with your silly "family member" argument. It turns right back on yourself soooooo easily.
    1
  14584. Sorry, but your hatred is showing. This is just downright ridiculous... the way you're attempting to defend the criminal. He was wearing a balaclava ski mask in the middle of a Kentucky summer, walked up to that car, pulled his gun out, and pointed it at the officer's head. The accomplice girlfriend was 30 seconds behind him, and magically knew who was under the mask, right? If she wasn't in on it, how'd she know who the masked man was? And, sorry, but if there's a suspicious vehicle, you CALL THE POLICE. You don't go up to the vehicle with a ski mask and gun and whip the door open and point it at the driver. And, did you watch the interviews with the dad? In one interview, he said his son was going to check out who was in the car. In another interview, he said that his son (paraphrased) "definitely didn't think anybody was in the car, that much he knows for certain." Gee, do you think the attorney talked to the dad in between the two interviews and said it's a bad idea for them to admit that Mark knew someone was in the car? And, Mark died about 20 seconds after getting shot. So, how did the dad "definitely know for sure" his son didn't think anybody was in the car? Both the dad and the attorney said that Mark was armed (as can be seen in the video). But, the dad's interview said he didn't understand why Mark had a gun. Then, the attorney's later interview magically knew why he had the gun. No, it couldn't be that they came up with their story after the fact, could it? Let's get real here: Mark was there to carjack the guy. His own family's attorney acknowledges the gun, acknowledges the ski mask, but is trying to paint the picture that Mark was just trying to go for a joyride, not rob the cops. A joyride in a piece of garbage Nissan? Huh? And, hmmm, if he supposedly did this for TikTok (the attorney's claim), where's the phone/camera? Kind of puts a hole in that story, huh? He was supposed to record his little escapade, stealing the car. Funny that there was no camera/phone in his hand, and instead there was a gun, huh?
    1
  14585. You think they have discretion for an aggravated misdemeanor? Um, no. You don't know the difference between and infraction and a crime.
    1
  14586. And, your sister wouldn't arrest someone for a misdemeanor crime performed in front of children? Right. Sure.
    1
  14587. Is this a joke? What's wrong with you?
    1
  14588. Not even close. Stop believing Inside Edition. It's trash news.
    1
  14589. Huh? They DID replicate it!! They sent 9 manned missions to the moon from 1968 to 1972, 6 of which landed. If that's not replicating it, what is?
    1
  14590. You don't know what you're talking about.
    1
  14591. Research? "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake" isn't research.
    1
  14592. I'm sure the people who reported her feel just fine, because they probably know that this Inside Edition story is massively inaccurate and deceptive (unlike you, who eats it up like Christmas dinner).
    1
  14593. Huh? You believe she committed suicide over a lack of empathy?
    1
  14594. Huh? Why would they even need a space program to do it? There's plenty of funding for top secret programs. And, Apollo was the most visible program in history. If you want to funnel money somewhere, first of all, you just fund it as a blackops program, no need to "hide" it. Secondly, you'd never try to "hide" it in a program of that level of public spectacle. You'd fund some crazy underground research program in the arctic or something. Good grief.
    1
  14595. "yeah, they stole it from Tesla and funded by Congress." I'm not going to sit here and educate you on the difference between a discovery and an invention. "There's clearly no evidence of this on the Moon" Huh? You opened by complaining about the clip of them lifting off of the moon. It was explained to you that this was done via radio. Now you're saying there's no evidence of radio being used on the moon? How about the very clip you're complaining about? Isn't that evidence? I mean, to be clear here, I've never believed photos and videos are extremely good evidence, because photos and videos can be faked. There's a heck of a lot of much stronger evidence for Apollo than the photos and videos they took during those missions. But, for you to now proclaim that there's NO evidence is just plain ridiculous. Yes, dewdrop, the photos and videos ARE evidence. You can argue about how good you think that evidence is or isn't. But, yes, it IS evidence. "and they would have said something, don't you think?" Who would have said something about what? Did you somehow forget to write a sentence in here or something? "The Russians proved over and over again that organized biological cells cannot get through the Van Allen belt." Dewdrop, the Soviets sent two dogs into the worst part of the Van Allen belts (the inner belt). Those two dogs lived for 3 weeks. Now, I'll grant you, they probably got a fatal dose of ionic particle radiation in about a week or two, but, it just took the rest of that time before their bodies finally died. But, the Soviets proved that the astronauts COULD survive the Van Allen belts (specifically, the inner belt), because they went through that inner belt in about 15 minutes. If two Soviet dogs could live for 3 weeks, you don't think astronauts could live for 15 minutes? Do you see how this backfires in your face?
    1
  14596. So, we should blame the victim, in your mind, rather than the criminal herself?
    1
  14597. "so you would expect the sun not to move that much in its trajectory over the landing place." Well, for example, Apollo 17, the first EVA had a sun angle of 15.3 degrees. By the end of the last EVA, the sun angle was 42.6 degrees. During each of the 3 EVAs, the sun angle changed by about 3.5 to 4 degrees (from the beginning of the EVA to the end of the EVA). "The sun also stays for 3 days more or less on the same spot in the sky" Absolutely wrong. A lunar day, from sunrise to sunrise, is about 708 hours. That's about 0.5 degrees per hour. So, in 72 hours, it moves about 36 degrees. That's a lot. To say that it stays in the same spot for 3 days is absolutely absurd. "shadows do not change that much in the 3 days" They change by about 36 degrees. That's about the Earth equivalent of landing at around 6:30am, and lifting off at about 9:00am. NOT the same spot. "I did see photos' and video with almost no shadow, so the sun must be straight above the landing place" The highest sun angle from any mission was about 45 degrees, and that was on Apollo 16. "But in other video we saw long shadows" So, it must have been taken during an early EVA. "Conclusion: the sun speed over the moon sky must have been higher than expected" Well, you're wrong. There isn't a single photo or video that depicts the angles you're talking about. "In one of the videos, I saw the shadow move in direction from parallel to the view towards a big angle, nearby the camera." I don't even understand this. You won't name the video or timestamp. And, "big angle" doesn't mean much.
    1
  14598. And, I asked for a timestamp, and you still refused to give it. How can anybody ever reply to you, if you cannot do simple things?
    1
  14599. No, he got his prison sentence for planning to murder them, then murdering them.
    1
  14600. 1) All arrests include cuffs. It's standard mandatory procedure. 2) The arrest video wasn't released until 2.5 years later, as a result of a legal FOIA request. She was dead for 1.5 years before anybody saw the video.
    1
  14601. Shocker. Another functionally illiterate clod doesn't believe the moon landings. Bravo.
    1
  14602. First of all, if you watch frame by frame, you'll know that the cop was reaching for the door handle, but, never touched it. The criminal opened the door. Secondly, what IS your problem? If a guy wearing a ski mask (in a Kentucky summer) pulls a gun on you, are you honestly going to tell me that you wouldn't shoot him?
    1
  14603.  @joecamel6835  Once again, you don't know what you're talking about. The lenses for distant objects had viewfinders.
    1
  14604.  @ronaldgreene5733  Yes, we all know about how photographers have no understanding of photography.
    1
  14605.  @ronaldgreene5733  Keep on repeating your misunderstanding that you got from photographers that don't understand photography. It doesn't change the real facts.
    1
  14606. Of not? Of been of real of of. Why of not of do you of think not of real of?
    1
  14607. You never saw the arrest video while she was alive. It was kept private for 2.5 years. Arrest = July 1, 2021. Suicide = March, 2022. Arrest video made public = November 24, 2023. What you saw was the artificial manufacture of a viral story. After the case was closed long enough, the police can no longer block a legal FOIA request for the video. So, press showed the video in late November, 2023, and didn't mention that she was already dead. Then, a few weeks later, they showed the video again with the "update" that she was dead, making people react like you just did, thinking this was a recent thing, caused by public shame. The reality is that, while she was alive, only one obscure article on a website I've never heard of posted a blog about this arrest. It didn't have the video, and wasn't read by very many people. Sorry, you've been manipulated in the interest of ad revenue.
    1
  14608. Is that how that's supposed to work? Someone does a FOIA request for the arrest video, and the police say, "nope, sorry, we can't release it until we have the client list of Epstein"?
    1
  14609. What are you talking about? What EXACTLY would prevent people from going to the moon?
    1
  14610. Well, no more lawsuit. It was tossed out the window, where it belongs.
    1
  14611. Well, you're right about the school board. But, please explain EXACTLY what you think cops should do if the school board trespasses the guy? Do you think the cops can just say, "no, we won't arrest him"?
    1
  14612. Wow, so, you're just going to double down on stuff you know absolutely nothing about? Good grief. Dewdrop, you clearly have zero understanding of optical resolution. So, stop pretending you do. And, there are no such photos of stuff on Earth from space. You have confused Google's low flying aerial photography with satellite photography. Good grief.
    1
  14613. Dewdrop, YOU are the one who decided to post here. YOU are the one pretending to understand things you do not. Don't act so surprised when people reply.
    1
  14614. Is this a joke? USA, India, and China have each sent lunar orbiters to the moon with cameras that had enough resolution to see the landing sites. Each of those three countries have published photos showing the landers and other stuff. What in the world are you talking about?
    1
  14615.  @marksprague1280  Are you the same guy in the Apollo comments?
    1
  14616.  @marksprague1280  Funny. And, you just replied to one of my Apollo messages yesterday. And, I see you here in a completely unrelated topic. Well, hi.
    1
  14617. I don't understand the comment. Yes, the moon is smaller than Earth. Why shouldn't it look smaller?
    1
  14618. Still haven't mastered the whole "zoom in" or "zoom out" concept, eh? Too much for you to understand?
    1
  14619. Huh? No social media even touched this story until 1.5 years after she was dead. How'd they "take another life"?
    1
  14620. Wrong. One obscure website posted a small article. But, no social media outfits covered any of this until the arrest video was released.
    1
  14621. You clearly don't know the difference between an infraction and a crime. Infraction = warning. Crime = arrest.
    1
  14622. Huh? With her mile long arrest record, time served in prison for stealing cars, numerous charges for drugs and alcohol, multiple judgements against her for theft, open arrest warrants for repeatedly failing to appear in court, etc., yeah, I think she knew the laws a heck of a lot better than you.
    1
  14623. SECOND chance? SECOND? Good grief. She was on her millionth chance.
    1
  14624. @No Comment Until This Instant Nope. The original poster is correct. Technically, a decade doesn't end until after the year ending in zero. 1970 was the end of the 1961-1970 decade. But, yeah, most people just prefer to use the digit the way you're using it. It's technically wrong to use it your way, but you're not alone.
    1
  14625. OK, but, one of the "audience" recorded it and showed it to the police. She was getting arrested either way.
    1
  14626. You are correct. These types documentaries often borrow footage from other missions. It's not confusing really. It's just how a lot of documentaries are produced. If you want accuracy, you need to just watch the original videos, not documentaries.
    1
  14627. Get real here. One of those acts is extremely difficult to prove in a lot of circumstances, and the other one was very provable because she admitted it, and they also had video from one of the "audience."
    1
  14628. "Not everybody at NASA would have to be in on the secret." Of course not. But, you'd need a few thousand of them. Also, you'd need a few thousand people internationally, as well as enemy countries. "I've never thought much about it" Obviously. "but why wouldn't the suits be inflated like a balloon?" For the same reason a bike tire doesn't inflate like a balloon. With zero pressure, it's pretty limp. But, once you put a few pounds into it, it is pretty much inflated to its maximum size. You can put more air in, and increase the pressure, but, it doesn't get any bigger. Or, you know those more modern balloons that are made of Mylar? Once you put just a pound or two of pressure into them, that's pretty much it, it doesn't get any more inflated. No matter how much pressure you put in, they don't physically expand any further. Same for Apollo suits. They are "ballooned" more than if they were just sitting on the ground. But, once "inflated," they really couldn't expand very much after that.
    1
  14629. "so, the men's bodies weren't pressurized?" Of course they were, but, it was about a 5th of the pressure of the Earth's atmosphere. They ran at very low pressure because it was pure oxygen, and they wanted to avoid oxygen toxicity. Low pressure also helped to make the suits less rigid.
    1
  14630. "I haven't insulted anyone. I just made a simple observation." Then you closed your mind to any input.
    1
  14631. "read all the comments. The picture of his foot." Welcome to YouTube comments. You must be new. Assuming you made a comment about the picture, not everyone can see all of your comments. YouTube blocks about 20% of all comments, and around 50% of comments that actually try to describe things in any detail. You're probably the only one who can see your own comment about the foot. Look at this thread with another browser that isn't logged in "in cognito" and then you'll understand which of your comments are visible to others, and which ones aren't.
    1
  14632. "Look at the photo of the guys foot. It looks like his suit isn't pressurized." I explained this already, dewdrop. Nobody can see your comment about what photo you're even referring to. Don't act all shocked if people criticize you while you ask question and ignore the answers, and when people keep asking you to explain what photo you're talking about, yet you repeatedly refuse to grasp the concept that nobody can see what you're writing. In one ear, out the other.
    1
  14633. "you are the one ignoring my comments," Hilarious!!! I responded to virtually every word you wrote. You refused to address any of it except for this boot photo you keep talking about. You then ignored the fact that I explained that nobody knows what photo you're talking about. But, *I* am ignoring **YOU**? Good gods. "and then turning around and proving my point" The irony is too thick for words. "after insulting me" Well, maybe you shouldn't ask questions when you clearly don't want answers. "Watch the video these comments are under." Yeah, thanks, I watched it. "Watch for pictures of his foot. His suit looks like it has no pressure." Yet, you don't have the common courtesy to give a timestamp. No, dewdrop. I'm not hunting through an hour video to find this photo you're talking about. If you can't bring yourself to specify the photo, I'm not the rude one here, you are.
    1
  14634. So, you refuse to read what I wrote, huh? Hey, again, dewdrop, if you didn't want answers to your questions, don't ask them. And, don't act all shocked if people criticize you when you ask questions and ignore the answers.
    1
  14635. Why? You want to see a lot of dead social workers?
    1
  14636. But, none of this was on any social media until long AFTER she died.
    1
  14637. And stealing cars. And drugs and alcohol. And, trying to change her name to evade the police. And, abandoning her family to live a life of crime. And, and, and....
    1
  14638. So, exactly as I said. Let me guess, you read the first sentence or two, and ignored the rest, right?
    1
  14639. And, you posted this on the internet for the entire world to see, eh? Um, no. The law doesn't work that way. You cannot use deadly force just for the sake of protecting property. Sometimes it's appropriate to use deadly force that seems like it's protecting property, but, not really. Like, if someone is carjacking you, you might be justified in using deadly force, because it's reasonable to conclude that a carjacker intends not only to take your car, but also to severely injure or kill you. But, see, you're actually defending yourself, not the car. But, strictly for the purposes of defending property with deadly force, no, that's not allowed.
    1
  14640. No, but, what I do know is that 84% of the population blindly swallows anything they're told. You're one of them.
    1
  14641. Open investigations vs. closed.
    1
  14642. Well, my guess is that it's very difficult to judge distance when it comes to hearing gunfire. I doubt the cop knew how far it was. But, I'm nobody, you'd have to ask the actual cop.
    1
  14643. So, the video about conspiracies is a conspiracy itself? Dewdrop, when you feel the need to stack your conspiracies on top of each other, it's time to re-analyze your "thinking" (using that term loosely).
    1
  14644. Well, of course. But, life is full of irony. She continued to steal, and get deeper into drugs and problems, and now she's dead. Ironically, maybe she'd have been better off if the cop arrested her, and she ended up in the relative "safety" of prison.
    1
  14645. Thanks, but, I think I'll go ahead and hate criminals as well as their crimes.
    1
  14646. Guilt? Why? I mean, yeah, I'd hope they feel some guilt over making stories like this, that paint an incorrect picture of what happened here. But, make no mistake about it, this arrest video had nothing to do with her suicide. It wasn't made public until 1.5 years after she died.
    1
  14647.  @goov47  What? The video wasn't "out" until 1.5 years AFTER she died.
    1
  14648. Um, yeah. I think that was her whole reason for acting the way she did, in anticipation of turning "may I see your receipt" into a lawsuit. But, thankfully, the process of law worked this time, and she lost her lawsuit, it was thrown out of court, and she is barred from ever filing it again.
    1
  14649. And, you believe her when she said she thought she was alone, why? Because that's what she said as she was attempting to cry her way out of her millionth arrest?
    1
  14650. Well, there's a bit of a distinction between the Apollo program itself, vs. the Apollo Applications Program (which included the stuff you're talking about). It's confusing because of the overlap and the fact that both had "Apollo" in its title. But, Apollo Applications actually fell under a separate budget.
    1
  14651. Know is the 1 2 3 and emoji hurts together.
    1
  14652. Yeah, and why do doctors waste their time on treating asthma, and treating gall bladder problems, while cancer still exists? Until cancer is cured, no doctor should deal with any other issues.
    1
  14653. Accountable for what?
    1
  14654. Huh? What do you think they did to humiliate her? They arrested her, sure. But, how would this work, in your mind? Cops shouldn't arrest anybody for fear that the might commit suicide? Also, with her mile long arrest record, and time served in prison, etc., what was so special about THIS arrest that she killed herself about a year later?
    1
  14655. Huh? How exactly did they humiliate her in this arrest, such that, about a year later, she committed suicide over this arrest? Why this arrest, and not her other million arrests?
    1
  14656. Huh? Where'd you get that idea? What did they do to make you come to that conclusion? They had no choice. She was going to get arrested either way, either under this misdemeanor, or because of her long list of open warrants.
    1
  14657. Or, you could stop blindly trusting tabloid journalism like Inside Edition, and go read the real story of what happened here.
    1
  14658. Well, let me guess, a conspiracy video told you there were lost documents, and you just believed it without lifting a finger. Right?
    1
  14659. So, you acknowledge that the news covered this AFTER her suicide. Now, you're blaming them for the suicide? How does that even make sense?
    1
  14660. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    1
  14661. Oh, get real. Do you REALLY think you need CASH?
    1
  14662. Hilarious!!!! You have years of knowledge about the law, but, apparently not enough sense to look this case up before commenting on it? Her own attorney knew that there was no case against the police, because all they need in order to make an arrest is reasonable suspicion of a crime. They don't need to be correct. Given that the store employee said the woman left without paying, and the woman was so non-cooperative, and refused to present her receipt, yes, there was enough evidence to make the arrest. Her attorney never even bothered to file a case against the police. He did file a case against the store, asking for $50,000. The courts threw it out, with prejudice, and she got $0.00. Why? Because a store IS allowed to ask for proof of purchase. There is no legal obligation for a store to be 100% correct, 100% of the time. Human errors do happen. And, that's why they have security cameras, courts, a legal process, receipts, etc. Hence, the woman did NOT get paid in her lawsuit, largely because of her own actions.
    1
  14663. She was Tased because she resisted arrest.
    1
  14664. Well, everything you wrote is quite laughable, but, I really can't get past the part about you thinking the moon is a weightless atmosphere. There's no atmosphere on the moon, dewdrop. And, it's not weightless either. The rest of what you wrote is just as bad, but, good grief.
    1
  14665. Well, at least she wasn't "on blast" until long after she was dead.
    1
  14666.  @nativesun9865  You haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about. Why don't you just say this instead? "I don't understand anything about aerospace engineering, therefore Apollo was fake." It's the exact same as the gibberish you're spewing. No, I'm not going to sit here and teach you how/why things work the way they do. You aren't actually asking these questions. You are pretending to ask questions, but, you've made it perfectly clear that you don't care about the answers. You came to your conclusions before you even asked the questions.
    1
  14667. Did a conspiracy video tell you that lie?
    1
  14668.  @marybailey7881  The irony. Dewdrop, YOU are the one who blindly follows what YOU are told. For many weeks, all you've done is regurgitate silly claims you saw in conspiracy videos that you've blindly swallowed. Now you're accusing the sane people of doing exactly what you're doing? The EVIDENCE is what matters, dewdrop. I believe what is EVIDENT. And, sorry, but when there's a mountain of evidence in favor of Apollo, coming from dozens of countries on Earth, including enemy countries... and no credible evidence coming from nuts making conspiracy videos... yes, I will stick with the actual EVIDENCE. Meanwhile, when every conspiracy video is proven so laughably wrong if it's scrutinized it even in a superficial way, yeah, sorry, those videos you love so much just aren't credible. Take this thread as an example. A conspiracy video made the claim that the CIA invented the term. The reality is that the term existed since before the CIA was even formed. Yet, a conspiracy video said the CIA invented it, therefore that's what you (or the original poster) believes. You're robots. The conspiracy video makers program you like a robot. And, then, laughably, you accuse the sane people of doing what you're doing. It's ridiculous.
    1
  14669. Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  14670. Well, probably as a result of a legal Freedom of Information Act request. They can only keep it private for so long, you know. In this case, they kept it private for 2.5 years. That means that the woman was already dead for 1.5 years before the bodycam footage was released. I mean, you don't just swallow the garbage you see on Inside Edition, do you?
    1
  14671. Huh? They're readily available. What are you waiting for?
    1
  14672. Good grief. What ARE you talking about? The cops have one decision to make. Is there cause to arrest, or not? If the man is being trespassed by the school board, and the man refuses to leave, the cops have no real choice in the matter. It's trespassing, they must arrest. And, that's why we have courts. Cops are not courts. Cops are not the judge and jury. Cops are not supposed to decide guilt or innocence. They decide if there is cause for arrest, and that's all. From there, the man can sue the living daylights out of the school/board, and I hope he does, and I hope the entire parent population that attended that meeting gets a bunch of huge checks for the ridiculous actions of the school board. But, for you to shift blame to the cops, for doing EXACTLY what they're supposed to do, is shameful.
    1
  14673. YOU SAID: "I feel bad for Jessie. They gave her no meds" == Pffttt. And, you believe that ridiculous claim, why? Because the lying criminal felon said so? Her own family is so tired of her bullshit that they can't stand her to be around them for more than 24 hours, oh, but in your mind, it's perfectly believable that the prison magically denied her meds for no reason whatsoever? Why do you believe that claim? Do you also think it's believable that the "journalists" (sigh, not journalists) didn't go ask the prison about the meds? No? What do you think is more likely? The prison, for no reason at all, denied her meds. Or, the repeatedly convicted felon wanted more meds (to sell, use, whatever), so she claimed she didn't get her meds. What are the odds that they DID ask the prison about the meds, and they said, "hey, spare us, she says that all the time, it's a very common claim that these prisoners make" - but that doesn't make for very good heartstring-pulling "journalism" (sigh, not journalism)? Tell me, would you at all be interested in some oceanfront property I have for sale in Kansas? Cheap. I promise. YOU SAID: "and no help." == There are many programs to give people help. YOU SAID: "She was basically homeless and because people don't like hiring an ex-prisoner, she ended up with a job that likely didn't pay her anything and it likely didn't, or barely paid for her meds. I bet she didn't know what to with herself that first night because the system was so strict, to me it's like the prisoners are children, being told what they can and cannot do by their parents, then suddenly are thrown out at the age of 18 and expected to be able to think and act for themselves like a functioning adult." == Hey, be my guest, go sign up to take in convicted felons into your home when they get out of prison. Until you do that, quit your complaining about topics you don't understand, and displaying your amazing gullibility in falling for fluff "journalism" (not journalism) like this. This entire "news" (not news) clip is custom tailored to generate your exact reaction. Good grief. You are a living example of a human sheep. YOU SAID: "Im not saying or defending the act's she did" == Go back to school, seriously. YOU SAID: "but she was set up to fail" == Why? How much more do you know about this "story" outside the little fluff piece? Do you know what programs were made available to her? I mean, you're so goddamned gullible, you fell for the "I didn't get my meds" bullshit line. I seriously doubt you've dug any deeper into this story beyond what's been presented here. So, seriously, spare the world your fake "expertise" on what programs were or weren't made available to her. I don't believe you for a single second. I think you're talking out of your ignorant ass about a topic you know nothing about whatsoever. Tell me I'm wrong. YOU SAID: "and it doesn't matter who they are, that isn't right. If the person is willing to change and become better after leaving prison" == She didn't make it a MONTH before getting thrown back in prison. What ARE you talking about?? How much "change" did she make? YOU SAID: "they should be given the proper tools and help to do so, even if its verbal help, anything is better then nothing." == Seriously, rather than complaining on the internet about topics you don't understand, seriously, I'm not joking, you need to go back to school, and learn to read and write. I promise you, 100% seriously here, learning literacy will serve you much better in your life than to spend your time watching bullshit fluff pieces like this one. Go spend your time learning English. Again, I'm completely not joking.
    1
  14674. Why do you think this was a self defense case? Who told you it was? It was NOT a self defense case, which is why he went to prison.
    1
  14675. Well, that's an opinion that many people can defend. But, let me just make sure here... how about the man and his girlfriend who specifically had a baby for the purpose that the man can have sex with that baby, killing the baby in the process?
    1
  14676. Because that's what Inside Edition told you.
    1
  14677. But, none of this incident was ever on YouTube until long after she was dead.
    1
  14678. MAN you're stupid. I don't just mean a little bit stupid, but really out in space stupid. Um, dumbass, I already explained, none of the players in 18 year long crimes are EVER snowy white clean. The reason these crimes happen is because they're a bunch of criminals. This does NOT mean that the kingpin in the crimes is "no big deal" - just look how far you've taken your ridiculous hero worship, to dismiss the king of the crooks from the crime, and deflecting blame at the victims. You're pathetic.
    1
  14679. The reason was the Freedom of Information Act. What reason did you think?
    1
  14680. I don't get it. They want to "save" the environment? So, instead of an efficient pipeline that moves a massive amount of oil from one part of the country to another with very low energy input, they want the oil to be moved from one part of the world to another by carrying it across highways in hundreds of big diesel semi trucks?
    1
  14681. I think you don't understand the term "baby daddy."
    1
  14682. You can see the gun at multiple points in the video (one of which is 5:02 as pointed out already, next to a 2x4 piece of wood a couple of feet from the body). Time lapse = secure the area first, and get plenty of backup onsite. Otherwise, if you focus on the dead guy, you're likely going to end up that way also when more people crawl out of the woodwork to pick up where Mark left off.
    1
  14683. "1 why no dust from rocket bust on TV video, during landing" Well, I suggest you watch the videos again. You can see dust being blown on every landing. "camera is on the landing pad" No, the camera was in the LMP windows on every landing approach, facing outward. If someone ever showed you some sort of camera view from a landing pad, I'm afraid you've been duped. "Every thing but dust." Watch the ACTUAL videos of the landing sequences, not whatever videos you've been watching from a landing pad camera. I haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about, but, I can just imagine that you watched some sort of movie or documentary that made a CGI version of the landing as taken from a hypothetical camera on the landing pads. But, no such camera ever actually existed. "2 Then the little moon EV car the dirt falls off the tires how no gravity right." Wrong. Who told you there's no gravity on the moon? What in the world are you talking about? "I got about 20 more." Well, ask all you want, I'd be happy to help, but, frankly, I think the core of your problem is that you don't know anything about the topic. "NASA hasn't answered 1 or 2 yet" Ridiculous. NASA has published plenty of information about what the cameras were, and where they were located. They never said there was any camera mounted to the landing pads. And, they certainly don't tell anybody that the moon has zero gravity. They have very detailed gravimeter readings from LRO that map out the gravity on the moon. I very seriously doubt you've ever looked. "we had a Black an White TV I was11" Congratulations. So what? "Now there's 21" 21 what? Black and white TV sets? huh?
    1
  14684. Dewdrop, if you didn't want responses, why did you post anything at all? You clearly have zero interest in how rendezvous was performed. You only wanted to commit your slander (libel) and move on, eh? And, you like pretending that if YOU don't understand it, nobody does, huh?
    1
  14685. No. She asked WHERE he shot him. And, he said he didn't know. And, at that point in time, yes, he didn't know where the bullet had hit. But, yes, as the other guy was working on the criminal, you can see he was shot in the upper chest. The cop never said he didn't know WHY. He didn't know WHERE (what spot on the body was hit).
    1
  14686. At least nobody saw the arrest video until long after she was dead. It's a minor saving grace, but, trying to make a silver lining of sorts.
    1
  14687. Scroll down to the last time you posted this, and actually read the answers this time.
    1
  14688. The USSR wasn't involved with the telemetry fed back to Houston. There's no way in the world that they'd ever trust the Soviets to give them clean data. And, you can read the MIT papers on the exact countries and dishes that were feeding Houston's IBM mainframes. The Soviets aren't on that list. But, yes, they had their own worldwide tracking network, back to their own computers.
    1
  14689. The education system is only part of the problem. The other parts are the lack of proper upbringing, and the willful ignorance that goes along with that.
    1
  14690. "or a warning couldve been more appropriate" A warning for a misdemeanor? Huh? And, with her prior record and open warrants, what choice did the cops have anyway? Even if they ignored this particular misdemeanor, they'd still need to arrest her.
    1
  14691. "Thinking she alone" Why would you believe that? Because she says so? Her landlord said she was a "dancer" (ya know, one of those kinds), and, with her extensive criminal history, time spent in prison, etc., I find it a lot more likely that she was making "public beach" content. Witnesses said she walked up and down the beach a few times, and then found a spot with people nearby.
    1
  14692. "minding there business" You cannot even spell it, let alone express a coherent thought about it. Yes, dewdrop. We have police for a reason. That's their job. And, if you witness a crime, you should call the police. But, in your world, you'd just leave a man to crank at the playground in front of kids without calling? Is that what you're saying?
    1
  14693. Is this video intentionally editing out the part where he demands money or something? Or, did it never happen?
    1
  14694. Well, Inside Edition, like virtually all of the media outlets, never aired a single thing about this story until 1.5 years after she died. So, no, they had nothing to do with her suicide.
    1
  14695. "What a waist of a life!" Well, if it matters to you, her waist shrunk dramatically between this arrest and her suicide the next year. The medical examiner's report said that she weighed 86 pounds, and that's including the implants. Or, were you trying to say "waste"? The video ended up public due to the Freedom of Information Act. But, it wasn't released until 1.5 years after she was dead. So, um, no, it had nothing to do with her suicide.
    1
  14696. Spelling at its finest.
    1
  14697. I don't know that her motivation was "mundane." She basically ruined her life a long time ago, leaving her career and family behind to live a life of crime and drugs. After a million arrests, a felony prison term about 6 years ago, and with the charges continuing to pile up, yeah, I imagine she probably felt a lot of stress.
    1
  14698. Oh really? Then explain why her own attorney didn't think there was a case against the police, and sued the store instead?
    1
  14699. You think that little obscure Smoking Gun article was too embarrassing for her?
    1
  14700. This is the most ridiculous claim I've seen. If someone opens your car door and points a gun at your head, are you really under the impression that it's a crime to defend yourself?
    1
  14701. I love how the people with only 12 functional brain cells left somehow think everyone else is wrong.
    1
  14702. YOU SAID: "I do not understand where the 4 wheel drive came from, seem like there is no room to put it inside or under the spacecraft it was coming from nowhere" == Yet, in the other thread you posted simultaneous to this one, you denied Apollo was even real. And, here you are, stating that you don't know where the rover was?? This is clearly an argument from ignorance and incredulity. "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." There really isn't any way to get dumber than that. That's about the bottom rung there. Did you try searching for "lunar rover deployment" and see the thousands of hits that would explain it to you, and even show it to you? Or, did you just stick your head in the sand and pretend you know more about Apollo than the 450,000 people who worked on it... none of whom have ever wondered where the rover was located?
    1
  14703.  @george6696  Are you PROUD to be an idiot?
    1
  14704. So, in your mind, it's not possible for guilty criminals to get shot by another guilty criminal? In your mind, you justify premeditated/planned murder because they were robbing him? Robbery justifies premeditated murder?
    1
  14705. Did you check that one photo of the astronaut by the crater? It showed scatter just fine.
    1
  14706. It was about 73 hours between the trans-lunar injection burn (to break Earth orbit and go to the moon), and the orbital insertion burn (to drop into lunar orbit). I'm not sure where you got the 109 hour notion. How is it possible? By using a rocket.
    1
  14707. Huh? She's dead.
    1
  14708. Yes, that's what happened. The arrest video wasn't made public until 2.5 years later. She was long dead by then.
    1
  14709.  @bradleyrex2968  Just as a side note, Aldrin legally changed his name to Buzz. He doesn't merely "go by" that name. It's his actual legal name now.
    1
  14710.  @texmex9721  Especially for being left handed.
    1
  14711. Oh, with your obvious legal expertise, maybe you can answer a few questions for me, then. Will you? When did the police start issuing citations for crimes? I thought citations were only for infractions, not for crimes? With your legal expertise, perhaps you can point me to some examples of police issuing citations for crimes, can you? And, my next question is related to how the police ruined her life. Since the police kept the video private for 2.5 years, and it wasn't released to the public until 1.5 years after she died, perhaps you can explain to me how the police ruined her life, will you? It seems to me that the police did the right thing, and didn't release the video until quite a long time after the case was closed, and she was dead, and when they did release it, it was probably because of a Freedom of Information Act request. But, you're the legal expert here, not me, so, can you explain it instead of me making bad assumptions? And, as for not knowing kids were around, well, the police were called by multiple people, and one woman even recorded the incident with her cell phone. The police saw the video and said in their report that it was a very loud and public display, in view of multiple people, including children. What do you know that the police didn't know? Can you enlighten me? Why do you believe what you believe? Who told you? The woman who didn't want to be arrested? And, my last question relates to how to handle the case better. You even capitalized it. But, you didn't say how. Can you educate a guy like me, who knows nothing about the law or police procedures, and tell me how it could have been handled better?
    1
  14712. Let me guess... it's been over 50 years since the moon landings, and yet, there's never been any credible evidence of fakery. Every single objection offered by deniers over the last 50+ years has fallen flat on its face, easily proven to be incorrect under the slightest bit of scrutiny. But, you believe, any day now, the "truth" (sigh) will come out, huh?
    1
  14713. Who did? And how?
    1
  14714. They moved the TV camera AFTER exiting the module.
    1
  14715. The camera was mounted to the side of the lander, attached to an equipment bay. They walked around on the moon for about 20 minutes. Then they took that very same camera, mounted it to a tripod, and moved it to the spot where it took video of the rest of the moonwalk. You can see this happen in the video itself (the camera was still running as they dismounted it and moved it). You can also see it from the 16mm film camera mounted inside the lander looking out the window.
    1
  14716. Flagged as spam.
    1
  14717. You're foolish with or without government, dewdrop. Don't blame others for your own problems.
    1
  14718. Who is "they"?
    1
  14719. Restaurant admin? So, it's their fault that the criminal went to that restaurant after she put on a show at the public beach?
    1
  14720. Those who called the cops? So, in your mind, people shouldn't call the police when they see a crime?
    1
  14721. Dewdrop, the Freedom of Information Act is what caused the release of the video. The police can block the release for an open investigation (which they did block, for 2.5 years). But, after she was dead, there was no reason to block the release.
    1
  14722. Cop shoots: "RACISM!! Throw the cop in prison!!" Cop doesn't shoot: "RACISM!! He let that girl die!!! Throw the cop in prison!!"
    1
  14723. Wouldn't have mattered. One of the "audience" captured it on video. Needless to say, it didn't match this version she's telling while trying to avoid her millionth arrest. And, if they didn't arrest her for that particular act, they'd have arrested her for her open warrants.
    1
  14724. Which media, and how?
    1
  14725. On what basis?
    1
  14726. She was married. She left that life (and two sons) behind because the party life was more important.
    1
  14727.  @AM-rd9pu  ANY path through was safe at that speed.
    1
  14728. On what basis? For performing an arrest?
    1
  14729. Huh? I'd say she ruined her career a decade ago when she abandoned her job of selling homes (and her family) to go lead a life of crime and drugs. About 7 years ago, she spent felony time in a Florida prison. She got out, and continued her drug and crime spree, resulting in an arrest record a mile long. There were multiple judgements against her for various thefts. And, yeah, it is kind of difficult to get a straight job after all of that, so, her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club. Her neighbors said she also did "private" encounters in her apartment with numerous men. So, I seriously doubt this episode ruined her career. For all I know, maybe she was making a "public" video to PROMOTE her career? After all, the video taken by one of the witnesses doesn't match the version she tells about a discreet act with nobody around. Quite the contrary.
    1
  14730. Who? And, on the basis of what?
    1
  14731. We can only hope.
    1
  14732. With multiple people reporting, and a video of the incident itself, and a million open warrants for prior arrests, if you actually believe that the cop shouldn't have arrested her, you know nothing.
    1
  14733. I'm sure the feeling is mutual.
    1
  14734. Were you expecting a crater?
    1
  14735. Multiple people called the police. One of them said the woman went up and down the beach, looking for a spot, and [seemingly] deliberately plopped down in front of people. One witness took video, and showed the video to the police, who described it as a loud and public act in front of multiple people including children. Doesn't sound too private to me.
    1
  14736. Huh? What shame did she experience before she died? A couple of blog posts?
    1
  14737. Why? According to her landlord and neighbors, she was a "dancer" (yeah, that kind) who also did "private extras" with parades of men in her apartment. She was most likely making "public beach" content for her fans, but got reported, and was trying to cry her way out of her millionth arrest. The photo probably helped her business. And, there's no legal requirement to blur anything.
    1
  14738. Dust storms on the moon? Please tell me you're joking. And, as for the photos, and seeing miles away, you clearly haven't looked at them. Don't pretend you have. You've looked only at the ones shown to you by conspiracy videos.
    1
  14739. Huh? On what grounds? What's your claim?
    1
  14740. They didn't say what happened because they wanted to get two viral rounds out of it for the price of one. So, they came out with the "news" of the 2021 incident first in November of 2023. She was already long gone for a year and a half by then. But, they didn't reveal that. So, they could come back and announce a few weeks later that she was gone, thus producing a second viral video with the "updated information" (even though they already knew the outcome). But, fear not, the release of the video had absolutely nothing to do with it. Nobody saw it while she was alive.
    1
  14741. This incident = July 1, 2021. She departed the world = February or March of 2022 (exact date unknown). The video of the arrest was released November 24, 2023. Nobody saw it while she was alive.
    1
  14742. "You will never believe the truth when you keep your eyes closed." Dewdrop, multiple people asked you questions. YOU have ignored it. Don't complain that OTHERS have "closed eyes" when YOU're the one ignoring all input and refusing to address replies or questions. "Yep obvious." Again, you won't answer about why it's "obvious" that Apollo 11 was faked, while claiming Apollo 12 was not. Why can't you address it? "Please do your own research." Watching conspiracy videos isn't "research," dewdrop. "The answers are all at your fingertips." Dewdrop, you can find just about anything you want on the internet. Psychics talking to dead people. Bigfoot sightings. Aliens built the pyramids. You can name just about any topic you can dream up, and somewhere on the internet, you will find something to support it. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to actually BELIEVE IT, though. Sorry, but finding "answers" you enjoy... doesn't mean those answers are true.
    1
  14743. Because it's daytime. They saw plenty of stars from the night side of the moon.
    1
  14744. Um, ok, but, what does that have to do with Apollo? You're not under the impression that you need to trust the US government to know Apollo happened, are you?
    1
  14745. The Earth is 50x the size of the moon, and 80x the mass. Yet, you reject the notion of calling the moon a moon, huh? Just out of curiosity, do you also label all of Jupiter's moons as planets also? Or, is Jupiter just an 81 planet system? Where do you personally draw the line between a moon and a planet?
    1
  14746.  @Tim22222  Well, I'd argue about how many people constitutes the concept of "many." But, as for opinions, well, my first reply would be that if our moon, basically a dead rock, 50x smaller and 80x less mass, doesn't qualify as a moon, and should be considered a planet, I'd wonder why we even have the concepts of moons at all then? I will grant that our moon is relatively larger than its parent planet, when compared to most moons in the solar system. But, if 80x less mass isn't enough reason to knock it down from "planet" to "moon," I don't even know why anybody calls anything a moon.
    1
  14747. Larry, don't pretend you understand this topic, and even more importantly, don't pretend you really want answers to your questions. It's 100% clear that you don't. You know, in advance, that you are going to ignore anything anybody tells you. So, I'll make this brief, rather than answering completely: you don't understand the batteries, nor do you understand thermodynamics and heat transfer in space. You have watched conspiracy videos telling you a bunch of gibberish about why things can't work, but, the makers of those videos know the exact same amount that you do (ZERO). If you have a beef with how zilver-zinc batteries work, and how much heat is transferred in how much time in a vacuum, then write it up for engineering journals. Stop behaving like a raving crackpot and thinking YouTube comments are a mechanism to debate your silly ideas about how the thousands of engineers of Apollo were all "doing it wrong."
    1
  14748. YOU SAID: "It's sad that the corner" == Corner? YOU SAID: "that did the first autopsy said he had drugs in his system yet a toxicology takes weeks.." == Pfftt. Weeks, huh? So, when you're admitted to the hospital for weird problems, they run a spectrum of drug tests on you to see if you've been drugged with something (or are taking drugs), and those results come back pretty darned quickly because they have to treat you in a hurry. But, now it takes weeks, huh? YOU SAID: "Also the corner" == Corner? YOU SAID: "said his death was related to health problems including the covid!!!??" == And, this is difficult to believe, why? Did you run tests yourself that came back with different results? What difference does it make anyway? The cop is still almost 100% certain to be found guilty, regardless of the complicating factors. Is it so difficult to believe that additional factors made it worse for the victim? Do you think the coroner is lying? You don't even know what a coroner is, and keep calling it a "corner." What would YOU know about it? YOU SAID: "How sad that they try to cover up the TRUTH on this man's LIFE like he was at fault!!" == What? Who's covering up anything? They're sharing the results. The complicating factors that made his condition worse has nothing to do with the fact that you can still see the cop in the video. What ARE you talking about? In your mind, it's simply not possible that the victim also had some other conditions that added to the problem? No? Cops can only kill 100% perfectly healthy people, in your mind? They cannot kill people who have aggravating factors? What? Else it's a conspiracy?? YOU SAID: "I'm so glad the family requested a second autopsy which was homicide due to asphyxiation." == And, that's different from the first result, how? Nobody argues that the guy died from the cop kneeling on his neck. All the CORONER said was that there were some additional factors that made it worse. Oh, why am I trying to explain this to an illiterate YouTuber in the first place? You're too lazy to go out and do some productive protesting, so you're spewing your crippled nonsense into YouTube instead.
    1
  14749.  @truenative5251  Good grief. So, you don't even realize that your silly statements contradict THEMSELVES. So, in your mind, the only way to get toxicology reports is to wait 4-6 weeks. Right? That's what you're saying, right? Do you not realize you just made yourself sound completely stupid? So, by your own viewpoint, then this means that the SECOND coroner, the one you apparently prefer, COULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED WHETHER ANY TOXICOLOGY CONTRIBUTED OR NOT!!!! Is that sinking in? You just shot yourself in the foot, you fool. You're all happy with the 2nd coroner, right? Well, by your own standards, the 2nd coroner couldn't have possibly finished the job yet, you numbnut!!! So, the 2nd coroner would be completely unable to establish whether toxicology played a contributing role, until 4-6 weeks has gone by (in your mind). So, minimally, in your mind, you should really not like the 2nd coroner, for coming to any conclusions about contributing factors before 4-6 weeks has gone by. Right??? Checkmate, you buffoon.
    1
  14750.  @truenative5251  Hilarious!! Want to get out of the hole you're in, stop digging!!! You said that you already knew the results from the 2nd coroner. How could that 2nd coroner even produce an opinion on whether toxicology was involved, if your opinion is that he couldn't actually know that (in your mind) for 4-6 weeks? I myself have gone to the hospital with weird symptoms, as have friends and family, and have had toxicology tests run very quickly to see if there were drugs in my system. A friend of mine ate brownies at a party, felt very sick, went to the hospital, and found out very quickly they had been laced with drugs. Other friends, actual drug users, have gone to the hospital, and doctors discover what drugs they are on very quickly with the tests. Drug screenings for employment (much lower priority than emergency room) can give you the results in a day. No 4-6 week period. So, don't sit here and pretend that, magically, there's a 4-6 week waiting period before a doctor can know if drugs are in someone's system. You're being ridiculous. And, like I said, in your own viewpoint, you have shot yourself in the foot, because if it took 4-6 weeks to test for drugs, then your favorite "corner" (your spelling) wouldn't even know yet if drugs were involved. So, your entire basis for your position backfires on you. And, you never answered... why is this so objectionable anyway? Why does it matter to you if the victim had contributing factors, like drugs? It doesn't change the guilt or innocence of the cop who killed him. Suppose it was a shooting... a cop unjustly shoots somebody. The person dies. The coroner finds out that the person's heart was weak, and he might have survived the gunshot if he had a stronger heart. Is the cop any less guilty? No. He still shot the guy, and that was the main cause. Well, same thing here. The cop is still to blame. Just because there were contributing factors, doesn't mean that the cop is less to blame for choking the guy with his knee. Why, in your mind, must the victim be 100% perfectly clean? Why is that important to you? Again, in your mind, is it only possible for a cop to kill a 100% healthy victim? In your mind, if the person wasn't 100% healthy, then it's a conspiracy? And, YOU know better than the coroner??? YOU DO?!?!?!?! The guy who can't even spell "coroner" (spelling it "corner") is claiming to know better than the actual coroner?? Good grief. What a train wreck. Each of your posted messages is more ridiculous than the prior one.
    1
  14751.  @TimothyOBrien1958  You said "hyperbolic" instead of "hypergolic." Get it now?
    1
  14752. 86.38% of all statistics are made up.
    1
  14753. EVs are still overall better on the environment than gas cars, but, all of your points are pretty accurate. EVs are the "correct" solution in a lot of cases. But, it's doubtful you'll ever be able to make a case for electric aircraft (any bigger than a toy/drone). And, the Tesla Semi is never going to beat rail, or even regular diesel. But, even factoring your list of stuff, for a small commuter EV, yeah, it's better on the environment than a gas car... just not massively better as the Tesla cultists think.
    1
  14754.  @JAMESWUERTELE  Yeah, and there are losses in energy in hauling gasoline around in tankers to deliver it to gas stations too. That's all factored into the calculations.
    1
  14755. But, she didn't harm herself because of this video. Nobody saw the video until 1.5 years after she was already dead.
    1
  14756. Because this particular offense is a misdemeanor crime, not an infraction. For an infraction, speeding, parking illegally, fishing without a license, letting your grass grow too tall, police have the discretion to give a warning or a ticket. For a misdemeanor crime, the public has decided that we don't want police to play judge and jury, and we want them to simply perform the arrest and let the courts take it from there. Also, c'mon man, she was a convicted felon who served time in prison. She had an arrest record a mile long, because even after prison, she refused to stop committing crimes. There were numerous warrants for her arrest for failing to appear in court for prior arrests. But, you want them to just let her go? And, despite her claims of a discreet act with nobody around, sorry, but one of the witnesses recorded it, and the video doesn't match her innocent claims.
    1
  14757. "Zero gravity" is enough to prove that you are clueless.
    1
  14758. Dewdrop, I'm not the one who thinks the moon has zero gravity. That's YOU who thinks that way. Sorry, you don't get to claim any high ground, or pretend that your silly incantations mean anything. Clueless. Absolutely clueless.
    1
  14759.  @drackxman  YOU SAID: "Ok. That explains a lot. Far more than the simple statement from NASA people." == No problem. YOU SAID: "You mentioned the Concorde. Do you know why they discontinued using that Jet ?" == It was never profitable. They lost money on every flight. The governments (mainly France and Britain) had to continuously subsidize it to keep it flying. They did this because the Concorde carried a good amount of prestige, plus, they were looped into some pretty obligatory contracts that made it very difficult for either country to back out of the deal. So, decade after decade, the governments kept on supplying money to keep the Concorde in the air. Those engines cost a fortune. The airframes cost a fortune. The fuel consumption was like no other plane you've ever heard of. The maintenance costs were out of this world. They lost money like mad. And, eventually, the fleet of Concordes just started getting really old, and needed more and more maintenance to keep them flying. You have to keep in mind, they only built 14 of them. (Well, plus a few prototypes that were never used commercially.) And, the Concorde was never like a modern airplane. It was a 1960s plane, and it showed. Even the ones they built later were still basically the 1960s design. They had weird structural problems, various chronic mechanical problems that kept cropping up, etc. And, they had a fatal crash a couple of years before they retired the craft altogether. The Soviets were the only other ones to build supersonic airliners, and they abandoned it in a hurry. They saw that supersonic airliner flight was not going to be very efficient, and was going to be more trouble than it was worth, and just stepped away from it almost as quickly as they built the thing. == Ultimately, it basically comes down to cost, and lack of demand. Our capitalist system would definitely seek to produce supersonic airliners if it ever actually made sense. But, thus far, it hasn't made sense. We have extremely reliable aircraft that fly at nearly the speed of sound already. They're efficient. A one way ticket doesn't cost $10,000 (and that's before inflation adjusted to today's dollars). Yeah, you could probably get the tickets for a bit cheaper using trades/upgrades and point systems. But, let's face reality here. If you are flying 2 people on a Concorde, you're probably buying round-trip, and that's basically 4 flight legs at $10K each (in year-2000 dollars, not today's dollars). You're paying $40,000 to fly the Concorde for two people. Most people aren't going to do it. It's never going to be a business model that attracts the masses. Most people are going to say, "oh, forget it, I'll just sit in a conventional airplane for a few more hours, save myself the extra $35,000, and go buy a new car with that money instead." == Today, there are a couple of companies trying to revive supersonic airliner flight. Personally, well, I don't know enough about them to call them investor scams with any level of certainty. But, I'll be honest, they sure look like investor scams to me. It's poised for failure, if you ask me. But, sadly, there's a lot of money to be made in failure. Sometimes failures make people more money than successes. (Cough, cough, did anybody say "Theranos"?) People form these companies, gather up hundreds of millions of dollars in investment money on the promise of revolutionizing the world, then burn through the money like crazy, siphoning off huge salaries in the process, and then fold up the business and close the doors when the product doesn't work. I mean, there's a reason that you don't see Boeing investing in supersonic airliner development. Why is it these tiny unheard of companies that think they can produce aircraft that Boeing cannot? Well, as I said, my personal feeling is that they really don't intend to actually build supersonic airliners, but that it's an attractive scheme to bait investors, and that they'll keep putting on a good show until everything goes bust, then close the doors and run for the hills. But, again, what do I know? YOU SAID: "A friend of mine flew on it in the 70's. He said it was really cool." == It probably was. I never flew on one. I rarely went to Europe to begin with. But, even though I was making plenty of money back in the Concorde days, I never made enough to make me feel like throwing $40K into a round trip ticket for two people, just to save about 4 hours of flight time. I guess technically I could have afforded it. I certainly have a massive history of blowing money on stuff that few others would ever spend their money on. But, spending $40K to save 4 hours? No thanks. But, yeah, it probably was pretty cool. I am guessing that most people probably just would buy one ticket, one way, for one person, just to experience it (and it wouldn't cost $40K to do it). And, that's fine. But, I'm just going to fall asleep on the plane anyway, so, it would be a waste.
    1
  14760.  @drackxman  YOU SAID: "What was completed if they were cancelled ? I never heard about this." (Regarding Apollo 18/19/20.) == Well, originally, there wasn't really an "end" to Apollo. The original notion was that they'll just keep on cranking out Saturn V rockets, landers, command modules, etc., for as long as they could. And, then they'd put a space station around the moon, do some upgrades to the systems, and just keep on flying to the moon a couple of times every year, eventually have bases up there, etc. But, in reality, that wasn't going to happen. At the costs we're talking about, that simply wasn't going to be sustainable. So, congress started clamping down. They figured they'd fund Apollo through Apollo 24. Then, slowly but surely, they kept clipping back on what they'd fund. It got clipped back to Apollo 21, then Apollo 20, and eventually back to Apollo 17. But, here's the thing to understand: during all of those waves of cutbacks, they had already committed funding through Apollo 20 by the time construction had already begun on the Saturn V rockets, the landers, command modules, etc., for those missions. That's why we have a couple of extra landers sitting in museums (not quite complete, no computers and electronics, but, well underway). That's why we have a couple of Saturn V rockets in the museums also. (Those were even closer to completion, basically very close to being ready to fly.) See, you can't just crank out these craft in a couple of months. They didn't finish Apollo 11, then just start building everything for Apollo 12. The craft were in development for years. Again, this isn't like building cars, where they crank out thousands per week or something. It took years to build each craft for Apollo. And, yeah, they were almost done producing the craft for Apollo 18 by the time Apollo 18 was canceled by congress.
    1
  14761.  @drackxman  Yeah, sorry, not that much in the 1970s. I meant that it was about $10K per seat for a 1 way ticket in around 1995-2003, not in the 1970s. So, let's say in the year 2000, if you wanted two people to fly, round trip, it was about $40K. It was a lot less in the 1970s, but, it's all relative to the time period and inflation rates.
    1
  14762. Well, that's what last year's law passed by congress is supposed to do. But, nobody owns the moon, so, there's no way to enforce it. The law they passed merely has the power to deny funding to anybody who touches anything at Apollo 11 or Apollo 17 sites (treating those two landings like national monuments). But, it doesn't actually have the power to stop anybody from doing it. All they can do is deny government funding for it.
    1
  14763. You do know there's a difference between science and science fiction, right?
    1
  14764. Huh?
    1
  14765. Why is it that not a single one of you crackpots ever say that you base your beliefs on THE EVIDENCE?? Why is it always something silly like what you're saying?
    1
  14766. You've had 50+ years now. How much more time do you need?
    1
  14767. There's no reason to spend billions of dollars to send probes to places they've already been. The hoax nuts will just declare those probes to be fake also. We already have hundreds of LRO photos from 22 miles above the landing sites, showing the landers, rover tracks, foot paths, etc. And, what do the nuts say about it? They just call those fake also, and demand closer photos. They will continue to shift the goalposts. If you give photos from 10 miles above, they'll just want photos from 5 miles above. If you give them those, they'll want photos from 1 mile above. And, this shifting of the goalposts will continue until you can read the serial numbers off of the equipment... and even then, they'll still just call it fake.
    1
  14768. Huh? You're not talking about the convicted felon with the mile long arrest record, who chose to put on a public display in front of children... you're talking about someone else?
    1
  14769. Huh? He didn't die.
    1
  14770.  @Dave-bq6gy  So, you believe Google's own FAQ pages are lying about Google's maps?
    1
  14771. Well, given that her arrest video was released 2.5 years afterward, and she was long dead by the time anybody ever saw the arrest video, and the arrest itself received nearly zero publicity while she was alive, I find your claim rather dubious.
    1
  14772. He was at Kittyhawk in 1903? How old was he at that time? Born in 1880s or something? So, you were born when? 1920s or so?
    1
  14773. Was he a great grandfather?
    1
  14774. As a side note, of course I knew what you meant by "first manned air flight." But, just FYI, the first actual manned air flight was in 1783. But, yeah, most people don't count hot air balloon flights. "Heavier than air" flights started in 1903.
    1
  14775.  @patb.0168  You're not the brightest bulb, eh?
    1
  14776. Hilarious!! You even used legal sounding words while you pretended to know what you were talking about. Some corrections: 1) It never got as far as an accusation of theft. It was an investigation of possible theft. 2) There is no crime called "accused of stealing without evidence." The most you can possibly do is get money in a civil case, but you cannot criminally prosecute someone for thinking you may have stolen from a store. 3) Searched? Sorry, but you cannot just search someone in a situation like this. There are very specific search rules you need to learn. 4) Press charges on the establishment? Soooo, you want to send the store itself to prison? You can sue an establishment, of course. But, press charges? Huh? I mean, there are some very rare cases of pressing criminal charges against a business itself, but, not for stuff like this. 5) She doesn't have two lawsuits. Her own three attorneys didn't find fault with the actions of the police, and never filed any such lawsuit. They did file a lawsuit against the store, for a mere $50,000. They lost very badly, and she will be getting $0.00 in that lawsuit, and she has been barred from ever being able to file it again. What amazing irony, that you say OTHERS don't know the law... like, who? Her 3 attorneys didn't know the law? And, you know it better? While you want to press charges against a store?
    1
  14777.  @holyhecks  Wait, you actually believe that the law requires a sergeant if requested? And, guess what, she had THREE attorneys, one of whom specializes in civil rights violation cases. Yet, you think they're all incompetent, and YOU are competent? Absolutely amazing. YouTube comments is a land of make-believe, where any crank can pretend to be an expert.
    1
  14778. Well, did you consider looking at more photos than just the ones fed to you by conspiracy videos?
    1
  14779. Yeah, "Star Wars" is a documentary, not a sci-fi movie from 1977.
    1
  14780. For example, this video talks about the laser reflector and seismometer, right? Well, AS11-37-5548 shows you those items. (And, you can see that this CGI video has them pointed in the wrong direction, which I've commented on many times throughout the threads.) If you want to see the flag and camera/tripod, you see them in AS11-37-5512. Frankly, I find it difficult to believe you've gone through all of the photos, and it seems like you're just blindly rejecting things for no reason.
    1
  14781. Quote: "I don't know a lot about telescopes, I'll admit that. But you mean to tell me with the tech we have today, we can't find a way to get high res photos of the moons surface?" Correct, there is no mechanism to receive photons that have been interfered with, and are lost in transit. Technology has nothing to do with it. It's a property of light, not a property of technology. Yes, there is a way to see those small items from 240,000 miles away. You can build a telescope about 30 or 40 miles in diameter, to capture photons that are far enough apart that they haven't been lost in transit. But, you need to put the telescope in space, because on the ground it suffers from atmospheric distortion. Side note: the largest lens ever built costed $168 million to construct, and is 5 feet in diameter. I think there's a long way to go before we'll ever construct a 40 mile wide lens.
    1
  14782. Quote: "Not one single photo, past or present, or actual proof showing what this guy is showing." I provided two mission photos that show some of the items in this video. So, don't sit there and pretend they don't exist. Thanks for proving me correct, though. You didn't look at the photos before declaring they don't exist. Want more photos of some of the items? How about actually looking through the photo archive yourself, instead of making others do it for you?
    1
  14783. Plaque from this video = actual mission photo AS11-40-5899.
    1
  14784. You feel absolutely no obligation whatsoever to actually know what you're talking about, before you blindly reject things.
    1
  14785.  @15Redstones  Cool, thanks for the reply.
    1
  14786. Conclusion first, ask questions second. You're really honest.
    1
  14787. Huh? Three shots is "so many"?
    1
  14788. Yes, well, in the USA, there is the Freedom of Information Act, which is not the same as wherever you live.
    1
  14789. Randy Allen wrong.
    1
  14790. I don't think you understand what "baby daddy" means.
    1
  14791. No true Baptist, eh? Listening to you people is always hilarious. They say you're not a true Baptist. You say they're not a true Baptist. I mean, there's a reason that there are 524,731 different denominations of Christianity, right?
    1
  14792.  @johnbrowne3950  Great job missing the point entirely!! Bravo!! All you've done is prove me correct. You opened by committing the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, and you closed your second message with the same fallacy!! Hilarious!!
    1
  14793.  @johnbrowne3950  THAT is your reply? You sit there and say he's not a true Baptist. I pointed out that those Baptists say the exact same thing about you, and say that YOU aren't the true Baptist. And, that's been the entire history of the church, fractured, and re-fractured, into countless pieces because one denomination accuses the next denomination of not being "true" Christians (in whatever form). And, then your reply was to repeat the same silly fracturing, outlining the same exact fallacy I pointed out from the start. And, your response is to talk about a teddy bear??? What??? Good grief. No wonder you believe silly things.
    1
  14794.  @johnbrowne3950  We're done here, right? I cannot help people who are proud to be stupid.
    1
  14795. First of all, learn English. It certainly makes searching for things easier if you can spell them. Secondly, yes, three countries (USA, China, and India) have sent satellites to orbit the moon, and have taken photos of the landing sites. A fourth (Japan) has also done this, but, the resolution wasn't good enough to see as much detail.
    1
  14796. I seriously doubt "shame" was part of her vocabulary. One of the witnesses said that the woman walked up and down the beach, looking for a place, and then plopped right down in front of people, including children. One of the "audience" even got it on video and showed the police. She didn't seem too ashamed about her mile long arrest and prison record from before this incident, doubtful she felt much shame for yet another arrest... especially given that nobody ever saw the arrest video until she was already dead for 1.5 years.
    1
  14797. Yeah, Chevy definitely wasn't really trying to sell these cars. You're kind of answering your own question. They didn't market them in any real way. It seemed like more of an experiment than anything else, just trying to see if they could really use Holden to make cars for the USA's market. But, what do I really know? (Nothing.) But, the point is, if they really wanted to sell these cars, they would have put some money into marketing. The fact that they didn't do that is very telling that they really had no desire to make this a big hit. They know their market. It's limited. Not many people want sleepers.
    1
  14798. Putting on a show at a public beach in front of children is a misdemeanor. But, don't worry anyway, this arrest had nothing to do with her suicide a year later. You really shouldn't trust Inside Edition, you know.
    1
  14799. Kind of like the ones who don't know how to conjugate verbs?
    1
  14800. If you don't understand the irony of talking about people's intelligence while failing to conjugate a verb and not punctuating a sentence, I really can't help you.
    1
  14801. Well, you might be relieved to learn that the release of the arrest video had absolutely no impact on her suicide. The timeline that Inside Edition will never tell you: Arrest = July 2021. Suicide = March 2022. Arrest video made public = November 2023.
    1
  14802. Sure, but she shouldn't have given him all of that probable cause when she refused to show ID (legally obligated to do so), and then obstructed/obfuscated (also illegal).
    1
  14803. "I said 'manned' missions. I believe there were 3?" If you had read my response, I told you there were 9 manned missions to the moon. 6 of those missions landed upon it. You don't even know how many missions there were, and you're claiming OTHERS "don't get it"?
    1
  14804. "Still can't reliably do unmanned missions nearly 60 years later." If you had read my response, I explained why that is. But, of course, you didn't.
    1
  14805. "Don't need to be an expert to see through it." HILARIOUS!! So, basically, you're trying to say it's better NOT to know anything about the topic? Because, dewdrop, there are no experts making the claims you're making.
    1
  14806. "Added to that some of the comical footage that was passed off as real" And, you determined that, how? You know nothing about the topic.
    1
  14807. Michael Jordan is fake. You don't need to be an expert on basketball to know that all of those touchdowns he supposedly scored when he played for the Chicago Blackhawks were just comical footage that they tried to pass off as real. I know far better than all of the basketball experts in the world. (This is exactly how you sound.)
    1
  14808. And, when you're unable to actually address anything, change topics, right? Good gods. Dewdrop, just go somewhere and deny calculus exists or something. At least then, you'd just be impugning yourself. But, when you sit there, knowing absolutely nothing about a topic, impugning thousands of others, yeah, nobody likes people who do that.
    1
  14809. One ECU = car sorry, remember. 1969 is lucky for Columbia. Contributed lucky is not. Emojis make it true.
    1
  14810. Or, you could simply read the arrest report, and see that one of the callers for this incident recorded it, and gave a copy of the video to the police. Needless to say, it didn't match her sob story about nobody being around. To the contrary, it was a loud and public act in front of multiple people including children.
    1
  14811. Huh? You don't think people should be arrested for this crime? Why not?
    1
  14812. Huh? What media caused what exactly?
    1
  14813. The only people who say such things are those with absolutely no understanding of science, evidence, or engineering. I really wouldn't know what it's like to base my opinions on what people or governments say. I'd say the evidence is what matters most. But, for people who literally know nothing at all about what evidence even means... well... here we have Kirk to show us all.
    1
  14814. Huh? You're telling OTHERS to think about what it would take to do it? You don't even know the function of each craft involved. What do YOU think you know about what it took?
    1
  14815. Well, you might have a shot at actually understanding these concepts if your education went past the 2nd grade (which is your exact reading and writing level). The cop had more than enough reasonable suspicion to make the stop. And, by the end, he had enough probable cause to make the arrest.
    1
  14816. Huh? They did score a head shot (well, chin anyway). It barely broke the skin, though. There's just not much energy in those 9mm hollow point pistol rounds. Most of them didn't even break the glass. The very few that were able to go through barely even had enough energy to get into his skin, let alone do more damage. There's no way one of those rounds would be able to penetrate a skull after having gone through a car window.
    1
  14817. But, she refused to identify herself, and resisted arrest. Even if her plan was like you're outlining, she doesn't get to sit there and claim she's been profiled, refuse to identify, and resist. If asked for proof of purchase, provide it. If asked for identification, provide it. If told you're under arrest, comply.
    1
  14818. Huh? What do you propose to do about it? "Waking up" means nothing if you aren't expressing an exact plan.
    1
  14819. How is that an answer to my question? What would you propose to do about it? Good grief. Talking to people like you is like trying to teach calculus to an earthworm.
    1
  14820. Freedom of Information Act. But, the saving grace is that at least the arrest video wasn't public until she was already dead 1.5 years.
    1
  14821. There's a bit of liquid in the outer core of the moon. But, other than that, it's pretty dead, yes.
    1
  14822. Well, given that you have the exact writing skills of a 2nd grader, I wouldn't expect you to understand. But, whatever. I'll entertain you anyway. Alright, enlighten the world. Explain the EXACT training that you'd have given them instead?
    1
  14823. I hate being put into a position to defend anything about Trump. But, you're here in a moon mission video, talking about JFK's ability to get the funding for the Apollo moon missions, right? The true irony is that only two presidents in history have achieved the goal of getting congress to fund the programs to send people to the moon. The first was obviously JFK. The second is Donald Trump. No president between JFK and Trump has ever successfully lobbied to get congress to fund a program to put people on the moon. Others have tried, or at least have claimed to have tried. But, the first program to put people back on the moon after Apollo is the Artemis program. It got funded by congress in late 2019. They are now building the hardware to do it, the astronauts have been named and are in training right now, etc. So, it's a bit confusing to sit here and listen to you complain about Trump in comparison to JFK... while viewing a moon program video... when the truth is that Donald Trump and JFK are the only two presidents in the history of the USA, or worldwide for that matter, who have successfully gotten funding approved to put people on the moon. Do me a favor, next time, don't put people in a position that requires them (or me) to defend Trump. Lift a finger to know what you're talking about first.
    1
  14824.  @eventcone  YOU SAID: "Not to disagree with your comments, but did not Trump merely redirect NASA's goal from that of a manned Mars landing back to a Moon landing?" == Goals are separate from funded programs. I mean, when the "Space Task Group" was formed in 1958, yeah, they had tons of "goals." It was a small group of engineers that basically dreamed up various ways to do things like going to Mars, or the moon, or Venus, or distant asteroids, or Jupiter's moons, or whatever else they were dreaming up. They were mildly funded to come up with strategies to accomplish future missions. It doesn't mean that those actual programs to actually accomplish those things were funded. But, they were putting together very basic spacecraft design parameters, so that, eventually, when programs get funded, they already had some basic ideas of how to do it, how much it would cost, how long it would take, how many people they could put inside the capsules, etc. Manned Mars missions were never funded, so, Trump didn't merely redirect a goal to go to Mars back to a goal to go to the moon. He lobbied for the money to fund a program to actually do something beyond loose planning. I mean, look, NASA can say they have plans to go to Mars, or anywhere else, and that doesn't mean that anything is actually in development to do so. YOU SAID: "(Presumably because a manned moonlanding was thought to be achievable within two presidential administrations?)." == Yeah, probably. But, by the time Artemis was funded, it was probably far too late to make it by 2024 anyway. YOU SAID: "Also, if the US was funding Mars - albeit at a very slow rate" == The funding for sending people to Mars never made it past the dreamer phase, not in any real sense anyway. I mean, yeah, they got SLS funded. They toyed with the notion of converting Orion to long duration flight to be able to go to Mars (it wasn't originally designed to do that). But, were Mars missions ever really funded? No. Were astronaut crews named and trained? No. I mean, they haven't even gotten an SLS off the ground yet. They put up one Orion flight (no people inside), and haven't done anything else with it. Until/unless an actual program is named and funded to actually accomplish these things, then that's not really a program to do it. Let me lay out an analogy that makes this more clear (I hope). Like, you know about fighter airplanes, right? There was a program to come up with a couple of "next generation" fighters, right? (They ended up as the F22 and F35.) Well, early on, the funding was just to dream up some parameters, come up with specifications, figure out what's feasible and what's not, etc. I mean, they didn't just say, "we want a fighter that can go mach 25, carry 400,000 pounds of bombs, have laser guns instead of bullets and missiles, and the entire plane would cost $500 each, etc." No, they funded a group that would be able to come up with options and specifications for air superiority within technological and financial limitations. Then, it moved to the design and selection phase, and that phase was funded. They selected from their contractors, and paid those contractors to do a "bake off" between design options. The contractors were paid to design and build prototypes (YF22 vs YF23, and YF35 vs YF32). Then, once they selected the "winners," then the programs were funded to start building fleets of them. NASA's funding model isn't exactly like that, but, conceptually, yeah, go by that framework, it gets funded in stages like that. Sending people to Mars was never past the "go come up with some options and preliminary ideas" phase. Sending people back to the moon was never (until Artemis) funded any further than that either. The Constellation program was actually funded (and later canceled), and that's how we got Orion. Now, they figure that they already spent the money on developing Orion (but never did anything with it), so, they want to re-use the Orion design for Artemis. They have a couple of capsules already in development anyway. But, anyway, the point is, no, until Artemis, there wasn't actually a funded program to put people back on the moon. I'm sure you'll say, "but Constellation was a three-phase project to go to the ISS, go to the moon, and go to Mars, and Constellation was funded." But, Constellation's actual funding to build stuff never actually got past the first stage (flights to ISS), and actually never even got that far before getting canceled. There were some early designs for a lunar lander, early plans for going to Mars, but, those phases were never actually fully funded to do so, those phases never made it past the early planning stages. YOU SAID: "was not this made possible because of the progress being made by the Commercial Crew Program. Was not CCP an initiative launched under the Obama administration?" == I don't understand the question. What does the Commercial Crew Program have to do with going to the moon? And, furthermore, wasn't the Commercial Crew Program for the ISS basically the REPLACEMENT Obama put in place INSTEAD of funding Constellation to perform the 2nd part of their program to go to the moon? I've always been under the impression that Obama killed Constellation entirely, killed the first stage of Constellation that was already fully funded and on the way (going to ISS), canceled early planning for 2nd stage of going to the moon, canceled early planning for 3rd stage of going to Mars, and replaced it all with the stripped down Commercial Crew Program instead, which never planned on going anywhere besides the ISS?? YOU SAID: "If so - Kennedy's achievement seems by far the greater (I acknowledge that you were not saying otherwise). Kind Regards." == I dunno. Did he "achieve" getting the insane level of funding that it took to make Apollo happen? Yeah. Would other presidents in the 1960s during the cold war have been able to "achieve" getting the same funding? Yeah, I believe so. In the era of bomb shelters in people's backyards, in the era of schoolkids getting trained on what to do if they see a nuclear explosion outside of the school windows, in an era of the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis, yeah, people were happy to fund cold war efforts to display our technological capabilities to the Soviets (which is all Apollo was). But, again, you are doing the same thing that the original poster of this comment thread did... put me in a position to defend Trump... Trump accomplished getting the funding to send people to the moon in an era when there was virtually no public interest in doing so. Don't get me wrong. Trump does/did a million things I don't like. But, he does/did a million things I do like. I judge each action on its own. I oppose bad actions. I support good actions. And, this may blow your mind, since you're probably very aware of how much I know about Apollo, and how much time I've spent with the Apollo astronauts, and how much money I've spent in doing so... and I'm sure you know that studying Apollo is something I've done for many decades... but, the punchline that might blow your mind is... I'm not really all that sure that I support future moon missions. In my mind, I hope so, just because the moon is so wonderful to study. But, the financial side of my brain wonders if it's worth the money. I'm torn. Probably, yes, I'd fund it if I had the power to do so. But, it wouldn't be an automatic yes. I'm really 51/49 about it. This is why, mainly, I don't really get into personal opinions too much. I spend a lot of time in these comments talking about the facts of what happened in the past, what's happening right now, what might happen in the future. But, I rarely get into what I want to happen. And, when I talk about what Trump has/hasn't done, I mean it in the same manner. I'm not saying I support Trump. I'm not saying I oppose Trump. I'm just saying... Artemis got funded because Trump lobbied for it. We now have SLS on an accelerated schedule. They ordered another Orion capsule. The astronaut crews are in training. Bezos is designing and building the lander. It's funded. At least right now. It might get canceled as Constellation got canceled. But, Artemis was funded to put people on the moon. Constellation got funded to go to the ISS (and early planning for putting people on the moon, but never funded to actually do so). Artemis is funded.
    1
  14825. Yes, a couple of obscure sites had blog entries about the arrest. But, nobody had the arrest video until November 24, 2023. The "Chokerclub" article you mentioned was simply wrong.
    1
  14826. The USA has had the ability to wipe out the virtual entirety of the population on Earth for about 70 years now, since the mass manufacture of nuclear weapons, and accumulating enough to basically vaporize the surface of the Earth many times over. Yet, it has not done so. You're worried that something is different now, somehow?
    1
  14827. Well, if Musk would ever reveal the weight of the truck, none of this would be happening. But, the fact that he won't reveal it... just tells me that it must weigh a heck of a lot. Every other truck manufacturer on the planet knows that the weight of the truck is crucial, and publishes the numbers. Not Tesla. They won't say. So, sorry, but they're bringing on the criticism themselves.
    1
  14828. Yet, (a) he makes everyone do these ballpark calculations, because he won't just reveal the weight. And, (b) he takes orders and deposits from people without telling them what they're buying.
    1
  14829. Well, no. Everyone is entitled to due process and appeals. However, clearly, the death sentence is impossibly expensive to actually carry out, costing millions in legal expenses for all of the endless motions/appeals, endless procedures to stays of execution, requests for pardons, etc. It costs far more money to execute someone than it does to put them in prison for life, and that needs to change.
    1
  14830.  @brennen203  YOU SAID: "the fact that you believe we did it in one shot is scary." == Wow, what amazing ignorance. Um, dummy, the first moon landing was Apollo 11. Did it ever occur to you that it wouldn't have been called "Apollo 11" if it was the first shot? Good grief. You know absolutely nothing. YOU SAID: "I’m not a flat earth believer lol I’m just a realest." == No, dummy. A "realist" would realize that you have to know something about a topic before you can accuse thousands of people of being criminals. YOU SAID: "We were in a race to the moon. We had to prove we are the best." == And, you think faking it would prove we're the best? What? And, you think the entire world would just believe it? What? YOU SAID: "It was stagged and didn’t go to the moon till many many years after" == This is a joke, right?
    1
  14831. @thePiercingTruth What ARE you talking about? Who said anything about the shape of the Earth? Good grief. Are you able to read?
    1
  14832. @thePiercingTruth Good grief. I have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't delete anything. What a crackpot.
    1
  14833. @thePiercingTruth That's where you got it from. He said something about flat Earth, but, I never even mentioned it. Good grief. You are completely paranoid.
    1
  14834. @thePiercingTruth I never said any such thing, child. Good grief.
    1
  14835. @thePiercingTruth I don't have the foggiest clue why he mentioned not being a flat Earther, but, I didn't reply to that topic, and I never said anything like what you're accusing me of. You need to see a doctor. That's really all I can tell you. Your imagination has run wild.
    1
  14836. @thePiercingTruth Quit the act, child. I realize you THINK you saw something you didn't see, but, that's not my problem. I have absolutely no reason to make the statements you're accusing me of. I have never done anything like you're accusing me of. I respond to the statements made, that's it. You read something about a flat Earth, and then you accused me of saying it, because your imagination has run wild. I didn't. That's all there is to it. You keep going from thread to thread, saying the most off-the-wall garbage. In case you haven't noticed, I always reply with actual content. What do you do? You make emojis and pretend you know things you don't.
    1
  14837. @thePiercingTruth Look, I'm done here. You're obviously just going to repeat your same nonsense over and over. If you actually have anything to say about the substance, fine. Otherwise, if you are going to keep dreaming that you saw something you didn't see, there's really no point in communicating with a child like you.
    1
  14838. I realize you're joking. But, seriously, now that India and China have released their orbital photos of the Apollo landers on the moon, a few of the nuts actually have been saying that NASA managed to put landers there from 1969-1972, but that nobody was in them. That's how tightly they cling to their crazy notions. I mean, most of the nuts simply ignore the evidence from other countries, sticking their fingers in their ears, covering their eyes, and saying "lalalala, I can't hear you, lalalala." But, for the ones who are even further off the grid of reality, yeah, they acknowledge the other countries' photos, and STILL rationalize it away. I'd love for them to explain why they wouldn't just put people inside. If they were able to land big enough craft (lunar lander size, not just tiny probes), why not just put people aboard? (They don't answer that question.)
    1
  14839.  @SelwynRewes  Well, they aimed the MRI at his head. That was the key mistake. His brain is elsewhere.
    1
  14840. Long before this incident, she had already been trying to change her name (to evade the police). But, with her felony prison term for stealing cars, and her mile long arrest record for various other thefts, drugs and alcohol, failures to appear in court, etc., the government wouldn't allow her to change her name.
    1
  14841. You do see that cross on her neck, right?
    1
  14842.  @kitcanyon658  It reminds me of the Beetlejuice movie. The family first finds out that there are ghosts in the house living in the attic, and the father is just dumbfounded, saying that the attic door is locked, so, how could the ghosts possibly get into the attic? Same thing here. "Don't tell me that there was a mechanical arm that extended the camera." I mean, we managed to build nuclear bombs that obliterated entire cities 25 years before Apollo, but, a little arm that gets lowered by a lanyard, oh, that's too much to believe.
    1
  14843. Huh? He died about 30 seconds after getting shot.
    1
  14844. OK, but, how can you prevent it?
    1
  14845. Oh? Are you going to train them? Please enlighten the world about your amazing shooting skills, such that you can make 9mm rounds penetrate a truck?
    1
  14846. Well, on Apollo 17, the rover's camera was stowed (facing downward and turned off) in between each EVA. And, for the final EVA, they obviously left it on, but, in order to get the best visual of the liftoff, they parked it to the east of the lander, while the door was on the west side. So, you can't see it then either. But, you can see them climbing in and out on some of the other mission videos. Start with Apollo 11 (the first landing). You can see Armstrong climbing down the ladder from the DAC 16mm film camera in the LMP window. And, you can see Armstrong and Aldrin climbing back into the module at the end of the moonwalk.
    1
  14847. "I’ve been asking the same question for 45 years." You could have spent those 45 years watching the Apollo videos, hence seeing the clips of the astronauts climbing in and out of the spacecraft. "I’m 55 !" I'm surprised you can count that high. "And the Duck tape" The word is "duct," dewdrop. "on the moon" What kind of tape would you recommend? I mean, it wasn't duct tape in particular, but, yes, very similar. What would you have used on Apollo instead? "GORTEX material on the space suits." Gore-Tex was invented in 1969, and first patented in 1976. The Apollo A7L suit was in development since 1962, and first flew in 1968. Somehow I don't think they used Gore-Tex. And, you've been investigating this for 45 years, and you can't get the dates right? And, even if they used something similar in some of the 24 layers of the suit, who cares? What difference does this make to you? Don't just sit there and spew gibberish words without explanation. "aluminum foil." I assume you mean the aluminumized Mylar and Kapton foils? So what? Again, what would you have used instead, if you don't like it? Do elaborate. Don't just spew the two words "aluminum foil" as if they mean something. Name the function you're questioning. Name the problem you have with understanding aluminum. And, name how you'd do it instead (since it's crystal clear that you object to it). In 45 years, if you cannot manage to formulate a complete sentence regarding these questions you ask, it's no wonder you've never received an answer. Here's my question: "Red bricks?" Can you answer it? (No, and neither can anybody else, because two word questions don't mean much.)
    1
  14848. And you got your law degree from where?
    1
  14849. What's that? YouTube is My University? Good grief.
    1
  14850. But, the arrest video wasn't released until 1.5 years after she was already dead. And, no social media covered it until then.
    1
  14851. Oh, and 2nd reply to this message... in addition to the deluded fans who allowed him to become powerful... people like you allowed him to become powerful... for taking a passive attitude to his crimes. The man would be in jail, probably for the rest of his life, if it wasn't for his popularity, and the "oh well, it's just cycling" attitude. Cycling... who cares... Fraud, drug trafficking, perjury, blackmail, false lawsuits, etc.... = CRIMINAL.
    1
  14852. Hey, dewdrop, did you miss the part where the guy was rapidly walking up wearing a ski mask in the middle of summertime? And, even more importantly, did you miss the part at 0:08 where he pointed a gun at the cop's head? (OK, that's easy to miss if you don't pause and go frame by frame.) Did you miss the gun on the ground at 5:00?
    1
  14853. Nope, the woman acted like a maniac, and her skin makes no difference.
    1
  14854. Another proud YouTube University attorney. Tell me, when did they start issuing tickets for a crime? I thought you get a ticket for an infraction.
    1
  14855. It's not that difficult to understand. Inside Edition is carefully crafting the story to make you come to the wrong conclusions. The reality is that this arrest was July 1, 2021. Her suicide was March, 2022. The arrest video was made public on November 24, 2023. Freedom of Information Act. The cops can no longer block legal FOIA requests after a case has been closed for long enough. And, yeah, since the arrest was 2.5 years ago, and she was already dead for 1.5 years, the cops can't block the release any longer. Welcome to Inside Edition, trash news.
    1
  14856.  @jaydubya4349  Good grief. And, Trump would put this "framing" in the hands of a left wing purple and green and yellow haired movie industry girl? Really? "Hey, Hannah, I'd like you to swap the bullets out and put real ones in." "Yeah, I'm secretly a major supporter of yours, and totally won't expose you."
    1
  14857. "NASA BBQ'd the first crew before they could spill the beans" Oh, that's amazing. So, in order to prevent the public from finding out that there were problems with the spacecraft, they created problems with the spacecraft to BBQ the occupants, and then blamed the spacecraft for it, all so the public wouldn't find out that there were problems with the spacecraft. And, you're PROUD to hold this opinion?
    1
  14858. "Buzz Aldrin crashed the landing craft in testing" Wow. So many things wrong here. First of all Aldrin never crashed anything. You have him confused with Armstrong. Secondly, it wasn't a landing craft, it was a simulator. Third, Armstrong had dozens of successful landings in the simulators. Why do you have such a problem with a crash due to a technical issue? This is especially odd because you are simultaneously complaining that things were too perfect. When something goes wrong, you actually complain about it?
    1
  14859. "5 FLAWLESS MISSIONS" Dewdrop, there were 9 manned missions to the moon, 6 of which landed. None were flawless.
    1
  14860. "perfect releases, perfect landings, perfect take offs, perfect navigation" Um, Apollo 13 ring a bell? Exploded in space? You don't know this? Apollo 11 missed its landing spot by 4 miles. Apollo 15 smacked the surface so hard that it cracked the engine bell, and could almost be called a crash landing. Apollo 16's take off had a timing problem with the explosive bolts and blew the rear panels apart. I mean, I could go on for hours here. But, for someone who doesn't even know how many landings there were, and who is oblivious to Apollo 13 exploding in space, yeah, there's really no hope here.
    1
  14861. "Nothing short of 5 miracles" Thanks for confirming that it wasn't just a typo. There were NINE manned missions with SIX landings.
    1
  14862. "no one has been anywhere near the Van Allen radiation belts since" Wrong, they get near. But, it would be a bad idea to spend much time in there. What's your point? You just like rattling off gibberish about topics you don't understand?
    1
  14863. "12 shy astronauts, who don't do interviews" Is this a joke? Dewdrop, go interview them!! There are 4 still alive. Yes, they all have done countless interviews.
    1
  14864. Why not? He doesn't want us to see the giant space turtle that the Earth rests upon?
    1
  14865. You needed Tiktok to tell you that? Um, yeah, this is just a CGI rendering. If you want the real photos, you can look through the photo archives.
    1
  14866. Yes, you can find any opinion on the planet on any social media outlet. You can find people saying psychics talk to dead people. You can find people saying OJ didn't do it. You can find people saying there are secret cures for cancer. You can find people saying this is fake. You can find believers in Bigfoot. So what? Why does any of that nonsense matter to you?
    1
  14867. What do you suggest?
    1
  14868. Yeah, ok, Ben Crump. Sure. If only he "communicated better" than outright telling the guy to put his hands behind his back. Maybe the cop should have invited the suspect for tea and cookies to discuss the matter, right?
    1
  14869. "so your telling me" So my telling you? What does that mean? Was that your 2nd grade level education trying to write "you're," but you don't know how? "he did his best to try and de escalate the situation over a traffic stop for tinted windows?" If you don't know how to spell "deescalate," sorry, you don't know anything about it. And, quit pretending like the guy was a victim. The cop told him to put his hands behind his back. The guy is legally required to follow that instruction. The person escalating was the guy who attacked the cop. "if he just talked to the guy and calmed him down." Dewdrop, stop blaming the good guys for the actions of the bad guys. Good grief.
    1
  14870. That's some mighty impressive slander there. Any evidence? The medical examiner's report doesn't say a single word about any missing organs (and, yes, the report would say that if it were true).
    1
  14871. Thanks for proving you don't read the answers to your own questions/comments. Bravo. You're a true hero.
    1
  14872. Shocker. Another nut who can't read or write.
    1
  14873. Really? Really, dewdrop? You couldn't lift a finger to realize that they wore "overshoes" while on the moon? Really? Instead, a silly video told you the boots didn't match, and you just blindly believed it? And, you think blind acceptance of absurd things is the SUPERIOR position?
    1
  14874. Still denying the obvious, then? Stop pretending, dewdrop. You're not good at it.
    1
  14875. Why are you pretending you watched the videos? Why not just admit you listened to a denier video that told you to make that ridiculous claim?
    1
  14876. "Defamation" would mean that they said something not true. "Wrongful death" would mean that they somehow caused it. They didn't. Sorry, but, by your "logic," we should never arrest people when they commit crimes. And, this arrest was nothing in the bigger scheme of things anyway (like you said). This woman had already trashed her reputation with her other million arrests and the term she served in prison. One more arrest wasn't going to make a bit of difference. And, she wasn't shamed by this incident anyway. It received near-zero press until after she was dead.
    1
  14877. I hope you're right. But, never underestimate what kind of stupid decisions can be made by crazy people with huge egos.
    1
  14878. What exactly would you suggest he do instead?
    1
  14879. YOU SAID: "Looks like we will start to see alot of privately owned airlines and shipping and trucking companies pop up around the states with their headquarters based outside of the states." == What are you talking about? Are you under the impression that people are willing to connect through a different country to just fly across a couple of states? Or, are you unaware that foreign held airlines are not allowed to fly those kinds of domestic routes? I mean, basically, if you want to fly Qantas (for example) between Chicago and New York, you basically have to fly through Sydney, Australia to do it. Foreign held airlines can fly in and out of cities in the USA, but, not in between cities in the USA. You knew that before you posted your message, right? YOU SAID: "Biden and his party of democrats and liberals are destroying this country! It needs to be stopped." == Pffttt. As opposed to what? Republicans? Hey, whenever you want to wakie wakie and realize that all of the political parties are a nightmare in one way or another, you'll be better off for it. YOU SAID: "I forsee" == You can't even spell it. What could you possibly "forsee" (your spelling)? YOU SAID: "another civil war in our near future if Biden and Nancy don't get out of office." == Pffttt. Spare me. Every time there's a political power transfer from one party to another, there's a group of nutbags on the internet who scream about a civil war. Get real. YOU SAID: "And not a war based on race rather a war based on political views." == Fine. Go post that in a video about political views. Getting vaccinated (or not) has nothing to do with political views. It's a bunch of people who understand the science, and a bunch of people who don't. YOU SAID: "Conservatives vs Liberals. Republicans vs Democrats. Hope I'm wrong" == Don't forget "uneducated vs. educated." Good grief.
    1
  14880. Both sides DID use deadly force. But, Rittenhouse was justified because it was self defense. The rioters were not justified.
    1
  14881. YOU SAID: "this happened MULTIPLE TIMES" == Where's your evidence of that? YOU SAID: "he clearly said they had just got there and only had a shot so they weren’t drunk." == 0.25% blood alcohol level, but wasn't drunk? And, what? You just blindly believe anything they say? So, just out of curiosity, when the millions of people get arrested each year for driving while drunk, and many/most of them say, "but, I only had one drink," do you just blindly believe them also? By the way, I have a bridge for sale. Interested? YOU SAID: "These resorts are scamming people after injuring their family" == What did the resort get out of this incident? What EXACTLY is the scam you're accusing them of?
    1
  14882. YOU SAID: "So we spent millions of dollars" == Billions. YOU SAID: "for 17 missions," == Well, not exactly. There wasn't really an "Apollo 2" or "Apollo 3." Long story about the naming conventions. And, not all missions were manned. And, Apollo 1 never got off the ground. YOU SAID: "except 13 that was cancelled" == It had an oxygen tank explosion in space. I don't think I'd say that's a "cancelation." But, ok, choice of wording.... YOU SAID: "just to collect rocks to determine the age and what materials they contain. And if there was any microscopic life." == Well, they did more than that. And, frankly, the main purpose of Apollo had nothing to do with collecting rocks. It was a product of the cold war against the Soviets.
    1
  14883. Blame the victims? Blame the police? How about blaming the criminal?
    1
  14884. "when someone is stealing a hat and gloves" Well, how much more was she stealing in that bulky coat, which still had bulky areas after the emptied the hat and gloves? "I’m happy this is how it ended for her" Are you just unaware that she's dead now? Or, are you truly happy she's dead now? I kind of hope it's the former. "I don’t believe she had malice or cruelty towards the business." Pffttt. She went right back to stealing from Walgreens immediately after this incident. So, I think you're wrong. "She was cold and had no money to buy these things." She spent it all on meth.
    1
  14885. So, you didn't watch the whole video.
    1
  14886. Here's a hint in life: these "news" (not news) outlets get paid by ad revenue, and they want lots of videos to go viral. But, sometimes, giving the straight story doesn't make that happen. So, to make a viral video, they use creative wording to modify the message. Like, they say, "Was she shamed into suicide? That's what everyone is asking." But, they never answered. Instead, they want you to think the question IS the answer. But, the actual answer is no. The arrest video wasn't made public until 1.5 years after she died. When they don't answer their own questions, you're being manipulated.
    1
  14887. Who do you think shamed her, and how?
    1
  14888. So, you're perfectly ok with refusing to identify (an arrestable offense all by itself, regardless of whether the theft charge is right or wrong), obstruction and obfuscation (also illegal and arrestable), and her eventual resisting arrest (another charge to add to the pile)? Those things are ok? You don't realize that, had she not done those things, you'd have gotten your wish to investigate further before she was arrested?
    1
  14889. The government clearly never taught you addition and subtraction. You need to repeat the 2nd grade and forward.
    1
  14890. Really? You're picking on someone who just had a gun pointed at his head a few seconds prior?
    1
  14891. Yes, there's footage of Earth. What are you talking about?
    1
  14892.  @marrs1013  None of the conspiratards watch the videos before commenting on the videos. The only videos they actually watch are conspiracy videos.
    1
  14893. Huh? You don't consider this story to be fake news? "Innocent soccer mom gets busted by evil police, kills herself as a result"? Yet, the real story is, "convicted felon who cannot stop getting arrested, gets arrested for the millionth time, and kills herself a year later for unrelated reasons."
    1
  14894. But, the method of fighting such a policy is to take it elsewhere and fight it. You don't get to violate the policy. By violating the policy, she was trespassing when they asked her to leave and she refused. This isn't an equal rights thing, like protestors for suffrage for women, or protesting for blacks to ride at the front of the bus, etc. This is a mask policy that is applied to everyone in the audience. As for your implication that there isn't a risk, are you insane? We've had over a half a million deaths in the USA alone, and that's under isolation and prevention policies. With no such policies, the deaths in the USA would be millions, maybe even tens of millions. Yet, you're saying things like, "if there was a risk"??? Good grief. Have none of your friends/family died from COVID? Do you not know people who have died from COVID? Nobody around you has even had a near-death hospital stay from COVID?
    1
  14895. Sorry, but she suffered nearly zero humiliation, despite the false picture Inside Edition attempts to paint.
    1
  14896. Well, other issues, sure, definitely. But, committed suicide over this? Naw, that's just Inside Edition being Inside Edition, painting a false narrative.
    1
  14897. What do you expect? You want him to wait between each round to investigate whether the round stopped the guy or not?
    1
  14898. She committed a misdemeanor crime. What else do you expect to happen, other than an arrest? There were multiple complaint calls. One of the "audience" recorded it, and gave the video to the police. Needless to say, it didn't match her version about nobody being around, quite to the contrary, it was in front of multiple people including children. She was a convicted felon who served time in prison around 6 years ago, and had a million other arrests before and after that, including failures to appear in court (resulting in open warrants). Do you REALLY believe they weren't going to arrest her? Even without all of that, police don't have that kind of discretion for a crime. You seem to have confused it with an infraction.
    1
  14899. And, "news and police"? What do you think they did to cause her suicide? The arrest video was kept out of the public's eye until November 24, 2023. She died 2 years ago. News didn't cover anything until long after she was dead. Other than a couple of obscure blogs I've never even heard of, I don't think any news station even knew her name until long after she died.
    1
  14900. For an infraction, there is discretion and leeway. For a crime, we don't want police to play judge and jury. Why? Because with civilized countries, we don't put that power into a single person's hands, and we have this thing called "due process."
    1
  14901. As for your comments that this video's existence represents a decline, we definitely agree. It's ridiculous to drag this woman through the mud after she is dead, just for the sake of making a viral video that gets ad hits.
    1
  14902. I notice you refused to answer about the fact that the arrest video wasn't released until after she was dead for 1.5 years. You'll spew a bunch of complete nonsense about stuff you don't even come close to understanding. But, that fact... you won't even touch. Your original assertion was WRONG. The police handled this arrest perfectly. And, the truth is that her suicide had nothing to do with this arrest. I'm sorry you believe Inside Edition (where facts don't matter), but, that's really your own fault.
    1
  14903. Great job avoiding the timeline, dewdrop. It ruins your false narrative. But, you refuse to touch it.
    1
  14904. As for sources, Inside Edition and YouTube block me from writing too much about outside sources. But, start with the police report from this arrest, the medical examiner's report, her arrest history, the legal FOIA request, and interviews with her family and neighbors.
    1
  14905. And, quit up-thumbing your own comments, dewdrop. It's silly.
    1
  14906. Open investigations vs. closed.
    1
  14907. Why are you yelling at us?
    1
  14908. Well, that's actually not true. But, it's more complicated than that anyway. He planned these murders in advance. That's why he's behind bars. He wasn't defending himself.
    1
  14909. And, he could have stopped it quite easily by just calling the police, rather than planning ahead to murder them. He knew they were coming that day. He could easily have called the police and asked them to come to the house and wait inside with him, and bust them in the act. Sorry, but your bloodlust isn't appropriate. Yes, they were guilty of theft. Yes, if someone breaks into your house by surprise, you have a right to defend yourself. But, that's not what happened here. This wasn't a surprise, he knew they were coming.
    1
  14910.  @redfish-vg9dj  So, in your mind, the correct penalty for teens committing theft is to murder them?
    1
  14911.  @franksmith613  Sorry, but the police, detectives, prosecutors, judges, all jury members, the appellate court, the state supreme court, and the Supreme Court of the USA... all universally disagree with you. You either understand nothing about this case, or you are an anarchist who encourages premeditated murder.
    1
  14912.  @lorichet  Your lies are downright ridiculous at this point. Now you're saying you DID look at the star photos, but, now you're saying they don't look good enough for you. But, prior, you said they never even took the photos. Right. Keep on shifting that goalpost. Keep those lies coming.
    1
  14913.  @lorichet  So, your conclusion is that if I show you the exact thing you asked for, it's fake. Sure. Right. It had nothing to do with the fact that you simply had no idea those photos even existed. Naw, that can't be it. It's that you saw the photos and labeled them fake. Sure. You label EVERY photo fake!!! Why do you ask for more photos that you'll just keep labeling fake? What difference would it make for you? You know darned well that you're going to reject everything that goes against your predetermined conclusion.
    1
  14914. "Why did they not take photos of the stars from the moon?" "I didn't ask for blurry photos that show nothing." They did take the photos, you're just denying it. And, your questions don't make any sense, and you know it. You can't sit there and say they took photos that were "blurry" and simultaneously say they never took photos. You know it, and I know it. So, stop lying.
    1
  14915.  @lorichet  Of course I've seen them. I've had copies for decades. Some are blurry, like you say. But, others are quite clear. None of this changes the fact that you lied. You don't get to say they never took the photos, while simultaneously complaining that the photos are too blurry for you. How would you have done it differently with the UV telescope they had? What method would you use to prevent the blurriness of some of the photos? They wanted a variety of different exposure levels in the 125 star photos they took. They weren't just going to gamble that one exposure level would give them everything they wanted. So, they kept varying the exposure time to be able to capture more background UV light (which ends up blurring the stars), and had some of them with very low exposure time (which exposed very few stars, just a handful in frame, but quite crisp), and plenty of middle-of-the-road exposure times, which resulted in a "normal" amount of stars, not crisp, not blurry, just regular. Would you not have done it that way? Tell the world, in your massive expertise on UV telescopes, how you'd have done it differently?
    1
  14916.  @lorichet  Huh? Do you really expect me to go through 125 photos and give you a list of clear ones? Good grief. LOOK AT THEM YOURSELF. And, don't pretend that you didn't lie. You are as dishonest as they come. You insisted that they never even took the photos, and now you're simultaneously saying they took the photos, but that they're too blurry for you. It's outlandish. Here, I'll give a few crisp ones, but, I'm not going to sit here and go through 125 photos that you plan on rejecting anyway. 1f126, 1f124, 4f007. Want more? Look at them yourself, and stop pretending you already looked. I seriously doubt you even have copies of them, given your track record of nonsense.
    1
  14917. Esthersar: "Whatever method that would show clear pictures to prove they were on the moon would be a good start." They took about 7,000 photos from the lunar surface, and about 110,000 photos from lunar orbit. And, as I've told you before (and you ignored), I don't consider ANY of them as proof that they went to the moon. Photos can be faked. Not that it's reasonable to fake 118,000 photos, but, whatever. I have given you a small sample of the best evidence for Apollo before, and you've always just rejected it without even reading it. In one ear, out the other, and you told me it wasn't worth reading. So, don't sit there and pretend you want evidence. You want to AVOID evidence. And, you have made your conclusions before you ever even asked one of your dishonest questions. All you've ever done is shift the goalposts. You say you want to see XYZ (thinking it doesn't exist), then, when I show it to you, you just change it and ask for something else. You did the same here (again). You said they never took photos of the stars. I gave you the photos of the stars, you then said they were too blurry for you (somehow claiming they never even took the photos, while also saying they took the photos but they were too blurry). And, I asked you to name how they should have done the 125 Carruthers photos. You refuse to answer. Instead, you just said they should have proved they were there? Sorry, but nobody cared to sit there and compose "proof" so that a barely literate hoax nut 50 years later could see something. They took the photos they were supposed to take. All you're ever going to do is stick your head in the sand and pretend they didn't.
    1
  14918.  @lorichet  So, you don't even have the set of 125 photos? I gave you the catalog numbers of 3 of the clear ones. How can you possibly even sit there and say that they were too blurry, if you don't have copies of the 125 photos in the first place? More dishonesty. You PRETENDED you saw those photos, when you clearly have not.
    1
  14919.  @lorichet  I gave you the catalog number of three of the clearer photos from the Carruthers camera. But, you're too dishonest to even admit that you've never seen ANY of them. You first insisted that no such photos existed. Then, I told you about the Carruthers photos. You then simultaneously claimed the photos didn't exist, and also said the photos were blurry. And, now you're basically saying you've never seen the photos. I'm not playing this game with you. You know darned well that all you're going to do is deny the photos are authentic anyway. Why should I sink a bunch of time into showing you things like this? Any sane person would have looked it up by now. Not you, though. I tell you about the photos you didn't know about, and, all you do is fight. I'd have to drag you kicking and screaming into even viewing them. And, once you see them, you're just going to call them fake.
    1
  14920.  @lorichet  "What catalog numbers? I have not seen any catalog numbers from you." Is your scroll up broken? I can see them by using an incognito browser, so, everyone can see them. "If you accuse me of being a liar one more time, we are done with this conversation." Sorry, but, I've seen enough of liars like you to know this tactic when I see it. You act all appalled that people call you out for your lies, and look for any mechanism to worm out of dealing with them. You pretend you can't find catalog numbers that are plainly visible. You pretend you viewed photos you never viewed. And, you say that if anybody calls you a liar, you're going to run for the hills (so you can blame that as the reason for running for the hills, rather than actually fessing up).
    1
  14921. What in the world is wrong with you? "Sorry but the numbers you provided" So, that's how this goes? Your last message claimed that you never even saw any of the catalog numbers I gave you. Now, you're admitting that I did. And, you wonder why people call you a liar? "only confirm my belief that the photos supposedly taken from the moon were blurry." So, the clear ones (the ones that weren't blurry) prove that they were blurry? You know, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Apollo isn't your problem. Your problem is rooted far deeper into your psychology than just failing to understand simple things, or lying every chance you get. I mean, you're completely divorced from rational thought at this point. "Therefore, you not only have not provided any catalogue numbers of clear photos," Except the ones I've already given you. "you've continued to accuse me of being a liar." Well, maybe you should stop constantly lying.
    1
  14922. Oh, and let's not forget how many messages it even took for you to admit ANYTHING about those photos. You kept maintaining that no such photos were even taken, ever, blurry or not. Then, when they were pointed out to you, you still said that they never took the photos, but that those photos were blurry. It took about a dozen more messages to get you to even admit that the photos were taken. Then, you insisted that I never gave you the catalog numbers. I repeatedly reminded you that I did give you those catalog numbers, and I even proved it by saying that you quoted from my very message that had the catalog numbers. And, now you're claiming that the catalog numbers I provided were still blurry (they weren't). Talk about shifting the goalposts. Talk about making it impossible to have a dialog. As I predicted many message ago, you were just going to deny the photos were real anyway, so, the fact that you demand people go look up photos for you is outlandish. No matter what was in those photos, you were going to call them fake anyway. So, this is why it's so ridiculous to listen to liars like you, asking for things that will make no difference whatsoever on what you believe. I even told you repeatedly, in this thread and others, that I don't even consider the photographic evidence to be all that relevant for proof of Apollo. I said it's ridiculous to think they faked 118,000 photos, but, whatever, photos are just photos, and the best proof is elsewhere. I've provided you some of that proof (in other threads), and your only reply was that you said that you were refusing to read it. Prove you looked at the Carruthers photos. One of the catalog numbers I gave you was 1f126. Tell me something about that photo that would make it clear that you had even looked at it, such as maybe identifying where on the photo the brightest stars were located, or other such defining characteristics that could prove you even looked at it.
    1
  14923. Well, that's a nice sentiment. But, this was hardly her worst moment. This was just a drop in the bucket. She had been arrested a million times before, and even served a felony prison term.
    1
  14924.  @TraciOrnelas  Nor can anybody bounce radar and radio off of a ball of light. But, we can do that with the moon. So, spare the world your silly flat Earth garbage.
    1
  14925. You are correct, he doesn't explain it. And, that's because his modeling is completely wrong to begin with. He has not accounted for the fact that a large number of business/first class seating is given away to mileage/loyalty program members, who aren't paying full fare for those upgraded classes. Yes, they sell some seats at full fare. But, let's face reality here, they're giving away a lot of those seats, not charging the kind of money he's talking about. Back when I was a more frequent flier, I was upgraded on more flights than not, never paying a dime for it. I'd also use my miles (flown on business trips) to buy 1st class vacation tickets. I could honestly tell you that over a period of 100 flights, I flew first class in probably 75 of them, but only paid 1st class fares maybe one time (if even that). Anyway, the point is, his video is wrong.
    1
  14926. I don't understand. What didn't she "deserve"? She committed suicide. Nobody did anything "to" her.
    1
  14927. Who told you that? You trust NASA about the presence of Van Allen belts. But, when they tell you the amount of radiation in those belts, you do not trust them?
    1
  14928. Yet, not a single one of the world's 72 space agencies agree with you. In fact, not only did numerous countries track the Apollo missions to the moon and back with radar and radio telescopes, and listened in on the Apollo radio audio signals when pointing their dishes at the moon, but, since then, probes have been sent to lunar orbit that have photographed the landing sites. China's and India's lunar probes show the landers in the exact same spots as the original mission photography shows them. And, Arizona State University's LRO camera has been taking photos of the landing sites since 2009, showing rover tracks, foot paths, landers, etc.... Unless... are you going to say that they sent unmanned landers there, with self-driving rovers, which went around and made tracks in the exact same patterns that the "fake" mission photography shows it? That was your assertion in the other thread, right? You acknowledged that numerous countries tracked the missions, but you said that it could have been unmanned craft that were being tracked, and had some sort of prerecorded audio signals to send back home, right? So, how do you use that excuse to explain the orbital photography as seen by multiple countries' lunar orbiters? By the way, you're not fooling anybody with this "we don't know either way" nonsense. Everyone knows EXACTLY what you think. So, stop pretending.
    1
  14929. There are lots of photos of the landing sites. But, to see this level of detail? Not quite.
    1
  14930.  @JayVee-d  30 seconds after photographing the solar corona (just as they dipped into the moon's shadow), the Apollo 11 astronauts said they saw stars also.
    1
  14931.  @JayVee-d  The corona isn't really all that bright, relatively speaking. Take a look at "Apollo 15 solar corona photographed one minute before sunrise" to understand what the corona looks like, and the glare Moore asked about. The stars are blurry, but, yeah, that's them.
    1
  14932. 1) Society determines this, not you. What the kids do or don't know about their parents in a bedroom has absolutely no bearing on whether society has determined that this activity is acceptable in public.
    1
  14933. 2) You believe her when she claims she didn't think anybody was around? Why? Do you believe every criminal who says "I didn't do it"? One of the "audience" recorded it, and gave a copy of the video to the police. It doesn't match her sob story about a discreet and private act with nobody around (her claim as she's attempting to cry her way out of her millionth arrest). To the contrary, it was a loud and visible act in view of multiple people including children.
    1
  14934. 3) Your comment about somehow she wasn't "innocent until proven guilty" is hogwash. The police don't "prove" anything by making an arrest. It's up to the prosecutors to prove things. By your standard, police could never arrest anybody.
    1
  14935. 4) The parents were not the only ones to call, dewdrop. The woman was putting on a public show, apparently thinking she was at work, when she was actually at a public beach, and multiple people called. (You do know her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the gentlemen's club, right?)
    1
  14936. 5) There were virtually zero "social media" ramifications here, dewdrop. Other than a couple of obscure blog posts on a couple of sites nobody has ever heard of, no news station covered this story until after the arrest video was released on November 24, 2023. She was long dead by then.
    1
  14937. 6) I notice you didn't once mention her own responsibility. Not once. In your world, apparently, there is no accountability for a person's own actions. It's everyone else's fault she put on a show at a public beach, and got reported. If she wasn't making "public beach" content for her fans, I'll eat my hat. She was a convicted felon who spent a term in a Florida prison, and had a million other arrests for various things. I'll stick with the words of the innocent bystanders and police before I'd trust a single thing out of her. But, not you, though. You believe everything you see, and don't hold her responsible for her own behavior.
    1
  14938. Hilarious!! Another proud graduate of YouTube University Law School, eh? The bodycam footage wasn't released until 1.5 years after she was already dead, dewdrop. And, what do you propose? Repeal the Freedom of Information Act? The cops successfully blocked the release of the bodycam footage for 2.5 years. But after she was dead 1.5 years, you can't keep blocking a FOIA request.
    1
  14939. Also, sorry if you don't understand that cuffing is part of standard procedure. But, with her mile long legal history, felony prison term, etc., numerous arrests, etc., I hardly think she'd be bothered by them at that point.
    1
  14940. You're not under the impression that those are her kids, are you?
    1
  14941. Freedom of Information Act. The media can get just about any arrest video for any investigation that's been closed long enough. And, given that it was 2.5 years later, and she was dead for 1.5 years, what choice did the police have but to release the video?
    1
  14942. The Freedom of Information Act also reveals what they have on file.
    1
  14943. So, it's your opinion that part of NASA's job is to staff armies of scientists to teach scientifically illiterate people about rocket science? That's how this works, in your mind? If NASA doesn't staff thousands upon thousands of people to teach university-level rocket science to the ignorant masses, then NASA is fake? Wow. I wouldn't know how to respond to that level of stupidity.
    1
  14944. Being unable to spell "ghetto," how very....
    1
  14945. Yes, and do you know what congress said to all of that? Read the White House OMB reports to find out. Short answer: they told Bridenstine "no."
    1
  14946. "NASA said they destroyed the equipment" Yes. What would you propose instead? Keep all of that stuff around? Keep launch towers to launch rockets that don't work? Keep guidance computers to guide a rocket that is never again leaving the ground? Keep all of those training facilities to train astronauts to fly rockets that no longer exist? "If they had a functional lunar module on display" No, dewdrop. None of the landers in the museums are functional. They were cosmetically given outside coverings for display, but, none of them have any electronics or working rockets. "The footage tapes are not original." Yes, dewdrop. They are. They lost two BACKUP tapes that had never been watched a single time in history. "if people could analyze the films, they would see that they would NEVER withstand the high temperatures and radiation of the moon." Sorry, dewdrop, that's not how it worked. And, the lost backup tapes had nothing to do with film. You don't know anything about the topic. "The cameras were outside the astronauts' suits and exposed to extreme temperatures of cold and heat." That's not how temperature works in space, dewdrop. "No film would survive that." Kodak and Hasselblad disagree with you. "Finally, about the fake photo" What fake photo? Why would you believe it? "I’ll point you to a video" Clearly, you get your entire "education" from YouTube. You're a proud graduate of YouTube University, I see. "I'll find the link to the photo and post it here" Links aren't permitted, dewdrop. If you post a link, you'll be the only one who can see it.
    1
  14947. Dewdrop, once again, as you've done in your other comments across other videos, all you're doing is demonstrating that you have no understanding of the Apollo program whatsoever. Yet, you think you know enough about it to reject it and call it fake (which you've done in other comment threads)? The topic of this video is the Apollo 11 landing site. The first lunar rover (car) was on Apollo 15. How about actually trying to learn about Apollo before labeling it as fake? If you don't even know which missions are which, how can you be so confident to label them as fake?
    1
  14948. Speaking of India, how about the photos released in November 2022 from India's moon orbiter, which shows the Apollo landers on the moon, exactly matching what LRO has shown, as well as China's orbiter has shown? By the way, I wasn't aware that India had such a drug problem. Are there good treatment programs there? You need it.
    1
  14949. I'm not the one who can't answer simple questions, dewdrop. That's YOU.
    1
  14950. Are you really this inept? I **DID** answer you!!! I also asked you a return question. You ignored it and changed topics and asked more questions. No wonder you believe silly nonsense, you cannot think straight if your life depended on it.
    1
  14951. Well, there's quite a bit of irony in what you're writing. After Apollo, if you go back and look at the numbers, and adjust properly for inflation, each and every term occupied by a democrat president has resulted in a decrease in NASA funding, and every single term occupied by a republican president has resulted in an increase in NASA funding. There have been zero exceptions until Biden, who inherited the Artemis program from 2019 when it was approved and funded by congress. I give Biden the same amount of credit for that as I give credit to Nixon for Apollo (zero). Both Nixon and Biden had their moon programs funded before they took office. I consider myself neither right nor left, and certainly refuse to align myself with either of the dominant political parties. But, I **AM** a math guy, and I can do the math on which presidential terms resulted in increases or decreases in NASA funding.
    1
  14952.  @Cliffmchrist  The percentage of the federal budget isn't the gauge you think it is. It's a nice measurement for the sake of quick comparisons. But, when the population of the USA was 182 million people in 1961, vs. 331 million today, obviously this means that, in addition to inflation, the same percentage of the federal budget today will buy more things than it would in 1961. The better analysis is just to use the estimated inflation values. Furthermore, your method is incorrect. The correct way is to take the NASA budget in the first year that the president takes office (the president inherits the budget when he takes office, he's not the one who sets it that year), then you take the NASA budget when that president exits office. And, you adjust for inflation. You see if it went up or down.
    1
  14953.  @Cliffmchrist  Apollo's moon missions ended in 1972. The remaining Apollo programs (Skylab and Apollo Soyuz) ended in 1975. So, in the post Apollo era, if we adjust into 2021 dollars (the adjustment is made on the Wiki page for NASA's annual budget, for whatever that's worth), here are the numbers: Ford hands Carter a NASA budget of $17.9 billion for the 1977 year. Carter ends his term and hands Reagan a budget of $16.5 billion for 1981 (decreased by $1.4 billion under Carter). Reagan hands Bush Sr. an annual budget of $24.1 billion (increased by $7.6 billion under Reagan). Bush Sr. hands Clinton $26.8 billion for 1993 (increased by $2.7 billion under Bush). Clinton hands Bush Jr. $21.6 billion for 2001 (decreased by $5.2 billion under Clinton). Bush Jr. hands Obama $22.5 billion for 2009 (increased by $0.9 billion under Bush Jr.). Obama hands Trump $21.6 billion for 2017 (decreased by $0.9 billion under Obama). Trump hands Biden $23.3 billion for 2021 (increased by $1.7 billion under Trump). As for the rest of your position, about how this relates to the percentage of the federal budget, I don't really care. If the Fed increased their budget to a hypothetical $900 trillion, and gave NASA only 0.1% of it (a massive decrease in percentage of the federal budget), it's still $900 billion, which is still an astronomical increase when compared to the $23.3 billion. Percentage goes down dramatically, but actual spending money is about 40x more than ever. I'm not saying that's a realistic comparison, but, I'm illustrating the point about why the percentage of the entire budget is nowhere near as relevant as just the inflationary figures. And, given that you believe I reject Apollo, sorry, but I just don't have any faith in anything you say at this point. Not that you can really "offend" me, but, it just shows that you're not thinking straight overall. I've defended Apollo in these comments for years. And, you came here (other thread) and accused me of believing Apollo was a hoax. Your mind is lost.
    1
  14954.  @Cliffmchrist  And, the variability year by year is natural. It happens under every single president. But, go back and look at the numbers. There is a clear trend from every single Republican administration to increase NASA's budget, and decrease NASA's budget during every single Democrat administration. NO exceptions. Not one, from 1975 when Apollo ended, all the way up to 2021. And, like I said earlier, don't forget that each president's NASA budget for the first year in office was set by the prior administration (well, the congress under that administration, technically). So, you don't get to take Clinton's first year budget (1993) of $26.8 billion (adjusted for inflation) and then attribute that to Clinton. He inherited that amount from Bush's administration. Go look for yourself. There's a Wiki page on it. And, if you don't trust Wiki (which is wise, because it's not 100% reliable), go look at NASA's own historical figures. I just like the Wiki version because it's easy, and makes the inflation adjustment for me. I've also done it the other way (manually adjusting for inflation). And, it comes out pretty similarly to the Wiki numbers.
    1
  14955. Good grief. She's DEAD now!!! Do you look up NOTHING before you comment?
    1
  14956. Who is "they"? Huh?
    1
  14957. Huh? But, news and YouTube never covered anything about this until long after she was dead.
    1
  14958. Yeah, there's never a shortage of photographers who have no understanding of photography.
    1
  14959. There are no valid arguments claiming the moon landings didn't happen, dewdrop. Every single argument ever made that claim Apollo was fake... have been debunked a million times over.
    1
  14960. Really? Did a conspiracy video tell you that?
    1
  14961. I completely disagree. If approaching someone who had just attempted to murder a woman by shooting at her, I wouldn't call him a "great cop" for going in without his gun drawn. That cop was about 1 second from eating bullets if the driver hadn't dropped the gun. I don't consider this a great example of how to handle someone who had just attempted to murder someone. The cop was lucky, no more, no less.
    1
  14962. Dewdrop, the police prevented the release of this video for 2.5 years. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released (due to legal FOIA request). What more do you want?
    1
  14963. So, you're saying that the police aren't trained to do their jobs correctly, while simultaneously saying that they should first take her to the police station without arresting her? It doesn't work that way. What type of police training have you had that supports what you said? And, what way should it have been handled that you and the neighbor believe?
    1
  14964. First of all, you clearly do not understand the difference between an infraction and a crime.
    1
  14965. Infraction = stuff like speeding, parking in a handicap zone, fishing without a license, etc. Cops can use discretion. Crime = arrest the person and let the courts handle it.
    1
  14966. I'd explain crime vs. infraction more, but, I've tried to reply a dozen times, and it's blocking me, so I have to divide my reply into pieces.
    1
  14967. You don't get a warning for a crime.
    1
  14968. Secondly, so, in your world, people shouldn't be arrested for a crime if the person feels terrible?
    1
  14969. Third, she didn't end her life until 9 months later. And, it probably had nothing to do with this arrest. She didn't end her life for any of her other million arrests. What's so special about this one? Had she appeared in court, even as a convicted felon who already served a term in prison, they'd likely have just negotiated it down to a minor infraction, get some counseling, do some community service, and it's over. But, failing to appear in court seemed to be the way she chose to handle all of her arrests, given her number of open warrants to failing to appear. She faced a mountain of charges in the past decade that were more serious than this one, and didn't commit suicide. But, you're saying she'd commit suicide for this little one? You do know that none of this went viral until long after she was dead, right?
    1
  14970. Because there's an even higher risk of missing. This isn't a video game. You aim for center of mass. And, sorry, but this also isn't TV. Arm and leg hits will usually not stop anybody.
    1
  14971.  @TourettesMajestic  Freedom of Information Act. But, it wasn't released until long after she was dead.
    1
  14972. Stephen Muth: Thanks for fighting the idiotic conspiratard named "Scott Free" - but your facts are wrong. YOU SAID: " It involves depressurizing and repressurizing the LEM (designed to do that exactly twice)." == Completely incorrect. Even as early as Apollo 11, they were prepared to depressurize and repressurize repeatedly if the need arose (like if they had to do an emergency EVA, in space or on the surface, whatever, or if they had to deal with a leak, stuff like that). And, certainly into the J missions, they did 3-4 EVAs each. Apollo 15, for example, depressurized for a "stand up EVA" before ever getting out of the capsule onto the surface, and they depressurized and climbed up and took photos and surveyed the lunar surface through the top hatch, and repressurized before doing their 3 EVAs on the surface. And, the missions could depressurize to throw out unneeded stuff before liftoff (I can't remember 100% if they needed to do it, because they may have tossed out everything they didn't need before closing the hatch for the final time). But, bottom line, the LEMs were not merely designed to be depressurized only twice.
    1
  14973. "They claim he pointed a gun, but the truth is his hands were empty." Huh? What's wrong with you? You can see the gun on the ground at 5:02 next to a 2x4 piece of wood. And, if you go frame by frame at 0:08, you can see the guy pointing the gun into the car as the door is opening. It's grainy, and you need to watch frame by frame, but, you can make it out. Good grief. What is it with you people that have so much hatred that you favor the armed carjacker over the cop? How'd the gun get onto the ground if you think it was safe and sound in a holster, and not drawn? Guns don't jump out of their holsters and land on the ground on their own.
    1
  14974. Well, I wouldn't know, but, usually, things like this are a "last straw," meaning that they probably were realizing who this guy was for a while, and this was just the straw that broke the camel's back. But, again, that's just speculation based on history of others. Nonetheless, even if this was the only straw that broke the camel's back, not just the last straw, the fact remains that, in a "right to work" state, no employer is obligated to employ someone that they don't like, or don't agree with. You are allowed to terminate someone's employment for any reason, or no reason, as long as it's not a violation of the official list of "protected classes" (i.e. cannot fire them for color, age, nationality, gender, etc.). It's a 2 way street. He can also leave his job for any reason, or no reason. In other states, yeah, sometimes you need "cause" to fire someone, like 3 warning writeups, an improvement plan, etc. But, in those states, there are often obligations such that the employee isn't allowed to quit the job either, without adequate warning, if it harms the company in a significant way. I'll put it to you this way: I'd have fired him. I have no desire to employ someone who berates an entry level worker and puts it on social media in some sort of ridiculous "social justice" by claiming free water from a company he doesn't like. It shows an amazing lack of common good judgement, and I wouldn't trust such a person with the finances of my company. And, frankly, I just couldn't bring myself to trust a person like that, let alone look in his eyes every day on the job and not want to throw him out a window. I wouldn't like the awkward work environment it would cause for myself and others, to have the lunatic floating around every day. And, I wouldn't enjoy going to work with a guy like that in my office.
    1
  14975. Moron, Betsy isn't a doctor. She didn't betry the doctor-patient relationship. If Armstrong's doctor had done so, that would be a different story. And, look at the insane heights you go to do difuse blame away from Armstrong. You blame the victims. Nobody says the victims are white snowy clean. They never are in any crime. But, if you think ANY of this should deflect blame away from the kingpin in the operation, you're flatly insane. Armstrong is a pig who deserves the majority of blame here.
    1
  14976. Sorry, but every sentence you wrote was wrong. Multiple witnesses saw this, and called the police, not just one family. They said that she did it intentionally, and, one of the witnesses even recorded it, and showed the video to the police. The video doesn't match the woman's version about nobody being around. To the contrary, it was a loud and visible act in front of multiple people including children. With her mile long arrest record, and felony prison term she served, yeah, it probably wasn't easy to get straight work. So, her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club. Now, I wouldn't know, but, I wouldn't be surprised if she did this thing on the beach to promote herself. There's a large audience for doing that stuff in public and recording it. And, by the way, this arrest was on July 1, 2021. Her suicide was in March of 2022. The arrest video wasn't released until November 24, 2023. Freedom of Information Act. So, your suit has ZERO merit. But, hey, keep on pretending to know things you don't, ok?
    1
  14977. This made no headlines until long after she was dead.
    1
  14978. So, the 1,100 people who designed and built the DSN radio network that enabled Apollo's communications to work... all forgot to make the communications work... yeah.
    1
  14979. Jail? On what charge exactly?
    1
  14980. Yeah! When you see a guy at the playground cranking in front of kids, leave him alone!!
    1
  14981. Wouldn't have mattered. Multiple people called the police. One even caught it on video and showed it to the police.
    1
  14982.  @matthewblack7206  It's not even from Apollo 17. It looks like they took the footage from Apollo 14. Apollo 17 didn't use the surface mount S-band dish (in the left of the frame). Apollo 11 had the dish with them, but never deployed it (and didn't do two EVAs either). Apollo 15/16/17 used the rover-mounted S-band dish. The only two missions that used the surface S-band dish were Apollo 12 and Apollo 14. And, since Bean burned out the camera almost immediately in the first EVA on Apollo 12, it's virtually impossible that the footage could have come from the 2nd Apollo 12 EVA. So, that pretty much just leaves Apollo 14. And, it looks like the dish is in the exact correct spot that Apollo 14 put it.
    1
  14983. Well, it wasn't made public until she was already dead for 1.5 years.
    1
  14984. So, your solution is NOT to arrest criminals? Huh? What do you propose instead? And, if you were correct, why didn't any of her other million arrests (or her felony term in a Florida prison) make her do it? What was special about this particular arrest?
    1
  14985. Huh? Officers aren't judge and jury. It's up to the courts to do what you're saying. Officers establish probable cause, and that's where their responsibility ends.
    1
  14986. Good grief. You have no understanding of the topic. Stop pretending you do.
    1
  14987. It doesn't work that way. Good grief.
    1
  14988. GM and Boeing built the rovers. The most remarkable part is that they did it in less than a year. The rover was an afterthought. They didn't even commission GM and Boeing to build them until 1970, after a couple of missions had already landed. For $38 million each, they pulled it off (and that's in 1970 money, NOT adjusted for inflation). I wish they had more time, though. If they did, I'm pretty certain that they'd have used radioisotope nuclear generators to power them for many years to come, and would have included a self-aligning dish, and remote control driving, and a camera hardened to survive a lunar overnight and lunar high noon. They could have explored the lunar surface with those for years after the astronauts left. But, nope. No time. So, the only remote control was the camera (which would never survive a lunar afternoon). There was no remote control drive/steering. No self-adjusting dish. And, once the batteries were dead, they were dead, no way to recharge.
    1
  14989. I wouldn't know how to be more out of touch with reality than you are.
    1
  14990. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released due to FOIA request. So, um, no, you don't know what you're talking about.
    1
  14991. "By now the Moon should be an off world satellite colony" Huh? Do you have any idea how much that would cost? Apollo at its peak costed about 4.5% of the entire federal budget in hard costs, and another 2% in soft costs and international support. They launched a total of 13 Saturn V rockets. And, the biggest piece of payload they could carry to the lunar surface was a 400 pound (Earth weight) rover. Now you want colonies? How many millions of pounds of materials would you need to set up a colony, buildings, all of the supplies, power generation, indoor crops, etc. How many Saturn V launches would that take? 2000 maybe? 3000? Do you have any understanding whatsoever of the requirements to sustain colonies, and the amount of material and resupply missions it would take? Unlike aircraft, there really aren't very many economies of scale with rocketry. You can't just make them bigger and expect it to cost less per pound. "and yet in the 21st century with the most advanced computer aided design" The computers only know what people program them to know. "and infinitely greater knowledge of physics" Huh? Name one piece of physics we know now that we didn't know in the 1960s, which is relevant to rockets going to the moon. Name one thing we know about physics now that changes anything about what's necessary to go to the moon. Can you? "technology & engineering" Name one technology relevant to going to the moon that Apollo lacked. Can you? "instead having to power their own using Russian" Yes, and do you have any remote understanding about why? It's well published by both the USA and Russia, you know. They did this for NON-PROLIFERATION!!! Dewdrop, as the Soviet Union dissolved and Russia was undergoing tremendous corruption and turmoil, the USA did the exact same thing that they have done since the failures of post-war WWI. They learned a hundred years ago that you can't just defeat an opponent and then leave them destitute. You need to help them along after you beat them. And, since the cold war ended up draining the Soviets to the point that they could no longer even afford basic goods, yeah, it was very dangerous for the world, because they had enough nuclear arms to destroy the planet, and there was a huge risk that they'd sell them off to some crazed dictator nation somewhere that would actually use them. So, the USA agreed to open trade to keep the Soviet (now Russian) industries going. And, it made sense to keep their rocket industry going. So, over time, they kept arranging more and more contracts to purchase Russian rockets in exchange for non-proliferation of their nuclear weapons. Both the Russians and the USA have publicized this agreement. Why don't you understand it? Yeah, I mean, I'm in favor of buying US rockets instead of Russian rockets. Sure. But, I'm also in favor of NOT selling nuclear weapons to 2nd and 3rd world maniac countries. "Meanwhile China has surpassed US in the field of space exploration" Not by a long shot. Not even close. "including putting probes on the dark side of the Moon" Yes, China landed a probe on the FAR side (there is no dark side, dewdrop). So what? It was a way for them to say they were first at something. Our stuff is way better. "while US is a complete failure in the field" Pffttt. Do you know any other countries that have put 12 people on the lunar surface?
    1
  14992. YOU SAID: "Why the excelent F-1 motors" == Engines, not motors. YOU SAID: "are not used from 1975 to now?" == Because they were designed to work as a group of 5. That gives 7.5 million pounds of thrust. That much thrust would be far too much for the smaller rockets used after the Saturn V was retired. YOU SAID: "Where they realy good. And what about a po-go effect, which was a great problem?" == They minimized it with baffling and some other fine tuning. They never completely eliminated it. But, they reduced it to acceptable levels.
    1
  14993. See, there's this thing called a "truck" in between the criminal and the cops. There are these things called "bullets," which do not penetrate this thing called a "truck." And, until/unless they give cops some beefier weapons and ammo, those little 9mm hollow points just aren't going to penetrate very well.
    1
  14994. Huh? Right out of the gate, her career was over? Why? According to her landlord, she was a stripper at the local club. She definitely wouldn't lose business for this arrest. And, her police record was already a mile long. Felony prison term for stealing cars. A million arrests for other stuff. Drugs and alcohol. Failure to appear in court. Various judgements against her for theft. What is it about THIS charge that would be all that different than all of the rest of her charges?
    1
  14995. It doesn't matter!!! You know more about radiation than the entire planet's physicists, remember? Why are you in a YouTube comment instead of publishing in science journals?
    1
  14996. So says the guy who doesn't know the difference between "to," "too," and "two." Maybe you'd understand a little more if you actually could read and write past a 2nd grade level.
    1
  14997. Huh? What are you talking about?
    1
  14998. He did articulate it. The store employee said the woman left without paying. That's reasonable suspicion. You don't have to show a receipt if you don't want to. But, you are required to ID, and you must cooperate at a very basic level. You can be silent if you want (except for the part about providing ID, you can't be silent about that). But, you must at least follow lawful orders, not resist arrest, not obstruct/obfuscate, etc.
    1
  14999. Oh, and what would you do, if not use the Taser? Would it have been better to manhandle her to the ground, in your mind?
    1
  15000.  @xpez9694  YOU SAID: "he is facing downhill so that makes him leaning FORWARD LIKE THAT EVEN MORE LIKELY HE WOULD FALL OVER..." MAKES HIM LEANING FORWARD LIKE THAT EVEN MORE LIKELY HE WOULD FALL OVER. . read that again and again until you understand english......" == He DID fall over!!! And, I'm not the one with the English problem here, dummy. YOU SAID: "at @ 35:00 he is facing downhill or uphill?? == Fairly uphill. Not 100% directly, but, yeah, uphill. YOU SAID: "@ 34:53 he is facing 90 degrees up hill or downhill??" == He is kind of facing perpendicular to the uphill/downhill, but, he's also on his knees, on the ground. YOU SAID: "so which direction is uphill all directions?" == Dummy, I told you to go watch the entire sequence, not just these few seconds. Have you done that? Or, have you shoved your head up your own behind, and you're doubling down on your massive stupidity? YOU SAID: "Mr. CHIPMUNK all directions cant be uphill." == Dummy, he only turned about 90 degrees between 34:53 and 35:00. Good grief. YOU SAID: "you are ignoring clearly something weird in the video" == No, I know not to watch 7 seconds of video, and then think I understand everything from that. You, apparently, don't know that much. You watch 7 seconds of video, and think you can understand everything from that. All you need to do is watch all of the original footage. Yes, sometimes they parked on a slope, which messes up the camera angles. I've been through this rodeo many times with you conspiratards. NONE of you people watch the original footage. NONE of you people ever look at the lunar surface terrain maps, and cross compare with these videos. They were at that stop for like 20 minutes or something (don't recall exactly, and I'm not looking it up for your sake, but, something like that, yes). If you watch all of the original footage from that stop, it becomes much more clear. But, you obviously haven't done it, so, spare me your silly questions. You don't know what you're talking about. And, you were the one claiming that people lean forward (relative to the terrain) when they're walking downhill, remember?? You are BACKWARD!!! A person leans backward (relative to the terrain) when going downhill. You can't even get basic vectors right. YOU SAID: "and just claiming one direction is up hill but if he turns the other way and still gets up the same way then turns back originally how can the gravity be the same on a flat plane that is angled in one direction as a slope that looks flat..HUH???" == He only turned 90 degrees in those 7 seconds you're outlining, dumdum. Not 180 degrees. YOU SAID: "I dont care if you insult me" == Good. You shouldn't. You're insulting the 450,000 people who worked on Apollo for a decade of their lives, and calling thousands of them (a) criminal frauds who would get a lifetime in prison for the crimes you're accusing them of, and (b) too stupid to figure out which way a camera is pointing. YOU SAID: "but the heart of the argument I was making is still valid!" == Then WHAT ARE YOU DOING ON YOUTUBE!?!!!!?!?! Fame and fortune are at your fingertips!!!! PROVE YOUR CLAIM!!!! Submit your calculations via the scientific method!!! Demonstrate that you're correct!!! I mean, this is the most amazing part about you conspiratards... you think you have these "gotcha" moments that the entire world has never recognized, including enemy countries that would LOVE to disprove Apollo (if they could). Yet, the most you clods ever do is make conspiracy videos (no scrutiny whatsoever), or make YouTube comment postings. Not a single one of you will ever put your claims to the test of the scientific method. Or, rather, I should say, yeah, a handful of them have tried. But, those fail every single time. But, you paranoid delusional illiterate YouTube warriors never do. I can't even get you to watch the original footage, let alone can I get you to write a scientific paper to back up your assertions. YOU SAID: "watch video... yesterday I wrote this message for you after you made bullying remarks to me." == Bullying?? Good gods, what a snowflake. Dummy, I do not condone violence or bullying. But, if someone (like you) accuses thousands of people of being criminals, based upon ignorance, yes, I'm going to spell out my exact assessment of that person's intellectual capacity. Let's face reality here: you're not the brightest bulb. You know it. I know it. Stop pretending otherwise. And, if you want to come to a public comments forum, and display your ignorance to the world, that's your own problem, not mine. YOU SAID: "he is leaning upward on the hill." == When he's on two feet (right before falling), yes. When he's on all fours, on the ground, at the other timestamp you mentioned, he's 90 degrees off from that, basically a bit sideways on the slope. YOU SAID: "okay (must be an optical illusion like others have stated...)" == Yes. So, what's your beef? Why all the arguing, if you understand that the camera sometimes plays tricks on the human eye when it's on a slope, and when the video quality isn't exactly HD, and perspective matters? Why? If you now understand that things like this can appear like an optical illusion, why are you kicking and screaming? YOU SAID: "Then @@ he is leaning forward but towards 90 degrees to the left... So ​ @rockethead7 explain that." == Sounds like you just explained it yourself. Great job ignoring all of the rest of the stuff, by the way. It's what you conspiratards do best. You focus on little items you think you're correct about (you never are). And, when faced with stuff that shatters your delusions, you ignore it, and change topics.
    1
  15001. As a side note, I'm not really sure what you're attempting to say about having written something to me yesterday. Are you trying to say you wrote me a message, but I didn't reply? If that's the case, I'll tell you that I replied to every single sentence you wrote. But, it's possible that you wrote something else that I never saw. YouTube messages are really horrible nowadays. Often times, you can write a message, and YouTube will either auto-delete it, or, even worse, they post it, but you're the only one who can see it. I try to make it a habit nowadays to keep a Chrome browser open, signed in, and another browser open, like FF or IE, not signed in. Therefore, when I post a message with the browser that's signed in, I wait about 60 seconds (there's sometimes a delay in their auto-deleting algorithm), then load the page in the browser that isn't signed in, to verify if the rest of the world can see my posted messages or not. If you posted something I haven't replied to, then, it's a pretty good bet that you're the only one who can see it. And, you don't even have to do anything wrong, in order to get your message deleted and/or blocked. I've had messages get deleted for no valid reason whatsoever, just change one or two insignificant words, and then it works fine. We're not even talking about swearing or anything like that. YouTube's censorship algorithms have gone completely bananas.
    1
  15002. Oh, and also (to xpez), sorry, I somehow also confused one of my comments between you and the other conspiratard. For a moment in one of my recent replies, I flip-flopped (in my mind) which of you two thought the Earth was 20x too small, and I accused you of saying that. But, it was the other guy. My apologies for that one aspect of my reply. I try to pay close attention, and never make mistakes, but, alas, they do happen, and I scold myself for years to come, even for small mistakes. I stand behind the rest of my comments when addressing your claims directly. But, that claim, well, I made the mistake about who's who, and that was my fault.
    1
  15003.  @xpez9694  YOU SAID: "Anytime you call someone a name thats bullying." == Wow, you're one fragile snowflake, aren't you? No, dummy. Calling someone a name isn't bullying. If so, I'd have been banned from YouTube a decade ago, for the 8927349240793875903 reports to YouTube from dummies just like you, who report me to YouTube for bullying them. Thus far, I've never even had a single warning. YOU SAID: "You are overly pedantic and you think you can just copy and paste what someone says over and over" == Well, this basically proves you're not even reading what I'm writing. I told you, I didn't copy and paste from anybody besides myself. YOU SAID: "Yes 90 degree turn leaned over is enough to make a huge difference in whether or not you are leaning into a hillside. Its actually impossible. go try it in a driveway or on a steep street. lean as you would to stay upright in the first position. Now turn 90 degrees with your body leaned at the same angle..you will not be able stand up without bending your knees one side to compensate. You can do this as a thought experiment. You do know what a thought experiment is genius right?? Think your brain can manage that little exercise. And you mentioned the possibility of an optical illusion. Which is fine. i can see that.. but what throws that off is the fact that he turns position and is still leaned over the same way... Now that throws all of that into question." == No, dummy. You are taking a whopping 7 seconds of video, in which the astronaut is FALLING DOWN (thus, it's already very skewed), and then you're comparing what would happen in EARTH gravity. Good grief. The man was on his hands and knees, in 1/6th gravity, on a slope. And, again, I'm not explaining this again. Go watch the original videos, you utterly pathetic dolt!!! What's wrong with you? How many times must you be told the same thing? You're not going to get a very comprehensive idea about what's happening from 7 seconds of video when the astronaut is in the act of falling down. Good grief. Furthermore, the center of mass is off on astronauts to begin with, due to the PLSS. And, again, what are you doing on YouTube? I don't matter at all, dummy. You can scream at the wind until the cows come home in YouTube comments, nobody cares. If you have something to prove, WRITE IT UP!!!! SUBMIT IT TO JOURNALS!!!! What's wrong with you? Why can you not understand this? YOU SAID: "Telling me I am ignoring the other stuff...what other stuff." == Is your "scroll up" broken? YOU SAID: "But you just feel like throwing insults and copying and pasting is somehow going to make your point stronger." == Dummy, I'm insulting you BECAUSE YOU ARE AN IGNORAMUS. You deserve it. And, I copied and pasted because just a day or two ago, I had answered the identical question. It doesn't change the content. You're still ignoring it. Would it matter if I had written the same thing twice, vs. copying and pasting it? Would that somehow change the content? What's wrong with you? YOU SAID: "You are the most obnoxious person I have read giving comments." == Good gods. I don't care, dummy. YOU are the one accusing 450,000 people of being involved with worldwide fraud, based upon the inability to recognize when an astronaut is on a slope. Don't tell ME that I am obnoxious. Look in the mirror. YOU SAID: "If you go back and read I was never outright insulting to you" == I really don't care whether you insult me or not. I am of absolutely no consequence. You are insulting 450,000 people. Dummy, you are still avoiding the content of the rest of the messages in this thread. People like you are amazingly pathetic. It doesn't matter if it comes from me, or comes from someone else. The content is the same either way. And, you're still avoiding it. Look, you utter imbecile, this is what you need to do: forget YouTube comments. Just demonstrate your claims via the scientific method. That's really what this boils down to. But, I'll warn you, when you submit your analysis of 7 seconds of video for review, the very first objection will be that YOU NEVER WATCHED THE ENTIRE ORIGINAL VIDEO!!! Good gods. You sure are proud to be stupid.
    1
  15004.  @xpez9694  Great job ignoring the entire substance, and focusing on how I communicate. Dummy, "ridicule is the only weapon against unintelligible positions." - Thomas Jefferson. Don't sit there and accuse 450,000 people of being involved with criminal fraud, and then be a snowflake and tell me that nobody should call you a name. Don't ignore all input, and then pretend you're on an intellectual quest. And, you want to find your answers elsewhere?? I already gave you the two main places to find your answers, and you've ignored both. (1) Go watch the original videos, not just a 7 second excerpt. (2) Write up your your findings, and submit them via the scientific methods. Anything else, and "I will find my answer somewhere else" just means: "I'll continue to ask until I find people who agree with me, and stick with that" (the hallmark of a delusional mind).
    1
  15005.  @xpez9694  YOU SAID: "yes tell me all about if you have the time.. i would like to hear what people say to debunk that." == Sound conducts through the hammer, into the suit, and into the microphone. It had a sound-activation mechanism that sometimes reacted to hammering sound, and sometimes didn't, depending on cadence and volume. What's the alternative? That the people who managed to somehow "fake" the entire planet's radar and radio telescope tracking, including enemy countries, a feat that we still wouldn't know how to do today... were too stupid to remove the sound of a hammer from their tapes? Do you have any idea how many thousands of people would need to be involved with faking Apollo, including enemy countries? Why won't you address the worldwide radar and radio telescope tracking of Apollo? Why do you ignore this? I realize it was in a response to the other guy. But, this is your thread. You can't read it? You refuse input?
    1
  15006.  @xpez9694  YOU SAID: "Thanks Rockethead for all of your enlightening conversation." == I don't require thanks. But, thanks for the thanks anyway. YOU SAID: "I will communicate with Yazzam X now." == Has it occurred to you that it really doesn't matter who the source is? Everything stated by me, or Yazzam, can be confirmed or denied via external mechanisms. YOU SAID: "Have a nice evening." == You too.
    1
  15007.  @xpez9694  You're like a child just learning to do algebra, and assuming that you're the first one. Meanwhile, mathematics has existed since before recorded history, and algebra is no big deal. You're asking questions that were answered almost 52 years ago, thinking you're the first to ask them. Do you bother to listen to Conrad and Bean, the first two to make these observations about the sound of hammers? No, of course not. Do you have any understanding whatsoever about how the microphone system worked in those suits? No, of course not. A conspiracy video said that the sounds of hammers means Apollo was fake, and the makers of that conspiracy video ignored the answers, and published the video anyway. I'll grant you the credit that you seem to be willing to absorb information. But, what makes you ridiculous is that you're only willing to accept information if people are being "nice" to you. Meanwhile, we all know what you think. For you, you want to think that somehow YOU have noticed these "problems" that none of the 450,000 people who worked on Apollo ever noticed. And, as I pointed out, you ignore the facts presented to you (as you've done above).
    1
  15008.  @xpez9694  That's not the reason you ignore me, and you know it. Stop pretending you're a decent human being, when we both know you're not.
    1
  15009. Well, dewdrop, she also had an arrest and legal record a mile long. She was a convicted felon who spent time in prison for stealing cars. She had multiple arrests for drugs and alcohol. She had multiple judgements against her for various thefts. She had numerous failures to appear in court. Her landlord said that her "profession" was, well, ya know, one of those words that gets banned from YouTube comments, and involves lots of cash transactions with men. Yet, you blindly believe her? Why?
    1
  15010.  @occhamite  The LLRVs and LLTVs did not land under rocket power. They used rockets for the RCS (steering). But, the main downward thrust was a jet engine, not a rocket.
    1
  15011. Huh? Are you saying that you don't walk up to abandoned cars with a hood/mask, and a gun in your hand?
    1
  15012. Yeah, I know, I was being sarcastic.
    1
  15013. Guilt, eh? Seems more likely that she's trying to think of how she can get away with it, deciding to turn in hat and gloves, and keeping the rest of her stolen items under her jacket, pretending that all she took were those two "essential" items. I mean, she can't be feeling all that much of a sense of guilt if she continued to rob Walgreens after this incident (which she did, and was arrested for). And, sorry, but you fail to realize the old adage, "How can you tell if a drug addict is lying? His/her lips are moving." I mean, I'm not trying to take anything away from the officer for his kind act. But, there's a certain irony in the fact that she might still be alive today if the officer had just arrested her and gotten her thrown into prison.
    1
  15014. "Nah, I don't fail to realize anything. I just try and show understanding to people when I'm able to. A bit of understanding can go a long way." Then why do you so clearly understand absolutely nothing about what's going on here?
    1
  15015. "I am glad to pay high taxes" Your country doesn't have the problems the US does. The US is going downhill fast. More people go on welfare because they have no desire to get jobs. The system has been set up so that people get more money from government welfare doing nothing than if they work. We set up government programs to help the poor, so there are endless generations of lazy dropouts perpetually poor. Make them get an education and WORK for their welfare, and it would be different.
    1
  15016. I'll make this simpler. You have confused distance with resolution.
    1
  15017. 1) You don't know the difference between an infraction and a crime. Stop pretending you're a YouTube attorney. 2) The arrest video wasn't released until 2.5 years later, which was 1.5 years after she died.
    1
  15018. And, your nickname touts to "get along"? While you show such hatred?
    1
  15019. Well, he already had a kid... so....
    1
  15020. I'm glad they didn't use this silly scene in the original movie.
    1
  15021. What do you mean? What would you have done if you were the police in this situation?
    1
  15022. Well, she's got that cross on her chest in this video. But, maybe you were thinking of Poseidon?
    1
  15023. Yeah, if you don't have righteousness, Poseidon won't be happy.
    1
  15024. So, she has the Jesus cross, but, that's not good enough for Jesus?
    1
  15025. That answers nothing. She has a cross on her chest. Is that not good enough for Jesus?
    1
  15026. Because YOUR version is the correct one.
    1
  15027. Not the brightest bulb, eh?
    1
  15028. Your negative attitude is tiresome and offensive. Every single one of you pretend YOU know the right way, even if it differs from what other people say in your very same religion. Some say works don't matter, only faith does. Others say works do matter. 66 books vs. 81 books vs. 88 books, none of you can agree on anything. But, you all think you know enough to declare when a person isn't good enough for your club (as you've said about the woman in this video).
    1
  15029. you are not helping anybody by posting a barely literate sentence with no punctuation sounding like a 5th grader and talking about drunk drivers and outlawing guns and doing a crime and still typing a long sentence with no periods and cars and sad and life and
    1
  15030. And, don't forget that he had shoes on, and big hair.
    1
  15031. "The government officials and politicians at that time ran out of money." Do you really not understand simple things like budgets? Dewdrop, when congress pulled the funding for Apollo, the Apollo program no longer had the money. When congress ended the funding to for-profit trade school education loans in 2010, what happened to most of the for-profit trade schools? They shut down, right? When congress stopped funding the F14 in 2006, what happened? Grumman shut down the F-14 program, right? Why is this so difficult for you?
    1
  15032. So, you're just going to ignore everything? That's how this goes now? Just pretend to know things you don't, and when people prove you wrong, just ignore it, eh?
    1
  15033. You think you're not wrong? Good grief. Every single sentence you have written across your multiple threads has been wrong!!! Good gods.
    1
  15034. Dewdrop, you don't know enough about the topic to even have an opinion. Good grief. What's your opinion about brain surgery techniques? What's your opinion on using the Chiari decompression vs. laser ablation? What conditions do you think warrant one treatment vs. the other? No? You don't have an opinion on that? But, you have lots of opinions about rocket science?
    1
  15035. "you shall never know my academic abilities" I know they don't exist.
    1
  15036. "I'm sure you will be happy on your scientific reasons" As opposed to what? YOUR reasons? You don't know anything. Your reason is "I feel like slandering people."
    1
  15037. Of all of the movies and documentaries about General Groves, which one portrays his personality most accurately?
    1
  15038. But, the humiliation had nothing to do with the suicide. It was about a year later that she killed herself. And, it wasn't until about 1.5 years after that when the video was released to the public. And, sorry, but, if the woman wasn't "humiliated" by dropping down on a beach, spreading, and making a bunch of noise in front of a family, I seriously doubt that being arrested would make much of a difference for her. It wasn't her first arrest, after all.
    1
  15039. Well, you didn't trust Inside Edition to tell an accurate story, did you?
    1
  15040. Sentence went can't tech better never they get.
    1
  15041. I think we agree. I just see news clips like this, and I wonder how many details they're leaving out. I mean, I haven't been personally involved in news stories that often in my life. But, each time I have been, I've watched the story that gets portrayed, and I am astonished by how much they omit, and/or how many details they just plain get wrong. And, it's ultra-rare to see them go back and fix a story they botch (probably only when they get sued). TYT is especially bad in this area.
    1
  15042. If it was a man at a playground, would you be saying to leave him alone?
    1
  15043. Do you even know the difference between an infraction and a crime? Do you know what the evidence was?
    1
  15044. I'm guessing they're just referring to the fact that open carry isn't allowed in Florida??
    1
  15045. This arrest was July 1, 2021. Suicide = March, 2022. And, the arrest video was released to the public due to legal FOIA request on November 24, 2023.
    1
  15046. "NASA in Hebrew means to deceive." So says a silly video made by a roofing contractor, which you decided to believe for no reason. Have you bothered to actually look it up yourself? No, of course not. "Nasa" in Hebrew means "to lift." It's so ironic when people like you pretend you're the smart ones for "not falling for lies" while you fall for lies, and then regurgitate those lies.
    1
  15047. Why would you ask a question when you basically declare, in advance, that you don't care about the answer?
    1
  15048. Well, that's one way to demonstrate that you have no idea what you're talking about. I'll divide my response into pieces, otherwise it'll probably get blocked.
    1
  15049. 1) Young professional? She walked out on her career and family over a decade ago to live a life of crime and drugs. She has an arrest record a mile long, did a felony stint in a Florida prison about 6 years ago. And, according to her landlord, her "profession" was as a dancer (um, yeah, that kind) at the local club. And, her neighbors say she did "private extras" for cash in her apartment.
    1
  15050. 2) The police were completely professional. Why would you say otherwise?
    1
  15051. 3) She had no defense attorney, because, as usual for her, she ditched and never showed up in court for this arrest. No surprise, because it seemed to be her regular pattern.
    1
  15052. 4) The arrest video wasn't released until long after she was no longer alive. July 1, 2021 = this incident. March, 2022 = no longer alive. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released as the result of a legal FOIA request. The police prevented the release of the video for as long as they legally could.
    1
  15053. 5) You're worried that her image was everywhere? Huh? First of all, she hadn't sold a house in over a decade. Secondly, with all of her prior arrests, convictions, judgements against her, etc., her image was already out there.
    1
  15054. 6) You want a suit over this? OK, what do you think happens to your suit when the police simply reply that they had no choice but to conform to the legal FOIA request? And, like I said, the arrest video wasn't released until 1.5 years after she was already dead. So, what do you think comes of this suit you want?
    1
  15055. If she wasn't making "public beach" content for her fans, but got reported and tried to cry her way out of trouble, I'll eat my hat.
    1
  15056. Oh, and by the way, why do you think her name and reputation was all that important to her? She had been trying to change her name to duck the law for a while, you know. But, the legal system wouldn't let her, due to her extensive criminal history. Stealing cars, failures to appear, all kinds of drug and alcohol charges, multiple judgements for other thefts, etc. She abandoned her husband, a 6 month old son, and another son, to live an "off the rails" life (her own family's words). You think she was worried about her reputation at that point? I think she was a drug addled "dancer" (ya know) making "public" content for fans. But, you watched a minute long video on Inside Edition (where facts don't matter), so, that's what you blindly believed, right?
    1
  15057. Huh? What do you think the cop did wrong?
    1
  15058. Really? How would you have done it instead? You're chasing a guy who just murdered his father and threw him into a lake. He's fleeing in the truck, shooting at police like crazy, endangering the lives of everyone else around. After you pin him by smashing into his truck's driver's door, he then shoots at you like crazy. Now, what do you suggest he do? Please inform the entire world, with your massive expertise in police training and use of firearms, what did he do wrong?
    1
  15059.  @AsheBailey  So, your position was that the criminal needed to be stopped, but, you don't want the police to take the necessary actions to do so.
    1
  15060.  @AsheBailey  Well, then you should start up your own police academy and re-train every cop in the country, and tell every single existing training program that "they're doing it wrong." In the meantime, "wreckless"? Is that supposed to be like the lack of wrecks? A pun, because the cop wrecked the other car? Or, are you a grade-schooler, and have no concept of how to read and write?
    1
  15061.  @beechcumber8754  Oh? Another denier who reads and writes like an 8 year old? Shocker.
    1
  15062.  @beechcumber8754  Dewdrop, you think there's a firmament above the Earth. No, you don't seek truth.
    1
  15063.  @beechcumber8754  Dewdrop, I'm not playing your silly flat Earth games. You know nothing, and are proud of it.
    1
  15064. Huh? What are you talking about? How many bullets would you have used? And, didn't get him?? Yes, they got him, and treated him for his wounds, and he'll be on trial soon.
    1
  15065. So, that's an answer to my question, how? You said too many bullets were used. I asked how many you would have used. You refuse to answer. You said they didn't get him. I said they did (he was shot multiple times, and they captured him afterward). Oh, why am I explaining this to you? You clearly just like to write stuff that you know absolutely nothing about. Being correct (or not) has no bearing on whatever you feel like spewing onto the internet. You can say 2+2=9, and I could correct you, and you'd just change the topic.
    1
  15066. So, basically, you're proud to display complete ignorance. Good grief.
    1
  15067.  @charlieboylinton  Short answer: because they weren't landing right then and there (at the point you're complaining about). They were going to be making 1/2 a lap around the moon before landing. Higher position on one side of the moon = lower position on the other side of the moon. But, as was pointed out to you, it was so insignificant anyway (a few hundred feet vs. the miles to descend), that it really didn't matter that much.
    1
  15068.  @charlieboylinton  I wasn't condescending. And, I already answered your exact question.
    1
  15069. Who is "they" in your statement?
    1
  15070. That ship had sailed. She was already refusing to ID, obstructing and obfuscating. Those are crimes on their own, regardless of the possible theft. I'd agree with you, if she had just acted civilly and complied with the law. But, she apparently chose to turn "can I see your receipt" into a lawsuit, and did everything possible to make that happen.
    1
  15071. No. By the time of this arrest, she already had a mile long arrest/prison/legal history for drugs and alcohol, theft, served time for stealing cars, etc. Her family said she had gone "wild" and "off the rails" long before this arrest. And, her real estate career was long over, and she hadn't sold a house in a very long time.
    1
  15072. Why? Because you watched a 2 minute news clip, and know nothing more about the case?
    1
  15073. "none of the stuff is on the moon" Says no space agency on the planet, especially in the 4 different countries that have photographed all 6 of the Apollo landers still sitting on the surface.
    1
  15074. "reflector isn't needed since we were doing everything without them" Oh? What do you know that the dozens of countries who have built laser ranging facilities (costing about $100 million each) don't know? They beg to differ. Absolutely nobody who has ever operated one of those laser ranging facilities has ever made the claim that they get the same bounce-back accuracy without the Apollo reflectors. With the reflectors, we now have accuracy down to within millimeters. Prior to the reflectors, the absolute best accuracy they could muster was about a quarter mile, and most facilities couldn't even do that. For most, it was more like 1-2 miles. If you can't tell the difference between the reflection from a random spot on the moon vs. the reflection of an Apollo reflector, then you can't tell the difference between a jet-ski and an aircraft carrier.
    1
  15075. So, you actually believe this ridiculous story? Good grief. No, she wasn't trashed across social media until long after she was dead. And, if she didn't end her life over any of her other million arrests, nor her felony prison term 6 years ago, why would she do that for this insignificant arrest?
    1
  15076. "So they just collected comets as moon rocks." And, the thousands of geologists from around the world for decades and decades have never spotted this? Really? Have you read a single paper about those moon rocks? "And they could have rocketed up and come back." Yes, they rocketed to the moon and came back. "I don't believe they performed a landing and takeoff from the moon." So, you believe they were able to get to the moon, but, couldn't land? Why not? What was wrong with the landers? "Even recently it was a major feat to land a go cart on Mars, via several stages of parachutes and thrusters on a one way trip." Huh? What does this have to do with Apollo? This is like, "I believe they can build trucks, but not trains." One has nothing to do with the other, and both are achievable. "I'm still wondering about the temperature" So, basically, you've come to your conclusions before you understand the topic. Bravo. Pure genius at work. "and primitive cameras" Huh? Point a camera at whatever you want to photograph. Push the button. You have no problem believing that they could build rockets to the moon, but, cameras were too difficult for them? "or other equipment" Seriously? "Other equipment"?? You don't even know what equipment you're going to complain about? "and the people." Sigh. "That's never mentioned at all." Oh, you're completely correct. Nobody ever mentions people or equipment. Nope. People and equipment are a complete mystery.
    1
  15077. And, why would you believe a single word of that?
    1
  15078. 1) Multiple people called about this incident. The witnesses said that the woman intentionally picked a spot in view of others. One witness recorded it, and showed the video to the police. It was a very loud and public act in view of multiple people, including children.
    1
  15079. 2) Get real here. Nobody is going up to a man at a playground in the middle of cranking in front of children to have a conversation. Nor would anybody do that with a woman on a beach.
    1
  15080. 3) No social media even covered this event until the arrest video was released on November 24, 2023. Prior to then, there were a couple of obscure websites that had an article or blog, but, that's about it. She suffered virtually zero shame or humiliation from this arrest, because she died 2 years ago, long before any social media even knew her name.
    1
  15081. 4) Even with her felony prison term for stealing cars, and her mile long arrest record for other stuff, it's still very unlikely that she'd need to register on any list for this incident. This would probably very easily be negotiated down to a minor infraction, do a little community service, see a counselor, and it's over. But, she never showed up in court for this arrest (seemed to be the trend with her, given the number of open warrants for failure to appear in her other open arrests).
    1
  15082. 5) Reputation? Oh, that's a good one. Pure comedy gold. Her landlord says she was a stripper at the local club, and neighbors say that she did "private" encounters for cash out of her apartment with numerous men. Reputation, indeed.
    1
  15083. I never said a single thing about spelling or grammar to you. But, THAT is your reply? Did you bother reading anything I wrote?
    1
  15084. Looks more like the crater formations as confirmed by the Apollo mission photography, Japan's JAXA/Selene lunar orbital photography, Arizona State University's LRO camera photography, China's Chang'e lunar orbital photography, and India's Chandrayaan lunar orbital photography. I mean, you're not a crack meets pot, are you?
    1
  15085. No, dewdrop. It looks more like 0.67416 degrees North latitude, 23.47314 degrees East longitude on the moon. In your example, you can only get a couple of craters to loosely line up with your assertion, and not even very well. If you look at the lunar maps, every crater of every size lines up perfectly.
    1
  15086. This is Jacksonville, FL, the murder and violent crime capitol of Florida. "Calling all cars, calling all cars, stop investigating those felonies and other violent crimes, come here to help me, I have a woman who is upset that the store thought she stole a piece of chicken and some bread, mayday, mayday, help, I can't handle this." Pfffttttt.... Good grief.
    1
  15087. And, he got what he deserved.
    1
  15088. About what? I mean, she's right about some things, but definitely extremely wrong about others.
    1
  15089. Why do you believe that? Because Inside Edition told you to believe it?
    1
  15090.  @hannahgabrielle3191  YOU SAID: "you’re ignorant" == Wow. THAT's the answer to my questions/challenges?? You obviously didn't even read what I wrote, because you fail to address a single thing I said. YOU SAID: "and that’s the conclusion to your biography you just wrote in the comments" == No, you didn't even read it. I asked specific questions. You aren't answering. So, don't pretend you even read it. YOU SAID: "sorry you trust the government so much to think they’d never do such a thing" == Hey, moron, has it ever occurred to you that I do NOT blindly trust ANYBODY, not the government, not Bob Lazar, NOBODY!?!? Has that thought never crossed your feeble little mind? I trust claims on an individual basis. If the government makes a claim that cannot be substantiated, I do not trust it. If Bob Lazar makes a claim that cannot be substantiated, I do not trust it. YOU SAID: "but look around in the whole pandemic we’re in?" == WHAT THE HELL DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH BOB LAZAR'S 1980S RESUME!?!?!?! Good gods, you're dumb. Do you really expect me to sit here and talk about something separated by 40 years from the topic, and has absolutely nothing to do with Bob Lazar??? This is why it's impossible to deal with you morons. I name specific questions about specific claims from 1978-1982, and you're talking about a virus from 2019?? Good grief. You delusional nutbags are impossible. YOU SAID: "The government is capable of way more than what they want is civilians and society to know." == WHAT government? The Chinese government? OK. So, you think they manufactured this virus to destroy the world's economy and kill millions of people?? What does this have to do with Bob Lazar going to MIT?? You are completely insane. YOU SAID: "Just like they have technology far more advanced than we have from reverse ingeneering ufo technology" == Sorry, if you cannot spell "engineering" correctly, I have zero faith in your expertise about what has been reverse "inginnered" (your spelling) from "UFO technology." YOU SAID: "and we are comparable to cavemen with the resources we have as tech at our fingertips if only you knew the power of their tech and working with exterrestrials." == Exter? Exterterrestrials?? Not "extraterrestrials"?? What exactly IS an "exterterrestrial"? That's a new one for me. YOU SAID: "They have Air Force bases under water, in mountains, hidden every where where exterrestrials work with them. They have exoplanet bases .. yes that’s right OFF THE PLANET bases where they have secret space programs." == Are you on drugs, or are you a child? It's one or the other. YOU SAID: "My dad worked for the Air Force as Sargent." == Well, I guess that means he must be knowledgeable about these super-secret things. Not even an officer, and he's "in the know" about alien bases on other planets. YOU SAID: "Just to let you know," == Oh, yes, I really need YOU to teach me things. YOU SAID: "you really really need to understand that the governments corrupt full of lies and they are working with extraterrestrials, they ARE reverse ingeneering" == Thanks for confirming it wasn't a typo. YOU SAID: "their technology, and bob lazar was set up to look like a liar. Believe what you want at the end of the day. Facts are facts if you choose to be blind and “logical” as you say instead of considering every option and not ruling it out as impossible, you wouldn’t be so naive." == Oh, the irony. YOU SAID: "Do you also not know the pentagon released ufo photographs and footage on the news confirming ufos are real" == Of course UFOs are real. Nobody claims otherwise. There are millions of them throughout history. But, this is because you don't know what the acronym means. "UFO" means "unidentified flying object." It means it's unidentified. It could be birds. It could be a secret airplane developed by other nations. It could be a secret airplane developed by our nation. It could be meteors. It could be readings malfunctioning equipment. There have been millions of unidentified objects, decade after decade after decade after decade. So what? YOU SAID: "and the have been investigating for some time now? You are very delayed." == Yes, and never once has any of these unidentified flying objects ever proven to be aliens. Lay off of the drugs, you insane maniac. Go get an education. Sheeessshh.
    1
  15091.  @adama3306  Congratulations on missing the point entirely!!! I wasn't even addressing the topic you're talking about. Good gods, none of you people could think straight if your lives depended on it. The topic was whether Bob Lazar is CREDIBLE. He claims to have a degree from MIT. He claims to have built a nuclear reactor to power his 1985 Corvette. He claims to have worked on alien spaceships. Good grief. Not a single one of you morons can understand ANYTHING.
    1
  15092.  @ramirezlensonjosephwhiteca5030  So, you've joined the stupid bandwagon also now?? You're all as dumb as you can get. Meanwhile, not a single one of you can actually address the challenges/questions.
    1
  15093. Luke Allen YOU SAID: "rockethead7 Nice for reporting my comment you little cry baby enjoy the same" == You UFO conspiracy nutjobs are insane. I never reported anything. I don't have any clue what you're talking about. Good grief, this is like a Down Syndrome convention.
    1
  15094.  @uppermoonranked3  Yet, none of you insane maniacs will answer a single question or challenge. Sigh. The idiot parade continues.
    1
  15095.  @garryprosser281  Good grief. You really don't understand how those elements work, do you?
    1
  15096.  @garryprosser281  Apparently, I got this this thread confused with a different thread. I thought I explained this already in this thread. But, since I didn't, I'll explain this to you. You have NO UNDERSTANDING of this topic. None whatsoever. When they say they "discover" new elements, that's a bit of a misnomer. The new elements aren't "discovered," they're MADE. And, they've been making new elements since the 1930s with element number 43. Basically, they stick some large elements into an atom smasher or cyclotron, and try to fuse two elements together, or to simply add protons. Most of the time, it's not successful. But, every once in a while, they successfully manufacture a new element. Now, keep in mind, these new elements don't last. They fall apart almost the instant they're made. But, in those scientific circles, it's a bit of an accolade to make a new element. And, they're always trying to make bigger and bigger ones. They have been doing this since the 1940s. So, if Lazar predicted element number 115, it's not all that special or surprising. All he had to do was to look at the periodic table of elements, and predict a bigger number than had already been made. And, from there, it's just a matter of time. Again, they had been manufacturing these elements since the 1930s, bigger, and bigger, and bigger. It's not very unique or special to predict 115, any more than it's special if you predict 120 today (yet undiscovered, or not yet made). Yet, you know none of this. And, you're quoting "Ununpentium 115"?? Have you bothered to look at the periodic table of elements and find out that 115 is NOT named Ununpentium?? Your own article that you're quoting from was WRONG. It wasn't the first time 115 was manufactured. It had been manufactured a decade earlier. Anyway, once again, you're just another clueless Bob Lazar fan who doesn't bother to fact-check anything. You don't know what you're talking about. It sounds impressive to you that Bob Lazar named a new element. But, any idiot who ever attended Physics 101 in any university on the planet would know that those big elements aren't found in nature, they're MADE. And, in science, they are constantly trying to make new elements. During Bob Lazar's time, the biggest elements ever made were in the 100s. So, all Bob Lazar needed to do was name something bigger (like 115), and eventually it would be made. Today, you can name something in the 120s, and eventually it will be made, and you too can claim to have alien knowledge, and the idiots with no clue how elements work will worship YOU, just like you're worshiping Bob Lazar. This whole thread is an idiot parade. It really is. Not a single one of you clowns understands this stuff. You are dazzled by a liar who makes these stupid claims, because these stupid claims align with your predetermined conclusions.
    1
  15097.  @zenmeister451  I stopped reading your comments a few days ago, but, I happened to glance at a couple of them just now. Not all, but a couple. 1) You're correct, I don't need any help, but fine, thanks (maybe?)?? 2) "Ridicule is the only weapon against unintelligible positions." - Thomas Jefferson. And, yeah, the claims these people in this thread are making are quite unintelligible. The main topic is on Bob Lazar's credibility. And, none of these clowns even attempt to answer the challenges and questions I've put forth. Or, if they do, it's just a small half-hearted attempt, and they cherry pick a couple of my questions, and ignore the rest. These people are STUPID. There's no other way to put it. And, I'm not going to sit here and cater to their stupidity. Bob Lazar not only has zero evidence to back up any of his astonishing claims, but he doesn't even do things that anybody in his [claimed] situation would do. He just says "they're erasing me." And, the stupid followers just blindly believe him. And, ultimately, they cannot distinguish between a liar who would make identical claims to Bob Lazar's claims, vs. Bob Lazar's claims. There literally is no distinction between a liar and Bob Lazar. They only reason these idiots flock to him is because he's saying stuff they WANT to believe. It's an amazing phenomenon in human behavior, proven a billion times over, that if you tell people what they want to hear, stupid people will believe it. Meanwhile, smarter people demand a higher standard of evidence. Even if Bob Lazar's claims were true, there'd still be no reason to actually believe those claims. 3) As I've said, and thus far nobody has attempted to answer (unless you did in some of the comments I didn't read), aside from the unfalsifiable claims made by Bob Lazar ("unfalsifiable" is a BAD thing, for those readers who don't understand that word), the claims themselves about MIT are amazingly unbelievable. Just from the start, how does someone in the bottom 1/3rd of his high school classes ever get into MIT anyway? OK, he went to a junior college first?? Has MIT ever accepted someone who ever attended a junior college? I mean, we're not talking about someone who needed to repair some bad marks from high school by doing some junior college first, then attempting to get into a university (a path that is quite acceptable, and even desirable), but, we're talking about MIT!!! But, ok, let's say he gets past that, and somehow gets in, despite the 298437045752 applicants ahead of him with stronger resumes, ok, how does he just let everyone "erase" him without a fight? That's really quite telling. And, to produce NOTHING as evidence is insanity. Phone records of him calling anybody while at MIT? Nope. Phone records of anybody in his circle of family or friends calling him? Nope. Canceled rent checks? Nope. A hardcopy of his diploma? Nope. Credit card statements showing a purchase of ANYTHING while on campus there? Nope. A medical insurance record for visiting a doctor while at MIT? Nope. Some paychecks from a part-time job he got while on campus? Nope. He hides it all under the blanket excuse that he doesn't want to subject others to scrutiny by naming them. Well, isn't that just convenient or what? He absolves himself of ever needing to produce any records, or even needing to ATTEMPT to produce any records, by claiming that he's "protecting others." Meanwhile, he's under no real threat himself, let alone would anybody else be under any threat. And, what are we left with?? A guy who says he spent a boatload of money to get an MIT education, who does absolutely nothing whatsoever to preserve his record there?? No lawsuits?? Nothing?? Just, "they erased my record, and I'm not going to name a single person who knew me at MIT, I'm just going to let them erase it, and go on with my life." It's outstandingly stupid, and I shouldn't need to explain it. But, apparently I do, because the believers of this story are simply too stupid to figure this out themselves. In ANY other circumstances, they'd laugh off any such unfalsifiable claims. If anybody else made Bob Lazar's amazing claims about getting a degree from MIT, then doing nothing whatsoever to keep it, these very same people who laugh at that person as a crackpot liar. But, nope, not Bob Lazar. And, why not? Because they WANT to believe him. It has nothing to do with how believable this man actually is. It's because they WANT to believe him. 4) I don't know what you saw, or what you think you saw. But, your claims are no different than the million other claims out there made by a million other people. Without evidence, there's no way to distinguish between hallucinations, vs. seeing secret military craft, vs. human memories that have altered over the years, vs. actual aliens. There simply is no way to distinguish your claims from anybody else's claims. And, even though you're not quite like the parade of morons in this thread, you still suffer from the same wishful thinking that they do. You WANT this stuff to be true. That is your driving force. You can sit there and wait until the day you die for something to happen to confirm your bias. But, as you noted, you're probably not going to see that happen. I have no idea why you've attached yourself to this nonsense to the degree that you have. But, in the process of clinging to your amazing beliefs about aliens, you apparently think they're the stupidest aliens around, eh? Why would aliens come lightyears to get here, then hide themselves, or crash (if you think they crashed, like many people think), or cooperate with corrupt governments, etc.? It's silly. I mean, distrust of the government is healthy, yes. But, to think that the government is capable of making aliens do whatever they want... it's silly. There's no actual reason to believe that government could even ask aliens to stay concealed. And, what's left at the end of the day is nothing but a parade of outstanding stories with no actual evidence outside of human experiences (flawed), human memories (flawed), and a whole bunch of misunderstandings about how technologies work. Bravo for you, if you find that sort of thing appealing. I'd say you've wasted your life on such things. But, it's your life to waste, and I can have no say in that.
    1
  15098.  @garryprosser281  YOU SAID: "Thats Fantastic!!" == What is? The fact that you find it impressive that someone predicted a new element? Go ahead, predict element 122 or something. Go ahead and claim that the military has this element somewhere. And, 30 years from now, morons with the same level of understanding that you have about this topic (zero) will worship you like you worship Bob Lazar. You know what's a bit ironic here... why would the military even care to have this element 115? What would they do with it? You're claiming that the military has 5 pounds of it, or something like that, right? Why do you believe that? Because Bob Lazar said so, right? OK, what are they going to do with it? Why would they even bother having it? If they managed to keep it stable by some miraculous method, ok, what next? The second they take it out of the magical box that's holding it together, it's going to collapse, and there won't by anything left of it. So, why have it? What good is it doing them? They can't construct anything with it. They certainly don't need it as a weapon, because there are already more than enough nukes to blow up the entire planet 100x over, and those huge elements don't make for good weapons use anyway, even if they could figure out a way to make them explode. The hydrogen bomb is far superior to any massive element based nuclear bomb. So, a dirty bomb maybe? OK, but, still, why? They could accomplish the same thing a million different ways without needing 115 to do it. 115 falls apart too fast to even be effective as a dirty bomb. So, what EXACTLY do you think they're going to do with that stuff? Why would the military even have it? Clue: you don't know anything about that, nor do you care. The only thing you care about is that Bob Lazar said "there's an element 115, and the military has it." That's all you care about. It doesn't matter to you that predicting a new element will be made someday is about as impressive as predicting that there will be a new Ben and Jerry's ice cream flavor someday. They have been making new elements since the 1930s/1940s, bigger and bigger. But, you don't care. Bob Lazar said there was a new element, and that's all you care about. You didn't even lift a finger to verify that YOUR OWN ARTICLE THAT YOU POSTED was WRONG!!!! Nope, doesn't matter to you. All that matters is that you need Bob Lazar to be credible. You want him to be correct. You want to believe the claptrap he's spewing, so, you don't lift a finger to learn anything about the actual science, and you just act impressed that he said "115," and you think that's super-impressive.
    1
  15099.  @zenmeister451  YOU SAID: " First: I know what I have seen. You do not! To immediately presume them to have been any number of possible errors in my perception would tend to make me believe that you are being just as myopic in your negative stance as are those you claim are being in their all-believing stance. YOU DO NOT KNOW ME!" == Irrelevant. Even if **I** saw what you claim you saw, I'd blame hallucination or misperception before I'd conclude aliens. Also, I already acknowledged that I don't know what you saw. But, if you want to waste your life, waste it. It's yours to waste. But, from anybody else's perspective, these claims are no different than the millions upon millions upon millions of claims of seeing Bigfoot, alien abductions with anal probing, all kinds of religious sightings of Jesus, Mohammed, Vishnu, Krishna, Ganesh, Thor, you name it, sightings of ghosts, Loch Ness Monster, or just one of those dreams that seems so real that you just can't tell the difference. It doesn't matter. I'm not making any claims about which explanation (if any) explain why you saw whatever you say you saw. I don't care. It means nothing. Human beings are remarkably flawed. And, a flaw in your human mind, or a flaw in what your human mind thinks it saw, is a far more reasonable explanation than your self-manifested delusions about it. Make no mistake here, you are going to go to your grave someday, whether that's in 6 days, 6 years, or if you become the oldest person ever 6 decades from now, you're never going to see your delusions come to "reality." Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, the scientific side of my mind has no proof of anything, etc. I understand this. I'm just talking about reality here. I don't know what you saw, and neither do you. The rest of your pursuit has been nothing but a waste of your time. But, it's your time to waste, so, fine, go ahead and waste it. I really don't care. Someone else out there is chasing Bigfoot right now, with exactly the same conviction and strength of belief that you're using while you are chasing aliens. I can't force you to be sane. And, assuming you're the age you're saying (which, yes, I'll take at face value), there's no changing you anyway. You've already jumped off the ledge, and you're faaaarrrr too gone for me to ever rescue... especially because you clearly don't want to be rescued. So, go ahead, waste the rest of your life aligned with these internet clods who are miles beneath you in intelligence (and literacy, for that matter). It's yours to waste. I didn't read the rest of what you wrote. You're too far gone to be worth that much of my time. Here I am telling you that you're wasting YOUR life... while I'm clearly wasting mine trying to teach a 74 year old man about epistemology. Ain't gonna happen. I'd have better luck converting the pope to Islam.
    1
  15100.  @garryprosser281  YOU SAID: " i replied to your level of knowledge, thats fantastic!" == Oh, ok. It was hard to tell that's what you were saying. YOU SAID: "But your attitude, towards people is that of a total "fkn Bellend".." == Yup. I have a very low tolerance for people who spew such ridiculous stupidity, as seen in this thread. But, as I said, "ridicule is the only weapon against unintelligible positions." (Coined by Thomas Jefferson.) Seriously, the problem with internet blogs and YouTube comments is that most people think that their comments mean something. It's interesting. You give someone a voice, and suddenly they think this means their voice has value. Well, it doesn't. The parade of stupid people in this thread is quite amazing. Most of them can barely even write a literate sentence. And, to ask any of them to understand the concept of holding some standards of evidence... forget it... they're just too dumb. Their only criteria for believing or disbelieving things is to make a predetermined conclusion... then believe anything that aligns with that conclusion, or reject anything that doesn't. That's literally how their minds operate. YOU SAID: "I never claimed anything, all i said was i watched this years ago & read info about the element 115, as it was the first time ive ever heard of it mentioned by bob lazar!" == Yet, you didn't even lift a finger to look at the periodic table of elements to see that 115 is NOT called what you said it was. See, here's the thing: articles get stuff wrong all the time. They're written by people. And, frankly, quite a lot of the writers actually have no understanding of the topics they're writing about. This goes for just about every topic. This is why you should never blindly trust anything you read, especially in magazine/web/newspapers, etc. Yes, take the input, then check it. See if it's correct. A lot of times, it is. A lot of times, it's not. And, of course, reading peer reviewed science journals gives a much better track record than standard media. But, yes, journal articles are also wrong sometimes. YOU SAID: "I dont claim to be a physicist or genius, just someone who' s interested in what bob lazar has to say" == OK, I'm interested in what he has to say. I can use a good laugh also. But, to take the man seriously?? Nope. Can't do it. I know too much about the sciences to trust anything he says about science. And, I also know that he is going about these things in the exact opposite way than any REAL MIT graduate would ever go about these things. The funny thing is, it's within my capability to manufacture stories even better than Bob Lazar's stories. And, of course, there'd be no way for anybody to distinguish between my lies, vs. Bob Lazar's claims. YOU SAID: "& ufo's..." == Yes, there have been millions of UFOs throughout recorded history. So what? Why do you find them so interesting? YOU SAID: "the fact of the matter is that your trying" == ENGLISH!!!!! Good grief. Instead of chasing Bob Lazar and UFO stories, why don't you go learn to read and write!?!?! I promise you, it'll serve you far better in life to know the difference between "you're" and "your," than to waste your life on a crackpot like Bob Lazar. Good grief. YOU SAID: "to force your opinions onto others," == Jeeesssuuuusss ffrrrreeeeeekkkiiinnnn Chhhrriiiisssttttttt. What the HELL are you talking about? 90% of what I've written have been QUESTIONS!!! These are QUESTIONS that almost nobody here will even touch with a 10 foot pole. And, you're accusing me of "forcing" things?? HOW?!?!?! First of all, I can't force anybody to believe anything. But, it's ironic that you'd accuse me of it. All I've done is point out how and why Bob Lazar's credibility is zero. And, for the most part, I've done this by using the Socratic method, which is the OPPOSITE of using force. Yet, it's quite telling that you'd think it was force. It shows me that your mind just doesn't know how to deal with being asked these kinds of questions. Like all of the others, you didn't answer any of my dozens of questions either. But, can you answer this one? What would YOU do if MIT took your degree away? If you spent a fortune and years of your life getting a degree from MIT, the most prestigious science university on the entire planet, would you just go on TV and claim that they took your degree away from you, and do nothing else about it? Or, would you fight with everything you had to get it reinstated, by suing MIT for doing it in the first place? Can you even answer? Or, do you consider me to be "forcing" you into something by merely asking the question? YOU SAID: "with a bad attitude in the tone of your words..." == "Bad" to whom? To idiots in this thread who can't even read? YOU SAID: ""Fact is" i couldnt give two f*ks what you say ok?" == Obviously. You think I'm so threatening to you that you think I'm "forcing" you into things. Good gods.
    1
  15101.  @zenmeister451  YOU SAID: ""rockethead7 shut the fuck up you a-hole troll!"" == We're done here, right? I see you deleted this message. But, hey, if you can't handle the truth (it's clear you cannot), that's really not my problem.
    1
  15102.  @zenmeister451  I might add... you opened this thread by claiming that you 100% believe Bob Lazar, remember? That was your position just a day or two ago. Then, in a mere 24-48 hours, you reversed your position that you took at the opening of this thread, and ended up flipping to a position of severely doubting Lazar's credibility. This was just 24-48 hours, remember? Imagine what I could do to your delusions if you gave me a month.
    1
  15103.  @garryprosser281  What you're saying is like saying that I challenge Bob Lazar to a basketball game at the Chuck-E-Cheese basketball net. Real science is done in the scientific peer review method of journals and scrutiny and testing. That's the NBA. Going on TV and making crazy claims is what crackpots do. And, that's yet another reason to know that Bob Lazar is not an MIT physicist. Nobody who has that degree would be doing what he's doing. People with those credentials know that the pathway to demonstrate the scientific claims they're making is via the scientific method, not by going on Joe Rogan or Channel 64 local news. That's what crackpots do. If Bob Lazar has anything of value to offer in the world of science, he can publish in science journals. THAT is where the rebuttals happen. But, nope. Bob Lazar stands at the Chuck-E-Cheese basketball net saying "I'm the greatest basketball player of all time." And, NBA players are like, "what the hell, who is that idiot?" The main difference is that you have to be drafted into the NBA to play there. But, ANYBODY can submit publications in science to science journals. You shouldn't be sitting here asking me why I don't challenge Bob Lazar at his Chuck-E-Cheese basketball net. You should be asking yourself why Bob Lazar thinks Chuck-E-Cheese is the place to go to make the claim of being the greatest basketball player. And, who cares what **I** do or say? I'm challenging you and everyone else by asking questions. These are questions that you and everybody else refuse to answer. I'm saying, "Hey, dummies, Bob Lazar is playing at CHUCK E CHEESE!!!!!, Not the NBA!!!" But, like the 3 year olds that play at Chuck-E-Cheese, you don't know the difference between Chuck-E-Cheese and the NBA. You don't even know what the scientific method is. Forget me. Why doesn't ANYBODY challenge Bob Lazar's crackpot notions??? Answer: because only idiots fall for his nonsense in the first place.
    1
  15104.  @garryprosser281  YOU SAID: "zenmeister451 sir' your replies to @rockethead7 are fantastic!.. Thankyou?" == Yet, he also says that Bob Lazar is not credible. Good grief.
    1
  15105.  @DominicOwen  YOU SAID: "It's amazing that people believe Bob's B.S. story and completely ignore all the points you made." == It's how delusions work. They can't/won't address any questions or challenges to the delusion. They'll attack the person presenting the questions/challenges. They'll ignore the questions/challenges. They'll maybe give a gloss-over answer to the questions/challenges, like "it was covered up" (without actually naming how it could be covered up). But, they'll never actually address the core of the questions/challenges. YOU SAID: "If what he said was true the US government that has no problem killing men, women, and children across the world would have got rid of him a long time." == Yeah. 40 years later, nobody has hunted him down. Yet, he "protects" others from the big bad wolf by not naming a single person who saw him at MIT.
    1
  15106.  @zenmeister451  Hey, maniac, I'm not the one chasing aliens here. YOU ARE!!!!
    1
  15107.  @zenmeister451  If you think I'm reading your messages, you're sadly mistaken. I already told you, I'm done with you, after your tantrum you deleted. At this point, I grant you a glance or two, read about 5% of what you write, and ignore the rest. You are an absolute wreck. You disguise your insanity behind pretending to take a balanced approach to this absolute nonsense. But, you're an insane maniac who chases aliens. That's what you are. You're going to continue to waste your life on this claptrap, because you've DECIDED that it's real. And, there's no saving you at this point. You are beyond all hope.
    1
  15108.  @whiteboymike3999  YOU SAID: "well if he was being erased all that by a higher government no matter what he did theyd make him to look like a liar and maybe even injected him with some kind of thing that makes him seem looney now. You never know never underestimate the government" == OK, let's pretend that ridiculous fantasy is true. How can we distinguish between an actual chronic liar pretending to be an MIT graduate, vs. a super secret victim of government "erasing" and mind control? What mechanism will you use to tell the difference? And, how does the super secret government mind control people get all students and professors at MIT to forget Bob Lazar was ever there? Do they use their super secret mind control mechanisms on hundreds of people also? Or, hmmmm, are you just using the logic of "no matter what happens, I'm going to find a way to make Bob Lazar believable in my mind, because that's what I want to believe, no matter how extreme or ridiculous the fantasy sounds in order to believe him"?
    1
  15109.  @raqui174  YOU SAID: "I think you don’t understand how powerful government could be.." == And, this is an answer to any question I asked, how?? YOU SAID: "if they want u to disappear they will.." == Pffttt. Well, Bob Lazar is still around, 40 years after his amazingly ridiculous claims. So, what's your point? He hasn't disappeared. YOU SAID: "anyone that cane out on his behalf would be targeted he didn’t want to put them in that position" == But he himself isn't even "targeted" for anything!!! Good gods!!!! And, how does this make any sense to you anyway? I mean, the problems with your "logic" are so numerous, I can't even figure where to begin. But, I'll just ask you this: how would the big bad wolf know he wouldn't contact anybody?? I mean, you believe he went to MIT, and got a Master's in physics there, right? You believe Bob Lazar when he claims that the big bad wolf erased him from MIT, right? OK, now, how would the government know that Bob Lazar wouldn't turn right around and produce records, a diploma, canceled checks, something?? How would they know that he wouldn't contact anybody to vouch for him? And, for that matter, how would the big bad wolf know that there wouldn't be 100 people coming out all ON THEIR OWN!?!?!!? Even if you believe Bob Lazar went to MIT, he was somewhat of an anomaly there, right? He would have been one of the ultra-rare specimens at MIT, who graduated in the bottom third of his high school class, and went to a junior college before going to MIT, right? This is something you don't see every day, because it breaks the mold of MIT, by accepting Bob Lazar over the mountains of people applying ahead of him with far superior credentials, right? So, what is going to happen? NOBODY is going to stand up and say, "yeah, I totally remember Bob Lazar at MIT" (even without Bob Lazar asking for it)?? No?? Any professors who would say, "wait just a minute, Bob Lazar was in my classroom 7 years ago, I remember it clearly!!" No? No classmates that would come forward either?? NOBODY would come forward on Bob Lazar's behalf?? How would the government be able to predict that not only didn't Bob Lazar contact someone to vouch for him, but that none of the thousands of people at MIT would say a word either?? No admissions personnel who would have said, "yes, we accepted Bob Lazar despite that he didn't have the same qualifications as 99.99% of our historical students. It was a tough choice, because he didn't have the credentials to get in, but we talked about it, and we decided that we saw something good in Bob Lazar, so we admitted him." No? How would the super secret government agents know that NOBODY was ever going to say anything? Good gods, you people are dumb. This is all the same as every other idiot in this thread. You believe what you WANT to believe, and that's all there is to it. And, no matter what mental gymnastics you have to put yourself through to justify believing such ridiculous claims from a convicted felon, you're going to do them.
    1
  15110.  @whiteboymike3999  Sorry, I'm not going to respond to anything you ask of me, since you refuse to respond to anything I ask of you. Good gods, what a moron.
    1
  15111.  Lisa Jordan  YOU SAID: "people like you make others afraid to speak" == Pfftt. AFRAID??!?!! How?? By asking questions? Have I threatened you physically? Have I threatened ANYBODY physically? Have I threatened anybody legally? Have I threatened anybody financially? Besides my expression of valid ridicule for the amazing stupidity of people like you, what have I done to make anybody "afraid" of me? I mean, good gods, can you not see how backward you are??!?!? If you are among the Bob Lazar fan group, then you believe Bob Lazar has the big bad wolf out there, deleting years of his life, and a fortune of money, spent on his MIT education, right? But, you're not afraid to go up against that. But, you're afraid of ME?!??!?!!? What's wrong with your brain? YOU SAID: "the truth." == You wouldn't know what that means if your life depended on it. YOU SAID: "Guess what it happening no more. Give me my tin foil crown I will wear it with pride." == Obviously. This is the amazing thing about you morons, you're actually PROUD to be morons. I'll never understand it. YOU SAID: "I've seen a bit more than lights and we are too numerous to be silenced" == And, you've come to YouTube comments with this amazing "proof," eh?? Or, are you another one of the millions of people who have claims of Bigfoot sightings, unicorns, ghosts, aliens, Loch Ness Monster, pterodactyls flying around in modern times, etc., yet can offer no substantial proof of anything?? Doesn't it ever occur to you people that when a convicted felon making claims of seeing stuff in Area 51 after supposedly attending MIT university (without a shred of evidence about any such claims) is some of your strongest evidence... that, in reality, there isn't anything to hang your hat on? I'm sorry that you are so delusional, and I really don't care what you claim you saw. Until there's actual evidence to believe something, I don't believe it. And, you, in my eyes, are nothing more than [yet another] crackpot making insane claims that cannot be backed up with credible evidence. If I'm wrong, and you have credible evidence, what are you doing on YouTube??? Why aren't you presenting any of that evidence via the scientific method?? What are you waiting for??!?!!?
    1
  15112.  Lisa Jordan  YOU SAID: "Lisa Jordan replied: "rockethead7 lol I can make the machine smash the atoms better than you..."" == We're done here, right? I mean, this is another one of the absolutely amazing things about you idiots... you actually expect to be taken seriously while making an ass of yourself?? You're no different than the class clown who pulls underwear over his/her head and says, "look at me, look at me, I'm so great!!" That's exactly what you're doing here. Yet, you're so damned stupid, you really don't even know how stupid you are. You're too dumb to know you're dumb.
    1
  15113.  @uppermoonranked3  Yet, not one of you insane UFO conspiracy morons will answer any of my challenges/questions. You all just ignore it, and blame me for asking. You're all a bunch of crackpots. Bob Lazar's credibility is ZERO, and none of you have the courage to admit it. You believe what you WANT to believe about Bob Lazar, and not because anything Bob Lazar claims is actually reasonable.
    1
  15114.  @gabriellopez-mw8qc  I'm not "boiled over" by anything. I just have no respect for these idiots.
    1
  15115.  @BradBrassman  Another idiot in the parade of idiots who can't answer questions, and instead attempts to do some sort of weird tapdance to justify not answering.
    1
  15116.  @derekdamico9669  Thanks for proving that you didn't actually read what I wrote. It helps confirm the idea that not a single Bob Lazar believer/supporter is literate and intelligent enough to even properly state a case.
    1
  15117.  @derekdamico9669  Yet, people like you keep proving me correct, time after time after time. And, you're doing it now.
    1
  15118. @Mr Mac Well, one of the problems is that we are in a Bob Lazar video. So, to come here and make comments is a bit like going into a home for Down's Syndrome patients and trying to strike up a game of chess. And, look, I don't say that to disparage or insult people who have Down's Syndrome. It's just an analogy, and I'm not creative enough to think of a better one. The point is, every single one of these Bob Lazar believers is really not very bright, and/or they've lost their marbles to the point that they can't think straight. For the dumb ones, well, they're just dumb, and there's not much we can do about it. But, for the ones with some shred of intelligence, well, they've put goggles on, and have decided, in advance, that the rules of their game are to (1) reject all opposition, and (2) accept any claims that align with their delusions. Those really are their only two rules to their game. As I've said (and thanks for acknowledging), I'm just asking the questions that these Bob Lazar cult followers should be asking. None of his claims are believable in any other walk of life. "Oh, I got a Master's from MIT, spending a fortune and years of my life to do it, but it was taken away from me, oh well, on with my life and the next TV interview." If this was ANY other topic, these very same people would be saying that Bob Lazar is not credible, and would demand evidence. But, nope, instead, the Bob Lazar followers set up an unfalsifiable belief system, such that they really do think it's OK to blindly believe what someone says, as long as they build a scenario where it's OK to not have any evidence whatsoever. It's quite pathetic to think that way. But, the dummies and delusional Bob Lazar followers cannot and will not ever see it. They're blinded by delusion.
    1
  15119.  @tedmalley7636  YOU SAID: "If Lazar actually was spilling the beans...he would have been.." disappeared "..." == Well, I disagree with that. It's one of the few times that I'd actually be on Bob Lazar's "side" (I don't believe a word he says, but, I agree that going public would be the best way to assure your safety). I mean, becoming very public would put such a spotlight on a person in that position, it would then be very public to then kidnap or murder the person. The safest a person can be in such a situation would be in the spotlight. Hence, that's also why I don't think he'd be at any actual risk by naming people who would theoretically know him at MIT. Of course, I don't believe he actually went to MIT. I think he's a lying bag of crap who uses this avenue to boost his ego in an utterly failed life. People in the bottom 1/3rd of their high school class and who go to community Jr. colleges do not get accepted to MIT's Master's programs. And, if they did, they'd be such an anomaly that they'd have a spotlight on them for that reason alone. But, yeah, "going public" is the first thing someone would do if they were actually in the position that Bob Lazar said he's in. Nothing else Bob Lazar makes any sense, but, at least going public made sense.
    1
  15120.  @jasoncharles8651  Another idiot who can't answer basic questions.
    1
  15121.  @salamander4668  Let's just pretend for a moment that you're correct, and somehow, magically, the super secret big bad wolf was able to erase his records from MIT. I won't bother re-stating every question I've raised... except this one: Why wouldn't Bob Lazar sue MIT for his degree back? The man was in the bottom 1/3rd of his high school class, and attended a junior college, right? From there, he was amazingly able to gain admittance to MIT, the #1 science university on the entire planet, that normally only accepts the top 1% of applicants. But, he got in somehow, right? Don't you think he'd really be proud to get in, get a Master's from there, and want to hold on to that? He paid the astronomical tuition, rent, food, lab fees, etc., right? I'm not going to bother looking up the amounts in the early 1980s equivalent, but, today, that degree program plus the living expenses would be approximately $225,000, right? He spent years of his life attaining the most prestigious Master's in physics degree on the planet, right? But, no, nothing? No attempt to get it back? No lawsuits? No demands? Just, "they erased me, oh well, time for my next TV interview"?? That's how this goes? And, you think that sounds plausible? Yeah. Sure. They took all of that money, and years of his life. And, he did NOTHING about it?? Do you really find that feasible?
    1
  15122.  @salamander4668  Oh, and by the way, as for Bob Lazar's jet car... yeah, more claims. It seems he loves to pretend to invent car propulsion technologies. Jet powered Honda (never demonstrated). Nuclear powered Corvette (never demonstrated). Hydrazine powered Corvette (never demonstrated). Why would you believe any of it? Why? Why do you find these stories credible?
    1
  15123.  @salamander4668  Let me get this straight... you think he doesn't get shot after 40 years of revealing government and alien secrets... but you think he'd get shot for wanting his MIT degree back??
    1
  15124.  @salamander4668  You crazy people are amazing. You are literally setting up a system in your mind that you will believe ANY claim, with absolutely no reason to believe it. Good grief. Bob Lazar offers absolutely no reason to believe any of his claims. He keeps making these magical cars, never demonstrates them. He says he got a Master's from MIT, and then just gives it up the second that the big bad wolf "erased" it, no fight, no argument, no witnesses, nothing. And, your "logic" is that he does these crazy things so that he won't get shot?? So, tell me, what kind of crazy claims WON'T you believe on that basis? It sounds to me like you'll literally believe anything anybody says.
    1
  15125.  @salamander4668  Good gods. What does your link have to do with Bob Lazar? And, what makes you think anything you just said about Bob Lazar is true? Because Bob Lazar said so? Good grief. Seriously, you people are about the most gullible things on Earth.
    1
  15126.  @salamander4668  What ARE you talking about??? WHAT???? How is anything you said connected to Bob Lazar in any way?
    1
  15127.  @BountyHunter42  YOU SAID: "then you don't understand the term, top secret." == Ohhhh. It's "top secret"?? Therefore, YOU know about it, and I don't. YOU have cracked all of the "top secret" stuff by watching YouTube videos that I haven't. Right. Sure. YOU SAID: "you are among the easily controlled." == Yes, and watching YouTube videos about Bob Lazar's claims that are backed by no evidence of any kind... will make me less "controlled." Sure.
    1
  15128.  @jayytee8062  Thanks. But, at this point, it's just an exercise in observing the number of people who cannot address any challenges to their position. Almost none of the delusional people in this thread have even attempted to answer the core questions I posed which fly right in the face of any logical behavior on Bob Lazar's part. His cult followers are quite willing to swallow unfalsifiable claims (setting up ridiculous conditions that no evidence is ever going to be needed in order to swallow what he's saying). And, nothing that Bob Lazar does is congruent with what any MIT graduate would ever do. He "gave up" his supposed degree without a fight. Why? Because the big bad wolf was going to come hunt him down, right? Yet, the guy is perfectly willing to keep on spewing more "secrets that can get him killed," yet won't lift a finger to try to get his degree back from MIT? And, it appears he has a bit of a car propulsion system fetish, because he keeps coming up with various types of automotive drivetrains... from jets, to nuclear power, to hydrazine. But, for whatever the reason, he never seems to DEMONSTRATE any of these cars. All we ever see are photos and interviews stating what the cars can do, but never see them actually doing it. Very odd behavior for an MIT physicist. But, yeah, the cult followers will just swallow anything he says, with no evidence offered whatsoever.
    1
  15129.  @jasoncharles8651  So, the super secret big bad wolf that is going to kill Bob Lazar... is just waiting for the right moment, eh? "Not far off"?? It's been 40 years!!! So, what happens if Bob Lazar dies of cancer at the age of 78 or something like that? Are you crackpots going to say, "nonsense, they finally killed him, the cancer was just a smokescreen."
    1
  15130.  @uppermoonranked3  Another idiot who cannot actually answer anything I asked... but complains that I ask. Sorry, dummy, this isn't about ME. This is about the psychotic cult followers of Bob Lazar, who have absolutely no logical reason to think he has an ounce of credibility. I'm irrelevant here. The questions/challenges I posed are the topic. And, none of you dummies can address anything.
    1
  15131.  @uppermoonranked3  Are you actually PROUD to be that big of an idiot?
    1
  15132.  @larrywatson9400  I already addressed that pile of garbage. You have no understanding of those elements.
    1
  15133.  @larrywatson9400  Here you go, I will copy and paste the reply about element 115 from earlier in this thread. Sorry that you don't know anything. Maybe you should work on that. Here's my reply to the other guy about this same 115 nonsense. * You have NO UNDERSTANDING of this topic. None whatsoever. When they say they "discover" new elements, that's a bit of a misnomer. The new elements aren't "discovered," they're MADE. And, they've been making new elements since the 1930s with element number 43. Basically, they stick some large elements into an atom smasher or cyclotron, and try to fuse two elements together, or to simply add protons. Most of the time, it's not successful. But, every once in a while, they successfully manufacture a new element. Now, keep in mind, these new elements don't last. They fall apart almost the instant they're made. But, in those scientific circles, it's a bit of an accolade to make a new element. And, they're always trying to make bigger and bigger ones. They have been doing this since the 1940s. So, if Lazar predicted element number 115, it's not all that special or surprising. All he had to do was to look at the periodic table of elements, and predict a bigger number than had already been made. And, from there, it's just a matter of time. Again, they had been manufacturing these elements since the 1930s, bigger, and bigger, and bigger. It's not very unique or special to predict 115, any more than it's special if you predict 120 today (yet undiscovered, or not yet made). Yet, you know none of this. And, you're quoting "Ununpentium 115"?? Have you bothered to look at the periodic table of elements and find out that 115 is NOT named Ununpentium?? Your own article that you're quoting from was WRONG. It wasn't the first time 115 was manufactured. It had been manufactured a decade earlier. Anyway, once again, you're just another clueless Bob Lazar fan who doesn't bother to fact-check anything. You don't know what you're talking about. It sounds impressive to you that Bob Lazar named a new element. But, any idiot who ever attended Physics 101 in any university on the planet would know that those big elements aren't found in nature, they're MADE. And, in science, they are constantly trying to make new elements. During Bob Lazar's time, the biggest elements ever made were in the 100s. So, all Bob Lazar needed to do was name something bigger (like 115), and eventually it would be made. Today, you can name something in the 120s, and eventually it will be made, and you too can claim to have alien knowledge, and the idiots with no clue how elements work will worship YOU, just like you're worshiping Bob Lazar. This whole thread is an idiot parade. It really is. Not a single one of you clowns understands this stuff. You are dazzled by a liar who makes these stupid claims, because these stupid claims align with your predetermined conclusions.
    1
  15134.  @zenmeister451  YOU SAID: "They pass all such assertions/possibilities off as being illusionary, delusionary, optical phenomena, aberrations of perception, hoaxes/lies, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera." == Yup, because that's been proven throughout history. People hallucinate. People don't always know what they see. People have depth perception problems. People often associate shapes they see with stuff they imagine, creating memories of things that didn't happen in reality as their memories say. And, decade after decade after decade, these things go by, and none of the claims have ever held up to any actual level of scientific scrutiny. There are UFOs, of course, but, to claim that they are of alien origin has never been supported by any evidence that is credible. The latest wave of released videos by the Pentagon were a joke also. One was nothing more than a bird looking like it was traveling super-fast due to parallax (the bird wasn't going fast, the plane was, and the camera was rotating with the plane). And, the other was just a routine object that shows up on FLIR to look different than in real life. Nothing spectacular there. Yet, people like you jump for joy. Sorry, but if you ACTUALLY expect others to believe your crackpot notions, you need better evidence. Again, nobody, and I mean NOBODY, can tell the difference between your astounding claims, vs. those who claim to have seen unicorns, ghosts, Bigfoot, living pterodactyls, all varieties of gods manifesting themselves on Earth, you name it. You can replace everything you just said with the word "Bigfoot" instead of "alien UFOs" and it would be the exact same thing. "They pass all such assertions of Bigfoot as illusionary, delusionary...." Um, yeah, exactly. Until someone actually produces a Bigfoot, that's the logical conclusion. And, the crazed Bigfoot chasers out there are just as convinced about their Bigfoot as you are about your aliens. There literally is no difference between you and the Bigfoot chasers. You have the equal amount of evidence, supported by the equal amount of scientific validity (zero). And, I could introduce you enthusiastic Bigfoot believers who sound EXACTLY like you. YOU SAID: "There's no way to contend with those sorts because they have - a priori - discounted your experience/knowledge from the git-go. So you can't win fer losin' as the saying goes." == Yup. YOU SAID: "The problem with rh7 is that he uses a very limited amount of overly simplified 'evidence' to support his claim" == WHAT CLAIM!?!?!?!?!? You're the crackpot making claims. I'm asking questions. And, the main topic here is about Bob Lazar's credibility. It's a joke. His credibility is zero. What's the most concrete evidence presented in this thread? He says they were using element 115?? Ridiculous. I can say I saw someone using element 121, and in about 10-15 years, when they smash a couple more protons into a nucleus, people like your friends here in this thread will worship me like they worship Bob Lazar. I realize you posted something (which I didn't read in full) about "defending" me about Bob Lazar's credibility. I don't know what you said, and I don't care, because I don't need your defense. But, apparently, from the couple lines I did read, you already know Bob Lazar's credibility is poor. So, I'm really not sure what claims you're talking about. But, perhaps that's my fault, because I stopped reading anything from you long ago (with the exception of this recent post). But, ya know, I just don't care. You can chase aliens until the day you die (I know that's exactly what you're going to do anyway). Make a fool of yourself aaaaallllllllllllll you want. It makes no difference to me. But, yeah, sorry, I'm not joining your band of crackpots on a quest to chase loose sightings from mostly drug addicts and idiots, who jump to support conmen who lie about their academic history. I'm not explaining this again. Produce CREDIBLE EVIDENCE, or your claims are worth nothing.
    1
  15135.  @larrywatson9400  YOU SAID: "Your absolute ignorance on Element 15 astounded me. You are so narrow-minded you can’t imagine something existing beyond what earth’s resources have provided." == First of all, element 15 is phosphorus, and yes, occurs naturally. But, sorry that isn't what was brought up in this thread. The insane Bob Lazar worshipers were all impressed that Bob Lazar said there was an element 115, not element 15. This is undoubtedly a product of your inability to understand and digest basic concepts. And, no, element 115 doesn't occur naturally. There has never been a single atom of element 115 ever found. And, the ones that were made, didn't last more than a short instant before falling apart again. The half life is less than a single second. YOU SAID: "Simple, stupid and unimaginative. Grow up and stop being such an ass." == Let me get this straight... YOU are talking about the wrong element, and you're basing your opinions on element 15 instead of 115, and **I** am the stupid one??? Sorry, but you're dead wrong. As I said in this thread, once you get into the big elements, those are NOT found in nature. And, there's been a worldwide competition among physicists to manufacture larger and larger elements. Bob Lazar's prediction of element 115 a decade or two before it was manufactured is no more impressive than if anybody predicts element 121 today, and just waits a decade or two for it to be manufactured. I mean, good gods, even just reading the Wiki article about element 115 tells you that it's synthetic (man made). I don't even usually recommend using Wiki as a source, because it's too often wrong. But, in your case, anything is better than the level of stupidity you're expressing here. As I said, and you apparently ignored, the first time an element was manufactured was in the 1930s, when element 43 was manufactured using a cyclotron. From the 1940s and forward, there has been an ongoing race in physics to create elements, bigger and bigger. When you get up into the 60s through the mid 90s, some of the elements are found both in nature, and/or can be man-made. But, once you get to element 95 or above, none of that is ever found naturally, and is always man-made. Element 115 is NOT found in nature. So, you can sit there aaaaaalllllllllll you want and make an idiot of yourself, if that's what you want to do. But, if you think "Earth's resources provided" (your own words) element 115, you're sadly mistaken. But, hey, what are you worried about ME for?!?!?! If you are correct, I'm sure there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you!!!! Just go demonstrate that you're correct, and it will rewrite every physics book on Earth!!! You're an overnight millionaire!!!! The Nobel Prize comes with approximately $1 million already. But, that's peanuts next to your 7 or 8 figure book deals, and the $70,000 per week that you'll be earning on the university lecture circuits. So, hey, be my guest. You have far bigger targets in life than worrying about ME. A Nobel Prize awaits you, the moment you prove me wrong!!! Why are you bothering with YouTube?!!?!?!!?! GO!!!! Go get your Nobel Prize for your understanding of heavy elements that nobody else on Earth understands!!!!
    1
  15136.  @SneakySh0tz  What on Earth are you talking about?
    1
  15137. Jacksonville is 30% her demographic. They'd be profiling and arresting hundreds of people per day. Why do you not just conclude that the store employee was simply mistaken? Why does it have to be profiling, in your mind? And, if the woman in this video behaved normally and rationally, as you outlined, then this wouldn't have ever gone this far. But, nope. She refused to ID, obstructed the investigation, obfuscated, and resisted arrest.
    1
  15138. YOU SAID: "Why the hell did they go in with guns drawn?" == Because they were chasing this guy because he had just kidnapped two people and committed vandalism. He then fled the cops, ran into an office, and attempted to take hostages. He fled the cops again, and ran onto this bus. A bunch of cops chasing this guy followed the bus and surrounded it. They witnessed the bus load of people evacuating in fear, and the bus driver was calling/waving for help. YOU SAID: "Did we miss the part where they tried to talk him off failed?" == Yes, that happened right before he ran to the bus, while he was attempting to hold hostages in an office. YOU SAID: "Looked recless and careless on the forst officer's part." == Well, she made the mistake of extending her weapon a bit too far in front of her. But, other than that, I don't think she made any mistakes. YOU SAID: "Nuts or not, that wasnt handled well but the officers." == So, let me get this straight... you started by asking questions, which is fine. But, before you got the answers to your questions, you have come to your conclusion?? That's how your mind goes? Why'd you ask questions if you weren't going to wait for the answers before making up your mind?
    1
  15139. What would you recommend, if not the Taser? Should he have manhandled her and thrown her to the ground?
    1
  15140. You don't even understand the definition of science. And, nice try fucktwit. Old testament doesn't count? Yeah, I see. You don't LIKE the fact that your imaginary god is an evil monster in the old testament, so you say it doesn't count. But, I'm sure you say the 10 commandments and Genesis count, which are also OT. Yup, I see, like all fucktwits like you, your god is only perfect for the parts that you agree with, and if someone points out evil stuff, that doesn't count. Typical.
    1
  15141. And, you thought this forum was the correct place to document this objection? There are numerous journals worldwide about cosmology and radiobiology. You're welcome to submit your calculations to any of those science journals anywhere on Earth. But, you chose a YouTube comment to reveal this "gotcha" you found? Where's your math? And, why don't any of the world's cosmologists or radiobiologists agree with you? Why didn't James Van Allen agree with you either?
    1
  15142.  @1USAUSA  "a 5 yo can easily PHOTOSHOP way better than what NASA did with them fake pictures" But, dewdrop, you clearly have no understanding of the topic. On your own channel, one of your videos is a critique about a Photoshopped picture of the lander and the sun in the background, because you say that the sun looks wrong. The maker of that photo SAYS he Photoshopped it. Photoshop didn't exist back in 1969. And, the picture you're complaining about wasn't a NASA photo in the first place. You complain about a photo produced by some guy on the internet, who took a few NASA photos and spliced them up, then added a fake sun in the background. And, this is your evidence against NASA somehow? Yes, dewdrop. The photo you complain about **IS** fake. The guy who made it SAYS IT IS FAKE. I mean, good grief. Your mind has clearly set sail for some distant land, and forgot to bring your body with. That much is perfectly clear. But, for you to come here and complain about the photography... when you've proven to have absolutely no understanding of the photography... it's downright ridiculous. I realize you're a brick wall, and will never listen, so I'm wasting my time. But, good gods, man, go see someone. Show a professional your videos and postings. Maybe there's some treatment/meds to help you.
    1
  15143. Write the word "existential" next, and I get bingo on my "blabbering baboon" bingo card.
    1
  15144.  @therealzilch  Luminant beings are we, not this crude matter.
    1
  15145.  @therealzilch  I just looked it up. The quote is "luminous." We're both wrong.
    1
  15146.  @therealzilch  The difference is that "luminous" was the correct word in the line from the movie.
    1
  15147.  @therealzilch  Empire.
    1
  15148. What in the world are you talking about?
    1
  15149. Absolute liar. You have absolutely no intention of believing. You're picking something that is impossible to deliver, then asking for that intentionally.
    1
  15150.  @TylerBigHead  Well, you did say "if," which is fair enough. But the "if" is not correct. Of course people were around.
    1
  15151. Well, if she had shown up for court, maybe they'd have been able to mandate that counseling you're asking for. But, it seems that showing up for court wasn't her thing, based on all of the failures to appear on her million other arrests.
    1
  15152. Oh? Did the dewdrop comment on aerodynamics of a craft designed to go where there's no air? And, now she edited her comment?
    1
  15153. How did this become about ME? A convicted felon who spent time in prison, and had a million other arrests, decided to put on a public show at the beach, and got arrested. A year later, she committed suicide, and Inside Edition decided to try to make money by manipulating the story. What do I have to do with any of it?
    1
  15154. Yeah, the best chance would have been with the rover-cams on Apollo 15/16/17. And, if they hadn't have been a last-minute addition to the program, giving GM and Boeing only a year to develop them, I strongly feel that they would have made those rovers remote controllable (not just the cameras that were remote controlled, but the entire vehicles also), and they could have hardened them for the extreme temperature swings, and powered them with solar panels and/or radioisotopic generators, which would last many years. But, a year wasn't enough time to develop them that much. But, yeah, had there been more time, perhaps those rovers could have been driving around on the moon for a decade (or more) after the astronauts left.
    1
  15155. Can you name any social media that posted anything about this story while she was alive?
    1
  15156. Why do you believe she thought she was alone? Because she says so as she's attempting to cry her way out of her millionth arrest?
    1
  15157. You want a suit? On what grounds? What case do you think you have? The Freedom of Information Act required them to release the arrest video once the case was closed long enough.
    1
  15158. Yeah, but, according to the medical examiner's report, her body weighed 86 pounds and her implants were jutting out from her emaciated skin in such an unnatural way that it demonstrated how unhealthy she was when she died. Apparently, she went even further downhill in the many months between this incident and when she died. I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but, I haven't seen photos of her as she got closer to the end. At 86 pounds, though, I'm guessing not so much of a scorcher any longer.
    1
  15159. The police took her away from the restaurant to question her, so nobody could see or hear what was going on. They then didn't release the arrest video for 2.5 years, so, nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive. What more do you want from them?
    1
  15160. 1) Does it really matter? Are you worried that he'd be more dead from the last few shots? 2) He was still moving. 3) Let's get real here: when confronted with a guy who just kidnapped two women, then held an office hostage, then tried to hijack the bus, then grabbed the gun from another officer and caused shots to be fired, what would YOU do? Fire until the threat is completely stopped, right? You need to give some "heat of the moment" credit here.
    1
  15161. No, the "news" (not news) story asks that question about whether this led to a downward spiral, but never provides the answer. The answer is "no." The downward spiral started many years before. She abandoned her family (including a 6 month old baby boy) to go lead a "wild" and "off the rails" life (her own family's words). She served felony prison time for stealing cars. She had an arrest record a mile long. Drug and alcohol problems galore. Multiple judgements against her for theft. Numerous failures to appear in court. Etc. And, yeah, it's tough to get a decent job after all of that, so, as her landlord says, her profession was, well, one of those words you can't write in YouTube comments... ya know... one of those careers that involves cash transactions with lots of men. And, as for this incident, according to witnesses, she was wandering up and down the beach looking for a spot, and seemingly intentionally chose to plop down in front of people to put on this show. One of the "audience" recorded it and showed the video to the police, who then described it as a very loud and public act in view of multiple people including children. Sorry, I don't think "shame" was even in this woman's vocabulary, until she had to put on a little act to try to avoid her millionth arrest.
    1
  15162. So, you want a suit on the basis of cops wearing bodycams (required in most places nowadays)? And, the Freedom of Information Act means absolutely nothing to you?
    1
  15163.  @marksprague1280  Lucrative enough to live in a trailer park and feed an army of cats.
    1
  15164.  @marksprague1280  Oh, yes, of course, I agree. I just laugh at the situation. He lived in a trailer park with an army of cats.
    1
  15165.  @AM-rd9pu  Electrons are easily shielded, protons are not.
    1
  15166.  @AM-rd9pu  Well, technically, ANYTHING provides protection from protons... on some level, even if such a small amount that it's not even worth it. Yeah, in general, it's pretty tough to shield against protons. I forget the numbers exactly, but, I think shielding that's effective against electrons requires something like 1500x more material for the same level of effectiveness against protons. Don't quote me on the number, but, it's something like that.
    1
  15167. How much money do you think India spent on the landing yesterday, vs. how much money the USA spent on Apollo?
    1
  15168. Huh? The video of the incident taken by one of the "audience" doesn't lie, even though the woman does lie. It wasn't a quiet act with nobody around. It was a loud and public act in view of multiple people including children.
    1
  15169. For an aggravated misdemeanor? To a convicted felon with a million other arrests?
    1
  15170. "footage of them being half way to the moon" A complete lie put together by Bart Sibrel in his video editing room. There are a million ways to know that's a lie. But, start with the clouds. If they were in low Earth orbit (as Sibrel proposes), and those are localized clouds from 100 miles up, instead of continental clouds from half way to the moon, then why are the clouds not zipping by the window at 17,500 mph?
    1
  15171. "Because NASA told you, they said moon lower your temps because we comin?" Dewdrop, so, when NASA gives you the temperature readings of the moon, you accept it? But, when they tell you what timeframe those temperatures took place, you reject it? So, you trust NASA about the extreme numbers, but, you distrust them when they tell you that those temperatures don't happen until high noon?
    1
  15172. "Ive done over 5000 hours of research" Nonsense. You don't know what kind of batteries were used. You don't understand the Van Allen belts. You don't understand that clouds will move at 17,500 mph across the window if they were in low Earth orbit instead of half way to the moon. Sorry, when you know absolutely nothing about the topic beyond the spoon-fed nonsense you saw in conspiracy videos, you don't get to claim you've done ANY research.
    1
  15173. "There is absolutely no proof" So, in your 5000 hours of "research," you never saw the evidence?
    1
  15174. "buzz did say it and said it many times." Spare the world your silly nonsense. Of course he didn't. What planet would you have to live on in order to believe such utter nonsense?
    1
  15175. What IS wrong with you? Is that all you know how to do? Change topics? Look, dewdrop, Aldrin never said he didn't go to the moon. Nobody cares one bit about what you do with your spare time.
    1
  15176. So, that's it then? You change topics, then run for the hills and delete your comments? You refuse to actually address your original pile of gibberish?
    1
  15177. I'm not the one refusing to read the answers to my own questions. That's YOU doing that, dewdrop. If you didn't want answers, then why'd you ask?
    1
  15178. Good grief, you truly have no grasp on what happened here. Backup? In Jacksonville, the murder and felony capitol of the state? "Calling all cars, calling all cars, stop investigating felonies, I have a woman here who is upset because the store thought she took a piece of chicken and some bread. Mayday!! Mayday!! I need help here!" Seriously? You have GOT to be joking. And, what are you talking about? It's innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW. Do you think the side of the road is a courtroom? The cop just establishes whether it's likely that a crime occurred. That's it. After that, guilt or innocence is determined in the court. An arrest isn't a conviction. This woman refused to ID, obstructed and obfuscated. That's enough probable cause right there, with or without the theft charge. And, her own attorney never sued the police. They sued the store (and lost badly, she won't be getting a dime). But, they never even attempted a suit against the cops. Now, why would that be? Do you actually think you know more than her own attorney? Or, is YouTube comments the place you love to come to pretend to know things you don't actually know?
    1
  15179. Meth, marijuana, or cocaine. Which is it?
    1
  15180. Congratulations on getting literally everything wrong. Yes, there's already a limit. If there's an ongoing investigation, the police bodycams can be kept private, regardless of legal FOIA requests. Lawsuit against the police? For what? What's your basis? What's your claim here? The police managed to keep the arrest video out of the public's eye for 2.5 years. She didn't commit suicide over the release of the arrest video, because she was already dead for 1.5 years before it was made public. Oh, but you keep on watching Inside Edition to get your legal expertise. Another proud graduate of YouTube University, I see.
    1
  15181. Well, ok, but, you're going to need to come up with a better example than this one. She continued to steal from Walgreens after this incident, and eventually died from her own drug habit. The irony is that maybe she'd still be alive today, if they had just arrested her.
    1
  15182. Quote: "The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight. The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months' duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure. A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week. However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable. -- James A. Van Allen"
    1
  15183. A) Nonsense. B) At 0:08, if you go frame by frame, you see the criminal pull the gun out and point it at the driver as he opens the door. And, you see the gun on the ground at 5:02 next to a 2x4 piece of wood. C) Nonsense. D) You have every right to defend yourself when your life is in danger. E) Nonsense. F) Get real here: a guy with a ski mask and a gun, and you think you'd be prosecuted for defending yourself? G) Did I mention you're spewing nonsense about a topic you know nothing about?
    1
  15184. Yet, the Soviets built 4 N1 moon rockets, and blew them all up. They built and flew 4 lunar landers in space also. Why would they do those things if they weren't planning on going to the moon? Sorry, but your diatribe is just plain wrong.
    1
  15185. Nonsensical question = no way to reply.
    1
  15186. More nonsense. Sorry, you are disconnected from reality.
    1
  15187. There's this thing called a "truck" in between the police and the driver. They have these things called "bullets" which they are trying to use to stop the attacker. These "bullets" are not capable of penetrating this thing called a "truck" very well.
    1
  15188.  @ChristianLagos77  Ahhh, good ol' YouTube, the land where people who know absolutely nothing pretend to know things.
    1
  15189. Is it really too much to ask that you actually know something about a topic before blindly rejecting it? Good grief. No, dewdrop. There are no issues with any of the Apollo photography and the shadows. They behave exactly as they're supposed to behave for the sun angles and the terrain. I'm sorry you don't understand it, but, stop making that everyone else's problem. And, sorry, dewdrop, but "slow motion" doesn't explain anything beyond simplistic movements as fed to you by videos that lie to you. Go watch the entirety of the Apollo videos at 2.5x speed (the correct multiplier if you do the physics calculations). Yes, speeding things up will make simple movements look as if they're in Earth's gravity. There's ALWAYS some sort of multiplier for any other planet's/moon's gravity that will produce that effect. But, that only accommodates VERTICAL movements, not horizontal. If all you're watching is simple stuff like hopping or dropping something, yes, a 2.5x speed multiplier explains it just fine. But, the moment you start watching videos that have a lot of various horizontal movements, your entire assertion falls apart, because the vertical motions look "correct" for Earth's gravity, but the horizontal motions look straight out of Keystone Cops.
    1
  15190. Huh? What in the world are you talking about? Being arrested isn't "kidnapping" or "false imprisonment." And, she was Tased because she was resisting arrest. No, she did not do the right thing. The right thing would just be to show the receipt. But, beyond that, if she doesn't want to do that, ok, you're not actually required by law to show a receipt. It makes life a lot easier for everyone if you do. But, if you want the crusade instead, alright, you can have it. But, you are required by law to provide ID (she refused 100x, as you can see in the full version of this video, not just this one that clips off the first half). You are required by law NOT to obstruct or obfuscate (she did both). And, if arrested, you're required by law NOT to resist (which she did). Sorry, those things aren't the "right thing."
    1
  15191. Yeah, I'm sure they know not to trust a single thing said by Inside Edition.
    1
  15192. You are correct. The family's story has more holes in it than the Titanic. In one interview, the dad says his son asked who was in the car, and was going to check it out. In another interview, the dad said his son "definitely didn't think anybody was in the car, that much he knows for sure." Hmmm. Maybe, did the attorney tell him in between interviews that it's a bad idea to acknowledge that the son knew someone was in the car? And, the dad said the son wasn't going to rob anybody, but just wanted to take the car for a joy-ride. Huh? A garbagy piece of junk Nissan whatever econobox? Joy-ride? And, hmm, who wears a balaclava mask and whips out a gun if the car was abandoned with nobody in it? The attorney also wanted the cop to just get out of the car to question the guy about what was going on. I guess he didn't see the video yet, showing the guy walking up and pointing the gun at the officer's head, huh? If they give this family a single dime, there's something severely wrong with our legal system.
    1
  15193. Shame on you for not knowing the story before judging others.
    1
  15194. Huh? Buzz Aldrin admitted that they went to the moon to find the wreckage of a crashed Transformer ship. But, he never said anything about being threatened.
    1
  15195. So, let me make sure I understand you correctly. You believe the Apollo craft were capable of going to the moon and landing upon it successfully. But, you think they didn't bother putting people inside? Um, why? What possible reason would there be to fake it, if you just acknowledged that the craft got there safely?
    1
  15196. Congratulations on knowing absolutely nothing.
    1
  15197. Huh? You think they will land in 2025?
    1
  15198. Oh, maybe you should train them, huh? Yes, tell the world exactly what those other people are doing wrong, while chasing someone who had just murdered his father and was in a chase/shootout with police.
    1
  15199.  @CT-zi8em  That was his brother.
    1
  15200. I have a difficult time just blindly accepting that police literally do NOTHING. Usually, when people make that claim, yes, they're under the impression that police can magically wave a wand and catch criminals. It doesn't work that way. But, ok, yes, sometimes, I can accept that there's a bad cop that won't do anything. And, if that's the case, there are many things you can do. If one law enforcement agency literally doesn't do anything, then you go to other avenues (BESIDES killing people). If the police department won't act, you call the sheriff's department. If that doesn't work, you call the district attorneys. If that doesn't work, you call your local congressman/woman. If that doesn't work, you call the mayor's office. If that doesn't work, you call the FBI. If that doesn't work, you install cameras to catch the people in the act. If that doesn't work, you contact an attorney to sue the city for their inaction. If that doesn't work, you set up a less-than-lethal trap instead of a shotgun trap. I mean, what ARE you trying to say? The correct course of action to deal with thieves is to murder them? I mean, look, yes, if a criminal breaks into your house unexpectedly, you're within your right to defend yourself with a firearm (in the states with the castle doctrine). But, to actually plan murders goes well past self defense.
    1
  15201.  @matthewdh123  I'm not really all that into anecdotal stories. Everyone has them, and they don't mean all that much. But, if you want anecdotal stories, I'll give you one (that supports your viewpoint). Around 1996 or so, a small group was going house-to-house in my neighborhood and robbing them. Virtually every day, a new robbery was committed the block, or the next block over. Thankfully, I was in a very early wave of the "work from home" generation, so I was home every day, and they never messed with my house. But, they hit virtually every house surrounding mine. Undoubtedly, mine would have been hit too, had I not been home. Anyway, a policeman lived a few doors down from my house. The robbers hit his house, and that was it, the cops then rallied together and staked out every surrounding block with undercover officers, and they caught the thieves the very next day when they tried to hit a house. It wasn't good enough that everyone else's house was being hit every day in the neighborhood. But, once a cop's house was hit, BAM, they catch the thieves the very next day. Yes, we all have stories. But, anyway, I'll reply to some of your stuff line-by-line (can't address all of it): You said: "But in all of the situations I listed they refused to offer any assistance. In the form of putting up cameras, parking in an unmarked police car and waiting for them to return." == Yes, this does happen. It's a matter of resources and priorities. And, yes, sometimes, I agree, the police need to shift priorities. Again, this will only happen via the legal system. You escalate. You get an attorney to launch lawsuits when police don't do the right thing. That's how reform comes about. But, yeah, it does seem to be a rather tall order to expect police to just sit there 24/7, hoping the bad guys return. Unfortunately, some areas are riddled with so much crime that there simply aren't enough police to do such a thing for every victim of crimes. I do agree that cameras will change a lot of this, though. Nowadays, you can get webcams that have pretty good resolution, and can catch a lot of people. Personally, I wish there was a webcam on every corner in bad neighborhoods. A lot of people consider that an invasion of privacy (even if in a public place). But, when it comes to high crime areas, it's the only way you're ever going to catch some of these criminals. You said: "The police showed up and apologized and said they were given stand down orders. Not to attempt to arrest anyone who isn't actively shooting or attacking someone." == Yeah, that reminds me of the rioting of recent years, when cops did nothing (by orders from above). People were just allowed to occupy Seattle. People were just allowed to riot and loot buildings in many cities. No cop intervention by orders from the mayor's office in some of these cities. It's a disgrace, and those public officials need to be booted out of office. You said: "Regardless, the police need reform." == Well, maybe, but, your examples don't outline that police need reform. It sounds more like the officials ABOVE the police need reform. If police are not allowed (from above) to arrest people unless those people are active shooters, and any crime below that is ignored (by orders from above), then the police themselves aren't the problem. The elected officials are the problem. You said: "They need to stop focusing so much on giving out tickets and actually put their attention on protecting and serving the community." == Yeah, you said it. I mean, for another anecdote, there's a school zone nearby my house, which is always riddled with people going around 50-55 in the school zone. Do the cops police that area and give tickets? No. Instead, they're off giving tickets on an open road with no schools around at all, and barely any housing. It's a lack of proper priorities. I acknowledge that the police need to perform traffic ticketing. It generates revenue. And, it gives a pathway for police officers to have an entry-level policing job, to graduate on later to more important policing jobs. You need to flip the burgers before you're allowed to manage the McDonald's. Another anecdote (as long as you and I are sharing them), our neighborhood had a rash of people getting hit by trains and killed. Now, of course, you and I are smart enough to know that, most of the time, these are suicides. But, the city didn't think of it that way. Instead, they started policing the train stations, giving extremely expensive tickets to anybody who walked across the tracks while the flashing lights were on. I was in a batch of people who got exactly that kind of ticket. I don't recall exactly, but I think it was something like $500. Anyway, there was a man in the group of people walking across the tracks, and stopped by the cop giving the tickets, who was clearly suffering from mental issues. The cop put him aside, and came over to the rest of the people in the group, and asked us if it was ok for him to let the guy with mental issues go without giving a ticket, but to give tickets to the rest of us. I told him to use his better judgment. Didn't matter. He gave the tickets to the rest of us, and let the mentally unstable guy go without a ticket. Now, tell me, is that an act of looking out for the public "good" at train stations? Who's more likely to walk in front of a train? Me? Or the mentally unhinged guy? How does this help the public good to let the guy with mental problems go without a ticket, but to ticket the stable and well employed "rich folks" who can afford to pay? Clearly, public protection wasn't on that cop's mind, but revenue generating was on his mind. Anyway, bottom line, none of this has to do with Byron Smith. The man planned two murders in advance of the teens getting there. And, even though the cops might sometimes "do nothing" about things, in this case, they weren't even given the chance to do anything about it. Yeah, Smith reported the first couple of robberies to the police. But, with nothing to go on, they really didn't do much. But, after Smith got the security cameras, and caught the kids breaking into his house, and identified them as members of a family he was feuding with, he never again called the cops, and instead planned to murder them. I mean, once the kids were identified, these robberies were an easy open-and-shut case that any cop or district attorney would love to take. Smith knew who was doing it. He had them on tape. The girl was wearing his stolen flight jacket to high school. This is a slam dunk case. So, why didn't Smith just report it again to the police after he figured out who was doing it? Because he hated their family for years. The girl was the daughter of his #1 enemy. The boy used to work for him, until he betrayed his trust. Smith hated these two kids. So, instead of giving the cops an open-and-shut case, he murdered them instead. This was sooooo easy to avoid. Just call the police with the evidence. Sure, they didn't do anything before, but if you hand them THIS much evidence, they're not going to ignore it. And, if they do, you go to the DA. Smith didn't even give the police/DA a chance to prosecute the kids. He wanted to kill them instead. So, he never again went to the police. He didn't even call the police until 24 hours after he killed them. (And, Smith said "cute" immediately after killing the girl, and she was found by the police to have her shirt open and her body exposed, go figure that one out.) Why Smith thought it was a good idea to record himself murdering the kids, I'll never understand. But, he did. And, while you and I can agree on the priorities and actions of the police are sometimes wacky, sorry, I cannot agree that it has anything to do with the Smith case. The man never called the police after knowing who was robbing him. The man never called the police to say, "they're coming to rob me again today, can you send a unit over to help catch them in the act?" No. Instead, he got two tarps from outside, placed them where he planned to kill them, and sat there with his video cameras running, waiting for them to come inside, so he can shoot them.
    1
  15202. Your arrogance is off the charts. Do you know nothing about the legal fleet fuel requirements? Structural integrity of these cars? Just sit there and pretend that everyone is stupid besides you?
    1
  15203.  @hal4k  Great job avoiding every single point. Bravo. You're a real genius.
    1
  15204.  @hal4k  It wasn't a strawman fallacy. Yes, I projected words that you didn't directly say. But, the core of the argument wasn't the "strawman." The core of what I put forth had nothing to do with putting words into your mouth. Putting words in your mouth was just the icing on the cake. But, you're dwelling on that because you need to avoid the cake altogether, in order to fuel your delusions on this topic. So, you just reject the icing, call it a strawman, and pretend there's no cake underneath. Since you already proved that you refuse to address the details, I'm going to make this very very very easy for you to understand: the judge already ruled. Musk is going to be held personally liable for scamming the investors. He was caught lying numerous times, with the very very very clear goal of making the investors buy Solar City out of imminent collapse, using Tesla to fund it, based on completely inaccurate information provided by Musk himself. In the trial, Musk attempted to backtrack and pretend that he never made the claims he made (even though they're on video), and attempted to say that he was only making those claims "conceptually." (The word "conceptually" was never used when he was duping the investors into buying Solar City.) The investors lost BILLIONS because of those very undeniable lies. Now, you can pretend I'm presenting a "strawman" position all you want. But, the meat and potatoes are very clear, and it has nothing to do with "strawmanning" anything you said whatsoever. The meat and potatoes are in the judge's ruling, and in Musk's own testimony in the trial.
    1
  15205. Huh? The "first video" on Inside Edition was only about a month ago. So, how did that "harass" her?
    1
  15206. It's a misdemeanor crime, not an infraction.
    1
  15207. It is extremely unlikely that this would have resulted in her getting put on any list. Even with her lengthy criminal history, time served in prison, and arrest record a mile long, it's pretty doubtful that she'd be convicted and put on a list. More likely, this would have been negotiated down to a minor infraction. As for losing her job, well, I didn't think a stripper could lose her job, because I thought they were all just contractors (I'm not an expert), and, I'd hardly believe that the club would fire her for a sex offense anyway. As for meaning no harm, well, the witnesses' stories do not match hers, and said it was intentional, and, one of the witnesses even caught it on video and showed it to the police. Apparently, this was very loud, and in view of multiple people including children.
    1
  15208. If you can't see it in this video, they highlight it in "Body camera video shows undercover LMPD officer fatally shoot suspected carjacker WLKY News Louisville."
    1
  15209. That's probably very good advice. In this instance, however, it wouldn't have mattered. One of the "audience" caught the incident on video, and showed the video to the police. Needless to say, it didn't show a quiet little discreet act outside the view of others (as portrayed by the convicted felon trying to avoid her millionth arrest), it showed the exact opposite (go read the police report). And, what with her mile long record and open warrants, a video of the incident itself, yeah, she was getting arrested.
    1
  15210. Do you just believe everything you see? It produces 5,000 horsepower because they showed you some numbers on the screen? And, you just believe it? You have over 8 million subscribers, and you produce this ridiculous type of video?
    1
  15211. Inside Edition says it, you believe it, right?
    1
  15212. How much shame do you think she really experienced? A couple of hundred hits on a couple of obscure blogs that nobody has ever heard of? Why didn't any of her other million arrests result in this "shame"? Why didn't her felony prison term in Florida?
    1
  15213. You made a comment on a topic you know nothing whatsoever about, and, when called on it, you try to shift the topic to the other person. Very typical of people who know absolutely nothing.
    1
  15214. Well, you can start by understanding the law. They don't give warnings for aggravated misdemeanors. And, then you can look at the arrest report, her prison record, her million other arrests, etc. And, you can look at the fact that this arrest was in 2021, but she didn't commit suicide until a year later. And, you can see that the arrest video wasn't released until late in 2023. And, go from there.
    1
  15215. With multiple complaints and video of the incident itself, you think the officers don't have to arrest her?
    1
  15216. You simply cannot stop pretending to know things you don't. There's no helping you.
    1
  15217. Her own family said that this arrest had nothing to do with it, and her extensive drug and alcohol problems, and her massive criminal record, were the causes. But, you know better. Why? Because Inside Edition told you so.
    1
  15218. Nice job demonstrating that you still haven't read the arrest report.
    1
  15219. Links aren't allowed, dewdrop. And, you already proved that you're not interested in understanding it.
    1
  15220. You're way too far gone, dewdrop.
    1
  15221.  @gives_bad_advice  "I like the term Truther, which puts Apollo deniers in the same category with...." I assume you are aware that he is going to be PLEASED by this comparison, right?
    1
  15222. So, rather than reading the responses that explain why Hubble and other telescopes don't have that kind of resolution, you ignore all input and keep insisting you're correct?
    1
  15223.  @theeraphatsunthornwit6266  Yet, this question came AFTER the other one that already answered it in the other thread?
    1
  15224. "I just ask" Yeah, you ask constantly. But you refuse to read the answers. So after answered, you keep asking.
    1
  15225. My guess is that the cop realized that the criminal was using the same kind of bullets that he was using, and neither one of them could get those shots to penetrate the windshield.
    1
  15226. When? Timestamp?
    1
  15227.  @Vincent-ob3to  YOU SAID: "Stanley Kubrick doesn't think so, see his assessment in the link I posted on this thread" == Well, this isn't your fault. I hate the way YouTube comments work. But, the fact is, whether you like it or not, nobody can see any of your messages if they contain links inside. You are the only one who can see your own posts, if they contain links. In this video, any message that contains a link is blocked, such that only the person who posted it can see it. YouTube doesn't tell you that, which is the very frustrating part. But, if you sign out of YouTube, and come back to view this thread as an anonymous user, you will not see your own posted messages that contain links. This is an option that the video poster can select (to block messages that contain links). And, in this particular video, that option has been selected. == But, just guessing from what you said about Stanley Kubrick... let me venture a guess that your link was to that laughable Stanley Kubrick "interview" where he confesses to faking the moon landings?? Is that what you were linking?? If so, that's pure hilarity. A few years ago, that video was made to mock people like you. That video was posted on YouTube simultaneously to the "behind the scenes" video being posted on YouTube. The video shows an actor admitting to faking the moon landings. The guy doesn't even look like Stanley Kubrick. But, conspiracy hoax nuts don't care, if it says that's Stanley Kubrick, they will buy it hook line and sinker, simply because it fuels their delusions. Well, the internet went in an uproar, conspiracy hoax nuts cheering with glee... which lasted about 24 hours. Then, the sane people kept pointing out to the conspiracy nuts that there was a "behind the scenes" video that shows the director talking to the actor, calling him by his real name (not "Stanley," but "Tom"), telling him what to say, etc. And, of course, who can resist but point out that the guy didn't even look like Stanley Kubrick? Well, within 24 hours, conspiracy nuts were ripping down their posts, hiding their heads in shame, and walking away with their tails between their legs. And, by and large, you never heard from those people again about that "interview." Except... well... there is still a wave of people here and there... ya know, the REALLY stupid ones... who still think that "interview" was real. It's a joke, man. It was a video made for the purposes of seeing how gullible the conspiracy crowd really is. They made this fake confession using a guy who didn't even look like Stanley Kubrick, and the conspiracy nutjobs ate it up like candy, never raising a finger to verify the authenticity of the video. That's one of the most amazing part about you conspiracy nuts. You act like you're the skeptical ones... the ones who aren't gullible... the ones who scrutinize everything. But, in reality, it's the exact opposite. You don't know what "skeptical" even means. You are remarkably gullible if the video agrees with your predetermined conclusions. You don't scrutinize anything that agrees with your delusions. You operate by two rules, and two rules only: (1) Anything that supports Apollo is fake, no matter how real it is. (2) Anything that goes against Apollo is real, no matter how ridiculous it is. Those are your only two rules. You're not the skeptical ones. You're the delusional ones who don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about.
    1
  15228. One of the "audience" DID record it. The police describe the video in the arrest report.
    1
  15229. Oh, you make a lot of sense. Your Nobel Prize is in the mail.
    1
  15230. But, she did have it. She just refused to show it.
    1
  15231. Of gave warning would apply to infraction, not of misdemeanor no warning of would.
    1
  15232.  @FreeDocumentaryHistory  Well, if you think it's bad that 50% of the time, you don't know what they're talking about... don't worry... 100% of the time, the nuts don't know what they're talking about.
    1
  15233. Who do you think embarrassed her?
    1
  15234. Life with Father: "asks a two part question of Neil and Buzz." He was asking any/all of the astronauts, never specifying which one. And, yes, the two part question was remarkably confusing. "When you looked up at the sky" (seeming to mean while on the lunar surface), "could you see stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?"
    1
  15235. Well, you might smell a major lawsuit, but, her own attorneys didn't. They didn't file a suit against the police, because the police did nothing wrong. They filed a case against the store, but, it wasn't major. They were only asking for $50,000, which probably means that they knew the case was very weak, otherwise they'd ask for 10x that amount. Anyway, it didn't matter, because the case was thrown out of court, she will be getting $0.00 (and rightfully so), and she is barred from ever filing it again.
    1
  15236. Really? That's what you'd do? You're chasing this guy for kidnapping two people, and committing vandalism. He runs to an office, and attempts to take hostages. You chase him further, and he runs onto this bus. You and a half dozen other cops chase him down and surround the bus. You witness everyone evacuating the bus in fear, and the bus driver calling and waving for help. You know that sometimes these kinds of kidnappers/vandals are armed (not this time, but often times, they are). There are a half dozen cops surrounding the bus, so you know that this maniac might escalate and just start shooting (if he was armed). Now, tell me, you're going to "approach him calmly"?? That's how this goes, in your mind? Well, you'd have been lucky this time, because he wasn't armed. But, do that too many times against this kind of person, and YOU are the dead one. Sorry, you don't get to yell "Fucking pigs!" here. YOU are the fucking pig. Point some blame at the asshole who just kidnapped two people. Point some blame at the asshole who didn't surrender when surrounded by cops, but decided to attack instead. People like you are truly disgusting. You blame the good guys, and take the side of the kidnapper instead.
    1
  15237. Not very likely. Even with her extensive criminal history, this is probably negotiated down to a minor infraction (had she shown up for court anyway).
    1
  15238. Have you looked into evaporative coolers (swamp coolers)? I don't know if your environment is optimal for them. But, they consume far less power than regular A/C does... at least in specific types of environments.
    1
  15239. Flagged as spam.
    1
  15240. Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  15241. Oh, and this was far from being her lowest moment. With her felony prison term for stealing cars, and her mile long arrest record for other stuff, this particular arrest was just a drop in the bucket.
    1
  15242. So, I wonder... if YOU were one of the people whom Armstrong fraudulently sued (and won), draining you of all of your money, leaving you emotionally and financially devastated, all to protect his lies... would you say "oh well, humanity as a whole has gained, even though I've been completely destroyed in the process... therefore Armstrong overall has done more good than harm"? Could you bring yourself to have that viewpoint, while Armstrong has hundreds of millions, earned via complete fraud?
    1
  15243. So? Again, why can't you answer the question? What should the police do instead, in your mind?
    1
  15244. They had color TV since 1953. And, the internet is not required to go to the moon.
    1
  15245. Dewdrop, the police had to release the video, else it would be a violation of the Freedom of Information Act. But, FYI: this arrest = July 1, 2021. Suicide = March, 2022. Arrest video released = November 24, 2023. Nobody saw this video while she was alive. But, you keep on pretending to know things you don't.
    1
  15246. She continued to steal from Walgreens immediately after this incident. She died of drug overdose.
    1
  15247. No, the "better place" would have been to stay with her two young children. But, nope, she preferred meth to her own kids.
    1
  15248. I agree. The police certainly did not handle this in a dreadful manner.
    1
  15249. So, first you say the police surely didn't handle it badly. I agreed with you. Now, you've changed your mind to say that they handled it badly? Yet, you won't name anything that they actually did wrong? Oh, bravo!! I see a Pulitzer Prize in your future for sure.
    1
  15250. Well, how can anybody tell what's sarcastic or not? And, again, why can't you actually outline what you think they did wrong? Sorry, but you've made 3 postings now, and if you can't illustrate it after 3 postings, you have NOTHING.
    1
  15251. Sorry, but nobody can see whatever posting you made about specifying what you think they did wrong. Welcome to YouTube comments, where roughly 50% get shadow banned. Open this in an incognito window, or view it from a browser that isn't logged in. You won't be able to see your own posting without being signed in. The only person who can see it is yourself, while logged in. Personally, I make a posting, and always have another window ready to check to see if my posting is visible to the rest of the world.
    1
  15252. Nobody can see any such posting from you, besides yourself. Welcome to YouTube. Go look at this thread with an incognito window (not logged in). You won't see your own posting either.
    1
  15253. As I said, you're the only one who can see such a posting. As I said, look at this thread with an incognito window to verify.
    1
  15254. It is pretty clear that you're simply not capable of understanding that YouTube shadow bans many messages. You're the only one who can see that post from an hour ago. You'd know this if you followed my instructions to view the thread in a window not logged into YouTube. But, you refuse.
    1
  15255. I will now reply to what you cut-n-pasted into the more recent posting.
    1
  15256. "They didn't take her somewhere quiet and discuss it discreetly." Yes, they did. Watch the whole video. They took her away from the restaurant, outside of the view or earshot of others.
    1
  15257. "They allowed the scene to be filmed" Yes, of course, as most cities require nowadays.
    1
  15258. "and her identity to be shown" As required by the Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  15259. "handcuffed" Yes, dewdrop. All arrests include cuffing.
    1
  15260. "through a packed bar" That was the path back to the police cars. There wasn't much choice.
    1
  15261. "explain how what the police did was in any way fair and deserved" Well, in addition to my other replies to clarify your lack of understanding line by line, there were multiple calls about the woman's beach incident. The witnesses said she did it intentionally, and one of them recorded it, and showed the video to the police. She had said that this was a discreet act with nobody around (as she was trying to avoid her millionth arrest, and she didn't want to potentially end up back in prison again). But, the video told a different story, having been a very loud and public act in view of multiple people including children. So, make no mistake here, she was getting arrested no matter what. And, if not for the beach incident, she'd have been arrested for any of her number of open warrants for failing to appear in court in her other many prior arrests. You know as much about police procedure as you do about how YouTube comments work (zero).
    1
  15262. Was it your goal to get literally every sentence wrong? Or, was that by accident? I already explained all of those things, dewdrop.
    1
  15263. Are you sure you didn't mean 55:23?
    1
  15264. In order to answer you, I first have to ask what you mean by "dark side"?
    1
  15265.  @Showboat_Six  Yes, all astronauts saw stars when on the dark side. But, FYI, the dark side and the far side are not necessarily the same thing. I still fail to understand your point.
    1
  15266. You cannot possibly be serious. Do you REALLY not understand simple words and phrases? Do you REALLY not understand the phases of the moon?
    1
  15267. "USA power is built on faking" So, the 20 aircraft and helo carriers and the supporting battle groups are "fake"? "lie, cover up and deception." It says so on YouTube. Therefore, you know about it. Funny that none of the enemy countries know about it. I guess they don't have YouTube. "It's" Shocker, he's illiterate. "media is part and parcel of this conspiracy." Dewdrop, Apollo landed on the moon 6x. For 50+ years, the best you people can do is the kind of easily debunked gibberish you find in videos like this one.
    1
  15268. 1) The number of people killed by working on the two space programs are in the hundreds, not thousands. 2) There are no patents. Congress paid for the US program, and the Soviets paid for theirs. The Soviets would never have published their designs enough to get any patents (nor would they have cared about patents). Congress wasn't going to allow any of the manufacturing contractors to patent anything, because if the public paid the massive bill, the public gets the benefit of the intellectual property developed from it, no patents/trademarks/copyrights allowed. 3) The videos ARE "to their liking." These deniers love videos that tell them exactly what they want to hear, no matter whether the videos are true or false.
    1
  15269. You could make it back to grammar school and learn to read and write.
    1
  15270.  @bradleyrex2968  Conrad did that on Apollo 12.
    1
  15271. Yeah, and I've known such people also. "It was a technicality, I really had to go and there was no bathroom around, so, I went behind a dumpster where I didn't think anybody could see, and now I'm on that registry." Yeah. Sure. Right. You have to do a lot more than that to end up on those lists.
    1
  15272. No, dewdrop, those things don't put you on those lists. That's what people on those lists want you to believe, so they can pretend they didn't do the things that they actually did.
    1
  15273. They are under the warped perception that making the entire world hate them will somehow make people want to support them.
    1
  15274. What did she say all that intelligent? I mean, maybe she's intelligent. I wouldn't know. But, I just don't see it, especially not in this video. All I see is barely average intelligence, just putting polish on a well rehearsed speech. Sure, I can forgive her and accept her for getting herself free of the life she used to lead. But, intelligence? Why?
    1
  15275. "I'm just specifically curious about them running air conditioners/heaters on Batteries for multiple days 24/7." And, you were told that they didn't use air conditioners... another fact you completely ignored. "I would like to understand." Then, read the replies to your own questions/comments. "NASA has stated the Apollo astronauts 1) had AC and Heaters that ran in Batteries" No, NASA has never claimed to use air conditioners. They used porous plate sublimators. This is well documented. And, if you actually have been studying Apollo for 50+ years like you claim, you'd know that. Stop pretending. "2) the Astronauts were dealing with a 400° temperature range extreme on the Moon." No, dewdrop. You are quoting the temperature range (it's actually more than that, but, whatever). But, at no point has NASA ever said that the astronauts had to deal with it. That's why they always landed in the early lunar morning. That's why they always left by about a sun angle of 45 degrees (like 9am Earth equivalent). Just look at the temperature charts vs. sun angles. "These are public well known things" And, yet, for 50 years, you still don't understand it. Do you really consider yourself an engineer? Yet, for 50 years, you can't understand sun angles and temperatures? "I am not gish galloping I am asking questions." And, you're ignoring the answers. "I've lived in some pretty hot places in the world and always had a lot of trouble trying to get AC to work well even with power sockets... I can't imagine ever getting air conditioning to work in 110°f heat on BATTERIES" So, the ACTUAL engineers were "doing it wrong"? Hey, dewdrop, step 1: look into what was ACTUALLY used to cool the craft, not your repeated fantasies about air conditioners. "The Moon goes up to 173°f in direct Sunlight" It's actually higher than that. But, whatever. Like I said, it doesn't matter. They were never there for those extremes, because they had lifted off already by then. "There is no getting through to some people" Yes, apparently. You're one of them. "I only said I was curious about it." Yet, you refused to read the replies to your own questions. How "curious" could you be? "Not that I knew everything about it." You said you've been studying it since you were 10 years old, dewdrop. "OR he thinks Battery Tech has not changed in 55 years." For the silver-zinc batteries that were used on the lander, it hasn't. You can still order them today, if you have $600,000 you want to waste on a battery that can only be used once.
    1
  15276. To any that read this, how many of my replies are visible? I posted 4 of them, or 5 if you include this one. I was about to write some stuff about Alan Bean, but, I changed my mind and decided I wrote enough already. And, I want to make sure my other responses are visible.
    1
  15277. Let's be honest here... you and I both know that nobody is going up to someone in the middle of cranking to have a conversation. Stop pretending.
    1
  15278. The cops were waiting in that area trying to arrest someone else on a completely unrelated shooting.
    1
  15279. No, dewdrop. Apollo was canceled because it wasn't economically viable to keep sustaining it. And, its main purpose was to beat the Soviets, as an expression of technological dominance. Once that purpose was served, it became very unpopular to continue funding it. So, NASA's budget was slashed down to about 10% of what it was during the height of Apollo. During the height of Apollo spending, the budget was about 4.5% of the entire federal budget, and then that was reduced to about 0.45%. Again, that's about 10% of the budget NASA had while they were building Apollo. And, no longer were they permitted to spend nearly the entirety of their budget on just one thing, either. They were to spread the money over hundreds of programs. Yet, here you are, basically demanding that if they didn't continue going to the moon, then it never happened to begin with. Sorry, but you just don't know what you're talking about. NASA doesn't dictate its own budget, nor does it even decide how its budget is spent. Congress does that.
    1
  15280. Who? Evans? No.
    1
  15281. Well, maybe, maybe not. You hit the nail on the head with "we shall see." The underlying issue is that Musk refuses to reveal the price or weight of the truck. So, whether Thunderf00t is correct or incorrect, well, it's still Musk's own doing. It's ridiculous that anybody should be force to guess in the first place. There isn't another truck manufacturer on Earth that refuses to give those two numbers. But, in the cult of Musk, he can keep the price and weight a secret, and his fans will throw themselves in front of a train to defend that ridiculous behavior.
    1
  15282. Yes, but you don't get to plan the murders ahead of time. I mean, good grief, they have a mountain of evidence that this guy planned the killings. He even rehearsed on his own recording device what he was going to say to the police about the shootings, hours BEFORE the shootings even happened. He even said "in the left eye" on that recording, then later shot the girl in the left eye. He had a tarp ready for the bodies before they got there. He didn't call the police until about 24 hours had passed.
    1
  15283. This is a joke, right?
    1
  15284. An art museum accepted a moon rock as a donation without verifying its authenticity, and it turned out to be a chunk of petrified wood. Nobody at that museum thinks the rock came from NASA. Why would you think such a thing? Did it ever occur to you to question why a "moon rock" would be given to an art museum in the first place? Why not the science museum where the other Apollo samples were located? Could it be to get an estate tax write-off for a valueless piece of rock, and an art museum would be gullible enough to believe it came from the moon?
    1
  15285. Dewdrop, the infant child was in the back seat of the car. That's not her son that was shot. That was the child's father. Good gods.
    1
  15286. YOU SAID: "Better leave them free" == This is the dumbest thing I've seen in a long time. So, it's your position that murderers should NOT be put in prison?? No, they should just be left free? Good fucking gods, could you get any dumber? Hey, dummy, when someone in your family is murdered by a repeat offender who keeps getting let free, be sure and come back here and tell everyone how glad you are that murderers are let out of prison.
    1
  15287.  @2taggs2  Yet, you cannot name it? What are you talking about? You ACTUALLY believe there's a perfect solution, yet nobody is using it?
    1
  15288.  @2taggs2  Good grief. I said the perfect solution doesn't exist yet. Then, you said it does exist. Now you're saying it doesn't. Get back to me when you're sober.
    1
  15289.  @thomassteele9649  Then publish in the radiobiology journals, dewdrop. What are you waiting for?
    1
  15290. How many thousands of people did Skilling basically steal billions of dollars from? How many people's Enron retirement funds were left valueless, and thousands had to work in menial jobs to pay rent, instead of retiring with a healthy bank account? How many thousands of people lost their jobs and homes? How much damage was done from the fake blackouts? How many people were injured in the resulting car accidents? What would be the reason to let him out of jail? He'll never do the world any good.
    1
  15291. Because the school board has the purview to trespass people.
    1
  15292.    Pffttt. And, if it was your home, and you asked the cops to remove someone who refused to leave, do you want the cops to say, "sorry, we don't agree with your politics, therefore we're not going to arrest the guy, you'll have to deal with it yourself"?? (And, before you come back with something about "public property," sorry, that's not how it works.)
    1
  15293.    HILARIOUS!!!! YOU SAID: "so you don’t think there is a difference between public and private property?" == I just illustrated that public buildings ARE like private property with respect to trespass laws. YOU SAID: "That is quite interesting. Should I be able to have a birthday party in your back yard? No." == No, dummy. And, that's the same concept for why the officials of the school are allowed to trespass people who are asked to leave, but refuse. You are BACKWARD. YOU SAID: "Why because there is a difference between a person’s home or business, and public property." == Why is it that people like you pretend to know things you don't? Why? Good grief, you're backward, and you're too dumb to know it.
    1
  15294.    YOU SAID: "ok fine your right" == My right what? Or, was that your barely literate attempt to say "you're"? YOU SAID: "anytime A government official doesn’t like what you say all they have to do is use their thugs with guns to trespass you" == You don't get to call police "thugs" just because you don't agree with the laws. Dummy, the police are there to enforce the laws. And, yes, if a government official trespasses you, and you refuse to leave, the police MUST trespass you. What would you have them do instead? The police are not judge and jury. The police do not inflict their own personal politics into whether or not you get arrested. I already gave you the example (which you ignored) of the police coming to your own house to trespass someone because you called them. Would you like it if they said, "nope, we're not removing this person from your property, because we don't agree with your politics"?? Is that how you want it to go? Look, dummy, there's a reason we have a court system. The police only decide whether a trespass occurred, and then make the arrest. That's all they do. From there, it's in the court's hands, and rightfully so. We do not WANT cops to make personal decisions about politics. Oh, but wait, YOU do. You want cops to make personal political decisions if it aligns with your politics, but, if the cops ever made a personal decision that doesn't align with your politics, you'd be the first to say, "hey, cops, keep your politics out of it, and just follow the law." YOU SAID: "simple yay for the first amendment." == Dummy, the cops don't get involved with that. That's what the courts are for. But, apparently, you can't get this through your skull. The man was NOT ARRESTED FOR SPEAKING. He was arrested for TRESPASSING. How many times does it take before that sinks in?
    1
  15295. Well, what do you suppose the odds are that her entire family was sick and tired of her stealing everything they have?
    1
  15296. You certainly could be right. But, with Musk's track record of deception, and the fact that he still refuses to release the numbers, how can we even trust that those concrete barriers were even real? How do we know they weren't hollowed out, or plastic painted to look like concrete? I'm not saying I'd know any better, mind you. Maybe they're real. But, my logic would tell me that if they were able to carry that much weight, they'd have no problems releasing the actual numbers. The fact that they are still keeping the weight a secret is a tell-tale indicator that something's up with that. The two most important numbers are still not revealed: (1) the price, and (2) the weight. If that's not lighting up red flags in your mind, I don't know what to say.
    1
  15297. The police blocked the release for 2.5 years. Nobody saw it while she was alive. Eventually, the Freedom of Information Act mandated its release.
    1
  15298. Ape doesn't know what he's talking about. Let's stick with the experts like the police and medical examiners, rather than silly conspiracies online that can't even get the dates to match up, let alone have any actual knowledge of the incident. Drop the "supposedly" nonsense. One of the witnesses on the beach recorded it and gave a copy of the video to the police. There's no mystery about what happened here.
    1
  15299. Yeah, you're right. I should have seen this from a mile away. The idiot said "I fully support Lance Armstrong. No matter what, nobody will be able to take off his merits!!" - and then later backpedaled when the evidence didn't go her way, and then called ME delusional, etc. He/she's obviously insane, and there are far too many of him/her in the world. I should have realized it was hopeless just from the words "I fully support" and "no matter what" (meaning his/her mind is 100% slammed shut).
    1
  15300. I don't mean this like it's undoubtedly going to sound, but, "no struggle" is a relative term. If getting shot 3 times isn't a "struggle," I don't know what is. And, it's extremely difficult to "struggle" any further, once being shot. I'm sure you meant that all human life is valuable, including the life of someone who just pointed a gun at a police officer. And, I agree. But, personally, I take solace in the fact that it was carjacker Mark with the 3 holes in him, rather than the officer.
    1
  15301. Huh? She did sue Publix, and she lost in dramatic fashion (as she should). And, if she showed her receipt, nothing would have happened here, and then what would she be suing for?
    1
  15302. Do you have any firearms training? If so, from where? I've taken lots of firearms training courses, and I've never once had an instructor train people to shoot at legs. I've never even heard of a firearms training course that instructs people to shoot at legs. Quite the opposite, every firearms training course I've ever taken, as well as ever heard of, trains you to shoot at the center of body mass. Please explain to me why these courses are wrong, and you're right?
    1
  15303.  @noordin2293  Well, I've never shot at anybody. But, I cannot hit moving legs reliably (paper targets) with my 1911. As per training, which always indicates to shoot at center of mass, it's the most reliable way to stop an intruder. Shooting at legs generally has two results: (1) just makes an intruder mad, but doesn't always stop him, and often results in return fire... and/or (2) you miss.
    1
  15304. Well, the vaccine (overall mechanism to create it) had been in the works for 15+ years. They had been developing quicker vaccine procedures for a while. The idea is that, with the new mechanisms they developed, they can produce vaccines more quickly to whatever virus happens to come along. Anyway, flagged for spam, because this has absolutely nothing to do with Apollo.
    1
  15305. "There are already plenty of challengers with very real evidence that is was all fake" Yet, here we are, 50 years later, and still the best any denier can muster is "why haven't we gone back," and "the shadows don't do what I thought they should." You'd think that if there was any real evidence, it would come out by now, huh? "I don’t need to spend my time on this" TRANSLATION: "I don't have any of this real evidence I'm pretending to have, so, I'm going to run for the hills and blame it on not having time to support my own accusations." "Even the technology was not there to support the claims" Can you name the exact technology that was lacking? Can you explain why none of the 450,000 people who worked on this technology ever realized that they failed to make technologies that work correctly? "otherwise, the technology would be pushed to the forefront" Dewdrop, supersonic airliner technology didn't advance one iota after 1969. They built the Concorde, and it remained largely unchanged for decades, until they finally retired the economic monstrosity. The Soviets built a virtually identical supersonic airliner, but, they immediately realized that it was not going to be economically viable, and retired the thing. The Concorde was a financial nightmare that had no hope of ever being sustained, but, the French and British government poured money into the thing anyway, while it lost money on every single flight it ever took. That's why that technology didn't advance. And, the Saturn V technology, as well as the lunar landers and command modules, etc., were exactly the same issue. There was no hope of ever developing those platforms into being a viable economic model to be sustained. So, those technologies were retired, just like the Soviet supersonic airliner, and eventually Concorde, never to be replaced. Sorry that you don't understand reality here. But, your statement about advancing technologies only apply to those technologies that are economically viable. "Ultimately, this was a great digital and cinematography effort" But, dewdrop, there wasn't a computer on the planet at that time that was capable of rendering digital video. Not by a long shot. No computer on Earth even had enough memory to render a single frame of digital video. Good gods. Do you just enjoy spewing nonsense? Is that how you get your jollies? "to produce something that did not happen" But, dewdrop, numerous countries have confirmed Apollo in many different ways. What do you know that the world's experts do not? You're so completely clueless about this topic that you believe that digital video existed in 1969. That's how little you understand about the topic. Yet, you think you know it better than the entire planet's experts? "Cheers" TRANSLATION: "YAAAAAAAAAAY, I've spewed a bunch of nonsense, that'll shut them up."
    1
  15306. You're answering your own question without realizing it. Good grief. Dewdrop, there are many reasons that nobody went back to the moon after 1972. The program was completed. It achieved its main objective. It was most expensive exploration in human history by far. Etc. But, it HAD NO COMMERCIAL VALUE. Yes, flights on Earth did, and do, have commercial value. There were always going to be economies of scale in building airplanes. And, it started with 2 guys in their shop, building airplanes, with zero financial support. Apollo was nothing like that. It took 400,000 people from the USA, and 50,000 people internationally, and 4.5% of the entire federal budget in hard costs, plus approximately 2% more in soft costs and international support. And, for that, they put 12 people on the moon for a few hours each. Rockets don't scale like airplanes can. Here we are in 2023, and they're thinking of putting a 4th person in the Orion capsule, instead of the 3 people per capsule from 1968-1972. That's the best they've been able to scale it up, just adding one more person. And, the only reason they think they can manage that is that the lander will be sent separately. There's no hope of scaling it up if they sent the lander in the same stack, as they did with Apollo. Airplanes, on the other hand, are extremely scalable. Go learn something about thermodynamics, good grief. All you're saying is "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." Nonsense. There's tons and tons of commercial value in airplanes, such that a vast majority of people can afford to buy a ticket. There's virtually zero commercial value in rockets to the moon. Almost nobody could afford to buy a ticket. And, there's no mechanism to make it much cheaper.
    1
  15307. "Stop attacking my character while I'm accusing thousands of people of being criminal frauds that would spend a lifetime in prison if I was correct." The irony.
    1
  15308. 46:55 "I don't believe in hardly any conspiracies." 47:25 "Let's go back to the flight routes .... If you do attempt to buy or book that flight, it will never take off." So, he's not a conspiracy believer, but, airlines are listing flights, letting you book them, but, they'll somehow never actually fly the route. The air traffic controllers will pretend they see transponders from airplanes on that flight route. The baggage handlers will take your bags and put them somewhere for a flight that will never happen. And, they'll do this for dozens of flights per month, every month, for decades. And, not a single passenger on those flights will ever complain that they paid for flights but never flew them? But, he doesn't believe in conspiracies. Right.
    1
  15309. You might want to try writing this in your native language. Whatever you were trying to say didn't translate very well into English.
    1
  15310. What do you know about the Van Allen belts that James Van Allen didn't know? And, for that matter, why don't any aerospace engineers or radiobiologists make the claim you're making?
    1
  15311. Yeah, but, with her mile long arrest record, and open warrants, she probably hoped she could talk her way out of it before they looked her up.
    1
  15312. Because any competent lawyer will know not to trust Inside Edition (trash news), and to find out the real story, and would know that there's absolutely no valid suit.
    1
  15313. Let's just hope that this city doesn't bow down to nuisance lawsuits, designed to get a settlement just to avoid the cost of the legal fight. Judging from these comments, a majority of the people can see the obvious, that this was an attempted armed carjacking, and the carjacker paid the price with his life, and his family isn't entitled to any money. There are a few people now and then who somehow blame the cops for this, usually because they don't realize that the guy was armed, or sometimes just because they have a predetermined hatred for police. But, there aren't enough of those kinds of people to sway a jury into granting money. So, any lawsuit is probably just designed to be really expensive for the city to defend, hoping that they'll just pay out a settlement rather than fight it. I hate that sort of thing, because it just means more and more similar lawsuits will keep on coming in the future. Those lawsuits need to be fought, just to send the message that future lawsuits won't have any chance of winning either.
    1
  15314. And, you think nobody was near, why? Because a convicted felon with a mile long arrest record said so while she was trying to avoid her millionth arrest? How about the video captured by one of the witnesses that they showed to the police that says otherwise?
    1
  15315. Why? What EXACTLY do you think they did wrong?
    1
  15316. It's doubtful too many people even knew about this arrest until after she was dead. And, if nobody bullied her the other million times she was arrested, and nobody bullied her over the term she spent in prison, I kinda doubt anybody bullied her over this little thing.
    1
  15317. Do you just make stuff up as you go? She never even went to court for this, let alone was on any kind of list. And, had she shown up for her court date, even with her mile long arrest record and the term she served in prison on a prior felony, there's nearly zero chance that she'd end up on any list. This is easily negotiated down to a minor infraction.
    1
  15318. So, anybody who corrects the parade of nonsense you spew is the problem. You're not the problem for spewing the nonsense in the first place. Someone who corrects the nonsense is the real issue. Sure.
    1
  15319. So, you're just extremely proud to make things up in your own head, and if you're wrong, you're even MORE proud about it.
    1
  15320. Welcome to Inside Edition, where facts don't matter. Nobody even saw the arrest video until after she was dead for 1.5 years. And, given the fact that she was a stripper at the local club, and the neighbors suspected that she also gave "one-on-ones" as well, yeah, I seriously doubt that their judgement of her would be any different over this, if they even knew about it, which they probably didn't. None of this went viral until 2.5 years later.
    1
  15321. Videographer = bodycam. And, it wasn't released until 2.5 years later, which was 1.5 years after she was already dead.
    1
  15322. One obscure website I've never heard of made a blog post about this arrest while she was alive. For the most part, nobody really covers convicted felons who served time in prison and have a mile long arrest record. And, nobody is all that shocked when a stripper exposes herself in public. But, this arrest video could be manipulated into a viral video, portraying the stripper as a wholesome victim who killed herself out of shame. So, that's how they played it.
    1
  15323. But, once guns are banned, carjackers and all other criminals will turn in all of their guns and get regular jobs, right?
    1
  15324. It's at 29:25 in this video on the front of the rover. The rover had 2 cameras. The TV camera is in that shot at 29:25, covered in gold foil, with the half-cone shaped lens cover. The astronauts aimed that dish (you see on the left in that same shot) at Earth at each rover stop, allowing Ed Fendell in Houston to control the camera. They couldn't control the TV camera while moving because the alignment wasn't good enough. And, as a matter of fact, they could barely even send TV signals back to Earth while the rover was moving (just a few seconds here and there). The 2nd camera on the rover was the 16mm film DAC (data acquisition camera). It was mounted directly behind the TV camera (hence why you see the TV camera in the picture). The DAC could quickly and easily be dismounted from the rover and be used hand-held instead. But, obviously, being a film camera, they needed to wait until getting home in order to get the film developed.
    1
  15325. Really? And, you think there's a right to privacy in a public place? And, what exactly was "mismanaged" here? You say it could be done differently, yet, you don't name a single example.
    1
  15326. Well, the police managed to block the release of the arrest video for 2.5 years. Nobody saw it while she was alive. But, what do you propose to do about the Freedom of Information Act? Don't scream at the wind. What's your solution?
    1
  15327. Yet, with all of the AI that will ever exist, you'll still be hopelessly clueless.
    1
  15328. No, it didn't work. They tried it, and it failed. That's why they abandoned the duct tape and used clamps instead. But, the reason it failed wasn't really due to "direct UV& other space rays."
    1
  15329. Well, no major media covered this story until long after she was dead. So, it's pretty doubtful that she was humiliated. And, if she didn't commit suicide over any of her prior million arrests, or her term in prison, I'd fail to see why this particular arrest would be all that tragic to her.
    1
  15330. What would you do when a criminal draws a gun and points it at you?
    1
  15331. And, you're PROUD to display to the world that you think there's no gravity on the moon?
    1
  15332. "There is so much dust that Pragyaan rover had to move 1CM per second" Take it up with India about why they didn't build bigger wheels. Why is the speed they decided to use of any relevance to Apollo? "and it didn't came out of Vikram untill some time due to the amount of dust the landing can erupt." Um, no. I mean, do you really believe that the dust lingered for days or something? Physics just isn't your thing, huh? I am sorry if a bunch of scientifically illiterate journalists wrote articles saying that it would take hours for dust to settle, but, that's just plain wrong. It settles in seconds. "But no where in Apollo lander that carried austronats we see dust covering." That's because they landed on the moon. The moon has no atmosphere. Without an atmosphere, dust cannot swirl around and linger. The dust just gets blown outward, and there's no mechanism for it to blow back to the lander. "The gold foil on the legs of lander is clean without dust." Not all of them. Some had dust. Did a conspiracy video tell you that none had dust, and you just believed it? "Why didn't astronauts who landed on moon failed to identify water traces" Because they couldn't see any water. "despite bringing 300+ kgs of moon surface soil & rocks? It's only a device sent through Chandrayaan-1 identifed presence of H20 on the moon." Huh? Plenty of USA devices have sensed water on the moon too, dewdrop. Which country do you think first identified the water that's suspected at the South pole? And, hold on just a minute, do you see any water in the photos relayed back from Chandrayaan-3's rover? "That too after almost 40 years of Apollo mission with the crew." I have no idea what you're trying to say, and neither do you. "How come the 15+ astronauts" 12 astronauts landed on the moon, not 15+. "didn't identify the temperature on surface of the moon" Huh? They left the EASEP and ALSEP instruments on the moon that sent back temperature readings for years after the Apollo moonshot program was shut down. "which Chandrayaan-3 identified way beyond livable." Dewdrop, are you under the impression that the moon's surface is always the same temperature? You don't think it heats up and cools down as the moon rotates through daytime and nighttime? Are you trying to say that you are looking at maximum or minimum temperatures, and thinking Apollo would go there during those extremes? All Apollo missions landed in the early lunar morning, dewdrop, long after the super-cold temperatures, and long before the super-hot temperatures. Good grief. "Why didn't the astronauts who landed on the moon identified this?" They did. "General assumption is moon is cooler, but when they landed, (with sensors available), why didn't they identified the high temperatures of moon surface?" When they landed, it was early in the lunar morning, when the surface temperatures were very cool/cold. And, yes, they did identify this. And, those very same sensors sent back readings for years after Apollo, recording the temperatures, and it is well understood about those temperatures, and how they cycle through a lunar daytime/nighttime. "Finally it's like unless a machine that's controlled from earth identified all these, humans who went there failed to observe is what irony." They took temperature readings every couple of hours, dewdrop. "I'm not raising the footmark of space suit" Well, that's a good thing, because nobody would know what a footmark of space suit is. "stars," What about them? "different direction shadows" It's called photographic perspective. If the shadows were parallel in the photos, that would mean Apollo was fake, because the light source would need to be right behind the camera. But, with the light source being 90 million miles from the camera, shadows go in different directions and converge. The same happens on Earth, dewdrop. "flag waving theories raised by the conspiracy theorists" EXACTLY!!!! None of those people understand why the flag waves. Why would you listen to people who don't understand what they're saying? "but asking why men who landed there didn't observe what a robot had observed." The robot is observing the exact same things that Apollo did, with the slight differences of being at the south pole instead of more equatorial. But, hey, if you're interested in what India's data/photos are producing on Chandrayaan-3, why are you ignoring Chandrayaan-2? The Chandrayaan-2 orbiter took photos of some of the Apollo landing sites, showing quite clearly that there are Apollo landers there, footpads, shadows of flame deflectors quite visible, and even at Apollo 12's landing site, you can clearly see the shadow of the flag (still standing) just north of the Apollo 12 lander (exactly where the original mission photography shows it). So, if you're going to sit there and pretend that India's (or China's) discovery of microscopic traces of water mean that Apollo was fake, why are you not paying attention to both India and China's photos of the Apollo landing sites, meaning that Apollo was real? No? If India shows you photos of the Apollo 12 landing site, complete with the flag shadow exactly where it's supposed to be, you ignore it? But, if India finds microscopic traces of water buried inside grains with less thickness than a human hair, using new and extreme instruments that weren't available during Apollo, this means Apollo was fake? How do you square that away, in your mind? How do you ignore one thing India/China produce, and focus on something else they produce?
    1
  15333. "That's a long essay. Instead of long essay" I was responding to YOU. You wrote each sentence (and you were wrong), and I was just responding. And, if you didn't want answers to your questions, DON'T ASK QUESTIONS. What did you expect here? "I need to understand rocketry in 2 sentences or less, otherwise rocketry is fake"? Is that how this goes for you? Did you think it's easy to understand these concepts? And, I notice you refused to reply to any of my questions. Funny, I responded to yours. You ignored it, and refused to reply to mine. "you could have shared the links" Links are not allowed to most 3rd party sites, dewdrop. You can post such links, but nobody (besides you) will ever see them. "of all those so arguments." Arguments? You'd need to understand the topic before you could have an "argument." No, dewdrop. You don't know anything about Apollo. And, again, what in the world is wrong with you? YOU asked a bunch of questions, dewdrop. I gave you answers. Now, you want me to cite sources, point to somebody else, etc.? If you weren't going to read the answers to your own questions, why did you ask them? (Hmmm, is it because you falsely assumed there were no answers, and you sat there in self-made "glory" thinking you just debunked Apollo with these questions you thought couldn't be answered? And, when somebody answered, you don't want to read it?) "Just saying a lie for 100 times don't make it a truth." THEN QUIT LYING!!!! Good gods. "Instead of posting another essay, pls post links for your arguments" Links are not allowed, dewdrop. And, I am not going to sit here and go through every sentence I wrote and find an outside source for it. Again, all you're proving is that you don't want answers to your own questions. Are you even reading this now? If you are, write "green" at the top of your next response so I will know you actually pay attention to the answers to your own questions. Then, answer my return questions from this posting and the prior. Quit behaving like a barnyard animal and actually start caring about knowing things, rather than just wanting to commit slander/libel all the time.
    1
  15334. So, you understand nothing about physics, nothing about geometry, and nothing about astronomy. But, you think you understand it better than the last centuries of actual scientists... while you drag yourself back into the year 1500.
    1
  15335. "Not bc of money but bc no material has been discovered that could withstand the pressure." Is this a joke? What pressure? Is it really too much to ask that you actually understand a topic before commenting on it? Good grief.
    1
  15336. Huh? Well aimed shots? How? Where? What exactly do you think the cop who rammed the truck was attempting to do? As for a deathwish, well, then explain why the criminal threw the guns out the window, and surrendered, if he wanted to die?
    1
  15337. I wonder why you'd ask, really. There were 9 manned missions to the moon, 6 of which landed. If that's not "going back," I don't know what is.
    1
  15338. Correct, you don't legally have to show the receipt. However, you ARE legally required to provide ID, and NOT resist, and NOT obstruct/obfuscate.
    1
  15339. The witness who took video of the event said that the woman had wandered up and down the beach, looking for a place to do this, and then it appeared that she intentionally chose a spot right in front of a family with children. Thanks, but, I'll go with the words of one of the random people who called the police and got the event on video, before I'll go with the words of a woman with a mile long arrest and prison record who is attempting to avoid getting arrested for the umpteenth time.
    1
  15340. Hence why education is the 2nd biggest trigger that causes people to become atheists. The more educated/intelligent someone is, the more likely they are to be atheists. This is clear from all independent studies. The middle trend tends to be theists who accept scientific evidence, yet remain theists. And, of course, bringing up the rear in intelligence/education are creationists like shazaibbiazahs with conclusion first, evidence second ("the big bang is outrageous" THEN "what's the evidence?").
    1
  15341. Nothing was "blasted" until long after she was dead. And, maybe you should read a few articles about this... they'll tell you she walked out on her family and friends a decade ago to live a life of crime and drugs. Her husband and son didn't even show up at her funeral. And, according to the medical examiner's report, her body was well into the maggot phase of decomposition, and was down to 84 pounds. Apparently, absolutely nobody was even looking for her, and it wasn't until the landlord went into the apartment looking for overdue rent that her body was found. That shows how many loved ones she had.
    1
  15342. More proof positive that everybody with "truth" or "woke" or "awake" in their nicknames have absolutely no clue what the truth is, and are fast asleep.
    1
  15343. 2:30 - Wow, pretty bold to just outright name Mexico as corrupt to that level.
    1
  15344.  @joedoe-sedoe7977  YOU SAID: "Why don’t you read the rocket failure statics" == How does this answer anything I asked? How does this address any of the prior topics? All you do is change topics, rather than answer any challenge you're faced with. Yes, I know what the rocket statistics are. YOU SAID: "and dozens of living creatures that died during the decade of the 50s which was done FIRST to see if it was safe to send a man up a measly 100 miles" == Thanks for proving me correct. Yes, after they were confident about their rocket designs, they put people inside, and eventually went to the moon. You don't know what you're talking about, and you are only demonstrating that **I** am correct. And, you didn't answer the questions (again)!!!! How would a monkey have gone to the moon first in the Apollo craft? I illustrated to you why a monkey couldn't have done it first. You ignored it. YOU SAID: "or so, yeah the failure of Apollo 13 shows only that they couldn’t even get off earth" == Pffttt. Apollo 13 exploded half way to the moon, dummy. YOU SAID: "and that was even suspected as a murder since the Astro not killed was making a joke of the mission using a lemon as I recall." == You recall wrong. You don't know who's who. You can't even get your conspiracies straight. Apollo 13 had nothing to do with lemons. You're talking about an incident involving the commander of Apollo 1, Gus Grissom, three years BEFORE Apollo 13, Jim Lovell. And, they killed Grissom for making a joke about calling the block1 a lemon? Again, you cannot even get your conspiracies right. And, you are demonstrating that your ONLY source of information comes from conspiracy videos. Hey, dummy, Gus Grissom died in a fire due to a faulty craft. The craft WAS a lemon, and it killed him. Yet, you conspiratards are running around with this amazingly delusional viewpoint that NASA murdered three of their own people because they didn't want the public to know the craft was a lemon, right? So, how did NASA commit this murder? They rigged the command module to look like a lemon?? "Oh, we don't want the public to know the block1 command module is faulty, so, let's rig up the block1 command module to have faults that kill the astronauts." Does that even make sense to you? In order to prevent the public from learning that the block1 command module was faulty, they made it faulty to kill the astronauts inside? Do you see what I mean about what happens to you conspiratards when all you listen to is each other? You make the most ridiculous claims imaginable. Dummy, they never even attempted to put people inside the block1 after that incident, and went straight to the block2 for all manned flights afterward. And, again, you didn't even know which mission was which. See what I mean? Like I said before, if you had first learned all about Apollo, what the missions were, how the craft worked, how the communications worked, how the tracking worked, etc., and then later went to conspiracy sources as a matter of trying to get another perspective on things, yeah, I could probably respect that. But, no. You won't do that. You don't know ANYTHING about Apollo, and it shows. Literally, your only input comes from people just as sick and ignorant as you are. YOU SAID: "even today they can’t reverse land" == Sorry, more conspiracy garbage. You fail to realize that they built the LLRVs and LLTVs back in the 1960s. You fail to realize that they built vertical landing and takeoff craft in the 1990s. Etc. Again, your conspiracy videos have told you that the first time these things were done was with the modern SpaceX Falcon boosters, and you simply bought into that, hook line and sinker, without ever bothering to fact-check. YOU SAID: "much less on a dusty unfinished moon surface MULTIPLE TIMES." == As opposed to what? NOT landing? YOU SAID: "you think all that complex Buck Rodger was possible back then??" == Man, when you can't even spell the stuff you're asserting, you really don't know what you're talking about. YOU SAID: "I haven’t even mentioned all the confessions, the books,the photos and physical gaffs nor all the government lies of all major historical events since then and before ..YOU READ about them first SUCKER !!" == I don't care. I'm talking about Apollo. I'm not talking about this parade of "government lies" you think are relevant. Yet again, you want to change topics rather than addressing any question or challenge. Look how far you're starting to go here. Granted, you say you haven't mentioned "other" government lies. But, you want to, obviously. Anything but actually addressing the points I made, or the questions I asked. Duck, dodge, avoid, change topics. Duck, dodge, avoid, change topics. Duck, dodge, avoid, change topics. Duck, dodge, avoid, change topics. Duck, dodge, avoid, change topics. Duck, dodge, avoid, change topics. Duck, dodge, avoid, change topics. Duck, dodge, avoid, change topics. YOU SAID: "Your the reason" == My the reason? Good grief. Again, I promise you, learning to read and write will clear a lot of this up for you. The reason you don't know anything is because you're borderline illiterate. YOU SAID: "they get away with this crap and our enslavement you sorry POS !!!!” == Hilarious!!!! So, you're a slave?? That's what you believe? No, not quite. Let me spell this out for you much better. The reason you believe the things you believe is because you're a complete and total failure in life, and you want to blame someone. Apollo makes a wonderful target for your own inadequacies. You've wasted your life, so it really appeals to you to think that the most accomplished people in history, are just as big of failures as you are. You are powerless to do very much about your failed life at this point, so slandering those who have done things with theirs is your next best thing. That's why you do what you do. That's why you think what you think. And, that's why you think you're a "slave."
    1
  15345.  @joedoe-sedoe7977  YOU SAID: "You never addressed my number one point" == Oh, this has GOT to be a joke. In this thread, and your other threads in other videos, you have NEVER answered ANY of my questions/challenges. And, I usually answer you line-by-line. But, you're complaining that I didn't answer something from you?? Oh, you're utterly hilarious. YOU SAID: "that makes anything else you say meaningless ” .You say the way science works is after 10 years of failures trying to go a fraction of the distance," == Dummy, they had lots of successes in there too. You don't get to try to paint this picture that everything they did was a failure, then all of the sudden switched to 100% successes. They had many failures prior to Apollo, and many failures DURING Apollo also. And, they had built a successful ramp. YOU SAID: "you can go multiple times round trip thousands of times farther," == Pffttt. What?? Gemini 7, for example, traveled about 4.8 million miles. You think any of the Apollo missions traveled further than that AT ALL, let alone thousands of times further? Or, do you think there's something magical about the fact that Apollo's travel left Earth orbit, and Gemini's travel didn't? YOU SAID: "no need for any more biological tests,just send humans," == What EXACT tests are you suggesting? Can you name them? Do you think the human body will react differently if it travels a certain distance in orbit vs. in lunar transit? If so, why? YOU SAID: "( no way would they do that)" == You don't know what you're talking about. And, at this point, you are grasping at straws. I have answered every single thing you've written in this thread and others, leaving you completely speechless in every point, to the extreme level that you abandon everything you say and walk away with your tail between your legs, refusing to address a single question or challenge to anything you've ever written. And, now, your last standing ground is this concept of your incredulity about whether humans can travel to the moon inside a spacecraft... as if traveling to the moon in a spacecraft is any different than traveling in Earth orbit in a spacecraft? YOU SAID: "plus ignoring the variables of outer space never exposed to or done before including radiation," == Pffttt. What radiation? The stuff you talked about before in the Van Allen belts, which I already corrected you on, and the stuff you claimed is directly opposite as every single radiobiologist, aerospace engineer, and astrophysicist on the planet (and James Van Allen himself) said? YOU SAID: "separation,landing,reconnecting." == Well, they had practiced separation and reconnecting already in Gemini many times, and the earlier Apollo missions, before ever trying it on Apollo 11. Landing? Well, by the way you're claiming, by your logic, you're essentially saying that a first landing simply isn't possible. You're basically claiming that there was no possible way to EVER do it, because sometime had to be the first. I guess the Wright brothers couldn't fly, because it was the first time, huh? YOU SAID: "Unlike you, I have no investment one way or the other" == Yet, amazingly, you start thread after thread after thread of this insanity. Sure. YOU SAID: "with a name like yours obviously YOU DO," == Well, you'd think that. But, one of the big ironies is that my name "rockethead7" has absolutely nothing to do with rocketry. Nothing at all. But, yeah, I'll grant you, there would have been no way for you to know that, and it would be a very fair assumption to think so. YOU SAID: "your trying to impress us" == My trying to impress you??!?! ENGLISH, dummy!!!! YOU SAID: "because you have read and believe all the government bull.." == Spare me. You have not yet responded to ANYTHING I've asked, and have been nothing but a coward every time you're challenged. You don't get to hide behind this silly concept that I'm blindly believing in government stuff. That's silly. But, it's very clear that YOU are the one blindly believing anything you see that suits your delusions. You don't have the foggiest clue how any of this stuff worked, yet, you have buried yourself in conspiracies, and you know nothing outside of whatever your favorite conspiracy videos tell you. YOU are the one blindly believing the things you're told. YOU SAID: "what I do know is how the government lied about JFK, MLK, Vietnam war, 9/11 and that’s not all WW1 and WW2 both started with lies, the Federal Reserve act was a conspiracy to enslave us all" == You are one very sick puppy. And, I'm not going to embark on this silly journey with you. This video is about Apollo. And, since you can't actually address any question or challenge about Apollo, not a single response to anything you've ever written, now you're just trying to use this shotgun approach to throwing every possible topic you can on the table. It's nothing but an attempt at distraction. You don't know what you're talking about with regard to Apollo (and probably none of those other topics either, for that matter, but this is about APOLLO). YOU SAID: "and people like you think some how you can trust the government" == You don't have to trust the government to know a lot about Apollo. Once again, there's an entire world of evidence out there for Apollo that has nothing to do with the US government. You have buried yourself in conspiracy videos, and therefore, you don't know what any of it is, because those videos sure aren't going to show it to you. YOU SAID: "when it said we went to the moon and never went back in over 50 years." == Math just isn't your thing, eh? It's been 48.5 years, so, well, close enough to round up to 50. But, to say "over 50"??? Once again, you are demonstrating (for the millionth time) that you really don't know anything. YOU SAID: "that all makes sense to you??" == I'm not going to sit here and explain it to you. You're not listening. You have outright refused to address any question I've asked, and you have ignored all input in every thread you've started, so I'm certainly not going to explain to you how these space programs work. YOU SAID: "Grow up dude face it “it’s easier to fool someone than convince them THEY HAVE BEEN FOOLED” ..Read more about true history, these that control the world by deception are working nite and day against us, just look at the mess they are making of America currently." == More distraction. The topic here is Apollo. But, as usual, you're trying everything you can to distract the topic away from Apollo. You're now talking about America TODAY?? Look at how far away from Apollo you're trying to take these comments!!! What's wrong with you? YOU SAID: "Here is you answer to Apollo 13 from Wikipedia. “The astronauts' peril briefly renewed public interest in the Apollo program; tens of millions watched the splashdown in the South Pacific Ocean on television.” As I recall,that was also the reason they sent a cart and “golfed” ..what a bunch of crap but hey, people like you believe it." == Dummy, you didn't even know which mission was which. You confused Apollo 13 for Apollo 1 (separated by THREE YEARS). You thought Apollo 13 exploded on the ground, remember? Now, one message later, you're on Wiki trying to catch up, and STILL declaring victory?? Dummy, sorry, but when one message ago, you didn't even know which mission Apollo 13 was, you don't get to come here with a Wiki quote, and pretend to know more about it than I do. You are truly one pathetic piece of gutter trash.
    1
  15346. With this woman's mile long arrest record and felony term in prison, you don't think she was a real criminal?
    1
  15347. Oh, shocker. And, the guy (you) who thinks the moon has zero gravity (your other post) also reads and writes like a 2nd grader. Surprise surprise surprise.
    1
  15348. And wearing a balaclava ski mask in the middle of a Kentucky summer.
    1
  15349. You do know about Apollo 12's centerfolds, right?
    1
  15350. Let me guess, that means it's fake, right?
    1
  15351. Well, they basically skirted around the worst parts (except Apollo 14, which went right through the middle). But, it didn't matter, because your entire premise is wrong. Where are you getting the notion that short term exposure is fatal? Who told you that? A conspiracy video? Did you calculate it yourself? James Van Allen did (and a million others, including myself). The math doesn't indicate anything like you're suggesting. I'd eat my hat if you knew how to do the calculations, so, instead I'll just tell you what James Van Allen said about the Van Allen belts: QUOTE: "The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight. The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months' duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure. A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week. However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. -- James A. Van Allen"
    1
  15352. I know, I know, the driver and passenger of the red car were under pressure, and just wanted to get away from all of the guns and crime in the moment. But, c'mon, not sticking around to be witnesses? Trying to take away the officer's cover when she ducked behind the car? Not using the car as a battering ram to take out the criminal? Like I said, ok, I can't demand that people under pressure always do the right thing, but, I also can't help myself but to comment.
    1
  15353. Well, she was a convicted felon who had been arrested a million times, so, yeah, you'd think she'd know not to say anything. But, in this case, it wouldn't have mattered because one of the witnesses recorded it and gave the video to the police. But, my guess is that she was unaware of that, and was trying to cry/talk her way out of it before the police would look up her open warrants. If she stayed silent, then there'd be no doubt that they'd have looked her up. But, probably, by trying to talk her way out of it, she thought there'd be a chance that they wouldn't bother to look her up.
    1
  15354. Yes, it's amazing to me that people in these comments are praising the cops for getting lucky. That driver had just attempted to murder a woman on the roadway, and was attempting to pull the gun out while behind the car door to murder the cops also. Had the criminal not accidentally dropped the gun, those cops would have been eating bullets. There's no way in the world I'd have dealt with those guys without my gun drawn on them.
    1
  15355. "Who is crazy here?" Elon Musk.
    1
  15356. For me, it's the fact that you don't understand why a flag would wave, that proves you never graduated high school.
    1
  15357. "Didn't mean it"? The video of the incident doesn't agree with you, nor the witnesses, nor the police. Why do you think otherwise? Because she whined and cried while attempting to avoid her millionth arrest?
    1
  15358. Not really. She ran for state supreme court, and lost because it came out that she was protecting her criminal son (drug dealer).
    1
  15359. A) Lots of material was blasted away by the rockets. It's very evident in the photos and videos. Sorry that your favorite hoax videos pretend otherwise, but, anybody who actually looks at the archives would never say anything like you're saying. B) Broken laws of physics? Alright, that's testable. Go ahead. Write up the physics you're talking about and submit your calculations to any of the worldwide recognized physics journals. What are you waiting for? Why is it that you nuts keep making silly claims like this, yet, not a single paper ever written in the 50+ years has ever made it past the first round of actual scientific scrutiny? Not one. Not ever. It's gotten to the point that the hoax nuts had to start their own science journals (recognized by not a single university anywhere on Earth), because nobody has ever gotten a single paper to pass scientific muster in any recognized journal anywhere. Why don't you go try to be the first? You didn't think YouTube comments were an actual science journal, did you?
    1
  15360. Because the store employee Anna identified her to the cop, and said she went through without paying.
    1
  15361. Pffttt. Yes, Anna said she went through without paying. And, the lawsuit already happened, and was thrown out of court last December, and she has been barred from ever filing such a ridiculous lawsuit again.
    1
  15362.  @jessegonzales3313  What don't you understand here? No case was ever filed against the city/police, because they did nothing wrong. And, the case is already over against Publix.
    1
  15363. Because it's not about having better equipment. It's about funding.
    1
  15364. Well, everyone deserves a break now and then. But, what did she do with this "break" she was given? She immediately kept robbing Walgreens after this incident. And, now she's dead from being a meth addict.
    1
  15365. What a super-sleuth! (Sigh) First of all, she never showed up at court (which seemed to be how she had been handling all of her various arrests, given the number of open warrants for failures to appear). Secondly, oh, a ticket for a crime now? I thought you got a ticket for an infraction, but got arrested for a crime. Do explain the legal system to me, please? You're clearly the expert here. Third, nobody saw the arrest video until she was dead for 1.5 years.
    1
  15366. But, she was never punished for this arrest. She didn't show up at her court hearings. And, with her long history of moving around, changing her name to avoid arrest, etc., it was hard to follow up. The cops had a difficult time even serving her for all of the legal judgments she had against her for theft and stuff. And, with her prior criminal record, prison time, stealing cars, public intoxication, and serious drug and alcohol abuse, yes, this little arrest probably meant nothing in the bigger scheme of things.
    1
  15367. Well, you hit the nail on the head in the 2nd half of what you wrote. Multiple people called, and yes, one of them took video and gave it to the police. And, I also think she was in a bit of a fix about whether to say anything or not. If she remained silent, there'd be a 100% chance that they'd look her up and find her prior million arrests and open warrants, etc. But, by trying to cry her way out of it, maybe she figured they might let her go before looking her up.
    1
  15368. Huh? There were no headlines while she was alive. She died more than 2 years ago. This story didn't go viral until the arrest video was released a few months ago.
    1
  15369.  @bvskyfacer4377  YOU SAID: "This means that there is a man-made perfectly smooth flat mirror on the surface. If there was no mirror, and the photons just came back from the Lunar landscape, the photons would come back at different times." == Not quite accurate. The reflectors are arrays of dozens of small mirrors arranged in "corner cube" geometry (look it up, if you're not familiar with it). This is why they always reflect light back in the exact direction that the light came in from. This is why you can get a reflection in Japan simultaneously to getting a reflection in Hawaii. A flat mirror cannot do that. A flat mirror doesn't bounce photons back in the same direction they were shot from, except only from exactly a 90 degree angle with its surface. Anything other than a precise 90 degree angle would simply be a "miss" altogether. So, no, not a "flat" mirror. Definitely "corner cube" mirrors. == As for photons coming back at different times... well... not exactly. In that event, with the different times, it's really more along the lines of false positives. What you say might be true of the older lasers that have such a wide beam, and any little drop of water on the laser can disrupt a photon by miles (by the time it gets to the moon), and happens to hit a rock many miles away from the reflector, and bounces back, yeah, the signal will return a false positive that is at a different time than the photons reflected back by the Apollo mirror arrays. Or, sometimes, you can just receive a random photon that happens to be the right wavelength (or close to it), and it gives a false positive. But, the dozens of modern facilities have lasers that are quite a bit more intense and accurate than the old ones from the 1960s and 1970s, with a narrower beam, and you're far less worried about the occasional false positives. They've got the accuracy within inches now, so they're getting a very high bounce-back ratio from those reflectors, and it's nearly impossible to have false positives... or, at least it's nearly impossible to have false positives that could EVER be confused with the real bounce-back. That would be like confusing the light from a stick match with the light from the sun. But, yes, I'll grant you that the scatter effect is definitely the reason that they used to have a difficult time pinpointing the distance to the moon with the laser ranging facilities used before Apollo. There was simply too much scatter, not enough bounce-back, and too many false positives coming in at various times. Yeah, you could do it, and get a distance to the moon from those lasers prior to Apollo (and yes, they did it). But, once they had Apollo's reflectors up there, they reduced the accuracy from a matter of miles, to a matter of feet. And, nowadays, with the modern laser ranging equipment and the Apollo reflectors, they've got the accuracy within a few inches.
    1
  15370. How can the police even profile her? The store employee identified who she though went through without paying. The police didn't do any profiling whatsoever, and just pursued the person the store employee identified. Now, if the woman had complained that the store had done the profiling, um, ok, at least then there's a conversation to be had. There's no evidence of it, but, at least it would make logical sense. But, that's not what happened. The woman accused the police of profiling her, which makes absolutely no sense at all, because the police didn't pick the person to investigate, the store employee did.
    1
  15371. That's an interesting analogy. But, the difference is that steroid use in body building isn't really banned. Yeah, it's "wink wink" not allowed. But, it's not tested either. In cycling, it's kind of a different dynamic. It's banned and tested, but the racers are trained on how to dope up without failing a test (which is why they keep blood/urine samples for 8 years, for when new tests are developed). All of the big name cyclists dope up, and they're targeting Lance because he's the biggest name.
    1
  15372. There was no such camera on Apollo 11. If you saw such footage somewhere, and they claimed it was from Apollo 11, then they were wrong. The later missions had cameras for that. But, the Apollo 11 surface TV camera was disconnected (via guillotine) during the liftoff, and there is no liftoff video.
    1
  15373. Well, this car market is completely off the charts, new cars, used cars, doesn't matter, extremely high prices. At least there will be one car for sale for cheap.... Anyone want to buy a Lexus?
    1
  15374. That makes no sense whatsoever. First of all, why would you believe the words from the woman who was trying to avoid getting arrested for the millionth time? Secondly, multiple people called the police for this incident. Why? Because it was in public view. Third, you seem to know that one of the "audience" made a recording of the incident and showed it to the police. The police report says that the video showed a very loud and public act in view of multiple people including children. So, if it was so private, how'd someone get it on video? Personally, I trust innocent bystanders and the police more than I trust the words from a convicted felon with a legal/arrest record a mile long. Why do you feel the opposite?
    1
  15375. Yeah, I'm sure all of those women were just concerned about a hug. Right. They're the problem, not you. I'm sure your daughter wasn't as embarrassed as can be when you told that woman at the dinner table about how to eat a sausage also. I'm sure you were literally talking about a sausage. Not creepy at all.
    1
  15376. Yeah, but, in this case, it wouldn't have mattered much. One of the "audience" recorded the incident with her cell phone, and showed the video to the police. She was getting arrested either way, whether she said a single word, or not.
    1
  15377. Huh? Why? Well, she didn't steal. She had her receipt after all. And, she sued the store and lost in dramatic fashion. She will be getting $0.00 in her lawsuit.
    1
  15378. Pffttt. What rights?
    1
  15379. Dewdrop, the video was never on YouTube until she was already dead 1.5 years.
    1
  15380. But, the news outlets never even covered the story while she was alive. How could they be responsible for her death?
    1
  15381. It's just as difficult to capture photos of the stars on the moon as it is on Earth. It requires very long exposure times, much longer than would be suitable for photos in the daylight on the moon, unless you have specialized equipment for it. And, yes, they did that on Apollo 16, and took 125 photos of the stars from the lunar surface using the Carruthers UV telescopic camera. But, yeah, most photos can't and won't show stars, nor should they.
    1
  15382. Nobody could possibly be this stupid. Did you watch the video before making your ridiculous comment?
    1
  15383. Doing what? Risking their lives by approaching someone without guns drawn who just committed attempted murder?
    1
  15384. Well, just know that there are people out there (such as me) who find the protesters to be ridiculous AND that the violent man is also ridiculous. It's not always one or the other.
    1
  15385. Well, the shoplifting was the initial reason. But, as it turns out, she didn't steal. But, she did compound the issue with refusing to ID (legally required), obstruction, obfuscation, and eventually resisting arrest.
    1
  15386. If you can't spell "contempt" correctly, I am sorry, but, I don't think you're qualified to have an opinion on it.
    1
  15387. You obviously don't understand anything about YouTube. See, the purpose of the comments section on YouTube is so people can feel like they know things that they couldn't possibly know. The exact cause of what happened wasn't disclosed yet. So, this gives the YouTube commenters the chance to jump to conclusions, and make themselves feel important by figuring out what happened, based on incomplete information.
    1
  15388. Well, your first sentence is correct enough. But, no big media outfits covered any of this until after she was dead for 1.5 years. She suffered virtually no humiliation.
    1
  15389. A) If you actually believe her ridiculous claim that she wasn't given her meds, hey, I have a bridge for sale. B) As for no place to stay, who caused that? Her own family is so sick of her constant lies and thievery that they won't even let her in for more than a couple of days. But, hey, you go right ahead and take her in, ok? You go volunteer your house to take in repeat felons. Be my guest.
    1
  15390. Better start looking into the mirror before you accuse everyone else of doing stuff wrong. The arrest was in July of 2021. Her suicide was in March of 2022. The arrest video was not made public until November of 2023. And, it was most likely a result of a legal FOIA request. Do you want to modify your list a little bit about who mishandled this?
    1
  15391. He said, "I wasn't going to rob you."
    1
  15392. Mile long legal history, did a felony prison term for stealing cars, multiple judgements against her for various thefts, arrests for drugs and alcohol galore, numerous failures to appear in court, and open warrants for arrest. Yes, so nice.
    1
  15393. So, in your mind, when would they ever be allowed to end Apollo without it being fake? As far as you're concerned, congress is never allowed to stop a program, otherwise, the program is fake. Right?
    1
  15394. Something tells me that you have so many toxins in your body that no virus could ever survive. Too bad about what it's done to your brain, though....
    1
  15395. "We should make more of an effort to photograph it for real and prove it actually happened." Won't matter. Multiple countries have photographed the landing sites, some of which have enough resolution to see foot paths, rover tracks, shadows of flags (still standing), shadows of flame deflectors, etc. The dewdrops who deny Apollo just label all of them as fake, and just keep adding to the list of countries participating in "the deception."
    1
  15396. "It really does seem a bit far fetched when you look back at the technology they had" No. What would be far fetched is the notion that 450,000 people worked on that technology, yet, none of them ever realized that their technology wouldn't do what they built it for. Instead, some super secret few people somehow knew it wouldn't work, and hijacked the missions without the 450,000 people ever realizing it.
    1
  15397. "The probability and likelihood of something going wrong would be magnitudes higher than it is now" Wait. Hold on now. You're asserting that the Apollo stuff had a higher chance of failure than something like SpaceX's Starship? You cannot possibly know anything about this topic.
    1
  15398. "does Buzz Aldrin look like a trustworthy person to you" Oh? The West Point guy with a doctorate degree from MIT? The guy with 66 combat missions including shooting down enemy fighters? The guy named by NASA to be on the very first moon landing?
    1
  15399. "Neil Armstrong wouldn't swear on a holy book" Huh? He wasn't a Christian. Why would he swear on a bible? And, this is especially true of Sibrel's bible. Would YOU give the charlatan Sibrel the satisfaction of entertaining his silly bible charade?
    1
  15400. No. What you're seeing here is a media trick to get two rounds of viral hits out of one story (and not even an accurate one). She died two years ago. But, in order to get two viral rounds, when the arrest video was released on November 24, 2023, they first published it without mentioning that she was already dead. Then, a few weeks later, they published the "update" that she had killed herself. In reality, her suicide was unrelated to this arrest video. That's why the story is, "Was she shamed to death? That's the question." But, they never actually answer.
    1
  15401. But, hey, I'm all ears. How could it have been done better?
    1
  15402. Do you have any idea about how much it would cost to build a base on the moon? I mean, it's fine that you ask the question. But, before I can answer, first I want you to tell me if you have any concept of the costs involved?
    1
  15403. Because this is a highly dramatized and edited documentary, not the actual video/audio played out in real time. And, the makers of the documentary decided to use various special effects sounds to augment the viewing experience. I'm not a big fan of that stuff either, by the way. It confuses people who are looking for accuracy. But, for those who want to watch a 50 minute long documentary instead of watching & listening to a raw 2 weeks of video/audio, ok, fine, I can't argue. The landing sequence alone was about 14 minutes in real time, which would occupy more than 1/4th of this entire video. So, I don't blame them for editing that down. It's got an 1,800 like to 82 dislike ratio, so, I guess I can't complain that the editors are doing things that most people don't like. But, for whatever it might be worth to you, yeah, I prefer the raw video/audio, instead of the edited stuff.
    1
  15404.  @mytwothoughts2005  Well, I've asked that same question a million times. And, I already answered you. For me personally, I don't need it dramatized. But, apparently, given the like to dislike ratio, many people like the dramatization. If you're arguing that the dramatization is not necessary, you're preaching to the choir. But, then, you and I are in the minority. Videos like this tend to get a lot more hits than the bland/dry real videos without the added sound effects. So, you like Apollo 17? You want accuracy instead of drama. Alright. There's a channel on YouTube called "Apollo Seventeen." (You need to spell out the number, not "Apollo 17," but "Apollo Seventeen.") You can go to that channel, and you will find almost all of the original TV video footage, and 16mm film video footage, from the entire mission, and almost all of the original audio. Of course, those videos don't get the same amount of hits as a nice little 50 minute documentary. It seems more people want the dramatized version, than to spend a long time watching & listening to the original versions. But, at least in today's era, you don't have to pay for it. I got my copies of the original videos by paying for them, back in the days of sending away for them from NASA, and paying copying fees. This was before the internet became a big thing, and the internet was just a rinky dinky little network of universities exchanging a little bit of data here and there. So, yeah, I paid for my copies of all of the Apollo missions. I think it cost me around $6,000 in copying & mailing fees, if I recall (which, frankly, I'm not all that sure about the total... memory fades over the years). And, that was in dollars from decades ago, which would be triple that money now. Back then, you could purchase a small car for the amount of money I spent on the copying fees for Apollo materials. Now, you can just go watch it all on the internet for free. Take advantage.
    1
  15405. Yeah, probably. Three 40s in the chest... stopped talking in 15 seconds... yeah... not coming out of that one.
    1
  15406. Next up: government issues 300,000 degrees for students who never attended university.
    1
  15407.  @franknorthcuttmusic  Selene didn't have the resolution required to see any Apollo artifacts on the moon. China has only released one or two photos of Apollo 11, but have claimed that they have verified other Apollo landing sites.
    1
  15408. So, that's how you say the evidence doesn't exist? Simply deny it when someone presents you with the evidence you pretended to ask for? See, dewdrop, your position is what's called "unfalsifiable" (that's not a good thing). If all you're going to do is label all evidence as "fake," then this is the very definition of being delusional. And, look at the byproduct. You have now involved China and India into your little fantasy, and Arizona State University with their LRO camera, pretending that they have "joined the deception" 50+ years afterward. How many more countries need to send probes to photograph the sites, in your mind? If two more countries launch probes and photograph the landing sites, they're just joining the deception also, right? See dewdrop? It's impossible to present you with the evidence you're pretending to ask for, if all you're going to do is reject it in advance.
    1
  15409. Nope. One of the "audience" recorded the incident and showed it to the police. And, even if hypothetically that wasn't enough, they'd have arrested her anyway for all of her open warrants.
    1
  15410. Yet, so many countries confirmed Apollo in so many ways. Did you think the Soviets were just going to take the USA's word for it?
    1
  15411. The officers PREVENTED the release of the arrest video for 2.5 years. She was long dead before anybody saw it. And, when they finally released it, it was due to a FOIA request (no choice).
    1
  15412. I don't think you fully caught what happened. The thug shot TWO cops, not just one.
    1
  15413. Dewdrop, if you put on a show in public in front of children, you're getting arrested in EVERY state.
    1
  15414. The armed criminal had a gun pointed directly at the officer's head. What's wrong with you? Sorry, but we don't train cops to wait until they're shot by a criminal before shooting the criminal. We train them to come home alive.
    1
  15415. Good gods. The cop had a gun pointed at his own head. And, you're rambling about ratios of innocent people getting shot, etc. Go to one of those videos if you want to make that case. This one is crystal clear. Gun pointed at officer's head. Officer needs to shoot to save his own life. End of story. No amount of different training was going to change what happened here (without undue risk to the officer). And, sorry, but, even on your self-induced tangent about innocent people, the ratio is not as horrendous as you're making it out to be. I mean, yes, one innocent life is too much. But, overall, cops get a bad rap because of people like you, complaining about these ratios that are nonsense.
    1
  15416. "Lose the technology" is not the same as "information is lost forever." That's ridiculous. The Apollo technology is "lost" in the exact same spirit that Concorde technology is lost. And, sorry, but contrary to the claims of the crackpot videos you're watching, no Apollo information is lost.
    1
  15417. Huh? Does every video about Apollo need to provide "proof" to you? Nobody is allowed to just make a video for the sake of covering an Apollo topic unless it sits there and wastes time by offering mountains of "proof" to you?
    1
  15418. Another proud graduate of YouTube University School of Law. Dewdrop, stop pretending you understand things you don't.
    1
  15419. Dewdrop, as has been explained to you, Aldrin was correcting Conan, who claimed his family watched the landings live. That couldn't have happened, because the only camera running during the landing sequence was the 16mm film DAC, which needed to wait until they got home for the film to be developed before anybody could watch. The networks, instead, showed animations of the landings until a couple of weeks later when the film was released. The live TV stream on the moon didn't happen until a few hours after the landing. Now that the only thing you presented was proven to be hogwash, what do you do? It rolls right off of you, as if you didn't make any mistake. And, you said you still believe what you believe anyway? Did it ever occur to you that EVERY SINGLE THING you think about Apollo will fall apart as instantaneously as this ridiculous "confession" that you thought Aldrin was offering? No? That can't be? You found "other things"? Yet, hmm, 50 years go by, and nobody can find any credible evidence that supports your viewpoint? It all falls apart just as easily as this "Aldrin confessed to Conan" claim, but, YOU know better?
    1
  15420. Yeah, it's like Gilbert Gottfried or Fran Drescher. Both made boatloads of money by having annoying acting voices (their actual voices were normal) that set them apart from the other million actors and actresses just hoping to get a gig in Hollywood. Doug was just another car reviewer who didn't know a heck of a lot about cars (despite that he worked in the industry, kind of ironic), and made millions by making quirky sounding reviews with an annoying voice. It's sort of his way of setting himself apart in a sea of countless auto reviewers. He doesn't speak that way in normal interviews.
    1
  15421. Well, he won't do it again. Not sure about her, though.
    1
  15422. It's called the Freedom of Information Act. But, you're wrong either way. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. Nobody saw it while she was alive, so, it had nothing to do with her death.
    1
  15423. Really? A citation for a crime now? I always thought that you got a citation for an infraction, and got arrested for a crime. But, you're clearly the legal expert here, so, please enlighten me about how the law works?
    1
  15424. Multiple people called, not just one family. That's what happens when people witness a crime, they're supposed to call the police.
    1
  15425. It's tough to see. But, yeah, to answer your question, if you pause at 0:08, and go frame by frame, you see the guy point the gun straight at the officer's head as the door is opening. Also, you see the gun on the ground at about 5:02 next to a 2x4 piece of wood.
    1
  15426. Huh? And, you're posting this into this video's comments, why?
    1
  15427. A) They managed to keep the video from being made public for 2.5 years, which was 1.5 years after her death. B) When they did make it public, it was most likely the result of a legal FOIA request, which they cannot deny once the case is closed long enough. So, what do you want to sue them for?
    1
  15428. And, you're PROUD to behave this way?
    1
  15429. Man, c'mon, they were TEENS!!! Yeah, I'm not losing sleep over these teen druggie criminal thieves. But, sheeeesssshhhh. 17 years old?? Are you REALLY that heartless? The crime of theft means that teens must be murdered?
    1
  15430. Less video games, please. They have ruined your perception of reality.
    1
  15431. Less video games, please. They have ruined your perception of reality.
    1
  15432. Wow, and you're PROUD that this single sentence is the limit of your capabilities to understand things?
    1
  15433. Are you wrong about "everything you need to know" is one single fact? Um, yeah, you're wrong.
    1
  15434. The witnesses disagreed with you, as did the video one of the "audience" took.
    1
  15435. Sympathy for the teens? Or, sympathy for the gunman? Personally, I don't have sympathy for any of them. Guilty teens got shot by guilty adult murderer.
    1
  15436. They are on a slope, once again (your same error as in other threads you posted). The camera is on that same slope, so you don't realize it's slanted also.
    1
  15437. Huh? So, in your mind, a documentary cannot come to a conclusion, else it's not a good documentary? So, if someone makes a documentary about Darrell Brooks (the guy who rammed his truck through a parade in Wisconsin, killing or injuring about 70 people), and the documentary comes to the conclusion that he's guilty, this means that it's not a good documentary, because it should remain completely neutral and never come to a conclusion? Let me guess, though... you don't think Bart Sibrel's "documentaries" declaring the moon landings to be fake are a problem. I'd bet dollars to donuts that I won't go to any of his documentaries and find any posts from you complaining that his documentaries aren't neutral. I'll bet you only complain about the non-neutrality of documentaries when the conclusion goes against your own belief.
    1
  15438. "there is an amount of evidence that says we did" Yes, mountains of it. "but there is also quite an amount of compelling and strong circumstantial. Evidence says we didn’t" None of which holds any water under even the slightest bit of knowledge and scrutiny. None of which has EVER been published in ANY university-recognized science journal in ANY country on Earth. Instead, it's a bunch of stuff promoted in conspiracy videos that skip the scientific method altogether, and are made by taxi cab drivers, warehouse workers, yoga instructors, etc. You won't find any aerospace engineers who find any of this "evidence saying we didn't" compelling in any way. To the contrary, almost any aerospace engineer can instantly spot what's wrong with the "evidence" offered by cab drivers and warehouse workers, and spell out very clearly why it's wrong. "my point was that much of the evidence they presented to supposedly prove we landed was biased or incomplete" It's an hour long video that tried to tackle as many things as they could. Good grief, cut a little slack if they didn't go into the level of detail that you wanted. "for example showing how the camera could be quite easily worked without looking it would’ve been more compelling if the guy he dressed up in a full space suit and demonstrated the same technique" But, dewdrop, forget this video for a minute. In order to believe what you believe, you'd have to assume that none of the experts at NASA and Hasselblad ever did that test. In fact, all of the astronauts practiced with full gear numerous times, including taking the photos. You can easily find videos of exactly that. Plus, if you knew anything about their training at all, you'd already know this. But, to believe what you do, you'd have to assume that they got into the spacecraft without ever testing stuff with their gear on. What exactly do you think they were doing in the years of training they had? "they had an agenda at the start of the documentary" As I said in my first reply, I'd bet dollars to donuts that I would never find you making that comment on any of the "documentaries" that come to a conclusion that supports YOUR notions. You'll complain if a documentary takes a side you don't like. But, you will never complain if a documentary takes YOUR side. "and insure" Oh, shocker, you read and write like a 2nd grader. Who would have ever guessed?
    1
  15439. "thank you for pointing out my grammatical error" I pointed out one, but, you made a ton of them. "I actually have a degree in the biological sciences, so I’m quite able to write, speak and express things when I wish to do so!" Well, then you didn't wish to do so here, because your posted messages are a train wreck. "What are your academic qualifications?" I'm a high school dropout and an unemployed worker specializing in temp work such as office garbage pickup. Before then, I used to dip Dove ice cream bars into chocolate, until my job was taken away by automation. If you don't want to be called a dewdrop, stop acting like one.
    1
  15440. "I’m really questioning the amazing quality of the photographs in such a hostile and difficult environment" Then you haven't actually looked at the photographs. Like, did you look at the Apollo 16 photos, where hundreds of photos in a row were ruined by a huge smudge of junk that somehow got stuck inside the camera? How about the hundreds of various photos throughout the missions where you cannot even tell what's in frame, because they are so massively out of focus, or distorted, or double-exposed, or over-exposed, etc., that even the experts really aren't sure what's in those photos? No? How about the roughly 1,000 photos that are just plain bad, too dark, too bright, motion blurred, crooked, stuff blocking the view, etc.? No? Oh, but, yes, when they take 7,000 photos, some of them are bound to be pretty spectacular, right? You just saw those, and no others.
    1
  15441. Here's one: AS11-40-5966. Really spectacular. How'd they ever get that kind of quality and breathtaking beauty? Want to see a thousand more just like it? Just look in the archives for yourself.
    1
  15442. I'll take that as: "I know I'm wrong, but I refuse to admit it."
    1
  15443. And, you never bothered to check Google? And, you can't tell the difference between a low resolution TV picture and film?
    1
  15444. And, you never bothered to check Google? And, you can't tell the difference between a low resolution TV picture and film?
    1
  15445. Huh? She knew the law about not needing to provide a receipt. But, by law, she's required to provide ID (she refused), not obstruct/obfuscate (she did both), and not resist arrest (she also did that). As for getting paid, sorry, but she lost her lawsuit in dramatic fashion. It was thrown out of court (and rightfully so), and she is barred from ever filing it again.
    1
  15446. Naw, I'm sure they know that this Inside Edition story is completely misleading.
    1
  15447. She's been dead for almost two years. No, the release of this video a few weeks ago had nothing to do with her suicide.
    1
  15448. So, your shadow evidence is because the shadows change directions as the camera is facing different directions? As opposed to what? If you point a camera eastward on Earth, then northward, then southward, then westward, do you not believe that the shadows change directions every time you change the direction the camera is pointed? But, when they do that on the moon, you think that's evidence of fakery? What EXACTLY were the shadows supposed to do, when they changed the direction the camera was pointed?
    1
  15449.  @rosespeace7622  YOU SAID: "why did they never show the sun ?" == What makes you think they didn't? There are many photos of the sun. And, there are many videos also, especially on Apollo 17, which pointed the video camera straight into the sun many times. YOU SAID: "If you went to the moon wouldn’t you record the sun ?" == On the early missions, they took plenty of photos of the sun, but, they couldn't point the camera at the sun. The vidicon tubes would burn out if they faced the sun, which is exactly what happened on Apollo 12. But, on later missions, they hardened the cameras, and they took plenty of videos of the sun in the late missions. YOU SAID: "And if there was only two men on the moon , when they both worked together who panned and zoomed in and out on the cameras ?" == Ed Fendell.
    1
  15450. Dewdrop, the cop was there staking out a house on a completely unrelated crime, trying to track down a different guy wanted for a completely different shooting. How badly do you hate police when you deny them doing their jobs properly, and you blame the cops for some criminal attempting to do a carjacking? Good grief, man. Whatever it is that's bothering you in life that makes you fill with this level of obvious hatred, sheeeessshhhh, let it go.
    1
  15451. Original quote: "I don’t see how this is any different than pre meditated murder." New quote: "I should have included in my comment that this shooting was nothing short of completely justified." While you write well, sorry, your thoughts on this matter are far too disjointed from reality to treat with any seriousness. I read every word, and, frankly, it's just a train wreck of nonsense. You profess to want to find out how to make things better next time, but offer no suggestions whatsoever. At that point, it's just babble. The only true "solution" is not going to happen in either of our lifetimes. It requires superior education, holding people in society to higher standards, and overall better upbringings. Until then, the only available "solution" in the near term is to shoot first when some crazed lunatic is coming at you with a gun pointed at you.
    1
  15452. With her prior arrest record, I wouldn't be surprised if they had those specially made just for her.
    1
  15453. Personally, I expect reasonable people not to just be at the whim of behaving the way the media hypes up, and act like human beings instead.
    1
  15454. So, it's your opinion that criminals shouldn't be blamed for being criminals... no... instead, law enforcement, movies, and video games, are what made criminals commit crimes, huh? Good gods, what a moron.
    1
  15455. Well, that's not a completely accurate portrayal. The reason that the Apollo 11 landing was the softest was because Armstrong left the engine on much longer than he was supposed to. He didn't shut it off until after they landed. The "by the book" landing was to shut the engine off when the 5'8" probes touched the surface. The craft was to drop the last 5 feet or so. But, since the landing was so soft, the landing leg struts didn't crush very much. There was a honeycomb mesh inside the landing struts that crushes as the craft lands, acting as one-time-use shock absorbers. But, since the landing was so soft, there wasn't much crushing. There was a much larger/longer step to the ladder as a result of the lack of the designed amount of crushing. But, don't get me wrong here, Armstrong did great. I'd never take away from his skills in this matter. I'm just saying that it didn't quite work the way you're painting it out.
    1
  15456. Naw. This is just sensationalist journalism. This arrest video had nothing to do with her suicide.
    1
  15457. Blame the victim, not the criminal, huh?
    1
  15458. Not the brightest bulb, eh?
    1
  15459. But, she wasn't shown on YouTube until 1.5 years after she was dead. And, sorry, but the person who recorded her on that beach never released the video (as far as I'm aware). They showed it to the police, but, I don't think anybody else ever saw it.
    1
  15460. Well, you should have continued with your schooling after kindergarten. Clearly you stopped going after that.
    1
  15461. Derick, did you really want an answer? Or, are you a denier of the Apollo program, and are asking this question with no anticipation of the answer?
    1
  15462. You have your timeline wrong, and Inside Edition sure isn't going to tell it to you (destroys their false narrative). July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. She suffered zero embarrassment from the arrest video, because nobody saw it while she was alive.
    1
  15463. But, she wasn't put on blast until long after she was dead.
    1
  15464. So, you've come to YouTube comments to declare that people shouldn't believe what they see in movies. Then, you go on to declare that you believe what you see in YouTube conspiracy videos instead. Bravo!!
    1
  15465.  @01mustang05  No, a few among the thousands are oblivious to the laws, just like you are.
    1
  15466. Sal, you don't understand what is happening here. He repeatedly asked for a receipt because that's the smoothest and easiest way to deal with it. There's no harm in asking for it. But, yes, technically, she's not legally required to provide it. She is, however, legally required to provide identification when being investigated for a potential crime. Most states are "stop and identify" states, including Florida (where this occurred). Had she lived somewhere else where that's not the case, alright, she wouldn't have to provide ID until after being arrested. But, in Florida, she is required (but repeatedly refused, especially in the first half of the encounter, which is not included in this particular version of the video). As for accusers not trying to prove her guilt until she was already in cuffs, yes, that's exactly how the legal system works. Can you imagine if you needed to prove guilt before you could ever detain or arrest anybody? How could anybody ever be arrested, if there was a burden of proof before the arrest? It's as if you want a judge and jury trial before the cop could ever arrest anybody. Sorry, that's backward. There is absolutely no burden of proof at the side of the road. The cops are not judges and juries. Cops operate under "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause." There's no obligation for cops to be correct 100% of the time. Millions of arrests end with it being dismissed, no big deal. To put this in more simple terms, cops just decide whether it's likely that a crime occurred, and they make the arrest. The rest of the stuff, the proof, the due process of law, in the court system, with the prosecutors and defense attorneys. That's how it works. And, sorry, but she did break laws. As I said, she obstructed and obfuscated a police investigation, she refused to provide ID in an identify state, and she resisted arrest. You even said she's entitled to due process, but, you apparently have no understanding about what that means.
    1
  15467.  @salciprez9977  No. The store employee "Anna" told the cop that she thought the woman DIDN'T pay. How smart I am, or how smart I'm not, has nothing to do with anything. You just have your facts completely wrong.
    1
  15468. Once again, all you are doing is demonstrating that you have no idea what you're talking about. The store employee saying that she thought the woman didn't pay is reasonable suspicion. And, the woman herself provided plenty of probable cause when she refused to ID (illegal, and arrest worthy all on its own). But, clearly, you think you know the law better than her own attorneys. So, go call them up, and tell them that they should have sued the police. None of her three lawyers thought the cop did anything wrong. But, you go right ahead and tell them that you know the law better than they do, and tell them to file a lawsuit against the cops. Beyond that, sorry, but I just cannot possibly help someone who has your level of extreme arrogance.
    1
  15469.  @salciprez9977  "Police cannot make an arrest on reasonable suspicion alone." - I didn't say that he did. He needs "probable cause" to arrest. And, he had that the moment the woman refused to provide her ID. He must have asked her a million times (mainly in the full version of this video... I think he only asked once in this edited version) for her ID. She repeatedly refused. That is arrest worthy all by itself. "Why did they feel a need to check her receipt?" - Because that's the quickest and easiest way to verify if she stole or not. She's not required by law to give her receipt. But, she is required to provide her ID. And, also presenting the receipt would save a lot of hassle. It's not illegal to request the receipt. "How did the suspicion arise?" - Are you even reading what I'm writing? I explained this. The store employee Anna told the cop she thought the woman might not have paid. "If you're saying her denying wanting to show ID is probable cause, that is still after they stopped her for nothing other than suspicion." == Correct. Most states (including Florida) operate that way. If the cop articulates his reasonable suspicion, then you must provide ID, else you are obstructing and can be arrested for that alone. "The police essentially got lucky that she didn't know the law requiring her to show it." == Good grief. You sure must have a lot of hate boiling in your blood. Why would you think it would have gone down the exact same way if she had shown her ID? Sheeessssshhhh. Did it ever occur to you that the woman caused these problems herself, and, if she had followed the laws correctly, the cop never would have needed to go down the path that took place here? Do you really think the cop is the problem, and not the woman herself? (HINT: her own three attorneys do not agree with you.) "If she showed her ID, they wouldn't have anything to go off of, and she could've denied showing a receipt and went on with her business." == But, she didn't. And, well, it's doubtful that he'd just let her go. But, yes, he probably would have needed to get a lot more evidence before he could arrest her. Sadly for her, however, she provided plenty of probable cause by her own behavior, and by refusing to ID, and by obfuscating constantly. "that is most likely why her case was dismissed against the police" == She never filed a case against the police. Her own three attorneys didn't even see a case there. Good grief. Is it your actual intention to get every single "fact" wrong? "She has a better case if she brings a civil suit against the store itself" == Yes, her three attorneys agreed, there was no case against the police, hence why they never filed one. But, they did sue the store, asking for $50,000. That case was dismissed, and she received $0.00. She has been legally barred from ever filing another case against the store. And, the attorneys did not appeal (because they'd lose the appeal just as badly as they already lost the case). "This still proves my point that she was guilty until proven innocent" == So, we've come full circle, and you're demonstrating the exact same thing that you did in your first comment... you don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about.
    1
  15470. I'll add: not only do you clearly have no idea how any of this stuff works... as I've outlined... but, in addition, you clearly don't know what a "stop and identify" state is. Some of what you are saying (a small part) might be true if this incident happened in one of the states that isn't "stop and identify," but, Florida requires ID on suspicion alone. You're still wrong about everything else, but, you'd be partially correct if this happened in a state with different laws. Maybe then you'd be only 80% wrong As it is, since this happened in Florida, you are 100% wrong in every sentence you've written. Congratulations.
    1
  15471. A) Why do you believe she thought she was alone? Because she said so to the police, as she was trying to avoid her millionth arrest, and possibly being sent back to prison again? B) Why do you believe she was shamed over this? Because Inside Edition told you so?
    1
  15472. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. And, you clearly do not know the difference between a crime and infraction.
    1
  15473. It won't go to a jury. The case has already been thrown out of court, and she's barred from ever filing it again.
    1
  15474. Did you watch the documentary? Or, just flung this out there?
    1
  15475. You have never been to high school. What we have here is a failed attempt at being a human being, with a wasted life, trying to pretend the people who didn't waste theirs, have failed just as badly as you have.
    1
  15476. Freedom of Information Act. But, FYI, the arrest video wasn't released until 2.5 years later, long after she was dead.
    1
  15477. But, none of the "global humiliation" happened until long after she was already dead.
    1
  15478. It sounds "official" that way. It's part the script that these people use to pretend to know what they're talking about.
    1
  15479. It's Pink Floyd physics, right? They wrote a song that said, "dark side of the moon," and you took it literally, right? Sorry, but you have confused tidal locking with Earth vs. tidal locking with the sun. All you need to do to prove yourself wrong is look up, and you'll see the day/night cycles of the moon. Ya know? Full moon. New moon. Quarter moon. That stuff you learn in 2nd grade? Just watch: "NASA | Moon Phase and Libration"
    1
  15480. Everything man has done that epic has been repeated? Um, ok, you do know they sent 9 manned trips to the moon, and landed 6 of those times, right? Yes, that IS repeating it. That's more times than the Egyptians built the really large pyramids, you know. They built 3 of the really big ones, plus the bent pyramid. After those, they stopped. But, anyway, you claimed that there has been no repeat of the moon landing (singular). Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about, and you are unaware that it WAS repeated. Yes, 9 trips to the moon with 6 landings IS repeating it.
    1
  15481. No.
    1
  15482. Let's hope.
    1
  15483. Can you see through walls also?
    1
  15484. YOU SAID: "What about the moon missions to be all a hoax..?" == Wrong. YOU SAID: "How can such a small "house" keep up with the energy requierd for all the electrical systems" == By turning most of the electronics off when they weren't being used. YOU SAID: "and heaters" == There was no shortage of heat. YOU SAID: "coolers..." == Porous plate sublimators, extremely efficient, especially in a vacuum. YOU SAID: "I do not believe we had battery/ energy technology that could deliver such amounts of energy." == Yet, amazingly, none of the thousands of engineers/technicians who designed and built those systems ever realized they forgot to include enough energy, huh? Ever hear of fuel cells? Ever hear of zilver/zinc batteries? What are you doing ON YOUTUBE, if you have such plainly obvious "evidence" that Apollo was faked. Simply do the math, you idiot. Calculate the energy of the fuel cells, energy of the batteries, and the energy required to operate the systems. Demonstrate mathematically that you're correct, and publish it in science journals. Going on YouTube with vague claims of "I don't believe we had that" is what crackpots and idiots do. YOU SAID: "These astronauts were all Freemasons" == Ridiculous. YOU SAID: "or military men..." == Really? Jack Schmitt never served in the military. What are you talking about? YOU SAID: "people who are loyal to their brotherhood." == Conspiracy garbage. Stick with ACTUAL facts. Your assertion was about the energy requirements of the craft, remember? If you find yourself drifting to talk about "brotherhood" in defense of your mathematical "analysis" (sigh) of the energy systems on Apollo, sorry, but you're just an idiot. YOU SAID: "The ones who were not and probably would not play along are dead." == How'd they manage THAT? How'd they get so many thousands of people to play along? YOU SAID: "Just think about that..." == I propose a law to make it illegal to use the word "think" - you obviously have no capability to do so, and you clearly do not know what "thinking" even means.
    1
  15485.  @atlas8827  YOU SAID: "They had over 300lbs of silver oxide batteries." == Just for added clarity, the main power for the command module came from fuel cells. Batteries ran the suits, the landers, and the rovers. The batteries for the command module were only used as backup for the fuel cells, and for reentry.
    1
  15486.  @atlas8827  Yeah, I think we agree 100%. But, I can't tell what you're trying to say??
    1
  15487.  @atlas8827  Yeah, landers/rovers/suits all used batteries. Command module used fuel cells as primary, and batteries as backup and/or re-entry (no service module attached any longer, so they had to run on batteries at that point). I had said that I wanted to make an addition to clarify things further, but it appears I merely made things more confusing, I guess.
    1
  15488. So, you acknowledge that you got your temperature readings wrong, but, somehow, magically, you think your point remains the same? First of all, temperature doesn't work the same in a vacuum as it does in a physical medium like air or water. A vacuum is a wonderful insulator. Secondly, they were never on the moon for the extremes you're undoubtedly complaining about (even though you got your number wrong). All landings took place early in the lunar morning, before the surface would hit the high temperatures. No, your point doesn't remain the same. The only thing you've proven is that you don't understand anything about the topic.
    1
  15489. Another nut who doesn't know the difference between distance and resolution. Bravo. You must be quite proud.
    1
  15490. It's one step worse than that. The family sued the company that booked the resort for them, blaming them for not knowing that the 5-star resort served tainted alcohol.
    1
  15491. No, he's fine. Minor injuries only.
    1
  15492. The police didn't release the video for 2.5 years after the arrest. It wasn't released until she was already dead for 1.5 years.
    1
  15493. Huh? The Freedom of Information Act REQUIRES that they release the video if the investigation is closed for a certain period of time. 2.5 years had gone by, and she was already dead for 1.5 years. What choice did the police have at that point?
    1
  15494. Why those people not read case about, not killed, jail in now.
    1
  15495. Well, she did sue, and lost. But, how about just showing the receipt, and thanking the store and officer for diligently trying to prevent crime, even though you're not guilty? How's that approach instead? Why sue? Do you really think you should sue, simply because a store suspected a theft might have happened? I get stopped often enough, even though I have never stolen anything. I just politely thank them for trying to control theft, tell them that they made a mistake this time, but, next time they'll catch someone, so keep at it.
    1
  15496. Huh? The store employee was simply wrong. Why would you believe it was purposeful? They have around a thousand people per day going through there. Do you think they just decided to pick this one woman out of the blue?
    1
  15497. "unless the cops had a warrant" - Huh? How/why would they get a warrant regarding something that happened moments before? "gathered enough evidence to interrogate someone" - Yes, the store employee Anna said she thought the woman didn't pay. That's enough evidence to stop and detain and perform an investigation. "ask for documents" - There's no harm in asking for a receipt. She isn't required by law to provide it. But, yes, it does make things a lot easier if she does. But, yes, in a "stop and identify" state (which Florida is), she is legally required to provide identification. Refusal to do so is a subset of the obstruction laws, and is an arrestable offense all on its own. "She didn't have to show him a receipt, her phone, a newspaper or a book she was reading." - Well, she didn't get arrested for refusing to show a newspaper or book. She was primarily arrested for refusing to identify. But, she also was going to be facing the additional charges of other obstruction/obfuscation, resisting arrest, and, probably the original theft suspicion, had they not found out she didn't actually steal. "discharged and jailed" - Pffttt. For what? You clearly have no clue what you're talking about. Not even her own three attorneys agree with you. They never even filed a case against the police, because they couldn't identify anything he did wrong. The only suit they filed was against the store itself. It was thrown out of court, and rightfully so, but, at least they tried to sue the store. But, not even her own high profile attorneys could find anything worthy of suing the police for. "assaulting that woman for no reason" - She was resisting arrest. It was either the Taser, or he would need to tackle her to the ground. Those were the only two choices. He chose the less aggressive option. And, sorry, but that's not "assault." "it's very childish" - And, what do you call pretending to know things you don't actually know? That's not childish also?
    1
  15498. And, you believe she thought she was alone, why? Because she said so, as she was trying to cry her way out of her millionth arrest? I have this bridge for sale also. Interested?
    1
  15499. And, you believe a single word of that, why? Because she said so, while trying to avoid her millionth arrest? Dewdrop, multiple people called about this incident. One even recorded it, and showed the video to the police. Needless to say, it didn't match this version she's telling about a quiet act when nobody was around. It was a very loud and public act in view of multiple people including children. Yet, I agree, it was fairly minor in the bigger scheme of things, which makes it all the more curious about why she refused to show up in court. Even with the woman's felony history, time served in prison, and mile long arrest record, and open warrants, it probably would have either been thrown out, or negotiated down to a minor infraction. Why do you believe her anyway? I mean, her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club. Her neighbors said she also did "private" encounters in her apartment for cash with numerous men. She had serious drug and alcohol problems. Is it THAT difficult to swallow the idea that maybe she did what they accused her of? Personally, I'll go with innocent bystanders and the police before I'll trust a convicted felon who can't stop getting arrested for various crimes. Not you, though.
    1
  15500. "the astronauts literally said they couldn’t see them with the naked eye." Well, not from the lunar surface anyway, nor in sunlight. They saw them just fine while on the dark side in lunar orbit. "script writer" Dewdrop, why won't you actually even address anything? You claimed in the past they never took photos of the stars. You basically made the same claim here. I corrected you (back then) and I corrected you again (in this thread). I pointed out the 125 star photos from the Carruthers camera, and the hundreds (I don't know exactly how many) from lunar orbit. You won't touch it. You avoid it like the plague. You have never, and will never, admit you've been wrong about ANYTHING. I can put the hundreds of photos under your nose, and all you'd do is change topics.
    1
  15501.  @therealzilch  Mirrors make it easier to cover a lot of the raw size needed, but, let's face reality, you aren't going to get the resolution you need from mirrors as compared to lenses.
    1
  15502.  @therealzilch  Thanks for the info/correction. I'll study up.
    1
  15503. Still pretending you have a bachelor's in math, dewdrop?
    1
  15504. A vacuum doesn't have a temperature. Movies make you think that, but, reality isn't like that.
    1
  15505.  @noahgillespie5110  The atoms in space are very few and far between... so near a perfect vacuum that, for all practical purposes, everyone calls it a vacuum. And, what you're saying about hot atoms coming to a complete stop is ridiculous. They radiate heat, that's it. They don't spontaneously lose their heat just because they're in space. You don't have the foggiest understanding of this topic, and you shouldn't get your "education" from movies.
    1
  15506. Um, ok. Why is that relevant? Are you under the impression that the side of the road is a courtroom? Do you think a cop needs to prove guilt before an arrest? How would such a system even operate, if the procedure was to first prove guilt, THEN arrest someone? How could anybody ever even be arrested?
    1
  15507. Good fucking grief. You are calling thousands of people all liars and frauds, based on your own pure ignorance. But, nobody should call YOU any names? What an imbecile.
    1
  15508.  @vanguard9067  Huh? Pretty much?
    1
  15509. You do know she died, right?
    1
  15510. The criminal will sue the cop for the damage to his truck.
    1
  15511. Tons of arrests for the past decade. Stealing cars. Drug and alcohol charges. Repeated failures to appear. Other thefts. Civil judgments. Criminal convictions. Felony term served in a Florida prison. And, you think it was "game over" because of this little charge that would have been easily negotiated down to a minor infraction (had she bothered to show up in court)?
    1
  15512. Well, open carry isn't allowed in Florida. But, yeah, I don't really see any attempt to rob anybody... unless this video just edited that part out??
    1
  15513. Trying to figure it out by wielding a gun and wearing a balaclava ski mask in the middle of a Kentucky summer?
    1
  15514. "could of been" Of could? Of why of would you of think of of that of? Of you not of understand gun of and of ski mask of is carjacker of?
    1
  15515.  @armorpro573  Did you not see his message?
    1
  15516. Who? And, how do you know this?
    1
  15517. So, it's fake, but, you can't believe the US lied? Sure, that's not a contradiction at all.
    1
  15518. So, to explain, there's a difference between a public space like a sidewalk or something, vs. a building owned by the public. And, well, you might not think about at first. But, if you stop and think this through, you'll realize that most public buildings ARE very restricted, and they have the right to ask you to leave, and trespass you if you don't. Airports. The mayor's office. The private chambers of a judge at a courthouse. The ladies' room at a public park. Area 51, a top secret facility. I mean, even the school itself is off-limits during the day when kids are there, unless you get permission to be inside. So, yes, the board has the right to trespass the people at the meeting, if they refuse to leave. I hope the board gets sued, and all get kicked out of their positions. But, whether you like it or not, yes, the board can trespass people for not leaving when asked.
    1
  15519. Well, he actually shot two officers, not one. But, yeah, he was an idiot.
    1
  15520. Really? You don't think this charge would have easily been negotiated down to a minor infraction? Get real.
    1
  15521. Flagged as spam.
    1
  15522. Well, people can watch whatever they want. But, Mythbusters got some stuff wrong also.
    1
  15523. Yeah, but she was stuck between a rock and a hard place. I imagine she was probably thinking that if she stayed silent, they'd look up her criminal history and find open warrants... but if she talked, there'd be a 50/50 chance that she could cry her way out of it before they looked her up.
    1
  15524. No, proof is for a courtroom. At the side of the road, the cop just decides whether it's likely a crime happened or not. And, given that she refused to ID (illegal, and is arrestable with or without any other charges), obstructed and obfuscated, and later resisted arrest, I think there was plenty of cause. The original suspicion of theft wasn't even required in order to arrest her at that point, because she committed other arrestable crimes right there. By your "logic," no cop could ever arrest anybody until they were convicted. Sorry, doesn't work that way.
    1
  15525. Thanks for proving that you didn't read a single thing I wrote. Good grief.
    1
  15526. Well, then let me explain. Multiple people called about this incident. One of the "audience" took video and gave it to the police. The video doesn't match her story about a quiet little act while nobody was around. To the contrary, it appeared to be an intentional act, and it was loud, and in front of children. Furthermore, she was a convicted felon who spent time in a Florida prison about 6 years ago. She had extensive arrests for various crimes before and after. Stealing cars. Drugs and alcohol. Other thefts. Failing to appear. You name it. See, with that history, it's really tough to get a straight job. So, her landlord and neighbors said that she was a stripper at the local club, and did "private" cash encounters in her apartment. Now, if you want to believe the sob story about a harmless thing with nobody around, that's up to you. But, frankly, I'll stick with what innocent bystanders say, and the police say, before I'd believe a single word out of her.
    1
  15527. Multiple people called over this incident. One of them recorded it, and gave a copy of the video to the police. It doesn't match her sob story about nobody being around. To the contrary, it was a loud and public act in view of multiple people including children. Why would you believe her anyway? She was a convicted felon who spent time in a Florida prison, and had a million other arrests before and after. You find her more credible than the innocent bystanders who recorded the incident, and the police themselves?
    1
  15528. The bottom of the ocean is a joke.. Once.. Honestly if diving to the bottom of the ocean is tru.. we should be living on the bottom of the ocean by now.. 🤫🤔
    1
  15529. Oh, you're a real legal eagle alright. If you wanted to cram the most incorrect information into the smallest amount of words, well, I think you win the prize.
    1
  15530. Obituary Jamie Marie Scafe, 33, of Sparta, passed away on Sunday, January 22, 2023. She was born on June 14, 1989 to Scott Scafe and Faith Peterson in Sparta. She grew up in Sparta and graduated from Sparta High School.
    1
  15531. Pfttt. If this is the measure you feel you need to go to in order to hate police, sorry, you should go try to find some other videos that come closer to justifying your ridiculous opinions. "Extremely unprofessional"? Yeah, if he was extremely professional, he'd have had his gun drawn when approaching someone who just got done shooting at a woman, and then put about 8 holes in him as the criminal attempted to reach for his gun again. But, no. This delinquent lived to see another day, thanks to the cop NOT doing the right thing by having his gun drawn on someone who just got done attempting to kill someone.
    1
  15532. Apollo Lunar Surface Journal has all of the Apollo photos.
    1
  15533. How do you think it works? The sun comes up and instantly it's 100+(C)? They always landed early in the lunar morning, long before those high temperatures.
    1
  15534. Go ahead, take video of stars in the black sky on Earth. See how that works out for you.
    1
  15535. Sure, if you trust the words from a woman with a mile long history of arrests, prison term for stealing cars, drug and alcohol problems, many failures to appear in court, and multiple judgements against her for various thefts.
    1
  15536. No, the purpose is to generate ad revenue. Nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive, so, I fail to see how she could be humiliated by something nobody saw.
    1
  15537. Just checking here... you do know that the arrest video never went public until she was already dead for 1.5 years... right?
    1
  15538. Yes, Itchy Boy, EVERY single person who disbelieves the moon landings is ignorant. Every single one.
    1
  15539. Itchy Boy: YOU SAID: "What is your definition of 'ignorant'?" == I just looked up "ignorant" online, and there was your picture.
    1
  15540. "The famous “Earthrise“ picture has been proven to be a composite fake." Then why can't you answer about which one? As I told you (and you ignored), there are LOTS of "Earthrise" photos. I even said they took 41 Earthrise photos on Apollo 11 alone. Why can't you provide a catalog number? Yes, lots of images are composites. But, NASA labels which ones are composites and which ones aren't.
    1
  15541. "I love my country" So said Timothy McVeigh also.
    1
  15542. "I wish it was true" No, you're super happy to pretend to know things that make you "an insider" who knows "secret" stuff.
    1
  15543. "but the evidence that we didn’t go GREATLY outweighs any evidence that we did." But, you haven't offered any of it. At least none that doesn't fall apart instantly.
    1
  15544. "There is a video of a NASA person describing their Orion project, and he states that we have never gone beyond near earth orbit because of the Van Allan radiation belts." No, dewdrop. Kelly Smith never said any such thing. He was making a video for CHILDREN, and you are intentionally misunderstanding his words.
    1
  15545. "They avoided the subject of stars because they knew they couldn’t fake it" Then you are only proving that you don't read answers to your own statements and questions. I already told you how to see tons of Apollo star photos.
    1
  15546. "astronomers know the constellations all too well." Hilarious!! Constellations are hundreds of trillions of miles away, even quadrillions of miles away. You're worried that they'll look different or something from a mere 240,000 miles away from Earth?
    1
  15547. "Why didn’t they take a bunch of pictures during the journey (including stars they could photograph with the proper aperture setting?" They did. I explained this already. Why are you not reading the answers?
    1
  15548. "I could debate this with you for hours." Yet, you don't read the answers. How is that a "debate" when you ignore the replies?
    1
  15549. "We don’t even have a real picture of our planet!" You can repeat the same lie over and over, all you want. It doesn't make it true.
    1
  15550. "I can’t even find a real picture of an orbiting satellite." You don't see ISS pictures anywhere?
    1
  15551. "Everybody is entitled to an opinion." I don't agree. When you slander a bunch of people because of your "opinion," you've lost your entitlement to it.
    1
  15552. "I researched the subject for a couple of years before reaching my conclusion." Watching conspiracy videos isn't "research," dewdrop.
    1
  15553. "The cover up is larger than the story itself. I present evidence to people like you all of the time to know avail. There is just a little switch inside you that can’t be turned on. We can agree to disagree." Dewdrop, YOU are the one who refuses to read replies to your own questions/comments. Don't pretend that OTHERS are too difficult to reach.
    1
  15554. "Peace" Yeah, really peaceful. You accuse thousands of people of being criminals, on the basis of nothing more than watching conspiracy videos that lie to you, and you declare "peace"?
    1
  15555. THAT is your reply? "Let me guess…you have not taken the time to watch or listen to the information that I have provided"??? THAT's what you just wrote? Dewdrop, I responded to virtually every point you thought you were making. I demonstrated clearly that you have absolutely no understanding of the topic. I asked numerous return questions (each of which you have ignored). Yet, you're accusing ME of not paying attention to YOU? See what I mean? People like you are so far gone that you cannot even see your own hypocrisy.
    1
  15556.  @marksprague1280  And China.
    1
  15557. So, you were given the answers to your questions, and all you did was run for the hills. Yeah, what a surprise.
    1
  15558. Well, that's one way to make it clear that you didn't watch the video you're commenting on.
    1
  15559. Thanks, but, that's called vigilante justice, and it's straight out of the dark ages. We have graduated on to this concept called a "society," in which we employ these people called "police" to deal with crime.
    1
  15560. Pffttt. Film sets? So, when Japan sent JAXA/Selene up to the moon in 2008, and it took hundreds of photos of the Apollo landing sites in a level of detail not available in 1969-1972 (except by being on the moon), and they matched it up perfectly with all of the Apollo photography, how'd that happen? How did the USA manage to make these "film sets" so accurate in 1969-1972, with details not available until 2008?
    1
  15561. What in the world are you talking about? What Japanese servants? And, how do you expect them to find those things when their camera didn't have the resolution for that? I haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about, and neither do you.
    1
  15562.  @samiblank6761  The resolution has never changed. I haven't got the slightest clue what in the world you're talking about, and neither do you.
    1
  15563. So, because you don't know how the camera worked, it's fake?
    1
  15564. AOK - thanks for deleting your thread and running for the hills, accusing me (again) of being dozens of people in the process. I've made a copy (as I always do) of all of the nonsense you spewed before you realized you were laughably wrong and didn't want to admit it. See you again in a couple of years when you decide to try your gibberish again.
    1
  15565. "no more than a few dozen had to be in on it" Ridiculous nonsense. There were 24 men who flew to the moon, so that's two dozen right there. And, sorry, but "compartmentalization" isn't accurate in the least amount. All of these systems were highly integrated. There was no concept of merely ordering a pile of bolts and a pile of nuts, and the makers of the bolts don't know what the makers of the nuts are doing. All of these systems were hand built, and every system had to work with other systems built by other companies. One of the most monumental tasks NASA mastered during Apollo was in getting all of the contractors to work together to produce a complete system. And, if you actually believe that hundreds of thousands of people built stuff that they figured would work to get to the moon, why not just go? What did these "dozens" of people know that the hundreds of thousands didn't? If Grumman thought the landers would land, why not just go? If North American Aviation thought the command modules would fly, why not just fly them? What did these "dozens" somehow know that would have prevented them from just taking the equipment that the contractors built, and use it to go to the moon?
    1
  15566. Well, that's one way to demonstrate that you didn't read the answers to your own statements/questions.
    1
  15567. You went wrong by not reading the answers to your own questions/statements.
    1
  15568. You don't know what you're talking about. And, YOU wrote the essay, dewdrop. I merely responded. But, next time, if you don't want answers, don't ask questions.
    1
  15569. And, how would you know, if you don't bother reading the answers to your own questions? Good grief. Stop pretending you're honest. You're not good at it. You came here to commit libel/slander. That's what you're doing. No more, no less.
    1
  15570. So, you refuse to read the answers to your own comments/questions, yet you think you have the high ground? Just how far gone are you?
    1
  15571. Hilarious!!! So, the "high ground" is to ignore and refuse to read the answers to your questions/statements? Bravo!! You're a true hero alright.
    1
  15572. Yet, you still cannot answer a single question I asked. But, you're declaring victory while running away.
    1
  15573. I'm not the one who can't answer questions, dewdrop. That's YOU.
    1
  15574. She had the receipt, but refused to show it. Wanna guess why? Can you say "trumped up lawsuit"?
    1
  15575. Blame the victim, not the criminal?
    1
  15576. I just love how you ask for "no arguments." As usual, you simply have no idea what you're talking about. You never have. You never will. You are one of the most willfully ignorant people on the planet. I mean, even just a simple fact-check of your assertion debunks it right away. That's one of the most famous pans from Apollo 17 (taken when next to Camelot Crater). Now, here's the problem: Camelot Crater is to the west of the LM. It was directly in front of the LM on the landing approach (which was always from the east). So, the photo you're referring to was taken from directly west of the LM. And, yet, you think that 25:21 depicts an image facing toward the east (back toward the LM)?? Um, no. The photo at 25:21 is being taken down-sun (toward the west). So, as usual, you are completely backward. The LM is BEHIND THE CAMERA, not in front of it, in that image you're talking about. The astronaut is literally facing the complete opposite direction as what you're claiming. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. You are as wrong as geometry even allows... 180 degrees in the opposite direction. That's how wrong you are.
    1
  15577. Good grief. It seems that YouTube messaging has problems (yet again). I posted a message that apparently isn't working. Bottom line: you are wrong about everything, as usual.
    1
  15578.  @arelortal6580  I'm not sure what is wrong with the invisible message I posted earlier, but I'll try to divide it up and repost: YOU SAID: "Have you managed to " convert " ONE lunar landing" == Yes, of course. More than one. But, most, no. That's because you idiots are not concerned with facts, and you've decided ahead of time to reject all input that goes against your delusions. There is no "converting" people who refuse to accept input. YOU SAID: "skeptic" == No, you're not skeptical. You don't know what that means. You are blindly rejecting things that go against your predetermined conclusions. That's not skepticism. That's insanity. YOU SAID: "in your relentless crusade of exposing all the idiots in this planet ?" == You're doing quite a good job of exposing yourself without my help. YOU SAID: "Nice try" == What "nice try"?!?!?! What's wrong with you? Camelot was to the west of the landing site. The camera is facing west at 25:21, not east. They were standing at Camelot when they took that photo. The LM is is completely in the opposite direction than the image at 25:21. You are literally BACKWARD. So, how is this just a "nice try"?? This is a slam dunk. When you don't even know what direction the camera is facing, yet you use this ignorance as ammunition to say that Apollo was faked, then you lose. This isn't a "nice try." No. You don't get to just brush away the fact that you are wrong by 180 degrees, and declare victory. Good gods, the utter arrogance."
    1
  15579.  @arelortal6580  Attempting to post the other part of the missing message from earlier: YOU SAID: "Apollo 17- On The Shoulders Of Giants (1973 ) The camera that followed the LM ascending at 23:09 was set by the astronauts after they landed and when they left the surface of the moon, the descending stage was left on the moon. Consequently, if the camera was pointing at the landing spot we would see 21:36 or 23:42 . So far so good." == Yes, there's a lot of stuff seen in the Hasselblad photo. There's the same stuff seen in the low-res TV signal (you can't make it out at that low resolution, but, yeah, it's the same basic stuff, we agree). YOU SAID: "The trouble starts when we compare both background with 18:40. The mountains are EXACTLY the same in all the scenes. The absences of LM or descent stage at 18:40 are impossible unless it's been staged and you know it makes sense. Don't cha ?" == Good grief. You people are so stupid about basic photography, and geometry. You don't even know where the astronauts were standing when they took each photo. You can't just look at the background and assume the LM is in front of them. Sometimes, surprise surprise, they took photos when the LM was to their back. Shocker, I know, but it's true. And, you're committing the same exact error AGAIN, by not being aware of where the photo was taken. At 18:40 (in that other video), the LM is BEHIND THEM!!!! The camera is facing AWAY from the LM. Good gods. Once again, you are literally 180 degrees wrong. This is almost like you're doing it intentionally. It's like you don't understand basic photography (or geometry). Sheeeeeesssshhhh, you're dumb. You are standing in a fairly featureless environment, like, whatever, a desert. Five miles away in the distance, there's a mountain. 100 feet in front of you, there's a cactus. You take the photo of the cactus with the mountain in the background. Now, walk toward the cactus, and walk past it by 20 feet, still facing the same mountain. Take another photo. Now, it's just a photo of the exact same mountain, but, wow, there's no cactus in the photo!!! The cactus must have been magically planted there, eh??? Or, is it just because the cactus is now behind you?? Good grief. This is exactly the problem you're experiencing with your ridiculous story here. You fail to realize that the LM is BEHIND THE CAMERA at 18:40 (from that other video). And, in the liftoff portion of the video, the LM is in front of the camera. Yes, same background mountains. But, one is taken in front of the LM facing those mountains, and the other is taken behind the LM facing those mountains. One has the LM in frame, one doesn't. Same background. Just like the cactus. Take a photo with the cactus in front of you, and it's in frame. Now, walk toward the mountains, past the cactus, and take the photo again, and there won't be the cactus in frame, but will have the same background. All of this is quite easily shown by looking at the maps of where all of that stuff is located, you know. You simply don't know where any of these things are. That's why you got confused about where Camelot was (your original posting), which direction the camera was facing, etc. And, that's why you're confused about the rest of this stuff.
    1
  15580.  @arelortal6580  OK, it seems that the missing message worked this time, when I divided it up. But, anyway, the point is: I looked up the exact photo you were complaining about, and found that they weren't in front of the LM when they took the photo at 18:40 (from that other video). They were INSIDE it. It's insignificant that I was wrong about that, because it's the same basic issue. My point is, depending on where they're standing when they take the photo, the LM may or may not be in frame, yet the background mountains will basically look the same. They can be standing behind the LM, in front of the LM, or inside the LM. And, yes, if they are facing west for all of the photos you're talking about, yes, the background will always be those mountains. They're so many miles off in the distance that there is virtually no change in appearance by just moving a hundred yards forward or backward, in front of the LM or behind it, or inside it. Yes, those mountains will look basically the same at that amount of distance. You, on the other hand, simply do not understand it. Go map out where each photo was taken, just like Eric Jones did, and you'll see how wrong you are.
    1
  15581. "With today's even more advanced technology" Um, ok, what does that have to do with anything? Are you under the impression that there wasn't enough technology in 1969-1972? How EXACTLY do you think newer technology is going to help?
    1
  15582. "You want us to believe that ? Really?" Who wants you to believe that? Nobody is ever claiming the nonsense you're spewing. Nobody expects you to believe the stuff you believe, because you're wrong from the start.
    1
  15583. This is ridiculous. I cannot answer your comment about going back. YouTube won't allow it. But, rest assured, you're wrong.
    1
  15584. So, you ignore all input, refuse to answer questions, but expect me to keep answering yours?
    1
  15585.  @thetraveler1182  Yeah, when you can't address the topics/questions, just drop yourself into the spiraling pit of paranoia, and start thinking people are paid to respond to you on YouTube. That's how you avoid the actual topics. Right. You're a genius alright.
    1
  15586. I don't think he's correct. The police report only mentions one video taken by the "audience," not multiple videos.
    1
  15587.  @LunaLapin-ho5tk  Shocker. Media got something wrong? Say it ain't so!! I've never seen that before. Have you read the police report?
    1
  15588.  @LunaLapin-ho5tk  Did you read the police report?
    1
  15589.  @LunaLapin-ho5tk  No, it's online. You must not have tried very hard.
    1
  15590. Bigfoot is equipping aircraft to release chemtrails instead of contrails also.
    1
  15591. Sure. But, in this case, it wouldn't have mattered. One of the "audience" got it on video, and showed the video to the police. She was getting arrested whether she said anything or not.
    1
  15592. And, you believe she was harassed, why? Because you watched Inside Edition? Sorry, but, trash news isn't reliable. And, you should look into the real facts of the case.
    1
  15593. FYI: this arrest = July 1, 2021. Suicide = March, 2022. Arrest video released = November 24, 2023. Nobody saw this video while she was alive.
    1
  15594. Well, according to her landlord, her "livelihood" was as a "dancer" (yeah, that kind) at the local club, and her neighbors said she also did "private extras" for parades of paying men in her apartment. Her livelihood wouldn't be threatened because of this. Her other "livelihood" included an endless arrest record and felony term in 2018 in a Florida prison... stealing cars, drugs and alcohol, various other thefts, judgements both civil and criminal, etc.
    1
  15595. I realize you have no intention of listening to input. But, if you deny Apollo 11 even happened, how do you explain the photography from Arizona State University's LRO camera, showing the lander on the moon from just about every sun angle (as well as the other 5 landers, but, I'm just talking about Apollo 11 right now)? How do you explain the laser reflector at the Apollo 11 landing site, which is used every single day by laser ranging facilities all around the world? How do you explain China's orbiter's photography of the lander in the exact same position as the LRO camera shows it? How do you explain India's orbiter's photography showing the exact same thing as China and LRO?
    1
  15596. Huh? She didn't steal. She had her receipt after all.
    1
  15597.  @critthought2866  Don't hold your breath for a landing on Artemis III. NASA is already backtracking and saying that it might be another orbital mission. They have no faith that either lander will be ready. SpaceX is a nightmare. And, they waited too long to contract Blue.
    1
  15598. Well, her story about thinking nobody was around doesn't make any sense in the first place, so, it's a moot point.
    1
  15599. Huh? The arrest video wasn't released until 2.5 years later. She was already dead for 1.5 years before anybody saw the video.
    1
  15600. Dewdrop, this incident didn't cause her suicide. Just because Inside Edition asks, "did this shame her into suicide?" doesn't mean the answer is "yes." She didn't commit suicide until around a year after this arrest. And, this arrest was no different than the other million arrests under her belt, the felony prison term she served, the multiple judgements against her for theft, the drug and alcohol charges, etc.
    1
  15601. 1 B) Multiple people called the police. One of the audience recorded the incident, and showed the video to the police. Yes, there was plenty of proof. And, needless to say, it doesn't match the version she's putting forth about being a discreet act with nobody around... as she's trying to say to avoid her millionth arrest.
    1
  15602. 2) Freedom of Information Act. But, at least they didn't release it until long after she was dead. Nobody saw the video while she was alive.
    1
  15603. 1 A) I think you have confused a crime with an infraction. You can get a warning for an infraction, or a citation, or asked to leave, whatever. But, for a crime, you get arrested.
    1
  15604. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video made public from legal FOIA request.
    1
  15605. Stop pretending you understand things you don't.
    1
  15606. You've read many articles? How about reading the police report itself? They not only describe the video taken of the incident, but, they name the exact witnesses that called.
    1
  15607. At 20 seconds into this very video, the police state that there were multiple calls, you know. As I said, you can verify this in the police report also, but, it seems that you haven't even watched this video.
    1
  15608. The "Smoking Gun" blog post didn't have the arrest video. As I said, that wasn't released until long after she was dead.
    1
  15609. It won't let me reply about your last message, it's getting blocked. So, just about the speeding comment, dewdrop, speeding is an INFRACTION, not a crime.
    1
  15610. Same goes for the other topic (it's blocking my replies). Depending on where, yes, infraction, not a crime.
    1
  15611. The incident in this video was a crime. Yet, you boldly not only don't know the difference between a crime and an infraction, but, you doubled down, demonstrating it twice.
    1
  15612. Beyond that, it's pretty clear that you're not the brightest bulb in the pack. How about paying attention to try to close that gap a bit?
    1
  15613. Seriously? You think this happens every time? You don't think that this would be major news if a store and officers stopped everyone like this?
    1
  15614. Just curious... do you actually believe yourself to be intelligent?
    1
  15615. @solara clarke Care to back up your libel with any math?
    1
  15616. Yet another person saying it was handled wrong, but refuses to say how to handle it right. Bravo.
    1
  15617. Multiple people called the police for this incident, stating that she was doing it intentionally. One of the audience captured it on video, and gave a copy to the police. Needless to say, it didn't match this version of "nobody was around." Quite to the contrary, she was a convicted felon who served time in prison, had a million other arrests, and according to her landlord, was a stripper at the local club. Yet, you'll trust her word rather than the words of innocent bystanders and the police? Yeah, you're a true genius.
    1
  15618. You don't know what you're talking about.
    1
  15619. Good gods. She abandoned her family including a 6 month old boy over a decade ago to live a life of crime and drugs. She spent a felony term in a Florida prison about 6 years ago. Stealing cars. Other thefts. Drug and alcohol charges. Numerous failures to appear. Her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club. Her neighbors said she did cash "extras" in her apartment. Need I continue?
    1
  15620. Well, that sounds like a nice idea in theory. But, there's a reason that no firearms training program in the country advocates that. Legs are very difficult to hit, and, unlike movies, when you land a hit, you're not as likely to actually stop the person as you think.
    1
  15621. Huh? How would you prevent it from being made public? The police blocked the release of the arrest video for 2.5 years. Nobody saw it while she was alive. But, eventually, the Freedom of Information Act requires its release. How do you overturn that?
    1
  15622. Notice? Warning? For this misdemeanor? Sorry, but you don't get a warning for this crime. And, what about all of her open warrants? You think the cops had a choice here?
    1
  15623. Leaked? Who "leaked" it?
    1
  15624. 1) The cop was staking out a house, looking for a completely unrelated criminal about an unrelated shooting. He wasn't "waiting for people to come" (except for the one guy he needed to go arrest). So, basically, you're objecting to cops trying to arrest people who were involved with shootings? Really? 2) Slow with medical care? Whose fault is that? The first thing the cop needed to do was secure the area. The screaming woman might have had a gun. There might have been others who had guns that may have been coming to try to kill him also. Who knows? Secure the area first. Get backup. THEN administer aid. That's how things are done, otherwise the cop might be the one who needs medical help. 3) What IS wrong with you? The cop isn't the bad guy here. It's the guy who walked up to the car door, opened it, and pointed a gun at the driver. Why are you shifting the blame onto the good guys?
    1
  15625.  @avalonnite9179  Wrong. If you watch frame by frame, you see the officer was about to reach for the door, but, it starts opening before his hand touches the handle. Your credibility is ZERO. And, you can see the criminal drawing his gun and pointing it at the officer. When you feel the need to lie to support your obvious hatred, sorry, but you lose.
    1
  15626. OK, I agree with you. But, just making sure you know... social media didn't even get involved until 2.5 years later, right? She was long dead before any social media posted anything.
    1
  15627. Tell me that if it was a man at a playground, you'd just leave and go to another playground, or that you'd go up and talk to the man while he's doing his thing....?
    1
  15628. No, she's a victim of HERSELF.
    1
  15629. Huh? What "media" even covered this while she was alive? A couple of obscure blog posts that nobody's ever heard of?
    1
  15630. And, sorry, but, if she didn't like getting arrested, she should have stopped committing so many crimes. (You do know she was a convicted felon who spent time in a Florida prison, and had a million other arrests, right? You do know that her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club, right?)
    1
  15631. Dewdrop, I never said I was happy about the result. I said she's not a victim of the media (which was YOUR claim). Nearly zero media covered this story while she was alive.
    1
  15632. Good grief. You'd lose a checkers match against a squirrel. What don't you understand here? ACCOUNTABILITY!! The media had nothing whatsoever to do with her death, because 99.999% of the media never even happened while she was alive. She is responsible for her own actions.
    1
  15633. Ed Fendell.
    1
  15634.  @lloydrobeau5126  Is your Google broken? Stop behaving like an idiot.
    1
  15635.  @lloydrobeau5126  You think they left someone on the moon, and you're asking for a "nice reply"?
    1
  15636.  @lloydrobeau5126  I know your point EXACTLY. And, I'm not playing this ridiculous game. You got your answer. Ed Fendell. If you can't figure it out from there, that's your own problem. If you want to play silly games like asking if they left him on the moon, that's also your own problem.
    1
  15637.  @lloydrobeau5126  Classic. Wow. YOU SAID (now): "I did NOT think or say anyone was left on the moon" YOU SAID (prior): "how did he get off of the moon ?" Is your "scroll up" just as broken as your Google is broken? Good grief. You got your answer, and then you decided to play dumb anyway.
    1
  15638.  @lloydrobeau5126  So, I'm supposed to be able to tell, from text writing alone, the difference between your "JOKING" vs. the 10,000,000 times that the identical question has been asked by others who aren't joking?
    1
  15639.  @lloydrobeau5126  Good job going back and changing/editing your postings also. Sorry, nobody is going to fall for your attempts to soften/change your tone now.
    1
  15640.  @lloydrobeau5126  Yeah, ironic, huh? You didn't change the comment that you later denied making at all. Bravo.
    1
  15641. You can see it if you watch frame by frame in the highest resolution copy as the door opens, and, you see it laying on the ground next to a 2x4 piece of wood at multiple points in the video, including 5:02.
    1
  15642.  @dlt9784  You don't legally have to show receipts under any circumstances, whether proven to be stealing or not. The receipt is for your own benefit, not for the benefit of the store or police. But, yes, generally, it's a better idea to show it. And, if you do choose to fight a crusade, you shouldn't do it like this woman did. She violated a number of laws during this detainment. Florida is an "identify" state, which means she's required by law to provide ID during a police investigation. She refused 100x to do so (mostly in the longer version of this video, whereas this one picks up in the middle). That's an arrestable offense right there. Furthermore, she should never obstruct/obfuscate (also a chargeable offense). And, of course, she shouldn't resist arrest (another charge).
    1
  15643. What was unlawful about the arrest? What are you talking about?
    1
  15644. Nobody embarrassed her with the arrest video, because nobody saw it until long after she was dead.
    1
  15645.  @therealzilch  Going through the thin parts wasn't required. Apollo 14 went straight through the middle of them. The rest of the missions went around the edges, but, it wouldn't matter if they went straight through either. As for getting a year's worth of radiation, well, the national regulation is 5 rem for a radiation worker for a year, or 25 if there's an emergency. (I hear they were increasing that to 50 around 5 years ago, but, I didn't follow whether that happened or not.) Anyway, the largest exposure was on Apollo 14 (naturally, because it went right through the middle). They got 1.14 rads. Apollo 11 was the lowest, at 0.18 rads. So, well, in order to get rem, it depends on the type. In the worst part of the belts, the protonic radiation exposure has a rem multiplier of 5x. But, obviously, the entire 1.14 rads wasn't just from the Van Allen belts. Soooo, maybe you're even a bit high by calling it a year's worth. But, for the rest of the missions, it wasn't even close to a year. I guess for a short answer, though, you picked the worst of the missions, which is pretty honest of you (in the nut's favor).
    1
  15646.  @davidkeenan5642  The original Concorde version carried 150. But, you are correct, they redesigned it to carry only 100 to extend the fuel range, and to be able to charge more money per seat by calling it all first class (more room per passenger).
    1
  15647. The person responsible is herself. Stop blaming the victim.
    1
  15648. So, in your mind, congress is never allowed to stop a program once it begins? If congress ends the program, this means the program was fake?
    1
  15649. Sorry, it's really difficult to cut through your broken English, but, I certainly appreciate that you're trying. I'm sure your English is better than my [whatever your native language is]. Maybe it might be easier if you wrote this in your native language, and others could just try to translate it into English, because, unfortunately, most of your sentences don't actually mean anything. Beyond that, you also might want to tell us the timestamps on whatever clips you're asking about. It's extremely difficult to tell you who/what/how if you don't give any reference.
    1
  15650. Thanks for proving you didn't really want the evidence. It's been 2 weeks, and you still won't respond. Why do you nuts pretend to ask questions, when you clearly aren't interested in the answers?
    1
  15651. You don't know anything. How would you know how "simple" it is or isn't?
    1
  15652. Yes, hence why people should actually look at the EVIDENCE rather than just blindly swallowing anything they're told.
    1
  15653. It was too late. She already committed the crime of refusing to ID, obstruction and obfuscation. She was getting arrested either way, so the store video became irrelevant at that point. As for "excessive force," um, what? If someone is resisting arrest, they're either getting tackled into submission, or Taser'd into submission. He chose the less aggressive of the two options. Tasers are used for this exact purpose, so, how is it "excessive" in your mind? And, please explain why her three attorneys never filed a case against the police, if anything you said was even remotely correct? The sued the store (and lost, but at least they tried to sue the store). But, no suit was ever filed against the cops. Why would that be, in your mind? Do you understand the law better than her three attorneys?
    1
  15654. Oh, and the "experts" were going to get him out? Give the guy even more time to get his gun ready?
    1
  15655. "The most compelling piece of evidence is that nobody has gone back to the moon?" That is correct. The most compelling piece of evidence against the moon landings is that nobody has gone back (other than the 9 manned trips with 6 landings). When the most compelling piece of evidence is that they "only" went 9 times, and there's not a shred of credible evidence that it was faked, yeah, that says a whole lot. How desperate are you to believe nonsense if THAT is your best evidence?
    1
  15656. "They (nasa) said they can’t. They lost the instructions." Funny, their website is full of terabytes of schematics, photos, videos, operations manuals, etc. Have you looked for yourself? Or, did a conspiracy video tell you this nonsense?
    1
  15657.  @stusue9733  There was never anything to look over. The Saturn V ran on F1 engines, which couldn't be throttled. This made it a pretty non-versatile rocket that really only had one purpose, and that's to lift 100,000 pounds of payload (6 million pounds of total weight). They really couldn't lift any more, nor any less. The rocket and craft also ran on old analog communications systems that don't exist any longer. They also used 100% oxygen environments in those craft, something they don't do any longer. The radar they used during Apollo was obsolete even before the first craft flew, and they have no desire to use it again. (The engineers kept asking to put newer radar onboard, but, the change control boards rejected it because they were not able to keep the timeline if they kept changing the design every week.) The craft had no protection against huge solar flares, they pretty much just gambled that there wouldn't be one during the missions. They couldn't make polar landings with Apollo, which is what they want to do on the next mission. The craft wasn't designed to last more than about 75-80 hours on the moon, and that was the updated model. The original model couldn't stay more than 36 hours. They don't want that on the next missions, because they want to stay about 700 hours (though, it seems that they'll fail at that objective, and will have to turn it back). Hydrazine (Aerozine50) and N2O4 were used for reliability, but, they are really wicked compounds to deal with, and the companies that manufactured them don't even make them any longer. They're far more toxic and corrosive than anybody would ever want to use today, greatly limiting the capabilities of the rockets. I mean, I could sit here for hours outlining why nobody wants to use Saturns ever again. They were mighty, and will go down in history as some of the most successful and impressive rockets ever built. But, they only catered to one mission profile, and nobody wants to fly that mission profile again. History has taught us a million times over to take lessons from the past, but, it's far better/faster/cheaper to just use those lessons and build from scratch, rather than trying to create a carbon copy of an outdated design. Look at how the TU-4 turned out, and it was only about 5 years out of date. Imagine trying to retro-engineer a moon rocket that's 50 years out of date.
    1
  15658.  @stusue9733  "to quote Curious Driod" So, your source of information about NASA asking contractors whether they can build a copy of a Saturn V and the Apollo spacecraft is a Curious Droid video. Yeah. OK. Ya know, most people, the sane ones anyway, would check with the White House OMB records, or look up congress' funded NASA programs, etc., to find a program to investigate revival of old equipment, and the funding each contractor received to investigate whether they could build it all again. But, nope, your source is a YouTube video. And, you think you're better than the nuts you're arguing with? "When NASA was looking for a very large engine for the SLS boosters some of its engineers looked at resurrecting the Rocketdyne F-1 engines" So, the engineers wanted to use a rocket engine that ran on kerosene, couldn't be throttled, and was manufactured by a company that hasn't existed in decades. Sure. And, you'd believe Curious Droid, why? "(all the best research is done on you tube)" Again, and you think you're better than the nuts you're arguing with? "Now you could argue I have some of the finer details wrong" Understatement of the century. "and sure I'll give you that." Gee, thanks. How generous. "But that is where the lost tech/instructions story starts" No, it started with the lost pre-NTSC backup tapes from Apollo 11, from a NASA report in 2006, and it snowballed from there. "that its been twisted into something else is how the deniers work." And, you're identical to them. You refuse to just say, "yeah, I was wrong," just as they refuse to say. "Why Can't we Remake the Rocketdyne F1 Engine?" Do you actually believe Curious Droid about that also? It's been a few years since I watched his video on it. Something about not being able to weld them or something, right? Does that even sound reasonable to you? Like, they forgot how to weld? Or, hmmm, maybe it's because nobody today wants a non-throttleable engine that runs on kerosene, and has a ton of pogo problems? No? That's not the reason? I mean, you do know they have piles of them remaining, right? Like the SLS did with the shuttle engines (just reusing old engines), if anybody REALLY wanted to use F1s for anything, and they couldn't figure out how to weld an engine bell, they could just take the ones that are laying around, which would carry them through the entire Artemis program (because there are enough of them). Good grief. And to think I actually defended you in another thread when someone else was getting on your case about stuff. Wow, did I get that one wrong. Indeed, you simply don't know how to admit you're wrong, just like the nuts who reject Apollo.
    1
  15659.  @stusue9733  "If I was to speculate" Why is speculation even relevant? First you need to demonstrate that this event actually happened. But, you've skipped that part, and gone straight to speculating about why it happened. "I'd say NASA did it because they could foresee that when NASA asked for money to go to the moon some senator would ask something like "well why don't we just use the rockets we used last time?"" Really? And, you think NASA requires contractors to give that kind of answer? I mean, I'd be a lot more concerned about a senator asking "why in the world would you want to revive a Saturn V when the SLS program has been funded for over a decade?"
    1
  15660.  @stusue9733  Kind of like you not seeing my response to your follow-up comment?
    1
  15661.  @stusue9733  Yes, you need to view the thread fresh.
    1
  15662.  @stusue9733  Once again proving that not only are you identical to the nuts regarding your inability to admit being wrong, but, you refuse to answer questions also. Dewdrop, NASA never asked any contractor to investigate building a carbon copy of Apollo. That's ridiculous beyond belief. But, you just keep sticking your head in the sand and pretending. As I said, you're no different than the nuts you think you're better than.
    1
  15663. Tatti Myob, YOU SAID: "Oh but no ones going to mention that this girl was underage drinking ? She was 20 years old...... she wasnt even legal to drink. But her family wont bring that up in the trials will they...." Good grief. 1) The drinking age is 18 in Mexico. It wasn't illegal for her to drink. 2) The family clearly stated Abbey's age in the lawsuit.
    1
  15664.  @therealzilch  Jennifer Garner Corrects Conan's Grammar
    1
  15665. Well, the gun was undoubtedly not legal, given that she was a convicted felon (not allowed to have it). But, getting guns is not difficult.
    1
  15666. Huh? What in the world are you talking about? Sorry, but investigating a potential theft isn't "harassment." And, what legal system do you live under? Here in the USA, you are innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW. There is no obligation to prove anything at the side of the road. Cops are not judge and jury. Cops just establish reasonable suspicion and probable cause, then it's up to the due process of the court system to determine proof and guilt. An arrest isn't a conviction. By your model, you'd need to first prove a case, before you could ever arrest anybody. Sorry, that's not how our system works, and nobody could ever be arrested for anything until there was proof in a trial, which is totally backward. And, really, you don't think she's guilty of anything? How about obfuscation of a police investigation (a crime)? She's not guilty of that? How about obstruction and refusal to provide ID (also a crime, and she can be arrested for that alone, regardless of other charges)? No? She was asked 100x for her ID, and she refused to give it, or even say her name. Go watch the whole video, not just this one that cuts out the first half. How about resisting arrest (also a crime)? She's not guilty of that? She made it perfectly clear that she wasn't going to be arrested without a fight, and even asked repeatedly to be Taser'd. Gee, do you suppose it was because she planned to file a lawsuit, and believed that getting hit with a Taser would add to the dollar amount? Or, do you think she would just enjoy the Taser? Your hatred of the police is based on an utterly crippled understanding of police procedure.
    1
  15667. First name Crack. Last name Pot.
    1
  15668. Huh? He's alive and well, and only spent a day or so in the hospital.
    1
  15669. Well, then maybe his god should have stopped him before he murdered his father and then got into this police chase?
    1
  15670. So, your lord will give the officer blessings he doesn't really need. Did he give any points and blessings to the woman in this video before she died?
    1
  15671. Gee, what gave that away, was it the fact that she was arrested?
    1
  15672. YOU SAID: "Blaming the hotel is like blaming the car factories for letting the drunks have a car." == Oh, don't you worry. That lawsuit is on its way sooner or later.
    1
  15673. Well, yes, these protesters are ridiculous. But, given your statements, well, all I can tell you is that I hope you enjoy your inevitable prison term.
    1
  15674. I think she ruined her own life about 15 years ago when she left her family (husband, 6 month old son, and another son) and friends in order to live a life of crime and drugs.
    1
  15675. Freedom of Information Act. But, at least it wasn't made public until long after she was dead.
    1
  15676. I watched the part of the trial when he tried to bring that into evidence. The prosecution was already aware of the recall, and had their expert vehicle investigator find out if that particular Ford was affected. It was not. That VIN wasn't one of the ones that was affected. And, if it hypothetically had been affected, it would have produced a code in the vehicle's computer, but, that code wasn't present in Brooks' Ford. Furthermore, the investigator found that the recall flaw only happened at highway speed, not at 20-40 mph. And, finally, simply hitting the brakes would stop the car, and they verified that the brake lights were working, yet, the videos do not show that he was hitting the brakes as he plowed through the people. Yet, when he would slow down to make a turn, the brake lights lit up. So, you are correct, Brooks lied about the recall.
    1
  15677. Well, I've seen countless people say "believe what you want." Frankly, that's part of the problem with some people: they literally do believe what they want, instead of believing what's evident. Personally, I really cannot relate to the concept of believing what I want to believe. It sounds wonderful, being delusional enough to actually believe everything I want, rather than what's real. But, my mind isn't wired that way. I'm only able to believe what's evident.
    1
  15678. Exactly. And, they're applauding her. What does that say about the audience?
    1
  15679. So, you're not aware of the mountains upon mountains of evidence for Apollo? You think it's "faith based"? Seriously? I mean, I could write encyclopedias about the evidence for Apollo, but, that wouldn't fit into a YouTube comment. So, I'll just ask you about the most recent evidence. A few months ago, both China and India released their lunar orbital photography of some of the Apollo landing sites, using their own two orbiters to get those photos. You can see the Apollo landers on the lunar surface in those photos, exactly as the original mission photography showed them, and exactly as LRO showed them since 2009 in hundreds of such photos. Do you think that's "faith based" (belief with no evidence)? Or, is confirmation from multiple countries with photographs actual evidence?
    1
  15680. Police wear bodycams nowadays. That's how life is. And, the FOIA makes it mandatory to release it. But, the saving grace is that it wasn't released until 1.5 years after she committed suicide. So, she never suffered any humiliation while alive.
    1
  15681. Is this a joke? You think it's fake because they didn't bring a TWO HUNDRED METER FLAG with them to the moon?? THAT is the reason you think it's fake?? Good gods.
    1
  15682. Amazing. Absolutely amazing. "we only "landed on the moon" once. All other attempts conveniently failed or even better." Dewdrop, there were 9 manned missions to the moon, 6 of which landed. If you know THAT little about Apollo, such that you think there was only one landing, how can you possibly be arrogant enough to declare ANYTHING about the program? Most people, the sane ones, would be embarrassed to know so little about a topic while pretending to be an expert. Not you, though. Every single space agency on the planet, in friendly or enemy countries, accepts Apollo, and many have even confirmed Apollo. But, you believe you know better than all of them. But, you don't know how many missions landed on the moon? "They accidently erased the video tapes." Um, no. They erased (or lost) two BACKUP tapes from one mission. So what? Nobody in history had ever even viewed those two backup tapes, because the primary copies worked fine. Are you PROUD to know absolutely nothing?
    1
  15683. There's no such concept as getting arrested without getting cuffed.
    1
  15684. She admitted to doing it while being questioned. Watch the full arrest video for more. But, yes, multiple people called about this incident, and one of the "audience" recorded it and showed the video to the police. It didn't match this version she's telling while trying to avoid her millionth arrest. It wasn't a quiet act when nobody was around. It was a loud public display in view of multiple people including children. And, I mean, c'mon here, her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club, and neighbors said she also did "private" sessions for cash with numerous men in her apartment. Is this really that difficult to believe she did this act on the beach? Before you accuse others of disgraceful behavior, how about learning something about the topic first?
    1
  15685. "Convicted felon who can't stop getting arrested gets arrested again" doesn't make headlines. "Innocent soccer mom gets busted by evil police and commits suicide" gets headlines. If you can't report the news, you manufacture it.
    1
  15686. Who humiliated her on the internet?
    1
  15687. YOU SAID: "América was never racist ? How about the 30 ,40s,60s and before and after slavery ?" == Bravo on missing the entire point. Freeman, when asked about racism, he responded by saying, "Now? No." You apparently missed the "Now?" question, which was the most important part for you to absorb. YOU SAID: "Didnt Freeman say dont talk about racism it will stop existing?" == Yes. YOU SAID: "Funny how i dont talk about it but it allways finds me !" == Well, I don't know what race you are. I'm basically assuming from what you're trying to say that you're black. But, I don't know that for sure, and I don't care. But, the answer is that there will always be racism on some level from some people. Just like there will always be sexism from some people. There will always be some people who hate fat people. There will always be some people who hate others for the clothes they wear. There will always be some people who hate others for having tattoos. Whatever. Those people with those prejudices are useless. Yet, the more people talk about it, the more you're fueling those kinds of people. There is no "systematic" racism. There will always be individuals. But, "systematic" racism is long gone. YOU SAID: "Rich black people arent black people anymore !" == Now who's the racist? You're not even allowing rich black people to be rich black people. YOU SAID: "And everybody knows Morgan so who is gonna be racist against him ?" == Racists. YOU SAID: "Doesnt he have private jets ,cars to take him from one place to another ? How will he see racism if he is never there ?lfmao" == Congratulations on not listening to a word he just said. He's got plenty of people giving him plenty of money, which wouldn't happen if "the system" was actually racist.
    1
  15688. Oh, the good old petrified wood story. Dewdrop, NASA never had anything to do with that rock. The children of a deceased politician donated that rock to the national ART MUSEUM. (Gee, why not the science museum, where the other moon rocks are? Could it be that they knew it wasn't a moon rock, but wanted the inheritance tax write-off? The science museum would spot it immediately, while the art museum can barely authenticate art correctly, let alone moon rocks?) The museum never bothered authenticating it. They called NASA to see if it was genuine, and NASA said they had no record of such rock, and that it was unlikely that anybody gave out rocks that soon after the Apollo 11 mission, but, if the museum sent the rock to them, they could take a look. The museum didn't do it, and just blindly accepted the rock instead. Why in the world do you think this has anything whatsoever to do with Apollo? The museum that still has that rock doesn't think NASA had anything to do with it. Why do you? And, if you think the Dutch were "deceived," why do they still proudly display their Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 samples in their science museum?
    1
  15689.  @jdl1276  So, you refuse to address anything I wrote. Bravo. Hence why you think the Earth is flat. Good gods, it's like you WANT to be s7oopiid.
    1
  15690. "Let's make this simple" Absolutely. We all know you're not capable of complex things. Gotta keep it simple, or you turn to mush. "when the lander was landing on the moon it should have made a crater under the lander" Keep it simple: there isn't enough force from the rocket for that. You clearly don't understand rocketry. And, you shouldn't pretend you do. Do you think the entire planet's rocket engineers just overlooked this notion of yours? "covered the lander in dust" Keep it simple: there's no air on the moon to make dust swirl and come back toward the lander to cover it in dust. Dust will just get blown outward in a vacuum, and never come back. You have confused air with a vacuum. Simple.
    1
  15691. "and there was no hole under the lander mini crater" Keep it simple: no, but, there were very clear indicators that a rocket engine was blowing on the surface under each lander. "just look at the legs in the picture everything's a nice and shiny for the camera" Keep it simple: sometimes yes, sometimes no. Stop watching conspiracy videos that lie to you, and go look at the entire photo archive for yourself, rather than just trusting that a conspiracy video is telling you the truth about what's on the landing pads.
    1
  15692. "those gold legs should not have been shining everything is covered in dust" You don't get to have it both ways, dewdrop. You don't get to complain that dust should settle so close to the engine bell, while simultaneously complaining that you don't think that a rocket engine was running there. In one sentence, you say you expected the rocket blast to be so strong that it cuts a crater (which is incorrect, but, that's your position). In another sentence, you say you expect the dust to settle just a couple of feet from the rocket bell (which would indicate that there really isn't very much thrust at all, if dust is just going to stop a couple of feet away from a rocket engine). You don't even realize what you're asking for. You contradict yourself without even knowing it. Dewdrop, the truth is in the middle of your two contradicting requests. The rocket engine blew lots of dust, but not strong enough to carve a crater in compacted regolith and rock. And, it blew dust strongly enough that it's not going to just stop 2 feet away from the engine bell and settle onto a landing pad. But, yes, some dust did settle on some of the landing pads, just not the quantity that you expect.
    1
  15693. "here's one for you take a million-dollar satellites" Huh? Who has a satellite that cheap? "that we got here pointing down at us and checking out our license plates" No, dewdrop. There are no satellites that can read license plates. I'm sorry you've been told such a silly thing, but, it's wrong. Let me guess, though... you see images on Google Earth that are labeled "satellite," but you've never looked at their FAQ for how they actually got those images (low flying planes at 1200 feet altitude). Am I right? You actually thought "satellite" on Google meant it was taken by a satellite in space. Am I correct? "and everything and they supposedly can read from space" Well, they can probably read "United Center" on top of the Chicago stadium from a satellite, because those letters are like 30 feet long. But, license plates? Not by a long shot. "spin it around at the moon and show me the Landers & rovers" Huh? Why not just use the satellites in orbit around the moon? Or, you don't think those exist? Dewdrop, China, USA, and India have all taken photos from lunar satellites showing the Apollo landers on the moon. Are you not aware of this? Maybe because you don't actually study Apollo, and instead, you just watch conspiracy videos that don't want to tell you this? "we can't do that can we it just cost too much to spin that satellite around" Let me get this straight... even in your world of believing that satellites can read license plates (they can't, but, let's pretend they can), you think that reading a license plate from 150 miles up is the same as seeing lunar landers from 240,000 miles away? Really? You don't see a problem with your request?
    1
  15694. "Here's another one for you looking through the satellite at the Moon checking out the Landers license plate like I asked" So, how is this "another one"? In your mind, "another one" is to repeat the same question? What? The answer is the same, dewdrop. You don't have the foggiest clue about this topic. "I want to see the flag that's it's supposedly bleached white by the SUN" Well, there's no camera we have that has a large enough lens to capture the details of a flag from lunar orbit. But, LRO captured a decent shot at a sun angle of about 12:35 (just after lunar noon) that shows a light/white spot exactly where the Apollo 11 flag was located. It might be the flag sitting on the lunar surface. And, there are bunches of images from LRO and one very nice one from Chandrayaan-2 that show the shadows of the flags that are still standing. "you look closely at some of the photos and look at the rocks in the distance they got criss-crossing shadows you only got criss-crossing shadows when it's on a stage" No, dewdrop. You clearly do not understand photographic perspective. "cuz somebody had too much lighting for the show" No, dewdrop. Multiple lighting sources produce multiple shadows. Not single shadows that criss-cross. "can you explain the criss-crossing shadows" Yes, dewdrop. It's called photographic perspective. It's the exact same principle as taking a photograph from in between two train tracks. The photo shows that the two train tracks are converging upon each other. But, in reality, you know very well that if you took the photo from above, it shows them as parallel. The results depend on where the camera is located. You can add photography to the list of subjects you know nothing about. "oh that must be an optical illusion" No, dewdrop. Not an illusion per se. Just photographic perspective. But, if you want to call that an illusion, ok, fine, it's an illusion. "they've been robbing us all these years" Do you understand that this is why you're a reprehensible person worth scorn? You understand NOTHING about the topic, yet, you're willing to accuse thousands of people of being criminals who would get a lifetime in prison if your accusations were true. Scorn. Deplorable. "and you still want to believe wow" But, dewdrop, you've not offered a single thing that holds water. And, every time people ask you something, you avoid answering and change the topic. I mean, are you even reading this message now? Or, like so many of your ilk, do you just post a bunch of gibberish, pretend to ask some questions, then ignore the replies? Can you prove you're reading this by writing "green" at the top of your reply (if you make one)? Or, did you ignore these replies also? "wake up" Really? You believe that the entire planet's experts are "asleep" while you're so completely clueless about reality that you believe there are satellites that can read license plates?
    1
  15695. Huh? On what basis?
    1
  15696. Virtually no media even covered it while she was alive. And, she was never convicted because she never showed up in court.
    1
  15697. Really? You think that's how their jobs work? Officers decide this, not the courts?
    1
  15698. I'm afraid you have your facts completely reversed. Her arrest record began long before this incident. Public drunkenness arrests. Did some prison time for stealing cars. Lots of alcohol and drug issues. A string of judgments against her for theft. Attempting to change her name a few times to avoid arrest and being served. Numerous failures to appear in court (for various prior stuff, then this incident also). And, sorry, but it's not up to you to determine what's "major" or not. If she commits a crime, she gets arrested. That's how this works. And, you're also wrong about the timeline of this incident. July 2021 = this arrest. March 2022 = suicide. November 2023 = the arrest video was made public. She didn't kill herself over shame from this arrest video, because nobody ever saw it until 1.5 years after she was already dead. As for the incident, why exactly do you believe her version of it? Because she said so? The police report tells a very different version than she's telling, as she's attempting to get out of being arrested, yet again.
    1
  15699. Do you really think she has one? C'mon. The store clerk and the officer didn't chase her down for no reason. And, she loses such a lawsuit every time. You have the right to arrest people you suspect of committing a crime. You don't need to prove it at the roadside. You just need reasonable suspicion, which it's clear that the officer has.
    1
  15700. Flagged as misinformation.
    1
  15701. Yeah, that's how it goes, until long after the case is closed. While there's an open investigation, the video remains private. In this case, the video remained private for 2.5 years. It wasn't released until 1.5 years after she died.
    1
  15702. You are very impressed by nothing. Pre-programmed servo movements and fake CGI effects don't take very long to produce.
    1
  15703. You are very impressed by nothing.
    1
  15704. The arrest video wasn't released until 1.5 years after she died. Furthermore, it was a legal FOIA request.
    1
  15705. Yes.
    1
  15706. A) If you're talking about going back to the moon, yes, they're doing it with Artemis. B) If you're talking about providing evidence for Apollo, well, there are mountains of evidence from dozens of countries. The nuts reject it anyway. Can you name the evidence you'd expect, which hasn't be provided already?
    1
  15707. Hilarious!!! I mean, yeah, she doesn't legally have to show an ID. But, there won't be any check cutting. Her case was tossed out of court, just as it should. And, as for proof, sorry, but the side of the road isn't a courtroom. Proof doesn't come into play until later. At the side of the road, the cop just decides whether it's probable that a crime happened. The rest is up to due process.
    1
  15708. Unarmed? He had the gun drawn and pointed at the officer. Why would you say he was unarmed?
    1
  15709. The man was found innocent? What ARE you talking about? He was found guilty. And, he was reviewed by the appellate court, state Supreme Court, and USA Supreme Court, and was denied by all of them for an appeal (they all agreed that he was guilty).
    1
  15710. Well, look, I won't dare paint the picture that I have any personal knowledge whatsoever, and any opinion I have is based on this short "news" (sigh, not news) story. But, look, if that girl couldn't go a month without getting thrown into prison yet again, telling ridiculously unbelievable stories about the prison refusing to give her her meds, um, yeah, my best guess is that her family can't stand her bullshit any longer. Between blaming the sister, who isn't a repeat felon, or blaming the repeat felon, yeah, I'd put my money on the idea that the blame goes on the felon, not the sister. But, what do I know?
    1
  15711. And, you think you can convince a jury to ignore the Freedom of Information Act?
    1
  15712. Gee, it's almost as if that was asked and answer just before your post.
    1
  15713. Good grief. What ARE you talking about? The driver of the car murdered his father and threw him into a lake, right before this chase. Then, during the chase, he shot at cops repeatedly. Even after the cop rammed into the truck, the criminal kept on shooting. What do you suggest? The cops shouldn't shoot back? And, the very second that the criminal gave up, threw his guns out the window, and surrendered, the cops stopped shooting, and gave him medical aid, reassuring him, and saying, "ok, don't worry, you're not going to die, we're going to help you." (And, they did.) People like you are the reason for so much hatred of the police. You think you know things that you do not. Go watch the other videos before you spew this nonsense everywhere.
    1
  15714. No. A vacuum doesn't have a temperature.
    1
  15715.  @johnjames661  Try telling thermodynamics that nothing has energy.
    1
  15716. Hmmm, let's see... you can either call the cops to deal with a stalker... or, you can put on a balaclava ski mask, walk up to the stalker's car, open the door, and point the gun at the stalker's head... exactly as carjackers do... making you look like a carjacker. Yeah. Sure. Well, I'll give you this much, it's better than the attorney's version. The attorney says that Mark was unaware that someone was in the car, and Mark was there to steal the car for a joyride because TikTok told him to do it. At least your version is more believable.
    1
  15717. Multiple people called about this incident. One captured it on video, and showed it to the police. The video didn't match the version she's telling about a discreet act with nobody around. Quite the contrary. And, to answer your question, it's called the Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  15718. Was your god "blessing" the woman in this video when she died? Seems to me, the cop wasn't the one who needed the blessings.
    1
  15719. What on Earth are you talking about? The driver had just attempted to kill a woman by shooting at her. The cop didn't even approach with his gun drawn. That's "trigger happy" to you? And, yeah, when approaching someone who is acting this way, clearly attempting to sneak-draw a gun, yeah, you don't want to give him a lot of time to make his move. I mean, I've seen some ridiculous comments on YouTube before, but yours really takes the cake.
    1
  15720. Were you looking into the mirror when you wrote this?
    1
  15721. So, you want to repeal the Freedom of Information Act?
    1
  15722. So, you're just going to post 3 comments back to back, saying the same stuff? Why? What possible purpose would you think this inanity serves?
    1
  15723. Bro, it's her own fault, not the media's.
    1
  15724. But, she didn't make headlines until 2.5 years later, when the arrest video was released to the public. She was long dead before she was ever a headline.
    1
  15725. Freedom of Information Act. And, what family? The one she abandoned a decade ago?
    1
  15726. I'm trying to reply, but, it keeps blocking me.
    1
  15727. Do you just blindly swallow any gibberish Inside Edition says? Almost nobody publicized anything about this incident until long after she died.
    1
  15728. Indecent exposure is a crime.
    1
  15729. Really? A warning for a crime? I thought you could only get a warning for infractions, but not for crimes. But, you're the legal expert here. Do explain?
    1
  15730. OK, but, let me ask, if it was a man at a playground, would you say the same?
    1
  15731. So, personal accountability is not part of your vocabulary? Blame the victim?
    1
  15732. You have no idea what you're talking about. They didn't do anything wrong.
    1
  15733. First of all, the police didn't release the arrest video until November 24, 2023. She died about 2 years ago.
    1
  15734. Secondly, it's called the Freedom of Information Act. Good luck with that suit.
    1
  15735. Hilarious!! You don't even know what it's called. You just got done saying "FOI," instead of "FOIA." Yet, you're honestly going to pretend you understand it better than the cops and the news outlets? "That surgeon is doing that procedure all wrong. But, remind me, what's a scalpel again?"
    1
  15736. Shelley, you have misunderstood what's going on with that. Conan said that his family watched the Apollo 11 moon landing live on TV. That was not possible. They could hear the live audio, but, there was no television camera to send a live video of the landing sequence. The landing sequence was shot on 16mm film. Hence, they had to wait until it got home to be developed before anybody was ever going to see it. The live TV camera required a stable and well aligned S-band dish in order to function. When in the landing sequence, and the craft is rolling/pitching/yawing all over the place, yeah, there was no way to keep that S-band dish aligned to keep a TV signal working. And, the astronauts were far too busy with performing the landing, so yeah, trying to align the S-band dish every 30 seconds wasn't going to happen. So, the mission planners didn't even include a TV camera for the landing, and just went with the 16mm film camera. That's what Aldrin was referring to. He said that nobody was taking live TV during the landing, and he was correct. They wouldn't deal with live TV until a few hours after landing. As for "blaming NASA" for not telling people that it was an animation, I mean, again, you clearly have missed the point. All you need to do is go watch one of the videos Aldrin was talking about, such as "CBS News Coverage of Apollo 11 - Moon Landing," and you'll quite quickly see the animation was very obvious. Nobody needs any sort of press release or warning that these were animations. They looked cartoonish. Go watch one. And, it's not NASA's problem anyway. NASA didn't produce the animations, the news channels did.
    1
  15737. Naw, they get plenty of details wrong also. The better solution is not to use ANY video media to understand Apollo, and instead, read the documentation.
    1
  15738. There were multiple callers, not one. And, what would you be saying if it was a man cranking at the playground?
    1
  15739. Sure. Then CALL THE POLICE. But, Smith only went to the police before he knew who they were. After he knew, he never went to the police again (until after he ended their lives).
    1
  15740. How far gone do you need to be to use a source that wasn't even born when Apollo took place, and presents 2nd hand stories from his dying father? And, he presents this "evidence" (sigh) via a known convicted criminal taxi cab driver? Doesn't that tell you something, when THIS is the best you can do? Not a single space agency across the entire planet, in friendly or enemy countries, staffed with the virtual entirety of experts on the subject agree with you. Not one. But, oh, you found an interview with a guy who was not even alive during Apollo, and that's what you're going to stick with? How far gone are you?
    1
  15741. So, the answers to your questions do not matter to you? You asked, I answered, you ignored every word. Dewdrop, don't sit there and tell everybody that you're on the fence, then ask questions, and ignore the answers.
    1
  15742. I wasn't saying you were denying Apollo. I merely wanted to express that the main thing that matters is the evidence.
    1
  15743. Just curious... who's to blame for that?
    1
  15744.  @rasanchez169  Just curious... who's to blame for that?
    1
  15745. My taking it too seriously? What does that mean? Was that your 2nd grader intellect attempting to write "you're" (and failing)? Dewdrop, I'm not the one asking questions and ignoring the answers. I'm not the one who asks why they didn't take a telescope to the moon (when, yes, they did). I'm not the one who asked to use parallax to determine that the moon missions were faked. YOU are the one doing those things. And, why? Because you don't know anything, but want to pretend you do.
    1
  15746.  @DJgMotion  And, you'd trust a conman, why? And, still, you refuse to answer the questions. More topic shifting. More ducking and dodging. You don't know what you're talking about, but, you refuse to just admit it.
    1
  15747. The nuts won't accept any new information anyway. I mean, we already have the LRO photos from lunar orbit showing the stuff on the moon, landers, rover tracks, foot paths, etc. We've had those since 2009, and in 2012, they dropped LRO to a lower orbit for better resolution. The nuts reject those photos and call them fake. A few months ago, when both China and India released their Apollo photos of some of the landing sites from their lunar orbiters, showing the landers in exactly the same position as the LRO photos showed them, the nuts simply rejected those also. What makes you think they'd accept ANY new information from ANY future missions?
    1
  15748. "It looks like it always has because we never landed there." And, you're PROUD to announce this ridiculous opinion to the world?
    1
  15749. "We cant even get there now" Um, yeah. And, we can't fly mach-7 planes since the X15 was retired. And, we can't fly Concorde jets at mach-2 with 100 passengers onboard. Yes, when a program gets retired, you can't do it any longer. Why is this relevant?
    1
  15750. "we landed 3 men a car" Dewdrop, TWO men per landing. And, there was no car on Apollo 11. You don't know one mission from another. And, you don't even know how many people were on each mission. Why would you think you know enough about the program to even have an opinion AT ALL, when you know so little about it?
    1
  15751. "auto camera rigs" No, dewdrop. There were no auto cameras.
    1
  15752. "live broadcast sytems there 55yrs ago" Dewdrop, closed circuit televisions were invented in the 1800s, and the first mass broadcast was in the 1920s. Why is this so surprising to you?
    1
  15753. "telescopes in space that can see 13billion light years away but nobody will point one at the landing site" Um, dewdrop, do you really not know the difference between distance and resolution? Really? Do you really think there's any telescope in existence that is even remotely capable of seeing stuff at the landing sites? Good gods. Will there ever be a point in time that you stop pretending to understand things you don't? Do you ENJOY when every sentence you write is laughably wrong?
    1
  15754. Marshall, does that even make sense to you? Do you REALLY believe Aldrin "confessed"? Really? That's how your mind works? Or, did a conspiracy video show you a short clip and intentionally took everything out of context? You don't think the entire world's press would go bananas if your claim was true? Senate hearings? Prosecutions? International lawsuits? No? Just "Aldrin confessed" and the rest of the world just ignores it? Oh, but, YOU spotted this confession that the rest of the world doesn't know about?
    1
  15755.  @occhamite  14.7 + 3.5 doesn't equal 17.5. FYI: the suits were designed to resist ballooning, regardless of the pressure. I mean, ok, if you filled them with 100 PSI or something, yeah, maybe, a bit. But, odds are that the suits would fail entirely before they'd balloon very much.
    1
  15756.  @occhamite  Yeah, but, the restraint layer and other measures to resist ballooning go against your notion that the differential was all that relevant. But, yeah, I agree that the nut needs to understand that we're not talking about having 100 PSI in that suit or something. It was 3.5 PSI. Even without the measures to design the suit so it didn't balloon, it wouldn't have ballooned all that much. Anyway, I still wonder why the nut thinks ILC Dover would design and build ballooning suits to begin with. What engineer would ever do that?
    1
  15757.  @occhamite  Yeah, no problem.
    1
  15758. Well, that's one way to demonstrate that you didn't read the arrest report. How about the video of the incident, and the multiple callers and their testimonies? Those don't count?
    1
  15759. You wouldn't happen to be a drug addict, would you?
    1
  15760. Well, you're clearly a major expert on rocketry ("miles per gallon" - good gods), so, your opinion really counts for a lot. Why are you wasting your expertise in a YouTube comment? Why aren't you on an advisory board at congress for NASA?
    1
  15761.  @imilliemedina666  No, you don't need to state the probable cause. You need to state the reasonable suspicion.
    1
  15762. Ah, you're just making this up as you go along. I was correcting you on your own terminology (which you completely botched), and your overall concepts (which you don't understand). The reasonable suspicion was the store employee identifying her as going through without paying. The probable cause came in a much different form on top of that, with the woman's refusal to ID (which she is required by law to do), obstruction, and obfuscation (which are crimes themselves, apart from the theft). The arrest was based more on those latter things, and the officer tried to explain that the original theft investigation didn't even matter at that point, which she ignored (and so did you). She was never found guilty of anything, because they dropped all charges. The woman had her receipt. She then sued the store for $50,000, and the case was tossed out of court. No suit was ever filed against the police, because even her own attorney knows the cop did nothing wrong. Now, you tell me, why would the attorney bother to file a $50,000 case against the store, if he has a $1,000,000 case against the police for the violations you're accusing the cops of? Could it be that he knows the law better than you? Could it be that you just use YouTube to pretend to know things you don't know? Don't bother responding. I'm done here.
    1
  15763.  @fredwilliams7893  YOU SAID: "Damn right i did." == Did what? YOU SAID: "when it becomes a violation of my rights PHYSICALLY! YOU OR NOBODY ELSE HAS THE RIGHT . YOU GOT THAT." == Wrong. YOU SAID: "YELLIMG IN A MOVIE IS VERBAL MY BODY MY RIGHTS." == OK, you don't like the movie theater analogy?? Alright, you don't have the right to drop your pants and spank yourself in public in front of children either. The society requires you to wear certain articles of clothing, and behave in a certain way. And, at the moment, wearing a mask is one of the requirements. YOU SAID: "HIW DARE YOU THINK WE SHOULD AS A SOCIETY BE PHYSICALLY CONTROLLED" == You are already "physically controlled" by society. You cannot swing your fists if the result is to strike someone else. You cannot drop your pants in public. You cannot inject controlled substances into your body. You cannot be physically intoxicated in public and cause disturbances. You cannot propel your body (like in a car) through a school zone at 100mph. Sorry, you don't get to select this one issue, and pretend it's soooooo different from all of the other controls put in place to protect others from you, or to protect you from yourself. YOU SAID: "MAYBY NEXT TIME YOU TELL A LIE OR TAKE SOMETHING THATS NOT YOURS OR DO SOMETHING YOU SHOULDNT DO ,YOU SHOULD BE PHYSICALLY PUNISHED." == I haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about, and neither do you. YOU SAID: "ITS A MASK FOR CHRIST SAKES SHE WASNT PHYSICALLY HARMIMG ANYBODY." == How would you know? How does anybody know? There are plenty of people who carry the virus, and can spread it, without knowing it. And, apparently, you ignored the entire point. The facility's rules are that patrons must wear masks. If she disobeys the facility's rules, they can ask her to leave. If she refuses to leave, she is trespassing. If she is trespassing, police can forcibly remove her, and/or arrest her. If you come into my home, and don't obey my rules, and won't leave when asked, I can call the police and they can forcibly remove and arrest you. The same goes for schools, stores, football stadiums, whatever. YOU SAID: "THIS CONTROL OF POLICE AND OUR STATE GOVERNORS HAS GONE TO FAR." == Good grief. I mean, this is literally too much to stomach. You're barely literate. You can't spell, punctuate, use sentence structure, etc. You are borderline functionally illiterate. What in the world would YOU know about what has gone TOO far? And, this isn't an issue of police or governor control. This is a woman who was arrested for trespassing. Good grief. YOU SAID: "THATS WAS ABSOLUTELY UNCALLED FOR. PERIOD." == Well, again, thankfully for the rest of the world, nobody cares what you say "period" about. YOU SAID: "ITS SAD WE HAVE PEOPLE IN OUR SOCIETY LIKE YOU WHO AGREE TO THIS." == Pfftttt. Like, a vast majority of the world? Like, the entire planet's legal and medical experts? Like the entire country's legal experts? People like who? YOU SAID: "BUT YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN THE FIRST TO SUE THEM OR MAKE A HUGE STINK IF THAT WAS YOUR DAUGHTER." == I wouldn't have my daughter behaving like the insane woman in this video. YOU SAID: "PATHETIC YOU ARE" == Oh, so says the illiterate clod. Pfftttt. Hilarious!!!
    1
  15764. There's a further irony here. The dad gave two separate interviews (or, at least two). In one interview, he said his son was going to find out who was inside the car (i.e. he knew someone was in the car). In another interview, he said that his son "definitely did not believe anybody was inside the car, that much he knows for sure." Now, gee, did he speak to the attorney in between the two interviews, and was told that it's a bad idea to tell everyone that Mark knew someone was inside the car? And, Mark died about 20 seconds after being shot, so, how does the dad "definitely know for sure that Mark didn't think anybody was in the car"? They're suing, of course. And, I sure hope that the cops' attorney doesn't just cave in and pay money just to make the case go away.
    1
  15765. When did they start giving tickets for crimes? And, no social media even covered this event until she was already dead 1.5 years.
    1
  15766. You do? What magical 9mm hollow points do you use, such that you'd get a lot of hits through the truck? I'm surprised any of them got through. But, you're the firearms expert here, not me, so, please go start up a police training school, and tell all of the cops how to make their little 9mm rounds cut through trucks better. OK?
    1
  15767. Huh? A couple of obscure blogs that nobody has ever heard of? Why? Do you ever hold people accountable for their own actions? Or, just shift the blame?
    1
  15768. We went to the moon in order to beat the Soviets. It was a display of technological and industrial power during the cold war. The point was to prevent WWIII, by making the Soviets fear what the US could do when we put our minds to it. Maybe if you understood English, you could read about it. But, instead, you have the reading and writing skills of a 2nd grader, and undoubtedly have the same level of knowledge, too.
    1
  15769. "Complete waste of money." == That's a valid viewpoint to have. But, in the bigger scheme of things of wasted government spending, this one isn't so bad. "Nothing there, nothing on Mars." == And, how else would we know there's nothing there, other than going there to check? "US politicians paying off their friends in corporate America." == Yes, I'm sure that happens. It's even worse now than it was in the 1960s, though. "International space station? Why?" == To perpetuate human spaceflight. "Did we cure cancer?" == Well, look, I understand your argument. But, you can say that about ANYTHING. "Why are we building 18 mile long atom smashers, and massive underground neutrino detectors, when cancer hasn't been cured yet?" "Why are we making movies when we could be curing cancer?" The answer is that they're ALSO working on curing cancer, which is still an issue, but, the rest of society must keep on going anyway. As for Apollo, maybe this will give you a better understanding of its purpose. The purpose was to beat the Soviets to the moon. This was the tip of the sword in the cold war. The purpose was to demonstrate such massive technological superiority so that the Soviets don't get any funny ideas about engaging us in a war. It was a mechanism to say, "Don't mess with us, because we will beat you, we will always beat you." And, even though the cold war continued after Apollo, it never really got as close to turning into a real war as it had back during the Cuban missile crisis (as an example). We can't turn back time to see what would have happened without Apollo. But, a lot of people believe that Apollo was one of many cold war programs that helped to prevent that cold war from turning into a real war, and saved millions of lives. It was a way of "fighting" the Soviets without firing a shot.
    1
  15770. What EXACTLY do you think the cops should do? NOT arrest the guy? Sorry, but the cops don't decide whether the school board is correct or not. The cops only decide whether the man refused to leave when asked. That's it. That's the extent of what the cops' decisions are.
    1
  15771. I don't get the joke.
    1
  15772. Um, ok, but how is that relevant here? She was a stripper who did those kinds of shows every day. And, frankly, I think her felony prison term for stealing cars is a lot darker than this particular arrest that resulted in nothing. Or, for that matter, pick anything else out of her mile long list of arrests and judgements against her, failures to appear in court, open warrants for her arrest, drug and alcohol issues, etc. At least nobody saw this particular arrest of her until long after she was dead.
    1
  15773. Well, you're not exactly paying attention. She's not the mother of those kids. She even tells the kids in the video to call their mother. She didn't steal anything. If you bothered to look, the description even says she had her receipt. If you go watch the entire video, and not this edited version, you will also see it. You got the "nasty woman" part correct, though.
    1
  15774. You can kind of tweak it. On the YouTube homepage, at the top, it shows you the categories that it uses when deciding what to feature for you. You can X out the stuff you don't want. It works sometimes.
    1
  15775. I don't. I thank stores and cops for trying to control theft. I'm aware that if you're going to sometimes stop people to ask for a receipt, sometimes this means they'll get it wrong and ask me also, even though I don't steal. I provide my receipt, thank them for being diligent, and go about my day.
    1
  15776. What do you suggest if not the Taser? Should he have manhandled her and tackled her to the ground? She made it quite clear that she wouldn't comply until/unless he used the Taser.
    1
  15777. Well, that's certainly one way to demonstrate that you didn't read the arrest report. One of the "audience" recorded it, and gave a copy of the video to the police. Also, you don't know the definition of the word "hearsay."
    1
  15778. Direct statements from actual witnesses isn't hearsay.
    1
  15779. Don't admit to anything... but, she probably was hoping to cry her way out of her millionth arrest before they looked her up and found all of the open warrants.
    1
  15780. Well, I'm sure that English isn't your first language. But, FYI, you don't make a word plural by adding an apostrophe. Beyond that, don't be ridiculous. There are a million conspiracy videos on YouTube. To claim otherwise is just silly. And, sure, some are gone. Sometimes they commit copyright violations, and get torn down because of that. Other times, the people who post them get tired of being proven wrong all the time, and end up tearing down their own videos. But, what EXACTLY are you claiming? YouTube is "in on it"? Really? For some reason, YouTube decided to join a 50 year old "deception"? That's how this works, in your mind?
    1
  15781.  @deanhall6045  Name a military plane that can go mach 2 for 3000 miles, can you? (Hint: no.)
    1
  15782.  @deanhall6045  Yes, dewdrop, the answer for why we haven't sent people back to the moon since 1972 has been answered a million times over. Don't pretend it hasn't.
    1
  15783.  @deanhall6045  Dewdrop, so, let me get this straight... when NASA or James Van Allen tell you that there are invisible belts of radiation, you accept it. When they tell you how Apollo dealt with them, and tell you that Apollo would have no trouble with them, you reject it. Sorry, you don't get to simultaneously pick and choose which things to believe, and which things to reject, just to suit your personal delusions. There are thousands of papers produced as a result of hundreds of probes into and through those belts, which document the type and quantity of radiation. The sources of the information come from any/all countries that have sent satellites/probes into the belts. There are over 400 satellites sitting at the outer edge of the outer belt right now. There are dozens of satellites inside the belts, or between them, right at this moment. There have been countless probes sent up through them to take measurements. You're welcome to do the math yourself. But, let me guess, you watched a 30 second clip from a video made for children, as spoon fed to you by a conspiracy video, and, as a result, you have intentionally taken the words out of context, and decided that you know more about the Van Allen belts than James Van Allen did. Am I correct?
    1
  15784. Sans Nom? More like Sans Brain.
    1
  15785. Maybe you should ask those questions next week. I have a limit of answering the same question only 600 times per week, and you're number 601. Or, you could just scroll down.
    1
  15786. Sorry, dewdrop, you watched some silly conspiracy videos that lied to you. The reason we haven't gone past the Van Allen belts are (a) because there haven't been any manned-rated rockets capable of lifting a large manned craft that high since the Saturn V was retired, (b) because there hasn't been a program approved and funded by congress to do so (until Artemis). Watching a bunch of out-of-context quotes provided by dishonest videos isn't proving anything (except the fact that you'll swallow any nonsense they feed you).
    1
  15787. You clearly don't know who you're talking about. That's Bill Kaysing. Among that crowd, he's considered the elite, the father of the entire moon landing conspiracy, the cream of the crop. And, I always heard it was 30 cats, not just 17, but, I can't say I actually knew anything about his cats. But, he died at 82, not 90.
    1
  15788. Well, if you're not going to actually pay attention to a single word I wrote, then that's on you, not me.
    1
  15789. Bingo.
    1
  15790. What? Why?
    1
  15791. Well, in this video maybe. But, it moved without being touched several other times. Mostly, when that happened, it was due to off-gassing of the suits/backpacks/craft.
    1
  15792. Yeah. When you see a guy at a playground doing the same thing, don't call the police. It might ruin his day.
    1
  15793. It's amazing that you actually believe your own bullshit.
    1
  15794.  @philipmcdonagh1094  Hilarious!!! So, "all you ever needed to know" was to watch a press conference? Really? But, you don't remember about the later ones? So, your entire opinion is based upon watching one press conference? And, you can't actually name anything about that press conference, just that "something wasn't right"?? Wow.
    1
  15795. Huh? What does that have to do with anything? What facts do you think I have wrong? And, um, you do know that Artemis 1 is sitting on the launchpad right now, preparing to go to the moon in a couple of months, right?
    1
  15796. "Here is why I don't believe we went to the moon." Huh? You list two little silly things, and that's your basis for accusing 450,000 people of being involved with the biggest international crime in history? Um, your standards are too low. "I don't trust the government because they lie constantly." Well, isn't that just dandy? So, by that standard, you can deny just about anything. Was George Washington the first president? Nope, the government lied. Did the Civil War occur? Nope, they lied. You can pick and choose whatever you feel like, and believe whatever you want. Yeah, that's really reliable. Good grief. Hey, dewdrop, how about the EVIDENCE?!?!!? That doesn't matter to you? Rather than saying you prefer to analyze the evidence, you just say you blindly reject things? There are mountains of evidence that have nothing to do with what the government says. But, none of that matters to you? "why have we never went back?" That's a reason you reject Apollo? A question? How is this any different from "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake"? That's basically what you're saying. Since you don't know the reasons that congress didn't start up a new manned moon program, it's fake. Why should the work of those 450,000 people for a decade of their lives depend on what YOU understand about the reasons a new moon program wasn't funded until 2019? "According to nasa they lost the technology." Yup, in the exact same sense that we lost the 1950s X15 mach 7 airplane technology, and the 1960s SR71 mach 3 spyplane technology, and the 1960s Concorde supersonic airliner technology. What do you think happens to technologies that get retired with no replacements? Those technologies are "lost" (so to speak). Sorry, but you don't get to sit there and pretend this means we don't know how those technologies worked. They are "lost" in a very physical and practical sense. We don't "have" those technologies any longer. The companies that produced most of that stuff are long gone. The launch facilities. The landers. The command modules. The Saturn V rockets. All gone/used/retired. What's left of them were gutted out and stuck into museums. But, in 2019, a new manned moon program was green-lit by congress call Artemis. And, they are currently building updated versions of those technologies. Oh, but you go ahead and hang your hat on one word, and throw 4.5 million years of human effort out the window. After all, "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake," is all you have to go on. It's not like you can actually read up on how all of this stuff worked or anything....
    1
  15797. In the USA, they use cuffs on every single arrest. It's required.
    1
  15798. Why would you believe such a thing? On what evidence? Prior to EPO Armstrong was already on steroids, but never even finished in the top 50. Once the UCI had their golden boy with a heartwarming cancer survival story, willing to dope himself to the gills to win, they used him to propel the sport's popularity, let him get away with murder, and didn't always test his samples. They practically helped him cheat because his popularity made them money. Why do you think he'd win without that advantage?
    1
  15799. Oh? Like when he used to make dozens of anti-feminist videos?
    1
  15800. Damage
    1
  15801. Do you really not understand bodycams? Also, the arrest video wasn't released until after she was dead for 1.5 years.
    1
  15802. If it's on the internet, it's GOT to be true. Nobody on the internet ever lies.
    1
  15803. No. You should be ashamed for trusting anything you see on Inside Edition.
    1
  15804. Really? And, it was because of this arrest? So, about a year later after this arrest, she killed herself because of this arrest? What about the other million arrests? She didn't kill herself when she served time in prison a few years earlier. What was the reason that THIS arrest did the trick, and none of the other arrests? And, why'd she wait a year after this arrest to do it?
    1
  15805. Um, ok, sue who? And, on what basis?
    1
  15806. It's called a "flagpole." Sorry if you don't understand it.
    1
  15807. So, basically, you're saying that you didn't read a word I wrote, but you're claiming that I am wrong about what I wrote (which you didn't read). What a fucking moron.
    1
  15808. You remember this woman's arrest from 2.5 years ago? Huh? How? The arrest video wasn't released until November 24, 2023.
    1
  15809. So, you're talking about the 5% of people who might have a legitimate reason to reject getting the shot, and ignore the 95% of people who refuse to get the shot because of political nonsense, conspiracy garbage, or just plain ignorance?
    1
  15810. Is this a joke? Why would anybody ever want to land a camera on the moon to watch the Earth 24/7? Wouldn't it be wiser to put an even bigger camera in space at a point where it's always daylight to watch the Earth... i.e. EPIC/DSCOVR? That one watches Earth 24/7. And, since it never had to land on the moon (requiring a ton of extra equipment such as a lander, fuel, deployment mechanism, etc.), they made it nice and big, much bigger than anything you could land on the moon after all of the waste of unnecessary equipment & fuel.
    1
  15811. Dewdrop, if you want to see it rotate relative to the sun and space, I already gave you DSCOVR/EPIC. If you want to see it stationary relative to Earth (geostationary Earth position, sun rotating around it), I gave you Himwari-8, exactly as I said. What more do you want here? Why is this important to you? Did you even understand why no sane person would want to put a camera on the moon just to watch the Earth rotate?
    1
  15812. Doesn't it at least slightly raise your eyebrows that the people who think like you do, also can't read or write (just as you can't)? No? This doesn't occur to you that the people who are in your camp are barely literate, just like you?
    1
  15813. Man, just go back to school to learn to read and write. Seriously. It's absolutely painful to watch you butcher the living daylights out of every sentence you attempt to write.
    1
  15814. Well, then I imagine you'd be relieved to know that the arrest video wasn't made public until 1.5 years after she died.
    1
  15815. Of you just moved? Of you would of done that of if it was of a man at a playground of of? Haved you not of understand of the laws correctly of?
    1
  15816.  @bvskyfacer4377  YOU SAID: "You seem to be as confused as a fart in a fan factory." == A little bit harsh on him, huh? He is asking that question in an Apollo 17 video, and the UV telescope was actually on Apollo 16. So, he's probably asking in the wrong video. But, it seemed like an honest question to me. YOU SAID: "No telescope was left on the Lunar surface by the Apollo Astronauts." == Not on Apollo 17 (which is this video's topic). But, yes, Apollo 16 left the Carruthers UV telescope on the moon. Google it. It's really amazing that they burned so much usable size and weight for such little return. But, they did. I'll dig up a few photo catalog numbers, and you can search for them.
    1
  15817.  @bvskyfacer4377  The photo catalog numbers in the range from AS16-114-18435 through AS16-114-18440 will show you the Carruthers UV telescope left on the moon. Also AS16-114-18468 through AS16-114-18470. Also AS16-116-18577 through AS16-116-18581.
    1
  15818. There are lots of 12 step programs out there that can help you shed that addiction issue you have.
    1
  15819. Of should of never what of happened?
    1
  15820. Well, not only did she admit it, but, one of the audience recorded it and gave the video to the police.
    1
  15821. So, you now acknowledge that the reason is valid. Does that change your opinions?
    1
  15822. The people who called the police weren't walking in the first place. The woman plopped down in front of people (including children), and put on a show.
    1
  15823. Yeah, when that guy at the playgrounds cranks it in front of the kids, just butt out.
    1
  15824. It's exactly the same. She plopped down in front of a bunch of people including children and put on a show.
    1
  15825. Yes, that's exactly what happened. Did you not read the arrest report?
    1
  15826. Because a 9mm hollow-point isn't going to penetrate a truck or glass very well. And, even if you can get the round to penetrate, there's not much energy left afterward.
    1
  15827. So, you cannot even spell "sergeant," but, you think you know enough about police procedures to comment? There is no requirement to escalate to a sergeant. And, sorry, but in busy cities with higher crime, they can't just go calling sergeants every time someone gets arrested for something as trivial as shoplifting. Jacksonville, FL is the state's gun murder capital, as well as a whole bunch of other violent crimes. And, you want sergeants being called to deal with some woman whose feelings got hurt at a supermarket? Did you see the Brady Bunch spoof movies? Do you know the scene where Mike goes into the LAPD office and wants to report that the guy living in his house might not be as honest as he claims? There are violent crimes happening all around, the police cannot even keep up, and Mike Brady is there with the most mild claim ever reported to the police. Well, that's you right now. You're Mike Brady. The cop had every right to do what he did. He was investigating a potential theft, exactly as his job dictates. The woman refused to ID herself, and was arguing and obfuscating. Those things are arrest worthy on their own, with or without the shoplifting charges.
    1
  15828.  @TheWokeFlatEarthTruth  His "Van Halen" comment is still there. But, the issue is that YouTube comments doesn't work very well, and you need to learn the tricks on how to see some of the comments. But, anyway, yes, it's always ironic when one of these nuts pretends to be an expert, then calls them the "Van Halen belts." It's like pretending to be a doctor, but having no clue about the purpose of lungs.
    1
  15829. I noticed you ran for the hills the moment you were provided evidence. Typical nut.
    1
  15830. You have the "unbelievable" part quite correct.
    1
  15831. It's very grainy, but you can see the carjacker pointing the gun if you go frame by frame as the door opens. You can see the gun more clearly a couple of feet from the carjacker's hand at 1:50 and 5:02 in the video, on the ground next to a 2x4 piece of wood.
    1
  15832. Huh? Why would they need cleaning?
    1
  15833.  @atonewiththemultiverse2889  In a few thousand years, yes, you might have a point. But, sorry, a mere 50 years isn't going to produce much.
    1
  15834. I am not playing your game, sorry.
    1
  15835. "fit inside the tiny lander module" It was 31 feet wide, 31 feet deep, and 23 feet tall. I think it's not as tiny as you're assuming.
    1
  15836. "able to get through the tiny hatch" As opposed to what? Believing that they made the hatch too small? Huh?
    1
  15837.  @randyschissler5791  He is complaining that no prior robotic landings ever sent anything back to Earth. They landed and stayed there. Therefore, Apollo is fake.
    1
  15838. Huh? You're wondering why TV cameras have gotten better? Well, that's a new complaint, I'll grant you that. It's so rare to see new objections. But, good grief. Yes, video cameras have gotten better since 1972. But, to give a more accurate description of the issue: they needed a TV camera for that purpose. They had 70mm film cameras, 16mm video cameras, and 35mm stereoscopic cameras for a lot of the photography/videos. However, for live streaming video, they needed a TV camera. The color TV cameras of the day were huge. They were basically three separate video cameras (which is why you see three lenses sticking out of those old TV cameras), while using some pretty bulky hardware to combine the 3 signals (red/green/blue) into one. And, then you needed some substantial mounting hardware to give you an articulated mount. A typical camera weighed a couple hundred pounds. And, even stripping it down to bare minimums to lighten the weight, you'd still be talking about a big and bulky triple-camera mounted to the front of that rover. So, no, they didn't want to do that. Instead, they used a field sequential scanning color camera that is capable of rendering color images from a single vidicon pickup. This made it much smaller and lighter, and could be mounted to the front of the rover. However, it came at a price: the picture isn't that great. Basically, it's a single monochrome pickup, which is "bluffed" into seeing three colors by putting a spinning color wheel (red/green/blue) behind the lens and in front of the pickup. That way, one pickup is capable of scanning red, green, and blue, and interlacing the frames (well, loosely anyway, not quite, but, close enough for this comment), so a color image can be generated. However, with only a third of the normal hardware, and the fact that you're really only scanning a 3rd of the time, and getting whichever color happened to be spinning in front of the pickup at the moment of the scan, yeah, the picture quality suffers. But, it's live color TV on the moon, from a camera mounted to the front of a rover. Not bad for 1972.
    1
  15839. Huh? Are you under the impression that the cop must prove stuff? A cop determines if there's reasonable suspicion of a crime. A cop is not the judge and jury.
    1
  15840. The arrest video wasn't made public until 2.5 years later, which was 1.5 years after her death. YouTube did nothing to cause her suicide.
    1
  15841. So says the person who thinks "had of" is a verb.
    1
  15842.  @burger5904  What don't you understand here? ALL parties were guilty. How many times must this be explained? You dullards seem to think that there must always be an innocent party and a guilty party. Sorry, but you don't get to just plan a couple of murders for the crime of theft.
    1
  15843.  @buy_my_bath_water  I'm not playing this game with you. You deleted your comment, and you know it. Now you're pretending you didn't make the comment at all. I have your deleted comment in my notification bar, you utter clown.
    1
  15844.  @buy_my_bath_water  Are you 6 years old or something? Good grief. Just be a man. Admit your mistakes. Trust me here, life will be much better to you if you are simply honest, rather than playing this game. You and I both know you wrote that. And, as if that wasn't enough, you forgot to delete a very similar comment from a different thread, which is still available for the world to see. So, no, you don't get to pretend.
    1
  15845. She didn't shoplift. She had her receipt. But, resisting, obfuscating and obstructing, failing to ID, and just generally acting crazy, yes.
    1
  15846. Side note: you'd have been better off complaining about the angle of the Earth in that shot, rather than the size. The Earth wasn't that low in the sky. The only time the Earth ever appeared low in the sky was when they took photos from the base of the South Massif mountain, looking up the steep angle, making it seem like the Earth was low in the sky (they were actually photographing up the slope of a wide flat-faced mountain). Other than that, you'll never see the Earth that low in the sky from any of the Apollo landing sites.
    1
  15847. Which one? The version of the lunar module made for Apollo 9 through Apollo 14? Or, the version made for Apollo 15 through Apollo 17? I suppose you're going to do what all conspiratards do, and look at the schematics for the first version of the lunar module, and ignore the schematics for the version made for extended stays on the moon, and to carry the rover, right? That's your point, right? Your other thread complains that the rover couldn't fit. So, you started this new thread to complain about that, right?
    1
  15848. Blame anybody except the criminal herself, eh?
    1
  15849. "Why is there no video of them taking off from the Moon?" Once again, you're proving (just as you did before) that your only input is conspiracy videos. NOBODY who is actually studying Apollo would ever make this claim. There are videos of them lifting off from the moon from both inside the lunar modules, and from outside from the rovers' cameras. And, it only takes "video of them taking off from the moon" to find them. Rather than ask in the comments, why didn't you actually look for them yourself?
    1
  15850. "they looked guilty" Aww, you poor thing. Your bias is showing.
    1
  15851. "I didn't fall for anything." Sure you did. Those silly videos told you that there were no rocket blast marks on the lunar surface. All you'd need to do is look at the photo archive yourself to know that's wrong. The silly videos said the Van Allen belts would be a problem for Apollo. There's not a radiobiologist on the planet who agrees. The silly videos told you the recordings were lost. That's wrong. Only backup copies were lost, and nobody in history had ever even watched those backup copies. Need I go on? Yes, dewdrop, you have fallen for every single lie those silly videos have fed you.
    1
  15852. "why is it so hard" No, dewdrop. If you don't have the common courtesy to answer a single question I asked (and I asked about a dozen), why should I answer more questions from you? You don't get to sit there and pretend you wanted answers to your questions, then ignore those answers when you get them. As I said (and I'm completely correct about), you're making it quite clear that you don't actually want answers. You came here to pretend to know things you do not, and to slander others on the basis of the pure gibberish you've watched in silly videos that you gobbled up like Christmas dinner.
    1
  15853. "I looked at the photos and could see that there is not 10,000lbs of thrust blow back." No, dewdrop. You claimed that there were no marks on the lunar surface. That is patently absurd, and anybody who actually looks at the photos would know that. Furthermore, looking at photos presented by conspiracy videos doesn't count. And, 10,000 pounds? How in the world could they even land if they were running the engine at 10,000 pounds of thrust? You're not under the impression that they landed at maximum thrust, are you? If the engine was running at 10,000 pounds of thrust at landing, sorry, there won't be a landing at all. The only direction it would go is straight up. Bravo for failing to understand simple physics.
    1
  15854. "It's just funny how conspiracy theories typically end up being true." I haven't done any statistical analysis of how many conspiracies there have been in history, and how many have been true vs. false. But, I can tell you that nobody has ever offered any moon conspiracies that stand up to even the slightest scientific scrutiny.
    1
  15855. "Does it make me wrong to ask questions?" Sorry, dewdrop. You've made it very clear that you're not asking any questions. You're PRETENDING to ask them. I (and others) have provided answers, and you've ignored them. I've asked return questions, and you've ignored them. You lost your "I'm just asking questions" credibility long ago.
    1
  15856. "Did I say we didn't land on the moon for sure?" Spare me. It's very clear what you believe. Don't kid yourself into thinking you're good at pretending. You're not.
    1
  15857. "well then answer them. It's funny how everyone just wants to insult but still has no answers." Good gods, what in the world is wrong with you? Try looking into the mirror, dewdrop. I answered ALL of your questions, except the last one, because I said I'm tired of you refusing to address any of the replies/questions, and didn't want to answer new topics until you dealt with the old topics. You ignored every single return question. And, now you're demanding that I continue to answer your questions? This has to be a joke. You won't answer A SINGLE ONE of the questions I asked (and I asked about a dozen). I answered every single question you asked, minus one. But, that's not good enough for you? Seriously, how far gone are you? Has it been medically diagnosed?
    1
  15858. Again, dewdrop, you have made it abundantly clear that you never wanted answers to your own questions. Stop pretending.
    1
  15859. Dewdrop, you do NOT want answers to your questions, because you refuse to read the replies that provide those answers.
    1
  15860. Huh? Do you know of a way to arrest someone without touching them?
    1
  15861. "very different than that of the moon soil China has" To the contrary, it's largely the same. They like to try to look for small differences, of course. But, in the bigger scheme of things, yes, the samples are virtually identical.
    1
  15862. "All things point to a lie." Yeah, but, you obviously have no understanding about who's lying. Whoever is feeding you this gibberish you just spewed is the one telling the lies.
    1
  15863. Stephen, Stu is on your/our side. He's just not very good with YouTube comments.
    1
  15864.  @stephenpage-murray7226  Naw, he just didn't understand what you were saying.
    1
  15865.  @stephenpage-murray7226  My my baby blue Yeah I been thinkin' 'bout you My my baby blue Yeah you're so jaded And I'm the one that jaded you
    1
  15866. Wow. With her mile long prior record, you want more of her? Arrest record for multiple crimes. Did some prison time for stealing cars. Had judgements against her for various thefts. Numerous failures to appear in court. Lots of issues with drugs and alcohol. Etc. And, yeah, people were able to take video of her act on the beach because she did it in view of the public (contrary to the words spoken by a woman trying to avoid getting arrested yet again). Yes, one of the "audience" was able to capture the crime on camera, and showed the video to the police. They describe it in their arrest report as a very loud and public display in front of multiple people including children. Sorry, we don't lock people up for taking videos of crimes happening. We lock people up for committing the crimes in the first place. You've got your priorities backward. Oh, and by the way, her suicide had nothing to do with this incident anyway. Welcome to Inside Edition.
    1
  15867. As far as I am aware, the video of the incident was never made public. The contents of the video were described in the police report. The only video that was made public was this arrest video, which wasn't released until 1.5 years after she died.
    1
  15868. And, if you'll take unsolicited advise from an old man you've never met... sorry... you can't save them. I know from personal experience about feeling like you can rescue them. But, you can't.
    1
  15869. Camera crew? Like, you don't know police wear cameras on their vests?
    1
  15870. Cat not wearing a suit? Lost spacesuits? What? Do you want to try this comment again after you come down off of whatever drugs did this to your mind?
    1
  15871. Did you want to try to write this message again when you're sober? I can't imagine this mess was what you intended to write.
    1
  15872. And, this utter mess was your edited version? How completely illiterate was your first version before the edit?
    1
  15873. Huh? Then go watch one of the liftoffs. Good grief. Start with Apollo 15's liftoff. As it goes up, you can clearly see tons of "haze" (which is all you can expect for seeing dust from TV camera with only about 200 lines of resolution). And, once the rocket has sufficient distance from the lunar surface, you see the "haze" go away, starting from the top, then to the bottom. Yes, that's the dust falling back to the surface. But, again, if you expect to see individual dust grains at that resolution, then you should go get a camera with that same low resolution, throw some dust in the air, and see if it looks like a haze, or if you can see individual grains. (Hint: you will see a haze, and nothing more.)
    1
  15874. In fairness, the cop opened the door.  @DoctorKnox 
    1
  15875. Dewdrop, the Soviets had been using radar long before Apollo went to the moon, you know. They had unmanned lunar probes since a decade before Apollo, and they tracked them. They also tracked all of the Apollo missions. So, I have no idea what you're talking about, and neither do you.
    1
  15876. Multiple people called the police, not just one family. One witness even recorded it, and showed the video to the police. They describe it in their arrest report as a very loud and public act in front of multiple people, including children. The witness also said that the woman seemed to intentionally plop down in front of people after wandering up and down the beach for a while. I'm sorry if this differs from the version spoken by a woman who was trying to avoid her millionth arrest, but, hey, "I didn't do it" is a pretty common claim.
    1
  15877. Dewdrop, nobody forgot how. Stop pretending you understand things you don't.
    1
  15878. Wow, you are THAT delusional, huh? No expert or rider agrees with you, of course. But, you're going to hold that opinion anyway. If you REALLY believe that it was an even playing field, you're either incredibly stupid, or incredibly uninformed. Lance's own teammates said it wasn't an even playing field. The blanket statement "oh, they all could have access to the same dope" shows how little you know.
    1
  15879.  @masih9595  Why in the world would you laugh? Do you ACTUALLY believe you have a point to make? Do you think the entirety of the world's aerospace engineers simply never realized that there wasn't enough oxygen? I mean, I've seen you make equally inane comments all over the place, and, it seems like you're the kid from grammar school who ran around with his underwear strapped to his head, saying "look at me, look at me."
    1
  15880. What do you propose instead? Should he have manhandled her to the ground?
    1
  15881. I can't figure out what you're attempting to say? Every single gun owner is a kook? Or, these rare kooks are the ones with weird dreams of shootouts?
    1
  15882. And, why does the context of the video say "flat earth"??
    1
  15883. And, you know this from a 1 minute Inside Edition (where facts don't matter) video? Good grief. You couldn't be more incorrect if you had tried.
    1
  15884. First of all, it's been 8 months, and only NOW are you replying to the answers to your own questions?? You asked a bunch of questions, I answered you, and now, 8 months later, you're finally responding? What does that tell you in the first place? That tells me that you aren't really all that interested in answers to your own questions. YOU SAID: "sorry to have to point out that what i said was not an ab lib by me it was a quote word for word" == Wrong. Word for word, here is what Moore asked: "When you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?" Yet, here you were, claiming that Moore asked about brightness, when he never asked anything about brightness. Yes, you have inserted words that were not there, and you have ignored words that were there. YOU SAID: "plus the subsequent question about how you navigate in space, a question raised by somebody else, there was no pause, the instant answer was by the stars." == Yes, there were specially designed optics that allowed the astronauts to take star sightings in any lighting condition. You could research this if you wanted to. You've had 8 months to do it. And, even Armstrong's answer to Moore alludes to it. Armstrong answered that they were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or from the daylight side of the moon by eye without looking through the optics. Yes, those very same optics are what they used for star sightings for their navigational orientation tasks. That's why those optics were there: for star sightings pertaining to navigational orientation. The command module had one of these optics apparatus. The lunar module had one also. It was called the Alignment Optical Telescope (AOT). YOU SAID: "The reason i am interested in this is the simple fact that i am one of those people who will brave the cold evenings and nights to use a telescope which did not come from walmart,, i recently sent tgree DVDs to Mufon by request after having supplied them withh some interesting fotage, all of which had been denied by the proper organization, they have since changed their minds a bit, and my comment is simple, why did th.ey not tell the truth before hand." == And, what? Your purpose in coming to a YouTube comment about Apollo was to ask why "the proper organization" (whoever that is) denied your UFO sighting DVDs (or whatever you're talking about)? What? Good grief. Why not ask THEM!?!?!?!?!? How would anybody in these comments know why your DVDs were not initially accepted? YOU SAID: "You see a lot has happened in the sevety six years i have been around, i was one of the lucky ones to be in service during the Cuban crisis, or if we really want to tell the truth, it was about the employment of balistic missiles in Turkey, so i saw what happens when America gets caughtbout, everyone quickly blamed Russia, and totallybignored the fact that in real fact it was America who was breaking the rules, andvlook how upset they get when someone shows them that theybare not the be all and end all in this world, the situation was averted as soon as the U.S, agreed to remove these missile, and as agreed, Russia kept its word and took theirs home again, but made it clear that America had done nothing but break agreement left right and centre ever since the Yelta agreement signed by America and countries like Russia were to say the least very level headed and unlike America had not broken the agreement, did not have bases right the way across Europe, had they adopted the same childish atitude the moment America started breaking the rules, which for Europe was a welcome restspite rather than go to was again the moment the U.S. started." == Good gods. What a parade of illiteracy and gibberish. And, you think an Apollo 17 video is a place to voice all of this insanity, why? YOU SAID: "As far as i was concerned with regards to the moon landings, i felt very sorry fot the men involved, so please dont get me wrong," == Yes, the men who accomplished the greatest technological feat in human history need your sympathy very badly. YOU SAID: "i get on fine with thevaverage Americas, i do however dislike those who force others to tell porkies, to hide their own mistakes, some of the photos i have would really make you wonder just whos side these big wigs are really on." == And, you have chosen a YouTube comment as the forum to reveal that you have these amazing photographs that will show the world that the Apollo astronauts were forced to tell "porkies"?? How about mainstream media? How about publishing them yourself? What are you waiting for? No? You've been sitting on these super secret photographs for 50 years, which reveal the astronauts' lies about who-knows-what, and only NOW are you telling the world you have them? Only crackpots think YouTube comments are the forum to reveal these amazing things to the world. You're not a crackpot, are you?
    1
  15885. Huh? How did he do any profiling? The store employee Anna told him which woman left without paying. The cop didn't select the person to investigate. Anna did. And, yeah, you're right, you don't have to show any recipes, nor any receipts. The cop never asked for a recipe. But, yeah, he asked for a receipt. He's allowed to do that, you know. She doesn't have to give it, but there's no harm in asking. And, sorry, but she IS legally required to provide ID, which she refused to do.
    1
  15886. Doesn't it even remotely bother you that none of you cranks ever actually want to look at the evidence? It's like, "look at how the astronauts behaved in the press conference," or "why hasn't NASA gone back yet?," or "what does 'rehearsed' mean?," or "they lost the technology." Why? Who cares? There are mountains upon mountains of evidence for the Apollo missions, coming from dozens of countries, both friendly and enemy. But, people like you are focused on what word ("practice" vs. "rehearsing") is used in some 3rd party video made 50 years later? Who cares? Why does it matter? The evidence for Apollo is crushing. But, none of you people even want to know it. You're more interested in trying to "logic" your way into disbelief.
    1
  15887. Source please? And, which column do these cops fit into? The 2%? Or, the 98%? (In your mind?)
    1
  15888. So, a cop who does his job correctly will approach a known armed criminal who just got done shooting at a woman, without his gun drawn? That's "good" police work?
    1
  15889. I'm not sure what fantasy world you live in, but, if you cannot tell when cops just get lucky, vs. when they do their jobs correctly, there's no wonder you fail to understand these concepts.
    1
  15890.  @trentcope  No, that's lucky.
    1
  15891. Yeah, they sent a train to go kill the guy. Poison in the food? Nope. A robbery gone bad? Nope. They sent a TRAIN to do the job. Yeah, makes total sense. This ranks right up there with "they killed Gus Grissom because he was going to tell the world that the spacecraft was unsafe, so, they rigged up the spacecraft to be unsafe, killed a couple of extra guys for no reason, then blamed the spacecraft for being unsafe, all to prevent the world from learning that the spacecraft wasn't safe." How far gone are you?
    1
  15892. Well, the witnesses beg to differ with you. One of them caught it on video, and showed the video to the police. Sorry, but the video didn't match her version of a quiet little discreet act with nobody around. Making a long story short, just making sure you're aware... this woman was a convicted felon who served prison time for stealing cars, and had a mile long arrest record for other thefts, drugs and alcohol, failures to appear in court, etc. Her straight career was destroyed long before, so, according to her landlord, she was a stripper at the local club. I mean, I could type a heck of a lot more to paint the picture more accurately than the false image of an innocent soccer mom caught on the beach (like Inside Edition portrays). But, anyway, according to the witnesses, yes, it did seem like she did it intentionally.
    1
  15893. Couldn't have changed it very much, though. She immediately kept robbing Walgreens after this incident. And, the irony is that she may still be alive today if she had just been in the "safety" of prison.
    1
  15894. Yeah, whenever you see a man cranking it at the playground in front of children, leave him alone.
    1
  15895. But, dewdrop, the video wasn't released until 1.5 years after she died.
    1
  15896. So, you're an expert on what happened here? You are able to reach this conclusion, how? Why? Do you know the background (which I will cut-n-paste from another comment): This guy had just vandalized a car. Then, he kidnapped two people and held them hostage. The cops were called, they chased him, and he ran. He then fled into an office, and attempted to accost more people. The cops chased him again, he ran again, and got onto this bus. Then, the cops chased the bus and stopped it (there were many cops surrounding the bus, not just the two that got onto it in this video). The cops witnessed the people running off and evacuating the bus in fear. The bus driver waved for help and pointed at the crazy guy. Yes, under those circumstances, the person might be dangerous enough to warrant the cops going in with guns drawn. Very often, under those circumstances, the maniac is going to be armed. It is a reasonable presumption, even though he wasn't armed in this particular case.
    1
  15897. The Soviets not only tracked the Apollo missions to the moon and back with radar, they not only listened in on the audio (which was open channel analog) by pointing their dishes at the moon during the missions, but, also, a couple of days ahead of Apollo 11, they even sent an unmanned probe called Luna 15 to orbit the moon, wait until Apollo 11 got there, then land on the surface while the astronauts were still down there. The plan was to race Apollo 11 home with the first lunar samples. It crashed, unfortunately for them, because it was a rushed mission and they made some mistakes. But, it doesn't change the fact that dozens of countries (including the Soviets themselves) tracked the Apollo 11 mission, as well as the Luna 15 mission, using radar and radio telescopes. The USA feared that the Soviets might try to ram the Apollo 11 craft with the Luna 15 probe, so they asked MIT to increase the tracking capabilities of the radar systems. As I said, dozens of countries were involved. So, spare the world this silly notion that the Soviets were just blindly trusting anything they were told. You have no idea what you're talking about. "Even after all the evidence shows it was staged" What in the world are you talking about? There is NO credible evidence that it was staged. NONE. This is why we have silly conspiracy videos. If any of the makers of those videos had anything real to offer, it wouldn't be found in a video anyway, it would be in the science and engineering journals. But, nope. Not a single time in the past 50+ years has anybody, anywhere on Earth, ever published a single article in any recognized journal anywhere, which has passed even the first round of scientific scrutiny, denying the moon landings. Not a single time. Never. Not even once. Instead, what do they do? They make videos, skipping the scientific method altogether. And, the content of the conspiracy videos is laughably wrong. None of them even dare to try to publish in journals. Nope. They know darned well that their lies are spotted instantly. So, they simply make videos, lying to their viewers, and gullible people like you just eat it up. "and even NASA confirming they never went to the moon because of Karman Line." Do I even want to know how that even remotely makes sense? "You just decided to believe in the lie regardless what comes out." Oh, the irony. Dewdrop, the liars are the makers of the conspiracy videos you've been watching. And, contrary to your notion that there's evidence that it was staged, sorry, the evidence shows very clearly that Apollo happened. Take for example the recent India and China evidence. They each sent orbiters to the moon, and each returned photos of the landing sites, showing the Apollo landers exactly where the original mission photography showed them. How do you explain that? Are you even reading this message? Or, was this too much for you to swallow, and you are ignoring it? Can you prove you're reading this by writing "green" at the top of any reply? Or, like every other nut, are you going to read just a few words and ignore the rest, because you don't like being told that you're wrong?
    1
  15898. No, she never showed up in court. And, as for your suit, what's the basis?
    1
  15899. So, you're encouraging attorneys to issue frivolous suits on no basis? Isn't that grounds for heavy fines and possible loss of license?
    1
  15900. Yeah, he should have taken him out for tea and crumpets instead. Maybe a nice game of Trivial Pursuit. Talk about philosophy. Sure.
    1
  15901.  @Tim22222  He's talking about NASA Robert Simmons' "new blue marble" (mostly photoshopped together from low orbit photography over a period of many months). This is where the dewdrops get their notion that "all" of the images are photoshopped. NASA published this one image, said it was photoshopped, said that it came from stitching together mountains of photos from low orbit satellites, thus, now the nuts claim now that ALL of NASA's images come that way. It's ridiculous.
    1
  15902. Yeah, well the other cyclists on Armstrong's team say that you're wrong. They say that better doctors and chemists definitely make all the difference. It's not like all of the cyclists had access to the same doctors, the same chemists, the same dope, etc. Better financing and better doping science made Armstrong win, according to his own teammates. They clearly say that it was NOT a level playing field.
    1
  15903. Because these two went back to the pool at night after it was closed.
    1
  15904.  @TheWokeFlatEarthTruth  He was active on social media a couple of years ago. I haven't checked lately. But, ok, I'll start looking.
    1
  15905.  @TheWokeFlatEarthTruth  He commented on social media 8 months ago.
    1
  15906.  @TheWokeFlatEarthTruth  Yup, looks like he's still alive. His wife died last week, and there are bunches of posts online sending condolences to Ed (which they wouldn't do if he had also died).
    1
  15907. In order to be kicked in the balls, he has to have them first.
    1
  15908.  @occhamite  "I see no sign Uncle Sam will abandon SpaceX" No? How about the unprecedented choice of sending $3.5 billion to their competitor to build a rocket to do the exact same job?
    1
  15909.  @occhamite  "SpaceX is on track with its NASA obligations" Hilarious!! Not even close. A politician might use those words, but, they're massively behind schedule, and their progress isn't very promising. My guess is a 90%+ chance that they abandon the HLS and switch to Blue entirely.
    1
  15910.  @occhamite  "STILL nobody else recovering boosters" They did in the shuttle program all the time. But, outside of that, the main reason is that it isn't the return on investment that people claim. Maybe they'll get there someday. But, thus far, it has costed more to recover them and rebuild them than to just use disposable ones. You get more payload out of the disposable ones also.
    1
  15911. What would you have done differently? And, make no mistake about it, there wasn't a way to avoid getting arrested. With the video taken by the "audience," plus the pile of open warrants from other arrests and no-shows in court, yeah, there was no way to avoid the arrest.
    1
  15912. Then name the exact technology you're talking about. Then, explain why none of the thousands of people who worked on that technology ever realized that they failed to make stuff that would do what it's designed to do. Can you?
    1
  15913. She probably gave up the hat and gloves so they wouldn't search her for the stolen drugs she was concealing. And, your $100 would have done better putting her into a rehab program.
    1
  15914. Yeah, in life or death situations, right, I'm sure you'd do better.
    1
  15915. Huh? According to her landlord, she was a stripper who put on "shows" like this every day. Sure, most of those were probably at a club, or at "private" showings for one-on-one customers, not necessarily at a public beach. But, I seriously doubt this incident did anything to change anybody's opinion of her. She was already a convicted felon who served a prison term, and had a mile long list of judgements and arrests and open warrants and everything. What's one more?
    1
  15916. The landlord was a woman, not a man. And, thanks for proving my original point (which seems to have flown right over your head).
    1
  15917. Don't worry, I'm sure the feeling is mutual.
    1
  15918. Well, they did produce evidence. The store employee said she thought the woman went through without paying. And, while that's enough evidence to stop and interrogate the woman, that would never be enough for a conviction in a court of law. So, yes, in the coming weeks, the store would need to provide register transactions, security footage, etc., before this woman would have been convicted.
    1
  15919. Indeed. When the people in the public have such amazingly bad attitudes, yes, it makes cops become heavier-handed. I don't think they have much of a choice. The woman in this video refused to cooperate, refused to identify herself (which she is required by law to do), and turned a 15 second check of her receipt into a long arrest and court case.
    1
  15920.  Veneil  YOU SAID: "It's also f..cked up that they get the death penalty and the men get life." == Well, this is what you get for trusting "news" (not news) stories like this, trying to paint a picture that the men had better lawyers, therefore they got a lighter sentence. Um, no. The men plead guilty in exchange for not getting the death penalty. The women were offered the same deal. The dumb women decided to fight the case, and got convicted. So, if you want to complain about it being "fucked up" - blame THE MURDERING WOMEN WHO DIDN'T TAKE THE DEAL THEY WERE OFFERED. YOU SAID: "Personally it's my belief that especially Emelia Carr is in fact in the wrong place and seems to have had no part in the killings." == Pffttt. Oh, you're a real genius alright. Yeah, sure. The juries and attorneys all got it wrong. Yeah, those people who spent months and months looking at the evidence, they're wrong. Oh, but you watched a 5 minute "news" (not news) fluff piece like this, and yeah, you know better than all of those experts. No, you're not arrogant at all, are you? Um, arrogant asshole, how do you explain her two confessions? Explain those two confessions. Explain them. YOU SAID: "That, at least, seems to have been recognised because her sentence was changed to life." == No, you moron. If they recognized that she had no part in the killings, then SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN SET FREE, not merely having changed a death sentence into a life sentence. See, dummy, states often make deals like that in order to stop the ridiculously expensive appeals and endless battles. Like, they'll make a deal to reduce the death sentence to life imprisonment in exchange for never appealing again. These things happen. And, there's a legal premise that you are obviously completely oblivious about... no deals ever made are supposed to be interpreted in any way as a reflection of any guilt or innocence. That's a core premise of EVERY deal that is EVER made. Yet, yeah, you don't care, you're going to look right past that, and draw conclusions anyway. What an arrogant asshole. YOU SAID: "if murder is wrong (and it obviously is), why is judicial murder any better?" == Really? That's the level you're stooping to? That's how far down the toilet you've flushed your brain? You can't draw a distinction between cold blooded murder, vs. the state executing murderers who had their trials and were found guilty? In your mind, those two are on equal footing? You are about as stupid as people get.
    1
  15921. Why? What's the basis for your suit? And, who's it against?
    1
  15922. Good grief. What the hell?
    1
  15923. Huh? For what?
    1
  15924. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    1
  15925. Really? You're saying that you think the cop should render aid immediately, taking his focus off of his surroundings? Is that how it works, in your mind? You're not worried that there might be 5 more guys crawling out of the woodwork to pick up where Mark left off? Secure the scene first, and get plenty of cops onsite. Render aid second. Otherwise, YOU are the one that needs the aid when more accomplices show up.
    1
  15926. Is she drunk? Good grief.
    1
  15927. "you wouldn't survive because of the radiation" Why are you on YouTube? Why aren't you publishing this in journals on astrophysics and radiobiology? What are you waiting for? The entire world's 77 space agencies don't know about this magical radiation that's supposed to have killed the Apollo astronauts. YOU know about it, though. Publish. Name the source of the radiation, the type, the quantity, the REM multiplier, and demonstrate your claims. Sorry, dewdrop, but just making unsubstantiated claims in YouTube comments is what silly cranks do. You're not one of those, are you?
    1
  15928. "you'd think they'd have a McDonald's up there" Dewdrop, space travel isn't like computers, or even airplanes. There are no substantial economies of scale, nor any magic incantations, that result in going to the moon being all that more efficient now than it was back then. It still takes over a million pounds of fuel and oxidizer to lift each person to the moon. The common man is never going to be able to afford it. Thermodynamics has spoken. Pretending to be an expert doesn't make you an expert, dewdrop. As a matter of fact, it merely demonstrates how little you understand about the topic.
    1
  15929. Huh? Where's your publication in radiobiology journals to prove your point about the radiation? Why do you think a YouTube comment is the place to make this claim?
    1
  15930. "there's to much radiation to survive" First of all, a 3rd grader reads and writes better than you do. Secondly, can you name a single scientific article from any recognized journal on Earth that supports that assertion?
    1
  15931. "bat flu" See how this goes, dewdrop? When you can't substantiate a single thing you're saying, what happens? You change the topic. Typical.
    1
  15932. You clearly WANT to know absolutely nothing.
    1
  15933. Again, dewdrop, where's your scientific paper about the radiation?
    1
  15934. What was so special about this particular arrest (as compared to her other million arrests) that made her kill herself about a year later? Why would you think that this arrest led to anything?
    1
  15935. But, none of this went viral until the arrest video was released on November 24, 2023. She died two years ago. There was nearly zero coverage of this while she was alive. A couple of obscure websites that I've never heard of made a posting that she had been arrested, but, it's doubtful very many people read it, or cared. And, they blur for open investigations, but don't have to blur for closed ones.
    1
  15936. Secondly, why do you believe she was alone? Because she said so, as she was trying to cry her way out of her millionth arrest?
    1
  15937. Third, yeah, I think I'll stick with the words from the innocent bystanders (one of whom recorded the incident and gave a copy of the video to the police), and the words of the cops, before I'll believe a single word out of a convicted felon with an arrest record a mile long.
    1
  15938. It won't let me post the first thing, so figure it out yourself.
    1
  15939. Fourth, this was a misdemeanor. No "fine" for that.
    1
  15940. Multiple people called the police. And, you have your facts backward. According to witnesses, she wandered up and down the beach, looking for a spot, and chose one in view of others. Nobody followed her. One of the "audience" took video of the act, and showed that video to the police. Sorry, but, it doesn't match this version she's telling about a discreet thing outside the view of others, a version she's trying to portray while attempting to avoid her millionth arrest.
    1
  15941. He has not accounted for the fact that a large number of business/first class seating is given away to mileage/loyalty program members, who aren't paying full fare for those upgraded classes. Yes, they sell some seats at full fare. But, let's face reality here, they're giving away a lot of those seats, not charging the kind of money he's talking about. Back when I was a more frequent flier, I was upgraded on more flights than not, never paying a dime for it. I'd also use my miles (flown on business trips) to buy 1st class vacation tickets. I could honestly tell you that over a period of 100 flights, I flew first class in probably 75 of them, but only paid 1st class fares maybe one time (if even that). Anyway, the point is, his video is wrong.
    1
  15942.  @fitgiddlin21  Are you PROUD to know absolutely nothing?
    1
  15943. Which one?
    1
  15944. Well, dewdrop, there were three of them, none of which were on Apollo 11. Does that clear things up? Or, do you need me to type more slowly?
    1
  15945. And, dewdrop, you didn't copy and paste your initial question that's asked about 10x per day?
    1
  15946. WOW!! Were you attempting to get every single thing wrong? Or, was that accidental?
    1
  15947. All arrests include cuffing, period.
    1
  15948. The way back to the police cars was through the restaurant.
    1
  15949. You have confused an infraction with a crime. They don't give tickets for indecent exposure. For that, they arrest. For an infraction, speeding, double parking, fishing without a license, whatever, sure, a ticket. But, for a misdemeanor crime like this, um, no.
    1
  15950. Plus, even in your world of giving a ticket for a crime, do you really think they'd do that here? She had open warrants for her arrest for numerous failures to appear in court. (And, as a side note, she didn't show up in court for this arrest either.) She was a convicted felon with time served in prison for stealing cars, and a mile long arrest and judgement record for various other stuff.
    1
  15951. I specifically loved the fact that you didn't know anything about the video, how it was taken, etc., but, you think you knew enough to declare that it caused her suicide. Hilarious!!! "I don't know what a scalpel is, or how to use it, but, that doctor over there is performing that surgery all wrong." That's exactly what you sound like.
    1
  15952. This arrest = July 1, 2021. Her suicide = March, 2022. This arrest video was released = November 24, 2023. It had absolutely nothing to do with her suicide, because nobody saw it while she was alive.
    1
  15953. Congratulations. Not a single sentence you wrote was correct. Your prize is in the mail.
    1
  15954. Sorry for the multiple replies, but, it was blocking my one reply that had all of the content in one posting. It's still blocking some of the other details you botched, but, whatever, you get the point.
    1
  15955. What do you propose instead? Immediately render aid, taking focus off of his surroundings? You don't think it's a good idea to get plenty of cops onsite to secure the scene before rendering aid?
    1
  15956. "I will not give up my opinion." No matter how wrong your "facts" are, you still have the same conclusion. You were wrong about the surface temperatures of the moon. And, you're wrong when you think the astronauts were there for any surface temperatures that even got as high as you're claiming. You don't seem to understand that with a lunar day that is 708 hours long, all Apollo missions can land in the early lunar morning, and lift off in the exact same lunar morning, long before ever reaching the high noon temperatures. This is all beyond your capacity to understand. "I will also add my assumption that it may be hotter there when radiation emissions from the sun reach undescribed values." YOUR OWN QUOTES say you're wrong. You just got done (in the prior messages) quoting from a source that said the lunar noon temperature was 117 (C). Now, you're saying that your own source, which YOU quoted from, is wrong?? "The shuttle has always been exposed to sunlight and radiation." Hence the thermal blanket. What do you think they made that outer skin for? What do you think the wrinkled Kapton and Mylar foil was for? What do you think the inconel panels were for? "The basis of my belief is that flying with people to the moon is false." So, you came to your conclusion/basis first, and all other input must match your predetermined conclusion. Bravo. You're a real hero. "I believe in what I have read." No, you only believe what you've read if it agrees with your predetermined conclusion. You reject anything you read to the contrary.
    1
  15957. So, you're saying it's "normal" for you to change topics constantly instead of addressing your own mistakes. And, it's "normal" for you to assume others are paid to talk to you. I hope you have very good health coverage. You definitely need it.
    1
  15958. "I didn't make any mistakes." Huh? What's wrong with you? Above, you even said yourself that you were wrong and made a mistake about the temperatures (after a ton of messages of you denying it, you finally admitted it). Now, you're right back to pretending you didn't make any mistakes? "And stop hinting that something will happen to my health" Good gods. No. I am saying that your health (between your ears) has ALREADY deteriorated!!! I wasn't talking about a future thing. Your ability to think straight has already been long lost.
    1
  15959. But, they didn't release it until she was dead 1.5 years.
    1
  15960. Who told you that? You're clearly not a communications engineer. Where'd you get this information?
    1
  15961. 10 minutes? The video is only 6 minutes. And, what would you have done instead? Administer aid right away, before backup can arrive, before securing the scene? You do know that will likely get you killed if you keep doing stuff that way, right? Suppose that woman had a gun also? Suppose someone else crawled out of the woodwork with a gun? Spare the world your silly emojis about topics you don't understand.
    1
  15962. 1) It's called a FOIA request. 2) If there's a silver lining to be found in this tragedy, it's that, at least the poor woman didn't have to live through any public embarrassment over the arrest video, since it wasn't made public until 1.5 years after she died. I mean, you don't trust Inside Edition, do you?
    1
  15963. I love how you deniers just pretend you know exactly what other countries will or won't do. And, somehow, the veracity of Apollo is dependent upon what China decides to do. So, dewdrop, if you're sooooooo certain about the veracity of the moon landings based upon China's behavior, how do you explain why China recently released their lunar orbital photos of the Apollo 11 lander, still sitting on the surface of the moon, exactly where the original mission photography shows it? China doesn't doubt the Apollo missions. You seem to think highly of what China thinks and does. So, why do you use China as a mechanism to deny the moon landings, but ignore the fact that China CONFIRMED the moon landings?
    1
  15964. I think you don't understand what the term "baby daddy" means... which is ironic for your nickname.
    1
  15965. @Peter Angles Huh? F22s are in air shows all the time.
    1
  15966. @Peter Angles Context of what? What ARE you talking about? Good grief. Is it THAT hard to just admit that you didn't know what you were talking about? What is it about YouTube that makes people like you refuse to just say, "oh, ooops, I was wrong"?
    1
  15967. @Peter Angles Yeah, keep on telling yourself that somehow you aren't the one spewing nonsense. Sure.
    1
  15968. @Peter Angles Spare the world, seriously. You claimed that they wouldn't use the F22 in air shows, even though those planes are in air shows quite frequently. Don't pretend there's some sort of context that magically other people will miss somehow. You are incapable of just admitting you're wrong.
    1
  15969. Wrong. Multiple witnesses called the police. They reported that she was walking up and down the beach, and then chose a spot with people in view. One of the audience even recorded it and showed the video to the police. The video didn't match her version of a quiet act when nobody was around. To the contrary, it was a loud act in view of people including children.
    1
  15970. According to Battlestar Galactica, they have to keep the engines running or the spacecraft just stop.
    1
  15971. Huh? First of all, if they get a legal FOIA request, and the case has been closed long enough, they have to release the video as-is. It's up to the media outlets for whether to blur the faces. Secondly, the cops managed to keep the video private for 2.5 years. There's no "blood on their hands," because she was dead long before anybody saw this video.
    1
  15972. Well, I read that daddy was a convicted felon who served time, so, I suspect he was probably the bigger enabler.
    1
  15973. Huh? Staking someone out with a warrant for a shooting isn't the cops' business? What?
    1
  15974. Huh? What EXACTLY will they learn at the gun range that will make those little 9mm rounds penetrate a truck?
    1
  15975. And, she immediately went back to stealing from Walgreens after this. And, now she's dead. So much for the second chance.
    1
  15976. Yeah, but her three attorneys never even filed a case against the city, because the cop did nothing wrong. They did file a small case against the store, asking for $50,000. I think it's pretty obvious that, if they thought they had a strong case, they'd be asking for 10x more. But, by asking for $50K, they would just hope to get a quick payout, because the store would probably need to pay too much to even bother defending it. In this case, though, the store didn't budge, thankfully, and her lawsuit was thrown out the window (where it belongs), and she will be getting $0.00.
    1
  15977. "**WHITE CRIMINALS**!!!!" OK, did I "shout" loud enough?
    1
  15978. "I said if you know the moon is GOING TO BE at a given space at a given time you can fly straight to that point to intercept it, no arch needed." Sorry, but that is simply not possible. As I explained, and you ignored, there is no physical way to make it a straight path. When you fire the craft in the direction you expect the moon to be 73 hours later, guess what? The moon's gravity pulls it on an arc anyway. The moon goes about 2,300 mph in its orbital path. So, to do what you're claiming, you'd have to aim it roughly 167,000 miles forward of where it is during TLI. But, guess what happens? The moon's gravity is already going to start tugging the craft off of that trajectory, arcing it anyway. So, you actually have to aim it even further far forward than 167,000 miles in front of the moon's current position, to accommodate the arc that the moon itself induces. I tried explaining it, but, you ignored it. And, I also outlined about why they were trying to minimize the energy state as the moon approached. You ignored that also. "NASA's archive or descriptions of the flight never mentions an arch." First of all, it's not an arch. It's an arc. There's a difference. Secondly, I highly doubt you have gone through the archives in enough detail. Third, I'd bet that the "copyrighted images" (sigh) you originally referred to would include the arc you are now denying. "It's known as the figure 8" This is ridiculous at this point. This is absolutely over the top ridiculous. What do you think those arcing lines are in the number "8" if not arcs? Good gods. I wouldn't even know how to function, if my brain operated like yours. "which was given to the Smithsonian." It actually doesn't matter, because that's still vastly oversimplified. I mean, take Apollo 17 as an example. They arrived at the moon and dropped into lunar orbit at 86:14:22 into the mission. The fired the rocket to propel them out of lunar orbit at 234:02:09. That's approximately 148 hours spent in lunar orbit. During that time, the moon has moved (relative to Earth) about 340,000 miles. So, an accurate diagram of the path the command module takes wouldn't look like a figure 8. It would be an arc on the way to the moon, which arcs toward the moon as the moon approaches (due to the moon's gravity), and then 75 swirling loops as the moon then drags the command module along with it on its Earth orbital path. Nobody would ever call that a figure 8, because the swirling 75 loops the command module would take aren't actually going to be on top of each other, they'd be swirling over a lateral movement of 340,000 miles!!! But, hey, thanks for confirming that your entire basis for your belief is a vastly oversimplified drawing. Then, you ignored the arcs even in that drawing, and continued to insist it's supposed to be a straight line. You know NOTHING. 'That's the link I shared with you" Dewdrop, nobody can see any links from you. That's simply not how YouTube's comments work. The way you know if anybody can see your posted messages or not is by viewing the thread with an incognito window, or another browser that isn't logged into YouTube. "where it shows copyrights owned by NASA." I'm not explaining this again.
    1
  15979. "Once again, you referring that the moon and planet are stationary in your description." How is it even possible to misunderstand this so tragically? I repeatedly said that they had to shoot the craft out in front of the moon's trajectory, because it wouldn't be in the same spot 73 hours later. I must have said that 5x. How does this align with your notion that somehow I believed it was stationary? "You keep referring to that they pointed at the moon." No, I said that if they did point it directly at the moon, it wouldn't work. "It took 2.5 days to get there and it was 12:00am when they launched from the Earth's orbit. Tell me where the moon is at that time???? Oh guess what, it's on the OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE PLANET" Is this a joke? You think the moon travels half way around the planet in 2.5 days? Good gods. What IS wrong with you? The moon's orbital period around Earth is about 27 days. Thus, sorry, but in 2.5 days, it's nowhere near the "opposite side of the planet." It roughly makes it about 10% through an orbit in 2.5 days, not 50% (which is what it would take to be on the opposite side). Once again, you have proven (as you have time and again) that you have absolutely no understanding of orbital mechanics. How can you sit there and think these things, yet, simultaneously believe you understand orbital mechanics better than Buzz Aldrin, who has a doctorate from MIT in orbital mechanics? Why? Why would you be that arrogant? "so the moon's gravity would have NO effect on their trajectory!!" See what I mean? You're completely ignoring reality. "Also, if you plan your time to be a point WAY before the moon to be at the same point AT THE SAME TIME it is possible. What do YOU think all this happen with both the moon and earth being stationary??? Cause that's your explanation on why they couldn't fly straight." As I said in my last posting, which I was writing at the exact same time that you were writing this pile of gibberish, YouTube isn't the correct forum for you. You really need to write this all up for journals on the topic. It's 100% clear that you refuse to listen to me. I would wonder why you even bother asking questions or making statements when you have no intention of listening to the answers. So, here's my offer: you write up your calculations, and you submit them to any university-recognized English speaking journal you want, anywhere on Earth. And, if you make it past the first round of peer review (laughable, but, that's your problem), you let me know which journal you wrote in, and I'll reply to you there. You obviously have no intention of answering any question I ask, or ever even acknowledging being wrong about anything. So, publish in a journal, and I'll publish there also, spelling it out why you're wrong. It's my opinion that you won't even make it past the first round of scrutiny before they laugh you out the door. (You don't know that the moon isn't half way around the Earth in 2.7 days. You're not even correct about 2.7 days, since it was 73 hours, a little over 3 days. But, whatever, you're wrong about everything else, why stop there? You don't know what a "free return trajectory" means. You don't know the difference between the fuel used in the descent stage, vs. the fuel used in the ascent stage. You literally know nothing about Apollo.) But, whatever. Prove me wrong. Write it up. Post here when you make it past the first round in whatever journal you choose. And, no, Aulis isn't a recognized journal. Sorry, not going to fall for that one.
    1
  15980. Again, YOUR communications skills are the issue here. And, you still don't understand the topic. "See you DO read what you want and not was written" But, you write so poorly, ANYBODY can misunderstand what you mean by things. "I never said the moon takes 2.5 days to go around the earth." No, you said that in 2.5 days, it would be on the opposite side. So, you're basically saying you think it's 5 days. 2.5 was 50%.
    1
  15981. How would you even know how many points I've made? You haven't read most of my responses. You read a sentence or two, then quit reading. And, sorry, but when every single point you try to make is wrong, well, you're not really trustworthy on ANY opinion you have. You made a million mistakes throughout this thread... but the latest one... when you thought the moon orbited Earth in 24 hours (actual orbital period is 27 days)... good gods, no wonder you're wrong about everything. I knew you didn't understand orbital mechanics before, but, I'll confess, that one wasn't predictable. I knew you were wrong about everything, but, yeah, that one was so far off the charts, I wouldn't have guessed it.
    1
  15982. occamite: I'll give you the short version of our conversation you didn't read: 1) He pretends he understands orbital mechanics, but does not. He even accuses Buzz Aldrin (who holds a doctorate from MIT in orbital mechanics) of failing to grasp orbital mechanics, and says he understands it better. 2) He thinks it takes the moon 24 hours to orbit Earth, not 27 days. This is the cornerstone of his argument about trajectories, arguing where the moon would be in the sky, and he fails miserably. 3) He thinks when Aldrin said that they had 15 seconds of fuel remaining, that this meant the entire craft had 15 seconds of fuel, thus believing they couldn't have lifted back off and gotten into orbit. 4) He refuses to read replies, yet, declares himself superior. He accused me repeatedly of stating that the moon and Earth were stationary, despite that I said the opposite at least a half dozen times. But, when he doesn't read what I wrote, how can he even assert he knows ANYTHING about what I was saying? I even asked him to write "green" in his reply, to prove he was reading anything, and, of course, he didn't. It's a one-way street. He spews garbage, but will not accept any input. That pretty much sums it up.
    1
  15983. And, even YOU (who knows nothing about the topic, yet continuously spews garbage) couldn't bring yourself to respond after botching the orbital period of the moon, huh? You thought it was 24 hours. That was the cornerstone of your argument. But, it's actually 27 days. So, you ran for the hills, never to respond again on that topic? Never admitting being wrong? Yeah, you're a real hero alright. "They used the Earth's gravity to slow themselves down" They don't have a choice. They didn't "use gravity to slow themselves down" (as if that's a choice). Earth's gravity slows them down on the way to the moon, and speeds them up on the way back. "neutral gravity point to conserve fuel" How could this even make sense? If they were at neutral gravity between the Earth and moon (which happens at the point that they are about 85% of the way there), then how could they "use" Earth's gravity for anything, if the moon's gravity is canceling it out? Again, you're failing to understand how these calculations are done. "However they ended up missing their target and used more fuel than they wanted to." Huh? Who did? What ARE you talking about? Is this still part of your lack of understanding of the 15 seconds of fuel remaining? Dewdrop, any issues with dropping into lunar orbit has absolutely nothing to do with the Apollo 11 landing itself. Once again, you don't know one craft from another. They didn't use the lunar module's engine to drop into lunar orbit. And, they missed their landing target on that mission because of an error in the calculations, not because they used more fuel than they wanted. Upon landing, Armstrong knew he was long, and simply burned the fuel he had in order to find a spot he liked. He used the exact amount of fuel he wanted to use. "The auto landing malfunctioned and they had to land it manually." No, Armstrong didn't like the landing area, and took over manually (semi-manually) earlier than planned. He was always going to land in P66 mode (semi-manually). But, he simply went to P66 earlier than planned. You don't know what you're talking about. "I'm trying to find out how an arc was even needed to catch the moon traveling 2288mph when they were traveling twice that." Well, you don't understand it because you think the moon's orbital period is 24 hours, remember? If you don't even know where the moon is, and when, you're certainly not going to understand why the craft arcs. "some concerns of fuel and water supplies freezing so the shortest route possible would have been their goal." Wrong. "Now the Earth traveling at 67,000mph along with its gravitational pull" Good gods. Now you don't understand relativity either, eh? "want to aim at an arc so they don't get caught being pulled that fast to catch it." Doesn't work that way, dewdrop. No physicist anywhere on the planet would ever say such a thing. "Then comes the factor if humans in the shuttle could sustain that much speed being dragged at 67000mph." We're sustaining it right now, dewdrop. Sitting in your chair, you're subject to that same speed (relative to the sun). Humans feel acceleration, dewdrop. Humans don't feel speed. "Maybe I'm missing something there" Like a physics 101 class? "however the trip back home couldn't have been a straight path." Correct. It was a "more straight" path than the trip out. I never said it was completely straight. I did need to simplify things to get down to your level. But, comparatively speaking, the return trip was a heck of a lot straighter than the trip out. If you ACTUALLY wanted to understand the topic, here's a suggestion: READ WHAT PEOPLE WRITE. You already proved you weren't reading. Instead, you buried your head in the sand, refused all input, spewed more gibberish, and continued to believe you understand topics you do not. Are you EVER going to admit you don't know anything about the topic? Or, as I asked repeatedly, why won't you just write this up for a peer review journal? I offered to be your first rebuttal. You ignored it. You seem to be under the impression that a YouTube comment is the same as a science journal.
    1
  15984. Zach, let's recap a bit here: 1) You didn't understand the 15 seconds of fuel remaining. You thought that was including the ascent stage's fuel (it wasn't). 2) You have no understanding of orbital mechanics. Yet, you believe Buzz Aldrin (the guy with a doctorate from MIT in orbital mechanics) was the one who didn't understand? 3) You believe that the moon's orbital period around Earth is 24 hours. You have confused the Earth's rotation with the moon's orbit. That's how little you understand here. I tried to explain why the moon's gravity would cause the craft's trajectory to arc. But, you argued that it would be arcing all over the place because the moon is "on the other side of Earth" (because you don't know where the moon actually was, because you don't understand that it's a 27 day orbit). 4) You didn't understand what the term "free return trajectory" means, and got it completely wrong. Yet, you used it in your argument anyway. 5) You were somehow under the impression that the fastest speed was during the launch from Earth, which makes no sense, because they sped up during TLI. So, how could launch be faster than TLI? 6) You don't know how YouTube comments work. You apparently (so you said) made some postings with links in them, failing to realize that nobody was ever going to see them. 7) You think it requires fuel to stay in orbit around the moon for a few hours. In reality, yes, orbits do decay over time because of the faint trace gasses. But, it takes years. 8) I asked you to prove you were reading my responses by writing "green" at the top of your reply. You didn't, thus proving you weren't reading what I wrote. 9) Yet, you sit there and talk about how you're "trying to figure it out"? Well, it helps to figure things out to actually read the responses to your own questions and comments. Ya know? Why is it that all of you moon landing deniers always complain that there are no answers to your questions, while you refuse to read the answers to your questions? 10) You have the reading and writing skills of a 2nd grader. 11) You refuse to answer questions. 12) Now, you proved to understand nothing about relativity, and you're concerned about the Earth's orbital speed around the sun (which would have absolutely no impact on anything we're talking about here). 13) You believe the human body would have a difficult time dealing with speed. But, you fail to realize that it's ACCELERATION that humans feel, not speed. Again, this is a subset of relativity, which you have absolutely no knowledge of. Do I really need to go on here? Are you still going to pretend to know things you don't? And, why should Apollo suffer because of your lack of understanding of entry level physics?
    1
  15985. So, you still refuse to address a single thing I wrote, huh? You're just going to bury your head in the sand, and pretend you know things you don't, huh? "1) Definition: The Neutral Point, is the point at which the vector sum of the gravitational field strengths due to the two bodies, the earth and the moon, add up to zero. Also known as the Lagrange points in celestial mechanics." Um, no. The 85% point on the way to the moon isn't a Lagrange point. Once again, you fail to understand the definitions of the words you use. Good grief. "2) Your response wasn't that the average speed was higher" Correct. I said the trajectory was more direct. "and as matter of fact you never mentioned speed at all." Hilarious!!! Yes, dewdrop. I did outline the speed. This was part of the responses when I asked you to write "green" to prove you were even reading the responses (which you weren't). So, now you accuse me of never mentioning the speed, because you never bothered to read the responses that mentioned the speed. Oh, you're a pure genius alright. Dewdrop, see, all that's happening here is that you're proving you don't actually want answers to your questions. "Nothing about 9.8m/s or the average speed, nada." Are you under the idea that the Earth's gravitational acceleration at sea level is at all the same from 238,000 miles away? Do you believe that the Earth's gravitational acceleration is 9.8m/s^2 at the moon? Add this to another pile of things you know nothing about. "No, you tried to pass on your own HYPOTHESIS of an arc" Huh? You yourself kept quoting the figure-8 (oversimplified). Are those not arcs in the figure 8? "by mentioning Dew Point" I called you a dewdrop, but, no, I never mentioned any "Dew Point." This is just downright laughable. "as if adjusting temperature in the shuttle to combat condensation not collecting on the electrical components had ANYTHING at all to do with the direction of their flight." Silly nut, no, I never said anything like this. I don't know where you're getting this nonsense. "Not only that but Dew Point was ONLY an issue going to the moon and not going back to earth according to your RIDICULOUS explanation." Again, I never said anything about any "Dew Point," and, you clearly don't know anything at all about what I said, because you refused to read it. "by saying "the moon's gravity was pulling them"" Yes, the moon's gravity is always pulling on us. It's pulling on us right now. You weigh a little bit less when the moon is overhead. You weigh a little bit more when the moon is on the other side of the planet. And, if a craft is traveling through space in one direction, while the moon is off to the right, the craft will arc to the right. "it was the Earth's gravity pulling on them." Yes, I explained it numerous times, the Earth's gravity is what slowed the craft on the way to the moon, and sped the craft up on the way home. "The moon's gravitational pull didn't play a significant role until they passed the NEUTRAL POINT." Wrong. The moon's gravity becomes more dominant than Earth's gravity at that point. But, to suppose that the moon's gravity doesn't cause the craft to significantly arc is ridiculous. And, hmmmm, remember when you said that I was wrong because you thought the moon's gravity would be pulling the craft all over the place as it orbited Earth in 24 hours? So, when you were laughably wrong about the orbital period of the moon, and you thought this was a "gotcha" moment to prove me wrong (when it's YOU who was wrong), yeah, you were super willing to admit that the moon's gravity influences the trajectory, because you thought the 24 hour orbital period supported your notion of where the moon was in the sky. But, after I corrected you repeatedly about the orbital period being 27 days, you clammed up, never admitted you got it wrong, and now you've changed your tune to claiming that the moon's gravity doesn't have the influence it does. So, how do we solve this? Here's how: you write it up. You publish it in a journal on physics and cosmology. Go ahead and calculate the amount of the trajectory arc you think it should or shouldn't have, and submit it to a journal, using it to prove Apollo never happened. Rewrite everything known about orbital mechanics. There's surely a Nobel Prize with your name on it, if you're correct. I offered 2 or 3 times to publish right behind you. But, you won't do it?? Why not? "Cause you know that moon just kept pulling them off course huh?." Are you under the impression that the engineers didn't include the moon's trajectory and gravity in the calculations of the return path? Really? Hey, dewdrop, just because YOU forgot to include the moon's gravity in YOUR understanding of orbital mechanics, doesn't mean that the hundreds of engineers at MIT, Draper Labs, and IBM, all forgot the same thing. Yes, they included the moon's gravity in the calculations. "Driving with the wind (with gravity) you use less fuel and get back faster to point "A"." Yes, dewdrop, I already said that. I said it numerous times. They went against Earth's gravity on the way to the moon (most of the way, anyway). Earth's gravity did most of the work to accelerate them homeward. You said you didn't understand it. So, I gave you the exact numbers. You ignored it. "if they had to arc getting to the moon they would have had to arc getting back to the earth as well." Yes, but, the arc on the way back, as I repeatedly explained, wasn't nearly as dramatic as the arc on the way to the moon. "3) You repeatedly take what you read on how YOU WANT TO READ IT." Is it my fault you can't read or write very well? I'm not the only one who didn't understand what you meant every time. This is the problem of the WRITER (you). I read just fine. It's not my problem if you're not a very good writer.
    1
  15986. "moon pulled them harder than the Earth for the first "85%" of the trip." No, dewdrop. I clearly outlined that the Earth's gravity slowed them down for the first 85% of the trip. That's because the Earth's gravity was stronger than the moon's gravity for approximately 85% of the time. Once in the final leg of the journey, the moon's gravity was more dominant than Earth's gravity. I said this repeatedly. See, here's the thing, dewdrop: the reason you have all of this trouble is that you are very poor with reading and writing. Your reading comprehension is very low. You don't bother reading a lot of stuff you should. Somehow, you think I talked about "Dew Point" (I never even mentioned it), because you really don't absorb very much. Your ability to write is also very poor. Yet, you are unaware of this, and you actually believe yourself to be intelligent. Sorry, you're just not. It's a tough pill for you to swallow, but, yeah, you just don't get it. And, this is largely because you have a serious issue with getting information into your mind, and conveying information from your mind. When you compound this with your pure narcissism and the Dunning-Kruger effect, yeah, there's no way to get you to understand things you don't... because you already believe you understand them. But, you're wrong. And, you'll never admit it. I outlined many things you got wrong, most significantly the time it takes for the moon to orbit the Earth. You had multiple posts displaying this massive misunderstanding of yours, in which you kept saying things like "the moon was on the other side of Earth," and "the trajectory would be all over the place as the craft went to the moon, because in the 3 days it took to get to the moon, the moon has orbited Earth 3 times." Those were YOUR POSITIONS earlier in this thread. That was YOUR BELIEF. Then, you laughed at me when I told you the orbital period was 27 days, not 24 hours. You made all of the emojis and stuff, pretending you knew something I didn't. But, hmmm, you went silent after that (on that topic) once you finally got it through your skull that you were wrong. See, a regular human being would say, "oh, wow, yeah, I was really wrong about that, maybe I don't understand orbital mechanics as well as I believed I did." Not a Dunning-Kruger sufferer like you, though. Nope. You dug your heels in, and still somehow managed to convince yourself that you still understand orbital mechanics, while completely botching simple things like orbital periods, what a "free return trajectory" is, and stuff like that. It's how a delusional mind works. You put up a wall in your head, and there's no penetrating it. One day prior, you believed the moon orbited Earth in 24 hours (you have confused geosynchronous orbit, about 22,000 miles above Earth's surface at the equator, with the moon's orbit of an average of about 238,000 miles above). See, the thing is, dewdrop, for a circular orbit (or, close enough to circular anyway), there can only be one orbital period at each altitude. Go a little higher, and the orbital period is slower/longer. Go a little lower, and the orbital period is faster/shorter. For the moon to orbit the Earth in 24 hours, it would require the moon to be at an altitude above Earth of about 22,000 miles up above the surface. It cannot be 238,000 miles away. What's my point? My point is that ANYBODY who understands orbital mechanics, even at the most entry level, would understand this. The fact that you botched it so severely is very clear evidence that you don't understand orbital mechanics AT ALL. This isn't just some trivial error or oversight. This is so fundamental with orbital mechanics, it would be like claiming to be a doctor, but not knowing where the heart is located in the human body. It's not like, "oops, just a minor mistake, I forgot the number." Nope. It truly is like a doctor confusing a human foot with a human heart. This is even more compounded by the fact that I told you the orbital period of 27 hours, and, you immediately denied it, emojis and all. So, it's not like you simply forgot, and I reminded you. Nope, you truly believed that the orbital period was 24 hours, not 27 days. And, you felt like "rubbing it in" with the emojis and laughing at me for getting it so wrong... until you finally looked it up, and ran for the hills (on that topic). "You're in a emotional state and can't read straight." This is one of the finest examples of "projection" that I've ever seen. "Now listen very carefully and don't throw your mom's computer across the room." YOU are going to teach ME? YOU are? The guy who understands absolutely positively nothing about Apollo and orbital mechanics? You're going to teach me? The guy who didn't understand that the ascent stage had its own fuel tanks, and "15 seconds of fuel remaining" had nothing to do with getting back into orbit? YOU? "I was on to you from the start and thought to myself, "You know what, I'm gonna have some fun with this guy and see if I can get him flustered." Mission ACCOMPLISHED!!!" So, your current position is to claim that you botched everything so badly in order to fluster me? Pfffftttt. And, that apparently must have started before you even got a single reply from me, because you botched everything in your very first posted message. "A real intelligent person" Would admit when he is wrong. But, you never do. Hence....
    1
  15987. One clarification to what I wrote: "The 85% point on the way to the moon isn't a Lagrange point." The correct wording should have been "the 85% point on the way to the moon on Apollo isn't a Lagrange point."
    1
  15988. Yes, so what? A crazy old lady thought she saw a Coke bottle, yet there wasn't a recording of it anywhere on the planet. So what? Lots of elderly people think they see a lot of things. Why is this important to you?
    1
  15989.  @paddy3762  Again, SO WHAT?!??!!?!? Tell me, how much of your life do you base upon what senile old ladies say??? Why is this relevant? Are you actually saying that you believe there was a Coke bottle because a senile old lady said she saw one?
    1
  15990. What didn't you understand about EVIDENCE? Why do you continue to write garbage as if anybody bases opinions on what a government says? You're not under the impression that you need to trust the government in order to understand the evidence for Apollo, are you?
    1
  15991. And, what exactly do you think the reason was?
    1
  15992. "It is mostly an excuse for the bullies and egotists to own a murder weapon, nothing more" - What arrogance. Who are YOU to say that? I know many many people with guns, none of whom fit that description. You have clearly been slanted by whatever nonsense led you to think the way you think.
    1
  15993. Multiple people called about this incident. One of them caught in on video, and showed it to the police. Needless to say, the video differs from the version she's telling as she's attempting to avoid her millionth arrest. The witnesses said she deliberately chose a spot in front of people. The video shows a loud and public act in front of multiple people including children. I mean, you do know that she was a convicted felon who served time in prison and had a million arrests before this, right? You do know that her landlord said she was a stripper, and her neighbors said she also did "private" cash transactions in her apartment with numerous men, right? So, let's face reality here, this woman had no idea what shame was. And, given that the arrest video and the viral coverage didn't come out until long after she was dead, she really didn't suffer much embarrassment while she was alive. But, hey, you keep on pretending you know things you don't. You're pretty good at it. How about heading over to a brain surgery video and tell the doctor he should be ashamed of himself for the procedure he uses?
    1
  15994. Yet, the straw had a delayed fuse of 9 months?
    1
  15995. Well, the one saving grace is that she didn't have to suffer from much humiliation from the video going public while she was alive, because the arrest video wasn't released until she was already dead 1.5 years.
    1
  15996. Did he say, "I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you"? Only then would you know that he's the real deal. Because, yeah, that's exactly how you can tell who's top secret, and who's not.
    1
  15997. Horrible reporting = viral. Honest reporting = 200 hits.
    1
  15998. Remember that next time you take your kids to a playground and a man comes up and does the same thing.
    1
  15999. Sorry, but, in a society, we do NOT take matters into our own hands, and we call the police when a crime happens. And, your way does no good for anybody. And, social media didn't destroy her. There was zero social media exposure, and only one obscure website that reported anything. Nobody even knew her name until the arrest video was released 1.5 years after she was already dead.
    1
  16000. Probably because it's fake news, manufactured to go viral on a completely false basis.
    1
  16001. Wait, huh? Why would you make that comment about the police? What do you think they had to do with her suicide?
    1
  16002. Tell me, do you believe your own nonsense? If someone comes up to YOU wearing a balaclava ski mask in the middle of a Kentucky summer, and points a gun at your head, are you really saying that you'd attempt to "de-escalate"?
    1
  16003. Just checking here... you do know that this was just a big media setup, right? When the "original video came out of her arrest" (November 24, 2023), she was already dead for 1.5 years. They just didn't elect to say so, because they were building to this second wave of videos to make people believe that the release of the arrest video caused the suicide.
    1
  16004. Huh? By the time they go log into the security systems, find the videos they need, play them back, etc., do you think the woman would even still be there? She was heading to her car. That means she's leaving. If they took 10 minutes to go watch security tapes, she'd be long gone.
    1
  16005. Well, we tend to say that adults should be accountable for their own actions. But, you're clearly implying someone else. Who is "someone" in your mind?
    1
  16006. I'm on your side about suing the school board. But, what did the sheriff's office do wrong?
    1
  16007. Wow!! You know that much about her from a 1 minute video, huh?
    1
  16008. Well, it's the consequence of having only 9mm pistols. Those rounds don't penetrate trucks very well. All a cop can do is just keep shooting until something gets through.
    1
  16009. @Stan Gilbert Social media didn't create idiots. Social media has merely emboldened them. "Back in my day" (ugh, I hate that term, but I gotta use it here), there was no social media, and the silly people who thought silly things were embarrassed to admit it. They'd suffer immediate blow-back by expressing dumb things. Today, with social media, they can live in their echo chambers (online), and quickly find others who believe the same claptrap they believe. They ignore all input from the sane people, and stick with their social media echo chambers of only listening to each other. That's one of the down sides of today's technology. I mean, if you were to tell most people (decades ago) that the entirety of human knowledge would be at their fingertips, a mere few seconds away from finding just about anything they want to know, it would sound like a paradise. But, what has happened, now that we have that, is that the uneducated ignorant people have found circles of others just like them, and they flock to it. Instead of a big melting pot of knowledge, the internet social media sites have created pockets of nonsense and ignorance, which these people run to, in order to bolster their delusions. I have yet to meet a single moon conspiratard who is open to input, and I've engaged thousands of them over the years. They simply won't do it. They only PRETEND to ask questions. But, what they really want, is to spread their own delusions so they can feel better about knowing absolutely nothing. And, they don't actually seek the knowledge they pretend to ask for.
    1
  16010.  @joedoe-sedoe7977  Make an idiot of yourself all you want. I'll just never understand why you think it's a good idea.
    1
  16011. "lead to someone losing the job" Huh? She gave up her job a decade ago when she abandoned her career and family in favor of living a life of drugs and crime. It's difficult to get a job as a convicted felon who spent time in prison about 6 years ago. And, she picked up her crime spree after getting out of prison. With her mile long arrest record, stealing cars, other thefts, drugs and alcohol, etc., yeah, it's tough to get a normal job. So, her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club. Do you really think she'd lose that job?
    1
  16012. "posted everyone’s arrest videos for clout & to destroy peoples lives" Um, no. This arrest = July 1, 2021. Suicide = March, 2022. Arrest video released = November 24, 2023. So, no, the arrest video didn't do ANYTHING to her life, because she wasn't alive when anybody saw it.
    1
  16013. "lost her life over this" Because Inside Edition said so? You'd believe Inside Edition, why?
    1
  16014. You're like one of those "Hanson vs. Predator" or "To Catch a Predator" guys showing up at the little girl's house, and, when caught by Hanson and the cops, says, "I just came here to tell her I wasn't going to come here."
    1
  16015. The "narrative" in this video is that the deniers are cranks that don't know what they're talking about. And, you make no sense when you post a message saying you won't post a message.
    1
  16016. Don't worry, she didn't. Inside Edition tries to paint that picture. But, even a casual internet search would show the opposite.
    1
  16017. Well, Sarah K. Moss was the one who made the recorded video of the incident on the beach. If you're worried about the husband, why was the wife recording it?
    1
  16018. Well, that's one way to easily tell that you didn't bother reading the arrest report. Multiple people called, not just one. One of the "audience" recorded it and gave a copy of the video to the police. It doesn't match her sob story about "nobody was around" as she's attempting to worm her way out of her millionth arrest. The video depicts quite a different story, of a loud and pubic show in view of multiple people including children. I mean, you do know she was a convicted felon with a mile long record, right? You do know that her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the local gentleman's club, right? I'll eat my hat if she wasn't making "public beach" content, but got reported, and was trying to cry her way out of it before they looked her up and found her pile of open warrants.
    1
  16019. Blame what, exactly?
    1
  16020. Huh? You do know she had a mile long record, right?
    1
  16021. Huh? Do you even know what pieces of this story were or weren't public while she was alive? The police successfully blocked the release of the arrest video for 2.5 years. She was long dead before anybody saw it.
    1
  16022. To those who argue that we shouldn't celebrate the death of the carjacker: I get it. It's morbid to cheer when someone dies. But, let's get real here. This was a guy who had a mile long criminal history of many repeated felonies, including kidnapping. He was a repeated carjacker, robber, committed assault, was a druggie, and was about to be prosecuted for attempted rape. And, we will never know how many more crimes he committed, but was never caught for them. This is a man who truly serves no good purpose in the world. Hate me for saying this if you want, but I say "good riddance."
    1
  16023. B V Skyfacer already answered you. But, I'll put this more simply. There's a concept (which you can look up) called "optical resolution." This includes a formula to determine the size of the lens needed to see objects at [whatever] distances (in this case, 240,000 miles, the distance to the moon from Earth). Long story short, it would take an optical grade lens about 75 feet in diameter to see the Apollo landers as just a single dot. You wouldn't know what it was, you would just see a dot. If you want enough detail to actually start to make out what it was, you're now talking about an optical grade lens about a quarter mile in diameter. Hubble doesn't come close. Not by a long shot.
    1
  16024. You're clearly very young, so, I wouldn't expect you to have a full understanding of everything. But, I'm asking you to please understand that, yes, in every single state in the USA, you are required to identify yourself in a traffic stop. If you don't have a physical ID card, then you are required to verbally give an officer enough information to be able to use the computer to identify you.
    1
  16025. Um, ok. They get lots of stuff wrong also, by the way.
    1
  16026. Well, how do you prevent it? Freedom of Information Act. But, at least the arrest video was never seen until long after she was dead.
    1
  16027. "Plus no stars nor sun" Dewdrop, they took hundreds of photos of the stars and sun. Why not just go look at the photo archive yourself, rather than blindly trusting a lawnmower repairman who made a video saying that they didn't do these things?
    1
  16028. "The robot on Mars is way different than the moon landing" Um, ok, who said otherwise? Why does that matter to you?
    1
  16029. "The US flag is moving" Yes, the flag moves when being handled. It also moves due to outgassing of the spacesuits/backpacks/landers, or from the rocket engines. So what?
    1
  16030. "You can't see your shadow in the dark" Dewdrop, they never landed on the moon in the dark. They only went during daytimes.
    1
  16031. "How they got the four wheeler out of the small spaceship" Well, you could just go watch the deployment of the rover on Apollo 15 to see for yourself. Or, you can trust a video made by a taxi cab driver that told you that it wouldn't fit. I see which you chose.
    1
  16032. "When they were leaving who was recording staying behind" Thanks for demonstrating that you don't actually want answers to your own questions.
    1
  16033. "Because they never went" So, before anybody could give you answers to your questions, you already came to your conclusions. Oh, you're really honest. A true hero at work.
    1
  16034. Um, no. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. Arrest video first made public and posted = November 24, 2023. Period.
    1
  16035. Where is this magical telescope you speak of?
    1
  16036. Who would win in a test of intellect? You, or a hamster? (Everyone who reads this knows the answer already.)
    1
  16037. Wow, haven't seen you in years. Are you still standing in open fields complaining to the world about your utterly failed life? Or, did you get some help yet?
    1
  16038. The word is "college"!!! Good gods, maybe you should be the one going there.
    1
  16039. Huh? The normal body camera, and the Freedom of Information Act?
    1
  16040. No. That's not what skepticism is.
    1
  16041. Well, she had plenty of drug arrests also. What's your point? Do you not understand the difference when someone puts on a public show like she did?
    1
  16042. Breathing water instead of air killed her.
    1
  16043. Good grief. Of course self defense is legal. But, there was no self defense involved here. He went a million miles past that line in the sand.
    1
  16044. Well, thankfully for the rest of the world, nobody cares what YOU believe.
    1
  16045.  @samuelIB454  How old are you? 14?
    1
  16046. Because if he committed suicide, there'd be a body. Because if he committed suicide, the parents wouldn't have reported him missing 4 days after taking his car.
    1
  16047. Well, it's difficult to justify manned space exploration because it's so inefficient. But, in general, the main thing is that you can't cure poverty by throwing money at it either. Every dime you spend on feeding/housing the poor is just adding time. Give free handouts and free housing, and all that happens is that you've kept the poverty stricken people fed and housed a little bit longer, and pretty soon, they're in the exact same boat again. The only true way out of poverty is to create jobs and productivity. Give the poverty stricken people some real work skills and an education, and a mechanism to earn money themselves, and that's the only real way out of poverty. Investment in space exploration creates tons of jobs, not only for the well educated engineers, but, also for the guys sweeping the floors in the vehicle assembly buildings. Trickling down from there, entire prosperous towns have sprung up as the result. Schools. Restaurants. Stores. And bunches of jobs to go with it.
    1
  16048. Open investigation vs. closed.
    1
  16049. Huh? She didn't suffer one bit from the release of the arrest video. She was already dead 1.5 years by the time anybody ever saw it.
    1
  16050. I just love when barely literate people try to write things like this, so embarrassingly wrong, yet, they actually think they're correct. Jason Borne roket . Huntville on paper jok es of vodka ) . Funny ( world ) . announcement educated potato. Remember -
    1
  16051. Most of it is on the Apollo Seventeen (spelled out) channel.
    1
  16052. Hilarious!!! You nuts are amazing. Not only do you base your entire "knowledge" on a few words in one or two sentences taken out of context... but, when it suits you, you even insert words that were never spoken. "Such as schematics"? Um, no. All schematics are intact. The "destroyed the technology" comment never said anything whatsoever about schematics. The technology was "destroyed" in the exact same spirit that Concorde technology was destroyed. It simply doesn't exist any longer, except in museums. As for spending more money on advertising vaccines, the irony here is that you apparently just believe anything you're told that aligns with your predetermined conclusions. If you adjust for inflation, they spent about $240 billion on Apollo in hard costs, and another $120 billion on soft costs and international support. Do you really believe they spent $360 billion on vaccine ads? C'mon. You'll swallow any silly claim you see, huh?
    1
  16053. You are inserting words that were never spoken. No schematics are missing. You can download the virtual entirety, down to every wire and switch. And, if you actually believe that more money was spent on ads, sorry, but you're far too gullible to even be remotely credible.
    1
  16054. Huh? She did have a husband. And, she had two kids from two fathers. Years before this incident, she left that life behind in order to go "wild" and "off the rails" (her family's words), and decided to lead a life of drugs and crime instead.
    1
  16055. Well, I don't think they got a divorce. But, I'm not 100% sure.
    1
  16056. Um, ok, on what grounds? I truly don't understand what you mean.
    1
  16057. Dewdrop, a vacuum doesn't have a temperature. You don't know what you're talking about.
    1
  16058. Only if you believe trash news like Inside Edition.
    1
  16059. Good grief. If there was ANY merit to these "psychic" abilities to talk with dead people, the answer is so simple. It doesn't come in the form of asking a bunch of leading questions, and going back and forth with gullible people who feed into this claptrap. It would come by IDENTIFYING MURDERERS. If you can talk to dead people, and communicate the names (like these "psychics" claim), they'd be out there solving the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of unsolved murders. "Who killed you?" is a simple enough question. But, nope, instead, we get "grandma loves you," and a bunch of irrelevant dribble.
    1
  16060. Todd, you are clearly confusing the still cameras with the live TV cameras. I suggest you go to the ALSJ (the NASA Apollo archive) and look at some of the 7000+ still photos taken on the surface of the moon with the 70mm Hasselblads.
    1
  16061. How is that an answer to my question? And, why do you ask questions yourself, if you're not interested in the answers?
    1
  16062. Do the math, dewdrop.
    1
  16063. Who did what to whom?
    1
  16064.  @SlipStream401  Has it ever occurred to you that ALL of them could be criminals? No? Why, in your simplistic mind, is it as simple as criminals vs. innocent? It doesn't occur to you that the man could also be a criminal? I outlined many points to you in the other thread. This man quite obviously intended to kill them, and we know this from a whole bunch of reasons... one of which was the fact that he rehearsed what he was going to tell the police about shooting them, BEFORE HE SHOT THEM. I repeat: hours before the thieves even got to the man's house, he was rehearsing, on a recording device, what he planned on telling the cops about shooting them, including saying "in the left eye" (and then later shot the girl in the left eye, twice, from point-blank range). After shooting the first thief, he sat there, and waited around 20-30 more minutes for the other thief to arrive to check on why it was taking her cousin so long to rob the place, quietly waiting in the dark basement, then shot her when she came in. And, then his gun malfunctioned, so, he apologized to the girl for not killing her more quickly, then used the other gun (he had two guns on him at the time) to put two bullets into her left eye (exactly as he said he was going to do on his recording from hours earlier), then, put the final bullet under her chin and up into her brain from below. And, then she was found with her shirt open (for whatever reason you want to imagine, who knows?). And, he didn't call the cops until the next day. (And, there was a lot more evidence than just this stuff I'm listing now.) So, there is a tremendous difference between defending your home from intruders, vs. premeditated double murder. If this crazed psycho hadn't recorded (in advance of the teens even arriving at his house) what he was going to tell the cops about shooting them, and if he had just called 911 immediately after killing them, there'd be no way he'd have been convicted of anything. But, no. The psychopath planned it, recorded himself planning it, and then did some execution-style shootings, and waited a day before calling the cops to make darned sure they couldn't be saved.
    1
  16065. Another proud graduate of YouTube University's School of Law, eh? Dewdrop, for an infraction, yes, you can get a warning. For a crime, you get arrested.
    1
  16066. Third, the police did everything they could to keep it as discreet as possible. They took her away from the restaurant to question her, outside the view of others. And, they kept the arrest video private for 2.5 years. It wasn't released until she had already been dead for 1.5 years.
    1
  16067. And, fourth, come on, get real, what was so different about this particular arrest that would push her over the edge that her other million arrests didn't? Even her felony time served in prison didn't push her over the edge, so, why should this incident do that?
    1
  16068. Secondly, by your logic, this would mean that cops shouldn't ever arrest anybody.
    1
  16069. Not even close. Is that what YouTube is for you? Someplace you can pretend to know things you don't? Good grief.
    1
  16070. Not the brightest bulb, eh?
    1
  16071. What do you mean? What did the cops do wrong?
    1
  16072. So, they did their jobs, but, you think poorly? What? And, what's the claim you're making in your suit?
    1
  16073. Secure the scene first, or the cops are going to need the exact same aid. They had no idea if other were going to jump out of the woodwork wielding a gun also.
    1
  16074. The arrest video never was posted anywhere until after she was dead for more than 1.5 years. Sorry that Inside Edition is not interested in telling you that.
    1
  16075. So you lived near Alan Shepard, but can't spell Alan Shepard (not Allan), but, this means you know about his "secret oath?" So, how does this work? He took a secret oath, but, he could violate it by telling people who live near him? Huh?
    1
  16076. Lay off of the drugs. Good grief.
    1
  16077. WOW, I mean, just plain WOW. And, you determined all of that from a 1 minute Inside Edition video?
    1
  16078. Yes, multiple people called. One of them recorded it, and gave a copy of the video to the police. It doesn't match her sob story about nobody being around.
    1
  16079. Her felony term in a Florida prison about 6 years ago? Her million other arrests before and after? "Well together"? Huh?
    1
  16080. Her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the gentlemen's club. Her neighbors said she did "extras" for cash in her apartment with a parade of men. "Well together"? If she wasn't making "public beach" content, but got reported, and was trying to cry her way out of yet another arrest, I'll eat my hat.
    1
  16081. Her own family said that her problems were that she went completely "wild" and "off the rails" when, more than a decade ago, she walked out on her husband, a 6 month old son, and another son, in order to live a life of crime and drugs. But, Inside Edition paints this picture of the innocent soccer mom, and you'll just believe it?
    1
  16082. "NOWHERE did I saw that there's a Moore's Law of Metallurgy" You implied it about rockets. You even talked about how much better computers are. You also ignored the fact that you were told the rockets themselves are not much cheaper now, and in some cases are even more expensive now. "but I did correctly say that, if anything, there have been some improvements in metallurgy" And, how does that matter? They haven't used new metals in any substantial way on new rockets. They're essentially made now the same as they were 50 years ago, in all of the important ways anyway. Yes, some minor differences here and there, but, new metallurgy hasn't resulted in anything special when it comes to rocketry. "that, along with decreases in fuel costs (fracking, etc.) would bring down the cost." Good grief. Most modern rockets use liquid hydrogen as fuel. Even the solid rocket boosters don't run on hydrocarbons, and run mainly on aluminum and ammonium perchlorate. Oil is irrelevant. You know NOTHING about this topic. And, the fuel is an extremely tiny fraction of the total costs of a launch, less than 1%. "The budget for the space program was not a budget-buster anyway" In the mid-1960s, the budget for the space program (which went almost entirely into Apollo) was 4.5% of the entire federal budget in hard costs, and approximately the equivalent of 2% more in soft costs and international support. If that's not a budget-buster, I don't know what is. "and yet we've found a market for rich folks going around the world in the Space Shuttle, why can't we recreate that for travel to the moon and back?" With what rocket? "Unless we never went." Dewdrop, why is it that you aren't actually looking at the evidence? Why is it that you're trying to "logic" yourself into your silly beliefs? I mean, all you're accomplishing is saying, "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." That's basically what your position boils down to. You have absolutely no understanding of the topic. And, rather than asking about the evidence for Apollo, you're looking for a "gotcha." But, your entire "gotcha" in this thread is based completely on your own ignorance.
    1
  16083. "Various fuels are subsitutes." But, dewdrop, you claimed that oil fracking results in lower rocket fuel costs. Nearly zero rockets today use oil based fuels, and certainly not the ones slated to go to the moon. So, explain how oil fracking means ANYTHING to making your point? Or, let's just face reality here: you don't have the slightest clue when it comes to anything about rocketry. "Thus if one goes down in price, it drags down the others with it." Huh? How does the manufacture of aluminum based solid rocket fuel, or liquid hydrogen based fuel, relate to oil fracking AT ALL? Again, all you're doing here is pretending to know things you don't. What is it about people like you? You just CAN'T admit you're wrong? Is it just outside of your vocabulary to say, "oh, wow, I thought they still used kerosene for rockets, I guess I was wrong"? No? You just can't do it? And, what didn't you understand about the cost of the fuel being far less than 1% of the total cost of a moon program? "Moreover, as I keep asking, but which you keep ignoring: if the technology existed, and we now have a MUCH larger world gdp including TONS of oligarchs or just plain honest money billionaires who'd LOVE to go to the moon and back" Dewdrop, we're barely at the point that there are rides into space for quick up and down missions, let alone orbital, let alone to the moon. You clearly have no understanding of this topic either. "why isn't the US Government doing it at a profit?" (1) Because, by definition, the US government isn't allowed to make a profit. And, (2) because it's still not at the point of commercial travel, the costs aren't low enough yet for even billionaires to afford, and we don't have tourist-rated craft to do it either. Besides, all you're doing is saying, "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." That's all this question really means. "I love the bizarre explanation that "we destroyed the templates." Why would we do that?" The physical "templates" (the tooling and manufacturing)? Because they were not used any longer. It happens all the time, dewdrop. When a program gets retired, those buildings are knocked down and replaced, and the tooling is scrapped. It's the same for the Concorde, you know. We couldn't build one of those right now if we wanted to. Same for the 747 as it goes into retirement. Pretty soon, there won't even be any tooling or support machinery to be able to keep 747s in the air either. What did you expect? Did you expect them to keep maintaining all of these facilities and tooling for decades and decades, just in the hope that someone might come along and ask them to build a new Saturn V? "It really does sound like "my dog ate the hmework."" But, dewdrop, everyone knows how it was done. We have all of the schematics, radio frequencies, wiring diagrams, etc. But, we lack the physical tools/dies/molds/etc. to manufacture it. We can't build a brand new Model-T Ford either, at least not exactly.
    1
  16084. "The Russians put Musk into space as you'll recall" No, dewdrop. Musk has never gone to space. He won't even do it on his own craft, let alone Russian craft. "for a profit." No, dewdrop. Those rocket contracts with the Russians were a result of the fall of the Soviet Union, and part of the non-proliferation agreements that resulted. Those contracts persisted until very recently. "Pretty pathetic that we, who were in advance of the Russians by the mid-1960s and went to the moon" It's pathetic that we won the space race to the moon? Huh? "aren't going to the moon for a profit" Because it's still far too expensive for tourism. "to help fast-forward matters like lunar colonies" Good gods, why? What possible reason would we have to do that? And, sorry, but you are extremely out of touch with the reality of the costs. I've done the math, dewdrop. And, to build a colony on the moon over a period of 10 years (as an example) would require about 30x the entire Federal budget of the USA. You are extremely disconnected from understanding the sheer cost of such a thing. We barely can even keep a "bio dome" operational on Earth (they've basically failed in almost every attempt), let alone on the moon, dewdrop. "assuming we ever went in the first place." Yet, once again, you're not asking for the evidence. I mean, I outlined it in my prior response. I asked why you weren't trying to find the actual EVIDENCE, and why you were so focused on these logical "gotchas" (that are wrong), and the "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake" line of thinking. You refused to answer. I mean, normally, it's because you dewdrops don't even read responses do your own questions. So, can you prove you're even reading this one? Can you write "green" at the top of your next reply to demonstrate you even read this message before replying to it?
    1
  16085.  @ann_onn  You said there was telescopic evidence. Thomas asked you which telescopic evidence. He's an avid Apollo defender, but, you mistakenly labeled him as a hoax nut. (Just FYI.)
    1
  16086. The only telescopic evidence from Earth for Apollo came from Spain's telescope at that time (the largest in the world back then). It took photographs of the SIVB fuel dumps (they vented off their remaining fuel), as well as the Apollo 13 debris/gas field, because those things spanned miles wide. Basically, they are just blurs. But, the point is, the blurs were exactly when/where we expect them to be. To expect telescopic evidence (from Earth) of the Apollo craft themselves is ridiculous because there is no telescope large enough for that level of resolution.
    1
  16087.  @ann_onn  Sounds like a murder confession to me. Old boyfriends that didn't treat you right? Cannibalism?
    1
  16088.  @ann_onn  Just in case... yes, that was a joke.
    1
  16089. Good grief. Your source of "truth" is a drugged up UFC commentator? You can't even form a coherent sentence. It's worse than trying to read something from a kindergartner. But, you think the rest of the world is the problem, and you'll stick with Joe Rogan (even though you can't spell his name)?
    1
  16090. Let me clue you in a bit... you don't even need to take a side. These were very clearly premeditated murders. I don't know what you already have learned about this case, but, the amount of evidence that these were premeditated killings is absolutely overwhelming. You shouldn't be on EITHER side. Guilty thieves were killed by guilty murderer.
    1
  16091.  @marksprague1280  LLRV actually. Not the LLTV. Though, they crashed one of those also. I'm not aware if whether there's any footage of the LLTV crash. I have no idea why posters of recent videos have mixed up the LLRV with the LLTV.
    1
  16092.  @marksprague1280  And, of course, my reply was blocked. Anyway, recent videos on YouTube mix up the LLRV and LLTV for some reason. I am guessing that's how you got the two flipped in your mind also?
    1
  16093. If someone is a threat, you use a firearm, not a Taser. In actuality, the Taser is used EXACTLY for this purpose. It's to force compliance upon someone who is resisting arrest. And, sorry, but you don't just get a superior officer every time you ask. This is Jacksonville, FL, the murder capitol of the state. You don't need to call a superior officer to deal with a woman who is upset because the store thought she stole a piece of chicken and some bread. Those superior officers are busy with much more serious offenses.
    1
  16094. You are just making this up as you go along, and have absolutely no understanding of the situation, procedures, or the law in general. She wasn't arrested on the basis of suspicion of theft alone. She was arrested because she escalated "may I see your receipt" into refusal to provide identification (an arrestable offense on its own), obstruction and obfuscation of a police investigation (illegal), and added resisting arrest to the pile of charges. The cop asked for her identification 100x (mainly in the full length video, not this copy which starts in the middle). And, Florida is an "identify" state, and she's required by law to provide ID. There is no right to a supervisor. Get real here. I explained this already. She was Tased because she resisted arrest. Period. That's what the Taser is for. I have no idea why you're attempting to justify this woman's ridiculous behavior. This was a simple case of the store employee thinking the woman didn't pay, asking the cop to investigate, and then the woman flipped out over it. Most reasonable people would just say, "hey, thanks for trying to control theft, I didn't steal though, and here's my receipt." But, this woman threw all common sense out the window, and went bananas. Why would you possibly want to defend her? Do you actually find this irate behavior admirable? If those were your kids that she was babysitting, would you ever have her babysit for you again after that? Her lawsuit against the store was thrown out the window, and she received $0.00 for this encounter. Her three attorneys never even filed a case against the police, which they would have done if they agreed with a single word you said. So, obviously the courts and her own attorneys don't agree with you either.
    1
  16095. Were those grunting sentences somehow an answer to my questions? Or, are you too messed up, coming down right now, and you're still unable to operate a keyboard?
    1
  16096. An optometrist? Really? An eye doctor? This person is worthy of Fox News opinions about pandemic stuff? This person is worthy of Fox News for commentary on the legalities in the courts? They couldn't find a judge with expertise on civil rights? They couldn't find an actual infectious disease doctor?
    1
  16097. Dewdrop, when the carjacker opens the door and points a gun at your head, sorry, but it's too late for fistfights. It's shoot... or be shot. Secondly, secure the scene first, provide first aid second. Why? Because just a few seconds after the shooting, someone showed up at the crime scene screaming like crazy. How many more might crawl out of the bushes with guns or something? If you focus your attention on the guy you just shot, then your focus is NOT on your surroundings. And, the next thing you know, YOU are the one on the ground needing medical attention. Sorry, but, it's safety first, and first aid second. That's just the brutal reality. And, well, not that this changes anything about what you're arguing, but, yeah, a .40 to the upper chest? He was gone, man. They weren't going to be able to save him.
    1
  16098. Thanks for confirming you didn't read what I wrote. You're a real hero.
    1
  16099. Spare the world your gibberish.
    1
  16100. Wrong, dewdrop. You are being ridiculous. You secure the scene first, because you don't know how many more of Mark are going to spring out of nowhere. You don't know what you're talking about. And, if you think that Mark was going to survive with a .40 in his upper chest, you're extremely out of touch with reality. He died about 20 seconds after being shot. No amount of first aid was going to help him... not that it's relevant to your point... I realize it's not relevant. The question was about when to begin first aid. And, that's the main topic you're wrong about. If cops behaved the way you wanted them to, there'd be a heck of a lot more cops needing first aid themselves.
    1
  16101. Yeah, I certainly agree. However, the irony is, maybe she'd still be alive today if the cop had just arrested her.
    1
  16102. YOU SAID: "How did they film the lander taking off" == From which position? There was a 16mm film camera in the LMP window. That's how they filmed from inside toward outside. There was also a remote controlled TV camera on the rover (not film). That's how they "filmed" (actually TV, not film) from the outside looking at the LEM. YOU SAID: "if the lack of atmosphere would melt the film" == Does that even make sense to you? Why would it melt because of no atmosphere? Who told you it would melt without an atmosphere? YOU SAID: "and who retrieved it?" == Ron Evans retrieved the film from the service module while in transit back to Earth (I assume that's what you're talking about?). YOU SAID: "Was it just a signal" == There were several different camera types used across the entirety of Apollo. Some were TV cameras, some were film. You can Google "Apollo 17 photography" or "Apollo 17 camera equipment" if you want more details about each type on this particular mission. YOU SAID: "and was it analog or digital?" == No photography used on Apollo was digital. Digital photography wasn't invented yet. YOU SAID: "Why did the bag fall to the ground?" == You'd have to be more specific. This is an hour long video. Care to name a timestamp? YOU SAID: "Why did the astronaut fall to the ground?" == Again, you'd have to name a timestamp. But, yeah, with a large PLSS backpack, a bulky pressure suit, double-layered boots, and a gravity field he's not used to, an astronaut is likely to fall from time to time.
    1
  16103. Most people tend to hate carjackers who try to murder people in their cars.
    1
  16104. You talked about the hate. I explained the hate.
    1
  16105. I do what?
    1
  16106. But, I never mentioned violence. You commented about the hate. I answered about the hate. I fail to understand why this is so difficult for you.
    1
  16107. Dewdrop, I never mentioned violence.
    1
  16108. Well, that's an interesting take on it. But, if this incident was the straw that broke the camel's back, why'd she wait almost a year after this arrest? And, for that matter, what was it about this particular arrest that broke the camel's back? I mean, her felony prison term for stealing cars didn't break the camel's back. None of her other million arrests and judgements against her broke the camel's back. Why this one?
    1
  16109. Yeah, the internet told you so. Nobody lies on the internet.
    1
  16110. Ridiculous "journalism." This incident was from July of 2021. She committed suicide in March of 2022. The arrest video was made public in November of 2023. Clearly, the release of this arrest video had no relevance to her suicide.
    1
  16111. So, just out of curiosity, how does this "blessing" work? The cop didn't seem to need much "blessing." And, the woman continued to steal from Walgreens immediately after this incident, abandoned her two kids, and died of meth. So, why didn't you wish HER any "blessings"? Seems that she would have needed it more than he did.
    1
  16112. Hilarious!! Um, where and when did they land people on the moon?
    1
  16113.  @davidkeenan5642  So, the Soviets won a race that wasn't ever even declared? Alright. I'll grant you there was a loose race there. They each wanted to be first at it. But, it wasn't THE race. There wasn't ever any race that got declared, like the moon race was.
    1
  16114. Then you fell for poor journalism twice then, huh? Do you just believe everything you see, or what?
    1
  16115. Yes, they did that. They prevented the release of the arrest video until she was dead for 1.5 years.
    1
  16116. Good grief. Once again, you are merely proving that you have absolutely no understanding of how congress works, how NASA works, where the money does (or does not) come from, etc. As I already pointed out, the mere fact that you'd blindly buy into this notion that profit margins are 1000% just shows that you are quite easily manipulated by sensationalist journalism. And, the fact that you'd begrudge a couple of test flights of a brand new rocket booster, new lander, new command module, etc., because you've concluded that such tests shouldn't be required because some completely different equipment was used 50-60 years ago, therefore they should just do everything on the first try now, is just off the charts gone. Tell me, dewdrop, if they did exactly what you claim they should, and just throw together a brand new program with brand new hardware, and never test it, would you believe it? Sorry, the "they shouldn't have to test Artemis, therefore Apollo was fake," simultaneous to "they have to test Artemis, therefore Apollo was fake" logic doesn't get to fly out of the same mouth. So, which is it? You truly believe they shouldn't test Artemis, and they should just go to the moon in brand new untested craft? Or, that's your excuse to reject stuff you know nothing about?
    1
  16117. "MILLIONS OPE PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD" Millions of people believe in Bigfoot, secret cures for cancer, chemtrails, psychics talking to dead people, and anything else you can come up with. Crack meets pot.
    1
  16118. Just please put this on every job application you ever fill out, ok? It really helps employers to know who the people really are, before hiring.
    1
  16119. Yes, but in order for it to be "justice," you need to wait until all of the due process has taken place. I mean, sure, for all practicality, I agree on where my money would be betting on who did it. But, let justice determine whom to condemn.
    1
  16120.  @resumesfootfr2036  I would bet that you're correct about that also. But, again, "justice" = due process.
    1
  16121. What different way? Why do people like you say "they're doing it wrong" without saying what you think should be done instead?
    1
  16122. WHO "shamed" her? She put on a show at the beach in front of an audience (including children), almost certainly to produce "public beach" content for her fans. She made her living at the "dance" club (yeah, that kind), and according to her neighbors, by also doing "private extras" for bunches of paying men in her apartment. I fail to see this "shame" you speak of. Can you explain?
    1
  16123. This incident = July 1, 2021. She exited this world in February or March of 2022 (unknown date). The arrest video was released on November 24, 2023. Nobody saw it while she was alive.
    1
  16124. Family? Loved ones? She abandoned her family (including a 6 month old son, and another son) more than a decade ago to lead a life of crime and drugs. She interacted with virtually nobody besides the parade of paying men in her apartment, to the extent that absolutely nobody was looking for her for a month or more, and the landlord had to discover her deteriorating after going in to collect overdue rent.
    1
  16125.  @aaabaaab3945  Does such a ridiculous question really deserve an answer?
    1
  16126. Nope. She had her receipt, just refused to show it.
    1
  16127. video of whose moon landing seems he was man first looking recordings are newsletters actually LM surface bullets seems really fun on the email.
    1
  16128. OK, and, when the media points out that nobody saw this story until long after she was dead? And, when the point out the Freedom of Information Act? Then what? How do you manage to hold them "accountable" (for what?)?
    1
  16129. Well, I wouldn't know. But, someone who would fake paralysis probably would fake a death also. I don't know enough to say one way or the other, but, I certainly don't take those stories at face value.
    1
  16130. Well, that sounds nice and all, but, she hardly was focused on only essentials. She continued to steal from Walgreens after this incident, including somehow stealing prescription drugs. And, maybe she shouldn't have been spending what little money she had on street drugs. Maybe she'd still be alive today if she had stopped her drug habit altogether.
    1
  16131. No, dewdrop. A former Russian space agency guy is trolling the USA during this wartime by asking a question that he knows the answer to, but wants to stir up trouble.
    1
  16132. Pfffttt. A 70 year old guy who was 5'6" and weighed 300 pounds died of a heart attack 30 years After Apollo 11 landed on the moon?? Yeah, must be a conspiracy.
    1
  16133. And, you'd believe that, why? This incident happened July 1, 2021. She was no longer alive in March of 2022. The arrest video was released on November 24, 2023. She received ZERO broadcasting coverage while she was alive. ZERO.
    1
  16134. You feel sorry for her? Why? She went to that beach clearly with the intention of putting on a show in front of people (including children). What did you (or she) expect? Did you feel sorry for her other million arrests also? Or, just this one?
    1
  16135. 1) They weren't strangers. He knew them, and they had stolen from him before. 2) He placed his car away from the house so they wouldn't know he was home. 3) He unscrewed some of the lights so they wouldn't turn on, even if they flipped the switch. 4) He ran a recording device while he waited in the basement, clearly he knew they were coming. 5) Before either one of the teens arrived at his house, he rehearsed on that recording device what he was going to say to the police after he killed them, including "in the left eye" (he later shot the girl in the left eye). I repeat: hours before the teens even got there, he rehearsed, on tape, what he was going to tell the police about shooting them. 6) He had a tarp ready for the bodies. 7) He gathered up the bodies, and put them in the other room so they wouldn't ruin his carpet. 8) He didn't call the police until the next day. 9) After killing the first thief, he then sat quietly waiting for a long time for the other thief to arrive, then shot her too. 10) Her shirt was found opened, make of that what you will. 11) After shooting the girl in the torso, she was still alive and incapacitated, yet he didn't want her to live (his own words), and wanted to make sure she was dead (his own words), so put two bullets into her left eye (exactly as he had said on the prior recording), and then waited, and then shot another bullet under the chin up into her brain (his own words). 12) While waiting for the criminals to arrive, he was armed with two different guns, one of which was a little bit faulty. 13) After he shot one with the faulty weapon, it wouldn't fire again. So, he literally apologized to the criminal (who was still alive) for not successfully killing right away, and switched guns for the fatal shots while the criminal was on the ground.
    1
  16136. From the distance of Hubble to the moon, each pixel would represent about 160 feet. The landers are 33 feet in diameter, and wouldn't even come close to occupying a single pixel.
    1
  16137. They couldn't get OJ sent to prison (at least not for THE crime), yet, you think you're going to find a jury of 12 to convict Baldwin? How delusional can you be?
    1
  16138. I'll bet you say the same about high school.
    1
  16139. Maybe. They're not sure.
    1
  16140. But, they didn't. July 1, 2021 = arrest. March 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. You cannot humiliate a dead person.
    1
  16141. But, you apparently never paid attention to the answer. Shocker.
    1
  16142. Um, no. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video was released. That's when things went viral. When she was alive, there were only a couple of obscure blogs about this incident. And, if you think she was humiliated by this, I have a bridge for sale, interested?
    1
  16143.  @h.dejong2531  The exact number is closer to 2.5 times... but... I'm just splitting hairs, sorry.
    1
  16144. Why do you believe her when she claims that she thought she was alone? Criminals say "I didn't do it" all the time.
    1
  16145. You haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about. Before you "shame" people, how about learning something about the topic?
    1
  16146. Secure the scene first, get plenty of backup, THEN administer aid. When one guy wielding a gun attacks you, and the banshee arrives 10 seconds later, yeah, you don't know how many more accomplices are about to show up. Stopping to focus on aid could easily put you exactly in Mark's situation, and YOU need the aid.
    1
  16147. Do you even know the facts of the case? I think you don't, based upon your comments. You do not have the right to plan two murders, then carry out that plan. You have the right to defend yourself, but, that's not what Smith did.
    1
  16148. Well, thankfully, we live in this thing called a "society." And, this "society" sets the standards for what's harmful, not you.
    1
  16149. And Apollo 12.  @randyschissler5791 
    1
  16150. So, that's the ONLY way, huh? Nope, the other million pieces of evidence do not matter. The ONLY way to verify Apollo is for India to land a useless mission at a place where people already went. Um, dewdrop, India has already confirmed Apollo by taking photos of the landing sites from lunar orbit. The deniers do not care, and they now just say India has decided to join "the deception" 50+ years later. What makes you think the deniers will care if India lands near one of the Apollo sites? They have denied every other piece of evidence from dozens of countries, concluding that those dozens of countries have all joined "the deception." So, please explain why you believe the deniers will believe it if India lands near an Apollo landing site?
    1
  16151. And, you believe the repeatedly convicted felon was denied her medication, why? Because the chronic lying thief said so? Hey, want to buy a bridge I have for sale?
    1
  16152. Wait, so, you think "the jab" is poison, yet, you pollute your body with all kinds of street substances from questionable sources?
    1
  16153. Not until everything is secure. He had a woman coming, screaming, who could have been armed also. The gun was still laying on the ground, and the guy might have had another one hidden. He wanted to wait to make sure his backup was available to cover things safely. You don't just deal with a guy pointing a gun in your face, shoot him in self defense, then render aid 3 seconds later. You have to make sure there aren't more people coming, and/or that there aren't more guns around for a second try.
    1
  16154. Hubble's best resolution of the moon would yield a single pixel that is a 160 foot x 160 foot square on the surface of the moon. How can it help?
    1
  16155. You think that it was "an even playing field"? See, that's exactly the kind of delusion that makes this whole concept of "let them all dope" an absolute joke. The people who win aren't because it's a level playing field... they win because they have the best doctors and chemists, paid for with the most money. You don't really believe that all of the dopers were able to get access to the exact same doping agents and testing procedures that optimized the use of that doping, do you?
    1
  16156. What would convince you?
    1
  16157. They probably think that this Inside Edition story is a carefully crafted masterpiece of playing on words and obscuring relevant facts in order to paint the complete opposite picture as reality.
    1
  16158. Are you even aware of who he is? That's the world's foremost moon conspiracy expert, Bill Kaysing, considered by most as the "father" of the moon landing conspiracy.
    1
  16159. "We went to Houston, Texas to visit the Apollo museum. I saw with my own eyes everything they display related to Apollo 11. I said "NO!" I know they did not land on the moon. I know it was fake right there and then." So, let me make sure I understand you correctly. As a child or young adult, you think you understood immediately upon looking at something for the first time that it was "fake," yet, none of the 450,000 people who worked on Apollo for a decade of their lives were able to spot any of it as "fake"? You believed instantly that you knew more about the topic than the people who built the equipment, merely by looking at the equipment for a few minutes? I mean, I was pretty arrogant at that age also, but, never THAT arrogant. "You are right, at that time I was just a student. It was pure intuition. But even after graduating from TU (Petroleum Engineering) and another University (Economics) with Master degree, I still trust my intuition." Yup, and you're very proud of it, apparently. Good grief. Why someone like you would actually think this is a GOOD thing is beyond me. You know, most people by your age would realize it's the evidence that matters, not intuition. But, not you. You don't even mention evidence. Nope. For you, you're willing to discard the work of 450,000 people for a decade of their lives because as a child/student, you glanced at their work for a few moments and threw it out the window. That's 4.5 million years of human effort you're discarding on the intuitions of a young student who knew nothing whatsoever about the topic. Bravo!! You're a major contribution to society alright. "Isn't that what you expect for an outlier case? But the truth is not about majority opinion. The truth is simple." The truth is found in THE EVIDENCE, dewdrop. Not the opinions of some silly child in a museum for a few moments. "The simple question is how come the US/NASA admit they do not have the technology to send people to the moon NOW?" Huh? They don't have it now. Do you think they do? Do we have X15 mach 7 airplane capability now? We had it in the 1950s and 1960s. Now we don't. Do we have supersonic airliner capabilities to carry 100+ people at mach 2 for 3000 miles (plus luggage)? Not even close. Right now, the best we can do is a couple of military pilots in a small supersonic plane at about mach 1.5 for a few hundred miles. This is literally about 1/100th of the supersonic capability that we had when Concorde was flying. But, we don't have that technology any longer. And, after Apollo and the Saturn V were retired, exactly what technology do you think we had, capable of lifting 100,000 pounds of payload to lunar orbit? We don't have that technology today... well... SLS can do it, and that was launched last year. But, we don't yet have a lander again. "If they've landed there before?" Dewdrop, the term "lost the technology" doesn't mean nobody knows how it was done. It's "lost" because it was retired. It's "lost" in the same sense that Concorde technology is "lost." "Hua ..ha .. ha... Forgive me for LOL." People like you are an insult to humanity, and you should feel shame, not laughter. You know absolutely positively nothing about the topic. Nothing whatsoever. Yet, you feel like you know more than the entire world's experts. The arrogance and audacity. And, you're old enough to have shed that by now. Ridiculous. Pathetic. "How come you missed such an obvious points" No, dewdrop. Why do YOU miss the obvious points? ""NASA does not have the technology to send people to the moon NOW", I did not say NASA does not have the money or approval!" Huh? Why would they have the technology NOW, if there was no approved money to have it? "Let me repeat, NASA does not have the technology to send people to the moon." Correct. "And never have." Incorrect. "No Earthly technology can send people pass the Van Allen belt safely NOW due to extremely dense radiation! GOT IT?" James Van Allen disagreed with you. What do you know that he didn't? QUOTE: "The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight. The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months' duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure. A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week. However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights." -- James A. Van Allen" So, what EXACTLY do you know that James Van Allen didn't know about the Van Allen belts? And, don't bring me a 30 second clip from a video made for children in which you intentionally take things out of context. Show the math. And, for that matter, why aren't you writing it up yourself? Submit it for scientific peer review!!! If you think James Van Allen (and every radiobiologist and cosmologist and particle physicist on Earth since) was wrong about the Van Allen belts, then do those calculations yourself. Demonstrate mathematically that you're right. Submit it to cosmology and particle radiation journals, and maybe you'll even get a Nobel Prize for discovering stuff that nobody has ever known. And, in the process, you'll have mathematically proved Apollo was fake. Sorry, but, quoting out of context from videos made for children won't win you a Nobel Prize. But, doing the math might. So, have at it!! Why would you waste your time on YouTube comments when you're oh so close to scientific fame and glory?
    1
  16160. Um, first of all, you clearly don't know what "baby daddy" means. She isn't the carjacker's mother. Secondly, with a gun on the ground, 2 feet away from the dead guy, really? You want to let her go toward it?
    1
  16161. No. You don't mess with the crime scene.
    1
  16162. Well, yes, she did make it worse. So much worse that, as the cop tried to explain (and she didn't listen), it was too late, and irrelevant, to go back into the store to watch videos. By then, she had already refused to ID, obstructed and obfuscated (arrestable offenses all by themselves).
    1
  16163. Does it appear to you that either of these women feel any guilt?
    1
  16164. Give up the hat and gloves... kept the stolen drugs.
    1
  16165. No. Not even close. This video was never even made public until 1.5 years after her death. When one of these "news" stories uses "questions" as the story, and doesn't provide answers, that's the first clue that they're deceiving you.
    1
  16166. It goes well past "defending his own home" when he planned two murders in advance.
    1
  16167. I'll never understand why people like you think that a YouTube comment is the place to tell the entire planet's aerospace engineers and radiobiologists that they've gotten everything wrong about the Van Allen belts. You don't even know that there's more than one, because you said "belt" (singular). James Van Allen himself said that it would take more than a week inside the very worst area of the belts before getting a fatal exposure level, and Apollo went through that area in 15 minutes. The Soviets sent two dogs in and out of the belts for 3 weeks, plunging them into the worst areas for about 40 minutes at a time, dropping them back down, flinging them back up again in an oblong orbit, over and over, 3 weeks. No problems, the dogs lived a normal lifecycle afterward. But, for you, none of this matters. You know things that the entire planet doesn't. And, you've come to YouTube to share it with the world. Do you publish in the science journals on radiobiology or astrophysics, the way normal people would demonstrate their calculations? Nope, of course not. You come to YouTube with a patriotic eagle and US flag, and accuse thousands of Americans of being criminals that would be thrown in prison for their entire lives if you were correct. Bravo, Mr. Hero. Bravo.
    1
  16168. Dewdrop, the cops don't have any choice but to release a video if it's the result of a legal FOIA request. They can only hold it private if there's still an ongoing investigation. And, yes, they did exactly that. This video wasn't released for 2.5 years, which was also 1.5 years after her suicide. They could no longer deny the release of the video, because the woman was already dead, and the case was closed. Spare the world your obvious hatred. And, quit believing nonsense you see on YouTube. Good grief.
    1
  16169. Doubtful she was embarrassed by this.
    1
  16170.  @Hobbes746  "when the LM departed from the moon, its exhaust flowed over the flag, moving it." Well, according to Aldrin, and the lack of a flag shadow in the orbital photography, and the bright spot right where the flag should be, the flag didn't just move, it blew over. But, there is no video of the liftoff, so, nobody (besides Aldrin himself) ever saw the exhaust flowing over the flag.
    1
  16171. Well, she wasn't alive for all of the publicity anyway.
    1
  16172. But, it wasn't made public until she was dead 1.5 years. So, um, no.
    1
  16173. Well, good luck in your inevitable prison term.
    1
  16174. Well, let's see, given that the largest optical grade lens ever produced is 5 feet wide, and costed $168 million... and you'd need a lens a quarter mile across in order to see the landing sites in enough detail to barely make out the landers, um, yeah, well... where can one buy this "powerful telescope" you're talking about?
    1
  16175. What in the world are you talking about? Can you possibly even stick to your original comment? How does a person go about buying a telescope that can see the Apollo artifacts on the moon? YOU are the one who made that ridiculous comment, not me. I even explained that it would take a lens a quarter mile in diameter to see the Apollo stuff in enough detail to barely make out the landers' descent stages. Yes, that is the literal calculation of the Dawes' limit of optical resolution. If the biggest lens ever made is 5 feet and costed $168 million, then please explain how to get a quarter mile lens, and where to buy it. You said "go buy a powerful telescope and look at the landing site." I say you don't know what you're talking about.
    1
  16176. Tesla couldn't even produce the first Semi trucks until 5 years after they promised 2 years. Yet, you're looking at stuff so far in the future that we'll all be dead by then?
    1
  16177. Blame the victims, not the criminal?
    1
  16178. Um, settle down, Ted. If you take a little bit of time to investigate, you'll find that they were ALL criminals. The two teen thieves were criminals who got shot during a home invasion. But, the man who shot them knew they were coming, and planned ahead to kill them. This was premeditated murder, period. Criminal murderer shot criminal thieves.
    1
  16179.  @honestbarcafan8259  What's your point? Cops shouldn't arrest people for any crime that's less than murder?
    1
  16180. Unknowingly? Did you read the police report? Or, did you blindly trust the stripper with the mile long arrest record and felony prison term when she said she didn't think anybody was around, as an attempt to avoid her millionth arrest?
    1
  16181. Yes, cops can use discretion for an infraction. Speeding = infraction, not a crime. Indecent exposure in front of minors = crime. Cops do not have discretion for a crime. That's the way our legal system is set up. For crimes, cops determine probable cause, and that's all. They don't get to make discretion calls.
    1
  16182. Sleeping in public is not illegal everywhere. And, where it is illegal, I just looked it up, and found that it's an infraction, not a crime. Now, I will grant you, I haven't looked up every county in the country. I just did a spot-check. But, the bottom line remains that you clearly have no idea about the law, and need to stop pretending you do.
    1
  16183. Here: "What is the difference between an infraction and a crime?" --- Google is your friend. Start there. It's very clear that you have absolutely no understanding of our legal system on any level at all.
    1
  16184.  @lovelykatelynn97  She gave up her realtor life about a decade ago, in favor of living a life of drugs and crime. I doubt you can even be a real estate agent with her felony prison term and mile long arrest record. And, yes, her landlord and others said that she's a stripper. Sorry if this rains on your parade, but, you need to stop trusting trash news like Inside Edition.
    1
  16185.  @lovelykatelynn97  I can't tell if my prior reply is visible or not. But, you're welcome to look up the felony prison term the stripper served, or the mile long arrest history for other stuff.
    1
  16186. I believe he's talking about the rovers.
    1
  16187. First of all, dewdrops, the timeline: July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = the arrest video was released.
    1
  16188. Secondly, there was no way she would have been put on any list for something this minor, if she had bothered to show up at court anyway. Even though she was a convicted felon who served time in prison, and had an arrest record a mile long for various other crimes, it's amazingly unlikely that this would have resulted in that. It would probably have resulted in getting negotiated down to a minor infraction, and she wouldn't have to register anything. But, she never showed up at court for this incident, which seemed to be the trend for how she handled all of her arrests, given the number of open warrants for failing to appear.
    1
  16189. It's always amazing to watch two people who understand absolutely nothing... agree with each other. It's like watching 4 year old kids talking about politics.
    1
  16190. Your original posted comment contained the line "releasing this video & causing her to take her own life." This is incorrect. Nobody saw the video while she was alive. Sorry, you don't get to backtrack and pretend you were correct while being incorrect. And, while you're entitled to your opinion about arrest footage in general, the Freedom of Information Act disagrees with you.
    1
  16191. And, why did you say, "just as a side note"? Did you try to post something else that's being blocked?
    1
  16192. Dewdrop, I wasn't the one spewing falsehood. YOU WERE.
    1
  16193. Again, I'm not the one spewing wrong information here, dewdrop.
    1
  16194. Already did that, dewdrop.
    1
  16195. How about this? Just stop pretending you know things that you don't? Is that really too much to ask in life?
    1
  16196. Dewdrop, the system already has many of the protections you're asking for. And, this case was one of those examples. You had your facts wrong from the start. And, it wasn't a "technicality." It was fundamental. Her privacy WAS protected for 2.5 years. Yet, you didn't know that, and your entire tirade was based upon the notion that her privacy wasn't protected. I've asked you to stop pretending to know things you don't. But, you're never going to learn. Your mind is too far gone.
    1
  16197. Nickname? What? Mine? It's the name of my former skydiving club/team. Guess which number I was.
    1
  16198. I just tried posting my real name. It's blocking it. About 50% of messages get blocked on this channel.
    1
  16199. You clearly will never stop pretending to know things you don't. I've asked you to stop doing that, but, you refuse. Yes, dewdrop, her privacy was protected to the extent of the law.
    1
  16200. Family? She had abandoned it about a decade ago, in favor of living a life of drugs and crime. There was nobody who even cared enough to know that she was gone. She was rotting away in her apartment until the landlord opened it up to go get the overdue rent. Literally NOBODY knew she was even gone, and NOBODY was looking for her. Family?
    1
  16201. Dignity? According to her landlord, she was a stripper at the local club, and her neighbors said she also did "private" encounters in her apartment for cash with numerous men. She served a felony prison term for stealing cars. And, she had a million arrests for various other stuff. Drug and alcohol charges. Other thefts. Failures to appear in court. You name it. And, the video taken by one of the "audience" differed completely from her version of a discreet act with nobody around. Quite the opposite. The witnesses say it was intentional, and in view of many people including children. Dignity?
    1
  16202. Thanks for making it clear that nobody can ever talk to you about anything. Your mind is immune to all input. It's the very living definition of delusion.
    1
  16203. That's how delusions work. You're the living definition.
    1
  16204. That's how delusions work. You're the living definition.
    1
  16205. Dewdrop, I'm not the one who was claiming that she took her own life because of the release of the arrest video, when the arrest video wasn't released until long after she was already dead. That's YOU who did that.
    1
  16206.  @bradleyrex2968  "Send me links to your favorite search engines" Methinks he replied to this already with his favorite search engine being "fill-in-the-blank-adult-stuff-blocked-by-YouTube."
    1
  16207. What in the world are you talking about? Hubble's best resolution of the moon would yield a 160 feet x 160 feet square per pixel. Yes, one pixel would represent a 160x160 square of the moon's surface. There'd be no hope of seeing a 14x14 foot lander. And, no, dewdrop, Hubble cannot observe someone reading a newspaper. Was there any point in your life that you felt obligated to know something about a topic BEFORE spewing a bunch of nonsense?
    1
  16208. What shame, though? Almost no media covered this story until long after she was dead.
    1
  16209. This incident = July 1, 2021. Her suicide = March, 2022. Arrest video released = November 24, 2023. Viral videos = the end of November 2023 through now. There were almost zero media outlets that covered this story while she was alive, and even then, it was just a couple of obscure blogs. She suffered nearly zero shame from them. And, given that her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club, and her neighbors said she did "private" cash encounters out of her apartment, I'd say that "shame" probably wasn't in this woman's vocabulary in the first place. Plus, with her long criminal history, including a felony term in a Florida prison about 6 years ago, and a million other arrests, I really don't think this little arrest meant much to her. Or, if it was, why wait almost a year? And, what do you know that her own family didn't know? They said it was the drugs and alcohol and wild life of crime and partying that dragged her down, not this arrest. You know better?
    1
  16210. Oh, wait, I forgot... "Inside Edition (where facts don't matter) says that she was an innocent soccer mom, therefore I swallow every word hook line and sinker. All 3 cops were wrong, as were the innocent bystanders who caught the act on video. I want to blame the evil police and media for such a sweetheart's death, because Inside Edition told me to." Is that better?
    1
  16211. The majority of the poor are foreigners? What? Do a little research instead of talking out of your ass. The majority of the poor are inner city high school dropouts. The majority of foreigners can't even get into the US unless they have means to live/travel/etc. (legal ones anyway). Illegal immigrants are also a problem (if that's what you meant), of course, but they usally come here to fucking WORK. Meanwhile inner cities have up to 70% dropout rate and are perpetually unemployed/welfare.
    1
  16212. What choice did the cops have? Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  16213. "Destroyed" is a matter of perspective. The buildings that housed all of the tooling to construct most of the craft have long been destroyed. The launch towers capable of launching a Saturn V rocket were torn down and destroyed. The big IBM mainframe computers that ran all of the guidance and tracking are all destroyed. The old analog radio equipment to communicate with the craft has all been destroyed and upgraded to newer electronics. The companies that made everything for Apollo have long ago either been sold off, closed their doors, or retooled to do other things. The list goes on. Yes, it's "destroyed" in that sense. But, the knowhow will never die.
    1
  16214. Here you go, dumdum, "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal" --- go to it. Terabytes of data, photos, schematics, etc. Millions upon millions of pages of Apollo documentation, including schematics and diagrams, operation manuals, instructions on how to work the radar systems, and more. And, that's just a drop in the bucket. There are millions more pages that aren't even on that site. MIT has a bunch of it. Grumman (now Northrop). JPL. Boeing. It's all out there, dummy. Good grief.
    1
  16215. YOU SAID: "the engineering blueprints and all documented paperwork have been destroyed or disappeared." == Wrong. That's ridiculous on a million levels. You can download them from dozens of sources, down to every switch and wire and fuse. You are watching conspiracy videos that tell you that the documentation has been destroyed, but, they are wrong (they're always wrong). The physical hardware and all manufacturing facilities to build any new hardware have been destroyed. But, we still have all of the schematics. If you were correct (which you're not), I have the most valuable basement in the world, because I have volumes upon volumes of engineering schematics for the Saturn V, lunar module (both versions), command/service module, and rovers. YOU SAID: "Ask yourself why would Pettit phrase it as if he would go but can’t because it’s been destroyed.?" == Did you read a single word I wrote? I already explained it. Why are you asking again? The entire industrial program, consisting of hundreds of facilities all over the world, HAVE BEEN DESTROYED. Good grief. Why do you ask questions that have already been answered? What's wrong with you? YOU SAID: "Why didn’t he say something to the effect that I would go again but it’s not important enough for others involved to do so so I can’t nor anyone else???" == Why don't YOU ask him that? He said all of the stuff has been destroyed, and he's right, it has been. But, none of the knowhow and schematics have been destroyed. Good gods. Get that through your skull. It's the exact same concept as the other stuff from the 1960s. Take the Concorde as an example. Everything it took to make Concorde airplanes is long gone. Every facility has been torn down and replaced. The companies that built everything for Concorde is long gone. We have no certified pilots and mechanics. We cannot order a single Concorde engine. None of the fuselages are airworthy any longer. We couldn't get a Concorde off the ground if we wanted to. It's a very long and painful process to re-start a 1960s program from scratch.
    1
  16216. YOU SAID: "Or maybe something like we now have even better technology" == We DON'T have anything!!!! What don't you understand here??? Do you see any functional man-rated moon rockets laying around?? The Apollo program was retired. Again, this is identical in concept to the Concorde. You can't just say, "Why aren't we flying 100 passengers at mach 2 for 3000 miles any longer? Concorde was fake!!!" Good grief. We don't have anything better than Concorde either right now. The 1969 Concorde was retired decades ago, and all of those impressive capabilities to carry 100+ people, plus their luggage, at mach 2, for 3000 miles, are long gone. Now, the best we can do is 1-2 people at a time for a few hundred miles, then they need to slow down. That's a tiny fraction of the mach 2 capability that we had with the 1969 Concorde. And, today, we have a tiny fraction of the heavy-lifting capability into space. The Saturn V was able to lift 100,000 pounds of payload to the moon (command/service module, lunar module, and 3 people). We have nothing close to that capability today. YOU SAID: "and I would go in a heartbeat but nobody else involved thinks it’s important enough??" == Take it up with congress, dummy. NASA has been asking congress to let them go back to the moon, to Mars, etc., for decades. Congress never approved another manned moon program until 2019. NASA cannot buy a stick of chewing gum without congress' approval. They can't just decide to start up a moon program on their own. YOU SAID: "None of it makes logical sense." == Dummy, but you don't know anything. You literally don't have any understanding about this topic, beyond what conspiracy videos have told you.
    1
  16217. YOU SAID: "We should be able to go to the moon much easier and much cheaper as that is how all technology has advanced and changed our way of life." == Yes, dummy. It's called "Artemis." It was funded in 2019, for a tiny fraction of Apollo's costs (relative to inflation). They're building all of the craft. The astronauts have been named, and are in training right now. It was the first time since 1961 that a manned (and woman'd) moon program was approved by congress. You got your wish, but, you're too ignorant to even know it.
    1
  16218.  @truth2power528  YOU SAID: "very smart. Let’s destroy everything to make it harder to do next time we want to take that next." == Yes, exactly, this is what every single one of those astronauts will point out if you'd read any of their books. They all wanted to keep on going to the moon while they had the industrial complex intact. They had the 450,000 people working. They were churning out Saturn V boosters. They were churning out landers. They had all of the training facilities and launch facilities. They didn't have the ability to manufacture more command modules, because North American Aviation crumbled and didn't exist any longer, so, they'd need to find a company to cobble together where NAA left off, but, yes, they'd have managed to get production back online. Yes, you are exactly correct. Apollo could have just kept on going. But, congress pulled the plug. And, ironically, they did that when there were still three Saturn Vs basically ready to go. Now those became museum pieces. Ask any of the astronauts (the ones still alive anyway), and they were all pretty surprised that they really only felt like Apollo was the beginning. But, congress made it the end. YOU SAID: "7th trip to the moon" == Apollo 15 was the 7th trip to the moon. There were 9 manned trips to the moon (Apollo 17 was the 9th). I doubt you know that (you apparently know nothing whatsoever), but, yes, there were only 6 landings, so, ok, I'll cut some slack on this. YOU SAID: "We don’t need to waste our time in improving and building on to the existing technology to make it easier the next time around. That actually sounds like government planning." == Are you answering your own question? Anyway, the answer is yes and no. See, what you need to understand is, Apollo was always very limited. It was really just set up to meet the goal of putting people there, grabbing a few rocks, and bringing them back home. Apollo couldn't do polar landings (or any landings more than about 20 degrees north or south of the lunar equator). Apollo couldn't stay very long on the lunar surface. They stretched Apollo to its limits by managing to cram 25,000 pounds more thrust into each F1, lifting a heavier lunar module, and bringing the rover to the surface on the last 3 missions, and extending the surface stays to 70-74 hours. But, that was really pushing things. Apollo couldn't do any more than that. The purpose was to put people on the moon, and bring them back home, to beat the Soviets. And, from there, they managed to get 6 landings, 3 of which traveled any real distance from the lander. They couldn't build bases on the moon, stay months at a time, etc. This was well beyond Apollo's capability. The "government planning" was to beat the Soviets to the moon. Doing something super-useful once they got to the moon wasn't really part of the equation. They barely squeezed out those three missions with the rover to go exploring. But, that was the limit. YOU SAID: "But on the other hand we have people living in a space station that is traveling around earth at 17,500 miles an hour 248 miles away from earth. 😂😂" == Why are you sitting there with your smug little laughy faces? What's wrong with you. You don't know ANYTHING about the topic. Nothing!!!! You haven't been able to answer a single question or challenge. And, everything you've stated has been wrong. Your entire "knowledge" about Apollo has come from watching conspiracy videos, made by people just as clueless as you are. Or, more accurately, most of the makers of the bigger conspiracy videos know darned well that Apollo was real, but, they wanted to make a quick buck, so they put together a pile of lies, editing room tricks, intentionally false information, etc., knowing that their followers will never fact-check them, then they sell those videos to anybody who will air them. I mean, look at your claim about "all of the documentation has been lost." I just pointed you to terabytes of documentation, millions upon millions of pages of detailed design schematics, at your fingertips. There's enough information there to build a lunar module bolt-for-bolt identical to the ones that flew. You claimed that all of that stuff was destroyed. Are you now admitting you were wrong? Are you even reading these responses? If you reply again, can you open your response with the word "green" so that I can even know that you're reading anything I'm writing? Why do you ask questions if you intend to ignore the answers? Are you PROUD of this massive display of ignorance and conceit that you're putting on?
    1
  16219.  @truth2power528  Thanks for proving that you're not even reading anything I'm writing. I asked you to open your next response with the word "green" to prove you were even reading anything. You didn't do that. So, you're just blindly spewing garbage onto the internet, ignoring all input that goes against your ridiculous delusions.
    1
  16220.  @truth2power528  Literally every single thing you wrote is an utter butchery of reality. You know nothing. And, you know... ordinarily, I'd be very willing to respond point-by-point to each of your questions. But, I'm not going to do that, and here's why: you already proved the following: (A) You're not reading my responses anyway... I asked you to write "green" in the opening of your response, and you didn't do it, thus proving that you're not reading anyway. (B) You're also proving that you don't really want answers to your questions. You're only PRETENDING to ask questions, while, you've decided, in advance, that the answers don't matter. I have already answered you line-by-line, but you've ignored it all, and just change topics. (C) I've asked you dozens of questions and posted dozens of challenges to every single word you've written. You refuse to answer any of them. Yet, you sit there and expect me to keep answering you?? I will answer ONE thing from your new parade of ridiculous fake "questions." Dummy, it wasn't 7 hours of the Apollo 11 moonwalk that was lost. The Apollo 11 moonwalk didn't even last 7 hours. It was about 2.5 hours. And, the two tapes that covered those 2.5 hours were never considered anything more than backup tapes. The primary copies were never lost. The two backup tapes that were lost have NEVER EVEN BEEN WATCHED. Not a single time. They have never even constructed a machine capable of playing them. The only reason those two tapes ever existed was as a backup mechanism, in the event that the NTSC conversion didn't work. That way, they'd have a backup copy of the Apollo 11 moonwalk, and they could construct a machine capable of reading those tapes (it was in the raw format sent by the camera, not in NTSC format that could be played on a television set), and they could still have a copy of the first moonwalk. But, the NTSC conversion worked, so, literally nobody had ever watched those backup tapes. Never. Not a single time. Again, they never even made a machine capable of playing them. Decades later, one person at NASA decided he wanted to try to take a look at those backup tapes, and find out if he could construct a machine to play them. However, he found out that they were missing. A few years went by, and they searched for them, but never found them. They thought the tapes were still in Parkes, Australia (where they were recorded). But, Parkes said they though they sent them to Houston. In the end, nobody really knows what happened to them, but, they are guessing that they got accidentally erased with thousands of useless tapes they were recycling. The primary copies, and millions more copies, are still intact, dummy. None of you conspiratards ever asked to see those backup tapes before. None of you people thought those backup tapes were important enough to complain about. Yet, now that they're missing, you conspiratards think it's sooooooo important. Why? What makes two backup tapes that nobody ever even watched so important to you? HINT: You don't know anything about that, because all you're doing is watching conspiracy videos, and blindly swallowing everything they tell you, hook line and sinker. You thought these were the "original" tapes (whatever that would mean). You had no idea that they were merely backup tapes that nobody had ever watched, even a single time.
    1
  16221.  @truth2power528  You obviously didn't read (yet again).
    1
  16222. We are done here. You don't get to ignore every response, ignore every question, ignore every challenge, and repeatedly prove that you're not even reading my responses, then continue to ask me new questions.
    1
  16223.  @truth2power528  I'm paying you the exact same respect that you paid me. You refused to read anything I wrote... you now claim that I didn't even ask you questions... yeah, we're done, and I'm not reading another word from you, since you clearly aren't reading anything I'm writing anyway. You ask questions, but, you clearly have no interest in the answers.
    1
  16224.  @truth2power528  So, you ignore the fact that I gave answers about 99.9% of what you wrote... but the very second I have had enough of your intellectual dishonesty, and the fact that you aren't even reading the answers I've given thus far, you declare victory because I refuse to keep answering more questions (when you will ignore the answers anyway, just as you have done repeatedly before). I answer 99.9% of your questions, you answer 0.0% of mine, and you declare victory because I refuse to keep on with this nonsense. Dummy, maybe you'd see the questions I asked, if you had bothered to read anything.
    1
  16225. "Teach me everything about the Earth and Apollo in 10 words or less, otherwise it's an 'encyclopedia' that I won't read." Right. Bye bye, dumdum, your brain is too far gone for me to deal with any further.
    1
  16226. Gee, how generous of you.
    1
  16227. Her own attorney disagrees with you. What do you know that he didn't?
    1
  16228. @Gerald Dixon Cummings Yes, it's true. It is easy to spoof any number. But, you'd need more than just a land line or cell phone to do it. You need an actual handoff circuit from a carrier company. But, if you have one, yes, you can send any number you want to show up on a person's callerID.
    1
  16229.  @WillBravoNotEvil  Huh? Are you sure you replied to the correct person?
    1
  16230. Did she ask that? I thought she just asked WHERE he shot him (i.e. in the chest, leg, arm, whatever).
    1
  16231. On what grounds?
    1
  16232. Oh, you poor thing. Your dumbness is showing.
    1
  16233. So, if a conspiracy video says that all of the information was "tossed in the bin," you just believe it? Why would you think such a thing? How do you even find that ridiculous claim even remotely believable? No information has been destroyed. That's just silly.
    1
  16234. Open investigation vs. closed.
    1
  16235. Well, Inside Edition is certainly guilty of being rather deceptive with the facts. But, what did the police do wrong? They managed to keep the arrest video out of the public's eyes for 2.5 years, which was 1.5 years after her death. And, it was probably only made public as a result of a legal FOIA request. So, what's your lawsuit against the police based upon? Arresting her in the first place?
    1
  16236. Yeah, that's probably good advice. And, I'd imagine with her extensive criminal history, time spent in prison, and million other arrests, she'd have known that. But, judging by the number of failures to appear in court, I'm guessing that she probably talked because she wanted to see if she could cry her way out of it before they looked up open warrants.
    1
  16237. Well, in most cases, you might be right. If there's not enough cause, they probably can't make an arrest. But, in this case, one of the "audience" recorded the incident and showed the video to the police. Their arrest report describes it very differently than the woman says as she's trying to avoid her millionth arrest.
    1
  16238. How do you get permission from a dead person? You do know that nobody saw the arrest video until 1.5 years after she was already dead, right?
    1
  16239. Yeah, but, Aldrin sort of regretted doing it. The next time I saw him after that punch, I shook that hand that did the punching, and I said I thought he did the right thing. He paused, thought about it for a bit, and expressed a bit of "almost regret" (not exactly), saying that he didn't think Sibrel would stop doing what he was doing. In other words, he didn't think the punch did any good.
    1
  16240.  @marksprague1280  Didn't he end up suing Aldrin?
    1
  16241. I give up. What in the world does gravity have to do with recordings reaching Earth?
    1
  16242. Huh? She was one of those criminals.
    1
  16243.  @crunchyyellowlion  YOU SAID: "He is a helluva senator" == Sigh. And, you think he is a senator, why? How valid can your opinion even be if you don't even know what position he holds?
    1
  16244.  @Hobbes746  Static electricity suspends dust above the surface. You wouldn't see it. It's like the dust floating around in the air in your house (except on the moon, there is nearly zero atmosphere). But, over years, with extremely small dust particles raising and falling with static electric charge, it's possible to build up a dust layer. There are some articles about it. They can spot the dust in aggregate from certain sun angles.
    1
  16245. It was a media setup in the first place. The arrest video was released on November 24, 2023. She had been dead since March of 2022. So, the first round of the arrest video simply never mentioned that she was already dead. So, in the second round, they revealed that she was dead, without saying that they had known it all along, and instead let people believe that the release of the arrest video caused the suicide. Whenever they ask questions without providing the answers, you know it's a red flag that you're being manipulated.
    1
  16246. YOU SAID: "39:23 Hard to believe the astronaut cannot couldn't just hop up the small distance, here." == Wow, you conspiratards sure do grasp at straws. The astronaut had stuff in both hands, and it was an uneven terrain, and he chose to climb instead of jump, and this is "hard to believe"?? Good grief. YOU SAID: "Isn't here in very light gravity?" == Well, that was almost a sentence. Bravo. YOU SAID: "But yet he has to climb with short, choppy little steps to make it up this tiny slope? Looks like he's on Earth, does it not?" == Sooooo, during the hours upon hours upon hours upon hours upon hours of video taken on the moon, you select this clip where an astronaut chose to climb instead of jump, and you ignore all of the times when they DID jump? Pretending that I agree that it looks like he's on Earth, ok, now what? Are you going to be willing to view the other hours of video and acknowledge that they look like they're on the moon? YOU SAID: "50:45 The second astronaut cannot really kick the heavy boulder! It seems to weigh as much as it would on Earth!" == Yes. You clearly don't know the difference between weight and mass, and the ramifications in physics. For example, if you were on a planet with 1/10,000th gravity, you could lift a house over your head with only about 10 pounds of upward force (it would take some time, but, you could do it). However, you'd have no chance in the world of pushing/throwing it horizontally. The house isn't going to move more horizontally more than a few millimeters. Inertia doesn't care about gravity.
    1
  16247.  @johnellizz  Stop pretending to understand physics. And, don't sit there and ask fake questions. You refuse to address a single question or challenge I put forth. Now you're asking questions. I already explained this, dummy. You don't know the difference between the force of gravity (weight), vs. mass. Objects still have inertia (based upon mass), regardless of gravity, dummy. Inertia is based on mass, not on weight. And, you still have to deal with this linear inertia. Or, just boil that away, and just look at F=ma. Force = mass x acceleration. How much force do you think a throwing motion of your arm will result on the mass, to produce any significant acceleration at all? You think you can throw a house, even if you were in 1/10,000 gravity? Um, no. The only think your arm would do is move YOU backward. You're not moving the house forward by more than a couple of millimeters. If you think otherwise, go right ahead, and publish your physics notions in physics journals. One of two things will happen. (A) You will be laughed out the door. Or, (B) You will rewrite the entirety of physics as we know it, winning multiple Nobel Prizes, publishing books that will earn you tens of millions of dollars, and spend the rest of your life making $70,000 per week on the university lecture circuits. Hint: (A) is the answer. What's wrong with you? Have you been diagnosed?
    1
  16248.  @Jan_Strzelecki  I made the tragic mistake of trying to engage this lost cause about physics (which he definitely doesn't understand). But, I checked the sick person's channel, and, well, he believes Keira Knightley, Jessica Alba, Tom Cruise, Halle Berry, Brad Pitt, Keanu Reeves, and many others, are ACTUAL lizard people. He thinks the NFL is fake and the winners/losers are planned in advance. And, well, let's just say his mind is gone in many other ways. There is no reaching him. This one is lost forever.
    1
  16249. Typical. You ask questions, but had no interest in the answers. You even dismissed the answers immediately after asking the questions. Gee, where have I seen that before? (HINT: every conspiracy nut on Earth.)
    1
  16250. Almost zero media even covered this while she was alive. So, um, no.
    1
  16251. How far have you flushed your brain away to believe such a thing?
    1
  16252. How far have you flushed your brain away to believe such a thing?
    1
  16253. pranav: "chandrayaan 3 proved moon temperature is much higher to survive at equator" Um, so what? Do you think it's always a high temperature? All lunar landings took place early in the lunar morning, long before the high temperatures. By the way, do you know what Chandrayaan 2 proved? It proved the Apollo missions were real. It took photos of some of the landing sites, in better resolution than any other camera (except for the live mission photography from the missions themselves). For example, you can see the Apollo 12 lander, complete with the flag to the north (exactly as it was in the original mission photos). You can tell because the shadow of the flag is very clear in the photo, and demonstrates that the flag is still standing today.
    1
  16254. What do you mean "again after her death"? No news station spread it before she was dead either.
    1
  16255. Thanks for demonstrating that you have no interest in the answers to your own questions.
    1
  16256. And, to think... maybe if he had arrested her instead of letting her go, she might still be alive today. Who knows? But, as a side note: do you actually believe there wasn't more stuff under that bulky coat? Do you really think she was only stealing gloves and a hat?
    1
  16257. What exactly do you think was broadcasted that humiliated her?
    1
  16258. The Freedom of Information Act is what released the video. But, it wasn't released until 2.5 years later. Nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive. So, no, there was no humiliation from the arrest video. So, again, I ask, what exactly do you think was broadcasted that humiliated her?
    1
  16259. So, your position is that the convicted felon who served time in prison, and had a million arrests and other judgements, was embarrassed by this arrest? Her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club. Her neighbors said she also did "private" sessions in her apartment for cash with numerous men. The witnesses at the beach said that it looked like she was intentionally putting on a show in front of multiple people including children, and even took video of the incident and showed it to the cops. But, your position is that this one little tiny arrest has "shamed" her? Man, I don't think this woman knew what the word "shame" meant. And, none of her other million arrests or her prison term caused her suicide. But, THIS one did?
    1
  16260. The Taser is used to force compliance upon people who refuse to comply. She had already committed multiple crimes during the detainment, and the original suspicion of theft wasn't the only reason she was being arrested. She was also being arrested for refusing to provide identification, for obstruction/obfuscation, and, during the arrest itself, she also added resisting arrest to the pile of charges. The store employee said she thought the woman didn't pay. That's not hearsay. And, the concept of hearsay isn't even relevant anyway. But, a first hand testimony isn't hearsay. It would be hearsay if the store employee told the cop she heard a rumor that the woman didn't pay. Her own attorneys didn't even agree with a single word you said. No suit was filed against the police, because they couldn't find anything wrong with the officer's actions.
    1
  16261. Well, she was already dead for 1.5 years before they released it. They can't continue to block Freedom of Information Act requests after the case was closed for that long.
    1
  16262. What would you propose instead? Lie to her?
    1
  16263. Of Special Edition shouldn't of done of what? Who is of accountable of her of death if not of herself? Special Edition of didn't show of any videos until of she was already of dead for 1.5 years.
    1
  16264. Well, I certainly agree that the cop is a great guy (based upon this video anyway). And, it's wonderful to try to help people. But, there are a number of ironies also. For example: (A) He probably couldn't actually arrest her anyway, because she hadn't left the store. He gave her a bit of a scare, but, I think he was bluffing a bit. I don't think she can be guilty of theft merely for carrying her items in her coat. I think the crime happens once she tries to walk out the door with them. Prior to then, she could always claim she was just carrying the items in the coat while shopping, and intended to pay before leaving. And, (B) perhaps she'd still be alive today if she had been in the relative "safety" of prison. So, I'm not sure how her death is paying him back 1000 fold. But, yeah, these situations are full of dark irony.
    1
  16265. For me, if I was the cop in this video, I would not feel that my favor got paid back 1000 fold when the woman in the video learned absolutely nothing from it, and continued to steal from Walgreens immediately after this incident, abandoned her two kids, and died of meth. To me, I'd feel that my favors were paid back only if my favors effectively helped someone. I don't take pride or reward in favors that end in complete failure.
    1
  16266. Just Google it. Read her obituary, arrest record, etc.
    1
  16267. And, you'd believe that, why? What in the world are you talking about?
    1
  16268.  @princessdph  Sorry, doesn't work that way. Occasional hand motions are natural, yes. But, constantly waving hands around like a psychopath, on every single sentence, is either a severe mental tick, or it's rehearsed because someone told him that talking points carry more weight if you wave your hands around. I've never met a single person who wildly waves hands literally on every single sentence, every second of talking.
    1
  16269. Garage on apples flood are blue. Wet the brick is twelve consequently phase the corn chip.
    1
  16270. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released.
    1
  16271. Huh? How should the cops have arrested her instead of how they did it? And, sorry, but social media didn't get involved until she was already dead for 1.5 years.
    1
  16272. Well, I have no idea why this version of the video cuts out the entire beginning and the entire end. But, you're right, she didn't steal. But, nobody is in any kind of trouble. The police did everything correctly. The store didn't press charges. The woman was released. She sued the store, and, of course, she lost badly (as she should). So, in the end, nothing at all happened. She got lucky that they didn't press charges for failing to ID, resisting arrest, obstruction and obfuscation. But, it's hard to get a conviction for those charges after the original theft charge was dropped. So, in the end, literally nothing happened here. Everything is back the way it was before the incident. Nobody is in trouble, and the woman never got a dime.
    1
  16273. Why was the arrest video released? Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  16274. The goal? To be compliant with the Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  16275. Humiliation? Over what? The arrest video? It wasn't released until November 24, 2023. She died 2 years ago. Nobody saw it while she was alive.
    1
  16276. Feelings about being arrested? Huh? She never killed herself over any of her prior million arrests, why would this one bother her that much? She didn't kill herself when she was serving felony time in a Florida prison. According to her landlord, she was a stripper at the local club. According to her neighbors, she also did "private" cash encounters out of her apartment. This hardly seems to me like a woman who feels humiliated when "exposed."
    1
  16277. Welcome to Inside Edition, where facts don't matter.
    1
  16278. Huh? Well, maybe you should open a police training academy, and instruct police on how to make a 9mm hollow point pistol round penetrate a truck? I mean, I've only had a couple of dozen firearms training courses in my life. You're obviously a firearms training instructor, who can teach people how to make those rounds get through all of that metal and glass. And, you should train the bad guys too, because, did you see all of those shots at 2:10 in the video? They just bounced off the glass and barely even caused a crack. You need to instruct everyone on how to defy the laws of physics, and put more energy into those 9mm rounds than they have. Forget 1/2mv^2, the formula for the amount of energy in those rounds. Physics means nothing. YOU can train everyone to defy the physics, and make those rounds score hits through a truck!!! I know nothing about physics, nor about firearms. Clearly, you're the superior expert here.
    1
  16279. Hilarious!!! You think these were .40s? Explain why none of the rounds that hit him did much damage, then? Did you see his chin wound? They hit his chin, and it barely even broke skin. The rounds that hit his arm didn't go through. Oh, but these were .40s and not 9mm? And, you lost all credibility when you said that you watched at 2:10, and think the rounds went through the glass. He fired over and over and over, and the rounds just bounced right off of the windshield. When you feel the need to lie to support your delusions, sorry, but there's really no point in discussing anything with you. But, you go right ahead and pretend to know things you do not know. That's what YouTube is for you, a place where you can pretend.
    1
  16280. And, it's blocking my reply from being seen. What a surprise with YouTube's algorithms. So, I'll put it this way: you're wrong, and you're pretending to know things you do not know.
    1
  16281.  @KRITORISS  Hilarious!!! Yes, it's the YouTube algorithms, not the channel. And, it's funny that you think that I wouldn't know algorithms, while, still today, one of my algorithms that I devised and published while back in college decades ago, still runs in every single computer on Earth today. Yeah, you're a real winner alright. Is there any point at which you get tired of every single thing you say being wrong? No? You're just going to keep on spewing more and more nonsense? Absolute hilarity.
    1
  16282. So, you believe the correct thing for incorrect reasons.
    1
  16283. Really, dewdrop? Have you looked into the mirror? Good gods.
    1
  16284. So, the criminal who has a track record for stealing (and, yeah, more than just hats and gloves) isn't a criminal? And, you're harping on the worker in the store for caring about her job and company? As for answering your question, no, I'm not irritated by the woman for trying to stop shoplifters. And, I'm much more irritated by people like you, for encouraging people not to care about their jobs, and for encouraging the behavior of the thief in the video instead. Maybe she'd still be alive today, had they just arrested her for this crime. At least she'd might still be alive if she was in prison, rather than left loose to keep on committing more crimes and taking more drugs.
    1
  16285. I'm not the one advocating that people shouldn't care about the businesses they work for, dewdrop. That's YOU.
    1
  16286. Shoot below the waist? What in the world are you talking about?
    1
  16287. Did you stop taking drugs??? No!
    1
  16288. Yeah, you'd think she would have been used to the cuffs by that point in her life.
    1
  16289.  @primemac3dstudio18  Good grief. What an utter train wreck. Nothing you are saying is accurate. You're full of shit. And, since you still insist that you don't have an opinion, despite your track record, and your utterly transparent statements indicating EXACTLY what you have predetermined, I am not going to reply further. Your responses are WRONG, dead WRONG. Period. And, your downright refusal to address the responses I made regarding all of the international evidence, just shows how intellectually dishonest you are.
    1
  16290. It's a bit like the extreme left or extreme right talk show hosts. They say just enough correct stuff, and their audiences end up believing that everything they say is correct. But, beyond the occasional correct things they say, the rest is pure gibberish. The problem is that the audiences do not have the educations to know how to filter good information from bad.
    1
  16291. If you honestly think that Lance Armstrong didn't dope, but was able to beat all of the dopers every time, you're delusional beyond hope. If you think that 10+ teammates and staff are lying, you're delusional beyond hope. If you think Lance's doctor (banned for training people how dope without testing positive), but didn't train Lance too, you're delusional beyond hope. You do at least know that they keep blood/urine for many years because new testing methods are always being developed, right?
    1
  16292. Huh? So, in your mind, we shouldn't stop shoplifters until all of those other offenses are stopped? And, the Taser wasn't used because of shoplifting, the Taser was used because of resisting arrest. It wouldn't matter if she was being arrested for murder, or theft, or jaywalking, or failing to bring her garbage can in from the curb by 6pm, or whatever, the point is, if she resists, she's going to get Taser'd. It's not the original crime that brings out the Taser, it's the resisting and refusal to get out of the car and put her hands behind her back.
    1
  16293. Taser? Against a gun? Would YOU risk YOUR life in the hope that you get a Taser hit in time before the bad guy kills you?
    1
  16294. Correct. But, she is required by law to show ID. She refused.
    1
  16295. Yes, spoken like a true believer in everything Inside Edition has to feed, much like pigs lining up at the garbage trough. Multiple people called about this incident. The witnesses said that she was doing this intentionally. One witness recorded it and showed it to the police. The video shows a very loud and public act in view of multiple people including children. Oh, but, you say she thought she was alone, right? Because, criminals never lie to the police when faced with their millionth arrest, and the possibility of returning to prison again, right? With her time in prison, and her arrest record a mile long, SHE's the trustworthy one here, not the innocent bystanders who reported her. And, her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club, and her neighbors say she did "private" encounters for cash with numerous men in her apartment. But, again, SHE is the one to be trusted when she said she was alone, not the multiple people who called. And, dewdrop, July 1, 2021 = this arrest. Suicide = March, 2022. Arrest video released = November 24, 2023. So, no, nobody broadcasted anything to the world until long after she was dead. While she was alive, there were one or two blog entries on a couple of obscure websites that publish lots of arrest records, but, let's face reality here, virtually nobody saw them, and she should have been very used to being arrested by then. But, nobody saw the arrest video while she was alive. But, you keep on watching Inside Edition, where facts don't matter. It's doing wonders for your reasoning skills.
    1
  16296. If the cop asked for the evidence first, the woman would be long gone. What ARE you talking about? When investigating a shoplifting charge, they don't just take your information and then call you later to arrest her or something. They either arrest, or they don't. He did ask her for ID many times, and she refused to provide it, nor even tell him her name. This is the shortened version that starts in the middle. The longer version has the whole thing. If you think you understand how to properly handle these things better than the police, why aren't you opening a police training academy business? They did follow procedures. You just don't know anything about the topic.
    1
  16297.  @GoldLinus  She had already refused to ID, obstructed, and obfuscated. And, then she added resisting arrest. It was too late to go back to the store, because she had already committed those crimes.
    1
  16298.  @GoldLinus  The cop gave his reason. He said the store suspected her of stealing. No, there is no requirement to get a supervisor just because someone asks. If that was the case, what's the point in having police officers in the first place? Everyone would need to be a supervisor. You can ask for one, but, if it's not very important, the cop doesn't need to get a supervisor. No supervisor is needed for a woman who is upset because the store thought she stole a piece of chicken and a loaf of bread.
    1
  16299.  @GoldLinus  Furthermore, why should the cop get a supervisor for a woman who refuses to even identify herself?
    1
  16300.  @GoldLinus  No, there is no right to a supervisor.
    1
  16301. Sorry, I'm not bothering to read anything from you any longer. You don't understand anything. I read as far as the notion that you wouldn't ask for her ID if you were the officer. This is downright ridiculous, and I didn't read after that. During an investigation, one of the first things you want to do is identify the person. You need to know if you're dealing with a convicted felon with a weapons history, or someone prone to fleeing, or whatever else. If you don't know who you're dealing with, you are at a massive disadvantage. And, providing ID during an investigation is part of the standard procedure. But, YOU say you wouldn't do it. You never had very much credibility to begin with, but, whatever little you had is now completely lost.
    1
  16302.  @AMC2283  So, that's how this goes, in your mind? Every country that confirms Apollo is merely just another country participating in "the lie"? Evidence doesn't matter to you. History doesn't matter to you. The 450,000 people who engineered everything do not matter to you. The only thing that matters to you is to keep on expanding the number of people you believe are lying to you? Decade after decade after decade, more and more evidence pours in. But, you're not interested, and, every new piece of evidence is just another country who joined in the deception? How far gone are you? How far into outer space has your mind been lost?
    1
  16303. Of she? Well, of I find it of hard to of believe that of people get put of on those lists of because of that. I of think that of people pretend that's of the reason of they're on those lists, because of they don't of want to reveal of the real of reason they're of on the lists of of.
    1
  16304.  @Toyotacorollaaltis-cn9fd  Right. Sure. And, there was nothing more to the story, huh? I have a bridge for sale, interested?
    1
  16305. Probably not an issue. Those multiple people probably know darned well that this is a heavily modified and edited version of the story that is skewed to make people believe falsehoods.
    1
  16306. And, you believe she was shamed like that, why? Because Inside Edition said so?
    1
  16307. Freedom of Information Act. But, at least the poor woman never suffered from the release of the arrest video. She was already dead for 1.5 years before anybody saw it.
    1
  16308. Inside Edition says so, therefore it's true.
    1
  16309. You think those losers had jobs?
    1
  16310. YOU SAID: "Of all this video I don't see any stars at all." == Yeah, if you saw stars, that would have meant it was fake. Since it's real, you can't see stars. YOU SAID: "Let's try to find the flag that they put on the moon." == Five of the six flags are still standing. We know this from the shadows of those flags in the LRO photography. YOUS AID: "Let's prove we land on the moon by finding the US 🇺🇸 on the moon with a telescope." == Telescope??? Like, a telescope on Earth? I'm afraid you know nothing about optics. Light doesn't work that way. There's only so much you can cram through a lens, and this is a well understood property of light. Optical resolution. Look up the formulas. Do the math. It would take a lens about 75 feet across to be able to see the lunar landers on the surface of the moon, and you'd only see them as a single dot each. You wouldn't know what they were, you'd only see a dot. In order to actually be able to see them with enough resolution to know what they were, it would take a lens a quarter mile in diameter. Given that the largest optical grade lens ever constructed in history is 5 feet in diameter, and costed $168 million, I'd say we're a long way off from a quarter mile lens.
    1
  16311. Well, then maybe you'll be glad to learn that this wasn't one mistake. She was a convicted felon who served time in prison for stealing cars, and had an arrest record a mile long for other thefts, drug and alcohol charges, failures to appear in court, you name it. She ruined her own life long before this incident.
    1
  16312. What for? Why would they keep it a secret?
    1
  16313.  @c.harris4509  YOU SAID: "Not very bright, are we?" == Well, certainly not any longer. Going back decades ago, yeah, I probably could claim to be extremely smart. I was extremely advanced, well past just the top 1%, all of that stuff. But, now, being old, I barely remember that former self, and I really don't care all that much about the accolades from decades ago, and I really don't even use the term "smart" to describe myself, and instead, I rely on my knowledge and facts to make my case for me, such that it doesn't even matter who I am at all, nor how smart I am, or not. I let my arguments stand or fall on their own. YOU SAID: "Apparently, you've never served. Everyone knows when big gov't has new technology, they tend to keep it secret." == And, you think this applies to Apollo, how? Apollo was only approved by congress if the technology developed was completely shared with the public. No patents allowed. No trademarks allowed. No copyrights allowed. Nothing developed for Apollo was to even have a brand name written on it. Everything was public. And, beyond that, your analogy to other things that governments have kept a secret makes no sense. Your argument about Apollo was that they continued to do more missions after Apollo 17. That was your argument. So, this is completely BACKWARD from the argument that you're making now. The secret stuff is developed, and kept a secret, then revealed later. But, your apparent position is to claim that the government FIRST revealed the Apollo technology to the world, then, magically, wanted to keep it a secret afterward?? What? How does that equate? What ARE you talking about? How do you keep the "secret technology" to go to the moon, when you've already sent people to the moon 9 times with the public technology? YOU SAID: "If you think otherwise, you may need to see your shrink." == Really? That's how you work? You repeat my own comment about you, back to me, and then pretend you're the bright one? Good grief. Hey, dummy, it took THOUSANDS of people to get a Saturn V off the ground. It took HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people to manufacture all of the stuff to go to the moon. It took THOUSANDS of people during the missions to track everything going on, around the world radar stations, communications stations, systems monitoring, etc. The launches themselves were visible and audible for HUNDREDS OF MILES. Do you REALLY believe that they could manage to build a bunch more Saturn Vs (or whatever equivalent you're proposing) without thousands of people being aware of what they were building? Do you REALLY believe that they could get those things into the sky without thousands of people in the public noticing? Hell, the Saturn V that took Apollo 11 to the moon was rolled out to the launchpad about TWO MONTHS before lifting off, so they could get everything ready to fly. It stood there in public view, 363 feet tall, and anybody could see it from miles away. But, you think they secretly somehow managed to get additional missions off the ground without anybody noticing? Pffttt. Why? What technology do you propose they used, if not 363 foot tall rockets that needed thousands of people to prepare, and were visible/audible for hundreds of miles? You simply MUST be talking about a different technology altogether. But, then, that begs the question about why you would believe it? Like, if you're talking about some sort of radical technology that doesn't need 363 foot tall rockets and hundreds of thousands of people to construct them, um, ok, then why believe it? I mean, you can make this same argument about ANYTHING!!! If all you're going to do is make an argument that governments have secret technologies, well, then you can believe anything you want. "I believe in time travel machines, because the government makes secret things." "I believe NASA sent people to Jupiter, because the government makes secret things." You can literally insert ANYTHING you imagine under the umbrella of "because the government makes secret things," and, by your "logic" (sigh), it's justified to believe it. Have you seen a mental healthcare professional lately? Maybe you should make an appointment?
    1
  16314. They're probably well aware never to trust an Inside Edition story, unlike you.
    1
  16315. tegaF
    1
  16316. George Low
    1
  16317. Were you worried that the criminal would be "more dead"? Anyway, spare the world your ridiculous opinions. The average number of shots it takes to stop someone is 5. People can often take a lot more shots than movies would indicate. And, in the heat of the moment, against an attacker who has his hands on a gun, you fire until the threat is stopped.
    1
  16318.  @xhadebrinsbane5238  Wrong. Want to try again?
    1
  16319. Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  16320. Well, first of all, why do you believe she thought she was alone? Because she said so, as she was trying to whine he way out of her millionth arrest? Secondly, why would you say they "handled it publicly"? They took her away from the restaurant to question her, outside of the earshot of any onlookers. And, they blocked the release of the arrest video for as long as they could, and nobody saw it until 2.5 years later (she was long dead by then). What more do you expect here?
    1
  16321. So, that's it then? I asked a couple of questions. You refused to answer?
    1
  16322. "Shortly after" = almost a year later?
    1
  16323. "someone's daughter" Huh? She abandoned her family and career more than a decade ago to live a life of crime and drugs instead. Her husband and son didn't even go to her funeral.
    1
  16324. "someone's best friend" Really? Why do you suppose nobody was looking for her? She sat in that apartment, decomposing, and nobody even tried to get in touch with her. It wasn't until her landlord went in looking for the overdue rent that she was found. They don't know, but estimate that she was dead a month. Absolutely NOBODY even knew she was gone.
    1
  16325. I don't lack sympathy. But, yes, I hold people accountable for their own actions, and I don't falsely blame others for her own choices.
    1
  16326. I'm not the one who can't answer questions, dewdrop. That's YOU. You claimed that this was handled publicly. It wasn't. You don't know what you're talking about, then, you doubled down on not knowing what you're talking about.
    1
  16327. No, fuckpig. I told you this. It's YOUR job to support YOUR claim. I already know the correct answer, and it's not my job to educate you. I already tried to correct you, but you decided that you'd rather talk out of your ass even FURTHER. You have NO CLUE what you're talking about, and I refuse to burn my time trying to educate assholes who refuse to be educated. There's no point. If you don't believe me, fine, live your delusion. In the meantime, the rest of the world all knows you're wrong.
    1
  16328. Can you name any social media that published anything about this while she was still alive?
    1
  16329. Well, I wouldn't use the "cowards" word. They're just young and drugged up, not exactly cowardly. But, the one is dead now, so, he'll never have the chance to be "cowardly" again.
    1
  16330. The Walgreens employee didn't press charges, and just asked the woman to leave the stuff she was stealing. Seems pretty lenient to me. And, huh? You think that a Walgreens clerk can just set the price of items? And, as for "God bless our police," well, I guess that's a nice sentiment. But, it doesn't seem like he needed very much blessing, and the woman in the video could have used some of those blessings before she died. No? That part doesn't matter? Bless the officer, not the dead woman?
    1
  16331.  @robb5987  Awwww, you poor thing. Your brain appears to be broken.
    1
  16332. It's a fairly high albedo (for a dark gray rock). This is mainly because of tiny glass-like reflective materials in the dust/rocks. You can look at "moon rocks through a microscope" to get a better idea of what I'm talking about.
    1
  16333. Yes.
    1
  16334.  @AM-rd9pu  His only purpose was slander/libel in the first place (evidence has nothing to do with anything for him). He just expanded his targets from just the 450,000 people who worked on Apollo, to also include anybody that proves him wrong.
    1
  16335. First steps: nobody "put the camera there" (other than the manufacturers of the lunar lander who assembled it). It was attached to the side of the lander in an equipment bay that was deployed as Armstrong went down the ladder. No footprints? Correct. There is no video, nor photograph, of the first actual footprint. The surface at the bottom of the lander was very dark (in the shadow of the lander), and none of the photos really get a good view of those prints. 20 minutes after stepping out onto the surface, Armstrong moved the camera to its final spot, where it took video of the rest of the moonwalk.
    1
  16336. Sorry, dewdrop, but if you're not going to read my first response, I see no reason to respond again.
    1
  16337.  @Cliffmchrist  What in the world are you talking about? Armstrong never filmed Aldrin coming down the ladder. He took a few photos, but, never video.
    1
  16338. I have a bridge for sale if you actually believe she thought she was in a private area. Why would you believe it? Because she said so as she was being arrested for the millionth time?
    1
  16339. I mean, stating the obvious here with this chronic liar, but, c'mon. He tried to get the trial delayed under this lie about having COVID, claiming to have all of the symptoms, saying he was deathly terrified. But, when offered a rapid test, he kept refusing to take it. Then, when given the result, he doesn't want to read it. This is all part of the repeated theme of gibberish out of this guy. Even to the end, when he said he wanted a mistrial because of the Reddit posting (which he undoubtedly made himself), he just looks for reasons to delay or distract. "I'm super terrified that I have COVID!!!" "OK, we will give you a rapid test." "No thanks, I'll stick with the super slow test. But, I'm super afraid that I'm dying!!" "OK, here's the result." "No thanks, I didn't read it."
    1
  16340.  @CreatureColossus  You opened this thread with a claim. I responded by illustrating why your claim was wrong, and that you have completely misunderstood the main point. You then replied with comments that clearly illustrated that you haven't got the foggiest clue what you're talking about. I tried to spell out to you (via listing many examples of a pattern of deceptive behavior) why you're delusional about what's going on here. And, you didn't want to hear it, and asked me to focus on one main point. But, what you fail to understand is that I wasn't even trying to make one main point. I was responding to YOUR claims. My "main point" (if you could even call it that) was that you have completely misunderstood what's going on here. Nobody is going to be shocked or "pissed" or disappointed if/when Tesla makes full self driving robotic cars. Not me. Not Mason. Nobody. It's inevitable. Auto manufacturers will eventually get to that level. Nobody is claiming otherwise. But, in the meantime, it's quite clear that Musk is selling snake oil, stating that he's perpetually "a year" away from it, to artificially boost car sales and stock price. When he gets up in front of an audience and claims that full self driving robo-taxis are a year away, and if you buy his car now, he'll deliver you a software update next year that will turn your car into a money printing machine, yeah, that's snake oil... because he KNOWS it's not true. And, Mason tried to illustrate many reasons why we know it's not true. Of course, Phil Mason presents very good arguments to illustrate why we know it's not true, but, as he has done many times in the past in his videos, he somehow missed the main reason. The main reason we know Musk is blowing hot air is because the process to certify full level-5 self driving is far longer than a year. He cannot legally put a full self driving robo-taxi on the road until it undergoes a rigorous certification process that lasts far more than a year. He must achieve and certify level 2, then level 3, then level 4, before he can promise people level-5. And, in reality, he can barely even promise level 2 at this point. And, his own legal department, when asked by legislature if they really intend on putting full self driving level-5 cars on the road next year (Musk's claims), Tesla's own legal department said that they have no such plans, and full self driving level-5 isn't even in the works, and they have no intention whatsoever of doing it. Hence, Musk's claim that those were the plans... was A BLATANT LIE to boost sales and stock price. He never said he misspoke. He never published an apology/correction. He just left that claim out there. Yes, I'm sure Tesla (if it still exists a decade or two into the future) will be like every other manufacturer out there, and will be attempting to put full self driving robo-taxis on the road. Nobody is going to pout about this. Nobody is going to be "pissed" when that natural progression finally happens. But, to willfully claim that it's a year away, when it's not even legally possible to do it in a year's time, IS SNAKE OIL SALES!!! And, the mere fact that Musk has now simply re-defined the term "full self driving" to mean merely level-2 automation, declaring that he has achieved it (hoping people will ignore his original robo-taxi claim), is even more ammunition that Musk is selling snake oil. Rather than delivering on the original promise, he has chosen to simply re-define the words to fit something he can deliver, and declares victory. I then went on to illustrate a tiny fraction of Musk's endless lists of false promises, deceptive claims, pure delusion, and outright fraud (i.e. Solar City). The purpose was to outline to you that Musk's claim for full self driving cars ranks right up there with a long parade of other ridiculous claims Musk has made over the years. I specifically chose a variety of them, to illustrate to you that Musk has pattern of, once again, false promises, deception, delusion, and outright fraud. It would be easy enough to just attribute one "mistake" (making an impossible promise for full level-5 self driving by "next year") to just human error. Fine, he said something that wasn't true. Maybe he just misunderstood things. Maybe he misspoke. Who cares? No harm done, right? But, when you step back and realize that Musk has a very long history of this type of stuff, you will realize that the "full self driving" claim wasn't just a misspeak. It wasn't just a mistaken claim. It fits EXACTLY with his long list of overpromising and underdelivering... and this is DELIBERATE. Yes, level-5 self driving will be achieved by any/all auto makers eventually. It's not a year away. It cannot even be a year away, because the certification process takes many years. Nobody is going to be "pissed" when this is achieved. People are "pissed" when Musk promises things that he KNOWS cannot be delivered in the timeframe he claims. That's the point here.
    1
  16341.  @CreatureColossus  YOU SAID: "Sorry my response got deleted for some reason." == YouTube's censorship has gone completely off the rails in the past 6-12 months. Stuff gets deleted for absolutely no [valid] reason. I've had stuff deleted, gone back and filtered through everything to find out what YouTube's algorithm balked at, and simply rearranged a couple of harmless words, and it gets through the algorithm and gets posted. Harmless nothing stuff, yet deletes anyway. Pure craziness. YOU SAID: "The criticism of missed timelines is a valid one. I can understand the frustration." == Again, you are missing the point if you trivialize this as "missed timelines." These are WILLFUL misrepresentations. YOU SAID: "In regards to self driving being used to drive up stock price, I'd have to disagree." == You don't think that Musk saying that he is going to sell you money-printing machines today, and activate them with a software update next years, is going to boost the stock price? Wow. YOU SAID: "None of the major investment analysts like Jeffries, The Street, or even Cathie Wood are using self driving in their Tesla base-cases." == Good grief. No "major investment analyst" worth his salt thinks that 1.01 trillion is a reasonable market cap for Tesla. This is outlandish. In order to justify that market cap, Tesla would literally (yes, literally, really literally) need to make over $2 million profit on each vehicle sold. Since the cars don't even cost that much to begin with, um, yeah, they're obviously not earning that kind of profit. So, if any "major investment analyst" says that Tesla is worth its market cap, already, you know they've lost their minds. So, I really don't put any faith whatsoever into anything you have to say about what market analysts say, if you're trying to somehow spin this in favor of Tesla. They make around 200,000 cars per year. And, magically, they're worth 10x or 20x more than every other auto manufacturer on the planet that produces 5 or 10 million cars per year?? That means (if this ridiculous price was justified) that Tesla's value per car sold is approximately 1,200x greater than the value per car sold than any auto maker on Earth. Yeah, you can give some "future value" allowances here, but, let's face reality, it'll be 50+ years before Tesla could ever even approach being worth its current stock value. So, spare me if I ignore your comments about what any "major investment analysts" would ever say. YOU SAID: "They base their price targets on things like Tesla's margins (above 20%)," == No, that's gross margin. They had 23% gross margin in the recent few quarters, with 10% net margin. And, sorry, on 200,000 cars per year, that doesn't come anywhere near its current $1T market cap. Again, it's off by a factor of at least 1,000, more like 1,200. And, let's not forget, Tesla didn't make a single dime of profit from 2003 to 2010 (when it was private). It didn't make a single dime of profit from 2010 to 2014, when it then tried to claim its first profits. But, then the FTC slapped them down for illegal accounting practices (cooking the books), and they had to reverse their claims back to losses again. And, they didn't earn a single dime of profit from 2014 to 2019. Their very first profit came in 2020 (when EVERY auto manufacturer benefitted from COVID dynamics). And, in the bigger picture, they're still quite underwater when you look at the billions in losses from 2003 to 2019. YOU SAID: "growth (also double digits per year), and other factors." == There's nowhere to go but up. They make a mere 200,00 cars per year. OF COURSE there's growth!! This does not justify a valuation 1,200x greater on a per-car basis than every other auto manufacturer on the planet. YOU SAID: "Regular investors are also not buying tesla stock because "Daddy Elon" said self driving is around the corner for the nth time." == Well, today's Musk-cult investors do. YOU SAID: "Musk's missed timelines are also a meme in the Tesla community after all. The reason people invest in Tesla is because they believe in the mission of Tesla, the products, and the advantages they have in being first movers and having that brand." == Yes, and they're massively delusional. YOU SAID: "Also, after all this time, it really doesn't look like competition is coming." == Pffftt. WHAT? Do you really believe that? YOU SAID: "A word on viewing businesses in general. Businesses make big claims all the time. Whether its folding phones, the first OLED TVs, or those ridiculous concept cars that we see Mercedes put out." == What ARE you talking about? Musk nearly went to prison a couple of weeks ago, very narrowly avoiding it, and the judge slapped him down so hard that he said that Musk is PERSONALLY liable for his fraud. This isn't just "making big claims." He is guilty of stock manipulation, and outright fraud. Good grief. You clearly have swallowed every drop of Kool-Aid you could get your hands on. YOU SAID: "Generating hype is a pretty normal part of it, and plans change, timelines get shifted, and no one is surprised. What people care about is whether or not you actually deliver in the end." == Sorry, again, this is completely delusional. We're not talking about an aggressive timeline he couldn't meet. We are talking about making a distinct claim (and lots more just like it) that he KNEW was false. And, his own legal department said that the company has NO SUCH PLANS that Musk claimed. YOU SAID: "Respectfully, I think you're wrong about this one." == You have lost your mind. That's really all there is to this. Your mind is just plain gone. Flushed down the toilet. It's never coming back.
    1
  16342.  @CreatureColossus  Thanks. When I need financial education from a completely delusional maniac, you'll be the first I call, ok? If you can't distinguish between a company that has some inflated value based on some future projections, vs. a company with a market cap worth 1,200x more than than any dynamic ever seen in history since the tulip bulbs of the 1600s, yeah, there's really no hope for you.
    1
  16343.  @CreatureColossus  I didn't say I blamed the stock price completely on Musk. I clearly said he is guilty of stock manipulation. But, I also clearly blamed it on his cult followers also. Good grief. You can't answer questions. You can't address points. You ignore all input. You close your eyes, cover your ears, and say, "lalalalalala" to everything. Your mind is completely gone.
    1
  16344.  @CreatureColossus  Is your "scroll up" broken? Anyway, don't bother now. I'm 100% done. I don't have much tolerance for your type.
    1
  16345. The whole reason why they keep blood samples for 8 years is because they are constantly developing new detection methods. Do you honestly think that Armstrong would dope in a way that could be detected (at the time)? His doctor was busted for doping. His teammates confessed to doping (which strips his titles right there, since it's a team sport, and they ran blocker and drafted for Lance). Do you really think Armstrong could beat all of the dopers without doping? You're completely delusional.
    1
  16346. It's random chance followed by non-random selection, dewdrop. Good grief. You started out so strong, then turned into another science denier yourself. You clearly don't understand that which you reject.
    1
  16347. Yes, unfortunately, it seems that the ability to buy elite attorneys, yes, often has an impact on a guilty/not-guilty verdict. However, please note, in this case, contrary to the fluff "journalism" (not journalism) of Diane Sawyer, money had nothing to do with why the men got life imprisonment vs. the death penalty. Both the men and women were offered plea deals, life imprisonment, no death penalty, in exchange for a guilty plea. The men took the deals. The women rejected the deals, and decided to go to trial instead.
    1
  16348. YOU SAID: "The human race, is essentially a parasite" == That sounds like a rather dismal and self-loathing viewpoint. YOU SAID: "always taking and rarely giving back." == Oh. Can you name a species that "gives back" in the context you're intending? I would hate to make too many assumptions about what you mean by that. So, yeah, in order to properly understand you, please name one of the species that "gives back" in the context you're intending? YOU SAID: "The rest of all living creatures on planet earth, live in harmony" == This is a joke, right? Gazelles and lions live in harmony? Whales and krill live in harmony? Polar bears and seals live in harmony? YOU SAID: "taking only what they need to survive" == There is no shortage of species that does "surplus killing" (killing far more than they need to survive). YOU SAID: "but more importantly not destroying their environment to their own detriment." == Tell that to the species, Lion Fish, which leaves nothing but havoc everywhere they populate, destroying reefs and reef life. Tell that to the elephants, that wreck plant life everywhere they go. Tell that to the Locust species. They destroy square miles worth of vegetation when they migrate and swarm. I could go on, but, something tells me that you aren't listening. YOU SAID: "If mankind ever gets to relocate to any other planet, the maxim of take, take, take will not change!" == And, you know this, how? YOU SAID: "We are the equivalent of the common flea - a parasite," == You just got done claiming that ALL LIVING CREATURES LIVE IN HARMONY. You just got done claiming that THE REST OF ALL LIVING CREATURES ON PLANET EARTH.... Now, you're choosing one, and saying that it doesn't fit the exact words you just got done saying?? YOU SAID: "and if humans are the victims of the next extinction event, the planet would be a better place." == Well, you're welcome to speak for yourself on that front. Personally, as much as I agree that humans destroy too much of the environment, I am not nearly as self-loathing as you are. YOU SAID: "After all the dinosaurs survived for 100 odd million years and nature was in balance." == Good gods. WHAT?!??!?!? You don't get to just throw the word "dinosaur" at this, and then assume things were in harmony. Countless dinosaurs thrived, and died off, and were replaced, and died off, and were replaced, and died off, during those 100 million years you're talking about. And, there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that they didn't take a hell of a lot of other species with them when they did their thing. As a matter of fact, that's probably one of the big reasons that the various species died off (outside of the meteor at the K/T boundary), they probably ravaged their environment to the point of killing off their own food supplies and ecosystems. YOU SAID: "It took a huge comet/meteorite to wipe them out and let mammals become dominant." == Yes, that was an extinction event at the K/T boundary that caused most dinosaur species to die off. So what? It doesn't justify this silly picture you're painting of animals living in harmony.
    1
  16349.  @joedoe-sedoe7977  YOU SAID: "yeah, he sounds like another college professor" == It's been decades since I attended universities. But, when I did, all of my college professors (in that subject matter) knew quite well that 99.9% of all animal species on Earth throughout history have died off. And, it wasn't only because of extinction events such as the K/T meteor. Species died off before then. Species died off after then. Animals do NOT live in harmony, and are very often causing each other to go extinct, or themselves to go extinct. YOU SAID: "talking out his azz after reading Al Gores horse @%$ books" == Al Gore's biggest problem isn't that he's necessarily wrong, but that he himself doesn't live the life he's trying to inflict upon others. You cannot be an environmental leader if you're flying in private jets and living in the lap of luxury. YOU SAID: "as if man has more destructive influence than Mother Nature" == Depends on what you mean. Yes, mankind destroys more than other species, relatively speaking. The typical species extinction rate has risen dramatically upon the rise of modern man. It certainly doesn't help anything when you have people paying huge sums of money to eat shark fins, just to say they did it, and hunting sharks to the edge of extinction, just cutting their fins off and leaving the rest of the shark to suffer and die. Mankind is far more destructive than any other species ever could be, because modern man has developed such massive tools. But, I'll never be as self-loathing as the original poster in this thread.
    1
  16350. No, dewdrop. She killed herself. And, yes, dewdrop. Cuffing is part of every arrest.
    1
  16351. Many lefties do not ever get to the "logic" of what would have or could have happened. They just say, "no guns" without ever even considering the consequences of what that means.
    1
  16352. Yes, but, the facts don't line up with that belief.
    1
  16353. Well, if you heard it, it must be true.
    1
  16354. Back in WHAT day did you fire warning shots? In the movies?
    1
  16355. Yeah, those 9mm hollow points don't penetrate trucks very well.
    1
  16356. Um, ok, what do you suggest?
    1
  16357. This conviction would have happened in ANY state, and rightfully so. And, as for continually breaking into houses, yes, they did. Smith reported it to the police the first couple of times. But, after he installed the cameras, he never went to the police again, and instead, decided to plan their murders.
    1
  16358. Huh? WHAT was "all because of it being recorded and her face staying unblurred"? I fail to understand what you're attributing to this video?
    1
  16359. Well, I don't know about the child he had with the main woman from this case. But, I read somewhere that his oldest child (different mother) was busted on 3 felonies already at 18 years old. Brooks was convicted of 12 of them before this case. Now, it's how many? Like 90 felonies? And, there are still more trials to come.
    1
  16360.  @johnsergei  Are you PROUD to be s52p1d?
    1
  16361. Were you under the impression that this posting made any sense?
    1
  16362. Are you really THAT incapable of forming a sentence? What in the world is wrong with you?
    1
  16363. There's a perfectly good solution to your problem. Publish. There are numerous geology journals available to you. Write up your research into a scientific paper, denying the authenticity of the moon rocks, and calling into question their testing methods, and publish it in one of the well accepted worldwide journals for scientific peer review. That's the difference between a crackpot yelling at the wind, posting gibberish on YouTube, and what an actual scientist does to make scientific claims. You're not the former, are you?
    1
  16364. Well, if you don't like the way he presented it, well, that's fine. And, if you don't understand the physics and mathematics about why you need massive mirror or lens to get that level of resolution from this distance, then it's your education that is lacking. But, to complain that he shouldn't use Hubble as an example... that just shows how disconnected from reality that you are. First of all, if you know anything whatsoever about the moon hoax nuts, you'd know they are constantly saying "just point Hubble at the moon and look." It's their go-to complaint when it comes to seeing things with a telescope. They say things like, "if Hubble can see galaxies that are lightyears away, why can't it see Apollo stuff on the moon?" They don't understand the difference between distance and resolution. So, it's quite natural for someone to begin talking about Hubble if addressing the hoax nut crowd. Furthermore, at an average distance of 238,000 miles from the moon, let's face it, Hubble's orbital height of 300 miles is a drop in the bucket, and it's irrelevant. Seeing the moon from the distance of Hubble vs. seeing the moon from the distance of Earth is basically the same thing. This is especially true because the moon's distance changes all the time, varying by about 30,000 miles. 238,000 miles is merely the average. It comes closer and goes further away constantly. So, to complain about Hubble's altitude of 300 miles means NOTHING.
    1
  16365. Huh? They BLOCKED the release of the arrest video for 2.5 years. Nobody saw it while she was alive. And, it was only released due to a Freedom of Information Act request (no choice).
    1
  16366. Hunonga ang pagdroga.
    1
  16367. How many times are you going to post this same comment? I answered you already. Clementine's cameras at their very best resolution had no hope of seeing the stuff you're talking about, because one pixel was 300x300 feet of the lunar surface. That's 90,000 sq. feet per pixel. Hardly "mapping every foot," like you claim. I mean, how does this work? You think the entirety of the world's aerospace engineers just overlooked this obvious thing you're asserting? And, why do you keep asking the same question over and over across multiple videos, if all you're going to do is ignore the answers?
    1
  16368. Nope. Her lawsuit was tossed out of court, and she is barred from ever filing it again.
    1
  16369. Nope. There were no videos about this before she died.
    1
  16370. Are you asking why nobody went in those years? Because no such program was funded until 2019. Artemis is in progress now.
    1
  16371. Huh? If you go frame by frame at 0:08 in the video, you can see the carjacker pull the gun out and point it at the officer as the door is opening. It's grainy, and you definitely need to watch the highest resolution copy, but, yeah, you can make it out. But, even if that's not convincing to you, how do you explain the gun laying on the ground at several points in the video, such as 5:02? You can clearly see the gun next to a 2x4 piece of wood. Do you think it appeared there by magic? Or, do you think the carjacker had it drawn? Both the father and his attorney acknowledge that Mark was armed. So, I don't even know why you're pretending that there's no proof that he had a gun. Nobody debates that he had a gun. And, the attorney isn't really even arguing about it being pointed at the officer's head. And, yeah, the father said in one interview that the son was going to the car to find out who was inside. And, in another interview, the father said that the son "definitely didn't think anybody was inside." Gee, did the attorney tell the father in between interviews that it's a bad idea to admit that the carjacker knew someone was inside the car? If the son died about 20 seconds after being shot, how did the father even know what the carjacker was thinking, in order to make that claim? And, let's get real here: are you REALLY saying we don't know the intentions? The man walked up to the car with a balaclava ski mask in the middle of a Kentucky summer, pulls the door open, and points a gun at the head of the person inside. But, you don't think we know what he intended? Gee, could it be that he intended to carjack?
    1
  16372.  @Ephesians-ts8ze  Did you even bother reading randy's reply to your own statement? Good grief. What's wrong with you?
    1
  16373.  @AM-rd9pu  Depends. A lot of the documentaries play it at 24 FPS without CGI speed adjustment, and it's almost as fast as Earth's gravity.
    1
  16374. Who did? Who is "they"?
    1
  16375. Well, maybe if she bothered to show in court, they could have mandated the counseling you're requesting.
    1
  16376. Cosby was let go because he only offered his original testimony under the agreement that it wasn't going to be used to prosecute him... then they used it to prosecute him. That's like offering immunity in exchange for testimony, then taking the immunity away after the testimony. That's why he was let go. There is no comparison to Cuomo.
    1
  16377. Watch frame by frame. You can see the guy pull his gun out as he approaches the car, and point it straight at the cop as the door opens at 0:08. You also see the gun sitting on the ground by a 2x4 piece of wood at 5:02 in the video. If you want to take a chance with YOUR life by trying to bring a Taser to a gunfight, hey, it's your life, and you're welcome to do that. But, don't expect others to risk their lives on a lucky Taser hit when a gun is pointed in their faces.
    1
  16378. Well, she abandoned her family over a decade ago to live a life of drugs and crime. When she died, nobody was even looking for her, because it wasn't discovered until the landlord went in looking for rent. The medical examiner said she was well into the maggot phase of decomposition, and had been reduced to 84 pounds. That's how long she was missing with absolutely nobody looking for her.
    1
  16379. How DARE you insult potatoes with that comment!!!?!?!!?
    1
  16380. No, a firearm is used to respond to threats of violence, not a Taser. A Taser is used to force compliance. And, sorry, but she made it 100% clear that she had no intention of complying unless he Tased her. And, no, it's never the cop's responsibility to prove guilt. The cop is not the judge and jury, and the side of the road isn't a courtroom. The cop's job is to determine reasonable suspicion and probable cause. That's it. That's where the cop's responsibility ends, and that's the way we want it. You apparently want the cops to have ultimate power to determine guilt or innocence, and skip the entire court process altogether. Sorry, but the rest of the world wants to limit the police power, and leave the guilt or innocence up to due process of law. Congratulations on every single sentence you wrote being incorrect. It's a new record.
    1
  16381.  @alexchaplin8309  Why is it so difficult for you to understand this? She wasn't Tased because of shoplifting. She was Tased for resisting arrest. It wouldn't matter what the original crime was, whether it was theft, or murder, or jaywalking, or tax evasion, whatever. The Taser was used to force compliance upon someone who was resisting arrest. This is a 100% proper use of the Taser. And, it's far less aggressive than manhandling or tackling her. I'm sorry that you cannot digest simple explanations. But, it's clearly your own biases that cause that.
    1
  16382. The arrest video wasn't uploaded anywhere until 2.5 years later. She was long dead by then.
    1
  16383. Sounds nice. But, what for?
    1
  16384. "heat protection from the 250 degree temperature" Dewdrop, how many times must you be told that they didn't land when it was that hot? Why are you quoting the maximum surface temperature? When Apollo 11 landed, the surface temperature was about 10 degrees BELOW ZERO. You're complaining about the surface temperature that happened a week after they left?
    1
  16385. "Put on the S.O.R." Even with her extensive arrest history, her time spent in prison 6 years ago, etc., this particular incident was unlikely to result in her being put on any lists. If she had bothered to show up in court, this probably would have been negotiated down to a minor infraction. But, it appears that her method of dealing with all of her judgements and charges was to simply stop showing up.
    1
  16386. Huh? Are you just completely unaware of the Artemis program? I mean, cutting through your broken English is difficult enough as it is. But, it seems like you're now denying the existence of Artemis? What? Look, man, is it really that difficult? Is it really too much to ask that you stop pretending to know things you don't?
    1
  16387. Oh, and I forgot... you do know that one of the audience recorded it, and gave a copy of the video to the police, right? You do know it differs from her version of a quiet and discreet act with nobody around, right?
    1
  16388. Tell me, if it was a man at a playground, would you advise people to just take their children to a different playground, and never call the police? You do know that's why we pay police in the first place, right? To tend to crimes, right?
    1
  16389. Spare the world, seriously. Had she bothered to show up in court, 99% odds that this would have easily been negotiated down to a minor infraction, even with her extensive criminal history.
    1
  16390. So, all a criminal has to do is whine and cry, and you believe her?
    1
  16391. "No photos of stars were ever taken on any mission." Pfftt. Of course they did. They took many with the Hasselblads, but, of course, they turned out badly (long exposures from a hand-held camera don't work very well). But, more importantly, they took 125 photos of the stars using the tripod-mounted Carruthers UV telescopic camera. "Golf clubs were alledgedly taken but a telescopic lens was not." No golf clubs were taken, at least not in their entirety. A single golf club head was taken, and screwed into the contingency sample handle. And, they had 500mm telescopic lenses for the Hasselblads, and the Carruthers UV telescopic lens for that camera.
    1
  16392. What a complete and total liar. I responded to everything you asked for. And, now you're telling somebody else that you were never given the stuff I already gave you. What's wrong with you? Seriously? You asked for evidence, I gave some of it to you (a drop in the bucket), and you ignored it, and now you're pretending I never gave it to you.
    1
  16393. Yeah, keep on telling yourself that. Meanwhile, the rest of the world has a functional "scroll up" on their computers. Nobody is going to believe your lies.
    1
  16394. So, your "terms" are to reject all evidence given to you, then define a specific type of photo that you want... which has already been provided in the LRO images... which you equally reject. So, if someone gives you what you ask for, you're going to reject it anyway. You won't listen to any other evidence. So, basically, you are asking for something that you have determined, in advance, that you will reject. And, you won't take any other input. Bravo! That's the living definition of how a delusional mind operates.
    1
  16395. So, basically, you refuse to read anything I've written.
    1
  16396. There's no reason to return to sites they've already been, especially Apollo 11's site which was about a geologically uneventful as anywhere on the moon. Sorry, dewdrop, nobody deleted anything. You've been watching conspiracy videos that lie to you. They suspect they may have recorded over two BACKUP tapes. But, the primaries are still intact. Stop trusting videos that lie to you.
    1
  16397. Um, ok. Did anybody tell you that NASA **CAN** go to the moon today? I mean, you can sit there all day long and point to videos made by people who have no understanding of what Kelly Smith was talking about. But, sorry, a conspiracy video about a NASA video made for children doesn't mean anything at all.
    1
  16398. Well, I agree. But, there's a certain irony about asking "why lie?" while talking about the first guy in space being a Russian. I mean, how many years did the Soviets lie about his first spaceflight? Wasn't it about 10 years or so before they admitted he wasn't in the craft when it landed? I mean, I'm not saying there were any lies about Apollo. But, there's a certain irony when talking about lies in the same posting as talking about Gagarin's flight.
    1
  16399. Pure nonsense. The atomic bomb program had more leaks than the Titanic. And, that was for a program that was for the good of the USA, to give a massive wartime advantage. You're talking about Apollo, which was a much bigger program, lasted longer, and involved far more people. But, above that, if it was a deception, you're now asking those people to commit criminal fraud, and deceive our own country. For the atomic bomb program, no laws were broken, and keeping it secret was in the best interest of the country. You're now talking about a program (Apollo) that goes against our own country (in your mind). And, sorry that your favorite conspiracy videos lied to you about the analogy to the atomic bomb program. But, that's what they always do (lie). Stalin knew about the bomb's development before Truman did. And, Stalin likely knew about the first test before Truman did also. Numerous press outfits knew about the bomb, but were silent at the president's request for national security. The list goes on and on. And, even if hypothetically it was a successful secret (which it wasn't), there's no way it would have been kept a secret for decades upon decades afterward also (as you're asserting Apollo is).
    1
  16400.  @jonsmith3945  Dewdrop, Fuchs confessed. He went to prison for it. And, did you see Stalin's reaction at Potsdam? It's pretty darned clear that he knew.
    1
  16401.  @jonsmith3945  Spare me. All you're doing is picking and choosing what you want to believe, and sweeping the rest under the rug of "I didn't see it myself, therefore it didn't happen." It's the very definition of delusion.
    1
  16402.  @jonsmith3945  Wrong, dewdrop. I've seen all of the "evidence" for faking it. It falls apart instantly upon the slightest bit of knowledge and scrutiny. Hence why you cannot find any of these complaints in the science and engineering journals, and you only find them in crackpot videos. If they actually had any evidence that passes muster, the last place you'd ever see it would be in a video. It would be in the journals.
    1
  16403.  @jonsmith3945  Furthermore, I've seen a whole bunch of your posted messages across numerous threads. Your assertions fall apart just as easily as the crackpot videos you've been watching. Take, for example, the comment you made about the rover, and you complained that you never see the astronauts get onto it and drive it. I pointed out that you were wrong, and that type of video DOES exist. What did you do? Ran for the hills. This is hallmark delusional behavior. Your mind refuses all input that goes against your predetermined conclusions, and above all else, you will NEVER admit being wrong.
    1
  16404.  @jonsmith3945  Hilarious!!! So, now you've not only boxed yourself into a mental condition such that evidence doesn't matter to you, but, now you've added the concept that the scientific method doesn't work. Sure. Bravo. You are well past the point of no return.
    1
  16405.  @jonsmith3945  Great job avoiding/ignoring all input (again), by the way.
    1
  16406.  @jonsmith3945  And, I asked you, if they're able to fly the Saturn V and the command module and lunar module to the moon (you acknowledged it was tracked), why not just put people inside? You can't answer (at least not in any coherent way).
    1
  16407.  @jonsmith3945  Again, all you're doing is setting up a situation in your mind to never accept input. If someone offers you evidence, you say you can't confirm it. If someone offers you peer reviewed papers, you say the peer review process has been compromised. If someone says the evidence comes from numerous countries, you say that all of those countries were cooperating. It's literally a situation that you have set up impenetrable walls in your mind such that input is simply not possible.
    1
  16408.  @jonsmith3945  Hilarious!!! You just spewed a pile of absolute nonsense. And, you pretend you're on this hunt for evidence that you can personally verify yourself. You've set a standard of evidence that is beyond the reach of any reasonable person. Yet, you obviously do not have that kind of evidence for the cold war not actually happening. What evidence for the faking of the cold war have you personally confirmed to the same degree that you want to personally confirm Apollo evidence? Right. Sure. Yeah. You're not a complete crackpot at all.
    1
  16409. Most teachers would never accept one.
    1
  16410. What payday? She lost her lawsuit, and got $0.00, and was barred from ever filing it again.
    1
  16411.  @Dave-bq6gy  Are those the same low flying planes that took the photos that you thought were taken from space?
    1
  16412. Ticket = infraction. Arrest = crime. There's a difference between an infraction and a crime. Suit? Just checking here, you do know this news media never covered this story until 1.5 years after her death, right?
    1
  16413. "Challenger,endever?" So, you can't spell the name of the rockets you want to use to go to the moon, but, you think you understand the topic better than the people who built the rockets?
    1
  16414. "And no country can find a rover ,flag,or astronaut foot steps." India begs to differ. They found rover tracks, shadows of flags, and foot paths. Maybe you should check it out.
    1
  16415. "from space you can Google Earth you" No, dewdrop. There is no such satellite in space. Sorry that you confuse photography from 1,000 feet, and think it's from 1,000,000 feet, but, hey, math just isn't your thing, eh?
    1
  16416. What did you predict and when?
    1
  16417. But, she didn't steal. I think it's pretty obvious that the real reason she didn't cooperate was because she was hoping she could turn, "can I see your receipt" into a lawsuit payday.
    1
  16418. Huh? Do you think criminals care if guns are illegal? They're going to have them anyway, legal or not. Hence, unless you can magically wipe guns off the face of the Earth, the law abiding citizens need to have guns for protection.
    1
  16419. Huh? The law states that you can't plan two murders, then carry out that plan.
    1
  16420. Yes, but they learned the wrong lesson. They learned that manipulating stories to create a false narrative results in lots of money.
    1
  16421. There's no limit to who these deniers are willing to slander or spit at.
    1
  16422. A store has the right to ask for proof of payment. But, as for your assertion that you don't have to help police with their investigation, well, you're correct, but, you DO have to identify yourself. She refused to do so. And, then she resisted arrest. As for your assertion that the police need to review surveillance videos, well, that would be nice, but, technically isn't required. A cop merely needs to determine if there's enough reasonable suspicion of a crime. The proof/evidence is for the courtrooms. The cop is not the judge and jury. And, what do you really expect here? If the cop stopped and reviewed the video evidence, the woman would have been long gone by the time he would go out to question her. So, you're asking for a completely ridiculous thing. You want the officer to stop and interrogate the store, and watch videos, BEFORE going out to stop the potential offender from leaving? Huh?
    1
  16423. Well, I think the flaw in what you are presenting is that you're putting you (or me) into that woman's shoes. Yes, if an officer asked me for a receipt because the store thought I didn't pay, I'd simply present the receipt, or I'd walk into the store to present the receipt to the manager, whatever. I also would identify myself, and I'd never resist arrest. But, what happened here was nothing like that. You're right, she certainly isn't required to present the receipt to the officer. She could have said, "ok, but, the beef is with the store, they're the ones who sent you out here after me, so, please walk with me into the store, and I'll go show them the receipt, and they can call off the dogs [you]." But, what ended up happening is that she immediately turned into a raving non-compliant [whatever], who ranted about profiling, rather than simply following the rules. This obviously increased the level of suspicion by the officer, because it is amazingly rare that someone with a valid receipt would jump off the deep end of the pool, rather than just settling the matter quickly and easily. She did claim (later, to the press and attorneys) that the reason she didn't want to give the receipt was because she didn't trust the officer, and that was a matter with the store, not the police officer. So, fine. But, the officer's job was to assess whether there was reasonable suspicion or not, and that's what he did. She provided that reasonable suspicion via her own actions, which is why there was never a lawsuit against the police, and why she lost her lawsuit against the store.
    1
  16424.  @rfcasey  Yeah, and if she had asked to go back inside the store, calmly and reasonably, instead of refusing to identify or comply, and stirring up trouble instead, I'd agree with you.
    1
  16425.  J Calhoun  You can only understand the original poster's comments while on meth.
    1
  16426. And, once again, demonstrating that none of the conspiracy nuts can read or write past a 2nd grade level.
    1
  16427. Huh? Her arrest wasn't publicized so much until 1.5 years after she died. I'm sorry if you think Inside Edition is a reliable source of information... but... um, no.
    1
  16428. Well, maybe. But, let's face reality here for a minute. The woman weighed 86 pounds at the time of her death, and was on welfare, and couldn't make her rent payments. This was the path she was on. I certainly cannot say that I knew her (I didn't), but, I also know not to just blindly trust media stories designed to generate ad revenue. It sounds like her life may have been going downhill for a while. I mean, how do her two teenage kids go 12 days and not even know she was dead, unless they were already estranged to some degree (another sign of her life taking a bad turn)? I'm definitely with you on the notion that her arrest video shouldn't have gone public. But, personally, I can't attribute her suicide to one incident like that.
    1
  16429. Well, she did have her receipt, she just refused to show it.
    1
  16430.  @stusue9733  He's saying the Earth is flat and there are no satellites, otherwise everyone's cell phone would be a sat-phone, and there'd be no need for cell towers. More "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake."
    1
  16431. QUOTE: "because there's a giant Radioactive barrel killing anything to go across it." Huh? What in the world are you talking about? What radioactive barrel? You clearly are in the wrong place. You should be publishing all about this "radioactive barrel" in the cosmology journals, because no actual cosmologist has ever heard of this radioactive barrel.
    1
  16432. @Cgjhb Future What in the world kind of word salad is that? What do the sun's rays have to do with a radioactive barrel. And, where did they mention anything about a radioactive barrel in the video? And, what in the world are you talking about with reflection of radio waves? I mean, yeah, absolutely, some waves can be reflected. But, it's not like a mirror. What percentage of the radio waves do you think get reflected? And, what does any of that have to do with radioactive barrels? Good grief.
    1
  16433. @Cgjhb Future Dewdrop, slow down. You are all over the place, spewing a mountain of garbage. You complained about a radioactive barrel. What in the world are you talking about? I don't want to hear about the Van Allen belts. I don't want to hear about reflecting radio off of the atmosphere. I am asking about this radioactive barrel. What ARE you talking about. Not those other topics. Slow down. Take a breath. And, explain the radioactive barrel.
    1
  16434. @Cgjhb Future So, that's it? No response? You complained about a "radioactive barrel." But, when asked what you're talking about, you switch topics constantly to radio reflecting off of the atmosphere, or switching to talking about the Van Allen belts, or cosmic rays. Not one word again about this "radioactive barrel"? Dewdrop, has it ever even entered your mind that maybe you don't know anything whatsoever about any of those things? I'll bet you thought they're all the same thing, right? Like, you don't realize that the words "radiation" and "radioactive" are not the same? You thought the Van Allen belts were radioactive? Like, in your mind, the only "radiation" is "radioactive"? Sound is radiation, dewdrop. Is sound radioactive? Light is radiation. Is light radioactive? Do you even understand the definitions of the words you use? (Hint: no, you don't.)
    1
  16435. @Cgjhb Future You complained about a lethal radioactive barrel. There's not a single cosmologist on the face of the Earth who believes there's any lethal radioactive barrel anywhere around the Earth. You have ZERO understanding of radiation, and in your mind, you've mixed up the concepts of radioactivity and radiation. THAT is how little you understand this topic. Stop pretending otherwise. If you still believe that there's a magical radioactive barrel around the planet, then write it up, show your evidence, and submit it to cosmology journals for peer review. Be prepared to be laughed out the door.
    1
  16436. Or, to make this super simple for you, the Van Allen belts aren't radioactive, dewdrop. The type of radiation in the Van Allen belts comes from ionic particles, basically loose protons and loose electrons. Radioactivity is something else entirely. Radioactivity comes from very heavy atoms with unstable nuclei, densely packed, ejecting neutrons and/or protons (though, proton ejection is more rare). This causes some EM emissions also as the atom is basically getting reconfigured. That's not what the Van Allen belts are. Not even close. You clearly have mistaken the ionic radiation in the Van Allen belts for nuclear/radioactive decay. But, you're just plain wrong. The Van Allen belts are not even comprised of atoms, let alone heavy/unstable ones. You have absolutely positively NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
    1
  16437. This is downright ridiculous. Why do you keep pretending? "But can we get Get through them? NO" Dewdrop, until 5 minutes ago, you thought the Van Allen belts were radioactive. You didn't know the difference between the words "radiation" and "radioactive," thinking they are the same thing. That's how little you understand. Now, you're sweeping that aside, and pretending you're somehow correct about a topic you know absolutely nothing about. It's like a crackpot screaming about brain surgery being fake, but doesn't know what a scalpel is, then, when a scalpel is explained to him, he still somehow thinks he's correct about brain surgery. James Van Allen, along with every single radiobiologist, cosmologist, and astrophysicist on the planet, universally disagree with you. "They admit they cannot get a rocket ship through today" What in the world are you even talking about? What's wrong with you? They just sent Artemis 1 through the belts and to the moon a few months ago. The next mission will carry people onboard. The Apollo missions went through the belts. There are over 400 geosync satellites in orbit around Earth that went through the belts aboard rockets. The GPS satellites are in the belts, put there by rockets. Countless probes have been sent through the belts. Who "admitted" that they can't get through the belts? "You still have not proven" I have not attempted to prove anything, beyond the fact that you know nothing about the topic. I couldn't get you to explain the "radioactive barrel" you complained about, and every posting I made has been in trying to pull that "information" (sigh) from you. It's like pulling teeth. I couldn't get you to even say a word about them. And, that's because you didn't understand it yourself, and all you did was spew a bunch of unrelated topics, because, in your mind, you thought all radiation is the same (you thought it's all nuclear), and you had no understanding whatsoever. What came out of you was just plain gibberish. What do you think I even tried to prove to you? Can you name a single posting I made that was an attempt to prove anything? Are you even reading this message, or is it going in one ear and out the other? Can you prove you read this by opening your next comment with the word "green" to demonstrate you saw this sentence? "why do spaceships get the Destroyed when they get to a certain Range." Which spaceships? "And you're talking like there's no such thing as Radiation in outer space." I just got done in the prior message explaining the Van Allen belt radiation to you, explaining that it comes from ionized particles, and that's the type of radiation there, not nuclear. Now, you're saying, after I just got done explaining which type of radiation is there, that I said there's no radiation there? How does that even make sense? I explained a couple of the different types of radiation to you, and now, you're pretending that I am somehow claiming there there are no types of radiation there? You have some very severe comprehension problems.
    1
  16438. Thanks for proving you're not even reading anything I write. I asked you to prove you read my comment by writing the word "green" at the top of your next reply. You didn't do that. Hence, you're not even reading my replies. So, no, dewdrop, you don't get to claim ANYTHING about my words, because you're clearly not even reading them.
    1
  16439.  @ronaldgreene5733  More cutting and pasting of your pure gibberish, eh? You just can't help yourself.
    1
  16440. You remember from 3 years ago?
    1
  16441. How many people even knew about this arrest before she died?
    1
  16442. C'mon, I think you know why, and I think I know why: because she was trying to turn "can you show me your receipt" into a payday lawsuit, and did everything in her power to make trouble to get herself Taser'd and arrested, thinking this would boost her dollar amount.
    1
  16443. But, this video wasn't released until November 24, 2023. Her suicide was two years ago.
    1
  16444. YOU SAID: "I'm just interested to know where they managed to stow the hulking transmitter equipment necessary to broadcast live TV from the moon 250,000 miles away," == Just Google a photo of the lunar rover. See that dish on it? YOU SAID: "considering in the 1960's early 70's if you stood between the transmitter tower on earth which could be as little as 5 miles away and your TV antenna you'd lose the signal." == Then you should get a better antenna. YOU SAID: "How much wattage would it take to transmit analogue TV over that distance?" == I can't remember the wattage. Memory fades, and it's not worth looking up. It was around the power of a light bulb, though. When you have such huge dishes to receive the signals, you don't need much of a transmitter. Google "Parkes dish" and you can see the size. It's designed to pick up millionths of a watt from pulsars that are lightyears away. It didn't have a problem receiving Apollo's signals. And, if you'd stop and think it through, it's not really all that amazing anyway. You can stick a 1 foot dish on the side of your house and pick up a 50 watt TV signal from geosync orbit satellite that is 25,000 miles away. Imagine the signals you could pick up from a dish that is literally an acre in size.
    1
  16445. You know she's dead, right?
    1
  16446. Are you PROUD to have the intellectual capabilities of a house cat?
    1
  16447. C'mon John. Get real here. No gravity on the moon? Why would you think such a thing?
    1
  16448.  @ClovisPoint  What in the world are you even talking about? Gravity is an "excuse"? As opposed to what, dewdrop? The ridiculous claim that there's no gravity on the moon? What's wrong with you?
    1
  16449. Nobody claims police have ultimate power. But, the state of Florida is an identify state. This means that if a police officer is investigating a crime, you must provide your ID. She refused repeatedly (go watch the whole video, not this one that picks up in the middle). Also, you are not allowed to obstruct and obfuscate a police investigation (which she did, and that's illegal). And, if an officer arrests you, you are not to resist (another crime). You don't have the right to do any of those things, yet, she did them anyway. And, that's why the case escalated, and that's also why her attorneys never filed a case against the police. And, it sure didn't help her for her case against the store either (that case was thrown out of court).
    1
  16450. So, you want them fired for abiding by a legal FOIA request?
    1
  16451. Barely. He was treated and released. Did you see that shot to the guy's chin? Doesn't look like much more than a bruise. The hits to his arm did a little bit of damage. But, let's face reality here, a 9mm hollow point can barely even break glass most of the time, and just doesn't have much energy afterward to do much more then flesh wounds.
    1
  16452. Get this through your thick (and stupid) skull: this ISN'T a debate. I have no desire/reason to debate a moron. I have enough of that in my life already. YOU made the erroneous claim, not me. For you to ask me to build a case against you to prove you're wrong is like asking me to build a case to prove 2+2=4. Sorry, I'm not wasting my time on idiocy. Circumstantial evidence is permitted, period. You may refuse to believe the truth all you want, and there's nothing I can do to stop you.
    1
  16453. On what basis?
    1
  16454. All but your last sentence was probably correct. As for your last sentence, about settling... well, she will have to settle for $0.00, because her case was tossed out the window, and rightfully so.
    1
  16455. Because you believe Inside Edition?
    1
  16456. And, this was your edited version? How bad was the first version? Good grief. She stole but wouldn't show the receipt? Um, if she stole, she wouldn't even have the receipt to show. Seems like you need a few more edits to your incoherent ramblings.
    1
  16457. How would you have handled it?
    1
  16458. A warning for an aggravated misdemeanor for a convicted felon with open warrants? Huh? And, sorry, but the arrest video wasn't published until 1.5 years after she died.
    1
  16459. Well, what would you do in his shoes? You're a cop on duty to stake out someone for a prior shooting incident. Some unrelated guy just charged up to your car, pointed a gun at your head, and you had to kill him in self defense. A screaming woman shows up seconds later. You're in the middle of a high crime area, specifically, once again, because you were waiting to catch someone else who was involved with a prior shooting. You have no idea how many others might be crawling out of the woodwork. Now, what do you do? Do you focus your attention on the dead guy? Or, do you focus your attention on your surroudings, get backup, and try to make sure the scene is safe before more people end up getting shot (including possibly yourself)? What would you do?
    1
  16460. So, basically, you want to see a lot of dead officers, I understand. Your hatred bleeds through every word you type.
    1
  16461. Um, ok, how do you prevent it? Repeal the Freedom of Information Act?
    1
  16462. The term is accurate. They hold the theory that there was a conspiracy. As for "truth seekers," sure, if I ever meet one that actually seeks truth. Thus far, however, those people don't actually exist in the moon landing denial crowd. Not a single one of them ever wants answers to their own questions. They claim to be seeking truth, but, all they really seek is a mechanism to pretend to know things they don't. And, not a single one of them knows anything whatsoever about the topic they blindly reject.
    1
  16463. Huh? The convicted felon with a mile long arrest list, and a term spent in a Florida prison? The one who walked out on her own family more than a decade ago (including a 6 month old son) to live a life of drugs and crime? Good one?
    1
  16464. Is there already an app for dating felony prisoners? Sounds like you should make one.
    1
  16465. Dewdrop, just admit you don't know anything. It makes this far easier.
    1
  16466. You are completely insane. Now you apparently don't understand the deeper ramifications of the "right to work" states vs. the non-right-to-work states. It's more than just union rules, you know. It pertains to the entirety of employment rules. And yes, it varies greatly from state to state. "Right to work" is only the starting point. And, moron, trying to educate you on this is apparently like to trying to teach an earthworm calculus. What do you expect from me? Should I share my Lexis/Nexis ID?
    1
  16467.  @g.gorrell2088  I think Fox paid Sibrel 7 figures for his "Funny Thing Happened" movie.
    1
  16468. Um, no. Not even close. The teens were guilty, AND Smith was guilty. Two guilty teen thieves got killed by a guilty murderer.
    1
  16469. It would sound like that, yes. But, in reality, no, it doesn't work that way. You're allowed to change your plea. Imagine if you were never allowed to change it without being pressed with an additional charge of perjury. Nobody would EVER change, and the entire court system would be bogged down with endless trials, instead of much more efficient (and usually fair) deals.
    1
  16470. The man was found innocent? What ARE you talking about? He was found guilty. And, he was reviewed by the appellate court, state Supreme Court, and USA Supreme Court, and was denied by all of them for an appeal (they all agreed that he was guilty).
    1
  16471. Call a sergeant? Huh? In Jacksonville? The murder and felony capitol of Florida? Over what? Because a woman went bananas because the store thought she might have stolen a piece of chicken and some bread? Are you serious? And, SHE chose to get Tased, she asked for it, and refused to comply. Is it the cop's fault that children were nearby?
    1
  16472. Why this arrest, though? I mean, her suicide was 9 months later, not 2 months later. But, whatever. Why this arrest, and none of her other million arrests? She didn't commit suicide when she went to prison about 6 years ago. She didn't commit suicide for any of her other arrests since then. But, your position is that this little minor arrest made her commit suicide? Had she bothered to show up in court (which she didn't, as usual), this probably would have either been thrown out, or negotiated down to a minor infraction. And, almost nobody knew about this incident until long after she was dead, so, she didn't experience much shame here (contrary to Inside Edition's false portrayal). Did she even know what shame was anyway? According to her landlord, she was a stripper at the local club. So, I wouldn't think she'd feel ashamed about being exposed.
    1
  16473. First of all, you should learn a little something about how these investigations work. Secondly, yes, one of the "audience" took video of the incident. It's described in the arrest report.
    1
  16474. Nice attitude. Your parents must be proud.
    1
  16475. Well, this is the product of getting your police training from a 1960s television sitcom. Wow, you're brilliant.
    1
  16476. Why millions? Why not billions? Or, just make it trillions?
    1
  16477. Huh? He DID handle it. What would you have done instead?
    1
  16478.  @DeputyNordburg  Surveyor. Not Pioneer.
    1
  16479. He'd have arrested the stinky old guy, who would have ended up in prison, and would probably still be alive. He helped the girl, who didn't do a darned thing to change, and continued to steal from Walgreens after this incident, and now she's dead.
    1
  16480.  @critthought2866  And, it would be THAT hard to simply listen to the whole thing? Anybody watching just a clip would know it was just a clip. And, if it bugs him that much that he doesn't know what the other things are, shouldn't he have simply recognized that an obvious little 10 second clip isn't the whole speech?
    1
  16481.  @critthought2866  The topic of this video is about moon landing denial. It's not a random Apollo video, and the guy is asking an honest question.
    1
  16482.  @critthought2866  Yeah, that's why he followed up with the responses, instead of disappearing like 99% of the deniers.
    1
  16483.  @critthought2866  I should note: you could be right, I just don't find it likely, given the parade of people who behave that way.
    1
  16484.  @critthought2866  Yeah, I'll put it this way... I cannot say you're wrong. I have a very good history of not jumping on people for questions unless they spell it out that they reject Apollo. But, it's tiring. Time and time again, seemingly honest questions turn out to be dishonest, nearly every single time. For me, in this example, it's the fact that he evaporated instead of responding. It's the wording "never heard anyone address it" as if it is an "issue" (in this video about denial) that needs to be addressed. If he was honest, I think he'd have said, "hey, you know that speech, does anybody know what the 'other things' were, because I never watched the whole speech?" But, nope. Instead, the wording indicates that it's another thing that needs to be explained. And, like I said, if it was me, I'd simply have gone and found the speech (remarkably easy, even if you didn't know where and when it took place) and listened to it.
    1
  16485. Well, she didn't steal. But, she did plenty wrong when she was so noncooperative with the police investigation, and resisting arrest.
    1
  16486.  @Trina-rg7fi  Huh? Multiple people called. One of them recorded it, and gave a copy of the video to the police. It doesn't match her version about nobody being around. To the contrary, it was a very loud and public act in view of multiple people including children. And, if she gets so humiliated by being arrested, maybe she should have stopped committing so many crimes, huh? She did a felony prison term in Florida, and had a million other arrests.
    1
  16487. What ARE you talking about? You are BACKWARD. Tobacco taxes are income for the government. But, COVID vaccines are an EXPENSE for the government. One has nothing to do with the other. And, you have failed to distinguish between something as basic as income vs. expenses. I could explain it to you in more detail, but, if you're so backward that you fail to distinguish between something that brings money in the door, vs. something that makes you spend money out the door, then there's really no hope for you to understand the macroeconomics of how taxes work.
    1
  16488.  @Ferreal92  What ARE you talking about? You just got done confusing income with expenses. You are completely backward, yet, you're doubling down on this ridiculous gibberish? No, dummy. Politicians do not benefit from COVID. I mean, the prime example is Donald Trump. If not for COVID, there'd be no way in the world that he'd have lost his run for a 2nd term. No possible way. The economy was booming. Unemployment was lower than it had been in nearly a century. North Korea stopped firing off nukes. Etc. I mean, Trump was a bit crazy, thinking weird things, and was an amazing delusional narcissist. But, that never stopped him before, and, even the people who hated him would benefit from him being in office. But, COVID completely derailed that. His silly notions about crazy treatments, his public illiteracy about the underlying sciences, and his distrust of the entire medical community, his failure to develop a rollout plan, etc., resulted in such public hatred that he couldn't get re-elected. COVID destroyed his chance at re-election. And, that's just the most obvious case. Politicians as a whole did not benefit from COVID, its vaccines, or anything in this dynamic. The most benefit the politicians could have is for everything to thrive. You have no idea what you're talking about. Your analogy to smoking is completely broken. You cannot outlaw it. That was tried with alcohol, remember? It was a complete and total disaster. Nobody stopped drinking, and all that happened was that it created a massive crime network, and they had to repeal the amendment. The same would happen with smoking. So, they chose to fight against smoking by issuing massive taxes on smoking, and increasing public education. This has nothing whatsoever to do with vaccines for COVID. Smoking is not a virus. Smoking is not a contagious disease. Smoking is a voluntary act. Getting COVID isn't. You cannot make getting COVID illegal. You cannot tax getting COVID. You cannot sit there and compare the two things. Sorry, but your one-dimensional thinking is just too far down the toilet for me to even start educating you. I mean, your mind has clearly been so deluded that it would take a couple of years of basic education in civics, law, medicine, etc., before you could possibly understand. You're too far gone for me, sorry.
    1
  16489.  @Ferreal92  Oh, the irony. You're the one who is completely backward, and can't tell the difference between income and expenses, nor the difference between benefits and hinderances, but, you think *I* have reading comprehension issues?? What's wrong with you?
    1
  16490. 180 is the moon and fenders don't go rallying to get stranded walking is funny back on little guys who dune.
    1
  16491. How rude can you be? He died. Good grief.
    1
  16492. Yeah, but, that's not the point of these videos he's making. These are "debunk" videos. The point of a "debunk" video isn't to designing practical solutions to things, the point is to expose products/ideas that simply aren't possible/feasible/practical/etc. And, with the exception of his (Thunderf00t's) painfully ignorant knowledge of copyright law, he really hasn't been incorrect in any of his debunk videos.
    1
  16493. Um, ok, but what does that have to do with Apollo? You're not under the impression that the only evidence for Apollo comes from the US government, are you?
    1
  16494. Well, she wasn't guilty of stealing. She did have a receipt. But, a store has a right to ask for proof of payment. And, an officer has a right to ask for identification during an investigation. And, you're never supposed to resist arrest.
    1
  16495. Yeah, but, it wasn't going to matter whether she said anything or not. One of the "audience" had it on video, and showed it to the police. Needless to say, the video didn't match this story she's telling about a discreet act with nobody around, as she was trying to avoid her millionth arrest. Plus, with all of the open warrants for her failures to appear in court for prior arrests, she was going to get arrested no matter what she said or didn't say.
    1
  16496. But, your opinion has no value, and demonstrates that you don't know anything about the topic. YOU are the one calling it "nonsense," while simultaneously claiming to know that it doesn't look the way it's depicted in the video. How would you know? You don't even know if there are photos of it (yes, most of this stuff can be seen in the photos). If you had to ask if there are photos, this means you don't know that there ARE photos.
    1
  16497. So, let me get this straight... you're looking for photos NOW? As if you think that there's been a functioning camera there recently? But, simultaneously, you think you know enough to call it "nonsense" and say that the site doesn't look this way? How would you know what it looks like or doesn't look like?
    1
  16498. I don't even understand you at this point. First, you asked if there are photos. Then, you called it nonsense (without waiting an answer to your own question). Then, you said the site doesn't look like this. Then, you wanted current photos. Now, you're asking for any photos (again)? Dewdrop, have you tried just looking at the Apollo photo archive and seeing most of this stuff?
    1
  16499. Another proud believer in anything Inside Edition says. Bravo!
    1
  16500. Inside Edition is the channel you're watching. They made this deceptive video.
    1
  16501.  @LuanChuppi  You're the one posting emojis here, dewdrop.
    1
  16502. Just curious here... (1) Do you think nobody has proposed that before? And, (2) Do you have any concept of how large the telescope would need to be?
    1
  16503. I completely agree. The only saving grace (which isn't worth much) is that the poor woman didn't need to suffer any shame while she was alive. The arrest video wasn't made public until 1.5 years after she died.
    1
  16504. With her criminal history? Um, yeah, that's an arrest all the way. And, sure, even though she was a convicted felon who served time in prison and had a million other arrests, you're probably correct, it would almost certainly be negotiated down to an infraction with minor service and/or seeing a counselor. But, of course, she didn't show up at court, soooo....
    1
  16505. Really? What do you know about them that James Van Allen didn't (nor any particle physicist or radiobiologist on Earth)? Do you think a YouTube comment is a science journal? Why don't you write up your calculations and publish them in a journal on radiobiology? Or, hmmm, you watched a silly video made by a taxi cab driver, and decided to believe it for no reason?
    1
  16506. So, you're PROUD that your "opinion" comes straight from a video made by by a taxi cab driver, rather than an actual understanding of physics? And, what in the world does nuclear chemistry have to do with this?
    1
  16507. So, basically, you can't answer a single thing.
    1
  16508. So, you posted some gibberish about Spark's integrity, but, you know absolutely nothing about the topic, and cannot answer a single question. Bravo, dewdrop. Presidential medal of freedom coming your way!!
    1
  16509. And, you'd believe that, why?
    1
  16510. Really? Arrest only if she's combative? Do you have any concept of what "probable cause" means? Do you actually know how police determine whether to make an arrest or not?
    1
  16511. Really? You think you get a "notice to appear" or a "subpoena" for crimes? Or, maybe you think it's an infraction where you get a ticket? For crimes, they perform an arrest.
    1
  16512. Really? You want the adults to just go up to her and ask her to stop? Tell me, would you do that if it was a man at a playground?
    1
  16513. Really? A deliberate display wasn't her intention? So, please explain why a woman in the "audience" was able to record the incident with her cell phone, and showed the video to the police? The police then described the video in their arrest report as a very loud and public act in view of multiple people including children. But, your version is that this was a discreet act with nobody around. You're saying that, why? Because a woman said so while trying to avoid being arrested again?
    1
  16514. Oh, spare the world these silly things about counting complaints. How many of them resulted in his dismissal? Do you even know how many complaints officers get these days? People file complaints constantly, some of them file them just because they were issued a speeding ticket. Some defense attorneys even instruct their criminal clients to file complaints each and every time they are detained or arrested, because it helps to clog up the system, and make cops look bad, just for making valid arrests. There are entire organizations that file hundreds upon hundreds of complaints against cops every single day, regardless of whether or not they've even met those cops. Sorry, but you could sit there and cite a million complaints if you want, and if none of those complaints held enough water to actually result in any action or dismissal of the cops, you have nothing.
    1
  16515. Why? Because Inside Edition asked the question? A couple of minor blogs mentioned this arrest, and she committed suicide over it? Why? For being "exposed"? Her landlord said she was a stripper at the local club. Seems like she'd be used to "being exposed" by then, huh?
    1
  16516. You should be charged with libel.
    1
  16517. Huh? Yes, it was. EDIT: Sorry, I misread your message, and thought you were asking why it wasn't broadcasted. My bad. My apologies.
    1
  16518. I confess and apologize that I misunderstood the initial message. "69 year prior" - I interpreted this as "1969 (this mission)... the year prior to that." (Like 1968.) You actually meant "69 years prior." (Turn of the century.) OK, well, I was only being humorous with my other reply anyway, but, you're 100% correct when you said I missed the point you were making. Thanks and sorry.
    1
  16519. I think you don't understand what happened here. You are correct in that she is not legally required to provide a receipt if she doesn't want to do so, and wants to run the "crusade" instead of just showing it. But, sorry, she DOES legally have to provide ID, and has to cooperate at least on a basic level (no obstruction, no obfuscation, no resisting). Instead, she refused to ID, and did all three of the things she isn't legally supposed to do. The cop even tried to explain that the original suspicion of theft didn't even matter any longer, because she had already committed other violations. And, as for asking for a supervisor, um, yeah, so what? Are you under the impression that all anybody needs to do is ask for a supervisor, and they get one? This is Jacksonville, the murder and violent crime capitol of Florida. "Calling all cars, calling all cars, please drop what you're doing, stop investigating those felonies, I have a woman here who got upset because the store thought she stole a piece of chicken and some bread, mayday, mayday, I need help here, she wants a supervisor, calling all cars, please assist." Seriously?
    1
  16520. TRANSLATION: "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake."
    1
  16521. And, what would you be saying if he immediately rendered the aid you're asking for, and 5 more armed guys popped in out of the woodwork, just like Mark and the banshee, and the cop was shot because he was focused on aid instead of securing the area? Then what?
    1
  16522. The 2nd officer said "do you want me to start on him?" (administer aid) within seconds of dealing with the banshee. I mean, yeah, I understand in general that they weren't rushing really fast to give the aid, and yes, it seemed that the aid was rather "lacking enthusiasm" when they did give it. But, c'mon now, the .40 through the chest, with the guy going unconscious and completely white 20 seconds later... he was gone, man.
    1
  16523.  @dukecraig2402  Rocket motor = solid fuel. Rocket engine = liquid fuel. If you're going to pretend you can "correct" me, get your terms correct first.
    1
  16524. Unjustified hatred from ignorant people strikes again.
    1
  16525. Can you name a news station that even covered this story when she was still alive?
    1
  16526. Inside Edition said it, you believe it.
    1
  16527.  @Deploracle  "The rest of your comment I have no interest in." "What do you think he meant by absolute black? Black except for all the stars?" (And, you went on to ask more stuff.) So, you are not interested in what I wrote, but, you want me to write more? Um, no. Crank. WRITE UP YOUR GIBBERISH FOR SCIENCE JOURNALS!!!!! Good gods.
    1
  16528. Sorry, if you aren't interested in anything I typed, I'm not interested in what you typed. I don't know why you find this difficult.
    1
  16529. The news never showed her at all until long after she was dead. And, Freedom of Information Act. Your suit has no merit.
    1
  16530. Oh, I think they're paying her a heck of a lot of respect. They're painting the false picture of the innocent soccer mom busted by evil police. The "convicted felon who can't stop getting herself arrested, gets arrested again, and commits suicide a year later for unrelated reasons" version doesn't go viral. As for the rest of what you wrote, I have no idea what you're talking about, and neither do you.
    1
  16531. And, if she wanted respect from her family, maybe she shouldn't have walked out on them more than a decade ago in favor of living a life of crime and drugs.
    1
  16532. She was a real estate agent more than a decade ago. She gave that up to live a life of crime instead. Her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the local gentlemen's club, and neighbors said she did "extras" for cash in her apartment.
    1
  16533. Not the brightest bulb, eh?
    1
  16534. Open investigations vs. closed investigations. There's a difference.
    1
  16535. Um, ok, but, how is that relevant here? The arrest video wasn't released until she was dead for 1.5 years.
    1
  16536.  @FURST420  The technology that rides on radio waves has changed. But, radio waves themselves haven't changed, and never will change. Radio is still radio. There are still the same mathematical principles involved in how well a signal can be received by antennae of various sizes and shapes. And, no matter what you do, and how far technology advances, you still will always approach the limits of what's physically possible with a certain transmitter and receiving antenna. Beyond that, if you're telling me that it's a wild coincidence that you happened to do this line of comparing Apollo's radio to cell phones... which is a very common conspiracy analogy that is used by the conspiracy nutjobs that Apollo's communications were not possible, because a modern cell phone has worse communications... then I apologize for blindly assuming you were in that club.
    1
  16537. What don't you understand here? The astronauts weren't doing jumping jacks and high fives during the press conference that took place weeks after the first landing. Therefore, it's fake. Facts don't matter. What really matters is the expressions on their faces during a boring press conference a month later.
    1
  16538. Huh? How was she honest? One of the "audience" recorded the incident and gave a copy to the police. It doesn't match her version. It was a very loud and public display in view of multiple people including children, unlike her sob story about nobody being around (as she's trying to avoid her millionth arrest).
    1
  16539. Welcome to Inside Edition, where facts don't matter.
    1
  16540. Japan verified the Apollo landings via their Selene orbiter. They couldn't see the landers (not enough camera resolution). But, they verified the photography in a level that wasn't available in 1969-1972, except by being on the moon. China and India each verified Apollo last year when they released their orbital photography of some of the landing sites, showing the landers in the exact same spots that LRO showed them, and the original mission photography showed them. There's a mountain of other evidence from other countries also. After all of that, what happens? The deniers continue to deny. All they do is increase the number of countries they think were involved. There is no amount of evidence that will ever satisfy them, because all new incoming evidence is labeled "fake" before it even comes in. And, they will continue to shift the goalposts. What exactly do you think a rover would prove to anybody? And, why? Should the American taxpayer foot the bill for sending a rover to a site we've already visited? And, what for? To try to convince crackpots that they're crackpots? They don't accept input anyway. And, why should my tax money go toward telling a crackpot he's a crackpot?
    1
  16541. You're doing what you do best: pretending to understand things you don't.
    1
  16542. LLRV. LLTV. There are hundreds of videos available showing some of the hundreds of successful landings. Why is this so difficult for you? Did you just listen to a conspiracy video make a claim that the lunar lander flew on Earth and crashed? You never bothered to actually fact-check? Quote: "None that I am aware of. If so, they never told or showed the successful ones." See, there are these amazing things called "search engines." I don't blame you for not understanding them. They've only been available since around 1985, so, I realize you need a couple more decades before you grasp them. But, the story is, you key in "LLRV" or "LLTV," and you get these things called "results." From there, you can watch the videos you're pretending don't exist.
    1
  16543. She got Tasered because she resisted arrest. It wouldn't have mattered if the original crime was theft, or murder, or jaywalking. If the woman is under arrest, and she refuses to comply, there are two choices... (1) manhandle and tackle her, or (2) Taser her. He chose the less aggressive of the two options.
    1
  16544. Huh? For what? She made a mistake. You have GOT to be kidding. Do you really believe that if you think somebody stole, but you're simply wrong, you need to go to prison for it?
    1
  16545.  @dvgsun  YOU SAID: "well, again the USA joined the race and wanted to reach the orbit first , but USSR managed to launch Sputnik" == There was no race at that point. Nobody knew they were going to launch Sputnik. YOU SAID: "and then Gagarin." == Yes, that was a bit of a race. The USA was only a few weeks behind the Soviets. YOU SAID: "In this case the finish line was Earth orbit, right ?" == No. The USA was nowhere near putting anybody in Earth orbit at that point, nor was racing to do so. YOU SAID: "We are talking about different goals." == Yes, the Soviets were going to put a man in orbit, the USA was just going to put a man in space for a few minutes then come back down. If there are different goals, then there are different finish lines, and not the same race. YOU SAID: "Why do you think they agreed that the finish line was Moon ?" == That was the gauntlet that was thrown down. That was the goal that both countries were racing for. YOU SAID: "There was no finish line both counties agreed for" == Yes. They were both trying to put a man on the moon first. YOU SAID: "USSR and the USA just tried to show what they were capable of." == By putting a man on the moon first. YOU SAID: "USSR reached - Mars, Venus and Earth orbit first, USA - Moon , Jupiter Saturn , Neptune, Uranus , Pluto. Shall we call Neptune the finish line then (as the last planet in Solar system) ?" == There was never any race to Mars, Venus, Earth orbit first, Jupiter, Saturn, blah blah blah. I mean, I don't understand why you're so passionate about your insane notion that there was a race to those things. The only mutually agreed upon race was to put a man on the moon. You might argue there was a slight race to be the first to put a man in space, but, as you already pointed out, one was aiming to put a man in orbit, the other was just trying to put a man up for a few minutes and then come straight back down. The rest of your arguments are useless, as there was no race for those things whatsoever. And, there isn't a single astronaut who agrees with your silly notion of all of those different finish lines. The entire world knew the race was to put a man on the moon. The astronauts knew it. The public knew it. The Soviets knew it. The USA knew it. So, you can sit there and pretend you have a point to make. The rest of the planet just thinks you're making shit up.
    1
  16546.  @dvgsun  YOU SAID: ""The only mutually agreed upon race was to put a man on the moon" Who agreed ?" == I explained this already, both the Soviets and the USA. There were basically two actual races. (1) To put a man in space. The Soviets won this race. The USA was nowhere near putting anybody into orbit (unlike what you thought). The Soviets would put a man into orbit before the USA could even shoot someone straight up, be in space a few minutes, and come back down. (2) To put a man on the moon. This was the race that really mattered. There were many landmarks along the way... first rendezvous... first docking... first long duration... first spacewalk... first probes to land on the moon to survey the conditions... etc. All of those landmarks were key checkpoints on the way to putting a man on the moon, which was the finish line. YOU SAID: " ) Is there an official doc. ?" == I'm not playing this game with you, you insane nutbag. YOU SAID: "My the very first comment is "You can't really say USA won the space race, there is no definition of space race , no finish line)" Again , DO YOU HAVE AN OFFICIAL DOCUMENT THAT DEFINES THE SPACE RACE ITSELF AND THE FINISH LINE ? What if Japan will reach Alpha Centauri in the next few months ? Will you still believe USA won the space race ?" == Is there a funded program right now to try to beat Japan to reach Alpha Centauri? Good gods. This is what's wrong with you. I mean, you named a ton of stupid examples, such as Venus. The USA had no program even funded to reach Venus at that point. The Soviets weren't racing the USA to Venus. The USA didn't even go to the starting line of that "race" (in your mind). It's not a "race" if nobody else participates. You named Sputnik. Well, the USA, at that point, didn't even have any funded program to put anything into orbit. There was no "race" to put an object in orbit, when there's only one country even trying to do it. The USA wasn't even trying, so it wasn't a "race." YOU SAID: "Race to the Moon -probably yes, even that is questionable because Soviets reached the Moon first with "Luna" spacecraft )))" == Good gods. Kennedy laid the gauntlet down when he said the goal was to put a man on the moon and return him safely to the Earth. That was the gun at the starting line of the race. The Soviets took the challenge, and THAT was the race. Look, you are clearly married to this insanity you've decided to put on YouTube. Your insanity is not my problem. There is/was NOBODY in NASA who thought that there were these little other "races" that you're talking about. A race isn't a race if there's only one racer. You have exposed how empty your assertions are, by naming these "races" to Venus or Jupiter or Alpha Centauri, etc. THERE WERE/ARE NO RACES TO THOSE PLACES. It's not a "race" if there's only one racer. Good grief. And, look, I threw you a bone, but I'm not going to do that again. You didn't even know that Sputnik wasn't a race either. The USA hadn't funded ANYTHING by the point that the Soviets put Sputnik up there. You clearly didn't know that. You also said that one of the races was to put a man in orbit... no... the USA wasn't even trying to put a man in orbit. I threw you that bone. But, no, it was clear that you didn't know the USA wasn't racing for that. The first USA manned flights were just up and right back down, no orbiting was even possible, or planned, to try to beat the Soviets. The USA's version of that "race" was just to put a human being into space AT ALL (not to orbit, like you asserted). The USA knew that they had no hope of orbiting before the Soviets. You clearly didn't know that, illustrating that you are/were oblivious to the goals of the space programs at the time. With your level of obvious ignorance, you have no business even forming an opinion on what a "race" was or wasn't. I mean, good grief... a "race" to Venus??? The USA hadn't funded a single dollar to put any probes on Venus when the Soviets did it. No sane person would call that a "race." And, when you now come back with your asinine, "was there an official document" bullshit??? Get lost, you delusional crackpot. You're nothing but an ignoramus who wants to stick something on YouTube to make you think you're profound or something. Nobody agrees with any of your assertions about races to these places that nobody is/was racing to.
    1
  16547.  @dvgsun  YOU SAID: " I would think otherwise." == Yes, insane people rarely realize they are insane. Meanwhile, you're completely ignorant of the goals of the space programs at the time. You had no idea that the USA didn't even have any funded programs to put something in orbit at the time of Sputnik. You had no idea that the first manned USA launches were not going into orbit. You name a bunch of "races" to places that nobody was actually racing to. You obviously don't even really understand what a "race" is, if you think a race consists of only one racer. And, you confuse various checkpoints of a race (like sending a probe to the moon) with the finish line of that race. Look, insane nutbag, EVERYBODY knew that the finish line of that particular race was putting a man on the moon. EVERYBODY. The Soviets knew it. NASA knew it. The public knew it. EVERYBODY. Yet, you confuse landing a probe on the moon, which is merely one of the checkpoints of the race, with the finish line. You are insane. And, once again, clearly, your only purpose in expressing this nonsense of yours is to try to sound all profound or something. Good gods. You know what else makes you insane??? You can't even admit when you're wrong. Good grief.
    1
  16548.  @dvgsun  Your hypocrisy and delusion are amazing. Hey, dummy, in order to have a race, you need at least TWO participants. Why can't you get that through your head? Why can't you admit you're wrong? Why do you name a bunch of "races" that only had one participant?? Answer: you are insane. Full stop.
    1
  16549. No. "Innocent soccer mom gets arrested by evil police and can't stand the shame" goes viral and gets millions of hits. "Convicted felon who can't stop getting herself arrested, gets arrested again, and commits suicide a year later for unrelated reasons" doesn't go viral.
    1
  16550. And, you'd believe that, why? Who told you it was destroyed? A conspiracy video?
    1
  16551. The arrest video wasn't uploaded anywhere until 2.5 years later. Nobody saw it while she was alive. And, the Freedom of Information Act is the reason it was eventually released. So, blame congress?
    1
  16552. How about blaming the criminal for her own crimes? No?
    1
  16553. Was that your attempt to explain photographic exposure levels?
    1
  16554. So, let me make sure I understand you correctly here... you opened with a bunch of stuff that really doesn't make sense in photography... demonstrating that you don't know the difference between focus and exposure... you then acknowledged that you're nowhere near understanding photography... and then you posted something, again, pretending to be a photography expert? Do I understand correctly here? You just got done demonstrating that the most basic principles of photography, such as what the word "focus" means, is/are outside your vocabulary... you literally don't know what that (or anything else in photography) means. But, you then turn around to pretend you understand shadow angles and stuff? And, your coup de grâce was to repeat a Buzz Aldrin comedy sketch from the Conan O'Brien show, and pretend it was "inside information"? So, did you literally attend a clown school, or just figuratively?
    1
  16555. I'm not going to keep repeating myself. You don't understand a lick about photography. Go take a class, and stop pretending.
    1
  16556. "PS, my inside info came from someone I cant legally disclose." Conan O'Brien's comedy sketches aren't "inside info." Did you even watch it? And, at this point, you are beyond ridiculous. I mean, not just because of the silly "top secret" claim, but, because logically that cannot even be true. If they disclosed it to you, then you are either "top secret" yourself, or they already violated the "top secret" status. And, if you're "top secret," then you already violated it by disclosing the information. There's no such concept as it being legal to disclose the information, but not reveal the source. The INFORMATION is what would be secret and illegal to disclose. And, you're already saying you did that. So, seriously, spare me. "But he had a private sit down with both Buzz and Neil as well as multiple other astronauts, and this individual has never met Conan." Dewdrop, we're done here, right? You cannot possibly believe this nonsense about Aldrin and Armstrong trading spacesuits. It was a scripted comedy routine on Conan's show. "Also, go take some night photos and tell me how many stars you can see at night if you have a couple street lights shining in the picture." Dewdrop, I'm not even contending that stuff. Why don't you scroll up and find out what I was actually saying? "and are not focused on the moon." That's not what focus means. And, I'm not explaining this again. You have ZERO understanding of photography, and should stop pretending otherwise. It's ironic that you admitted that you don't know anything about photography, yet, still insist you do, because you can become an expert at almost anything in 60 minutes (your claim). You are clearly too far gone. You are so riddled with Dunning-Kruger that there literally is no hope here.
    1
  16557. And now you're playing the "it's illegal for me to tell you" thing? You are clearly too far gone. You are so riddled with Dunning-Kruger that there literally is no hope here. And, this is just plain ridiculous. You have fallen for a Conan O'Brien comedy sketch, thinking it was real. Or, someone told you about it, and you thought it was real. We're done here, right dewdrop?
    1
  16558. Wow, how backward can you get? The store employee thought the woman walked out without paying. That is enough reasonable suspicion to investigate. The probable cause came later. Yes, she was innocent of stealing. But, this doesn't mean that she is allowed to obstruct, fail to ID, and obfuscate, nor resist arrest. Those are crimes right there, with or without the theft.
    1
  16559. "The people landed on the moon? Or just a rover?" Why would you even ask such a ridiculous question. You clearly made your mind up. Don't pretend you're seriously asking anything. "Because all the articles I ever see are about non-human landings or orbitals." Well, then you never read any articles about Apollo. "can we replicate an actual human landing?" Not until a lander is ready. "In the near future, all of our stuff might be fake or faked to where the simulation theory might not be too far off." Hence why you should be asking about the EVIDENCE. That's the important part. Dewdrop, the photographs and videos have never been the best evidence for Apollo in the first place. The best evidence for Apollo comes from all of the 3rd party confirmation.
    1
  16560. So, like all of you nuts, you ask questions, ignore the answers, and refuse to answer any return questions. Bravo.
    1
  16561.  @PeaknikMicki  The technology is "lost" in the exact same spirit that Concorde technology is lost. And, as for "original" footage that's lost, well, those were two backup video tapes from one mission. And, the primary copies are just as "original" as the backup copies, and the primary copies aren't lost. Nobody had ever even watched the backup copies, not a single time. Why do you care if they're missing?
    1
  16562.  @julianciahaconsulting8663  Huh? What in the world are you talking about? When Magellan sailed around the world for the first time, that wasn't repeated until 50 years later. When people first dove to the deepest ocean depth, that wasn't repeated until 62 years later. History is full of examples of journeys that don't get repeated for decades. You have NO IDEA what you're talking about.
    1
  16563. Who's the suit against, and on what basis?
    1
  16564.  @SSran-iv4lu  I've engaged my fair share of insane people... too many for me to count without being embarrassed. But, this guy... he's waaaaaaaaayyyyy too far gone, even for me.
    1
  16565. Because it was too late. She already refused to ID, obstructed and obfuscated, which are arrestable offenses all by themselves (then resisted arrest after those crimes). By the time she asked to go back inside, it was already past the point of no return, and she was going to be arrested regardless of what the security cameras showed.
    1
  16566. So, if you're the police, how do you prevent the release if it's the result of a legal Freedom of Information Act request? And, just checking here... you do know that it wasn't released until 1.5 years after she was already dead, right?
    1
  16567. Arrest = July 1, 2021 Suicide = March, 2022 (uncertain date) Body found = March 31, 2022 Arrest video made public = November 24, 2023 Sorry for reality.
    1
  16568. Freedom of Information Act.
    1
  16569. The only "pigs" here are the ones who pretend they understand things they don't.
    1
  16570. It's a mix. Some deny all space travel. Some just deny the moon landings. But, all of them are crackpots.
    1
  16571.  @occhamite  Um, just trying to help a bit... he's referring to a motorcycle, not a car....
    1
  16572.  @occhamite  Yeah, I was just trying to prepare you for his inevitable answer to say that it's you who didn't know what you were talking about, throwing it back at you.
    1
  16573. There are no such satellites. Do you have any idea how big the lens would need to be in order to do what you're claiming?
    1
  16574. Yeah, like having obnoxious nicknames, right? What she did wasn't disgusting for its own sake, it was disgusting that she did it in front of children.
    1
  16575. Well, you could try to FOIA the video of the incident itself, but, I think they still have that one blocked due to content.
    1
  16576. What family and friends would those be? The ones that didn't even know she was dead, because they had zero contact with her? And, what humiliation? Who even knew about this arrest while she was alive?
    1
  16577.  @dansv1  Nope. They pressurized and then took their gear off. They later gathered up everything to throw out, depressurized, tossed it out, and repressurized.
    1
  16578. Blame the victim?
    1
  16579. Who do you blame, if not the criminal?
    1
  16580. Another dewdrop who doesn't understand mathematical notations. Shocker. 10 to the negative power doesn't mean a negative number. It just means how many zeros to insert after the decimal point. So, yeah, it's very close to zero. It's not this crazy unimaginable number. Go take 9th grade math again, dewdrop.
    1
  16581. Ah. Yes. It has to do with the difference between an infraction and a crime.
    1
  16582. Infraction = police can decide, and have discretion, tickets, fines, etc.
    1
  16583. Crime = police do not use discretion. They make the arrest, and then the courts take it from there.
    1
  16584. Sorry, it kept blocking my replies, and I had to keep it super short, skipping a ton of stuff, and dividing it into multiple replies, or it wouldn't post.
    1
  16585. Dewdrop, in order to read a newspaper from orbit, it would require a lens 6 miles in diameter. This isn't a factor of technology. This is a property of light. Look up "optical resolution" and use the well understood formula to calculate the minimum lens size if you don't believe me.
    1
  16586. Oh, take your hatred somewhere else.
    1
  16587. Huh? First of all, maybe there'd be a chance to understand these concepts better if you didn't have the reading and writing skills of a 2nd grader. Secondly, what do you propose instead? Ripping her out of the car using bodily force? Sorry to inform you, but, the Taser is a much less harmful process. If that happened, you'd probably sit there and say, "why didn't they just use the Taser instead of potentially injuring her?" And, thirdly, I have news for you, if a cop's life is in imminent danger, he's not using a Taser, he's using his firearm.
    1
  16588. Yes, but, somehow I think you're being sarcastic.
    1
  16589. She did not. She had her receipt, but refused to present it.
    1
  16590. Well, given the rest of her "interactions" (thefts) with Walgreens, I'd imagine that she gave up the hat and gloves so that they wouldn't search her and find the rest of the stuff she was stealing. She continued to steal from Walgreens after this incident. And, now she's dead.
    1
  16591. As I said, it's quite probable that she had more stuff under that jacket, and just gave up the gloves and hat, hoping that they wouldn't arrest her and find more stuff. Yes, I think that would change the tone of what you're saying. Of course, there's no proof, but, given her record and the fact that she kept stealing from Walgreens after this incident, it's a pretty decent assumption. I'm sorry that I don't trust drug addicts, but, yeah, I don't.
    1
  16592. As it turns out, most people hate armed carjackers, whattayaknow. And, most people tend to be glad that the carjacker took the bullet, rather than the cop. And, most people logically deduce that the woman who shows up 10 seconds later and is somehow able to identify Mark while he's wearing a ski mask, that she must have known it was him to begin with, and was probably there as a getaway driver.
    1
  16593. I'm honestly not sure if you're joking or not, sorry. She continued to steal from Walgreens after this incident. And, the irony is that she might still be alive today had the officer arrested her and she was in the relative "safety" of prison.
    1
  16594. You're wrong, but, we'll pretend you're correct for a minute. Why is it wrong to arrest her if there's enough probable cause? They found the toy in her bag. She told them that she used it on the beach. Even if she could later prove that there was some other factor that somehow made her innocent, the arrest was justified. Remember, an arrest is just an arrest. It's not a trial and conviction.
    1
  16595. Secondly, multiple people called the police. The police didn't go there because of an anonymous tip. Read the police report. They list some of the witnesses by name, and they interviewed multiple people. One of the "audience" had even recorded the incident, and showed the video to the police. They describe the video in the arrest report as a very loud and public display in view of multiple people including children.
    1
  16596. Why did you say it was an anonymous tip? And, what's the basis for the suit you propose?
    1
  16597. Then you file a report to escalate. And, if that fails, you call the sheriff instead of police. And, if that fails, you escalate to the FBI. But, forgive me if I don't blindly accept the story, but, sometimes the police can't do much if it's "he said she said" with no evidence. In this case, one of the audience took video of the incident, and gave a copy to the police, so there was not a lack of evidence.
    1
  16598. Again, I'm not just going to blindly accept your story just because you repeat it. And, I already outlined your recourse. Why did you not take it?
    1
  16599. Yeah, I totally believe you now. Police don't do their jobs even when it's completely obvious. It outrages you, but, you do nothing whatsoever about it. Sure. By the way, I'm shopping for a bridge, do you have one for sale?
    1
  16600. You seem to have missed the point: if they don't show the pretty face, it doesn't go viral and they lose ad revenue.
    1
  16601. "Me personally do not deny the moon or even that man has been on the moon." Yet, you say "Fake Fake Fake" in your opening comment? Did you forget that you opened by denying, and now you're just backtracking, pretending to be intellectually honest, when you're clearly not? "they are not telling us the truth about our world our reality, it's all fiction and unprovable." Pure gibberish. Just because YOU don't understand it, doesn't mean it's fake. "Their answers to the tough questions are extremely insufficient." Well, "they" (NASA) typically don't answer questions at all. Did you think they have a hotline you can call and it's staffed with PhD experts in everything NASA does, ready to answer silly questions asked by people who wouldn't believe the answers anyway? How have you asked your questions, and who did you ask? Or, did you just watch conspiracy videos that claimed questions weren't answered? NASA answers "questions" in the form of publications. "Well, for one thing they could offer complete uncut footage from take off to landing on the lunar surface with audio if possible." How? What mechanism would they use? They weren't exactly going to run the TV camera the entire time, you know. It wasn't set up for that. And, to do that on 16mm film would require more film rolls than the craft could even fit onboard. And, even if they did hypothetically use the TV camera the entire time, how would you address when they flipped around the back side of the moon? No line of sight = no TV signal. How about as the Earth rotates? They have to switch from ground station to ground station, you know. There will be gaps in coverage as a result. How about during a burn? You want them to hold a camera out the window while doing that? And, c'mon man, you know darned well that you'd just label it as "fake" anyway. There are about 80 hours of mission video that you are calling fake. What purpose would it serve to have even more video that you're going to label as fake? And, frankly, we all know you haven't watched the video that's available, let alone would you watch days upon days of video you're pretending to ask for. "Now I know that isn't possible due to they have lost the technology (not my words but their words)." That's a colorful way to put it, but, essentially accurate. The technology is "lost" in the exact same sense that Concorde supersonic airliner technology is lost. It's RETIRED. "I'm sorry I just don't by that explanation." Well, you don't know anything. You can't even read and write. What do you think you know about Apollo that the entire planet's experts do not?
    1
  16602.  @shantishanti1949  Well, I'm not sure what "complaint" you have about the Blue Marble photo in particular. It's one of the most famous photos in history, and, yes, it's on 70mm film from the Hasselblad. They had several cameras, of course, but, the absolute highest quality still shots were going to come from those 70mm cameras. They also had the 35mm stereoscopic cameras, and the 16mm Maurer film video cameras. Of course, all of those relied on film to operate, so, the camera that ran the absolute most was the RCA sequential slow-scan TV camera... the worst quality camera they had on the mission, but, yeah, live-streaming from the moon in color, and you didn't need to change film rolls... as long as the two big silver-zinc batteries on the rovers lasted (longer than the mission itself), they could shoot with that camera. So, most of the stuff you're going to see is from the lowest quality camera they had. But, yeah, I already directed you to the entirety of their 70mm camera shots, including the Blue Marble. And, given its popularity, yes, I'm quite sure that they took a heck of a lot of scans of that photo, with various scanning equipment that yielded different results over the last 49 years... some more vibrant... some not. That's why I advocated that you ask the people who actually have access to the original photo, before you label stuff as "CGI." I wouldn't doubt if some of the scans were put through some photographic editing software to enhance the color contrast and stuff like that... I mean, I don't really outright think so... I think it depends more on the quality/type of scan. But, I've never asked Eric Jones exactly which of the scans on the ALSJ looks most like the original, nor whether he has ever used any such software. I'm just a little bit surprised that you'd pick one particular photo to label as "manipulated" or "CGI." Anyway, yes, Jack Schmitt took the shot.
    1
  16603. The arrest video wasn't released until long after she was dead. But, you keep on pretending to know things you don't.
    1
  16604. Your nickname includes "2026." Is that when you will graduate high school? Or, is that when you'll graduate 8th grade?
    1
  16605. Freedom of Information Act. The one "silver lining" (though minor) is that at least she wasn't alive to ever see the arrest video go public.
    1
  16606. Huh? You want it to be legal to crank in public in front of children?
    1
  16607. Is this a joke? She was a convicted felon with an extensive criminal record, and a term spent in a Florida prison about 6 years ago. She walked out on her family (including a 6 month old boy), in order to live a life of crime and drugs.
    1
  16608. What embarrassment? First of all, virtually nobody even knew about this arrest until 1.5 years after she died. None of this went viral until after the release of the arrest video (November 24, 2023). She died more than 2 years ago. Secondly, her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the gentlemen's club. That's not exactly the right business to be in, if she gets "embarrassed" over stuff like this.
    1
  16609. The police say the video of the incident clearly shows a very loud and public show in view of multiple people including children. Innocent bystanders reported that she did this intentionally. But, you'll stick with the claims of the convicted felon?
    1
  16610. Good grief, just stop trusting trash news like Inside Edition. Sheeesssshhh.
    1
  16611. I'll eat my hat if she wasn't making "public beach" content for her fans, but got reported, and was trying to cry her way out of her millionth arrest before they'd look up all of her open warrants.
    1
  16612. I think he's on the good side, trying to illustrate that the dewdrops who believe the moon landings were faked, would also have to believe that they faked a failure too.
    1
  16613. Huh? Sounds like she intentionally put on a show in front of multiple people. I mean, you didn't actually believe her when she said she thought nobody was around, did you? If so, I have a bridge for sale.
    1
  16614. Good gods, lay off the drugs, you utter moron. YOU SAID: "THERE IS ONE THING THAT NAZIATURDS ... EXCUSE ME NASATURDS ... CANNOT STAND , THE CHALLENGE...OF A FEW QUESTIONS.. 1# WHY WERE THE TELEMETRY TAPES OF THE TRIPS DESTROYED OR SUPPOSEDLY TAPED OVER? " == Because that's how all of those systems worked in those days. The initial tapes were only ever for short term storage. They were big, expensive, and fragile. They weren't engineered to last a long time in storage. They were made for speed, and that's it. The correct procedure, as implemented by every single institution, university, company, NASA, everyone, who had those systems, was to make the initial recordings onto the short term tapes, and then transfer the recordings to the long term storage tapes when they were done with the short term need. And, the irony is, you morons keep insisting that this is some sort of "problem" or "gotcha" moment. Why? I mean, if they had done what you asked, and used the short term tapes for long term storage, you wouldn't be able to read any of them today, and then you'd be screaming bloody murder about why they didn't transfer everything to long term storage tapes. Oh, but, hey, dumbass, let's just turn this on the other foot anyway... you go find ANY institution of the time who had those same systems as NASA had, go find ONE, any ONE institution, who used the short term tapes for long term storage, and you let us all know about it, ok? Maybe then you'll have a point. Until then, you're just a fucking imbecile screaming at the wind about topics you don't understand, demanding that NASA should have used these systems exactly oppositely as they were designed to be used. YOU SAID: "2# WITH NEARLY UNLIMITED FUNDS THEY COULD NOT GET ENOUGH NEW VIRGIN TAPE INSTEAD ?" == This was a separate point? Oh, you're a real genius. YOU SAID: "3# WHY DESTROY THE TAPE DRIVEN PLAYBACK MACHINES IF NOT FOR THE REASON THAT THEY COULD HAVE PLAYED INTO EVIDENCE THE FALSITY OF THE ODD CANISTER OR TWO THAT MIGHT HAVE ESCAPED DESTRUCTION?" == Dummy, they have all of the data, and plenty of machines to play them back. YOU SAID: "4# ARGUABLY THE GREATEST ACHIEVEMENT IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY AND NAZIA /NASA DESTROYED THE RECORD OF IT, AND NO SONS OF BITCHES RESPONSIBLE HAVE EVER BEEN JAILED FOR LIFE? ." == Exactly, dummy. Nobody has been jailed. No Congress inquiries and investigations. Nobody put on trial for massive fraud and misappropriation of countless billions of dollars. Why? Because it didn't happen the way your stupid delusional mind thinks it did. You hive-mind conspiracy idiots have manufactured these fantastic scenarios in your heads, via a massive misunderstanding of how the technology actually worked, and downright lies that other conspiratards tell you. I mean, this is the funniest part about you morons. If NASA says something, no matter what it is, you idiots just reject it outright if it goes against your delusion. But, if anybody says something in support of your delusion, you just blindly accept it. It's insanity. YOU SAID: "5 # DID THEY NOT OWE THE PRESERVATION OF THAT RECORD AS A MONUMENT TO AMERICANS FIRST WHO PAID FOR IT ALL AND THE WORLD SECOND ? " == Dummy, you are naming 5 different "questions" that are essentially just one question. And, the answer is the same across the board. You don't know what you're talking about. All of your "knowledge" has come from other idiots just as stupid as you are. YOU SAID: "ONLY GULLIBLE , NAIVE , INSIPID , MENTALLY RETARDED MORONS CAN GET BEHIND AND SUPPORT THE LIES OF AN ORGANIZATION LIKE NASA. I WAS 15 IN 1969 AND KNEW THEN THAT THEY WERE FULL OF SHIT ... PHYSICS WAS A FAVORITE SUBJECT OF MINE THEN AND NOTHING MADE SENSE , SCIENTIFIC SENSE ," == Well, if physics is your favorite subject, then you know that actual physicists do not think Apollo was faked, right? You know that physicists are the least likely demographic anywhere on Earth to believe Apollo was faked, right? There are probably no more than 4 or 5 physicists on the planet who think Apollo was faked, and none of them has ever published any peer reviewed articles to back up their beliefs. You know this, right? You love physics, right? So, you must know that if you actually understand physics, the proper way to assert your objections isn't to write stupid incoherent all-caps messages on YouTube, but, rather you should be submitting your anti-Apollo calculations and experimentation for scientific peer review, right? YOU SAID: "WHAT THOSE BASTARDS BROADCAST FROM FILMING THEIR OWN SCREENS TO FURTHER DEGRADE THE ALREADY DISMAL LINES OF RESOLUTION OF PERIOD TV SETS WAS IMPUNABLE THEN" == On Apollo 11, they played it conservative, and used the low resolution black and white camera, without the S-band antenna. For the rest of the missions, they used color, and higher resolution, with the S-band antenna. And, that resolution is quite good, given that the signals had to travel 240,000 miles with 1969 radios. YOU SAID: "LET ALONE TODAY .... SEVERAL MILLION HOLES CAN BE POKED INTO EVERYTHING RELATED TO THE APOLLO MISSIONS" == Yet, not a single person anywhere on the planet has ever "poked these holes" into Apollo by any scientific peer reviewed method. Nope. Instead, the only "hole poking" that ever happens, comes from scientifically illiterate people who don't understand their own objections. And, these "holes" turn out not to be holes, but just massive ignorance on the part of the conspiracy nutbags. YOU SAID: "FROM BEGINNING TO END... BUT IT MATTERS NOT ... AN IDIOT IS NOT CONSCIOUS OF BEING ONE , THE SAME APPLIES TO GULLIBLE NAIVE MORONS ... A LITTLE ZELLOUS PATRIOTIC INDOCTRINATION CAN TAKE CARE OF THAT ... MY STINT IN THE COLD WAR IN EUROPE PROVED THAT CONCEPT IN CONCRETE.. KRANZ ... WAS ABOUT TO PISS HIS PANTS BY HOLDING LAUGHTER IN ... WHEN HE WAS ASKED ABOUT THE APOLLO MOON MISSION TELEMETRY TAPES ... THAT SHOULD BE ENOUGH TO CONVINCE MORONS... BUT THEY ALSO ARE NOT CONSCIOUS AND SADLY NEVER WILL BE" == Look, you crazy crank, you don't know what you're talking about. You can scream at the wind all you want. I know there will be no changing your mind. You're too old, and too dumb, to teach an old dog new tricks. And, funny, you're not much older than I am, actually. I sure hope I don't end up as broken-minded as you are in a couple more years of MY life.
    1
  16615. Because the arrest video wasn't released until November 24, 2023.
    1
  16616. Yeah, I agree. I was just giving you the literal reason why it's being posted now instead of 2.5 years ago.
    1
  16617.  @shivermetembers5947  I never said she stole. I said the store employee said so. That gives the officer reasonable suspicion and probable cause. As for your notion that she offered to go back to the store to check security cameras, the cop is under no legal obligation to do so. But, she is required by law to identify herself, and she refused. And, she is not allowed to obfuscate or obstruct the investigation, which she did. You have absolutely positively no idea what you're talking about. I'll bet the cop would have been willing to go back to the store and stuff if the woman hadn't violated the law by refusing to ID. But, she dug her own grave. And, even her own high profile attorney disagreed with you, and didn't find that the cop did anything wrong, and didn't sue the police. He sued the store, of course (and lost). The woman will get $0.00 for this encounter, because she was in the wrong. You don't have to believe me at all. Believe the judges and attorneys.
    1
  16618. Who is "they"? And, what's your evidence?
    1
  16619. Dewdrop, this was never on TV before she died. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. Not a single TV station or YouTube channel covered anything about this incident while she was still alive.
    1
  16620. But, this was never on TV when she was alive.
    1
  16621. No, you didn't. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released. Stop lying.
    1
  16622. July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released.
    1
  16623. Are you talking about the flag's shadow?
    1
  16624. You don't even know that there are TWO belts, sometimes even three, yet, you wrote "belt" (singular). And, you capitalized "belt" for some strange reason. Sorry, but I don't think you have any understanding of the topic. But, can you explain why James Van Allen disagreed with you? Can you explain how the Soviets were able to send two dogs into the belts, and they lived for 3 weeks? And, why would anybody "burn up"? Where would that kind of energy come from?
    1
  16625. If you're actually an American (doubtful, but, whatever), then maybe you should learn English? Also, saying "Russia is the best" (your other thread) certainly doesn't make anybody believe you're an American.
    1
  16626. So, the 7,000 engineers at Grumman who designed and built it to land on the moon... they couldn't spot these problems you could?
    1
  16627. The department of sanitation? The Department of Homeland Security? The department store? Certainly you cannot mean the police department.
    1
  16628. Oh look! The child is trying to type on the internet!
    1
  16629.  @justsomeguy892  I believe Loremaster is just kidding. (If not, wow, off the charts crazy.)
    1
  16630. Virtually zero media ran anything about this story while she was alive.
    1
  16631.  @yassassin6425  Super minor correction for future reference: Eagle Picher, not Eagle Pitcher.
    1
  16632. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
    1
  16633. Note: the father gave two interviews. In one interview, he said that his son went to the car to find out who was inside (like, he knew it was occupied, and went to go find out what he was doing there). In another interview, he said that the one thing he knew for certain was that his son didn't think anybody was inside the car. Now, do you suppose he spoke to the attorney between the two interviews, who told him that it's a really bad idea to say that the son knew someone was in the car, hence the change in the story? Then the narrative became that Mark went to the car to take it for a joy-ride because a social media video told him to do it. Also note, in the same spirit as your comments, how would the father know that his son didn't think anybody was in the car? Mark died 20 seconds after being shot. So, how/why would the father know anything at all, unless the father (a convicted felon) was also in on it?
    1
  16634. Wow. You really drank the Kool-Aid. First of all, multiple people called the police. One woman in the "audience" recorded this incident on her cell phone, and showed the video to the police. The arrest report describes it as a very loud act in front of multiple people, including children. So, yeah, sorry, I think I'd believe the unbiased random people who saw it, recorded it, and the police reported on it, before I'll believe the words of a woman with a mile long arrest and prison record who is attempting to avoid getting arrested (yet again). You said, "she said no one was even around." Yeah. She did say that. "I didn't do it" is a very common stance that many criminals try to take when being arrested. So what? And, sorry, but the only blood is on her own hands. This arrest had absolutely nothing to do with her suicide. But, yeah, you blindly trusted Inside Edition also, right? I don't know what good this will do, but, here goes: guess what? Not everything you see on YouTube is actually true. You might want to keep that in mind as you go through life.
    1
  16635. Yes, dewdrop. We call police to do the jobs we pay them to do. And, July 1, 2021 = this arrest. March, 2022 = suicide. November 24, 2023 = arrest video released due to FOIA request. Sorry, your suit goes nowhere.
    1
  16636. Do you REALLY think that there's a telescope in existence capable of seeing Apollo artifacts on the moon from this distance away?? Good grief.
    1
  16637. Of course not. She wandered up and down the beach, and plopped right down in view of multiple people (including children). One of the audience recorded it, and gave a copy of the video to the police, who described it as a very loud show. No, not discreet at all. But, were you expecting discretion? Her landlord said she was a "dancer" (that kind, yes) at the local club, and neighbors said she "did private extras" with parades of paying men in her apartment. I don't think "discretion" was part of her vocabulary.
    1
  16638. Let's see, the thug resisted, fought, kicked, refused to get into the car, kept trying to get back out... what EXACTLY do you want the cop to do?
    1
  16639. You wouldn't happen to be a drug addict, would you?
    1
  16640. Too bad. If you were an addict, then your mind might have a shot at returning to normal if you quit. But, if that's not your issue, then I guess your mind has set sail forever, and will never return.
    1
  16641.  @charhudson8350  Well, first of all, other than a couple hundred hits on a couple of obscure blogs nobody has heard of, how much internet publicity do you think she actually got before she was dead? 99.999% of the coverage happened only after she died. Secondly, none of her other million arrests, nor her felony term in a Florida prison, had any effect on her? No? It was just THIS arrest that had an effect?
    1
  16642. Wow, I didn't think it was possible to cram this much BS into a single comment. Checking the receipt before she left? Well, that sounds nice and all, but, sorry, sometimes that just can't happen, because the person gets out the door before you have a chance to stop her. That's just reality. You don't think she's obligated to stop for police? What in the world? What kind of anarchy are you advocating here? Of course you must stop for police in an investigation. That's how it works. A police officer must have reasonable suspicion of a crime in order to stop you. He had that. The store employee said she left without paying. That means that the cop was justified in legally detaining her. If you are legally detained in that kind of investigation, you legally must provide ID (which she refused to do), and generally cooperate. I am not saying she has to help the cop in the investigation, nor even provide a receipt if she doesn't want to do that. She can remain silent (other than providing ID). But, she cannot obfuscate or obstruct (which is exactly what she did). Sure, she's not obligated to have a receipt, or present it, however, the receipt is for her own protection, not the store's protection. The store has the right to suspect her of stealing, and ask the cop to investigate and charge her. It's up to the store to provide proof, but, that doesn't happen until later. That's what the court system is for. The arrest at the side of the road only needs a reasonable suspicion and probable cause. There is no obligation to prove guilt or innocence at the side of the road. Don't believe me? Fine. You don't have to. Her own attorney basically confirmed all of this when he didn't sue the police. If anything you said was true, he would have sued them. But, no. He sued the store for $50,000, not the police. Of course, the woman's lawsuit against the store was thrown out the window, and she will be getting $0.00 in her claim. But, let's pretend that your fantasy world was real, and the police did this wrong... what do you think you know about this case that her own high profile attorney didn't know? Have you called him up and advised him about your extensive knowledge of the law, and did you let him know he botched things very badly by not suing the police also?
    1
  16643. We're done here, right? You really think that you don't have to present an ID to a cop who legally detains you? Seriously? I cannot do anything more for you. You've made it 100% clear that you are going to hold your ridiculously wrong opinions, no matter what anybody says to you. I'd hate to see what it must be like to know you in person. What a disaster.
    1
  16644. I don't understand. How would you have done it?
    1
  16645. Huh? Who told you Cosby was in jail? They overturned his conviction, and he was released a year ago.
    1
  16646. Noisily? What? And, the Freedom of Information Act released the video. But, that wasn't until 1.5 years after she was already dead. Bravo! You're batting 0.000. Want to try again?
    1
  16647. Well, he did say his own name twice after that.
    1
  16648. Proof that you are a drug addict (follow the same link).
    1
  16649. Sorry, deleting reply, meant it for a different thread. YouTube has a bunch of message problems, and I keep needing to mess with them to get them to post properly, and accidentally posted here by mistake. Sorry.
    1
  16650. Are you having a stroke or something? Do you need medical attention? You keep spewing nonsense into your keyboard across different messages.
    1
  16651.  @myliakiawest1618  I strongly suggest that you seek medical attention. Something is severely wrong with you.
    1
  16652. "So my question is" Really? You really have these questions? Or, you're pretending to ask questions?
    1
  16653. "why wasn't it recorded when they left" Why wasn't WHAT recorded? Are you sure [whatever] wasn't recorded? Have you looked for [whatever] recording?
    1
  16654. "could they fly the lander to earth" No. The landers were designed to be used to land, get back up to the command module, then discarded. They weren't designed to come back to Earth.
    1
  16655. "hoax" See what I mean, dewdrop? You didn't even wait for any answers before declaring your conclusion. And, why do you think you know enough to even have a conclusion? You don't know the answers to your questions yet, right? How does the Cern supercollider work? No, I won't wait for the answer. Instead, I'm going to say it's a hoax before anybody can answer anything. Do you understand why nobody can believe you're honestly asking questions? If you don't want to wait for answers, why do you ask questions?
    1
  16656. "70 years later" Math just isn't your thing, eh? 70 years?
    1
  16657. "with all new technologies" Exactly. It takes time to build new technologies. What did you expect? Do you think they just kept running the Apollo program for "70 years" (sigh), with rockets at the ready, just never bothered to launch any of them?
    1
  16658. What light would you rather it be aired? Seems like this version is pretty charitable to her. Would you rather they told the accurate version, including her mile long criminal history, time spent in prison, and that she walked out on her family and friends more than a decade ago, etc.?
    1
  16659.  @treycarter7293  What in the world are you talking about? I didn't say the cop used the Taser because she asked. I was illustrating that this woman knew darned well that the Taser would be required (because I think she knew she was taking actions to MAKE the officer need to do that), even including asking for the Taser to be used. My point was, it appears that this woman was trying to escalate a simple request to see a receipt into a lawsuit, and I think she figured that getting arrested and Tased would add to her dollar figure. She was wrong, but, I think it's fairly obvious about what was going on here. As for the officer who used the Taser, well, if someone resists arrest, there really are just two choices: (1) tackle her to the ground, or (2) use the Taser. He chose the less aggressive of the two choices. Spare me the notion that the officer Tased her because she asked to be Tased. That's an outlandish interpretation, and you know it.
    1
  16660. Not likely. Even with her history of being a convicted felon who served time in prison, and her arrest record a mile long, it's very likely that this incident would have been negotiated down to a minor infraction... had she bothered to show up in court anyway.
    1
  16661. And, you have that impression, why? Did you watch a 30 second clip from a video made for children? And, now you thought that's all you need to know?
    1
  16662. 1) So, if you kill a cop, you deserve the death penalty. But, nobody else is important enough to warrant a death penalty? 2) Um, no. The state spends far more money on death row inmates than life imprisonment cases. You have NO IDEA what you are talking about. By the time you factor in all of the costs (mainly legal fees), it costs a landslide more money to execute someone than to keep that person alive.
    1
  16663. Well, the arrest video wasn't released until long after she died. But, ok, I'll play your game. You have your suit now, ok? The news stations say, "Freedom of Information Act" in reply to your suit. Now what? What's your next move?
    1
  16664. Ad revenue.
    1
  16665. Agreed. I think most people would agree if they lifted a finger to look at the entire tax picture. But, the media is nearly criminal in their irresponsible journalism. It's sad that so many people buy into it without a second thought. OF COURSE Buffet pays more than his secretary. And, even if he pays less percentage than his secretary in ONE category, his entire tax percentage is around 50-60%. You'd have to be willfully ignorant to believe otherwise. Sadly, so many people ARE ignorant. Sigh.
    1
  16666.  @banebane3882  YOU SAID: "In the beginning of this conversation I had only one comment concerning blue marble." YOU SAID: "can you please tell me do we have real photo of the earth taken from space?" == I explained this already, but you ignored it. Now you're asking for it to be explained by someone else? What's wrong with you? What did you do to yourself to make you unable to think properly? Was it drugs? Good grief. I'll explain it again. There are TWO "Blue Marble" photos. Or, I should say, there are two photos that have been dubbed "Blue Marble." There are thousands of photos of Earth from a distance, of course. But, only two are called "Blue Marble." The first was in 1972 onboard Apollo 17 on the way to the moon. It's the one shown in this video at 5:42. The second one happened decades later, and that's the one that was produced with Photoshop. He had to use Photoshop, because, as I explained (and you ignored), the goal was to make a COLOR ACCURATE picture. The problem with all other Earth photos taken from a distance is that the green colors are almost completely lost through the atmosphere. The greens end up looking pinkish/brownish. This is the exact same concept as when you go scuba diving and take photos, and all of the red colors are gone. You have to artificially put the reds back into the underwater photos by using filters on your lenses to augment the colors. In space, it's the greens that are lost through the atmosphere, and Simmons had to use Photoshop to put the green colors back in. You ignored ALL OF THIS, and now you're asking again??? == Beyond that, there are THOUSANDS of real photos of Earth taken from space. There are hundreds of them taken on the Apollo missions, thousands taken from EPIC/DSCOVER, more from other satellites, etc. The reason why this video is hyping up that photo at 5:42 isn't because it's the only photo of Earth. It's the only FULL Earth photo TAKEN BY A HUMAN. See, dummy, you need to pay attention to the words spoken. In this video, they say it's the only "fully illuminated" Earth taken by a human. That's because Apollo 17 was the only mission in which the capsule went directly in between the sun and Earth, to produce a "full Earth" photo. All other missions were launched with different timing, and only got 1/2 Earth photos, or 3/4 Earth photos, etc. But, you conspiratards don't understand any of that. All you hear is that it's "the only one" and you think that means it's literally the ONLY Earth photo. You're idiots. Every single one of you conspiratards is an idiot. You don't go look at the thousands of other photos. You just hear the word "only" and ignore all of the rest of the words. == Dummy, if you want to see hundreds of Earth photos all in one video, just watch this one: "DSCOVR - one year of EPIC images." Those were taken from about a million miles away from Earth. Beyond that, go to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal website and start scrolling through the hundreds of photos that include the word "Earth" in the description. Good grief, you're dumb.
    1
  16667.  @banebane3882  Yeah, of course not. You won't comment because you have decided in advance to reject all input. You're an idiot.
    1
  16668. I see so many people posting this sentiment, yet, none of you people ever says exactly what was handled wrongly, or what they should have done differently.
    1
  16669. The video was shot at 6 FPS, and played back at 24 FPS. In other words, the video here has been sped up by 4x. They did this because the film rolls only lasted about 3 minutes if they ran them at full speed. So, to conserve on film, they almost always slowed the frame rate. There are a number of videos you can find on YouTube that use CGI to insert the missing frames, and you can watch at "real speed."
    1
  16670. I looked again, and I'm not 100% sure the frame rate was 6 FPS in that clip. Some of them are labeled as 12 FPS. So, maybe it is only 2x speed instead of 4x speed. But, anyway, the best thing you can do to understand the real speed is to look for "Apollo lunar rover traverse speed corrected" and take a look at some of those. I'm not sure if that exact clip is accommodated on YouTube or not. But, you're welcome to look at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal and hunt it down, and see if they tell you the frame rate, then correct it yourself with some video software. I'll tell you this much, though: Apollo 17 didn't have the 16mm DAC on the front of the rover. So, in this video, they borrowed this clip from Apollo 16. I believe it's the traverse to station 13. So, if you really want to find it, look there first, then find the original clips, then do the speed correction yourself if it's not already online.
    1
  16671. What in the world are you babbling now? I originally thought the frame rate was 6 frames per second. Then, I looked up some of the other similar clips and saw that they were 12 frames per second. Either way, the video was played at 24 frames per second. Therefore, that video clip is either double the correct speed, or 4x the correct speed. How can the math be wrong? What ARE you talking about? What didn't you understand here? Good grief.
    1
  16672. Well, at least the arrest video was never posted while she was alive.
    1
  16673. Fine, but, there are no telescopes that have that kind of resolution. The only way to see the footprints (tracks/paths, not individual prints) and Apollo remnants is via lunar orbital photography.
    1
  16674.  @maskonfilteroff3145  Who can really tell WHAT this guy wants? He keeps shifting goalposts from thread to thread, writes like a 2nd grader, and doesn't listen to the answers to his own questions. And, the original TV broadcasted moonwalk, as well as the 16mm film transfer of the landing video, and the 16mm film transfer of the moonwalk taken from inside the lunar module at 1 FPS, are all on the archive site. He's been told where to look multiple times. But, instead of just looking for himself, he just keeps coming back to claim nobody will tell him.
    1
  16675. First of all, had she bothered to show up in court, this would probably be negotiated down to a minor infraction. Secondly, she ruined her own life a decade ago when she abandoned her career and family in favor of living a life of crime and drugs.
    1
  16676. Hilarious!! You blindly believe the words of a convicted felon with a million other arrests and a term spent in a Florida prison, rather than the multiple innocent bystanders who called when they saw a misdemeanor. One of the "audience" recorded it, and gave a copy to the police. Shocker, the video doesn't match her claims about nobody being around. She had a criminal history a mile long. Stealing cars. Drugs and alcohol. Other thefts. Failures to appear. And, after all of that, yeah, it's tough to maintain a straight job, so, her landlord said she was a "dancer" at the gentlemen's club. Neighbors said she did "private extras" for cash in her apartment. If she wasn't making "public beach" content, but got reported, and was trying to cry her way out of her millionth arrest, I'll eat my hat.
    1
  16677.  @michaelstillman1171  "bucket list items is a list of education and occupations" Huh? You need this for your "bucket list"? Here: I'll make it easy, this is the list:
    1
  16678.  @michaelstillman1171  My point was that the list doesn't have any items on it. It's an empty list.
    1
  16679. I had a hamster when I was a kid, and a red bicycle.
    1
  16680. Yes, multiple people called about this incident. And, one took video. Needless to say, it didn't match the version the woman was pretending about, as she was attempting to avoid her millionth arrest, and didn't want to end up back in prison again. With her long criminal history, I'm sure she knew to keep her mouth shut. But, I'm guessing with all of her open warrants, she probably knew that remaining silent would just mean that they'd check her records, so, perhaps she figured that talking her way out of it was the better thing to try.
    1
  16681. And, you'd know this, how?
    1
  16682.  @Grandmasblackbook  How about actually waiting to find out what happened, before going around committing slander/libel?
    1
  16683.  @Grandmasblackbook  Spare me. Yes, I can read. It doesn't matter. Show some respect. We have NO IDEA (yet) what caused any of this. Do you know that the girl didn't meet the required height/weight? Do you know what exactly caused her to fall down the shaft? The family just lost the little girl, and you're out there, already casting blame (with or without your "maybe" clause).
    1
  16684. Well, yes, and no. He's saying the rules should change. That's not asking for an exemption, that's asking for new rules.
    1
  16685. On what grounds? When the "news" says "Freedom of Information Act," what happens to your suit? When the police say, "we didn't release the arrest video until 2.5 years later, long after she died, and, at that point, we only released it as mandated by a FOIA request," then what happens to your suit?
    1